12-18-18 CC Agenda Packet (entire) AGENDA
Regular Meeting of the
City Council
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chamber
December 18, 2018
6:30 pm
1. CALL TO ORDER PAGES
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
C. Presentation of Bill Hobbs Human Rights Award
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 - December 4, 2018 3-7
B. Approval of City Check Register 8
C. Licenses:
1. Approve Cigarette/Tobacco License Renewals 9
2. Approve City Gambling License Renewals 10
3. Approve Therapeutic Massage Facility License Renewals 11
4. Approve Therapeutic Massage Facility License Renewals 12
5. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Sons of
American Legion
13-15
6. Approve On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Malt Liquor License - Cajun Twist 16
D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1. Planning Commission - November 26, 2018 17-38
E. Bids and Quotes:
1. Approve Purchase of One Single Axle Cab, Chassis, Equipment and Setup 39-40
F. Support Submittal of Application to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for
Habitat Restoration at Bassett Creek Nature Area 18-80
41-43
G. Approval of Plat - Nelson Addition - 1320 Fairlawn Way 18-81 44-46
H. 2019 Pavement Management Program
1. Call for Public Hearing for 2019 Pavement Management Program Project No. 19-
01 18-82
47-50
2. Call for Public Hearing - Special Assessments for 2019 Pavement Management
Program
51
I. Approve Second Amendment to Development Agreement Liberty Crossing PUD #123 52-57
J. Authorization to Sign Engagement Letter for Auditing Services for 2018 Fiscal Year 58-67
K. Delegation of Authority for Paying Certain Claims 18-83 68-69
L. Approve Change Order to 2018 Pavement Management Project 18-84 70-73
M. Amendment to the 2018 General Fund Budget 18-85 74-75
N. Receipt of November 2018 Financials 76-90
O. Approve 2019 Legislative Priorities 91-112
P. Approve Contract with Avolve Software for Plan Review Software 113-138
Page 2 December 18, 2018
3. CONSENT AGENDA - continued
Q. Receipt of Grant from MN Department of Public Safety for Turnout Gear Dryer 18-86 139-141
R. Adopt Amendments to the Employee Handbook 18-87 142-143
S. Set 2019 Council Meeting Dates 144
T. Acceptance of Donations for Ongoing Donations 18-88 145-152
U. Modifying 2019 General Wages and Salary for Certain Positions 18-89 153-154
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - 4400 Sunset Ridge 155-170
B. Public Hearing - Ordinance #649 - Approval of Conditional Use Permit 119, Amendmen
#3 - 800 Boone Avenue North
171-206
C. Public Hearing - Ordinance #651 - Zoning Map Amendment - 5530 Golden Valley
Road
207-226
D. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Watermark - 5530 Golden Valley Road,
5540 Golden Valley Road, 1530 Welcome Avenue North
227-244
E. Public Hearing - Ordinance #652 - Conditional Use Permit 162 - 5530-5540 Golden
Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North
245-313
F. Public Hearing to Vacate Right of Way and Utility Easements at 701 Lilac Drive North
18-90
314-320
5. OLD BUSINESS
6. NEW BUSINESS
All Ordinances listed under this heading are eligible for public input.
A. Approval of Plat and Authorization to Sign Amended PUD Permit - Tennant
Companies 2nd Addition PUD No. 114 18-91
321-327
B. Review of Council Calendar
C. Mayor and Council Communications
7. ADJOURNMENT
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA
December 4, 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. Receipt of Human Services Commission 2019 Allocation Report
Mr. Aaron Black, Chair, and Ms. Denise La Mere-Anderson, Vice Chair of the Human
Services Commission, reviewed the funding report and answered questions from Council.
The Council thanked the Human Services Commission Commissioners and staff for their
service to Golden Valley.
MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Rosenquist to
receive and file the 2019 Allocation Report and approve notifying the eleven agencies of
their 2019 allocation amount with the following designations and the motion carried.
Agency Allocation Agency Allocation
Crisis Nursery $8,000 The Bridge for Youth $5,000
Dinner at Your Door $9,000 TreeHouse $3,000
PRISM $17,500 YMCA - New Hope $4,000
Senior Services HOME $7,000 HUG $5,000
Senior Services Outreach $5,000 Resource West $4,000
Sojourner Project $7,500 Total $75,000
2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA
MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to
approve the agenda of December 4, 2018, as submitted and the motion carried.
3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to
approve the consent agenda of December 4, 2018, as submitted and the motion carried.
3A1. Approve Minutes of Council/Manger Meeting - September 12, 2018
3A2. Approve Minutes of Council/Manger Meeting - October 9, 2018
3A3. Approve Minutes of Council/Manger Meeting - November 13, 2018
3A4. Approve Minutes of City Council Meeting - November 20, 2018
3B. Approve City Check Register and authorize payment of the bills as submitted.
3C1. Receive and file the gambling license exemption and approve the waiver of notice
requirement for The Church of the Good Shepherd.
3C2. Authorize the issuance of the multi-family rental license to Talo Apartments located at
5100 Wayzata Boulevard.
3D. Accept for filing the Minutes of Boards and Commissions as follows:
1. Planning Commission - November 13, 2018
Unapproved City Council Minutes -2- December 4, 2018
3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA - continued
2. Human Rights Commission - October 23, 2018
3. Environmental Commission - September 18, 2018
3E1. Award a contract for the 2018 Pond Maintenance Project #18-19 to Veit & Company in
the amount of $193,970 and entering into a deposit agreement with Kings Valley
Homeowners Association, Inc.
3E2. Award a contract for the Native Vegetation Buffer Establishment, Brookview Golf Course
Ponds F and G, City Improvement Project No. 18-22 to Applied Ecological Services in the
amount of $49,140.
3F. Adopt Resolution 18-74, designating polling places for the 2019 election cycle.
3G. Adopt Resolution 18-75, adopting the 2019-2020 Budget for Enterprise, Special
Revenue and Internal Services Funds.
3H. Adopt Resolution 18-76, approving the 2019-2023 Capital Improvement Program.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4A. Public Hearing - Approval of Conditional Use Permit 163 - Parking Lot east of 1109
Zane Avenue North
Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council.
City Attorney Cisneros answered questions from Council.
Mayor Harris opened the public hearing.
Mr. Mike Abrams, property owner, provided history on the property. He referred to a deed
restriction on the property and said if it were built on in the future, the Council would be involved
in approving some aspect of it but added he has a long term agreement with the current tenant.
He also said the protection involving building on the lot for the neighborhood is to have cars
parking in the parking lot. He answered questions from Council.
Mr. Joel Shapiro, owner of Shapco Printing, answered questions from Council regarding the
addition of a berm. He said when his business came to Golden Valley that he did not ask the
City for anything and added he spent millions of dollars improving the building and has added
many jobs in the City.
Mr. Randy Anderson, 5645 Lindsay Street, thanked the new tenant for fixing the building. He
said his only issue is during the winter the lights in the parking lot shine in his windows. He
added that if someone would like to develop the lot in the future, he would be okay with it.
Ms. Mary Gibb, 1113 Welcome Circle, said she was concerned after reading the staff’s report
regarding the removal of the deed restrictions. She said she does not feel every part of Golden
Valley needs to be developed. She asked about the value of green space, keeping
neighborhoods intact and what their neighborhood does for Golden Valley. She said more
industrial would add pollution and damage to the roads. She said that her neighborhood does
not always co-exist with the light industrial neighbors and added she was concerned about the
green belt trees in her neighborhood.
Ms. Pam Wandzel, 1220 Welcome Circle, said she think the building looks nice but is concerned
about the increased traffic because of the kids in the neighborhood. She also said she was
concerned that the cars in the lot could be moved up until 10 pm.
Unapproved City Council Minutes -3- December 4, 2018
4A. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - Parking Lot - continued
Mr. Leo Anderson, 5625 Lindsay Street, said he just bought the house closest to the parking lot.
He said there is a buffer and from ground level he cannot see the cars. He said his concern is
about thistles and grass clippings in the green belt.
Mr. Joshua Zierhut, 1117 Welcome Circle, said that during the summer he cannot see the cars
from his house but in the winter he can and that the lights in the parking lot are bright.
Ms. Ann Bennion, 1125 Welcome Circle, said the neighbors sent a letter to the City saying they
are against the non-business related cars parking in the lot. She said the CUP approval would
cancel the deed restriction and that it is against the spirit of the restriction to have other cars
parking in the lot. She said the neighborhood is concerned with some of the factors staff used in
recommending approval of the CUP because many are unknown in the future. She gave the
examples of increase in traffic and noise levels, visual impacts and the lot future if the
restrictions were removed. She said they would like to work with the owner regarding this.
Mr. Joel Shapiro, owner of Shapco Printing, said he understands that the neighbors may have
concerns but he plans to be in the building for many years and added his lease is up to 30 years
in length. He said Luther was already parking cars in the lot for the last 3 years and that no car
transports will not be used. He said he needs lighting in the lot for his employee’s safety and
added that the City requires them.
Mr. Bruce Goldstein, Goldstein Law, Attorney for Shapco, said Shapco is a first class business
and with the new building construction they plan to be there for years. He said it is odd that the
neighborhood is resistant to having cars parking in a parking lot. He said he and the applicant
have worked with the City to present a proposal that includes conditions that would take care of
the deed restrictions. He said he felt the deed restrictions would go away with the CUP
conditions. He said he felt Minnesota Statute 500.20 would apply which would invalidate the
deed restrictions and gave a brief history of the statute. He added if the neighborhood felt the
1973 agreement would provide restrictions forever that is not true. He said future owners would
have the right to ask the City to utilize the property within the zoning requirements. He said the
CUP application was analyzed by staff and it should be approved. He answered questions from
Council.
Mr. Gary Grenzer, 1525 Welcome Circle, asked what the zoning was prior to the deed
restrictions and asked if it would revert back to the prior zoning. He said he agrees with the
neighbors and asked what could happen to the lot in the future if the restrictions are removed.
Mayor Harris closed the public hearing.
There was Council discussion regarding the Conditional Use Permit for the parking lot east of
1109 Zane Avenue North. The Council discussed amending the conditions by changing the
hours of operation to 7 am to 8 pm and adding to the vegetative screening condition.
MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to adopt
Resolution 18-77, amend Agreement with O & S Incorporated and its Successors in Interest
and to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign an amended Agreement. 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.
Unapproved City Council Minutes -4- December 4, 2018
4A. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - Parking Lot - continued
MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to adopt
Ordinance #648 approval of Conditional Use Permit 163 allowing for surface lot storage of
automobile sales inventory at the Subject Property as amended. 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.
4B. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Nelson Addition - 1320 Fairlawn Way
Associate Planner/Grant Writer Goellner 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 Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Rosenquist to
approve the Preliminary Plat for Nelson Addition - 1320 Fairlawn Way, subject to the following
condition. 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.
1. The City Attorney shall determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final
Plat. A Certificate of Title or Abstract of Title must be submitted to the City Attorney prior to
the approval of Final Plat.
4C. Public Hearing - 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council.
Council thanked staff, the Commissions, the organizations, and the public for their input and
support during the 2040 Comprehensive Plan process.
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
approve the final draft of Golden Valley’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan and authorize submission
of the document to the Metropolitan Council. 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 - Adoption of 2019-2020 General Fund Budget and Property
Tax Levies for Taxes Payable 2019
Finance Director Virnig presented the staff report and answered questions from Council.
Mayor Harris opened the public hearing.
Mr. Andy Snope, 1030 Angelo Drive, thanked the City because his taxes went down this year
but added that taxes are high in Golden Valley. He said he appreciates the City holding the
taxes down and agrees with the Police Department increases.
Mayor Harris closed the public hearing.
Unapproved City Council Minutes -5- December 4, 2018
4D. Public Hearing - Adoption of 2019-2020 General Fund Budget - continued
There was Council discussion regarding the 2019-2020 General Fund Budget and 2019
Property Tax Levy.
MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to
adopt Resolution 18-78, adopting the 2019 Budget of the General Fund Budget 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.
MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to
adopt Resolution 17-79, adopting the Property Tax Levies for Taxes Payable 2019 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.
5. OLD BUSINESS
6. NEW BUSINESS
6A. Review of Council Calendar
Some Council Members may attend the Meadowbrook Turn Lane Improvement Project Open
House on December 5, 2018, from 4 to 7 pm in the Council Chambers.
Some Council Members may attend the Glenwood Ave Project Open House on December 5,
2018, from 6 to 8 pm in the Council Chambers.
Some Council Members may attend the 2018 Canadian Pacific Holiday Train event on
December 11, 2018, from 4:15 to 6 pm at the Golden Hills Drive Railroad Crossing.
The next Council/Manager meeting will be held on December 11, 2018, at 6:30 pm.
The Toys for Tots Parade will be held on December 14, 2018, at 4:45 pm from the Golden Valley
Police Department to KARE-11.
The next City Council meeting will be held on December 18, 2018, at 6:30 pm.
6B. Mayor and Council Communication
The Council wished the Golden Valley residents a Happy Hanukkah.
7. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall and the
motion carried to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 pm.
_______________________________
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 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 is located on city website at the following location http://weblink.ci.golden-
valley.mn.us/Public/Browse.aspx?startid=692131&dbid=2. The date of the council meeting is
the current register that will be considered.
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted.
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
3. C. 1. Approve Cigarette/Tobacco License Renewals
Prepared By
Kris Luedke, City Clerk
Summary
The following establishments have applied for renewal of their cigarette/tobacco license for the
2019 license term. The applicants listed below have met City Code requirements for the renewal
of their licenses and staff is recommending approval of the renewals as listed below.
License # Licensee Address
10116 Amstar Gas Station 9405 Medicine Lake Road
10113 Down in the Valley, Inc. 8020 Olson Memorial Highway
10111 Feist Automotive Group 1875 Lilac Drive North
10107 Golden Valley Country Club 7001 Golden Valley Road
10115 Golden Valley Holiday Store #3 600 Boone Avenue North
10135 Golden Valley Liquor Barrel 7890 Olson Memorial Highway
10110 Holiday Stationstores, Inc. 7925 Wayzata Boulevard
10106 J.J's Clubhouse 6400 Wayzata Boulevard
10112 KKS Inc. - Potpourri Gifts 5500 Wayzata Boulevard #LL120
10118 Schuller's Tavern 7345 Country Club Drive
10108 Speedway #4443 1930 Douglas Drive
10109 Speedway #4497 6955 Market Street
10114 Walgreens #13841 2500 Winnetka Avenue
10117 Walgreens #430 5659 Duluth Street
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the renewal of the cigarette/tobacco licenses for the applicants above from
January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019.
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
3. C. 2. Approve City Gambling License Renewals
Prepared By
Kris Luedke, City Clerk
Summary
Listed below are the organizations that are renewing their gambling license.
Chester Bird American Legion Post #523 Chester Bird American Legion Post #523
200 Lilac Drive North 200 Lilac Drive North
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Hopkins Youth Hockey Association JJ’s Clubhouse
25 Ninth Avenue North 6400 Wayzata Boulevard
P O Box 458
Hopkins, MN 55343
North Star Search and Rescue New Bohemia
1609 Independence Avenue North 8040 Olson Memorial Highway
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Crystal Lions Schullers Tavern
P O Box 28106 7348 Country Club Drive
Crystal, MN 55422
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the City gambling licenses as follows: Chester Bird American Legion Post #523,
Hopkins Youth Hockey Association, North Star Search and Rescue, and Crystal Lions.
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
3. C. 3. 2019 Therapeutic Massage Facility License Renewals
Prepared By
Kris Luedke, City Clerk
Summary
The following establishments have applied for renewal of their Therapeutic Massage Facility
license for the year 2019. The applicants listed below have met the City Code requirements for
the renewal of their license. The Golden Valley Police Department has completed a background
investigation and has found no reason to deny the renewal. Staff is recommending approval of
the following license renewals:
Licensee Address Owner
Artistic Urges Hair Consultants 1405 Lilac Drive N, Suite 114 DeVonne Reinhardt-Brock
Massage Envy Spa 7704 Olson Memorial Hwy Kevin Seeger, Eileen Seeger
and Beth Seeger
Core Healing Arts LLC 1405 Lilac Drive N, Suite 113D John Carlson
Pucon Massage 810 Lilac Drive N, Suite 104 Margaret Selva
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the renewal of the Therapeutic Massage Facility licenses the applicants listed
above for the license period of January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019.
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
3. C. 4. 2019 Therapeutic Massage Facility License Renewals
Prepared By
Kris Luedke, City Clerk
Summary
The following establishments have applied for renewal of their Therapeutic Massage Facility
license for the year 2019. The applicants listed below have met the City Code requirements for
the renewal of their license and the Golden Valley Police Department is in the process of
conducting the background investigation. Staff is recommending approval of the following license
renewals pending a satisfactory completion of the background investigation:
Licensee Address Owner
D-Way E.T.M. 1710 Douglas Drive, Suite 100 Denise Frazier
True Blue Massage & Bodywork 8421 Wayzata Blvd, Suite 230 Tatyana Vecherkova
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the renewal of the Therapeutic Massage Facility licenses the applicants listed
above for the license period of January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, pending a
satisfactory completion of the background investigation.
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
3. C. 5. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Sons of American
Legion
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 Sons of American Legion.
MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING 11/17
LG220 Application for Exempt Permit Page 1 of 2
An exempt permit may be issued to a nonprofit Application Fee (non-refundable)
organization that.
• conducts lawful gambling on five or fewer days, and is postmarked
are processed in the order received. If the application
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; otherwise 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
Organizationn � � Previous Gambling
�s
Name; �JQ L `tt S �•G/bir (- Permit Number:
Minnesota Tax ID Federal Employer IO
Number, if any: / 1 Number(FEIN), if any: —
Mailing Address: ��� f.. / 1�[.• �i2t V G
City: State: jW
A_Zip: �Z-- County: /y!t-i•
Name of Chief Executive Officer(CEO): E Val AJ /940*"4W
CEO Daytime Phone: _ r CEO Email:
(permit will be emailed to this email address unless otherwise indicated below)
Email permit to(if other than the CEO):_
NONPROFIT STATUS
Type of Nonprofit Organization (check one):
= Fraternal = Religious eterans Other Nonprofit Organization
Attach a copy of grog 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.)
L�-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 webslte,phone numbers;
60 Empire Drive, Suite 100 www.sos.s_tate.mn.us
St. Paul, MN 55103 651-296-2803, or toll free 1-877-551-6767
❑ IRS income tax exemption (501(c))letter in your organization's name
Don't have a copy? To obtain a copy of your federal income tax exempt letter, have an organization officer contact the
IRS 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 Duh 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 /,� y J�
(for raffles, list the site where the drawing will take place): , C'`a �`G/.6I/id /7>'►'i +'�LAr1 L /.on
Physical Address(do not use P.O. box): 200 Al
Check one: ,t ` '
City: ��j_��yCH VL.��L�trl Zip: 4�;nL_ County:
F—ITownship-. Zip: County:
Date(s) of activity (for raffles, indicate the date of the drawing): Z —7- - Lo i Qj
Check each type of gambling activity that your organization will conduct:
QBingo aPaddlewheels ED Pull-Tabs ElTipboards (Raffle
Gambling equipment for bingo paper, bingo boards, raffle 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.
11117
LG220 Application for Exempt Permit Page 2 of z
LOCANT UNIT OF GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT (required before submitting application to
the Minnesota Gambling Control Board)
CITY APPROVAL COUNTY APPROVAL
for a gambling premises for a gambling premises
located within city limits located in a township
The application is acknowledged with no waiting period, he application is acknowledged with no waiting period.
The application is acknowledged with a 30-day waiting he application is acknowledged with a 30-day waiting
period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30 days period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after
(60 days for a 1st class city). 30 days.
FIThe application is denied. v1 /T� Ohe application is denied,
Print City Name: _ CTS �' I �fv�/� "`1 Print County Name:
Signature of jity Personnel: / Signature of County Personnel:
Title: ('1 1 ev Date: / Title: Date:
TOWNSHIP(if required by the county)
On behalf of the township, I acknowledge that the organization
is applying for exempted gambling activity within the township
The city or county must sign before limits. (A township has no statutory authority to approve or
submitting application to the deny an application, per Minn.Statutes, section 349.213.)
Gambling Control Board.
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 best of my knowledge. I acknowledge that the financial
report will be completed and returned to the Board within 30 days of the event date.
Chief Executive Officer's Signature: Date:
(Signature must be CEO's signature;designee may not sign)
Print Name:
REQUIREMENTS MAIL APPLICATION AND ATTACHMENTS
Complete a separate application for: Mail application with:
s 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 application fee(non-refundable). If the application Is
postmarked or received 30 days or more before the event,
conducted on the same day. the application fee is$100; otherwise the fee is $150.
Financial report to be completed within 30 days after the Make check payable to State of Minnesota.
gambling activity is done: To: Minnesota Gambling Control Board
A financial report form will be mailed with your permit.Complete 1711 West County Road B, Suite 300 South
and return the financial report form to the Gambling Control Roseville, MN 55113
Board,
Questions?
Your organization must keep all exempt records and reports for Call the Licensing Section of the Gambling Control Board at
3-1/2 years (Minn,Statutes,section 349,166,subd. 2(f)). 651-539-1900.
Data privacy notice! The information requested application, Your organization's name and ment of Public Sarety;Attorney General;
on this form(and any attachments)wili be used address will be public Information when received Commissioners of Administration,Minnesota
by the Gambling Control Board(Board)to by the Board. All other information provided will Management&Budget,and Revenue;Legislative
determine your organization's qualifications to be private data about your organization until the Auditor, national and international gambling
be involved in lawful gambling activities in Board Issues the permit. When the Board Issues regulatory agencies; anyone pursuant to court
Minnesota, Your organization has the right to the permit,all information provided will become order;other individuals and agencies specifically
refuse to supply the information;however,if public. If the Board does not issue a permit,all authorized by state or federal law to have access
your organization refuses to supply this information provided remains private, with the to the Information; individuals and agencies for
information, the Board may not be able to exception of your organization's name and which law or legal order authorizes a new use or
determine your organization's qualifications and, address which will remain public. Private data sharing of Information after this notice was
as a consequence,may refuse to Issue a permit, about your organization are available to Board given;and anyone with your written consent.
If your organization supplies the Information members,Board staff whose work requires
requested,the Board will be able to process the access to the information; Minnesota's Depart-
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
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
3. C. 6. On-Sale Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License - Cajun Twist LLC
Prepared By
Kris Luedke, City Clerk
Summary
Cajun Twist LLC has applied for an On-Sale Wine (including Strong Beer) and Non-Intoxicating Malt
Liquor License. Cajun Twist will be located at 1221 Theodore Wirth Parkway.
The City Attorney has reviewed the application and has approved it subject to some minor
corrections to the application documents. The Police Department completed the background
investigation and has found no reason to deny the license.
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the issuance of an On-Sale Wine (including strong beer) and Non-Intoxicating
Malt Liquor License to Cajun Twist, located at 1221 Theodore Wirth Parkway for the license period
through June 30, 2019, subject to satisfaction of the conditions required by the City Attorney.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday,
November 26, 2018. Vice Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Angell, Baker, Blum, Brookins, Johnson,
Pockl, and Segelbaum. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, and
Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner
1. Approval of Minutes
November 13, 2018, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
MOVED by Brookins, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to
approve the November 13, 2018, minutes as submitted.
2. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendment – 5530 Golden Valley Road
– Watermark Senior Living – ZO11-18
Applicant: Watermark Senior Living Community of Golden Valley, LLC
Address: 5530 Golden Valley Road
Purpose: To rezone the property from Commercial to Single Family Residential
(R-1).
3. Informal Public Hearing – Lot Consolidation – 5530-5540 Golden Valley Road
and 1530 Welcome Avenue North – SU11-10
Applicant: Watermark Senior Living Community of Golden Valley, LLC
Address: 5530-5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North
Purpose: To consolidate three lots into one lot
4. Informal Public Hearing – Conditional Use Permit – 5530-5540 Golden Valley
Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North – CU-162
Applicant: Watermark Enhanced Care Suites of Golden Valley
Address: 5530-5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North
Purpose: To allow a Residential Facility serving 25 people in the Single Family
(R-1) Zoning District
Items 2, 3 and 4 were presented and discussed together.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 2
Goellner referred to a location map of the properties and explained the applicant’s
proposal for a 25-unit residential facility which would offer 24-hour care for assisted living,
transitional care, and memory care.
Goellner noted that 5530 Golden Valley Road is zoned Commercial and the other two
properties are zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. She added that all three properties
are currently guided for Low Density Residential on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map and that the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan also guides the properties Low
Density Residential.
Goellner referred to a site plan of the proposal and explained that the proposed lots
combined into one would be 39,563 square feet in size. She discussed the proposed
building footprint, the parking lot, the driveway out to Lilac Drive, and the setbacks.
Goellner reminded the Commissioners that in May 2018 the applicant proposed to rezone
these properties to build a similar facility which was recommended for denial by the
Planning Commission. She compared the differences between the previous and current
proposals. The previous proposal was to rezone the properties to R-3 with 40 units, 3
floors with the top floor as a full story, and a larger building footprint with smaller
setbacks. The current proposal is to rezone the properties to R-1 with 25 units, 3 floors
with the top floor as a half story, and a smaller building footprint with larger setbacks.
Goellner referred to a chart of the staff analysis regarding how the proposal fits in with the
Zoning Code and stated that the proposal meets all of the requirements of the R-1 Single
Family Residential Zoning District.
Goellner referred to the height of the proposed building and explained that the City
determines the average grade of a lot based on the grade of the previous structures. She
stated that the new building can only increase the average grade by one foot. Based on
those calculations the existing average grade is 894.1 and the proposed average grade
would be 895.0.
Goellner referred to a photo of the applicant’s Fridley location and discussed the
similarities to the proposed Golden Valley location. The colors of the building would be
tan, white, light brown, and pale yellow. They are proposing to use manufactured stone,
and LP Smart Side, and there would be no PTAC (air conditioning) units located
underneath the windows.
Goellner stated that the applicant is proposing several architectural and landscaping
features to help the building fit in with its surroundings including: pitched roofs similar to
other homes in the neighborhood, articulation and relief in the walls of the building,
several windows on all levels and all sides of the building, a variety of exterior building
materials, fencing along the perimeter of the site, tree plantings along the perimeter of the
site, minimal grading of the site, and a trash enclosure. She added that the applicant has
also chosen to locate the parking lot and driveway access on the Lilac Drive side of the
property in order to minimize the impact on Welcome Avenue.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 3
Goellner referred to the tree and landscape plan and stated that the applicant is
proposing to remove all of the existing trees except for one and they are proposing
fencing and tree plantings along the perimeter. She added that staff is recommending that
coniferous trees be added along Welcome Avenue to provide year-round screening. She
said staff is also proposing that the proposed fence be a decorative fence, and that
shrubs/perennials be placed outside of the fence.
Goellner referred to the proposed parking and access and stated that the proposed
access is one driveway on Lilac Drive. She stated that the applicant is proposing to
provide 19 parking stalls (five are required), and three bike parking spaces (four are
required). She stated that deliveries should take place on the site, not on the street and
should occur only between 8 am and 5 pm and that the applicant should provide an
overflow parking plan. She stated that there is no parking allowed on Lilac Drive and on
most of Golden Valley Road, there is also no overnight parking allowed on Welcome
Avenue from November 1 to March 31, and there is no parking allowed after two inches of
snow on any city street.
Goellner referred to a chart showing the anticipated weekday and weekend time frames
for employees and visitors. She noted that at most there would be 11 to 12 cars on a lot
that can hold 19 so the applicant isn’t anticipating the lot to be full on an average day.
Goellner noted that a neighborhood meeting was held on November 15. She stated that
there were 12 attendees and that there were numerous concerns regarding traffic,
parking, noise, odors, tree removal, construction, and the height and size of the building.
She added that a lighting plan will be required with the building permit application and that
there have been no comments or concerns from the Fire Department.
Goellner stated that staff is recommending approval of all three proposals subject to the
conditions listed in the staff reports. She explained that three of the evaluation criteria
used when evaluating a Conditional Use Permit have specific conditions attached to
them. They include ways to mitigate the effect on traffic flow and congestion by requiring
an overflow parking plan, mitigating the possible increase in noise levels by requiring
deliveries be limited to regular business hours, and mitigating the visual impacts by
requiring dumpster screening, the installation of trees, shrubs and perennials, and the
installation of a privacy fence.
Segelbaum asked if there is a need to add a condition regarding the construction
schedule and rules. Goellner stated that the City has construction regulations and that
applicants are required to sign a construction management agreement that addresses
issues such as the hours construction is allowed, noise, removing debris from the site,
etc. Baker asked if these requirements are prescribed by ordinance or if they are
negotiated between the builder and the City. Goellner stated that they are all ordinances
and that the construction management agreement puts all the regulations in one
document.
Segelbaum referred to the tree and landscape plan and asked about the mitigation
requirements. Goellner explained that the applicant is allowed to remove 30% of the trees
before they are required to add new ones. Baker asked if a condition could be added
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 4
requiring a specific number of trees to be planted. Goellner said if it could be tied to the
impact of the visual appearance then it would be appropriate.
Blum asked for clarification regarding where staff is recommending more coniferous trees
be planted. Goellner stated that the recommendation is to have more coniferous trees on
the west side along Welcome Avenue since that is the side of the property that is most
exposed to the single family neighborhood. Blum referred to the site plan and asked if it
meets staff’s recommendations. Goellner said it does not and that the applicant has been
asked to provide an updated tree and landscape plan. Angell asked if the intention is to
have the trees planted on the exterior of the fence. Goeller said yes and explained that
there would be shrubs, then the fence, then the trees, then the building to help with visual
impact.
Baker asked about the purpose of requiring a fence that is only four feet tall. Goellner said
it won’t help with screening but it will provide visual appeal and variety.
Pockl said she understands that if the factors of evaluation have been met for a
Conditional Use Permit the City is obligated to approve it and asked if that is the same for
the lot consolidation request. Goellner said yes. Blum asked if there is a requirement that
the zoning of the property and the Land Use Map have to match. Goellner said yes, that
is required.
Nathan Running, Property Owner, stated that he was involved in building their facility in
Fridley and that this whole process started for him five years ago when his grandfather
was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and he had to find a place for him to live. He
said the places he found were too institutional and he wanted to find a neighborhood
community with a home feel. He said that is the concept for this proposed 25-unit facility.
He stated that the demand for senior living in Golden Valley is high and that the proposed
location fits all of their criteria.
Todd Ofsthun, TCO Design, stated that the busier/noisier part of the proposed facility
would be on the Lilac Drive side of the property. That is where people, employees, and
deliveries would come and go so he doesn’t see any reason for traffic to go through the
neighborhood streets. He stated that a six foot tall fence and trees are proposed along the
north side of the property to try and reduce the visual impact. He stated that the majority
of the rooms will face into the neighborhood so they feel like they are part of the
community. He stated that they will be replacing all of the trees with trees that are four
inches or more in diameter and 12 feet tall or taller. He said they are also proposing to
add seven ornamental trees. He noted that there are several other buildings in the area,
some are larger and some are smaller than what they are proposing so when he looks at
the overall neighborhood what they are proposing will fit in. He referred to the dumpster
and said they will be enclosing it and planting shrubs around it.
Segelbaum asked about the parking requirements if there is a special event. Ofsthun
stated that the property owners have reached out to other property owners in the area
regarding overflow parking. Jennifer Thorson, Director of the Fridley Watermark Facility,
stated that their Fridley location has 28 units and 13 parking spots. The proposed Golden
Valley facility will have 25 units and 19 parking spots. She noted that during the peak time
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 5
in Fridley they have approximately 12 cars. She explained that during special events
RSVP’ing is required so that they can properly plan for the parking.
Johnson asked the applicant to talk about how they came to the final design of the
building and what other options they considered. Ofsthun said they originally considered
two plans. The first plan had the access on Golden Valley Road, but that got a little too
close to the neighborhood. He stated that many of the decisions were dictated by the
grade and trying to keep the entrance away from the intersection of Golden Valley Road
and Lilac Drive. He said the shape and design of the building came from the number of
units, the amenities, and trying to keep the height down to fit in with the neighborhood.
Segelbaum asked if the building could have more units in the future if needed. Ofsthun
said he doesn’t see that being an option and that there are no plans on expanding.
Segelbaum questioned if this proposal might be an incremental step in getting more units.
Ofsthun said the City Code and licensing wouldn’t allow it.
Baker asked the applicant if they are planning on adding bike parking spaces. Ofsthun
said yes.
Pockl asked how often emergency vehicles are called to their site in Fridley. Thorson
stated that emergency vehicles come to the site approximately three times per month.
Blum asked if the sirens and lights are on when the emergency vehicles arrived. Thorson
said the sirens are always off. Johnson noted that this is right off Highway 100 where
sirens are heard all the time.
Baker opened the public hearing.
Gary Grenzer, 1525 Welcome Avenue North, showed the Commissioners a drawing he
made that illustrates how tall the proposed building would be compared to the height of
the houses nearby. He said he won’t be able to see the sky from the inside of his house
and that the trees they are proposing will take 20 years to cover the main floor of the
building. He said there is no comparison between the trees they are taking out and the
trees they are proposing to put in. He said the building is going to look like a hotel and
there is nothing equitable about this proposal. It will not fit in with the neighborhood, and
is nothing like the other buildings on Golden Valley Road.
Ryan Thomson, 1200 Welcome Avenue North, said he is concerned about the massing
effect of the building. He said this proposal is not consistent with the neighborhood or the
objectives of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to preserve and promote single family
residences in Golden Valley. He said it is unconscionable that the Planning Commission
would undertake the approval of this proposal which inherently deviates from the
objectives of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan by destroying detached single family
residences. He said approval of this proposal would only prove to Golden Valley residents
that the Comprehensive Plan is a political tool to remain in power rather than a strategy to
maintain the best of their community.
Mike Nelson, 1310 Welcome Avenue North, submitted a petition signed by 24 people
opposing the proposal and read the statement on the petition. He referred to the
possibility of expansion and noted that they are expanding their Fridley facility by an
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 6
additional 18 units. He said it seems like the applicant is trying to hide that fact. He
referred to the character of the neighborhood and said he loves his single family home
and having a number of mature trees and that he is opposed to the lot consolidation. He
said a huge part of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan was having a variety of single family
home pricing. Taking out three lots does not fit with the 2040 Comp Plan because the City
needs to have affordable single family homes within their neighborhood so that all types
of people can move into the neighborhood at a reasonable price. He said another thing
the 2040 Comp Plan talks about is the preservation of nature. He noted that the applicant
is taking out all of the existing trees except for one and putting in smaller trees that take a
long time to grow and that we can’t keep taking down mature trees. He said the proposed
building fits within the R-1 requirements, but it completely towers over the neighborhood.
He strongly recommended that the Planning Commission not recommend approval.
Christine Nelson, 1310 Welcome Avenue North, said this is about the properties not being
single family homes. She said this is a property that is for profit and they are not as
invested as community owners. She stated that the FTK property behind her house at
1310 Welcome Avenue North has a dumpster that is frequently left open and trash blows
into her yard. She said she has also seen them use a leaf blower to push trash into her
yard. She said there is no consequences for the applicant, but the consequences are to
her family when her puppy has a rubber glove or glass shard in its mouth. She said she
has a question about where the dumpster will be placed with this proposal to make sure
that it isn’t impacting families because there isn’t the level of care or concern that a family
owner would have. She said this is a strong community and this proposal is breaking it
up.
Matt Bartholomew, 1240 Welcome Avenue North, said he is a real estate professional
and it is his opinion that this proposed facility will likely have a negative impact particularly
on the homes directly across the street. He said the wall and the highway noise are
already major issues and that adding another big building is going to be another issue
that anyone living in the area will face if they sell their home. He said there are multiple
buildings in the area and he feels like they are getting squeezed in so he would like to see
the properties stay single family homes.
Pan Wandzel, 1220 Welcome Avenue North, said when she moved in the neighborhood
was stable but also transitional. She said over the last five years their neighborhood has
become tight, they get together frequently, and they watch out for each other. She said
she is concerned about this proposal changing the integrity of this neighborhood. She
said she is not against senior housing and that she wants to age in place. She said she
wants to stay in a neighborhood that is safe and she doesn’t want to have to worry about
parking or strangers walking down the street during their lunch break. She said she
worries about the density and that the building looks like a hotel or a townhome in
Plymouth or somewhere where there aren’t separate homes that have character and light
between the buildings. She said she understands there is a need, but it doesn’t belong in
their neighborhood and just because it’s called a residential facility it’s transitional. She
noted that the office building on Welcome Avenue has a covenant that states they will
keep up with the landscaping, but they don’t because they got what they needed and the
residents are the ones who are suffering. She reiterated that she isn’t against senior
housing; she is for the integrity of the neighborhood.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 7
Richard Sheehan, 1533 Xenia Avenue North, asked if it was correct that staff said that if a
business can meet the requirements for consolidating lots that the City must approve the
application. Goellner said yes. Sheehan asked if it follows then that if the permit is issued
any application to do anything is automatically going to be approved. He said he thinks
there is an assumption that this proposal is going to happen and it is just a matter of
working through the nuts and bolts but he thinks there should be discussion about
whether the proposed facility should be there at all. He said he has the same concerns as
the previous speakers. He wants to see younger people move in the neighborhood and
these properties could be single family homes. He said he finds it disturbing that the very
nice house at 1530 Welcome Avenue is going to be torn down and questioned why the
City should be in the business of tearing down existing perfectly good structures so that
something else can be done with it. He said he wants to preserve the residential
character of the neighborhood and he wants to see single family homes on the two lots on
the Welcome Avenue side and not a health care facility. He implored the Commission to
think about the character of the neighborhood.
Grace Reilly, 1325 Welcome Avenue North, referred to the comment about emergency
vehicles not using their sirens when they are going into the site and said there will have to
be sirens when they are leaving the site. She said having sirens three times a month is
not something any of the Planning Commissioners would want in their neighborhoods and
it’s not something any of them want in their neighborhood either. She said she doesn’t
want to worry about strangers in her neighborhood and that it is nice to know she has a
community that supports her and people in the neighborhood that know her. She said she
doesn’t think that this proposed facility would be good for them because they don’t know
who will be in the neighborhood, who they can trust, and who they think is safe. She said
the Commission has to think about if they are taking the neighbor out of neighborhoods.
Pam Wittucki, 1136 Welcome Circle, said that the applicant mentioned that they don’t use
lights and sirens at their facility but she knows that if it is an emergency they will use lights
and sirens, there will be a lot of lights and sirens and saying there won’t be is a stretch.
She said that people who have memory issues, and have transitional care and elder care
probably aren’t driving so they are going to need people to get them places. She said
there are already a lot of commercial buildings in the area, she understands that but she
doesn’t want any more coming in and closer. She said this isn’t a good fit for their
neighborhood and people are going to park on their street.
Marilyn Miller, 1316 Welcome Avenue North, requested that the Planning Commission
uphold the Comprehensive Plan. She said the other nursing home in the area fits in
because it is only one story and it doesn’t overlook the neighbors’ backyards. She said if
the applicants were concerned about the neighbors they would have kept up the land and
not let the grass grow three feet tall so she questions their integrity. She said that they
have already asked for an expansion at their Fridley facility so it is a real possibility that
they will ask for that in Golden Valley too. She asked how many of the parking spaces are
attributed to deliveries and stated that the grill will produce a smell.
Peter Lane, 5630 Golden Valley Road, said they moved to Golden Valley from St. Paul
and he grew up in a small suburb in Duluth. He said this feels like home because there
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 8
isn’t a lot of huge commercial buildings and there is a lot of nature, trees, and wildlife. He
said he didn’t know the names of his neighbors in St. Paul and he knew his neighbors
here within a couple of weeks. He said he’s worked hard on landscaping and keeping up
their house and that no one is besmirching bringing in elder care, but he believes Golden
Valley is looking to bring in more young families so these homes really need to be
protected.
Chris Nelson, 5605 Phoenix Street, said he wants to raise his kids here and Golden
Valley is a community and he wants to stay here forever. He said he thinks they all want
to find value in their home and that a transitional home is not good for them or their
community.
Stephen Trull, 1600 Welcome Avenue North, said he was told that the distance from
fence along the north to the property line was 25 feet and that the peak of the roof on the
north end of the building would be 35 feet tall. He said to put that in perspective he is six
feet tall so 25 feet away from the fence, and up 35 feet would be six times his height or
about 5 houses tall so the pictures shown don’t really give the scale of the enormity of the
proposed building. He said the building is going to block the sun and take away from the
small, livable, presentable nature of this neighborhood. He said he knows the house at
1530 Welcome was sold for $500,000 so he is concerned about the effect of that on his
property taxes and that it might price him out of the neighborhood.
Millie Segal, 4409 Sunset Ridge, said she is attempting to age in place in Golden Valley.
She said this can happen in any neighborhood and it is upsetting to her to hear that these
neighbors’ way of life is in jeopardy. She said there are other facilities with vacancies that
are very nice and are in appropriate areas and not disrupting neighborhoods.
Georgeann Wobschall, 1503 Welcome Avenue North, said she has looked at this
property for 40 plus years. She said since the owners of 1530 Welcome Avenue have
moved out there have been papers on the property, weeds in the cement, the grass has
not been mowed, and the mail is not picked up. She said she is not sure who is
responsible for the upkeep of this property but as the Planning Commission considers this
proposal they should think about what Watermark has done with the property in the last
six months.
Gary Remick, 1114 Welcome Circle, said he is a dog owner and avid walker and there is
no sidewalk on the south side of the street so he has to walk right against the highway
wall. He said he is concerned about this facility and how it will affect his dog’s enjoyment
of the neighborhood. He said a lot of people walk in this neighborhood and he is worried
about their safety.
Celeste Reilly, 1325 Welcome Avenue North, said her husband passed away in their
home unexpectedly two years ago and there were sirens, ambulances, and police cars.
She said her neighbors helped her through that ordeal and every day that she hears an
ambulance or a police car brings her back to that day. She said to add more traffic and to
take away from the neighborhood and to take away from what should be single family
homes like in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan saddens her. She said this is a small little
community outside a larger community and her family and friends are grateful she has the
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 9
neighbors she has. She implored the Planning Commission to keep this area as a single
family neighborhood and not approve this proposal. She said eventually this
neighborhood will be gone and Golden Valley won’t be a residential area anymore, it is
going to be industrial and overtake them.
Ann Bennion, 1125 Welcome Circle, said they are surrounded on all sides by industry and
therefore they are a fragile neighborhood and have had to remain vigilant. She said she
thinks rezoning the commercial property to R-1 single family residential would be
acceptable, but what is not acceptable is combining the lots. She stated that in the R-1
district there are no restrictions on the number of people who can live in a house if they
are all related, five people if they are unrelated. So by combining the three lots into one
there could be one family so what they are really asking for is a Conditional Use Permit
for 20 additional people. She noted that many of the lots in the neighborhood are actually
not that much smaller than the subject properties combined. She said it appears that the
only way this building was going to be built was to shoehorn it in this space with a
Conditional Use Permit on top of that. She said if the commercial lot is rezoned to R-1 it
should not be combined with the other two lots.
Peter Coyle, Larkin Hoffman, representing the applicant, said he would like to make a few
comments. Baker said he couldn’t let Mr. Coyle respond to the public comments and that
the Planning Commission would let the applicant come back up and speak if they have
additional questions.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing.
Baker referred to the rezoning of the property at 5530 Golden Valley Road and noted that
staff is recommending approval of rezoning the property to R-1 Single Family Residential
because that is how it is currently designated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
and the two should be consistent with each other. He added that there were a number of
people who said that this proposal departs from the Comprehensive Plan but he feels
those comments pertain more to the CUP request than the rezoning proposal. The
Commissioners agreed.
Blum asked if there is a timeline as to when the Comprehensive Plan designation and the
Zoning Map designation have to match. Zimmerman said the zoning has to be consistent
with the Comp Plan within nine months of a Comp Plan amendment so this really should
have been rezoned 10 years ago when the last Comp Plan was adopted. Baker asked if
there are a lot of properties that weren’t rezoned with the last Comp Plan update.
Zimmerman said there are several properties that will need to be rezoned after the 2040
Comp Plan update is adopted. Segelbaum said he has some hesitancy in rezoning this
property because the Planning Commission and the City Council has had discussions
about maintaining small commercial properties for things like coffee shops which make
neighborhoods more walkable. However R-1 does fit here and the Comp Plan guides it
for residential so rezoning it seems appropriate.
Baker asked about the history of the uses on this property. Zimmerman said it has been
used as a number of things including a gas station/convenience store and a Montessori
school. He added that most of the past uses occurred before Highway 100 cut off access
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 10
and Golden Valley Road went through. Baker said he wishes there were small
commercial uses in his neighborhood but that this neighborhood already has some
commercial uses nearby. Johnson stated that the setbacks for this property wouldn’t allow
for a decent size commercial or office use. Zimmerman agreed.
MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Angell and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of rezoning the property at 5530 Golden Valley Road from Commercial to Single
Family Residential (R-1).
Baker referred to the proposed lot consolidation and read the staff’s recommended
conditions. He reminded the Commission that the City is bound by the nine factors of
consideration found in City Code which in this case have been met or are not applicable.
Pockl asked if the factors are the same for lot consolidations as they are for minor
subdivisions. Zimmerman stated that the Zoning Code refers to platting which is the
redrawing of any property lines and that the process and conditions of consideration are
the same. Goellner reviewed the nine factors of consideration and explained how this
proposal meets those requirements.
MOVED by Brookins seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the proposed lot consolidation at 5530 and 5540 Golden Valley
Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North subject to the following conditions:
1. The City Attorney shall determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the
final plat.
2. A park dedication fee of $15,180 shall be paid before release of the final plat.
3. The proposed development is adjacent to State Highway 100 and therefore is subject
to the review and comments of the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Baker referred to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) proposal and asked staff to review
the evaluation criteria used when reviewing a CUP application. Goellner listed all of the
criteria from the Zoning Code and summarized how the proposal meets, or conditionally
meets, each one. She discussed the conditions recommended by staff including the
mitigation of traffic flow and impact, the mitigation of increase in noise levels, and the
mitigation of the visual appearance.
Johnson referred to the mitigation of increase in noise levels and asked how they address
the comments made about emergency vehicle siren noise. Segelbaum stated that the
issue is if the noise is excessive and if it is able to be mitigated. Baker agreed that the
City has to demonstrate that there is no way to mitigate an issue raised under the criteria
used in order to deny a CUP proposal. Goellner said there is a possibility that there would
be more emergency vehicles at this proposed 25-unit facility when compared to a 6-unit
facility which would be a permitted use. Blum asked what the applicant can do by right.
Goellner said they could have a 6-unit residential facility on each lot. Blum stated that
they should be comparing the potential noise of emergency vehicles for 18 people versus
25 people. Baker said he thinks there are ways to beef up the conditions staff has
recommended, or to add conditions that will help address some of the concerns.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 11
Johnson referred to the condition that requires MnDOT’s review and said he doesn’t
remember requiring that with other proposals. Zimmerman stated that staff always sends
the plans to the County or the State if a proposal is adjacent to their roads.
Pockl referred to comments regarding property values and asked who determines if there
would be an impact on property values and what that decision is based on. Goellner said
the County assessor determines property values and they would need very compelling
evidence that property values would be diminished by this proposal. She added that in
many cases new development increases property values rather than diminishing them.
Zimmerman agreed and said the assessors didn’t see any evidence of significant impact
in this case. Baker said he thinks it would be hard to argue that the residential property to
the north of the proposed building wouldn’t be impacted. Goellner said she could follow
up with the assessor and get more information.
Blum referred to the first criteria of consideration regarding the demonstrated need for the
proposed use and noted that staff’s finding cited a housing study done in 2016 which
showed a demand for 80-100 units of assisted living at 100-120 units of memory care
units. He asked how many of units have been filled since that study. Goellner said there
have been zero units added. Blum asked about the recently approved facility to be built
on Douglas Drive. Goellner said that facility is approximately six units of transitional
housing and more medical in nature. Zimmerman said there is another building under
construction along I-394 that will have 90 units of assisted living and memory care. Baker
said he has to believe that the people proposing the project wouldn’t be doing so if there
wasn’t a need. Blum stated there is also the J-HAP facility and that he thinks there needs
to be an accounting for this particular finding. Goellner said the J-HAP facility was
accounted for in the housing study and also anything under construction or approved at
the time. She added that vacancies were also analyzed and that she could review the
report and let the Commissioners know the vacancy rates in 2016 and which buildings
were counted.
Segelbaum referred to the proposed height of the building and asked if it is in excess of
what is allowed. Zimmerman said no. Baker added that 28 feet of height is allowed and
the proposed building would be 24 feet tall.
Johnson asked about the lighting plan. Zimmerman explained that the applicant will have
to follow the same requirements as any other R-1 property.
Segelbaum asked the applicant to discuss the concerns about sirens. Coyle said it would
be the same as any other single family residence and that Public Safety staff decides
when they use lights and sirens. He added that neither the applicant nor the Planning
Commission is in the position to regulate that so they would defer to what the City
decides. Segelbaum asked Coyle if in his experience it is common that sirens are used
when approaching or leaving a facility. Coyle said if the situation dictates the use of lights
and sirens then they will be used. He stated that the policy of the facility is to call the
family first to determine if they want the resident to go to the hospital and that the facility
has medical staff on site and if the judgement is that there is not an emergency then lights
and sirens wouldn’t be used. Thorson added that they have yet to have an emergency
happen at their Fridley facility. She reiterated that on average they have had
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 12
approximately three ambulances come to the site monthly in order to pick up a resident
and bring them to the hospital.
Rocky DiGiacomo, Partner in the Watermark facility, said he feels strongly that a certain
voice is not being represented at this meeting and that is the elderly themselves. He
referred to the housing study done in 2016 and stated that over the past four decades
Golden Valley’s population level has remained relatively flat and is not expected to
change much going forward with one major exception, people aged 65 and older. That
demographic is expected to go up by 54% by 2021. He stated that from planning to reality
these types of projects take approximately three years and that the City hasn’t done much
to address this major demographic change. He said he is hoping to run a profitable facility
and also a caring facility that addresses the issues. He said the elderly can’t always
advocate for themselves and hopes the people in attendance will take that into account.
Baker asked the applicant about the evidence they have showing that they won’t increase
the size of this proposed facility like they have done with their Fridley facility. Running,
said their application is for 25 units and that is what they are proposing to build. He said in
Fridley they went through the same process and the opportunity came up to buy
additional property so they went through the same process again to expand. He said he
can’t say that they will never want to expand this proposed facility in Golden Valley in the
future, but there are no plans to do so.
DiGiacomo stated that they have already shrunk the size of the proposed building to have
25 units and that all of the other space in the building not being used for rooms is being
used for some other function such as food preparation, staff space, etc. and there is no
way the rooms could be used for more than one person.
Pockl asked if the current proposed building is the same size as previously proposed just
with fewer rooms, or if the building is smaller than the previous proposal. DeGiacomo said
the current proposed building is smaller than in their previous proposal.
Baker went through each of the factors and findings used when considering CUPs and
noted that the first factor is the demonstrated need for the proposed use. Blum reiterated
that he wants to know how many units of assisted living and memory care have been
added since the housing study was done so that he can clearly understand how the
applicant has demonstrated the need for the proposed use.
Baker said the next factor of consideration is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
He said the Comprehensive Plan does place a priority on a variety of housing types
including housing for seniors so in his view this proposal is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Segelbaum said he thinks the question posed is if eliminating single
family homes is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Blum stated that a reasonable
person could argue either way that the proposal either adds to the diversity or that
maintaining single family homes preserves existing housing so he doesn’t think that
finding can be used to justify denial of the proposal. He suggested looking at
transportation, neighborhood character, greenery/nature, and the impact of different
juxtaposed zoning uses which are also parts of the Comprehensive Plan, are important to
their decision, and address the comments and questions from the public. He stated that
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 13
the Comprehensive Plan talks about multi-modal transportation and if there is increased
traffic from the proposed 25-unit facility it cuts against this factor of the Comprehensive
Plan because it has an effect on walkability. Although the streets can more than handle
the trips that are proposed for this particular use and since the entrance is on the edge of
the neighborhood it doesn’t seem to affect the walkability as much so he doesn’t think the
application can be denied based on this factor.
Baker asked if there is a proposal to add sidewalk on the Welcome Avenue side of the
site. Goellner stated that the bike and pedestrian task force decided not to add sidewalks
to most residential streets unless a road is scheduled for reconstruction. She said
requiring a sidewalk should only be a condition if it is noted in the Comprehensive Plan
and it is not in this case. Zimmerman added that there are sidewalks on Golden Valley
Road and on Lilac Drive. He noted that there are also no exits from the building on the
Welcome Avenue side of the property so that is another reason not to add a sidewalk
along Welcome Avenue.
Blum referred to the issue of neighborhood character including height and blockage of the
sun. He said it struck him how low the lot is and how tall the building might be and how
that would interact with the landscaping. He said the building won’t be covered by any of
landscaping at all. He added that the applicant didn’t add any evergreens to their site
plans as staff has suggested, and that nothing has been done to protect the transition of
different uses so he doesn’t think that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Baker
agreed that the use of trees especially along the Welcome Avenue side is uncreative and
inadequate and is not screening the large mass from the neighborhood. Segelbaum said
that should be addressed under the tenth factor which is visual appearance. Johnson said
he understands what Blum is saying, but there are rules which say that this facility is
allowed. He stated that a person could build a monstrous single family home that wouldn’t
fit in with the neighborhood character either. He said there probably isn’t any area where
this facility would fit in exactly with the neighborhood.
Baker said they have to keep in mind that when they recommend approval of CUPs they
do so on the condition of mitigating the ability to address the factors of considerations.
Angell said there is a lot of mention of preserving single family homes in the 2040 Comp
Plan and that the same language is in the 2030 Comp Plan. Since the 2040 Comp Plan
hasn’t officially been adopted yet, they should be basing their recommendation on the
2030 Comp Plan. Goellner agreed that preserving single family homes is a big
component of the 2030 Comp Plan. She stated that in the staff report to Council she is
going to highlight that these properties are guided for low density residential and that is
what this proposal is for. Zimmerman added that the Comp Plan goal is not to preserve
single family homes it is to preserve single family neighborhoods which is a little larger in
scope than individual homes and individual lots. Blum asked if there is specific language
in the 2030 Comp Plan about preserving rambler style homes. Zimmerman said there
might be some language regarding ramblers in the property maintenance parts of the
Comp Plan but he doesn’t remember language regarding preserving ramblers as a
housing type.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 14
Segelbaum said he thinks the major components of this decision are based on the
itemized criteria. He said this is a change in three properties and the question is whether
a nursing facility is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Blum said there is a lot to be said about the value of greenery and the differences in
aesthetics and environmental issues. He said he thinks the green aesthetic is something
they want to preserve and to basically take out everything except one tree and replace it
with something inadequate is inconsistent with the Comp Plan and the theme of wanting
to keep a green aesthetic.
Baker asked the Commissioners if they had any comments about factor number three
regarding the effect on property values. Blum said he doesn’t think they can accurately
say that there is no evidence that property values would be either positively or negatively
affected so that finding should be reworded. He said testimony is evidence and it is worth
considering the comments they’ve heard about the property not being well maintained
and that those comments are material to their decision and should be considered. Pockl
agreed.
Baker referred to factor number four which is the effect of traffic flow and congestion and
asked the Commissioners for their thoughts. He said he believes that the fact that the
access is off of Lilac Drive is a great mitigating approach to this factor and there is no
reason to believe the neighborhood would be affected by the traffic created by the
proposed facility. Segelbaum said if the public were to park on Welcome Avenue that
might affect the traffic flow on that street and he doesn’t know how to mitigate that, but it
will need to be monitored. Baker said he thinks it is mitigated by requiring the applicant to
submit an overflow parking plan. He suggested that the finding regarding the submission
of an overflow parking plan for special events be amended to read that a plan for overflow
parking should be submitted. Segelbaum agreed. Blum said he thinks that is reasonable
and asked if residents could apply for permit only parking on Welcome Avenue.
Zimmerman said residents are able to apply for permit only parking if they wish.
Baker referred to the fifth factor of consideration regarding the effect of increases in
population and density. He said he thought he heard the applicant state that the residents
of this proposed facility are not going to be walking around the neighborhood so he
doesn’t see that there would be an effect on the population or density. Segelbaum asked
about the density limit in this location. Zimmerman said the Zoning Codes states that the
minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet for one unit and that it also allows for 25 people so
there is not an exact comparison between the number of units and the number of people
allowed. Baker said there will be 10 staff members and the neighborhood might not like
staff walking around the neighborhood but it might be something they would have to get
used to. He questioned if a condition could be placed on the approval that the staff would
have to stay on the property during their breaks. Blum said he would be against that and
he thinks this particular factor of consideration has been met.
Baker referred to the sixth factor of consideration which is compliance with the City’s
Mixed-Income Housing Policy and noted that this proposal is exempt from the policy.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 15
Baker referred to seventh factor of consideration which is the increase in noise level and
said he thinks the staff’s finding stating that deliveries shall only take place between 8 am
and 5 pm on weekdays and weekends is a common sense approach. He added that
they’ve already discussed the siren issue so he is satisfied with the finding. Segelbaum
said he has a concern about sirens increasing the noise level and he doesn’t know for
certain what the increase will be but he doesn’t think it can be mitigated. Johnson said by
right there could be three residential care facilities in this location serving 6 or fewer
people each without the need for a CUP. Segelbaum said that is a fair way of looking at it,
but it seems this proposal will increase the noise level and it concerns him and it should
be analyzed further. Zimmerman noted that the standard isn’t that there be no net
increase in noise, it is if the increase is reasonable and what could be done to mitigate it
to the extent that the City feels comfortable with approval. Johnson noted that this
neighborhood is also right next to Highway 100 so there already is noise in the area.
Baker referred to the eighth factor of consideration which is the Generation of Odors,
Dust, Smoke, Gas, or Vibration. Johnson referred to the comment made about the grill
and the kitchen. He said the kitchen is on the ground floor facing the parking lot. Baker
said they could consider adding a condition stating that the venting be directed away from
the neighborhood. Zimmerman said the area is called a grill, but it is not an industrial
kitchen and they won’t be cooking or preparing food any differently than any other single
family home in the area.
Baker referred to the ninth factor of consideration regarding an increase in pests or
vermin. The Commissioners had no comments about this factor.
Baker referred to the tenth factor of consideration regarding visual appearance. He noted
that staff proposed several conditions regarding the visual appearance but he would like
to address the height, the dumpster, the landscaping, and the fencing. He said he would
like a condition added requiring that the dumpster be placed in the parking lot and
screened in order to address the neighbors’ concerns. He reiterated that he would like
bigger trees and many more trees added to the landscape plan so there is an immediate
effect of screening and a relief to the neighborhood. Zimmerman said he understands, but
if too many trees are put in a small area they may get crowded out and die and that
slightly smaller trees grow faster and taller than larger trees. He suggested the details of
the trees get worked out with the City Forester. The Commissioners agreed. Blum stated
that staff’s suggestion of year-round visual screening was not taken by the applicant and
that the applicant has not met the visual appearance standards. Zimmerman explained
that the applicant was given staff’s suggestion at the neighborhood meeting so they didn’t
ignore staff’s advice, they just haven’t submitted new landscaping plans yet.
Brookins referred to the proposed fence and asked if a six foot tall fence would be
allowed around the perimeter of the site. Zimmerman said there can be a six foot tall
fence along the north side of the property. He stated that the applicant could apply for a
variance to allow for a six foot tall fence along the other property lines, but staff can’t
require them to do that.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 16
Blum stated that the Planning Commission has looked at structures like this in the past
and he thinks that the proposed articulation, the windows, the varying peak heights, and
the varying colors are important and positive aspects of this proposal. Baker agreed.
Pockl said she doesn’t think the visual appearance factor is satisfied. She said she thinks
the building looks like a nice residential structure but the monstrosity of it doesn’t fit within
the character of the neighborhood and impacts the visual appearance as it sits within the
neighborhood. She said her opinion is that the factor can’t be satisfied if it doesn’t look
like the rest of the neighborhood character which is rambler style residential homes. Blum
agreed that the massing is an issue. Segelbaum noted that by right they are able to build
this size of building. Zimmerman agreed and reiterated that the proposal meets all of the
setback and height requirements and that the Zoning Code allows this type of structure.
Pockl stated that if a factor of consideration is that it has to be designed to complement
the character of the surrounding neighborhood then she doesn’t think the proposal meets
that factor. If the building only has to meet the R-1 Zoning requirements then she thinks it
would satisfy the visual appearance factor. Blum said he thinks the building can
technically meet the R-1 Zoning requirements, but that doesn’t mean it meets the
character of the neighborhood factor as proposed. Zimmerman noted that the Code
language specifically states the finding as “visual appearance of any proposed structure
or use” so there is nothing tying it to neighborhood character and the Planning
Commission and City Council evaluates proposals through that lens.
Blum compared this proposal to a proposal by the same applicant on Douglas Drive. He
stated that the Douglas Drive property is narrow and that from the front the structure looks
very similar to other single family homes in the area, whereas the visual appearance of
this proposal is substantially larger than any single family structure in the area on at least
two sides of the property. Baker questioned if the applicant could come back with a
proposal for the same number of units in two smaller buildings rather than one massive
building. Brookins said this proposal is a better representation of the character of the
neighborhood versus some type of row housing. He said everyone has different
preferences on design and they should be looking at ways to provide conditions to help
mitigate the visual impact without redesigned the building.
Segelbaum asked if there is consensus about the proposed conditions. Baker said he
would like condition number five regarding landscaping to be more effective at screening
the building from the neighborhood. Zimmerman suggested adding language stating that
the applicant should work with the City Forester to come up with the best landscaping
plan. Baker suggested adding a sentence stating that the goal of the condition is to
provide immediate and long term screening from the neighborhood to the west.
Johnson stated that a condition should be added about putting the dumpster location on
the plans. Segelbaum questioned how to the address the concern about trash blowing
around. Zimmerman said that would be a property maintenance issue.
Baker said he would like to recommend that the applicant apply for a variance to allow for
a six foot tall fence to be placed along the perimeter of the property and that venting of
kitchen odors be done in such a way to minimize impacts to the neighborhood to the west
and north.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 17
MOVED by Baker seconded by Johnson and motion carried 4 to 2 to 1 to recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit 162 allowing for a Residential Facility serving up to 25
persons at 5530 and 5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North,
subject to the findings discussed and conditions as follows. Commissioners Blum and
Pockl voted no. Commissioner Segelbaum abstained and stated that he had incomplete
information about the potential increase in noise due to sirens and without that
information it was unclear to him if the impact could be mitigated.
Conditions
1. The Residential Facility may serve up to 25 persons and must maintain appropriate
licensure from the State of Minnesota.
2. All vehicle deliveries shall take place on-site and shall not take place on the street.
Scheduled deliveries to the property must occur between 8 am and 5 pm on
weekdays and weekends.
3. An overflow parking plan must be submitted and reviewed by the City prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
4. The exterior dumpster shall be placed in the parking lot and screened with an
enclosure constructed of material compatible with the building.
5. In order to mitigate visual impacts to adjacent single-family homes, installation of
coniferous trees between the proposed building and Welcome Avenue is required.
The goal of this condition is to provide immediate and long term screening for the
neighborhood to the west and north.
6. In order to mitigate visual impacts to adjacent single-family homes, installation of
shrub and perennial plantings between the proposed fence and the adjacent streets
(Welcome Avenue and Golden Valley Road) is required.
7. In order to mitigate visual impacts to adjacent single-family homes, installation of a
decorative fence along the perimeter of the property is required.
8. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations,
or laws with authority over this development.
5. Informal Public Hearing – Minor Subdivision – 4400 Sunset Ridge – SU09-15
Applicant: STR8 Modern Properties, LLC
Address: 4400 Sunset Ridge
Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lots into two new
single family residential lots
Zimmerman referred to location map and aerial photo of the property and explained the
applicant’s proposal to subdivide one existing single family residential lot into two lots. He
stated that the existing lot is 38,384 square feet in size. Proposed lot one to the west
would be 16,112 square feet in size, 97.3 feet wide and the front setback, and 80 feet
wide 70 feet into the lot. Proposed lot two to the east would be 22,272 square feet in size,
110.4 feet wide at the front setback, and 126.8 feet wide 70 feet into the lot. He added
that all dimensional requirements have been met.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 18
Zimmerman referred to a survey of the property and showed how the new property line
would be drawn dividing the lot into two and the proposed building envelope on each lot.
Zimmerman stated that the property is in compliance with the City’s inflow and infiltration
requirements, a tree survey has been completed, a park dedication fee of $10,800 is due
prior to release of the final plat, and a slope stability analysis has been requested by the
City Engineer. He added that individual plans and permits would be reviewed and issued
at the time of construction.
Zimmerman reviewed the nine conditions for approval or denial and stated that staff is
recommending approval of the proposed subdivision subject to conditions listed in the
staff report in addition to the review of the slope stability analysis.
Baker asked if the property could be subdivided whether it is buildable or not. Zimmerman
said no, if the property is not buildable due to steep slopes or excessive wetness the
property would not be able to be subdivided because the City does not want to create lots
that are not buildable.
Tony Videen, Applicant, said the intent in purchasing the property was to renovate the
house but he did not feel it was a property he could save because of the value and what it
would cost to renovate it. He stated that more than likely the slope stability analysis will
show that the lot will be buildable it is just to what degree and expense. He said he
agreed with staff that he doesn’t want to split the property if it is not buildable.
Baker opened the public hearing.
Brian Beutner, 810 Westwood Drive, asked if any drainage studies have been done
showing what will happen to the neighboring properties if this property is subdivided. He
said it seems premature to make a recommendation about subdividing this property until
the consequences are known.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing
Zimmerman stated that the Engineering staff will review the grading and stormwater
runoff issues. He said typically as much water as possible is captured and focused toward
the street and into the stormwater sewer system. He added that there are also rules about
not increasing the amount of runoff onto neighboring properties, or directing runoff where
it didn’t go before.
Segelbaum said the proposal seems to meet the criteria used when reviewing
subdivisions.
Pockl asked if there is a way to condition the subdivision to ensure that any drainage
issues are addressed or resolved. Zimmerman stated that the stormwater management
permits issued at the time of construction would address the issues. He added that it is
hard to determine the issues at this stage without house plans and that this process is
about splitting the land versus construction so it is unusual to place that type of condition
on the subdivision.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 19
MOVED by Segelbaum seconded by Pockl and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the minor subdivision at 4400 Sunset Ridge subject to the
following conditions:
1. The City Attorney shall determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the
final plat.
2. A park dedication fee of $10,800 shall be paid before release of the final plat.
3. A slope stability analysis of Lot 2 shall be submitted for review by the City Engineer.
4. Continued Informal Public Hearing – Conditional Use Permit Amendment – 800
Boone Avenue North – CU-119, Amendment #3
Applicant: Home Health Care, Inc.
Address: 800 Boone Avenue North
Purpose: To explore possible modifications to the current Conditional Use
Permit in regard to social events being held at the facility.
Zimmerman reminded the Commissioners that this is a continued item regarding social
events being held at 800 Boone Avenue North. He explained that there is a condition in
the applicant’s Conditional Use Permit that allows for occasional evening social functions
and that over the past year there have been issues with parties and noise. He stated that
based on complaints the City Council revoked the Conditional Use Permit and then
stayed that revocation and referred the matter to the Planning Commission to review the
issues and try to work out a solution to allow the adult daycare to continue while
addressing the other issues. He stated that on October 8, the Planning Commission
decided to hold a public hearing and consider amendments to the Conditional Use Permit.
A public hearing was held on October 22 and was continued to this meeting. This item is
now scheduled for City Council action on December 18 to either amend the Conditional
Use Permit or to finalize the revocation.
Zimmerman stated that at the October 22 Planning Commission meeting the Commission
considered allowing limited informational/marketing events to be held in the evenings and
on weekends. However, it was hard to get agreement on what that meant and how it
would be enforced. He stated that after speaking with the applicant and the City Attorney,
staff is now recommending that no adult day care activities be allowed after 5:30 pm and
that any other activities that happen at the site will have to follow all the rules in City Code
like any business in Golden Valley would. He noted that the Conditional Use Permit would
remain in effect and any violations could cause revocation in the future.
He discussed some of the other issues/concerns related to this site including: the removal
of trees in the Shoreland Overlay area along Bassett Creek in order to clear space for
community gardens and a paved area with benches, Fire Code issues in regard to
parking along the driveway to the south of the building, and buses parking on Boone
Avenue which may restrict the sight lines from the existing driveways. He stated that staff
is continuing to work with the applicant regarding these issues.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 20
He stated that staff is recommending approval of this proposed Conditional Use Permit
Amendment with some amended conditions. Brookins referred to proposed condition
number five regarding parking the buses in the parking lot and asked if loading and
unloading would still occur in front of the building. Zimmerman said the condition was
written specifically to address the concern of the buses being parked on the street for long
periods of time and not the loading and unloading of their clients but that could also be
added as a condition of approval if the Planning Commission wants that to be considered.
Johnson asked if staff reviewed the definition of a bus. Zimmerman said he did look into it
but feels that in this case a reasonable person would agree that is what is being parked
on the street. Segelbaum said he would call the applicant’s vehicles vans or passenger
vans. Zimmerman said the language can be amended to encompass buses, mini-buses,
vans, etc.
Brookins asked if there is any reason the loading and unloading can’t occur in the parking
lot. Randall Strand, Applicant’s Attorney, stated that many of the clients are in
wheelchairs and because of the condition of the parking lot it is somewhat more
dangerous to take them over the rougher terrain rather than using the sidewalk in front of
the building.
Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker
closed the public hearing.
Blum said he appreciates the simplification of the conditions and supports this proposal.
Brookins said he would like to see loading and unloading occur on the site itself and not in
the public right-of-way because of sight line and safety issues. Zimmerman added that
sometimes buses park on the west side of Boone Avenue and that people have to go
across the street to get to the site. Brookins suggested that condition number five be
amended to state that all buses shall be loaded, unloaded, and parked in the parking lot.
MOVED by Blum seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #119, Amendment #3 subject to the
following findings and conditions:
Findings
1. Demonstrated Need for Proposed Use: Standard met. DRAM Properties has
demonstrated that there is a need for adult day care by successfully operating two
facilities in Golden Valley.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: Standard met. The Future Land Use
Map guides the site for long-term light industrial use. Adult day care centers, through
a conditional use permit, are consistent with that land use designation.
3. Effect upon Property Values: Standard met. The approval of the amended permit
will not negatively impact property values in the area.
4. Effect on Traffic Flow and Congestion: Standard conditionally met. Clients utilizing
the daycare generally arrive via van or bus, reducing the number of individual trips
made to and from the facility. However, the current parking locations for the vans and
buses on Boone Avenue and in the entrance drive pose problems to public safety
and will need to be relocated.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 21
5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: Standard met. The use does not
significantly increase the general population of the area, though the adult day care
business does temporarily impact the daytime population.
6. Compliance with the City’s Mixed-Income Housing Policy: Not applicable.
7. Increase in Noise Levels: Standard conditionally met. Minimum noise is generated
by the vans and buses transporting clients. Past complaints of noise generated by
large events and evening and nighttime use of the property will be mitigated by the
conditions of the amended permit.
8. Generation of Odors, Dust, Smoke, Gas, or Vibration: Standard met. No such
problems are expected.
9. Any Increase in Pests or Vermin: Standard met. No such problems are expected.
10. Visual Appearance: Standard met. The exterior of the building will not be affected by
the amended permit.
11. Other Effects upon the General Public Health, Safety, and Welfare: Standard
conditionally met. Impacts to the City and its residents, in the form of complaints and
repeated police calls to the property, are anticipated to be reduced under the
amended permit.
Conditions
1. The adult day care shall be limited to the number of clients specified by the
Minnesota Department of Human Services.
2. All necessary licenses obtained by the Minnesota Department of Human Services
and the Minnesota Department of Health shall be kept current.
3. The hours of normal operation for the adult day care shall be from 7 am to 5:30 pm,
Monday thru Friday.
4. The adult day care facilities shall not be used for any activities that are not permitted
in the Zoning Code.
5. All vans and buses shall be loaded, unloaded, and parked in the parking lot and shall
not be loaded, unloaded, or parked on Boone Avenue. No vans or buses may be
parked in the angled parking stalls or in the first 21 perpendicular stalls located south
of the building along the drive aisle.
6. No alcohol shall be served or distributed on-site without first obtaining the proper
license or permit.
7. All outdoor trash and recycling containers shall be screened in a manner acceptable
to the Physical Development Department.
8. The applicant shall provide an on-site bicycle rack allowing parking for a minimum of
five bicycles.
9. The requirements found in the memo to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and
Zoning, from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal, and dated May 17, 2011, shall
become a part of these requirements.
10. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations,
or laws with authority over this development.
7. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Code Text Amendment – Business and
Professional Offices Zoning District Amendments – ZO00-118
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 22
Purpose: To consider ways to update and modernize the uses allowed in the
Business and Professional Office Zoning District
This item was tabled to the December 10, 2018, Planning Commission meeting.
--Short Recess--
8. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
No meetings were discussed.
9. Other Business
• Council Liaison Report
No report was given.
10. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 11:38 pm.
____________________________ __________________________
Ron Blum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
3. E. 1. Approve Purchase of One Single Axle Cab, Chassis, Equipment and Setup
Prepared By
Tim Kieffer, Public Works Maintenance Manager
Marshall Beugen, Street and Vehicle Maintenance Supervisor
Summary
The 2019 Vehicle and Equipment Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes $230,000 for the
purchase of a single axle dump truck (V&E-109).
Single axle dump truck, unit 768, meets replacement criteria set forth in the City’s vehicle
replacement policy and Vehicle Condition Index (VCI). The VCI index is a tool utilized to assess all
vehicles and equipment scheduled for replacement and any vehicle/equipment scoring 28 points
and above meets the category of “needs immediate consideration.” The 2005 dump truck due for
replacement scored 40 points.
The new dump truck will be equipped with a stainless steel dump body, front and side
snowplows, sander with de-icing technology, and associated hydraulics and controls. Staff utilizes
this equipment for snow removal and other maintenance activities such as paving and hauling.
Ordering the cab, chassis and equipment by December 31, 2018, ensures a delivery date by
December of 2019. Ordering after December 31, 2018, extends the estimated delivery date into
early 2020.
Nuss Truck & Equipment has offered $26,000 for trade-in of unit 768. Staff recommends
auctioning the old dump truck with a $26,000 reserve. If the reserve is not met, Staff will trade in
unit 768 to Nuss Truck & Equipment.
The Minnesota Materials Management Division has awarded the following contracts:
Contract No. Item Vendor Amount
124649 2019 Mack Granite 42BR SA Single
Axle Cab & Chassis Nuss Truck & Equipment $116,483
144750 Plows, Equipment, Hydraulics and
Controls Towmaster Inc. $106,406
Total Cab, Chassis, and Equipment Less Tax, Title, and License $222,889
Recommended Action
Motion to approve purchase of one 2019 Mack Granite 42BR SA single axle cab and chassis
from Nuss Truck & Equipment in the amount of $116,483.
Motion to approve equipment purchases from Towmaster Inc. in the amount of $106,406.
Motion to trade in Unit 768 to Nuss Truck & Equipment if the $26,000 reserve is not met after
auction.
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
3. F. Support Submittal of Application to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for Habitat
Restoration at Bassett Creek Nature Area
Prepared By
Drew Chirpich, Environmental Specialist
Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer
Summary
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manages the Conservation Partners
Legacy (CPL) program to provide competitive matching grants to restore, protect or enhance
prairies, wetlands, forests, or habitat for fish, game, or wildlife in Minnesota. Nonprofit
organizations and government entities are eligible for CPL funding.
City staff recognized this as an excellent opportunity to fund restoration and habitat
enhancement in one of its natural areas, Bassett Creek Nature Area. The scope of the project
would be to remove invasive species such as buckthorn, and to seed and plant desirable native
species that enhance habitat, recreational use, and prevent erosion throughout the nature area.
This work aligns with the City’s goals in its Natural Resource Management Plan. Goal 1 is to
Protect, Preserve, Restore, Enhance and Acquire Natural Areas and Open Space. Within the plan
are concept plans and implementation actions for each Nature Area. Staff worked with the
Environmental Commission to prioritize work in its Nature Areas, and based upon many criteria,
Bassett Creek Nature area ranked first for this type of restoration project.
If the City is selected, work would begin with the invasive species removal and planting
components as soon as possible. Ongoing integrated plant management for the project would
continue through 2022.
A resolution of support from City Council is encouraged as part of the application process. If
awarded, the City would need to provide a local match of 10% cash or in-kind resources. $50,000
is the maximum award amount for the grant. Adequate funds are available in the Environmental
Control Fund 7303.6340.
More information about the Program can be found at:
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/grants/habitat/cpl/index.html
Attachments
• Resolution Supporting Submittal of Application to Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources for Habitat Restoration at Bassett Creek Nature Area (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution supporting submittal of application to Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources Conservation Partners Legacy Grant Program.
RESOLUTION NO.18-80
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATION TO
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOR
HABITAT RESTORATION AT BASSETT CREEK NATURE AREA
WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley adopted the Natural Resource Management Plan
in 2015 with the goal of protecting, preserving, restoring, enhancing, and acquiring natural
areas and open spaces; and
WHEREAS, the Bassett Creek Nature Area is in need of habitat restoration and
invasive species removal; and
WHEREAS, funding for this work is available from the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) Conservation Partners Legacy (CPL) Program, which funds the restoration,
protection and enhancement of prairies, wetlands, forests, or habitat for fish, game, or wildlife
in Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the grant would fund the removal, treatment, and disposal of invasive
species such as buckthorn as well as the seeding and planting of desirable native species to
prevent erosion and enhance the habitat and recreational use of Bassett Creek Nature Area;
and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed all terms and conditions of this funding opportunity and
finds them to be satisfactory.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Golden Valley that the
Council is supportive of staff’s submittal of an application to the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources for habitat restoration at Bassett Creek Nature Area.
Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 18th day of December, 2018
_____________________________
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
3. G. Approval of Plat - Nelson Addition - 1320 Fairlawn Way
Prepared By
Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer
Summary
At the December 4, 2018, City Council meeting, the Council held a public hearing on the
Preliminary Plat for the Lot Consolidation of Nelson Addition (1320 Fairlawn Way). After the
hearing, the Council approved the Preliminary Plat which will consolidate excess right of way with
1320 Fairlawn Way. The Final Plat has now been presented to the City. Staff has reviewed the
Final Plat and finds it consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat and the requirements of City
Code.
Attachments
• Resolution for Approval of Plat - Nelson Addition (1 page)
• Final Plat of Nelson Addition (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution for Approval of Plat - Nelson Addition.
RESOLUTION NO. 18-81
RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT - NELSON ADDITION
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Golden Valley, pursuant to due notice,
has heretofore conducted a public hearing on the proposed plat to be known as Nelson
Addition covering the following described tracts of land:
Lot 3, Block 2, KENNEDY’S SOUTH TYROL HILLS, Hennepin County, Minnesota
And
That part of Lot 2, Block 2, KENNEDY’S SOUTH TYROL HILLS, Hennepin County,
Minnesota described as follows:
Beginning at the southeast corner of Lot 2, Block 2, KENNEDY’S SOUTH TYROL HILLS,
thence North 11 degrees 29 minutes 23 seconds West a distance of 59.28 feet; thence
northwesterly a distance of 19.77 feet along a tangential curve concave to the southwest,
having a radius of 10.00 feet and a central angle of 113 degrees 14 minutes 55 seconds;
thence South 55 degrees 15 minutes 42 seconds West a distance of 137.31 feet to a point
on the west line of said Lot 2; thence South 04 degrees 42 minutes 35 seconds East along
said west line of Lot 2 a distance of 14.40 feet to the southwest corner of said Lot 2; thence
North 78 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds East along the south line of said Lot 22 a
distance of 141.80 feet to the point of beginning.
WHEREAS, all persons present were given the opportunity to be heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Golden
Valley, that said proposed plat be, and the same hereby is, accepted and approved, and
the proper officers of the City are hereby authorized and instructed to sign the original of
said plat and to do all other things necessary and proper in the premises.
Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 18th day of December, 2018.
_____________________________
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
NELSON ADDITION
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Mitchel S. Nelson and Sydney E. Nelson, husband and wife, owners of the following described property situated in the State of
Minnesota, County of Hennepin, to wit:
Lot 3, Block 2, KENNEDY'S SOUTH TYROL HILLS, Hennepin County, Minnesota
And
That part of Lot 2, Block 2, KENNEDY'S SOUTH TYROL HILLS, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows:
Beginning at the southeast corner of Lot 2, Block 2, KENNEDY'S SOUTH TYROL HILLS, thence North 11 degrees 29 minutes 23 seconds West, along the east line of said Lot 2, a
distance of 59.28 feet; thence northwesterly a distance of 19.77 feet along a tangential curve concave to the southwest, having a radius of 10.00 feet and a central angle of 113 degrees 14
minutes 55 seconds; thence South 55 degrees 15 minutes 42 seconds West a distance of 137.18 feet to the west line of said Lot 2; thence South 04 degrees 42 minutes 35 seconds East
along said west line of Lot 2 a distance of 14.46 feet to the southwest corner of said Lot 2; thence North 78 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds East along the south line of said Lot 2 a distance
of 141.80 feet to the point of beginning.
Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as NELSON ADDITION and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use forever the easements for drainage and utility purposes as
shown on this plat.
In witness whereof said Mitchel S. Nelson and Sydney E. Nelson, husband and wife, have hereunto set their hands this day of 12018.
Mitchel S. Nelson
STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
Notary Public,
My Commission Expires
County, Minnesota
Sydney E. Nelson
day of , 2018, by Mitchel S. Nelson and Sydney E. Nelson, husband and wife.
Notary Printed Name
00
'
correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on the plat; that all monuments depicted on the plat have been or will be correctly
4\
NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF
set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.0 1, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and
SEC.30, TWP.029, RGE.24
Dated this day of , 2018.
FALLS ON MANHOLE COVER
David B. Pemberton, Licensed Land Surveyor
1.00 FOOT OFFSETS NW AND SW
Minnesota License No. 40344
STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF HENINEPIN
FND. P.K. NAIL W/ DISC
N89°39'05"W 164.19
I
-'
I \
I
i
O�
�O
—
L-
—7
-
:
L—
My Commission Expires
w
d� /0 00
C�
1130
-
GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA
�
w N
This plat of NELSON ADDITION was approved and accepted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this day of
I
W
2018 Minnesota Statutes Section 505.03 Subdivision 2.
' '
I, David B. Pemberton do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a
'
correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on the plat; that all monuments depicted on the plat have been or will be correctly
set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.0 1, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and
all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat.
Dated this day of , 2018.
David B. Pemberton, Licensed Land Surveyor
Minnesota License No. 40344
STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF HENINEPIN
I ��
N89°39'05"W 164.19
I
This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2018, by David B. Pemberton.
I \
I
O�
�O
Notary Public, Hennepin County, Minnesota Notary Printed Name
My Commission Expires
w
a
GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA
w N
This plat of NELSON ADDITION was approved and accepted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this day of
I
W
2018 Minnesota Statutes Section 505.03 Subdivision 2.
' '
LO
~
0 a
of
I M
0
N Qi
N
W CO
I
By: , Mayor By: , Manager
LO
o
o
O
wo
Z r�
RESIDENT AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES, Hennepin County, Minnesota
z
U
I
o
I hereby certify that taxes payable in and prior years have been paid for land described on this plat. Dated this day of , 2018.
Mark V. Chapin, Hennepin County Auditor
By: , Deputy
SURVEY DIVISION, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 38313.565 (1969), this plat has been approved this day of 52018.
Chris F. Mavis, Hennepin County Surveyor
By:
REGISTRAR OF TITLE, Hennepin County, Minnesota
I hereby certify that the within plat of NELSON ADDITION was recorded in this office this
Martin McCormick, County Recorder
By: , Deputy
SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.
day of , 2018, at o'clock M.
I �
SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF
f — SEC.30, TWP.029, RGE.24
FND. CAST IRON MONUMENT
cp
0 co
5 / <;
Z
0 0
� O N
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 2 —
_`��/ /1 N rr►
A1,E� 14 g0
SOUTH LINE LOT t4
_7
z
m
ill I
� A
��
I
lj� I
O < I \
w
1
d- 1
O 'i J
V I
I
20 10 0 10 20 20
SCALE IN FEET
V
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS:
I N04-1'0 SCALE I
Being 6 feet in width and adjoining lot lines, unless otherwise
indicated, and 10 feet in width and adjoining right of way lines,
unless otherwise indicated, as shown on the plat.
0
I�
Z
The basis for the bearing system is the west line of
the Southeast Quarter of Section 30, Township
029, Range 24, which is assumed bearing of North
00 degrees 20 minutes 55 seconds East.
O Denotes a 1/2 inch by 14 inch iron pipe set and marked
by License No. 40344.
• Denotes a 1/2 inch pipe found and marked by License
No. 52146, unless shown otherwise.
Q Denotes a Found Hennepin County Cast -Iron -Monument
1
1
1
1
r -
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
3. H. 1. Call for Public Hearing for the 2019 Pavement Management Program Project No. 19-01
Prepared By
Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer
Summary
At the January 2, 2018, Council meeting, the Council directed staff to prepare a feasibility report for
the 2019 Pavement Management Program (PMP). The proposed project includes rehabilitation of
1.56 miles of local streets. The streets included in the project are shown on the attached project
location map.
The feasibility report for these projects has been prepared by the consulting engineering firm of
Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) and will be presented at the public hearing. The feasibility
report outlines a project that includes reconstruction of the subject streets, replaces and repairs
portions of the sanitary sewer and water systems, storm drainage improvements throughout the
project area, as well as parking and sidewalk improvements adjacent to Medley Park. The estimated
total project costs is $6,210,000.
The special assessment for the proposed project is $7,200 for each residential unit.
Consistent with past PMP projects, neighborhood open houses and issue specific neighborhood
meetings have been held throughout 2018 regarding this project.
The public hearing for the proposed projects will be held at the January 15, 2018 City Council
meeting.
Attachments
• Project Location Map (1page)
• Resolution Providing for Public Hearing on Certain Proposed Improvements, Proposed Project
19-01, 2019 Pavement Management Program (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Providing for Public Hearing on Certain Proposed Public Improvements,
Proposed Project 19-01, 2019 Pavement Management Program.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BroggerCir ZealandAve
N
Gettysburg Ave NFlag Ave NElgin PlDecaturAveN
-Unimproved-AquilaAveNWinnetkaHeightsDr
ZealandAveNA q uilaAveNRose
ManorDuluthSt CavellAveNEnsignAveNEl g in Pl
2 3 r d Ave N
Medle y L n
(Medley Rd)
(Medley C ir)(K ings
V
al
leyRdE)(Mar
qui
sRd)
County Rd 7 0
Med le yPark
I
0 300 600150Feet
2019 PMP Print Date: 12/12/2017Sources:-Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2016) & Aerial Photography (2012).-City of Golden Valley for all other layers.
2019 1.56 miles local
RESOLUTION NO. 18-82
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING
ON CERTAIN PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT NO. 19-01
2019 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, as
follows:
1. In conformity with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, this Council
proposes to construct certain proposed public improvements within the City as stated in
the form of notice included in paragraph 4 hereof.
2. The Engineer for the City has reported to the Council advising it in a preliminary
way that the proposed public improvements are feasible and that they should be made as
proposed and not in connection with some other improvements.
3. A public hearing shall be held on the proposed improvements on January 15, 2019,
in the Council Chambers at City Hall at 6:30 pm.
4. The Clerk is authorized and directed to cause notice of the time, place and purpose
of said meeting to be published for two successive weeks in the NEW HOPE/GOLDEN
VALLEY SUN POST, the official newspaper of the City, the first of said publications to be
in the issue of said paper dated December 27, 2018, and the last of said publications to be
in the issue dated January 3, 2019. Such notice shall be substantially the same as in the
attached form.
Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 18th day of December, 2018.
__________________________
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 18-82 (continued)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON CERTAIN
PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT NO. 19-01
2019 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, will meet on Tuesday, January 15, 2019, at 6:30 p.m. at the Golden Valley City Hall,
7800 Golden Valley Road, in said City for the purpose of holding a public hearing on certain
proposed public improvements.
The City Engineer’s estimated cost and the area where said improvements will be constructed and
which it will serve is as follows:
2019 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT:
All properties in the NW ¼ and NE ¼ of Section 30, Township 118 North, Range 21 West; within
the City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota, that are adjacent to the following streets:
• Ensign Avenue North: 23rd Avenue North to Medicine Lake Road
• Decatur Avenue North: Elgin Place to Medicine Lake Road
• Cavell Avenue North: Elgin Place to Medicine Lake Road
• Brogger Circle: Cul-de-sac to Medicine Lake Road
• Elgin Place: Ensign Avenue North to Cavell Avenue North
• 23rd Avenue North: Cul-de-sac to Cavell Avenue North
• Medley Lane: Cul-de-sac to Cavell Avenue North
2019 PMP Total Project Estimated Cost: $6,210,000
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
3. H. 2. Call for Public Hearing - Special Assessments for 2019 Pavement Management Program
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
RJ Kakach, Engineer
Jeff Oliver, City Engineer
Summary
At this meeting, the City Council should call for a public hearing for January 15, 2019, at 6:30pm
to consider certifying the following special assessments:
2019 Pavement Management Program
Recommended Action
Motion to call a public hearing for certification of special assessments for Tuesday, January 15,
2019, at 6:30 pm and publish the required hearing notices.
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
3. I. Approve Second Amendment to Development Agreement Liberty Crossing PUD #123
Prepared By
Maria Cisneros, City Attorney
Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director
Summary
Liberty Crossing Investment Partners, LLC (“Liberty Crossing”), the Developer of the Liberty
Apartments and Townhomes, has asked the City of Golden Valley to release a portion of the cash
deposit being held by the City to secure construction of the public improvements required under
the PUD Development Agreement. The City currently holds a cash deposit of $596,250. Staff
recommends releasing $506,437 of the cash deposit because the public improvements are
substantially complete. The City will continue to hold the retainage portion of the deposit
($89,813) for a one year warranty period, which does not begin until the Certificate of
Completion is issued and the utilities are accepted.
Attachments
• Second Amendment to Development Agreement Liberty Crossing PUD #123 (5 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve Second Amendment to Development Agreement Liberty Crossing PUD #123.
SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
LIBERTY CROSSING P.U.D. #123
THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT LIBERTY
CROSSING P.U.D. #123 (this “Second Amendment”) is made and entered into, effective
as of December ___, 2018, by and between the City of Golden Valley, a Minnesota
municipal corporation (the “City”), and Liberty Crossing Investment Partners, LLC, a
Minnesota limited liability company (the “Developer”), for the purpose of amending the
Development Agreement Liberty Crossing P.U.D. #123, effective April 29, 2016, recorded
as Document No. T05343991 in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles, and
amended by that certain First Amendment to Development Agreement Liberty Crossing
P.U.D. #123, effective as of February 20, 2018, recorded as Document No. T05514939
in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles (collectively, the P.U.D.
Development Agreement”), concerning the Subject Property legally described on the
attached Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
In consideration of the mutual terms and conditions contained herein, the parties
hereby agree as follows:
1. All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings
given to them in the P.U.D. Development Agreement.
2. The lead-in to Section 12 of the P.U.D. Development Agreement is deleted
in its entirety and Section 12.a. of the P.U.D. Development Agreement is revised in its
entirety to state as follows:
12. Financial Securities for Public Improvements
Constructed by Developer. The Developer has previously submitted to
the City a cash deposit in the amount of $1,796,250 for the Public
Improvements constructed by the Developer (the “Security for Public
Improvements Constructed by Developer”) The Security for Public
Improvements Constructed by Developer was reduced to $596,250,
pursuant to the First Amendment to the P.U.D Development Agreement.
The Security for Public Improvements Constructed by Developer shall be
reduced to $89,813 (the “Retainage Amount”) upon receipt of a fully
executed copy of this Second Amendment, it being acknowledged that the
amount of $506,437 will be released by the City to the Developer upon
receipt of a fully executed copy of this Second Amendment. The Retainage
Amount shall be retained for a warranty period of one year beginning upon
issuance of the Certificate of Completion or the date of the City’s final
acceptance of the Public Improvements Constructed by Developer,
whichever is later.
Within thirty (30) days after notice from Developer to the City of the
conclusion of the one-year warranty period, the City agrees to perform a
warranty inspection of the Public Improvements Constructed by Developer.
Within ten (10) days following such inspection by the City of the Public
Improvements Constructed by Developer, the City will provide Developer
with either a list of corrections or final release documentation (provided by
Developer) suitable for releasing the Retainage Amount. If corrections are
required and upon notice by Developer that the corrections have been
made, the ten-day inspection and ten-day notification or release of the
Retainage Amount will be followed. The City shall treat any cash deposit
under this paragraph as a separate account on its books and the deposited
funds shall be held, at the City’s election, at the Minnesota Municipal Money
Market Fund or a depository institution selected by the City in accordance
with City policies and City Council resolution, in either event in account or
fund type(s) selected by the City. All account and fund fees and charges
shall be paid from the deposit. All interest accrued on the Security for Public
Improvements Constructed by Developer shall be reported under
Developer’s tax identification number, shall be deemed part of the Security
for Public Improvements Constructed by Developer made under this
paragraph, and shall be disbursed by the City to the Developer upon the
Developer being entitled to a release of the Retainage Amount in
accordance with this paragraph.
3. Except as amended hereby, the P.U.D. Development Agreement continues
in full force and effect. In the event of any conflict between the terms, conditions and
provisions of the P.U.D. Development Agreement and this Second Amendment, the
terms, conditions and provisions of this Second Amendment shall prevail. This Second
Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall for all
purposes be deemed to be an original and all of which together shall constitute one and
the same instrument.
[Signature page follows]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment as
of the date first set forth above.
THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
By:
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
By:
Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN } ss
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of December,
2018, by Shepard M. Harris and Timothy J. Cruikshank, the Mayor and City Manager of
the City of Golden Valley, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
LIBERTY CROSSING INVESTMENT PARTNERS,
LLC
By:
Todd Schachtman, Chief Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN } ss
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of
December, 2018, by Todd Schachtman, Chief Manager of Liberty Crossing Investment
Partners, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the limited liability
company.
Notary Public
DRAFTED BY:
City of Golden Valley (MTC)
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY
Lots 1-57, inclusive, Block 1, Liberty Crossing P.U.D. No. 123, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
3. J. Engagement Letter - Auditing Services for 2018 Fiscal Year
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Each year the City is required to have a State Legal Compliance Audit performed in accordance
with auditing standards established by the Auditing Standards Board and Minnesota Statutes.
Staff recommends the authorization for services with Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich
and Co for 2018 audit services for $46,600. This amount also includes the review for the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority Funds. Preliminary fieldwork will begin in January with final
fieldwork starting on March 4.
Attachments
• Engagement Letter With MMKR - City Audit, For The Year 2018 (9 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize City Manager to sign Engagement Letters with the firm of Malloy, Montaque,
Karnowski, Radosevich & Co. for the 2018 audit of the City.
PRINCIPALS
Thomas A.Karnowski,CPA
Paul A.Radosevich,CPA
MMKRWilliam J.Lauer,CPA
- James H.Eichten,CPA
C E RT IF I E D PUBLIC Aaron J.Nielsen,CPA
ACCOUNTANTS Victoria L.Holinka,CPA/CMA
Jaclyn M.Huegel,CPA
December 11,2018
To the City Council and Management
of the City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley,MN 55427
Dear Councilmembers and Management:
We are pleased to confirm our understanding of the services we are to provide the City of Golden Valley
(the City)for the year ended December 31,2018.We will audit the financial statements of the governmental
activities,the business-type activities,each major fund,the aggregate remaining fund information,and the
budgetary comparison for the General Fund,including the related notes to the financial statements,which
collectively comprise the basic financial statements of the City as of and for the year ended December 31,
2018.Accounting standards generally accepted in the United States of America provide for certain required
supplementary information(RSI), such as management's discussion and analysis(MD&A),to supplement
the City's basic financial statements. Such information,although not a part of the basic financial statements,
is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, who considers it to be an essential part of
financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or
historical context.As part of our engagement,we will apply certain limited procedures to the City's RSI in
accordance with U.S. generally accepted auditing standards. These limited procedures will consist of
inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the
information for consistency with management's responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements,
and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements.We will not express an
opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with
sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. The following RSI is required by
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles and will be subjected to certain limited procedures,but will
not be audited:
1) MD&A
2) GASB-required supplementary pension and other post-employment benefits information
We have also been engaged to report on supplementary information other than RSI that accompanies the
City's financial statements. We will subject the following supplementary information to the auditing
procedures applied in our audit of the financial statements and certain additional procedures, including
comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used
to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves,and other additional procedures
in accordance with U.S. generally accepted auditing standards, and we will provide an opinion on it in
relation to the financial statements as a whole,in a report combined with our auditor's report on the financial
statements:
1) Combining and individual fund statements and schedules,presented as supplemental information
Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A.
5353 Wayzata Boulevard @ Suite 410 a Minneapolis, MN 55416 • Phone: 952-545-0424 • Fax: 952-545-0569 • www.mmkr.com
City of Golden Valley Page 2
December 11,2018
The following other information accompanying the financial statements will not be subjected to the auditing
procedures applied in our audit of the financial statements, and our auditor's report will not provide an
opinion or any assurance on that other information:
1) Introductory information
2) Statistical section
We will perform the required State Legal Compliance Audit conducted in accordance with U.S. generally
accepted auditing standards and the provisions of the Legal Compliance Audit Guide,promulgated by the
Office of the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 6.65 and will include such tests of the
accounting records and other procedures we consider necessary to enable us to conclude that, for the items
tested,the City has complied with the material terms and conditions of applicable legal provisions.
We will also prepare a management report for the City Council and administration. This report will
communicate such things as our concerns regarding accounting procedures or policies brought to our
attention during our audit, along with recommendations for improvements. The report will also contain
certain financial comparisons and analysis,and a summary of legislative activity affecting Minnesota cities.
Our services will not include an audit in accordance with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and
Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles,and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards(Uniform Guidance),which would only be required
if the City expended$750,000 or more in federal assistance funds during the year.If the City is required to
have a Single Audit of federal assistance funds,this engagement letter would need to be modified.
Audit Objectives
The objective of our audit is the expression of opinions as to whether your financial statements are fairly
presented, in all material respects, in conformity with U.S.generally accepted accounting principles and to
report on the fairness of the supplementary information referred to in the second paragraph when considered
in relation to the financial statements as a whole. Our audit will be conducted in accordance with
U.S. generally accepted auditing standards and the standards for financial audits contained in Government
Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and will include tests of the
accounting records of the City and other procedures we consider necessary to enable us to express such
opinions. We will issue a written report upon completion of our audit of the City's financial statements.
Our report will be addressed to the City Council and Management of the City.We cannot provide assurance
that unmodified opinions will be expressed. Circumstances may arise in which it is necessary for us to
modify our opinions or add emphasis-of-matter or other-matter paragraphs. If our opinions are other than
unmodified,we will discuss the reasons with you in advance. If, for any reason,we are unable to complete
the audit or are unable to form or have not formed opinions, we may decline to express opinions or issue
reports,or may withdraw from this engagement.
City of Golden Valley Page 3
December 11,2018
We will also provide a report(that does not include an opinion) on internal control related to the financial
statements and compliance with the provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements,
noncompliance with which could have a material effect on the financial statements as required by
Government Auditing Standards. The report on internal control and on compliance and other matters will
include a paragraph that states(1)that the purpose of the report is solely to describe the scope of testing of
internal control and compliance, and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the
effectiveness of the entity's internal control on compliance,and(2)that the report is an integral part of an
audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity's internal
control and compliance. The paragraph will also state that the report is not suitable for any other purpose.
If during our audit we become aware that the City is subject to an audit requirement that is not encompassed
in the terms of this engagement,we will communicate to management and those charged with governance
that an audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and
the standards for financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards may not satisfy the relevant
legal,regulatory, or contractual requirements.
Audit Procedures—General
An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the
financial statements; therefore, our audit will involve judgment about the number of transactions to be
examined and the areas to be tested. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting
policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as
evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.We will plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether
from(1)errors, (2) fraudulent financial reporting, (3) misappropriation of assets, or(4)violations of laws
or governmental regulations that are attributable to the government or to acts by management or employees
acting on behalf of the government.Because the determination of abuse is subjective, Government Auditing
Standards do not expect auditors to provide reasonable assurance of detecting abuse.
Because of the inherent limitations of an audit, combined with the inherent limitations of internal control,
and because we will not perform a detailed examination of all transactions, there is a risk that material
misstatements may exist and not be detected by us,even though the audit is properly planned and performed
in accordance with U.S. generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards. In
addition,an audit is not designed to detect immaterial misstatements or violations of laws or governmental
regulations that do not have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. However, we will
inform the appropriate level of management of any material errors, fraudulent financial reporting, or
misappropriation of assets that comes to our attention. We will also inform the appropriate level of
management of any violations of laws or governmental regulations that come to our attention,unless clearly
inconsequential, and of any material abuse that comes to our attention. Our responsibility as auditors is
limited to the period covered by our audit and does not extend to later periods for which we are not engaged
as auditors.
Our procedures will include tests of documentary evidence supporting the transactions recorded in the
accounts, and may include tests of the physical existence of inventories, and direct confirmation of
receivables and certain other assets and liabilities by correspondence with selected individuals, funding
sources,creditors,and financial institutions.We will request written representations from your attorneys as
part of the engagement,and they may bill you for responding to this inquiry. At the conclusion of our audit,
we will require certain written representations from you about your responsibilities for the financial
statements; compliance with laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements; and other responsibilities
required by generally accepted auditing standards.
City of Golden Valley Page 4
December 11,2018
Audit Procedures—Internal Control
Our audit will include obtaining an understanding of the government and its environment,including internal
control,sufficient to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements and to design the
nature, timing, and extent of further audit procedures. Tests of controls may be performed to test the
effectiveness of certain controls that we consider relevant to preventing and detecting errors and fraud that
are material to the financial statements and to preventing and detecting misstatements resulting from illegal
acts and other noncompliance matters that have a direct and material effect on the financial statements.Our
tests, if performed,will be less in scope than would be necessary to render an opinion on internal control
and, accordingly, no opinion will be expressed in our report on internal control issued pursuant to
Government Auditing Standards.
An audit is not designed to provide assurance on internal control or to identify significant deficiencies or
material weaknesses. Accordingly, we will express no such opinion. However, during the audit, we will
communicate to management and those charged with governance internal control related matters that are
required to be communicated under the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)
professional standards and Government Auditing Standards.
Audit Procedures—Compliance
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement, we will perform tests of the City's compliance with the provisions of applicable laws,
regulations, contracts, agreements, and grants. However, the objective of our audit will not be to provide
an opinion on overall compliance and we will not express such an opinion in our report on compliance
issued pursuant to Government Auditing Standards.
Other Services
We will also assist in preparing the financial statements and related notes of the City in conformity with
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles based on information provided by you. These nonaudit
services do not constitute an audit under Government Auditing Standards and such services will not be
conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards.We will perform the services in accordance
with applicable professional standards. The other services are limited to the financial statement services
previously defined. We, in our sole professional judgment, reserve the right to refuse to perform any
procedure or take any action that could be construed as assuming management responsibilities.
Management Responsibilities
Management is responsible for designing, implementing, establishing, and maintaining effective internal
controls relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material
misstatement,whether due to fraud or error,including evaluating and monitoring ongoing activities to help
ensure that appropriate goals and objectives are met; following laws and regulations; and ensuring that
management and financial information is reliable and properly reported. Management is also responsible
for implementing systems designed to achieve compliance with applicable laws,regulations,contracts,and
grant agreements. You are also responsible for the selection and application of accounting principles, for
the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements and all accompanying information in
conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, and for compliance with applicable laws
and regulations and the provisions of contracts and grant agreements.
City of Golden Valley Page 5
December 11,2018
Management is also responsible for making all financial records and related information available to us and
for the accuracy and completeness of that information. You are also responsible for providing us with(1)
access to all information of which you are aware that is relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of
the financial statements,(2)additional information that we may request for the purpose of the audit,and(3)
unrestricted access to persons within the government from whom we determine it necessary to obtain audit
evidence.
Your responsibilities include adjusting the financial statements to correct material misstatements and for
confirming to us in the written representation letter that the effects of any uncorrected misstatements
aggregated by us during the current engagement and pertaining to the latest period presented are immaterial,
both individually and in the aggregate,to the financial statements taken as a whole.
You are responsible for the design and implementation of programs and controls to prevent and detect fraud,
and for informing us about all known or suspected fraud affecting the government involving
(1)management, (2) employees who have significant roles in internal control, and (3) others where the
fraud could have a material effect on the financial statements. Your responsibilities include informing us
of your knowledge of any allegations of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the government received in
communications from employees, former employees, grantors, regulators, or others. In addition, you are
responsible for identifying and ensuring that the government complies with applicable laws, regulations,
contracts, agreements, and grants and for taking timely and appropriate steps to remedy fraud and
noncompliance with provisions of laws,regulations,contracts or grant agreements,or abuse that we report.
You are responsible for the preparation of the supplementary information,which we have been engaged to
report on,in conformity with U.S.generally accepted accounting principles.You agree to include our report
on the supplementary information in any document that contains and indicates that we have reported on the
supplementary information. You also agree to [include the audited financial statements with any
presentation of the supplementary information that includes our report thereon OR make the audited
financial statements readily available to users of the supplementary information no later than the date the
supplementary information is issued with our report thereon].Your responsibilities include acknowledging
to us in the written representation letter that(1)you are responsible for presentation of the supplementary
information in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles; (2) you believe the
supplementary information, including its form and content, is fairly presented in accordance with
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles; (3) the methods of measurement or presentation have not
changed from those used in the prior period(or, if they have changed, the reasons for such changes); and
(4)you have disclosed to us any significant assumptions or interpretations underlying the measurement or
presentation of the supplementary information.
Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining a process for tracking the status of audit
findings and recommendations. Management is also responsible for identifying and providing report copies
of previous financial audits, attestation engagements, performance audits or other studies related to the
objectives discussed in the Audit Objectives section of this letter. This responsibility includes relaying to
us corrective actions taken to address significant findings and recommendations resulting from those audits,
attestation engagements, performance audits, or other studies. You are also responsible for providing
management's views on our current findings, conclusions, and recommendations, as well as your planned
corrective actions,for the report,and for the timing and format for providing that information.
You agree to assume all management responsibilities relating to the financial statements and related notes
and any other nonaudit services we provide. You will be required to acknowledge in the management
representation letter our assistance with preparation of the financial statements and related notes and that
you have reviewed and approved the financial statements and related notes prior to their issuance and have
accepted responsibility for them. Further, you agree to oversee the nonaudit services by designating an
individual,preferably from senior management,with suitable skill,knowledge,or experience;evaluate the
adequacy and results of those services; and accept responsibility for them.
City of Golden Valley Page 6
December 11,2018
Engagement Administration,Fees,and Other
The assistance to be supplied by your personnel, including the preparation of schedules and analysis of
accounts, typing all cash or other confirmations we request, and locating any invoices selected by us for
testing,will be discussed and coordinated with you.
We will provide copies of our reports to the City; however,management is responsible for distribution of
the reports and the financial statements.Unless restricted by law or regulation,or containing privileged and
confidential information,copies of our reports are to be made available for public inspection.
The audit documentation for this engagement is the property of Malloy,Montague,Karnowski,Radosevich
& Co., P.A. (MMKR) and constitutes confidential information. However, subject to applicable laws and
regulations,audit documentation and appropriate individuals will be made available upon request and in a
timely manner to a regulatory agency or its designee,a federal agency providing direct or indirect funding,
or the U.S. Government Accountability Office for purposes of a quality review of the audit,to resolve audit
findings, or to carryout oversight responsibilities. We will notify you of any such request. If requested,
access to such audit documentation will be provided under the supervision of MMKR personnel.
Furthermore,upon request,we may provide copies of selected audit documentation to the aforementioned
parties. These parties may intend, or decide, to distribute the copies or information contained therein to
others, including other governmental agencies.
The audit documentation for this engagement will be retained for a minimum of five years after the report
release date or for any additional period requested by regulatory agencies. If we are aware that a federal
awarding agency,pass-through entity,or auditee is contesting an audit finding,we will contact the party(ies)
contesting the audit finding for guidance prior to destroying the audit documentation.
We expect to begin our audit shortly after the end of your fiscal year and to issue our reports prior to June 30,
2019. William J.Lauer,CPA,is the engagement partner and is responsible for supervising the engagement
and signing the reports or authorizing another individual to sign them.
Our fees for these services will be at our standard hourly rates plus out-of-pocket costs (such as report
reproduction,word processing,postage,travel,copies,telephone, etc.)except that we agree that our gross
fee,including expenses,will not exceed$46,600.Our standard hourly rates vary according to the degree of
responsibility involved and the experience level of the personnel assigned to your audit. Our invoices for
these fees will be rendered each month as work progresses and are payable on presentation.
In accordance with our firm policies, work may be suspended if your account becomes 60 days or more
overdue and may not be resumed until your account is paid in full. If we elect to terminate our services for
nonpayment, our engagement will be deemed to have been completed upon written notification of
termination,even if we have not completed our report.You will be obligated to compensate us for all time
expended and to reimburse us for all out-of-pocket costs through the date of termination.
City of Golden Valley Page 7
December 11,2018
These fees are based on anticipated cooperation from your personnel and the assumption that unexpected
circumstances will not be encountered during the audit. If we find that additional audit procedures are
required, or if additional services are requested by the City, those services will be billed at our standard
hourly rates.Additional audit procedures might be required for certain accounting issues or events,such as
new contractual agreements, transactions and legal requirements of new bond issues, new funds, major
capital projects,new tax increment districts,if there is an indication of misappropriation or misuse of public
funds,or if significant difficulties are encountered due to the lack of accounting records,incomplete records,
or turnover in the City's staff. If significant additional time is necessary, we will discuss it with you and
arrive at a new fee estimate before we incur the additional costs.
With regard to the electronic dissemination of audited financial statements, including financial statements
published electronically on your website, you understand that electronic sites are a means to distribute
information and,therefore,we are not required to read the information contained in these sites or to consider
the consistency of other information in the electronic site with the original document.
If you intend to publish or otherwise reproduce the financial statements, such as in a bond statement, and
make reference to our firm name, you agree to provide us with printers' proofs or masters for our review
and approval before printing.You also agree to provide us with a copy of the final reproduced material for
our approval before it is distributed.
During the year, you might request additional services such as routine advice, assistance in implementing
audit recommendations, review of your projections or budgets, and other similar projects. Independence
standards allow us to perform these routine services;however, it is important that you understand that we
are not allowed to make management decisions,perform management functions,nor can we audit our own
work or provide nonaudit services that are significant to the subject matter of the audit.
Please be aware that e-mail is not a secure method of transmitting data. It can be intercepted, read, and
possibly changed. Due to the large volume of e-mails sent daily, the likelihood of someone intercepting
your e-mail is relatively small,but it does exist.We will communicate with you via e-mail,if you are willing
to accept this risk.
To ensure that MMKR's independence is not impaired under the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct,
you agree to inform the engagement partner before entering into any substantive employment discussions
with any of our personnel.
If a dispute occurs related in any way to our services,our firm and the City agree to discuss the dispute and,
if necessary,to promptly mediate in a good faith effort to resolve it.We will agree on a mediator,but if we
cannot, either of us may apply to a court having personal jurisdiction over the parties for appointment of a
mediator. We will share the mediator's fees and expenses equally,but otherwise will bear our own attorney
fees and costs of the mediation.Participation in such mediation shall be a condition to either of us initiating
litigation. To allow time for the mediation,any applicable statute of limitations shall be tolled for a period
not to exceed 120 days from the date either of us first requests in writing to mediate the dispute.
The mediation shall be confidential in all respects, as allowed or required by law, except that our final
settlement positions at mediation shall be admissible in litigation solely to determine the identity of the
prevailing party for purposes of the awarding of attorney fees.
City of Golden Valley Page 8
December 11,2018
We both recognize the importance of performing our obligations under this agreement in a timely way and
fully cooperating with the other.In the event that either of us fails to timely perform or fully cooperate,the
other party may,in its sole discretion,elect to suspend performance or terminate the agreement regardless
of the prejudice to the other person. We agree we will give 10 days' written notice of an intent to suspend
or terminate, specifying the grounds for our decision, and will give the other an opportunity to cure the
circumstances cited as grounds for that decision. In the event of suspension or termination, all fees and
costs are immediately due on billing.
We agree that it is important that disputes be discussed and resolved promptly. For that reason,we agree
that,notwithstanding any other statutes of limitations or court decisions concerning them,all claims either
of us may have will be barred unless brought within one year of the date the complaining party first incurs
any damage of any kind, whether discovered or not, related in any way to acts or omissions of the other
party, whether or not the complaining party seeks recovery for that first damage and whether or not we
have continued to maintain a business relationship after the first damage occurred. Notwithstanding
anything in this letter to the contrary we agree that regardless of where the City is located, or where this
agreement is physically signed, this agreement shall have been deemed to have been entered into at our
office in Hennepin County,Minnesota,and Hennepin County shall be the exclusive venue and jurisdiction
for resolving disputes related to this agreement.This agreement shall be interpreted and governed under the
laws of Minnesota.
When requested, Government Auditing Standards require that we provide you with a copy of our most
recent external peer review report and any letter of comment, and any subsequent peer review reports and
letters of comment received during the period of the contract. Our most recent peer review report
accompanies this letter.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City and believe this letter accurately summarizes the
significant terms of our engagement. If you have any questions,please let us know. If you agree with the
terms of our engagement as described in this letter,please sign the enclosed copy and return it to us.
Sincerely,
MALLOY,MONTAGUE,KARNOWSKI,RADOSEVICH&CO.,P.A.
CT
William J. Lauer,CPA
Principal
WJL:Imb
Response:
This letter correctly sets forth the understanding of the City of Golden Valley.
By:
Title:
Date:
:4 KerberRose
Certified Public Accountants
System Review Report
To the Principals of Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich and Co., P.A. and the
Peer Review Committee of the Minnesota Society of CPAs
We have reviewed the system of quality control for the accounting and auditing practice of
Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich and Co., P.A. (the firm) in effect for the year ended
May 31, 2016. Our peer review was conducted in accordance with the Standards for Performing
and Reporting on Peer Reviews established by the Peer Review Board of the American Institute
of Certified Public Accountants. As part of our peer review, we considered reviews by regulatory
entities, if applicable, in determining the nature and extent of our procedures. The firm is
responsible for designing a system of quality control and complying with it to provide the firm
with reasonable assurance of performing and reporting in conformity with applicable
professional standards in all material respects. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
the design of the system of quality control and the firm's compliance therewith based on our
review. The nature, objectives, scope, limitations of, and the procedures performed in a System
Review are described in the standards at www.aicpa.org/prsummary.
As required by the standards, engagements selected for review included engagements
performed under Government Auditing Standards and an audit of an employee benefit plan.
In our opinion, the system of quality control for the accounting and auditing practice of Malloy,
Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich and Co., P.A. in effect for the year ended May 31, 2016 has
been suitably designed and complied with to provide the firm with reasonable assurance of
performing and reporting in conformity with applicable professional standards in all material
respects. Firms can receive a rating of pass,pass with deficiency(ies)or fail Malloy, Montague,
Karnowski, Radosevich and Co., P.A. has received a peer review rating of pass.
/��J4, -5-c—
KerberRose SC
September 15, 2016
4211 N.Lightning Drive, Suite A Appleton,WI 54913 % Prime_ Global
P:920-993-0105 F:920-993-0116
www.kerberrose.com o-rr,,d,•,:,, ..,,,�,,,arn ;;
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
3. K. Delegation of Authority for Paying Certain Claims
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Staff is recommending the approval of the attached resolution that will allow the Finance
Director to review claims and make payment. If the Finance Director is absent the Accounting
Coordinator will review claims and make payment. All check registers would be approved by
Council at the subsequent Council Meeting.
There are many advantages with this process:
• Staff would have more time to meet the 35 day rule to have all claims paid (MN Statute
471.425, subd. 2a). Depending on the calendar for the council meetings, some meetings
were almost four weeks apart.
• Discounts may be taken.
• Meeting may be cancelled due to weather or lack of agenda items.
Attachments
• Resolution Delegating Authority For Paying Certain Claims to the Position of Finance Director
and in Her/His Absence to the Accounting Coordinator (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution delegating authority for paying certain claims to the position of
Finance Director and in her/his absence to the Accounting Coordinator.
RESOLUTION NO. 18-83
RESOLUTION DELEGATING AUTHORITY FOR PAYING CERTAIN CLAIMS TO THE POSITION OF FINANCE DIRECTOR AND IN HER/HIS ABSENCE TO THE ACCOUNTING COORDINATOR
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 412.271, subd. 1 provides that the City Council has full authority over the City’s financial affairs, including the disbursements of public funds; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 412.271, subd. 8 allows a City Council to delegate its authority to pay certain claims; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Golden Valley finds that there are numerous advantages to the City in delegating this authority to administrative official; and WHEREAS, the appropriate internal accounting and administrative control procedures relate to the payment of claims; and WHEREAS, the delegation to the Finance Director and Accounting Coordinator for paying certain claims. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council, that authority to pay certain claims is delegated to the position of Finance Director and in her/his absence to the Accounting Coordinator, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that claims lists of all claims paid will be presented to
the City Council for informational purposes at the next regular meetings after payment of
the claims.
Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 18th day of December, 2018.
_____________________________
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
3. L. Approve Change Order to 2018 Pavement Management Project
Prepared By
R.J. Kakach, PE, Assistant City Engineer
Summary
Early this fall, the contractor for the 2018 Pavement Management Project began construction on the
Olympia Street Iron Enhanced Filtration Basin. During construction of this basin, crews discovered
concrete chunks, wood timbers, trees, garbage, and other items in the material that was excavated.
Staff worked to have the material tested and temporarily relocated to another City property so that
construction of the basin could progress. Test results indicated that the soil was not contaminated
with hazardous materials. However, due to the garbage and debris volumes within the soil, it was
determined that the material needed to be disposed of at a landfill.
Staff worked with the consulting engineer, Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) to determine the
waste profile of the soil and find a local landfill that would accept the material. In total, 1,787.39 tons
of material were removed from the basin that were deemed debris-impacted. The rate to dispose of
the material, including loading, trucking, and dumping is $48.66/ton. Total outlay, including indirect
costs and other charges to protect the material total $91,507.28.
The material was removed from the City property to create space for snow removal in early
December. Since this was an unforeseen condition, staff is recommending approval of this change
order to dispose of the debris-impacted material in conjunction with the construction of the Olympia
Street Iron Enhanced Filtration Basin and the 2018 Pavement Management Project. Staff anticipates
that the project will remain within budget with the addition of this change order. Approval of the
Resolution allows the City to follow proper procedures (Minnesota Statute 12.37) when a local
emergency is deemed necessary to provide emergency assistance.
Attachments
• Change Order #1 For the 2018 Pavement Management Project - Disposal of Debris-Impacted
Material (1 page)
• Resolution Authorizing the City of Golden Valley to enter into a contract with GMH Asphalt during
a local emergency (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing a contract with GMH Asphalt during a local emergency.
Motion to approve change order #1 to dispose of debris-impacted material at Dem-Con Landfill in
Shakopee.
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
GMH ASPHALT CORPORATION PROJECT # 18-01
Contractor
9180 Laketown Road
Chaska, MN 55318
To Whom It May Concern,
Under your 2018 Pavement Management Program contract dated March 20, 2018 with the City of
Golden Valley, the City of Golden Valley hereby directs you to do the following:
Add: 2,222 SY 10MIL Poly Sheeting @ $2.04 / SY = $4,532.88_
Load & Haul 1,787.39 Tons of Debris Impacted Soil to Dem-Con @ $ 34.20 / Ton = $61,128.74
Grand Total C.O. 1 - = $65,661.62_
And add to (deduct from) the contract, in accordance with contract and specifications, the sum of
$65,661.62.
There will be an extension of -0- days for completion.
The date of completion of contract was September 28, 2018 and now will be the same.
Amount of Original
Contract
Total Additions
Total Deductions
Updated Contract
To Date
$3,549,629.03
$65,661.62
-$0-
$3,615,290.65
Date Approved:
Contractor
City of Golden Valley:
By:
Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
RESOLUTION NO. 18-84
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY TO ENTER INTO
A CONTRACT DURING A LOCAL EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, the Mayor of Golden Valley has declared that a local emergency is in
effect; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that immediate action to respond to the situation
is needed in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community; and
WHEREAS, the immediate removal of debris-impacted material from a City snow
storage yard is required to respond to the emergency; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute section 12.37 provides that an emergency contract is
not subject to the normal purchasing and competitive-bidding requirements because of the
emergency.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Golden
Valley as follows:
To remove the following material from the Golden Valley City storage area for $91,507.28
with GMH Asphalt for the 2018 Pavement Management Contract.
Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 18th day of December, 2018.
_____________________________
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
.
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
3. M. Amendment to the 2018 General Fund Budget
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Staff is requesting the approval of a Resolution for an amendment to the 2018 General Fund
Budget to cover the following:
The Brookview Facility is now open so the construction fund needs to be closed out
before the end of 2018. The overage has been shown in previous financial reports in the council
agenda packet. This construction has one contract not finalized but the amount is known and
included. The request to close this fund is $20,093.
Staff presented in June, 2018 the request for a staff attorney in-house and the estimated
budget. The amendment needed for this item is $51,555.
Additional permit fees would finance the expenditures.
Attachments
• Resolution Amending the 2018 General Fund Budget for the Brookview Facility and Staff
Attorney (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution amending the 2018 General Fund Budget for the Brookview Facility
and Staff Attorney.
RESOLUTION NO. 18-85
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2018 GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR THE
BROOKVIEW FACILITY AND STAFF ATTORNEY
WHEREAS, in 2018, the Brookview Facilty has opened and the construction fund
overage needs to be funded by transfers; and
WHEREAS, in 2018, the need for Staff Attorney was discussed and approved at the
June 5, 2018 Council Meeting; and
WHEREAS, this amendment allocates Permit Revenues to those expenditures for
each area outlined below.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, that
the 2018 Amended General Fund Budget are hereby given final approval.
DIVISION
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
Expenses
006
004
Legal Services (1121.6340)
Transfers (1025.7110)
$51,555
$20,093
$71,648
Permit Revenues $71,648
TOTAL 2018 BUDGET
Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 18th day of December, 2018.
_____________________________
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
3. N. Receipt of November 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 Commission (Special Revenue Fund)
∼ Building Improvement Fund (Capital Projects Fund)
∼ Park Improvement Fund (Capital Projects Fund)
∼ Brookview Facility Financing (Capital Projects Fund)
General Fund Operations: As of November 2018, the City has used $4,096,824 of fund balance to
balance the General Fund Budget.
Attachments
• November 2018 General Fund (2 pages)
• November 2018 Conservation/Recycling Fund (1 page)
• November 2018 Water and Sewer Utility Fund (1 page)
• November 2018 Brookview Golf Course (1 page)
• November 2018 Motor Vehicle Licensing (1 page)
• November 2018 Storm Utility Fund (1 page)
• November 2018 Equipment Replacement Fund (1 page)
• November 2018 Brookview Center Fund (1 page)
• November 2018 Human Services Commission (1 page)
• November 2018 Building Improvement Fund (1 page)
• November 2018 Park Improvement Fund (1 page)
• November 2018 Brookview Facility - New Building Financing (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to receive and file the November 2018 Financial Reports.
Over %
2018 November YTD (Under)Of Budget
Budget Actual Actual Budget Expend.
001 Council $370,935 14,335 297,719 ($73,216)80.26%(3)
003 City Manager 813,410 52,798 666,934 (146,476)81.99%
004 Transfers Out 1,982,580 0 1,982,580 0 100.00%(1)
005 Admin. Services 1,986,970 146,881 1,769,928 (217,042)89.08%
006 Legal 158,100 12,171 184,240 26,140 116.53%(2)
007 Risk Management 310,000 0 328,780 18,780 106.06%(5)
011 General Gov't. Bldgs.732,680 56,966 575,708 (156,972)78.58%
016 Planning 409,655 23,041 286,577 (123,078)69.96%
018 Inspections 811,280 56,404 670,130 (141,150)82.60%(4)
022 Police 6,204,575 434,480 4,935,736 (1,268,839)79.55%
023 Fire 1,561,150 108,036 1,186,922 (374,228)76.03%(3)
035 Physical Dev Admin 309,505 19,564 261,147 (48,358)84.38%
036 Engineering 776,095 54,794 631,731 (144,364)81.40%
037 Streets 1,790,925 106,892 1,622,452 (168,473)90.59%
066 Park & Rec. Admin.737,210 40,916 634,305 (102,905)86.04%
067 Park Maintenance 1,215,945 88,721 1,067,104 (148,841)87.76%
068 Recreation Programs 445,385 46,916 351,285 (94,100)78.87%
TOTAL Expenditures $20,616,400 $1,262,915 $17,453,278 ($3,163,122)84.66%
(1) Transfers were made in June, 2018 except for Equipment Transfer of $882,580.
(2) Legal services are billed thru June. Staff Attorney started 7-16.
(3) 2017 Fund Balance Assigned -$65,,000 Fire ;$20,000 Council April 17, 2018
(4) 2018 Fund Balance Amended -$42,,000 Inspections Council April 3, 2018
(5) Dividend is sent in December.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report - General Fund Expenditures
November, 2018 (unaudited)
Division
83.00%
Over %
2018 November YTD (Under)of Budget
Type Budget Actual Actual Budget Received
Ad Valorem Taxes $17,253,460 0 9,520,623 ($7,732,837)55.18%(1)
Licenses 220,980 5,880 218,940 ($2,040)99.08%
Permits 929,785 104,375 1,530,969 $601,184 164.66%
State Aid 52,375 0 80,370 $27,995 153.45%(2)
County Aid 0 1,319 $1,319
Charges For Services:
General Government 25,250 949 25,777 $527 102.09%
Public Safety 160,900 1,680 185,218 $24,318 115.11%
Public Works 163,600 12,205 165,545 $1,945 101.19%
Park & Rec 415,550 17,938 375,336 ($40,214)90.32%
Other Funds 691,500 56,082 705,246 $13,746 101.99%
Fines & Forfeitures 320,000 37,178 335,743 $15,743 104.92%(3)
Interest On Investments 75,000 0 0 ($75,000)0.00%(4)
Miscellaneous Revenue 193,000 14,766 183,868 ($9,132)95.27%
Transfers In 30,000 2,500 27,500 ($2,500)91.67%(5)
TOTAL Revenue $20,531,400 $253,553 $13,356,454 ($7,174,946)65.05%
Notes:
(1) Payments are received in July, December, and January (delinquencies).
The first payment for taxes included some payments in full.
(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 October 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
November 2018 (unaudited)
Over
2018 November YTD (Under)%
Budget Actual Actual Budget Current
Revenue
Hennepin County Recycling Grant 42,875 1,622 49,522 6,647 115.50%(4)
Recycling Charges 382,520 34,456 293,702 (88,818)76.78%(2)
Miscellaneous Revenues 8,000 10,362 10,362 2,362
Interest on Investments 4,000 0 0 (4,000)0.00%(1)
Total Revenue 437,395 46,440 353,586 (83,809)80.84%
Expenses:
Recycling 461,605 24,010 336,669 (124,936)72.93%(3)
Total Expenses 461,605 24,010 336,669 (124,936)72.93%
(1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end.
(2) Includes utility billings thru November 2018.
(3) This includes the recycling services thru October 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
November r2018 (unaudited)
Over
2018 November YTD (Under)%
Budget Actual Actual Budget Current
Revenue
Water Charges 4,571,280 403,417 4,729,421 158,141 103.46%(1)
Emergency Water Supply 183,080 17,996 214,480 31,400 117.15%(2)
Sewer Charges 3,512,300 402,715 3,840,783 328,483 109.35%
Meter Sales 20,000 1,272 31,625 11,625 158.13%
Penalties 130,000 12,773 190,062 60,062 146.20%
Charges for Other Services 100,000 44,666 269,605 169,605 269.61%
State Water Testing Fee Pass Through 46,000 4,009 38,963 (7,037)84.70%
Sale of Assets 10,000 0 3,459 (6,541)34.59%
Franchise Fees 1,000,000 0 0 (1,000,000)0.00%
Certificate of Compliance 75,000 4,500 75,175 175 100.23%
Interest Earnings 25,000 0 0 (25,000)0.00%
Total Revenue 9,672,660 891,348 9,393,573 (279,087)97.11%
Expenses:
Utility Administration 2,930,400 163,753 2,000,689 (929,711)68.27%(3)
Sewer Maintenance 3,088,750 233,811 2,881,777 (206,973)93.30%
Water Maintenance 4,712,065 373,254 3,831,445 (880,620)81.31%
Total Expenses 10,731,215 770,818 8,713,911 (2,017,304)81.20%
(1) In April, Multi-Family Apartments were billed monthly instead of quarterly.
(2) Usage is up over 2018 due to dry fall and new apartments.
(3) Depreciation is allocated at year-end.
Further information about projects and financing are located in the 2018-2022 CIP and 2018-2019 Budget.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report - Water and Sewer Utility Enterprise Fund
November 2018 (unaudited)
Over
2018 November YTD (Under)%
Budget Actual Actual Budget Current
Revenue
Green Fees 920,950 2,884 807,920 (113,030)87.73%
Driving Range Fees 180,000 541 160,661 (19,339)89.26%
Par 3 Fees 170,000 8 149,147 (20,853)87.73%
Lawn Bowling 30,000 558 44,516 14,516 148.39%(4)
Pro Shop Sales 90,000 1,891 86,925 (3,075)96.58%
Pro Shop Rentals 300,000 2,099 296,305 (3,695)98.77%
Concession Sales 889,960 75,554 1,250,799 360,839 140.55%
Other Revenue 182,500 3,599 204,287 21,787 111.94%(3)
Interest Earnings 5,000 0 0 (5,000)0.00%(1)
Less: Credit Card Charges/Sales Tax (30,000)0 (4,425)25,575 14.75%
Total Revenue 2,738,410 87,134 2,996,135 257,725 109.41%
Expenses:
Golf Operations 802,410 37,166 641,033 (161,377)79.89%(2)
Course Maintenance 1,219,520 38,773 1,088,678 (130,842)89.27%
Pro Shop 124,400 8,565 145,686 21,286 117.11%
Grill 647,710 72,912 1,190,492 542,782 183.80%
Driving Range 74,300 1,323 61,840 (12,460)83.23%
Par 3 Course 26,640 317 27,192 552 102.07%
Lawn Bowling 8,380 0 11,742 3,362 140.12%
Banquet Staffing 25,400 1,216 30,812 5,412 121.31%
Total Expenses 2,928,760 160,272 3,197,475 268,715 109.18%
(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.
(4) Lawn Bowling opened August 1.
Further information about projects and financing are located in the 2018-2022 CIP and 2018-2019 Budget.
Fund Balance at end of 2017 was $919,024.
Fund Balance should be a minimum of $1,000,000 (4 months reserve). Cart purchase lowered this amount.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report - Brookview Golf Course Enterprise Fund
November 2018 (unaudited) Course opened April 27
Over
2018 November YTD (Under)%
Budget Actual Actual Budget Current
Revenue
Interest Earnings 2,880 0 0 (2,880)0.00%(1)
Charges for Services 469,965 29,241 407,681 (62,284)86.75%
Total Revenue 472,845 29,241 407,681 (65,164)86.22%
Expenses:
Motor Vehicle Licensing 423,335 31,148 389,199 (34,136)91.94%
Total Expenses 423,335 31,148 389,199 (34,136)91.94%
(1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report - Motor Vehicle Licensing Enterprise Fund
November 2018 (unaudited)
Over
2018 November YTD (Under)%
Budget Actual Actual Budget Current
Revenue
Interest Earnings 50,000 0 0 (50,000)0.00%(1)
Interest Earnings-Other 0 0 26,087 26,087
State DNR Grant 0 325,000 329,500 329,500 (6)
Storm Sewer Charges 2,475,000 211,188 2,182,186 (292,814)88.17%
Bassett Creek Watershed 0 0 149,429 149,429 (5)
Miscellaneous Receipts 313,300 75 140,576 (172,724)
Sale or Loss of Assets 0 0 1,500 1,500
Total Revenue 2,838,300 536,263 2,829,278 (9,022)99.68%
Expenses:
Storm Utility 2,707,450 82,035 1,241,793 (1,465,657)45.87%(2) (3)
Street Cleaning 128,595 27,843 96,829 (31,766)75.30%
Environmental Control 336,790 18,123 355,427 18,637 105.53%
Debt Service Payments 65,000 450 63,950 (1,050)0.00%(3)
Total Expenses 3,237,835 128,451 1,757,999 (1,479,836)54.30%(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
November 2018 (unaudited)
2018 Equipment Replacement Fund (CIP) - Fund 5700
2018 Nov YTD
Budget Total Actual Remaining
Revenues:
Sale of Assets 35,000 43,156 237,904 202,904
Miscellaneous 0 1,101 22,205 22,205
DUI Fund Transfer 40,000 0 130,000
Interest Earnings (allocated at year end)23,538 0 0 (23,538)
Total Revenues 98,538 44,257 390,109 201,571 (4)
Expenditures:
Program #Project Number Project Name
5701 V&E-001 Marked Squad Cars (Police)100,000 0 202,866 (102,866)(5)
5702 V&E-002 Computers and Printers (Finance)80,000 3,960 67,277 12,723 (1)
5706 V&E-009 Front End Loader (Street)260,000 107,145 244,821 15,179
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)
5786 V&E-060 Rescue Vehicle (Fire)90,000 0 41,494 48,506
V&E-095 Pickup Truck (Police)40,000 0 34,818 5,182
V&E-116 Bobcat Toolcat (Park)50,000 0 51,033 (1,033)
V&E-130 Rotary Mower (Park)25,000 0 13,996 11,004
5709 V&E-135 Body Cameras/Dash Cams/Software (Police)24,070 0 167,673 (143,603)(3)
V&E-145 Skid Steer Loader (Street)55,000 0 54,494 506
5710 V&E-151 Fire Pumper (Fire)600,000 0 602,461 (2,461)
Total Expenditures 2,019,070 111,105 2,386,686 (365,155)
(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 November YTD (Under)%
Budget Actual Actual Budget Current
Revenue
Brookview CC Rentals 157,815 15,776 154,097 (3,718)97.64%
Backyard Play Area 326,500 24,365 201,020 (125,480)61.57%
Miscellaneous Revenues 5,500 0 0 (5,500)0.00%
Interest on Investments 100 0 0 (100)0.00%(1)
Total Revenue 489,915 40,141 355,117 (134,798)72.49%
Expenses:
General Area Rooms 290,790 17,616 229,692 (61,098)78.99%(2)
Indoor Play Area 107,210 5,323 58,044 (49,166)54.14%
Banquet Facility 87,945 4,390 69,962 (17,983)79.55%
Total Expenses 485,945 27,329 357,698 (128,247)73.61%
(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
November 2018 (unaudited)
Over
2018 November YTD (Under)%
Budget Actual Actual Budget Current
Revenue
Pull Tab (10%) Revenues 30,000 2,088 32,928 2,928 109.76%(3)
Fundraisers 30,000 28 30,185 185 100.62%(4)
Interest on Investments 700 0 0 (700)0.00%(1)
Total Revenue 60,700 2,116 63,113 2,413 103.98%
Expenses:
Supplies 17,100 0 13,248 (3,852)77.47%(4)
Allocations 60,000 2,626 54,887 (5,113)91.48%(2)
(5)
Total Expenses 77,100 2,626 68,135 (8,965)88.37%
(1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end.
(2) Allocations in 2018 are $60,000.
(3) Pull Tab revenues are thru Aug.
(4) Solicitation Letters -$2,793-YTD; should be allocated to designation
(4) Run/Walk -$11,176 YTD (net)
(4) Golf Tourney/Lawn Bowling -$3,257 YTD (net)
(5) Crisis Connection is closing June 30. The $1750 will be reallocated in 2019.
Fund Balance at 12/31/17 was $213,524.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report - Human Services Commission
November, 2018 (unaudited)
2018 Building Improvement Fund (CIP) - Fund 5200
2018 November YTD
Budget Total Actual Remaining
Revenues:
Transfer from General Fund 350,000 0 350,000 0 (1)
Interest Earnings (allocated at year end)7,718 0 0 (7,718)
Total Revenues 357,718 0 350,000 (7,718)
Expenditures:
Project Name
5211 Carpet Replacement-City Buildings 30,000 0 19,880 10,120
5222 Generators 35,000 24,850 24,850 10,150
Air Compressor 10,000 0 0 10,000
5215 Installation of Building Security Systems 30,000 0 17,634 12,366
5201 Public Buildings Roof Replacement 270,000 132,876 166,661 103,339
5208 Workstation Replacements 40,000 0 54,913 (14,913)
Window Replacements-Various Buildings 25,000 0 0 25,000
Total Expenditures 440,000 157,726 283,938 156,062
(1)Transfer were made in June.
2018 Park Improvement Fund (CIP) - Fund 5600
2018 November YTD
Budget Total Actual Remaining
Revenues:
Transfer from General Fund 300,000 0 300,000 0
Park Dedication Fee 0 0 0 0
Hennepin County Youth Sports Grant 150,000 0 150,000 0
Little League/Youth Associations/Play Eq Grants 15,000 0 20,000 5,000
Other Donations 0 0 350 350
Interest Earnings (allocated at year end)4,915 0 0 (4,915)
Total Revenues 469,915 0 470,350 435
Expenditures:
Project Name
Bleacher, Etc Replacement 25,000 0 23,288 1,712
Park Trail and Parking Lot Improvements 40,000 0 67,264 (27,264)
Play Structure Replacement 55,000 0 15,921 39,079
Ball Field Lighting 250,000 0 261,727 (11,727)
Outdoor Basketball and Hoop Replacement 28,000 10,476 16,431 11,569
Park Signage Replacement 10,000 0 10,658 (658)
Sun Shelter Replacement/Additions 50,000 0 52,572 (2,572)
Tennis & Pickle Ball Court Resurfacing 30,000 0 459,526 (429,526)
Wildwood Pickleball Courts 60,000 0 0 60,000
Relamp Athletic Field and Rink Lights 25,000 0 17,975 7,025
Dugout, Fence and Field Replacement 55,000 5,000 41,613 13,387
Tennis Court Reconstruction 150,000 0 0 150,000
Total Expenditures 778,000 15,476 966,975 (188,975)
Further information about projects and financing are located in the 2018-2022 CIP and 2018-2019 Budget.
2018 Building Improvement Fund (CIP) - Fund 5500
YTD
Actual
Revenues:
Bond Proceeds 18,200,000
Centerpoint Rebates 8,825
Interest Earnings (allocated at year end)130,043
Total Revenues 18,338,868
Expenditures:
Project Name
5550 Building & Furnishings 18,357,829
Total Expenditures 18,357,829
Remaining Funds (18,961)(1)
Contracts remaining not in balance:
Fireside 1,132.19
(1)Discussion will remain on financing the shortfall.(20,093.26)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
3. O. Approval of 2019 Legislative Priorities
Prepared By
Timothy Cruikshank, City Manager
Summary
Council reviewed the 2019 Legislative Priorities at the December 11 Council Manager Meeting. Once
approved, Council will distribute the booklet at the Legislative Breakfast scheduled for February 9,
2019, at 9:30 am in Crystal.
Attachments
• City of Golden Valley 2019 Legislative Priorities (22 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the City of Golden Valley 2019 Legislative Priorities.
7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-8006
2019
Legislative Priorities
7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 · 763-593-8006Adopted by the City Council
7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-8006
Table Of Contents
1. Support Funding For Bike And Pedestrian Safety Improvements
To State Highway 55 ............................................................................3
The City of Golden Valley seeks funding to improve operations, safety, and mobility at the
intersections of Highway 55 and Winnetka Avenue and Highway 55 and Douglas Drive. Future
improvements would better accommodate vehicles, pedestrians, transit, etc.
2. Support Comprehensive Transportation Funding ...........................4
The City of Golden Valley supports dedicating more resources to all components of the state’s
transportation system and ensuring local units of government have access to resources and
funding tools to meet growing needs.
3. Continue To Adequately Fund The DNR Flood Reduction
Program For Local Projects ................................................................5
The City of Golden Valley is requesting legislative approval of funds through the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) Flood Damage Reduction Program to implement public improvements
within the DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road watershed. These projects would include
improvements within the Cities of Crystal, New Hope and Golden Valley and would include
flood storage, subwatershed diversion, and runoff rate control projects.
4. Support Funding For Local Government Aid ...................................6
The City of Golden Valley supports continued funding of the Local Government Aid (LGA)
component to help equalize tax base to ensure needs for public services can be met.
5. Support Funding For Metropolitan Council Inflow/Infiltration
Grants—Public And Private Improvements ......................................7
Because I/I reduction efforts benefit the entire metropolitan area, the City of Golden Valley
supports the state providing continued capital assistance for grants to cities as well as financial
assistance through future Clean Water Legacy Act appropriations.
6. Increase Infrastructure Funding By Modifying
Fiscal Disparities Formula ..................................................................8
The City of Golden Valley supports dedicating more resources to all components of the state’s
infrastructure systems and ensuring local government has access to resources and funding
tools to meet growing needs. By lowering the Fiscal Disparities contribution tax to 30 percent,
metro area cities can use the additional amount of property taxes received to help fund needed
infrastructure improvements, especially around their commercial/industrial areas (most of these
cities have infrastructure that was built before the early 1960s and needs to be replaced).
7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-8006 Page 1
City of Golden Valley 2019 Legislative PrioritiesCity of Golden Valley 2019 Legislative PrioritiesPage 2
These priorities are supported by the Golden Valley City Council, along with Metro Cities, League
of Minnesota Cities, and Regional Council of Mayors policies, and may be used by local officials
and staff to advocate for during the Legislative session.
7. Support Funding For Affordable And Workforce Housing .............9
The City of Golden Valley supports additional tools for local communities to develop and pre -
serve affordable and workforce housing.
8. Support Tax Incentives For Community Reinvestment ..................10
Golden Valley supports state programs and incentives for reinvestment in older residential and
commercial/industrial buildings, such as, but not limited to, tax credits and/or property tax
deferrals.
Appendix 1 ...............................................................................................12
Appendix 3 ...............................................................................................17
Appendix 5 ...............................................................................................20
7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-80067800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-8006 Page 3
1. Support Funding For Bike And Pedestrian
Safety Improvements To State Highway 55
City Position
The City of Golden Valley seeks funding to improve operations, safety, and mobility at the inter-
sections of Highway 55 and Winnetka Avenue and Highway 55 and Douglas Drive. Future im-
provements would better accommodate vehicles, pedestrians, transit, etc.
Issue
Highway 55 passes through Golden Valley from its east to west city limits, creating a barrier
between the northern and southern portions of the community. This results in significant delays
for motorists crossing the highway at any of the signalized intersections due to long signal timing
cycles that focus on moving traffic through the community. This barrier also creates difficult and
dangerous conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists who wish to cross the highway.
Actions
• Advocate for funding from the Minnesota Department of Transportation to study access ways
to provide community connectivity across Highway 55 at Winnetka Avenue to mitigate the
highway’s impact on the community ($100,000 for planning, $100,000 for design, $12 million for
construction).
• Advocate for funding of a pedestrian underpass and roadway improvements at Highway 55 and
Douglas Drive (County State Aid Highway 102). These improvements will facilitate safe passage
by pedestrians between transit stops on the highway and the Perpich Center for Arts Education,
and improve bike and pedestrian access to the Luce Line Regional Trail located on the north side
of Highway 55 ($50,000 for design, which is 60 percent complete, and $6 million for construc-
tion).
Additional Documents (See Appendix 1)
• Hwy 55 & Winnetka Concept (1 page)
• Hwy 55 & Douglas Dr - Proposed (1 page)
City of Golden Valley 2019 Legislative PrioritiesPage 4 City of Golden Valley 2019 Legislative Priorities
2. Support Comprehensive Transportation Funding
City Position
The City of Golden Valley supports dedicating more resources to all components of the state’s trans-
portation system and ensuring local units of government have access to resources and funding tools
to meet growing needs.
Issue
A comprehensive transportation system that meets the physical, social, and economic needs of
Golden Valley and the state requires adequate funding. This transportation system includes streets,
bridges, highways, transit, and multi-modal solutions.
Actions
• Support language regarding rail liability for the Blue Line Extension light rail transit project. (State
Statute 473.4052 Right-of-Way Use; Contracts; Liability. 107.19 Subd. 4. Application. The liability
limits under subdivision 2 and the insurance requirements under subdivision 3 apply only for that
segment of a light rail transit line or line extension in which the project formally entered the engi-
neering phase of the Federal Transit Administration’s “New Starts” capital investment grant program
between August 1, 2016 and January 31, 2017.)
• Provide full funding for the Blue Line Extension light rail transit project.
• Establish a sustainable formula to increase transit and transportation funding.
• Advocate for including improvements to US Highway 169 between I-394 and Medicine Lake Road in
the MnDOT Capital Improvement Plan.
• Advocate for full funding for Bus Rapid Transit on Highway 55.
7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-80067800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-8006 Page 5
3. Continue To Adequately Fund The DNR Flood
Damage Reduction Program For Local Projects
City Position
The City of Golden Valley is requesting legislative approval of funds through the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) Flood Damage Reduction Program to implement public improvements
within the DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road watershed. These projects would include
improvements within the Cities of Crystal, New Hope and Golden Valley and would include flood
storage, subwatershed diversion, and runoff rate control projects.
Issue
The City of Golden Valley experiences localized flooding in the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka
Avenue area, and flooding from Bassett Creek in numerous locations throughout the community.
This flooding causes damages to homes and businesses, and impacts infrastructure and emergen-
cy services.
Action
Advocate for continued full funding of the Minnesota DNR Flood Damage Reduction Program,
including funding of the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long Term Flood Mitiga-
tion Project.
Additional Documents (See Appendix 3)
• Map: DeCola Ponds Flood Mitigation Area (1 page)
City of Golden Valley 2019 Legislative PrioritiesPage 6 City of Golden Valley 2019 Legislative Priorities
4. Support Funding For Local Government Aid
City Position
The City of Golden Valley supports continued funding of the Local Government Aid (LGA) compo-
nent to help equalize tax base to ensure needs for public services can be met.
Issue
Golden Valley relies on LGA funding to help support public services. Currently no LGA funding has
been allocated for Golden Valley. In 2016, Golden Valley received $252,448 in LGA.
Actions
Advocate for the state to keep pace with inflationary pressures and support funding for the
current LGA formula. Golden Valley supports an increase in the LGA appropriation in at least the
level provided prior to 2016, as well as restoration of the annual inflation adjustment and ongoing
appropriation increases to the LGA formula to move toward funding the total unmet needs of all
cities.
7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-80067800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-8006 Page 7
5. Support Funding For Metropolitan Council
Inflow/Infiltration Grants—Public And
Private Improvements
City Position
Because I/I reduction efforts benefit the entire metropolitan area, the City of Golden Valley supports
the state providing continued capital assistance for grants to cities as well as financial assistance
through future Clean Water Legacy Act appropriations.
Issue
Many metro communities are contributing excess inflow and infiltration of clear water into the region-
al wastewater system. Excess I/I results in wastewater flows that exceed the capacity of conveyance
and treatment systems, resulting in significant environmental and public health issues and excessive
costs to upgrade these systems.
Action
Advocate for financial assistance through future Clean Water Legacy appropriations to metro area
cities with excess I/I. These resources should include assistance for cities to address I/I contributions
from private property.
Additional Documents (See Appendix 5)
• Memo: MCES I&I Grant Benefits - City of Golden Valley (1 page)
City of Golden Valley 2019 Legislative PrioritiesPage 8 City of Golden Valley 2019 Legislative Priorities
6. Increase Infrastructure Funding By Modifying
Fiscal Disparities Formula
City Position
The City of Golden Valley supports dedicating more resources to all components of the state’s
infrastructure systems and ensuring local government has access to resources and funding
tools to meet growing needs. By lowering the Fiscal Disparities contribution tax to 30 percent,
metro area cities can use the additional amount of property taxes received to help fund needed
infrastructure improvements, especially around their commercial/industrial areas (most of these
cities have infrastructure that was built before the early 1960s and needs to be replaced).
Issue
Golden Valley, like most cities in Minnesota and the nation at large, is facing a looming infrastruc-
ture crisis. All across the US, aging systems for water supply, sanitary sewer management, storm
water and flood control, transportation, etc, are in need of repair and/or replacement. In Golden
Valley, not only is much of its infrastructure a half a century or more old, but as populations grow,
it’s taking on service demands it was not built to handle.
Actions
Advocate for modifying the Fiscal Disparities formula so cities can fund needed infrastructure
improvements while keeping taxes and utility expenses lower than they inevitably would be if
this infrastructure problem is allowed to grow into a full-blown crisis.
7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-80067800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-8006 Page 9
7. Support Funding For Affordable And
Workforce Housing
City Position
The City of Golden Valley supports additional tools for local communities to develop and preserve
affordable and workforce housing.
Issue
Cities must ensure they provide a full range of housing choices in the community. As cities,
businesses, and the overall economy in the Minneapolis–St Paul region continues to grow, the
need for housing available to those with low and moderate incomes also grows. Failure to expand
housing options will impact the region’s ability to attract talent, grow its economy, and reinvest in
itself.
Actions
Advocate for policy and financial tools that support both the preservation of naturally occurring
affordable housing and construction of new affordable housing, including:
• modifying TIF statutes to clearly enable pooling of TIF revenue for affordable housing
• establishing a statewide notification requirement for rental properties prior to ownership
transfer
• increasing funding for the State’s rental rehab loan fund for naturally occurring affordable
housing and including use of the fund in the metro region
• enhancing State programs, policies, and funding allocations to promote and finance the pres-
ervation and construction of affordable housing, particularly for assisted, senior, and transi-
tional housing
• creating incentives for property owners to participate in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
Program to increase housing options for low and moderate income earners
• preserving and expanding the State 4d low-income property tax program that provides a
property tax benefit to qualifying low-income rental properties
City of Golden Valley 2019 Legislative PrioritiesPage 10 City of Golden Valley 2019 Legislative Priorities
8. Support Tax Incentives For Community
Reinvestment
City Position
Golden Valley supports state programs and incentives for reinvestment in older residential and com-
mercial/industrial buildings, such as, but not limited to, tax credits and/or property tax deferrals.
Issue
Golden Valley has aging residential and commercial structures that are in need of repair and reinvest-
ment. Reinvestment prevents neighborhoods from falling into disrepair, revitalizes community, and
protects the tax base.
Action
Advocate for state-funded programs that promote reinvestment in communities for residential and
commercial/Industrial property owners who make improvements that increase the property’s market
value.
7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-80067800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-8006 Page 11
City of Golden Valley 2019 Legislative PrioritiesPage 12 City of Golden Valley 2019 Legislative Priorities
Appendix 1. Support Funding For Bike
And Pedestrian Safety Improvements
To State Highway 55
Hwy 55 & Winnetka Concepts (1 page)
Hwy 55 & Douglas Dr - Proposed (1 page)
7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-80067800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-8006 Page 13
City of Golden Valley 2019 Legislative Priorities 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-8006Page 14 City of Golden Valley 2019 Legislative Priorities Page 15
Perpich Center for Arts Education
Ja!T
Ja!T
Æÿ55
4567102
Pedestrian
Underpass
CCoouunnttrryy CClluubb DDrr
Westchester CirWestchester CirDouglas Dr NDouglas Dr NO l s o n M e m o r i a l H w y F r o n t a g e R d
O l s o n M e m o r i a l H w y F r o n t a g e R d Douglas Dr NDouglas Dr NHwy 55 & Douglas Dr - Proposed
0 100 20050
Feet
Sources: Print Date: 4/1/2016
-Hennepin County Surve yors Office for
Property Lines (2016) & Aerial Photography (2015).
-City of Golden Valley for all other layers.I
Ja!T Tra nsit Stop
Pavement Edge
Sidewalk
Retaining Wall
La ne Line
Center Line
Crosswa lk
City of Golden Valley 2019 Legislative PrioritiesPage 16 City of Golden Valley 2019 Legislative Priorities
7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-80067800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-8006 Page 17
Appendix 3. Continue To Adequately Fund The
DNR Flood Damage Reduction
Program For Local Projects
Map: DeCola Ponds Flood Mitigation Area (1 page)
City of Golden Valley 2019 Legislative Priorities 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-80067800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-8006 Page 19Page 18 City of Golden Valley 2019 Legislative Priorities
Sandburg
Ball Fields
Isaacson
Park
Pennsylvania
Woods
Wildwood
Park
Golden Valley
New H op e
ProposedProposed
FloodFlood
Storage AreaStorage Area
Proposed FloodProposed Flood
Storage AreaStorage Area
Flood ProneFlood Prone
PropertiesProperties
FloodFlood
ProneProne
PropertiesProperties
Existing FloodExisting Flood
Inundation AreaInundation Area
0 400 800200
Feet
100-year Inundation
Area
Flood Prone Properties
Proposed Flood Storage
Area
Existing Flood
Inundation Area
Watershed Boundary of
Project Area
Project Location
DeCo la
Po nds
Medicine Lake RdMedicine Lake Rd Douglas Dr NDouglas Dr NWinnetka Ave NWinnetka Ave N32nd Ave N32nd Ave N
Olympia StOlympia StBBoooonneeAAvveeDuluth StDuluth St Hampshire AveHampshire AveBrunswick AveBrunswick AveSandburg RdSandburg RdLouisiana AveLouisiana AveNevada AveNevada AveNevada Ave NNevada Ave NCrystal
Golden Valley
New Hope DeCola Ponds,
Medicine Lake Road
and Winnetka Avenue
Long-Term Flood
Mitigation Plan
I
Print Date: 1/22/2015
Sources:
-Hennepin County Surveyors Office for
aerial photography (2012 ).
-MnDNR for city boundary lines & road
data (2014).
-Barr for 100-year inundation area &
wa tershed boun dary of proje ct area (2014).
-City of Golden Valley for all o ther laye rs.
City of Golden Valley 2019 Legislative PrioritiesPage 20 City of Golden Valley 2019 Legislative Priorities
Appendix 5. Support Funding For Metropolitan
Council Inflow/Infiltration
Grants—Public And Private
Improvements
Memo: MCES I&I Grant Benefits – City of Golden Valley (1 page)
7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-8006
G:\Communications\City Council\Legislative Policies\2016\Appendices\MCES Grant Benefit Memo.docx
Date: January 28, 2016
To: Tim Cruikshank, City Manager
From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer
R.J. Kakach, EIT, Engineer
Subject: MCES I&I Grant Benefits – City of Golden Valley
The City of Golden Valley has utilized funding from the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services
(MCES) Grant Programs to reduce Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) in both the public and private sewer
systems over the past several years. The public grants have provided additional funding to allow
expanded scopes on projects and decreased timelines on I&I reduction programs. For example, as part
of the annual street reconstruction projects, we have been able to increase sewer lining and manhole
sealing quantities with the extra grant money that was available. Also, we were able to expedite a five
to seven year sanitary sewer manhole cover replacement program into four years with additional
funding from MCES.
The 2013-2014 MCES private sewer grant allowed residents to repair their sanitary sewer lateral and
be reimbursed by MCES at 33% of the repair cost up to $2,000. The available funding through this
grant was so popular that City staff had to turn away applicants. Nearly 300 properties applied for the
grant over the two year period. This reimbursement opportunity from MCES led to an increase in I&I
compliance with the City Ordinance. The Ordinance requires all properties to become compliant prior
to the sale of a property. This allows the City to gradually reduce I&I in the private system. The grant
money attracted interest from properties all over the City, including people who were not selling their
home. This extra interest in becoming I&I compliant from the available MCES grant funding helped
propel the City forward in their I&I mitigation efforts.
The public and private grants provided by MCES have helped to lower Golden Valley’s annual sanitary
sewer flows over the past five years. The public grant has allowed for more thorough I&I reduction to
be done with street reconstruction projects and I&I mitigation programs whereas the private grant
increased interest in becoming compliant with the City’s I&I Ordinance. The additional funding from
MCES has pushed Golden Valley ahead in their goal to reduce I&I in the sanitary sewer system.
Back cover photo by Stan Waldhauser (Tamarack Bog 2017)
City of Golden Valley 2019 Legislative Priorities
City of Golden Valley 2019 Legislative Priorities
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
3. P. Approve Contract with Avolve Software for Plan Review Software
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Golden Valley currently runs all permitting on a system from LOGIS called Permit and Inspections
Software (PIMS). As we move toward accepting plans electronically from our customers, staff felt
that we needed a software package that would allow us to track plans, make changes, and store
plans electronically.
Avolve Software is used by six cities that currently run PIMS. Those cities are Edina, Maple Grove,
Shakopee, St Louis Park, Apple Valley and Minnetonka. Various staff members took field trips to
three cities and concluded Avolve would meet their needs for review, approval and storage.
During the 2019-2020 budget review, this software was pointed out as an expenditure for future
needs of the Inspections Department. Although budgeted in Inspections, Engineering, Fire, and
Public Works will all be using the software for plan review.
The contract has been reviewed by the city attorney and staff. The contract is for $130,000 for
five years. Staff will implement Avolve early 2019.
Attachments
• Avolve License and Support Agreement (25 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize City Manager to sign the Contract with Avolve for $130,000.
Customer Sales Order and Agreement (02092017) Page 1 of 25
AVOLVE SOFTWARE SALES ORDER
Traditional On‐Premises Licensee
After signing this Avolve Software Order From (“Software Sales Order”), please either mail or fax to Avolve
Software Corporation, 4835 E. Cactus Road, Suite 420, Scottsdale, Arizona 85254, or e‐mail scanned image to
pgosselin@avolvesoftware.com
Order Date: 12/29/18
CUSTOMER INFORMATION
Customer Name: Golden Valley MN
Customer Mailing
Address:
7800 Golden Valley Rd
City: Golden Valley State: MN Zip: 55427
CUSTOMER CONTACTS
PRIMARY SECONDARY
Name: Tim Cruikshank
Phone: (763) 593‐8000
E‐mail: tcruikshank@goldenvalleymn.gov
Name: Mark Nevinski
Phone: (763) 593‐8000
E‐mail: mnevinski@goldenvalleymn.gov
Licenses and Services Fees*
X ProjectDox License
$75,900.00
X Implementation Services
$38,700.00
X Training
$15,400.00
Total Fees: $ 130,000.00
Total Fees Invoiced on Signing: $ 130,000.00
* See Quote and/or relevant Schedules for details concerning fees. Fees do not include applicable sales,
withholdings or value‐added taxes. All fees are in United States Dollars.
Authorized Business Unit(s): ______Golden Valley, MN_______________________________
Initial Maintenance Term (if applicable): 60 months, calculated from the Go Live Date#.
Initial Hosting Services Term (if applicable): NA months, calculated from NA
License Term (if applicable): 60 months, calculated from the Go Live Date#.
Payment Method: EFT
#”Go Live Date” is defined as the date that the Software is first made available by Avolve to the Customer to release
and use in a live, production mode.
Page 2 of 25
Schedules: The following Schedules are hereby incorporated by reference into this Software Sales Order.
Schedule A General Terms and Conditions
[Schedule B Implementation SOW or title of SOW to be included for Other Professional Services]
Signature
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, each by a duly authorized representative, have executed this Software
Sales Order as of the Order Date first set forth above:
Customer: Golden Valley, MN Avolve Software Corporation
Signature: Signature:
Printed: Printed:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
Page 3 of 25
Quote Delivered To
Beth Yurchisin IT Manager City of Golden Valley, MN
7800 Golden Valley Rd byurchisin@goldenvalleymn.gov (763) 593-8000
Golden Valley, MN
55427 Date of Quote: 9/21/2018 Quote Valid Until: 12/21/2018
ProjectDox ePlan Solution Pricing Agreement
PRODUCTS
Product Name Product Code Description Qty Unit Price Total Price
ProjectDox Tier 4
Software PKG-PDOX 4 SW
Package Includes:
ProjectDox Core Production & Test
Environment – 5 Yr Term License
Base Integration
1 Best In Class Workflow
1.00 $75,900.00 $75,900.00
Products Sub-Total: $75,900.00
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Product Name Product Code Description Qty Unit Price Total Price
ProjectDox Tier 4
Professional Services
Bundle
PKG-PDOX 4 PS
BNDL
Package Includes:
Account Orientation and Kickoff
Documentation
Installation
Configuration
Soft Launch
System Acceptance
Base Integration Services to LOGIS
1.00 $38,700.00 $38,700.00
Professional Services Sub-Total: $38,700.00
TRAINING
Product Name Product Code Description Qty Unit Price Total Price
ProjectDox Tier 4
Training
PKG-PDOX 4
TRN
Implementation Training Package Includes:
1 Introduction to ProjectDox
1 Introduction to Markup
1 Workflow Training for Reviewers
1 Workflow Training for Coordinators
1 Pilot Workshop Class
1 Community Outreach Class
1 Project Administration Class
1 System Administration Class
1.00 $15,400.00 $15,400.00
Training Sub-Total: $15,400.00
Software and 20% of Services and Training to be invoiced upon execution of contract.
Remaining Services will be based on milestone payments outlined within the
Statement of Work below. Payment is due 30 days from date of invoice. 1.5% service
charge per month will be applied after 30 days of invoice date. (18% per annum)
Travel and Expense are not included within this proposal.
ProjectDox Total:
$130,000.00
Page 4 of 25
Special Terms and Conditions
1. Pricing will expire 12/31/2018
2. LOGIS will be responsible for Support pertaining to Server/Infrastructure
3. LOGIS will be responsible for PIMS Integration
4. Additional Configuration above Best‐In‐Class will require a Discovery and Change Order
5. All Professional Services work will start in 2019. No work will be incurred in 2018.
Page 5 of 25
Schedule A – General Terms and Conditions
SOFTWARE LICENSE AND SUPPORT AGREEMENT
General Terms and Conditions (GTCs)
1. DEFINITIONS.
1.1 “Add‐on” means any custom application code authorized to be developed using Avolve APIs as set forth in
the documentation accompanying such API and these GTCs.
1.2 “Agreement” means these GTCs, the Software Sales Order, the SOW or other agreement referencing these
GTCs. All such components are integral to the agreement, and collectively are referred to herein as the
“Agreement”.
1.3 “API” means Avolve’s application programming interfaces, as well as other Avolve code and database
elements that allow other software products to communicate with or call on Avolve Software provided under this
Agreement.
1.4 “Avolve Materials” means any software, programs, tools, systems, data, or other materials made available
by Licensor to Licensee in the course of the performance under this Agreement including, but not limited to, the
API, Software and Documentation, as well as any information, materials or feedback provided by Licensee to
Avolve relating to the Software and Documentation.
1.5 “Avolve Support” means the support set forth in Exhibit A to these GTCs, and may be purchased for an
additional fee. Avolve has no obligation to provide any Avolve Support and, in particular, no Avolve Support
(including no bug fixes or updates) will be available after the end of life of the applicable Software version. Avolve
reserves the right to provide some or all Avolve Support from locations, and/or through use of third party
providers, located worldwide.
1.6 “Business Unit” means a logical element, or segment, of the Licensee representing a specific business
function, as existing on the effective date of the license grant. Business Units may be referred to as a department,
group, division or functional area.
1.7 “Confidential Information” means, with respect to Avolve, all information which Avolve protects against
unrestricted disclosure to others, including but not limited to: (a) the Software and Documentation and other
Avolve Materials, including without limitation the following information regarding the Software: (i) computer
software (object and source codes), programming techniques and programming concepts, methods of processing,
system designs embodied in the Software; (ii) benchmark results, manuals, program listings, data structures, flow
charts, logic diagrams, functional specifications, file formats; and (iii) discoveries, inventions, concepts, designs,
flow charts, documentation, product specifications, application program interface specifications, techniques and
processes relating to the Software; (b) the research and development or investigations of Avolve; (c) product
offerings, content partners, product pricing, product availability, technical drawings, algorithms, processes, ideas,
techniques, formulas, data, schematics, trade secrets, know‐how, improvements, marketing plans, forecasts and
strategies; and (d) any information about or concerning any third party (which information was provided to Avolve
subject to an applicable confidentiality obligation to such third party). With respect to Licensee, “Confidential
Information” means all information which Licensee protects against unrestricted disclosure to others and which (i)
if in tangible form, Licensee clearly identifies as confidential or proprietary at the time of disclosure; and (ii) if in
intangible form (including disclosure made orally or visually), Licensee identifies as confidential at the time of
disclosure, summarizes the Confidential Information in writing, and delivers such summary within thirty (30)
calendar days of any such disclosure.
1.8 “Documentation” means Avolve’s standard end user documentation which is delivered or made available
to Licensee with the Software under this Agreement.
Page 6 of 25
1.9 “Intellectual Property Rights” means patents of any type, design rights, utility models or other similar
invention rights, copyrights, mask work rights, trade secret or confidentiality rights, trademarks, trade names and
service marks and any other intangible property rights, including applications and registrations for any of the
foregoing, in any country, arising under statutory or common law or by contract and whether or not perfected,
now existing or hereafter filed, issued, or acquired.
1.10 “Licensee” means the specific legal entity set forth on the Software Sales Order.
1.11 “License Term” means the time period that the Software is licensed to Licensee, as specified on the
Software Sales Order.
1.12 “ProjectDox® Instance” means Avolve’s proprietary core application and software framework for enhanced
electronic plan submission, and review and collaboration built upon a multi‐tier cluster hardware architecture
consisting of web server(s), application server(s), and job processor(s) that supports the processing of the API.
1.13 “Software” means (i) the API, ProjectDox® Instances and/or other software licensed to Licensee under this
Agreement as specified on the applicable Software Sales Orders, as developed by or for Avolve and delivered to
Licensee hereunder; (ii) any new releases thereof made available to Licensee as part of Avolve Support and (iii) any
complete or partial copies of any of the foregoing.
1.14 “Software Sales Order” means the sales order, sales agreement, purchase order or like conveyance
document for the Software, related Avolve Support and/or other services ordered by Licensee thereunder. If
Licensee is purchasing directly from Avolve, then the Software Sales Order will be between Avolve and Licensee. If
Licensee is purchasing through an authorized Avolve reseller, then the Sales Order will be between Licensee and
the Authorized Reseller.
1.15 “SOW” means those statements‐of‐work which Licensee may enter into from time‐to‐time for professional
services to be provided by Avolve on terms mutually agreed to in writing in the SOW, including, without limitation,
scope of services, expected deliverables, milestone dates, acceptance procedures and criteria, fees and other such
matters. No SOW shall be binding until executed by both parties. Unless expressly stated otherwise in a SOW, all
fees are in United States dollars. SOWs may be entered into directly between Avolve and Licensee or may be
executed between Licensee and an authorized Avolve reseller, but in either case, the professional services
provided thereunder shall be provided by Avolve unless expressly stated otherwise in the SOW.
1.16 “Territory” means the world except for those countries prohibited by United States’ export laws, and
further subject to Section 12.4 of the GTC.
1.17 “Use” means to activate the processing capabilities of the Software, load, execute, access, employ the
Software, or display information resulting from such capabilities.
1.18 “User” means authorized Licensee employees and third parties that require access to the Software in
connection with Licensee’s internal business operations, such as Licensee’s administrators, contractors, reviewers,
and applicants.
2. SOFTWARE AND SERVICES.
2.1.1 “Licensee” means Alvolve Software Corp., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at
4835 East Cactus Road #420, Scottsdale, Arizona 85254.
2.1.2 “Licensor” means the City of Golden Valley, a Minnesota municipal corporation with its principal place of
business at 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota.
2.1.3 Software. Subject to Licensee’s compliance with all the terms and conditions of this Agreement and
prompt payment of all fees owed for use of the Software, Documentation and other Avolve Materials, Avolve
grants to Licensee a non‐exclusive, non‐transferable, non‐sublicensable (except for the limited right to allow Users
Page 7 of 25
to Use set forth in this Section 2.1.1) license during the License Term to Use the Software, Documentation, and
other Avolve Materials to run Licensee’s internal business operations and to provide internal training and testing
for such internal business operations, solely for the specific Business Unit(s) as further set forth in the Software
Sales Order. Should Licensee desire to reorganize any such Business Unit, it shall provide Avolve written notice as
soon as possible following the determination of reorganization, so that Avolve may review the planned
reorganization to determine if it is consistent with the Business Unit limitation in this license grant and, if not, what
additional fees will be required due to Licensee’s reorganization to include additional Business Units.
2.1.4 Restrictions. Licensee will, and will ensure that its Users, only use the Software in accordance with the
Documentation. Licensee will not, and will ensure that its Users do not: (i) copy or duplicate the Software in excess
of the number of licenses purchased (for production use) or otherwise authorized under this Agreement (for non‐
production use); (ii) use the Avolve Materials to provide services to third parties (e.g., business process
outsourcing, service bureau applications or third party training); (ii) assign, sublicense, sell, lease, loan, resell,
sublicense or otherwise distribute or transfer or convey the Avolve Materials, or pledge as security or otherwise
encumber Licensee’s rights under this Agreement; (iii) make any Use of or perform any acts with respect to the
Avolve Materials other than as expressly permitted in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; or (iv) use
Software components other than those specifically identified in the Software Sales Order and then only as part of
the Software as a whole, even if it is also technically possible for Licensee to access other Software components; or
(v) modify, further develop or create any derivative works of, disassemble, decompile, reverse engineer or
otherwise attempt to obtain or perceive the source code from which any part of the Software is compiled or
interpreted, or access or use the Software in order to build a similar or competitive product or service; (vi)
distribute the Software in any form other than the form delivered by Avolve to License or otherwise permitted
under this Agreement; or (vii) publish any results of benchmark tests run on the Software. Licensee acknowledges
that nothing herein will be construed to grant Licensee any right to obtain or use the source code. Licensee
acknowledges that the Software may contain self‐reporting technology by which Avolve may receive information
deemed relevant by Avolve to providing Avolve Support, improving the Avolve Materials, monitoring compliance,
and any other purposes as determined by Avolve in its reasonable discretion. Licensee shall not tamper with or
attempt to disable such self‐reporting technology. Licensee agrees to take all commercially reasonable steps to
ensure that Users abide by the terms of this Agreement and expressly agrees to indemnify Avolve, its officers,
employees, agents and subcontractors from and against all claims, liabilities, losses, damages and costs (including
reasonable attorney fees) suffered by Avolve arising from a breach by the User of the conditions of this
Agreement.
2.1.5 High‐Risk Activities. The Software is not fault‐tolerant and is not designed, manufactured, or intended for
use or resale as online control equipment in hazardous environments requiring fail‐safe performance, such as in
the operation of nuclear facilities, aircraft navigation or communication systems, air traffic control, direct life
support machines or weapons systems, in which the failure of the Software or derived binaries could lead directly
to death, personal injury, or severe physical or environmental damage (collectively, “High Risk Activities”).
Licensee shall not use the Software for any High Risk Activities.
2.1.6 Third Party Components. The Software and its component parts are protected by copyright and other
propriety rights of Avolve and one or more third party software vendors (including Open Text Corporation (“OTC”)
(all such third party vendors, including without limitation Oracle and OTC, shall be referred to herein as “third
party vendors” or “third party software vendors”). Licensee may be held directly responsible by such third party
vendors for acts relating to the Software component parts that are not authorized by this Agreement. Licensee’s
use of such third party software is limited to only in conjunction with the Software and Licensee acknowledges that
it is not allowed to modify such third party software or use it independent from the Software. TO THE MAXIMUM
EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THE LICENSEE WAIVES, AND WILL CAUSE ITS USERS TO WAIVE, ALL CLAIMS AND
CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST SUCH THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE VENDORS THAT ARISE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT.
2.1.7 Copies. Licensee may make one copy of the Software for back‐up/archival purposes only, if the copy
contains all of the original Software’s proprietary notices. For the avoidance of any doubt, unless expressly set
forth otherwise in the applicable Software Sales Order, such additional copy may not be run concurrently, either in
Page 8 of 25
production mode to increase performance or in a non‐production mode for testing, development or any other
purpose. Should Licensee desire to run additional copies of the Software concurrently, additional license rights
must be purchased by Licensee.
2.1.8 Ownership. Licensee acknowledges and agrees that Licensor owns all right, title, and interest in and to
all intellectual property rights (including all derivatives or improvements thereof) in the Software and any
suggestions, enhancements requests, feedback, recommendations or other information provided by Licensee or
any of its Users related to the Software. Licensee’s rights in the Software, updates (provided Licensee has
purchased Avolve Support), and the related materials supplied by Licensor pursuant to this Agreement are strictly
limited to the right to use the proprietary rights in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. No right of
ownership, expressed or implied, is granted under this Agreement.
2.1.9 API Use. Provided that Licensee has been authorized by Licensor in writing to build Add‐Ons (which
authorization may be withdrawn by Avolve at any time upon written notice to Licensee), Licensee may use the API
to create custom Add‐Ons solely as set forth in Section 6 below. While Avolve currently does not charge for use of
the API, Avolve reserves the right to charge a fee for the use of the API in the future. Should Avolve implement a
fee for the API, prior written notice will be given to Customers who are currently using the API.
2.1.10 Approved Hardware. Licensee agrees to install the Software only on information technology devices (e.g.
servers, hard disks, central processing units or other hardware) identified by Licensee pursuant to this Agreement
and that have been previously approved by Avolve in writing or otherwise officially made known to the public by
Avolve as appropriate for Use or interoperation with the Software (the “Designated Unit”).
2.2 Outsourcing Services. With Avolve’s prior written consent, Licensee may permit services providers to
access the Software solely for the purpose of providing facility, implementation, systems, application management
or disaster recovery services to Licensee in connection with the business of Licensee for which the Software is
herein licensed. Licensee agrees to be responsible to Avolve for the conduct of Licensee’s services providers to the
same extent that Licensee is responsible to Avolve hereunder for the conduct of Licensee’s employees.
2.3 Services. Avolve may provide Avolve Support or other professional services from time to time as mutually
agreed upon by the parties from time to time in a Software Sales Order and/or SOW.
3. VERIFICATION. Avolve shall be permitted to audit (at least once annually and in accordance with Avolve
standard procedures, which may include on‐site and/or remote audit) the usage of the Avolve Materials. Licensee
shall cooperate reasonably in the conduct of such audits. In the event an audit reveals that (i) Licensee underpaid
license fees and/or Avolve Support fees to Avolve and/or (ii) that Licensee has Used the Software in excess of the
license quantities or levels stated in the Software Sales Order, Licensee shall pay such underpaid fees and/or for
such excess usage based on Avolve List of Prices and Conditions Software and Support governing use in effect at
the time of the audit, and shall execute an additional Software Sales Order in accordance with the terms of this
Agreement to affect the required licensing of any additional quantities or levels. Avolve reserves all rights at law
and equity with respect to both Licensee’s underpayment of License fees or Avolve Support fees and usage in
excess of the license quantities or levels.
4. PRICE, PAYMENT, AND DELIVERY.
4.1 Fees. Licensee shall pay to Avolve (if purchasing directly from Avolve) or to Avolve’s authorized reseller (if
purchasing through a reseller) license fees for the Software and fees for Avolve Support as set forth on the
Software Sales Order(s) and Exhibit B: Implementation SOW attached hereto and incorporated herein. In addition,
if Licensee purchases any professional service fees from Avolve, Licensee shall pay to Avolve the fees set forth on
any SOWs. All fees, unless expressly stated otherwise on the applicable Software Sales Order, shall be in United
States dollars. For fees owed to Avovle, any fees not paid when due shall, unless otherwise specified in the
applicable Software Sales Order or SOW, shall be paid within thirty (35) calendar days from the date of the invoice.
Fees not paid within 35 days of the invoice date shall accrue interest at the rate of 18% (eighteen percent) per
annum, but not to exceed the maximum amount as allowed by law. In the event of a conflict between this
Page 9 of 25
paragraph and any applicable Software Sales Order or SOW, the terms of the SOW shall control. Licensee agrees to
provide Avolve with complete and accurate billing and contact information.
4.2 Taxes. Fees and other charges described in this Agreement do not include federal, state or local sales,
foreign withholding, use, excise, service, or similar transaction taxes now or hereafter levied, all of which shall be
for Licensee’s account (“Tax(es)”). Any applicable direct pay permits or valid tax‐exempt certificates must be
provided to Avolve prior to the execution of this Agreement. If Avolve is required to pay Taxes, Licensee shall
reimburse Avolve for such amounts.
4.3 Delivery of the Software; Installation. Licensor will deliver the Software either by making it available for
electronic download or by physical delivery of media to Licensee. Risk of loss passes at the time of such electronic
or physical delivery. Licensee agrees and understands that the calculation of Taxes may be affected by the delivery
method and delivery location of the Software and corresponding Avolve Support. Licensee agrees to promptly,
following initial delivery of the Software, but in all cases within ninety (90) days, to provide Licensor with
reasonable access to Licensee’s facilities and systems in order for Licensor to initially install the Software. Unless
agreed to in writing by Licensor, Licensee understands that it is not authorized to conduct the initial installation of
the Software. For the avoidance of any doubt, all installation services are professional services provided by Avolve
under a SOW.
5. TERM.
5.1 Term. Except as set forth otherwise in Section 5.3 below or if terminated earlier in accordance with this
Section 5, this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue for the longer of either (a) the
expiration of the License Term set forth on all the Software Sales Order or (b) the completion of all professional
services under all SOWs.
5.2 Termination. In addition to any termination rights that may be set forth in a specific Software Sales Order
or SOW, either party may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice in the event that the other
party materially breaches this Agreement and thereafter has failed to cure such material breach (or commenced
diligent efforts to cure such breach that are reasonably acceptable to the terminating party) within thirty (30) days
after receiving written notice thereof. In the event of a conflict in termination rights between this License Grant
5.3 End of Term Duties. Upon any termination of the Agreement hereunder (which would terminate all
existing License Terms and SOWs), (a) Licensee and its Users shall immediately cease Use of all Avolve Materials
and Confidential Information and (b) Avolve shall immediately cease all professional services. Within thirty (30)
days after any termination, Licensee shall irretrievably destroy or upon Licensor’s request deliver to Licensor all
copies of the Avolve Materials and Confidential Information in every form, except to the extent Licensee is legally
required to keep such materials for a longer period in which case such return or destruction shall occur at the end
of such period. Licensee must certify to Licensor in writing that it has satisfied its obligations under this Section
5.3. Sections 2.1.4, 2.1.6, 3, 4.1, 4.2, 5, 6.1, 8 ‐ 10, 12.1 ‐ 12.3, 12.5, 12.6, and 12.8‐12.11 shall survive such
termination. In the event of any termination hereunder, Licensee shall not be entitled to any refund of any
payments made by Licensee. Termination shall not relieve Licensee from its obligation to pay undisputed fees that
remain unpaid.
6. Add‐Ons.
6.1 Conditioned on Licensee’s compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Licensee may
make Add‐ons to the Software in furtherance of its permitted Use under this Agreement, and shall be permitted to
use Add‐ons with the Software in accordance with the License grant to the Software set forth in Section 2.1.1
herein. All Add‐ons developed by Avolve (either independently or jointly with Licensee or other third parties) and
all rights associated therewith shall be the exclusive property of Avolve. Licensee agrees to execute those
documents reasonably necessary to secure Avolve’s rights in the foregoing. All Add‐ons developed by or on behalf
of Licensee without Avolve’s participation (“Licensee Add‐on”), and all rights associated therewith, shall be the
exclusive property of Licensee subject to Avolve’s rights in and to the Software; provided, Licensee shall not
Page 10 of 25
commercialize, market, distribute, license, sublicense, transfer, assign or otherwise alienate any such Licensee
Add‐ons. Avolve retains the right to independently develop its own Add‐ons to the Software, and Licensee agrees
not to take any action that would limit Avolve’s sale, assignment, licensing or use of its own Software or Add‐ons
thereto.
6.2 Any Licensee Add‐on must not (and subject to other limitations set forth herein): enable the bypassing or
circumventing any of the restrictions set forth in this Agreement and/or provide Licensee with access to the
Software to which Licensee is not directly licensed; nor permit mass data extraction from Software to any non‐
Avolve software, including use, modification saving or other processing of data in the non‐Avolve software; nor
unreasonably impair, degrade or reduce the performance or security of the Software; nor render or provide any
information concerning Avolve software license terms, Software, or any other information related to Avolve
products.
6.3 Add‐ons are excluded from Avolve Support. Licensee may purchase support from Avolve for Add‐ons as
professional services under an SOW.
7. WARRANTY.
7.1 Warranty. Licensor warrants that the Software will substantially conform to the specifications contained in
the Documentation for thirty (30) days following the Go Live Date. The warranty shall not apply: (i) if the Software
is not used in accordance with the Documentation; (ii) if the Software is not initially installed within the time
period set forth in Section 4.3 above, unless such failure to timely install is due to the fault of Licensor; or (iii) if the
defect is caused by an Add‐on (other than an Add‐on made solely by Licensor and which is provided through
Avolve Support or under warranty), Licensee or third‐party software. Licensor does not warrant that the Software
will operate uninterrupted or that it will be free from minor defects or errors that do not materially affect such
performance, or that the applications contained in the Software are designed to meet all of Licensee’s business
requirements. Provided Licensee notifies Licensor in writing with a specific description of the Software’s
nonconformance within the warranty period and Licensor validates the existence of such nonconformance,
Licensor will, at its option: a) repair or replace the nonconforming Software, or b) refund the license fees paid for
the applicable nonconforming Software in exchange for a return of such nonconforming Software. THIS IS
LICENSEE’S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY UNDER THIS WARRANTY.
7.2 Express Disclaimer. AVOLVE AND ITS LICENSORS DISCLAIM ALL OTHER WARRANTIES STATUTORY, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF TITLE, NON‐INFRINGEMENT,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
8. INDEMNIFICATION.
8.1 Infringement. If a third party makes a claim against the Licensee that any Use of the Software in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement infringes such third party’s intellectual property rights, Licensor, at
its sole cost and expense, will defend and indemnify Licensee against the claim and indemnify Licensee from all
damages, losses, liabilities, costs and expenses awarded by the court to the third party claiming infringement or
the settlement agreed to by Licensor, provided that Licensee: (i) notifies Licensor promptly in writing of the claim;
(ii) gives Licensor sole control of the defense and any settlement negotiations; and (iii) gives Licensor reasonable
assistance in the defense of such claim. If Licensor believes or it is determined that the Software has violated a
third party’s intellectual property rights, Licensor may choose to either modify the Software to be non‐infringing or
obtain a license to allow for continued use, or if these alternatives are not commercially reasonable, Licensor may
terminate Licensee’s use rights and refund any unused, prepaid fees Licensee may have paid to Licensor. Licensor
will not indemnify the Licensee to the extent that the alleged infringement arises from (1) the combination,
operation, or use of the Software with products, services, information, materials, technologies, business methods
or processes not furnished by Licensor (including without limitation use on other than a Designated Unit); (2)
modifications to the Software, which modifications are not made by Licensor; (3) failure to use updates to the
Software provided by Licensor; or (4) use of the Software except in accordance with any applicable user
documentation or specifications.
Page 11 of 25
8.2 THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION 8 STATE THE SOLE, EXCLUSIVE, AND ENTIRE LIABILITY OF AVOLVE AND
ITS LICENSORS TO LICENSEE, AND IS LICENSEE’S SOLE REMEDY, WITH RESPECT TO THE INFRINGEMENT OR
MISAPPROPRIATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.
9. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY.
In no event will Licensor or its licensors be liable for special, indirect, incidental, consequential, or exemplary
damages, including, without limitation, legal fees and any damages resulting from loss of use, loss of profits, loss of
data, interruption of business activities, or failure to realize savings arising out of or in connection with this
Agreement, including without limitation supply, use or performance of the Software and the provision of the
Avolve Support and other services. Except for direct damages and expenses associated with Licensor’s obligation
to indemnify Licensee pursuant to Section 8.2, Licensor’s aggregate, cumulative liability for damages and expenses
arising out of this Agreement, whether based on a theory of contract or tort, including negligence and strict
liability, will be limited to the amount of fees receive by Licensor under this Agreement. Such fees reflect and are
set in reliance upon this limitation of liability. The limited remedies set forth in this Agreement shall apply
notwithstanding the failure of their essential purpose.
10. CONFIDENTIALITY.
10.1 Use of Confidential Information. Confidential Information shall not be reproduced in any form except as
required to accomplish the intent of this Agreement. Any reproduction of any Confidential Information of the
other shall remain the property of the disclosing party and shall contain any and all confidential or proprietary
notices or legends which appear on the original. With respect to the Confidential Information of the other, each
party: (a) shall take commercially reasonable steps to keep all Confidential Information strictly confidential; and (b)
shall not disclose any Confidential Information of the other to any person other than its bona fide individuals
whose access is necessary to enable it to exercise its rights hereunder. Confidential Information of either party
disclosed prior to execution of this Agreement shall be subject to the protections afforded hereunder.
10.2 Exceptions. The above restrictions on the use or disclosure of the Confidential Information shall not apply
to any Confidential Information that: (a) is independently developed by the receiving party without reference to
the disclosing party’s Confidential Information, or is lawfully received free of restriction from a third party having
the right to furnish such Confidential Information; (b) has become generally available to the public without breach
of this Agreement by the receiving party; (c) at the time of disclosure, was known to the receiving party free of
restriction; (d) the disclosing party agrees in writing is free of such restrictions; or (e) the disclosing party is
required by law to disclose.
10.3 Confidential Terms and Conditions; Publicity. Licensee shall not disclose the terms and conditions of this
Agreement related to pricing to any third party unless such disclosure is required by governmental statute and/or
ordinance. Licensor may identify Licensee on its customer lists and list Licensee as a customer in its marketing and
advertising materials
10.4 Data Security. In addition to and without prejudice to the confidentiality terms set forth in this Section 10,
the following additional data security provisions shall apply to any highly‐sensitive Confidential Information
provided by Licensee to Licensor (“Highly‐Sensitive Information”), including without limitation any personally
identifiable information or financial information.
10.4.1 Disclosure. Licensee shall use its best efforts to limit disclosure of Highly‐Sensitive Information to Licensor
and only provide Highly‐Sensitive Information to Licensor with the prior written consent of either Licensor’s Chief
Executive Officer or Chief Financial Officer. Prior to disclosure of any Highly‐Sensitive Information, Licensor and
Licensee shall agree in writing to the procedures surrounding the disclosure, including any encryption
requirements and the mechanism of disclosure.
Page 12 of 25
10.4.2 Data Security Safeguards. Licensor has implemented and maintains an information security program that
incorporates administrative, technical, and physical safeguards designed to protect the security, confidentiality,
and integrity of Highly‐Sensitive Information provided by Licensee to Licensor in accordance with this Section 10.4.
10.4.3 Data Security Breach. Licensor will notify Licensee promptly and in no event later than one (1) business
day following Licensor’s discovery of a Data Security Breach (defined below) and shall (i) undertake a reasonable
investigation of the reasons for and the circumstances surrounding such Data Security Breach and (ii) reasonably
cooperate with Licensee in connection with such investigation, including by providing Licensee with an initial
summary of the results of the investigation as soon as possible, but in all cases within two (2) business days after
the date Licensor discovers or reasonably suspects a Data Security Breach, and then regular updates on the
investigation as it progresses; (iii) not make any public announcements relating to such Data Security Breach
without Licensee’s prior written approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld; (iv) use commercially
reasonable efforts to take all necessary and appropriate corrective action reasonably possible on Licensee’s part to
prevent a recurrence of such Data Security Breach; (v) collect and preserve evidence concerning the discovery,
cause, vulnerability, remedial actions and impact related to such Data Security Breach, which shall meet
reasonable expectations of forensic admissibility; and (vi) if requested by Licensee, provide notice to individuals or
entities whose Confidential Information was or may have been affected in a manner and format specified by
Licensee. In the event of any Data Security Breach caused by Licensor, Licensee shall have, in addition to all other
rights and remedies available under this Agreement, law and equity, the right to terminate the Agreement upon
thirty (30) days prior written notice. For purposes of this Agreement, the term “Data Security Breach” shall mean
any of the following occurring in connection with Highly‐Sensitive Information (provided that Licensee has sent the
Highly‐Sensitive Information to Licensor pursuant to the terms of this Section 10.4 using the secure transfer
protocols agreed upon by the parties) in connection with Licensee’s use of the Software: (a) the loss or misuse of
Highly‐Sensitive Information; and (b) disclosure to, or acquisition, access or use by, any person not authorized to
receive Highly‐Sensitive Information, other than in circumstances in which the disclosure, acquisition, access or use
is made in good faith and within the course and scope of the employment with Avolve or other professional
relationship with Avolve and does not result in any further unauthorized disclosure, acquisition, access or use of
Highly‐Sensitive Information.
10.4.4 Signatures. The parties shall use electronic signatures for all agreements unless otherwise prohibited by
law.
11. ASSIGNMENT. Licensee may not, without Licensor’s prior written consent, assign, delegate, pledge, or
otherwise transfer this Agreement, or any of its rights or obligations under this Agreement, or the Avolve Materials
or Avolve Confidential Information, to any party, whether voluntarily or by operation of law, including by way of
12. INSURANCE . Licensor, at its expense, shall procure and maintain in force for the duration of this Agreement, the
following minimum insurance coverages:
a. Comprehensive General Liability. Licensor shall maintain commercial general liability insurance in a
minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence; $2,000,000 annual aggregate. The policy shall cover liability
arising from premises, operations, products‐completed operations, personal injury, advertising injury, and
contractually assumed liability. The City shall be named as additional insured.
c. Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability. Licensor agrees to provide workers’
compensation insurance for all of its employees in accordance with the statutory requirements of the State of
Minnesota. Contractor shall also carry employer’s liability coverage with minimum limits as follows: $500,000 –
Bodily Injury by Disease per employee; $500,000 – Bodily Injury by Disease aggregate; and $500,000 – Bodily Injury
by Accident.
Within ten days of the effective date of this Agreement and thereafter upon the City’s request, Licensor shall
provide a certificate of insurance as proof that the above coverages are in full force and effect. These insurance
requirements may be met through any combination of primary and umbrella/excess insurance. Licensor’s policies
shall be primary and non‐contributory to any other valid and collectible insurance available to the City with respect
to any claim arising out of Licensor’s performance under this Agreement. Licensor’s policies and certificate of
Page 13 of 25
insurance shall state the coverage afforded under the policies shall not be cancelled without at least 30 days’
advanced written notice to the City.
13. sale of assets, merger or consolidation.
14. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
14.1 Severability. It is the intent of the parties that in case any one or more of the provisions contained in this
Agreement shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not
affect the other provisions of this Agreement, and this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid or
unenforceable provision had never been contained herein.
14.2 No Waiver. If either party should waive any breach of any provision of this Agreement, it shall not
thereby be deemed to have waived any preceding or succeeding breach of the same or any other provision
hereof.
14.3 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in two counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original and which shall together constitute one Agreement.
14.4 Regulatory Matters. The Software, Documentation and Avolve Materials are subject to the export control
laws of various countries, including without limit the laws of the United States. Licensee agrees that it will not
submit the Software, Documentation or other Avolve Materials to any government agency for licensing
consideration or other regulatory approval without the prior written consent of Licensor, and will not export the
Software, Documentation and Avolve Materials to countries, persons or entities prohibited by such laws. Licensee
shall also be responsible for complying with all applicable governmental regulations of the country where Licensee
is registered, and any foreign countries with respect to the use of the Software, Documentation or other Avolve
Materials by Licensee and/or its Affiliates.
14.5 Governing Law; Limitations Period. This Agreement and any claims arising out of or relating to this
Agreement and its subject matter shall be governed by and construed under the laws of State of Minnesota
without reference to its conflicts of law principles. Any suit or litigation between the parties arising out of this
Agreement shall be filed, tried and litigated only in Hennepin County District Court in the state of Minnesota. In
the event of any conflicts between foreign law, rules, and regulations, and United States law, rules, and
regulations, United States law, rules, and regulations shall prevail and govern. The United Nations Convention on
Contracts for the International Sale of Goods shall not apply to this Agreement. The Uniform Computer
Information Transactions Act as enacted shall not apply. Licensee must initiate a cause of action for any claim(s)
arising out of or relating to this Agreement and its subject matter within two (2) years from the date when
Licensee knew, or should have known after reasonable investigation, of the facts giving rise to the claim(s).
14.6 Notices. All notices or reports which are required or may be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be in
writing and shall be deemed duly given when delivered to the respective executive offices of Licensor or Licensee,
as the case may be, at the addresses first set forth in any Software Sales Order or Sales agreement. Where in this
section 12.6 or elsewhere in this Agreement written notice is required, that requirement can be met by facsimile
transmission, exchange of letters or other written form, including email.
14.7 Force Majeure. Any delay or nonperformance of any provision of this Agreement (other than for the
payment of amounts due hereunder) caused by conditions beyond the reasonable control of the performing party
shall not constitute a breach of this Agreement, and the time for performance of such provision, if any, shall be
deemed to be extended for a period equal to the duration of the conditions preventing performance.
14.8 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the agreement
between Licensor and Licensee, and all previous representations, discussions, and writings are merged in, and
superseded by this Agreement and the parties disclaim any reliance on any such representations, discussions and
writings. This Agreement may be modified only by a writing signed by both parties. Unless otherwise stated
Page 14 of 25
herein, this Agreement shall prevail over any additional, conflicting, or inconsistent terms and conditions which
may appear on any purchase order or other document furnished by Licensee to Licensor. This Agreement shall
prevail over any additional, conflicting or inconsistent terms and conditions which may appear in any clickwrap end
user agreement included in the Software. Signatures sent by electronic means (facsimile or scanned/sent via e‐
mail) shall be deemed original signatures. This Agreement does not create any partnership, joint venture or
principal and agent relationship.
14.9 Independent Contractor. Licensor is an independent contractor and not an employee of the Licensee. Any
personnel performing services under this Agreement on behalf of Licensor shall at all times be under Licensor’s
exclusive direction and control. Licensor shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in
connection with their performance of services under this Agreement and as required by law. Licensor shall be
responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social
security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and worker’s compensation insurance.
14.10 Hierarchy. Unless otherwise stated herein, the following order of precedence shall be applied in the event
of conflict or inconsistency between provisions of the components of this Agreement: (i) GTCs (ii) the applicable
Software Sales Order, Avolve Support Terms or SOW. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any part of a Software
Sales Order, Avolve Support Terms or SOW expressly states that it shall control over the GTCs, it shall so control.
14.11 United States Federal Governmental Users. The Software and Documentation are “commercial items” as
that term is defined in 48 C.F.R. 2.101 (October 1995) consisting of “commercial computer software” and
“commercial computer software documentation” as such terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (September 1995).
Consistent with 48 C.F.R. 12.212 and with 48 C.F.R. 227.7202‐1, 227‐7202‐3 and 227‐7202‐4 (June 1995), if the
Licensee is the U.S. Government or any department or agency of the U.S. Government, the Software and
Documentation are licensed under this Agreement (i) only as a commercial item, and (ii) with only those rights as
are granted to all other end‐users pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
14.12 Government Data. Licensor acknowledges that, to the extent this Agreement requires Licensor to perform
a government function, all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained or disseminated by
Licensor in performing government functions is subject to the requirements of the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act (Minn. Stat. § 13.01 et. seq. the “MGDPA”), except to the extent the data is private or nonpublic
pursuant to an exception or exclusion from the MGDPA and that Licensor must comply with the MGDPA as if
Licensor were a government entity, including the remedies in Minn. Stat. § 13.08. Licensor shall promptly notify
Licensee of any request for data that Licensor receives related to this Agreement.
Page 15 of 25
Exhibit A
Avolve Support Terms
These Avolve Support Terms (“SLA”) defines the maintenance and support services (“Avolve Support”) which
Avolve Software Corporation (“Avolve”) shall provide to any customer (“Customer”) who is entitled pursuant to a
separate written sales order (the “Sales Order”) with Avolve to Avolve Support. This SLA defines Avolve Support
for both traditional licensees (“Licensees”) of Avolve software (the “Software”). For the avoidance of any doubt,
customers who have not purchased Avolve Support and customers who are not current on their fees are not
entitled to Avolve Support. This SLA, together with the Sales Order and the Avolve General Terms and Conditions,
represents Customer’s Agreement (as such term is defined in the Avolve General Terms and Conditions).
1. Avolve Maintenance for Standard, Premium, and Named Enhanced Support. Avolve currently offers three
levels of Avolve Support, standard, premium and named enhanced support.
1.1. Standard Avolve Support refers to all maintenance and support services standardly provided by
Avolve to current customers for the standard, not‐customized Software. The following are included
in standard Avolve Support:
(a) New releases of Software within an integer version of said Software (e.g. all 8.X versions of
ProjectDox);
(b) Patches and “hot fixes” within the integer version of said Software;
(c) Phone, email and trouble‐ticket reporting systems for Software within the integer version of said
Software in accordance with this SLA;
(d) Integrations to third‐party software and systems defined by Avolve as “Standard Integrations”; and
(e) (Avolve) ProjectDox Workflows and eForms defined by Avolve as “Best‐in‐Class,” or otherwise
designated by Avolve as “standard derivatives” of Best‐in‐Class workflows and eForms. A standard
derivative workflow and or eForm is considered that which can be reasonably implemented by way
of features and functions included in the Software, and for which additional, custom software code
development is not required.
For the avoidance of any doubt, standard Avolve Support does NOT include upgrades to a future integer
version of the Software (e.g. ProjectDox version 8.X to version 9.X). Avolve reserves the right to charge an
additional fee when Customers are upgrading from one major release to another. When applied, such
additional fee will be determined based on (a) number of upgrade versions, (b) the complexity of
customization, and (c) the complexity of add‐ons and integrations of Avolve or third‐party
products/systems.
1.2. Avolve Premium and Named Enhanced Support refers to all maintenance and support services
provided outside of, or beyond, standard Avolve Support. Examples of Avolve Premium and Named
Enhanced Support include:
(a) Support for non‐standard or customized Software features;
(b) Non‐Standard integrations to third party software and systems;
(c) Workflows and eForms not covered under standard Avolve Support, including those that are
developed under a statement of work;
(d) Predetermined and/or pre‐scheduled modifications to third party software and/or systems;
(e) On‐call support;
(f) Faster response times and support schedules;
(g) Support for any exclusions set forth in Section 8 (Exclusions) below.
2. Avolve Support Fees. Unless set forth otherwise on the applicable Sales Order, standard Avolve Support fees
shall be calculated at twenty percent (20%) of the applicable Software license fees. Unless set forth otherwise
in the applicable Sales Order, supplemental Avolve Support fees are at Avolve’s then current rates.
Page 16 of 25
3. Portal. Avolve will provide reasonable portal support for problem determination and resolution for problems
arising during normal operation of the Software. Avolve may require the Customer to provide a written
assistance request describing the problem. All issues MUST be reported via the portal.
Support Portal: https://support.avolvesoftware.com
Upon first entering the portal, the Customer may request a login and Avolve limits logins to one agent per
Customer. After a login is received, the Customer may enter, track, update, and report on trouble ticket as well as
communicate with Avolve helpdesk staff via phone, email, web meeting, and/or ticket notes. In addition to
working with members of Avolve’s Support Team, Customers have access to , Latest Product News Articles, FAQs,
Documentation, and a Knowledge‐base via the Support Portal as well.
4. Support Hours.
4.1. Licensees with a standard support contract will receive assistance during Avolve’s normal working
hours of 8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday (excluding standard holidays),
Mountain Standard Time.
4.2. Avolve, in its sole discretion, may offer premium or named enhanced support contracts, which would
entitle the purchasing customer to additional support hours and/or other benefits beyond those set
forth in this SLA (“Premium Support” or “Named Enhanced Support”). If purchased by a customer,
Premium Support or Named Enhanced Support terms will be set forth in the applicable Sales Order.
5. On‐Site Emergency Support. Customer may request Avolve to provide on‐site emergency operational support
services as a separate and distinct billable service.
6. Releases Included. Avolve Support for Licensees of the Software includes all minor and maintenance releases.
Avolve reserves the right to charge upgrade fees for major releases or major ancillary program components.
Additionally, some features may or may not be activated based on license terms.
6.1. For the purposes of this SLA, (i) “maintenance releases” shall mean such bug fixes and/or platform
updates that are designated by an increment in the last decimal of the release i.e. n.n.1 by Avolve; (ii)
“minor releases” shall mean such bug fixes, platform updates, and/or minor product enhancements
that are designated by an increment in the second decimal of the release i.e. n.1.n by Avolve; and (iii)
“major releases” shall mean such bug fixes, platform updates, and major product enhancements
and/or new features that are designated by an increment in the whole number of the release i.e.
1.n.n by Avolve.
6.2. To the extent applicable, all Avolve Support provided to Customer (including all maintenance
releases, minor releases, and major releases) shall be subject to the applicable license agreement
between Avolve and Customer.
7. Problem Determination and Resolution. Avolve resources will be allocated to resolve reported problems
based on the severity level set forth in the table below and Avolve will use commercially reasonable efforts to
provide a prompt acknowledgement, acceptable resolution, workaround, or a plan for the provision of a
resolution or acceptable workaround in the timeframe set forth in the table below:
Page 17 of 25
Severity Level Definition Initial Response Time Resolution Commitment
System Down
An error that causes a
catastrophic failure
substantially impacting
Customer’s business.
1 Hour
Avolve and Customer will commit
full‐time resources during normal
business hours for problem
resolution, to obtain workaround, or
reduce the severity of the error.
High
An error that causes Avolve
product to fail without
significant business impact.
Causes a substantial
reduction in performance.
24 Hours
Avolve and Customer will commit
full‐time resources during normal
business hours for problem
resolution, to obtain a workaround,
or reduce the severity of the error.
Medium
An error that causes only
minor impact on use of the
product.
72 Hours
Avolve and Customer will commit
resources during normal business
hours for problem resolution.
Low
A service request for a new
feature, additional
documentation, or an
explanation of product
functionality.
Within 5 Business Days
Avolve and Customer will provide
resources during normal business
hours to address request.
Enhancement requests will be
logged and sent to Avolve
Development for review and
possible incorporation into
ProjectDox.
(a) Initial Response Time. Once a problem has been reported, Customer will receive an
acknowledgement via email, phone or the support portal, as to the receipt of the problem as
reported and a confirmation of the problem severity. Avolve will begin the process of problem
determination and resolution at this point. The time the ticket is submitted and the response time
will be logged to ensure SLA is met.
(b) Status Updates. During the problem determination and resolution process, Customer may receive
regular communications, via email, phone or the support portal, as to the status of the problem
determination and resolution. All communications should be logged in Avolve’s support system
including date, time, and contact name. This helps Avolve and the customer determine the status
and duration of the issue reported.
(c) Resolution. In response to the problem reported, Customer will receive, as appropriate, one of the
following resolutions: an existing correction, a new correction, a viable workaround, or a plan on
how the problem will be addressed.
(d) Severity Re‐classification. If Customer determines that a previously reported and in‐progress issue’s
severity needs to be re‐classified or escalated, Customer should issue a new call or email to the
Technical Support Team.
8. Exclusions. Avolve will have no obligation to support the following, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement:
8.1. Software use not covered by an active support contract and/or not in compliance with a valid
agreement with Avolve. A support contract must cover all Software licenses purchased.
8.2. Software that is altered or modified other than as approved in writing by Avolve.
Page 18 of 25
8.3. Any Software that is either not within the current major (integer) release or is more than two (2)
minor releases back from the current minor release within the major (integer) release.
8.4. Problems caused by misuse or misapplication of the Software, including any anomalies and/or
failures in test or production operating environments that impact the Software and are determined
to have their cause due to unwarranted Customer decisions, actions, system configuration/
modification, policies and/or procedures.
8.5. Software installed on any computer hardware/software configurations not supported by Avolve.
8.6. Problems caused by Licensee custom application code authorized to be developed using Avolve APIs
as set forth in the documentation accompanying such API and Licensee’s Agreement.
8.7. Problems caused by updates or upgrades of 3rd party applications that are integrated with Avolve
products.
8.8. Problems caused by on‐premises hardware problems or related issues such as router, network or
hard drive failures or incorrect configuration settings.
8.9. Services required to implement any updates, upgrades or releases on Customer’s network, as well as
all other operational support issues, are not included with Avolve Support. Such additional services
may be purchased for an additional fee.
8.10. All Training programs, regardless of software version updates and/or upgrades.
8.11. Operational Support including but not limited to: (a) Windows configuration issues; (b) SQL Database
maintenance and or tuning; (c) VMWare tuning or configuration; (d) Firewall configuration; (e)
Network performance; (f) End‐User browser support; (g) User‐modified and new workflows or
eForms.
8.12. Add‐ons (as such term is defined in the Customer’s Agreement).
8.13. Any other reasons set forth in the Customer’s Agreement.
Avolve, in its sole discretion, shall determine whether any of the foregoing exclusions are applicable to
Customer. Any services provided for exclusions shall be paid by Customer at Avolve’s then‐current rates, as
well as all travel and other expenses incurred by Avolve in providing such services.
9. Customer’s Obligations for Operational Support.
9.1. Contact Person(s). Customer will designate up to two (2) contact person(s) (or such other
replacement individuals as Customer may designate in writing) (each a “Contact Person”), who shall
be the sole contacts for the coordination and receipt of the Support Services set forth in this SLA.
Each Contact Person shall be knowledgeable about, as applicable, the Software. If Avolve is unable to
contact any designated Contact Person through the specified means for a period of time and such
contact would be helpful for performing the Support Services, Avolve may refuse to perform the
Support Services until Avolve is able to contact a designated Contact Person, in which case the times
for resolution set forth in Section 5 will be suspended for such period of time.
9.2. Remote Access. For the purpose of problem determination and analysis, Customer will provide, as
necessary and at Customer’s discretion, the Technical Support Team with remote access capabilities
into Customer’s system’s running the Software.
9.3. Supporting Data. Customer will provide reasonable supporting data to aid in the identification and
resolution of the issue.
Page 19 of 25
9.4. Installation. Unless otherwise instructed by Avolve, Customer will be responsible for installing any
error correction, update or upgrade.
9.5. Initial Troubleshooting. Customer’s Support Contact has the responsibility of performing due
diligence in resolving issues prior to contacting support and will be expected to provide additional
details as a result of their investigation of the issue.
10. Term. The term of this agreement shall be as set forth on the Sales Order associated with this SLA and shall
continue unless terminated pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.
11. Fees / Termination / Renewal. Customer shall pay Avolve the applicable fee as listed on the Sales Order for
all Software use rights for which Customer purchased (the “Fees”). Fees will be billed and due as provided for
in the Agreement. If Licensee fails to pay all Fees by the due date, this SLA, and all Avolve Support provided
for under it, may be immediately terminated, upon 30 days written notice, by Avolve. Alternatively, Avolve, in
its sole discretion, may elect to continue to provide Avolve Support and assess interest at a rate of up to 18%
per annum, not to exceed the minimum amount allowed by law. To reinstate or renew Avolve Support (if
reinstatement is allowed by Avolve at its sole discretion), Customer must pay in advance and in full all Fees
that were considered in arrears at that time.
12. Credits. Should Avolve fail to meet any of the commitments set forth in this SLA, AS CUSTOMERS SOLE AND
EXCLUSIVE REMEDY:
12.1. Licensees. Licensees of Software shall be entitled to receive a service credit of 1% of the licensee’s
monthly prorated support fees, per incident in a given month, up to a maximum 50% of monthly
prorated support fee payable by the customer. The amount of compensation may not exceed 50% of
the licensee’s monthly support fee. This means that if a Customer has two (2) incidents in which
Avolve failed on the initial response within the time frame stated, Customer shall be entitled to
receive a service credit of 4% of the prorated monthly support fee.
12.2. Requesting a Credit. As outlined in this SLA, Avolve shall issue a service credit to Customer’s account
if Avolve does not meet the guaranteed response time limits mentioned in the SLA. The Service
Credit will be applied to the clients next invoice that is due, after the credit has been requested and
approved by a member of the Avolve Management staff. In order for a customer to receive a credit
on their account, the customer must request the service credit within seven (7) business days of the
incident in which the response time was not met. This credit request must come from the authorized
e‐mail account for the customer’s account, and must be submitted directly in the form of a ticket via
the customer’s portal account. The ticket must include the customer’s account information, and the
Ticket Number in which the response time was not met by Avolve’s Support Department. Since all
response times are checked through the Ticket Helpdesk System, there will need to be a Ticket
Number mentioned and/or the dates and times that the incident(s) occurred. The Service Credit
Request will be reviewed by a member of Avolve’s Management staff to make sure the request is
valid, and the customer will receive notification of a Service Credit approval or denial. If a Service
Credit Request has been approved, the Service Credit will be applied to the customers next due
invoice.
Page 20 of 25
Schedule B – Implementation SOW
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Statement of Work will focus on the Installation of a Production Environment and the implementation of ProjectDox Best
in Class workflows addressing the Customer’s needs with regard to One (1) Best in Class plan review process. The goal is to
implement ProjectDox and a Base integration to LOGIS with ProjectDox utilizing web services, in a standardized, off the shelf
manner. We will leverage Avolve best practices and built-in configuration and modifications features, to meet the most effective
functionality required to achieve the highest business value for the customer (the "Project").
SCOPE OF WORK (MILESTONES)
Installation Offsite | Remote
Installation of a single environment for the applicable products is required prior to orientation and configuration onsite
assessments being conducted. Project pre-planning, including draft project plan, communication plan etc. are associated to this
stage of the project. Additional environments to be implemented will be factored into the project plan and based on the sales
order/agreement.
Provisioning of all applicable products and modules in a on premise environment as specified on the Purchase
Agreement/Sales Order. The date of acceptance for this milestone is the Software Acceptance Date.
Orientation and Configuration Requirements Session* 2 persons | Onsite
Review features and design options available for Best-In-Class configuration of the designated application forms and related
workflow processes. The output of these sessions will be compiled into a requirements document referred to as the
Configuration Requirements Document (CRD). This will include using standard templates and design to expedite the project
while providing the best business value to the customer. Any design requirements not available to the core system and/or
requiring development will be scoped and presented in a separate Statement of Work. Assurance services afforded the project
may be leveraged for work identified as outside the scope of the project.
ProjectDox Configuration Requirements Document
LOGIS integration touchpoint discussion
Project Plan (task list/schedule/resource assignments) not to exceed budget
Configuration & Base Integration * Offsite | Remote
Configuration of applicable software products, forms and the workflows based on the configuration requirements document
findings. This includes the development of the integration work defined in this Statement of Work and confirmed during
requirements discussions.
Configured Working ProjectDox Application
Configured Working products and modules as specified in the Purchase Agreement/ Sales Order
o 1 Best-In-Class Building Workflow
o Base LOGIS Integration
User Acceptance Training (UAT) 1 Person | Onsite
The Avolve project manager will provide user acceptance training and guidance to the client on methods to test the designed
process and system to work towards user acceptance. The Avolve project manager will work with the client to schedule time
to be on or offsite per process and based on available professional service hours for the project. Customer will validate the
system configuration, forms, emails and integration and document any identified issues in the RIT (Risks, Issues and Tasks)
document and provide to the Avolve project manager. Avolve will resolve any identified issues to allow the customer retest to
gain acceptance.
Completion of User Acceptance Testing (UAT)
Page 21 of 25
Training 1 Person | Onsite
Avolve education specialists will deliver the below courses to the Customers staff. The courses will train approximately 12
persons and will be delivered based on the project plan rollout. A maximum of 12 persons per course is enforced with the
exception of the Pilot (TES-PILOT) and Community Outreach (TES-OUT). These sessions are targeted for the design
community. The Pilot course allows for hands-on training for up to 10 identified applicants and the Community Outreach session
is geared as a demonstration/lecture course to be provided to a large audience to educate and promote the new processes.
It is recommended that training sessions be organized with participants of similar technological abilities to allow for the most
efficient delivery and retention of the materials. Additional training above and beyond the below may be added or additional
training performed post go-live by leveraging the assurance services funds afforded the project.
Delivery of classes for all products/modules as purchased – See Purchase Agreement/Sales Order
o 1 PGK-PDOX 4 TRN: ProjectDox Tier 4 Training
Training Bundle Includes
ProjectDox Training Package will train up to 12 persons per course.
Introduction to ProjectDox
Introduction to Markup
Workflow Business Process for Plan Reviewers
Workflow Business Process Training for Coordinating Staff
Administration Package will train 12 persons per course with a maximum of 12 persons per
course.
1 System Administrator Training
1 Project Administrator Training
Rollout Training Package
Pilot Workshop (1 Class) allows 10 persons maximum per course.
Community Outreach (1 Class) is intended for large audiences of 25+ for the design
community.
Launch/Project Close Out 1 Person |Onsite/Offsite
Deployment of the workflow processes defined and a final project close out.
ACCEPTANCE PROCESS
There will be Key Deliverables, as identified below in the list of Project Key Deliverables, which will be subject to acceptance by
the Customer ("Acceptance"). Upon completion of each Key Deliverable, Avolve will request from the Customer a written
response within five (5) business days after receipt thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything to the contrary in the
Purchase Agreement, all other Deliverables provided under this Statement of Work shall be deemed to have been accepted by
the Customer upon delivery. If Customer does not approve, reasons for rejection must be clearly noted. Avolve will then work
with the Customer to come to agreement on obtaining approval. The Customer shall be deemed to accept any such Key
Deliverable which Customer does not accept or reject within such period. This acceptance will initiate the invoice of the
applicable milestone.
Page 22 of 25
PROJECT KEY DELIVERABLES
1. Configuration Requirements Document (CRD)* including applicable products/modules
o Configuration / Modification Session Output
Site Configuration
Workflow Configuration
Integration Fields
2. ProjectDox Application Configuration
o Production Environment
3. Configured, Working ProjectDox Application and applicable products/modules from sales order
o Configuration / Modification Effort Output
o 1 BIC Plan Review Process
BIC Building Plan Review
o Base Integration to PIMS
4. Training
o 1 PGK-PDOX 4 TRN: ProjectDox Tier 4 Training
5. Launch
o Transition to Support
o Project Completion
For the avoidance of any doubt, all right, title and interest in and to the Deliverables (including without limitation the above Key
Deliverables), as well as the intellectual property rights to such Deliverables, shall belong to Avolve, subject to the limited license
granted to the Customer pursuant to the Licensing Agreement.
AVOLVE PROJECT PLAN AND PROCESS
Promptly following execution of this Statement of Work, the parties shall meet to discuss the general project schedule, which will
be generally organized around the standard Avolve project On-Boarding process. Within 2 weeks, the initial project plan will be
created and sent to Customer. The Project Plan contains a schedule, a list of tasks in a schedule format, assignments of specific
team members over specific times and communication status reporting processes. The Project Plan is a living document that will
be reviewed throughout the term of this Agreement and may be adjusted as reasonably necessary, as agreed to from time to
time by the parties.
PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS AND CAVEATS
1. This Project was scoped based upon purchase of ProjectDox Best In Class, understanding that the site will be hosted by the
Customer and configured per established Best-In-Class standards. This understanding forms the basis for Avolve’s pricing
and the Deliverables to be provided under this Statement of Work. Any deviation from these requirements will require a
change order and may increase cost or estimated time of Project completion.
2. Avolve will have full access to all Project team members from the customer as needed to complete the successful
implementation and roll out of ProjectDox. This access may require the team members of the customer to dedicate specific
time to specific detailed tasks within the Project Plan. Team member tasks will be more clearly defined during the kickoff
and planning sessions and documented in the Project Plan.
Page 23 of 25
3. Customer and its third parties and/or subcontractors will fulfill any hardware/software requirements, as identified to allow
communication between Avolve Software and the Customer’s permitting system in a timely fashion in order to keep the
Project Plan on schedule.
4. Customer and its third parties and/or subcontractors will fulfill the hardware requirements, as outlined in the ProjectDox/OAS
Implementation Guide (a standard end user document that accompanies each version of the Software) in a timely fashion in
order to keep the Project Plan on schedule.
5. Should the customer cause or contribute to the delay of any Deliverable, Avolve may elect to revise the Project Plan
accordingly to compensate for the delay.
6. All parties will reasonably prioritize their efforts to meet the Project Plan schedule in order to achieve a rapid roll out model.
In doing so, it is understood by all parties that multiple tasks may be in process at one time and Avolve may have more than
one Professional Services team member working on the project at one time.
7. Client will provide adequate Project management for their own resources, and/or third parties, to collaborate with Avolve’s
project manager. Client subject matter experts and applicable users will be accessible and available in a timely fashion and
for adequate and reasonable durations. Avolve will make sure that scheduling of interviews and meetings are adequately in
advance of these resource allocations.
8. Avolve is planning to fully leverage ProjectDox as is, utilizing all built in configuration features to meet the business needs.
9. Any optional items chosen in the Purchase Agreement/Sales Order are not included here and would require a modification
to this Statement of Work.
10. Customer understands that an ePlan Life Cycle implementation is a very significant digital transformation enterprise project
that requires dedicated change management from the Customer’s staff. This will be key for the success of the Customer.
11. Work will not begin until an executed copy of all paperwork is complete. Work will begin at the earliest possible date at
which Avolve resources and Customer resources are available or as otherwise agreed to.
12. Avolve and Customer agree to cooperate in good faith to complete the Services and Deliverables in a timely and efficient
manner.
13. Recording of Avolve provided training or UAT (user acceptance testing) sessions is not permitted.
14. All training classes unless otherwise noted are limited to 12 persons maximum per class
*Configuration options are as described by ProjectDox documentation and as evidenced by ProjectDox administration screens.
Minor changes to Avolve ProjectDox Best Practices (Best in Class) workflows are changes to activate/deactivate and/or
parametrize with variables, existing steps in the Best Practices workflows. Customization of additional products and modules are
to be within the bounds and scope of the respective core product(s) and modifications are limited to those that are allowed by
core product design.
*Base integration with ProjectDox is limited to three (3) integration touchpoints to include 1) Configuration of the Avolve Software
project creator service, 2) Display of 18 General Permit/Applicant/Contractor application data fields for display within ProjectDox
via a web page/formlet (Permit Information is dependent on the Permitting Systems API/ Web Service availability) and 3)
Project/Permit Status Update whereas ProjectDox will notify the permitting system that the plan review workflow is complete
when all reviews are approved (Status update is dependent on the Permitting Systems API/ Web Service availability).
Page 24 of 25
CHANGE CONTROL PROCESS
The “Change Control Process” is that process which shall govern changes to the scope of the Project during the life of the
Project. The Change Control Process will apply to new components and to enhancements of existing components. The Change
Control Process will commence at the start of the Project and will continue throughout the Project's duration. Additional
procedures and responsibilities may be outlined by the Project Manager identified on the signature page to the Agreement and
will be included in the Project Plan if mutually accepted.
Under the Change Control Process, a written “Change Request” (attached) will be the vehicle for communicating any desired
changes to the Project. It will describe the proposed change; the reason for the change and the effect the change may have on
the Project. The Project Manager of the requesting party will submit a written Change Request to the Project Manager for the
other parties.
All parties must sign the approval portion of the Change Request to authorize the implementation of any change that affects the
Project’s scope, schedule or price. Furthermore, any such changes that affect the scope of this SOW, schedule or price will
require an amendment to the SOW and/or any other part of the Purchase Agreement.
PRICING
Pricing and payment terms are as set forth in Purchase Agreement/Sales Order.
PROJECT ACTIVITIES / DELIVERABLES PAYMENT SCHEDULE
This is a preliminary deliverable and payment schedule that is subject to change based on discussions to occur post the kick-off
of the project, provided that both the City and Avolve Software agree to the new terms in writing.
Deliverable /
MS# Deliverable Description Acceptance Criteria Milestone Payment
Amount
MSO Contract Execution
100% Software
20% Professional Services
20% Training
Contract Signature $86,720.00
MS1 Test Environment
Installation Delivered Delivered test environment
Test environment available
for use by project team and
new features training
completed.
Installation $5,760.00
MS2 Define Configuration
and Design
Compile agreed configuration
and design requirements
Avolve delivered CRD
document
Orientation &
Configuration $5,760.00
MS3 Deliver functional
ProjectDox application
Delivered and review the design
as defined in the CRD
document.
Workflows delivered for use
by project team in Test
Configuration &
Integration $10,080.00
MS4 User Acceptance Test
User Acceptance training is
conducted with core project
team and User Acceptance
Testing is performed by client
users. Defects are logged and
addressed.
User Acceptance User Acceptance
Test $5,760.00
MS5 End User Training Conduct End User and Admin
Training
Deliver End User Training
and Admin Courses Training $10,720.00
MS6 Community Outreach
Training
Conduct Community Outreach
Training
Deliver Community
Outreach Training Training $1,600.00
MS7 Launch Go Live Process Go-Live Launch $3,600.00
Total Services $130,000.00
Page 25 of 25
STATEMENT OF WORK ACCEPTANCE
Once fully executed, this document will become the Statement of Work for the Project defined in this document. Avolve and
Customer’s signatures above authorizes Avolve to begin the services described above and indicates Customer’s agreement to
pay the invoices associated with these services delivered as described.
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
3. Q. Receipt of Minnesota Department of Public Safety Award from the Gear
Washer/Extractor/Dryer Award Program
Prepared By
Ted Massicotte, Deputy Fire Chief
Summary
The Fire Department made application with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety for, and
was awarded the amount of $5,700.75 from the Turnout Gear Washer/Extractor/Dryer Award
program, with a local match requirement of $1,900.25. This reimbursement award is for the
purchase and installation of a turnout gear dryer. This new turnout gear dryer will reduce the dry
time by about 50%.
Attachment
• Gear Washer/Extractor/Dryer Award Letter (1 page)
• Resolution Accepting Award From Minnesota Department of Public Safety award from the
Turnout Gear washer/Extractor/Dryer Award program (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution accepting the Minnesota Department of Public Safety award from
the Turnout Gear washer/Extractor/Dryer Award program.
,OF PUB[i
State Fire Marshal
445 Minnesota Street • Suite 145 • Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-5145
Phone: 651-201-7200• Fax: 651-215-0525
OF Milk
www.dps.state.mn.us
Alcohol and
Date: November 27, 2018
Gambling
Name: Ted Massicotte
Enforcement
Address: Golden Valley FD
Bureau of
Criminal
7800 Golden Valley Road
Apprehension
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Driver
and Vehicle
RE: Gear Washer/Extractor/Dryer Award
Services
Emergency
The Minnesota Department of Public Safety, through the State Fire Marshal Division, is pleased to
Communication
Networks
notify you that your fire department has been awarded the amount of $5,700.75 from the Turnout
Gear Washer/Extractor/Dryer Award program with a local match requirement of $1,900.25. This
Homeland
Security and
reimbursement award is for the purchase and installation of a gear washer/extractor/Dryer as
Emergency
proposed in your project proposal. Your department will needs to purchase, install and have the
Management
project completed between July 1, 2018 and June 30, 2019. If there is a change to the type of gear
Minnesota
washer/extractor/Dryer purchased, prior authorization must be received from the State Fire Marshal
State Patrol
division.
Office of
Communications
In order to process your reimbursement award you must:
Office of
Justice Programs
1. Complete and sign the enclosed Request for Reimbursement Form by August 1, 2019.
Office of
Your fire department is encouraged to send in your Request for Reimbursement Form
Pipeline Safety
anytime during the July 1, 2018 -June 30, 2019 fiscal year.
Office of
2. Attach documentation of funds paid. Documentation includes: paid invoices for purchase,
Traffic Safety
delivery and installation of approved gear washer/extractor/dryer.
State Fire
3. Mail, fax or email the Request for Reimbursement Form and supporting documentation.
Marshal
The funds will be disbursed upon receipt of the signed, completed form, along with the proper
supporting documentation. You will not receive a check in the mail, your reimbursement will be
electronically deposited into the account that corresponds to the tax identification number provided
on the Request for Reimbursement Form.
If you have questions regarding your award, please email me at nolan.pasell@state.mn.us or you
may call me at (651) 201-7218.
Sincerely,
Nolan Pasell
Special Projects Coordinator
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
RESOLUTION NO. 18-86
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AWARD FROM MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY TURNOUT GEAR
WASHER/EXTRACTOR/DRYER AWARD PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 04-20 on March 16, 2004, which
established a policy for the receipt of gifts; and
WHEREAS, the Resolution states that a gift of real or personal property must be
accepted by the City Council by resolution and be approved by a two-thirds majority of the
Council. A cash donation must be acknowledged and accepted by motion with a simple
majority.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council accepts the following
grant:
1. $5,700.75 from Minnesota Department of Public Safety Turnout Gear
Washer/Extractor/Dryer Award Program, for the purchase of a turnout gear dryer.
Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 18th day of December, 2018.
_____________________________
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
3. R. Adopt Amendment to Employee Handbook
Prepared By
Kirsten Santelices, Human Resources Director
Summary
At the Council/Manager meeting on December 11, 2018, the Council reviewed Staff proposed
changes to the Employee Handbook. Staff reiterated that it is in the best interest of the City to
regularly review and update policies, considering new case law, and legislative updates. At the
Council/Manager meeting, Staff and Council reviewed the changes to the following policies:
• Introduction
• Respectful Workplace
• Tobacco, Drug and Alcohol
• Code of Conduct: Outside Employment
• Employee Performance Management and Discipline
• Time Away from Work: Leave Donation
• Safety
Staff also proposed the removal of gender specific pronouns throughout the document.
Staff proposes that Council adopt the updated policies into the handbook. The approved changes
will go into effect January 1, 2019.
Attachments:
• Resolution Adopting Amendment to the Employee Handbook (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution adopting amendments to the Employee Handbook.
RESOLUTION NO. 18-87
RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK
WHEREAS, a completely revised Employee Handbook was adopted by Resolution
11-81 on December 20, 2011 and dated January 1, 2012; amended by Resolution 12-24 on
March 20, 2012; amended by Resolution 12-100 on December 18, 2012; amended by
Resolution 13-65 on July 16, 2013; and amended by Resolution 17-19 on April 20, 2017;
and amended by Resolution 17-85 on December 17, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the Employee Handbook has been slightly revised to include updated
policies and procedures, complying with state and federal laws, and updated language to
reflect advice of legal counsel in a manner that involves providing employees with an
updated handbook; and
WHEREAS, the above-referenced amendments will become effective as of
January 1, 2019.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden
Valley that the amendments to the “City of Golden Valley Employee Handbook” dated
January 1, 2019 is hereby adopted, and the revised policies supersede all previously
adopted policies and procedures except those contained in approved union contracts.
Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 18th day of December, 2018.
_____________________________
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
3. S. Set 2019 Meeting Dates
Prepared By
Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant
Summary
The City Council meets the first and third Tuesday of each month. The Council/Manager meetings
are held on the second Tuesday of each month. Each year the City Council reviews the calendar
and sets meeting dates if there are any conflicts. Listed below are the meeting dates that need to
be set:
City Council Meeting:
January 1 - New Year’s
August 6 - Night to Unite
October 1 - Rosh Hashanah
November 5 - Election
Council/Manager Meeting:
October 8 - Yom Kippur
Recommended Action
Motion to reset the following City Council meeting dates:
January 1 to Wednesday, January 2
August 6 to Wednesday, August 7
October 1 to Wednesday, October 2
November 5 to Wednesday, November 6
Motion to reset the following Council/Manager meeting date:
October 8 to Thursday, October 10
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
3. T. Acceptance of Donations for Ongoing Donations
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
This resolution is for acceptance of donations received from throughout the year for ongoing
programs that are approved at year end. The solicitation letter list is from 12-1-17 through 12-12-
18.
Attachments
• Resolution Accepting Donations for the Ongoing Programs (7 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Accepting Donations for the Ongoing Programs.
RESOLUTION NO. 18-88
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATIONS FOR ONGOING PROGRAMS
AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS DONATIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 04-20 on March 16, 2004, which
amended the Donation/Gift policy; and
WHEREAS, the Resolution states that a gift of real or personal property must be
accepted by the City Council by resolution and be approved by a two-thirds majority of the
Council.
WHEREAS, cash donations sent to the Golden Valley Human Services Commission
are from 12/1/17 through 12/13/18 are on Exhibit A.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council accepts the following
donations:
Run The Valley Sponsorships:
Gold $1000 up
Lund’s & Byerly’s $1000*
Optum $1000*
Silver $501-$999
Liberty Carton $501*
Bassett Creek Dental $600
Salus LLC DBA Anytime Fitness $501
Bronze $100-$500
Fluency Digital Inc $100
Gary Metchrek Realty $100
Oak Grove Church $300
Snap Fitness $100
Golden Valley Golf & Lawn Bowling Classic Sponsorships:
Golf Hole Sponsor
Nancy Azzam $1,000
Anytime Fitness (New Hope/Crystal) $500
Lunds and Byerlys $500
Trustone Financial $500
Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc $500
Rudy Luther $500
SDK Communications $500
Liberty Carton $500
Resolution No. -2- December 18, 2018
Golden Valley Golf & Lawn Bowling Classic Sponsorships - continued
Lawn Bowling Sponsor
Musco Lighting $500
Best & Flanagan $500
Discover St. Louis Park $500
Hole in One Sponsor
BNC Bank $300
Donations
Van Clemens & Company $300
Mathnasium
Room & Board
Frankie’s Pizza
_____________________________
Shepard Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
First Name Last Name City Donation All PRISM NWDAYD BFY HUG
Tree
House Total
Charlie Meyers Golden Valley 20 20 20
Marilyn Raupp Minneapolis 15 15 15
Dean and Diane Kishel Golden Valley 60 60 60
Michael and Sharon Staffaroni Minneapolis 25 25 25
Barbara Bach Minneapolis 25 25 25
Gail Larson Golden Valley 20 20 20
Brian Anderson Golden Valley 20 20 20
William and Sandra Ritter Golden Valley 20 10 10 20
Sheva and Thomas Sanders Golden Valley 30 30 30
Leo Furcht Golden Valley 100 100 100
Pamela Berven Golden Valley 50 50 50
Scott Weisberg Minneapolis 30 30 30
David Graumann Golden Valley 20 20 20
Steve Schmidgall Golden Valley 30 30 30
James and Kathleen Johnson Golden Valley 100 100 100
Jean Rose Minneapolis 10 10 10
Mary Kay Arthur Minneapolis 100 100 100
Violet and Roger Osbeck Golden Valley 20 20 20
Grace Belsaas Golden Valley 15 15 15
Earl and Barbara Hoffman Golden Valley 20 20 20
Ken & Karen Landro Golden Valley 10 10 10
Betty Spartz Golden Valley 10 10 10
Susan & Rich Miller Golden Valley 30 30 30
Daniel Brewer Golden Valley 60 60 60
Dian & Shawn Curley Golden Valley 200 200 200
Bill & Judy Schuster Golden Valley 25 25 25
Kris Church Golden Valley 10 10 10
Sue & Bill Linder Minneapolis 50 50 50
Colleen Stephens Golden Valley 10 10 10
Nancy Desmit Golden Valley 25 25 25
David Grote Golden Valley 30 30 30
Allen Gruidl Golden Valley 25 25 25
Dallis & Taeko Tanaka Perry Golden Valley 50 50 50
Bob & Heidi Wadsten Golden Valley 50 50 50
Dennis Johnson Golden Valley 10 10 10
Tim & Anita Momsen Golden Valley 30 30 30
Donald & Grace Grussing Golden Valley 30 30 30
Judith & Howard Kauffman Minneapolis 25 25 25
Steve Litton Golden Valley 25 25 25
James Leith Golden Valley 20 20 20
Dan & Julie Johnson Golden Valley 35 35 35
Canvas
Health/Crisis
Nursery
Senior
Community
Services Sojourner
EXHIBIT A
First Name Last Name City Donation All PRISM NWDAYD BFY HUG
Tree
House Total
Canvas
Health/Crisis
Nursery
Senior
Community
Services Sojourner
David Allen Minneapolis 30 30 30
James Uttley Golden Valley 550 550 550
Stephen & Mary Robinson Golden Valley 30 30 30
Patricia Pennington Golden Valley 25 25 25
Robyn Fernandez Golden Valley 100 100 100
Alan Ingber Minneapolis 25 25 25
Delphine Arme Golden Valley 10 10 10
James Wilson Golden Valley 40 40 40
Donald Browne Golden Valley 50 50 50
Gordon and Jan Beavers Golden Valley 30 30 30
Barbara Courey Golden Valley 100 100 100
Catherine McIntire Minneapolis 15 15 15
John Colwell Golden Valley 100 100 100
Catherine Davis Golden Valley 30 30 30
Kathleen and Mark Thorsell Golden Valley 100 100 100
Hilmer Erickson Golden Valley 100 100 100
James French Golden Valley 15 15 15
Jon and Linda Ketokoski Golden Valley 20 20 20
Jonathan Erickson Golden Valley 50 50 50
Ralph and Sharon Shultz Golden Valley 100 100 100
Joseph Tomko Golden Valley 60 60 60
Deborah Eisenstadt Golden Valley 50 50 50
Michael and Renee Bergquist Golden Valley 30 30 30
Sue Anderson Golden Valley 20 20 20
Ryan and Natalie Sadeghi Minneapolis 10 10 10
Donavan Juliar Golden Valley 20 20 20
Janice Paulsen Golden Valley 300 300 300
Jim Hoops Golden Valley 100 100 100
Rod Olson Golden Valley 30 30 30
Nancy Eicher Golden Valley 50 50 50
Derek and Alysa More Golden Valley 50 50 50
James Bernard Golden Valley 50 50 50
Elaine Reiss Golden Valley 30 30 30
Louise Carpentier Golden Valley 30 30 30
Margaret Leppik Golden Valley 50 25 25 50
Dennis Flom Golden Valley 10 10 10
Allan and Betty Johnson Golden Valley 100 100 100
Toots Vodovoz Golden Valley 50 50 50
Barbara Anderson Minneapolis 15 15 15
Robert Rogness Golden Valley 50 50 50
Dennis and Shirley Gustner Minneapolis 30 30 30
EXHIBIT A
First Name Last Name City Donation All PRISM NWDAYD BFY HUG
Tree
House Total
Canvas
Health/Crisis
Nursery
Senior
Community
Services Sojourner
Annette Dreier Golden Valley 20 20 20
Maria Wetherall Golden Valley 50 50 50
David Kuball Golden Valley 100 100 100
Paul and Mary Westerlund Golden Valley 20 20 20
Lynn Hochhauser Golden Valley 10 10 10
Trudy Lerner Golden Valley 30 30 30
Robert and Mary Vogel Golden Valley 25 25 25
Bruce and Diane Osvold Golden Valley 20 20 20
Timothy and Natalie Rice Golden Valley 15 15 15
Christopher Robinson Golden Valley 50 50 50
Barry and Marjorie Schaub Minneapolis 50 50 50
Steven Savitt Golden Valley 50 50 50
Susan and James Senger Golden Valley 50 50 50
Elizabeth Sanberg Golden Valley 50 50 50
Stan Hansen Golden Valley 15 15 15
Gregg La Plante Golden Valley 200 50 50 50 50 200
Kathleen Nadreau Minneapolis 30 30 30
Don Schnack Golden Valley 10 10 10
Joan and Sam Dorman Golden Valley 30 30 30
Donna Wolff Minneapolis 50 50 50
Kathleen Guerrero Minneapolis 25 25 25
Charles Jacob Golden Valley 0 0 0
Nadine Smith Ide Minnepolis 10 10 10
Richard Aarnes Golden Valley 20 20 20
Beak Bakke Golden Valley 10 10 10
Jerry and Joey Laurie Golden Valley 15 15 15
Gerald Martinson Golden Valley 20 20 20
Rebecca and Stanley Coffin Golden Valley 20 20 20
Joon and Jim Mornes Golden Valley 30 30 30
Richard Patterson Minneapolis 25 25 25
Maureen and John Fischer Golden Valley 100 100 100
Paul Rust and Sue Schlafmann Golden Valley 300 300 300
Tom Harn Golden Valley 100 100 100
Andy Snope Golden Valley 100 100 100
Suzann & Matthew Swaggert Golden Valley 25 25 25
Gene Smoleroff Golden Valley 50 50 50
Richard Waggoner Golden Valley 20 20 20
Mary and Robert Shaffer Golden Valley 100 100 100
John T.Wetzel Golden Valley 25 25 25
Tom and Kathy Skalitzky Golden Valley 100 100 100
Ellen Hughes Golden Valley 50 50 50
EXHIBIT A
First Name Last Name City Donation All PRISM NWDAYD BFY HUG
Tree
House Total
Canvas
Health/Crisis
Nursery
Senior
Community
Services Sojourner
Charles Jacob Golden Valley 50 50 50
Mark Maida Golden Valley 500 500 500
Bernie Milstein Golden Valley 10 10 10
Milton Hill and Gladys Williamso Minneapolis 50 50 50
Stephen Pesavento Golden Valley 25 25 25
Rahel Melesse Golden Valley 150 150 150
Thomas & Julie Theiringer Golden Valley 100 100 100
Leslie Freeberg Minneapolis 20 20 20
James & Mary Shervurne Golden Valley 30 30 30
Donna Godejohn Golden Valley 50 50 50
Orion Benson Golden Valley 50 50 50
Dennis & Marge Anderson Golden Valley 15 7.5 7.5 15
Nancy & Robert Tronnier Golden Valley 100 100 100
Eric & Laura Kehrberg Golden Valley 100 100 100
Carolyn Fiterman/CDF FouGolden Valley 250 250 250
Ruth Nolan Golden Valley 20 20 20
Helen Moser Golden Valley 50 25 25 50
Penny Thompson-Burke &Josh Burke Golden Valley 25 25 25
Mary Ann Campbell Golden Valley 70 70 70
Suzanne Herberg Golden Valley 75 75 75
Mike Lipschultz Golden Valley 100 100 100
Laurie and Mark Efron Golden Valley 100 100 100
Douglas and Barbara Diedrich Golden Valley 150 150 150
Don and Judith Gerhardt Golden Valley 50 25 25 50
Daniel and Barbara Schultz Minneapolis 100 100 100
Jon Heidinger Golden Valley 100 100 100
Janice Hetland Golden Valley 50 10 10 10 10 10 50
Steven Collin Golden Valley 100 100 100
Nancy Hannan Golden Valley 30 10 10 10 30
Robert Wheeler Minneapolis 30 30 30
Joyce Maninerich Golden Valley 50 25 25 50
Susan and Joe Forster Golden Valley 30 30 30
Sharon Soike Minneapolis 20 20 20
Dwayne King Golden Valley 20 10 10 20
Edward and Joyce Ratner Golden Valley 100 100 100
Doris and Delroy Thomas Golden Valley 100 100 100
Jack and Sylvia Zouber Golden Valley 50 50 50
Dale and Ann Petersen Golden Valley 50 50 50
Deanne Hanson Golden Valley 10 10 10
Larry Fonnest Golden Valley 100 100 100
Alan Meuwissen Golden Valley 100 100 100
EXHIBIT A
First Name Last Name City Donation All PRISM NWDAYD BFY HUG
Tree
House Total
Canvas
Health/Crisis
Nursery
Senior
Community
Services Sojourner
Alan and Andra Barnard Minneapolis 25 25 25
Steven and Janet Streef Golden Valley 20 20 20
Jeanne Haro Minneapolis 50 50 50
Mary Quirk Golden Valley 30 30 30
J.S.Sherman Golden Valley 10 10 10
Jason Johnson Golden Valley 50 25 25 50
P.Greenlees Golden Valley 30 30 30
Stephanie Landmark Minneapolis 30 30 30
Karen Linn Anderson Golden Valley 30 30 30
John Toohey Golden Valley 5 5 5
Janice Jodock Golden Valley 30 15 15 30
Gerald Savage Golden Valley 20 20 20
Edward and Catherine Bergquist Minneapolis 50 50 50
Janet & Luke Weisberg Golden Valley 36 36 36
Bonnie Ostlund Golden Valley 45 45 45
Abdullahi Omar Golden Valley 10 10 10
Patrick and Beth Lilja Golden Valley 100 100 100
Rebecca Kopp Golden Valley 30 30 30
Helen Siegel Golden Valley 30 30 30
Sid & Virginia Sehlin Golden Valley 20 20 20
Wayne Keplinger Golden Valley 250 250 250
Margaret Leppik Golden Valley 50 50 50
Maria Johnson Golden Valley 50 50 50
Janice Kleven Golden Valley 100 50 50 100
Ruth Paradise Golden Valley 20 20 20
Robyn Fernandez Golden Valley 100 100 100
Anthony and Nina DiAngelis Golden Valley 125 50 50 25 125
Marjorie Beyer Golden Valley 10 10 10
Mary Hedstrom Golden Valley 100 100 100
Steven Savitt Golden Valley 50 50 50
Mary Kay Arthur Minneapolis 300 300 300
CDF Foundation MEMORY OF ELLISA HEILICHER 250 250 250
City of Golden Valley MEMORY OF ELLISA HEILICHER 100 100 100
0
11501 9281 345 567.5 602.5 275 95 110 185 40 11501
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
3. U. Modifying 2019 General Wages and Salary for Certain Positions
Prepared By
Kirsten Santelices, Human Resources Coordinator
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
The position of Police Commander was evaluated after the negotiations with the police unions
were finalized. Market studies show that based on the duties of this position an adjustment is
appropriate. The adjustment on the resolution is the salary for the current positon starting
January 1, 2019.
The utility billing position will be open due to the resignation of the current employee. The
position has changed with the involvement of meter change outs, online payment billing center,
and tracking of readings. Market survey on this position showed that an adjustment is
appropriate. This positon will be reclassified as Utility Billing Specialist starting January 1, 2019.
Attachment
• Resolution Modifying 2019 General Wages and Salary for Police Commander and Utility Billing
Specialist (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Modifying 2019 General Wages and Salary for Police Commander
and Utility Billing Specialist.
RESOLUTION NO. 18-89
RESOLUTION RECLASSIFYING CERTAIN POSITIONS:
POLICE COMMANDER AND UTILITY BILLING SPECIALIST
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley that it hereby
adopts the following general wages and salaries, and benefits schedule for all non-union
personnel for the year 2019, said schedule to commence for performed by the personnel
named herein effective January 1, 2019:
DIVISION HEADS/ SUPERVISORS Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
Police Commander $ 104,580 $ 109,560 $ 114,540 $ 119,520 $ 124,500
NON-EXEMPT Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
Utility Billing Specialist $ 26.89 $ 28.17 $ 29.45 $ 30.73 $ 32.01
Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 18th day of December, 2018.
_____________________________
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
120 day deadline: February 1, 2019
Agenda Item
4. A. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - 4400 Sunset Ridge
Prepared By
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Summary
Tony Videen, representing STR8 Modern Properties, is proposing to subdivide the property located at
4400 Sunset Ridge into two lots. There is one existing single-family home on this lot, which would be
demolished, and two new homes are proposed to be constructed.
The existing lot is approximately 38,384 square feet in size and sits on the edge of a single-family
neighborhood. To the east it abuts the natural corridor that connects Strawberry Pond to North
Tyrol Park. South of Sunset Ridge, across from the subject property, is a wooded area adjacent to
I-394.
The northern and eastern portions of the lot contain a steep slope that drops off to the low area
between Strawberry Pond and North Tyrol Park. This slope is heavily wooded.
The subdivision proposal would divide the existing lot in two with roughly equal frontages along
Sunset Ridge. Due to the deep configuration of the existing lot, both of the two new lots would
extend far to the north. The current home spans the western two-thirds of the lot and would
need to be demolished if the lot is split.
The future homes would have access off of Sunset Ridge and sewer and water service would also
be extended from the public right-of-way.
Evaluation
Sec. 109-121 of the City Code lists nine conditions that must be considered when evaluating a minor
subdivision, including area and dimensional requirements, provision of vehicular access from a public
street, suitable slopes and wetness for building, the availability of utility connections, and other
administrative requirements.
Lot Requirements:
Required Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2
Minimum lot size
15,000 square feet 16,112 square feet 22,272 square feet
Minimum lot width at 35 feet deep
80 feet 97.3 feet 110.4 feet
Minimum lot width at 70 feet deep
80 feet 80.0 feet 126.8 feet
The dimensions of both Lots 1 and 2 would provide sufficient building envelopes for development.
If approved, a park dedication fee of $10,800 would be required prior to release of the Final Plat.
At the request of the City Engineer, a slope stability analysis has been conducted to investigate if Lot 2
can be developed safely. This has been confirmed, subject to certain recommendations to be followed
at the time of an issuance of a building permit.
Staff finds all other conditions for approval have been met, as described in the memo to the Planning
Commission dated November 26, 2018.
The Planning Commission recommended approval (7-0) at its meeting on November 26. One resident
spoke at the informal public hearing and asked questions about drainage.
Attachments
• Location Map (1 page)
• Planning Commission Minutes dated November 26, 2018 (3 pages)
• Memo to the Planning Commission dated November 26, 2018 (5 pages)
• Preliminary Plat submitted November 20, 2018 (1 page)
• Tree Inventory dated October 14, 2018 (4 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the Minor Subdivision for 4400 Sunset Ridge, subject to the following conditions:
1. A slope stability analysis must be conducted and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval
of the Final Plat.
2. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final Plat.
3. A park dedication fee of $10,800 shall be paid before release of the Final Plat.
R
VJest�,00c.. 1
4 4541 .+.. q•p,�400
GlenuPst Rd
452,1 45A1;* M MO1 r
400 4�8 4«8 MOAl' 4223t 42:11 42011 41.15 i
g 417 .� 5•;5 ..
�r 5,016 "4520 45,10 508 4,1„6 51a1 'lk1,5 1523 5291
5.08 509 F AQw�
5+15 4530 E;tiawberry In 5""0 504
5.18 5:17 0" 8.;7r �31� 5j6 g2Q 15281 �23 5�6
"� 4 01 W
603 412'1 ,?45,11
f4 � �r
x
X46617
814 4640 SA
cn 4632 7�8 7fp9 R
X00 4'641 T013 `
,ovw Q Subject Property: ; 8
A 4400 Sunset Ridge e� T474
z "
� asps s� - �901 ail
4817 , ` 9 `��Es to
8 .
A �i1
'+o9' -+ 48'2'J �F w820
46 45920
01 41508 w 11s
4.41 4500 4414 90b ,� 1,Q01
0441.
4„'27 togs: �; yrt
15` 4505
i a44Q9 1T
k
1315 Ml 4�1'
1325 '4'4'� 111x0 .,,� WO411 41,1
- .. 4330
"43&70 13 f
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 17
Ian. Baker suggested adding a senten stating that the goal of the condition is to
ovide immediate and long term scree ng from the neighborhood to the west.
Jo son stated that a condition should added about putting the dumpster tion on
the ns. Segelbaum questioned how the address the concern about t blowing
aroun immerman said that would be property maintenance issue.
Baker sai would like to recommend at the applicant apply f variance to allow for
a six foot tall ce to be placed along t perimeter of the pro y and that venting of
kitchen odors b one in such a way to inimize impacts to a neighborhood to the west
and north.
MOVED by Baker seco d by Johnson nd motion rried 4 to 2 to 1 to recommend
approval of Conditional Us ermit 162 lowing fo Residential Facility serving up to 25
persons at 5530 and 5540 G n Valle Road a 1530 Welcome Avenue North,
subject to the findings discusse d co ition s follows. Commissioners Blum and
Pockl voted no. Commissioner Seg a a ained.
Conditions
1. The Residential Facility may serve ;t 5 persons and must maintain appropriate
licensure from the State of Minne t
2. All vehicle deliveries shall take ace n-site' shall not take place on the street.
Scheduled deliveries to the p perty ust occu tween 8 am and 5 pm on
weekdays and weekends.
3. An overflow parking plan ust be s mitted and revs ed by the City prior to the
issuance of a building mit.
4. The exterior dumpste hall be place in the parking lot an I creened with an
enclosure construc of material co. patible with the buildin
5. In order to mitiga visual impacts to djacent single-family ho installation of
coniferous tree etween the propos building and Welcome AV e is required.
The goal of t ' condition is to provid immediate and long term scre ing for the
neighborho to the west and north.
6. In order t itigate visual impacts to jacent single-family homes, instal 'on of
shrub a perennial plantings betwee the proposed fence and the adjace treets
(Welc e Avenue and Golden Valley oad) is required.
7. In o r to mitigate visual impacts to a 'acent single-family homes, installation
de rative fence along the perimeter the property is required. This approval is
ject to all other state, federal, and I al ordinances, regulations, or laws with
uthority over this development.
5. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 4400 Sunset Ridge — SU09-15
Applicant: STR8 Modern Properties, LLC
Address: 4400 Sunset Ridge
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 18
Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lots into two new
single family residential lots
Zimmerman referred to location map and aerial photo of the property and explained the
applicant's proposal to subdivide one existing single family residential lot into two lots. He
stated that the existing lot is 38,384 square feet in size. Proposed lot one to the west
would be 16,112 square feet in size, 97.3 feet wide and the front setback, and 80 feet
Wide 70 feet into the lot. Proposed lot two to the east would be 22,272 square feet in size,
110.4 feet wide at the front setback, and 126.8 feet wide 70 feet into the lot. He added
that all dimensional requirements have been met.
Zimmerman referred to a survey of the property and showed how the new property line
would be drawn dividing the lot into two and the proposed building envelope on each lot.
Zimmerman stated that the property is in compliance with the City's inflow and infiltration
requirements, a tree survey has been completed, a park dedication fee of$10,800 is due
prior to release of the final plat, and a slope stability analysis has been requested by the
City Engineer. He added that individual plans and permits would be reviewed and issued
at the time of construction.
Zimmerman reviewed the nine conditions for approval or denial and stated that staff is
recommending approval of the proposed subdivision subject to conditions listed in the
staff report in addition to the review of the slope stability analysis.
Baker asked if the property could be subdivided whether it is buildable or not. Zimmerman
said no, if the property is not buildable due to steep slopes or excessive wetness the
property would not be able to be subdivided because the City does not want to create lots
that are not buildable.
Tony Videen, Applicant, said the intent in purchasing the property was to renovate the
house but he did not feel it was a property he could save because of the value and what it
would cost to renovate it. He stated that more than likely the slope stability analysis will
show that the lot will be buildable it is just to what degree and expense. He said he
agreed with staff that he doesn't want to split the property if it is not buildable.
Baker opened the public hearing.
Brian Beutner, 810 Westwood Drive, asked if any drainage studies have been done
showing what will happen to the neighboring properties if this property is subdivided. He
said it seems premature to make a recommendation about subdividing this property until
the consequences are known.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing
Zimmerman stated that the Engineering staff will review the grading and stormwater
runoff issues. He said typically as much water as possible is captured and focused toward
the street and into the stormwater sewer system. He added that there are also rules about
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 19
not increasing the amount of runoff onto neighboring properties, or directing runoff where
it didn't go before.
Segelbaum said the proposal seems to meet the criteria used when reviewing
subdivisions.
Pockl asked if there is a way to condition the subdivision to ensure that any drainage
issues are addressed or resolved. Zimmerman stated that the stormwater management
permits issued at the time of construction would address the issues. He added that it is
hard to determine the issues at this stage without house plans and that this process is
about splitting the land versus construction so it is unusual to place that type of condition
on the subdivision.
MOVED by Segelbaum seconded by Pockl and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the minor subdivision at 4400 Sunset Ridge subject to the
following conditions:
1. The City Attorney shall determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the
final plat.
2. A park dedication fee of$10,800 shall be paid before release of the final plat.
3. A slope stability analysis of Lot 2 shall be submitted for review by the City Engineer.
Continued Informal Public He ing — Conditional Use Permit Amendment— 800
Boone Avenue North — CU-11 , Amendment#3
A icant: Home Health C e, Inc.
Addre 800 Boone Ave e North
Purpose: To explore poss le modifications to urrent Conditional Use
mit in regard social event �ng held at the facility.
Zimmerman reminded the missi ners is is a continued item regarding social
events being held at 800 Boo ve orth. He explained that there is a condition in
the applicant's Conditional Use hat allows for occasional evening social functions
and that over the past year the a been issues with parties and noise. He stated that
based on complaints the C ounci r ked the Conditional Use Permit and then
stayed that revocation referred t m r to the Planning Commission to review the
issues and try to w out a solution allow, , adult daycare to continue while
addressing the " r issues. He stat that on ober 8, the Planning Commission
decided to h a public hearing and 'onsider am e ents to the Conditional Use Permit.
A public h ing was held on Octobe 22 and was co ued to this meeting. This item is
now sc uled for City Council actio 'on December 18 t ither amend the Conditional
Use rmit or to finalize the revocati
immerman stated that at the Octob 22 Planning Commission ting the Commission
considered allowing limited informati al/marketing events to be he the evenings and
city of
valley Planning Department
763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax)
Date: November 26, 2018
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Plan for 4400 Sunset Ridge
Property address: 4400 Sunset Ridge
Applicant: STR8 Modern Properties Property owner: STR8 Modern Properties
Zoning District:Single-Family (R-1) Residential Lot size: 38,384 sq. ft. (0.88 acres)
Current use: Single-family home Future land use: Low Density Residential
Adjacent uses:Single-family homes (west); park, single-family homes (north, east); 1-394 right-of-
way (south)
"r
Q0�+
I
t
10,
z sz
r IgG
� ;
101
� r
2015 aerial photo(Hennepin County)
1
Summary of Request
Tony Videen, representing STR8 Modern Properties, is proposing to subdivide the property
located at 4400 Sunset Ridge into two lots. There is one existing single-family home on this lot,
which would be demolished, and two new homes are proposed to be constructed.
Existing Conditions
The existing lot is approximately 38,384 square feet in size and sits on the edge of a single-family
neighborhood.To the east it abuts the natural corridor that connects Strawberry Pond to North
Tyrol Park. South of Sunset Ridge, across from the subject property, is a wooded area adjacent to
1-394.
The northern and eastern portions of the lot contain a steep slope that drops off to the low area
between Strawberry Pond and North Tyrol Park. This slope is heavily wooded.
Proposed Use
The subdivision proposal would divide the existing lot in two with roughly equal frontages along
Sunset Ridge. Due to the deep configuration of the existing lot, both of the two new lots would
extend far to the north. The current home spans the western two-thirds of the lot and would
need to be demolished if the lot is split.
The future homes would have access off of Sunset Ridge and sewer and water service would also
be extended from the public right-of-way.
Staff Review
Changes to the minimum lot area requirement of the Subdivision Code made in 2015 require a
calculation of the average lot size of all residential lots within 250 feet of the subject property in the
Single Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. If the average is greater than 18,000 square feet, the
new required minimum lot size becomes 15,000 square feet. If the average is less than 18,000 square
feet, the required minimum lot size remains at 10,000 square feet.
For 4400 Sunset Ridge,the average size of the lots within 250 feet is approximately 25,949 square
feet. Therefore,the required minimum lot size of each new lot is 15,000 square feet. The existing lot
is 38,384 square feet. The proposed Lot 1, to the east, would be 16,112 square feet. The proposed Lot
2, to the west, would be 22,272 square feet.
City Code requires that each non-corner lot have a minimum of 80 feet of width at the front setback
line and maintain 80 feet of width for 70 feet of depth. Lots 1 and 2 would each have over 80 feet of
width at the 35 foot setback line and would maintain sufficient width 70 feet back from the front lot
line.
The dimensions of both Lots 1 and 2 would provide sufficient building envelopes for development.
2
Lot Requirements:
Required Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2
Minimum lot size
15,000 square feet 16,112 square feet 22,272 square feet
Minimum lot width at 35 feet deep
80 feet 97.3 feet 110.4 feet
Minimum lot width at 70 feet deep
80 feet 80.0 feet 126.8 feet
The one existing sanitary sewer service has been inspected and found to be compliant with the City's
Inflow and Infiltration requirements.
As required by the City Code, a tree inventory was performed in order to document all existing trees.
This inventory will be reviewed by the City Forester and used to calculate any required tree
replacement when the new lots are developed.
If approved, a park dedication fee of$10,800 would also be required prior to release of the Final Plat.
The Engineering Division has reviewed the application and has contributed to the findings made
below. Engineering staff supports approval of the minor subdivision subject to the conditions
contained in this memorandum.
Neighborhood Notification
A mailing was sent by the applicant to property owners within 500 feet of this site on November
13, 2018. To date, staff has not received any communication regarding this letter.
Evaluation
According to Section 109-121 of the City Code, the following are the regulations governing approval
of minor subdivisions:
Factor/Finding
1. A minor subdivision shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the minimum area
and dimensional requirements for the Zoning District in which they are located, or if vehicular
access is not provided from an abutting improved street.
Standard met. Both proposed lots meet the minimum area and dimensional requirements of
the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. Vehicular access can be provided from an
abutting improved street.
2. A minor subdivision may be denied upon the City's determination that a resulting new lot
is encumbered by steep slopes or excessive wetness.
3
Standard met. The proposed lots appear to be buildable. This determination is subject to a soils
report, slope stability analysis, and wetland delineation that must be provided before site and
building permits can be issued.
3. A minor subdivision may be denied if sewer and water connections are not directly
accessible by each proposed lot.
Standard met. Sewer and water connections are available and the development will not place
an undue strain on City utility systems. The City will require that the new homes be connected
to the utilities available within Sunset Ridge if feasible. The existing sewer service that flows
east into the City park is connected to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services
interceptor main. This service must be removed as part of the construction process. City staff
will work with the applicant or contractor on the details of the utility plan at the time of
permitting.
4. Approval shall be conditioned on the granting of easements for necessary public purposes.
Standard met. Drainage and utility easements meeting City standards are required along all
property lines. Staff will review the proposed final plat to ensure that it includes the required
easements.
5. Approval may be conditioned on the requirements of outside public agencies with
jurisdiction.
Not applicable.
6. Approval shall be conditioned on the resolution of any title issues raised by the City
Attorney.
Standard conditionally met. The City Attorney will determine if such a title review is necessary
prior to approval of the final plat.
7. Minor subdivisions of nonresidential parcels may be denied if new development will cause
undo strain on adjacent roads or on public utilities or will adversely affect adjacent uses.
Not applicable.
8. Approval shall be conditioned on the payment of a park dedication fee, sewer and water
access charge,and pending or levied deferred assessments.
Standard conditionally met. A park dedication fee of$10,800 would be required prior to release
of the final plat. Sewer and water access charges would be calculated and collected at the time
of permitting.
9.The conditions spelled out shall provide the only basis for denial of a minor subdivision.
Approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions.
4
Standard met.
Recommended Action
Based on the findings above, staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision at 4400 Sunset
Ridge subject to the following conditions:
1. The City Attorney shall determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat.
2. A park dedication fee of$10,800 shall be paid before release of the final plat.
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
Plan submitted November 20, 2018 (1 page)
Tree Inventory dated October 14, 2018 (4 pages)
5
810Z 0 Z AON
OEZS193a NW' siaaa®Tp a
S'l'a'NMONG*V MOHOOOM ' '��nlaeump i 3
WOO"JNlA3A21T1SONVlNl1A : =l jNI:lIVW3 -"8E9'2-9F F� O I
99Zb4S9(ZS6)6):xVd 'NDI.LI9QY STIIH'p%.V..LSBY S.A�P)BA '9I'P-T9•T 301
SSOb-YS9(ZS6):+sne 8 NOIldR10S30 AJA13d021d
SZYSS NW'NOiONIWOO-1g 30N3l13d321 133HS
N A 'ONI'9NU3AMTIS ONVI NM021B'M
'9ZZ3 nS'•OS 3nN3AV 9ra30 OEO9 •olosauUM 10 0WIS 947 io SAD a ja un jo6a,n
'::)NI'VNIA3Aans ONV7 NMON9•M page sl6a� (n o wo 4l P S Puol 9TGSS w1 RT I. S 00" �vaa g13-�Z ooe
1 I P I loyl puo uolswadns 100�Ip Rw �0pun �0 0w a8p>:p iasung pppq
Aq paTodaud soM liodar jo •uold 'AsAms 9141 1o41 ylNao 6gaJa4 I sS3ilOOV Mus ,OZ- .T
31VOS 'ON 90P
J33d NI 3'1VOS uogonooxa Guo 6u1op wo;aq uog000l looxa Jo; pal;Bou
aq pino46
Ain min 'elowlxouddo ago puo saluodwoo
-11111n 041,(q pogslwn; suold woJ; Jo/puo pleg 041 u1 aouaplAO
psA asgo jaylla w0j; auo uMoys se!1!I!ln Ilo ;o uoll000l 941-
06 OZ 0 •slu9wasoa Auo jo; apow son. 43Joas ON-
S3IaF
N
Jsa£9'IZ - 2101
.ds SM91 - 1 101
TVISVITMUM
Js 49£'8£ = l 701
\ � 19386-JAfISIR3
3 0 Cl l a 1 3 s N n s _ ���' g88
068
,1 L
\26
,iZ39=p
C` 997 l=l C£' Ll=N:o CO CO GO UJD
00
v
d Sly Ln i
0 �— _ 0 a x, yc— '
'Joilk L6-- II
�O 0 r
uVoll,40L
WHO P;OHJ HOVAL3S ,9Z \ \ \ \ I
V.
1 ! .
3S 9Z8'9l I ti88
11 1 \ \ \ .Ir-
o 1 Oil I
co
r
>1 \0 0 1 e II
oFL
Z88
v 088
\
9
� I M
\\ � 09 I� 8L8
\ •ao \ �S I I C,4
9L8
\ \ I I I w tL8
ZL8
OL8
998
\ to
V99
\ •i NI Z98
\ f 098
\ \` w I 858
\ 9S8
\ \ 1 M
\ C14 t92
\ I Z99
1M�10 HA N3VI13S ,S
\ x MA
x VWMM'gr
—IMHO £1'058
00'L£ 00 Sti
00'9L M„90,OZ.88N
cruris + NJIS30 6 3-ISVNivis 1S
:UO-4 A3AanS NOISIAMenS HONIW
E
0
U
LO
C', n
< U-)
C Z f—
E .50)
-0
� 7 �
_ a- L f 1
LO
0- (n (O
U 5
H ti
3
I
N
• ti
• • O
•
co
•
� � O
•
• • O
• N
• O
•
00
Z�v
11IaXXYYYYYPPP
Q
M
r N
Z
's E
0 O
C U
1 O
Q N
'O N
t� V
N O
U c
-L
C CO ,O
N N E
CO ' L y
oy00)
N c� t-
-T 0
F r
0LLM
O N N
s*- (D a a
u 0 d a-
Project:Tree Inventory/Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan for 4400 Sunset Ridge, Golden Valley
ENTIRE PROPERTY WAS INVENTORIED ON 10-13-2018.
Date: October 14, 2018
Prepared By: Mary Johnson, Certified Arborist MN-4238A,S&S Tree
City of Golden Valley's Definition of Significant Tree: healthy hardwood deciduous (Oak, hard Maple,
Walnut, Birch, Black Cherry, Honeylocust, Basswood, Hackberry) 6" or greater in diameter. Healthy
softwood deciduous(Cottonwood, Poplars,Aspen,Ash, Boxelder,Willow,Silver Maple) 12"or greater in
diameter. Healthy conifers 4" or greater in diameter.
Legacy Tree: healthy hardwood deciduous 30" or greater in diameter. Healthy conifers 24" or greater in
diameter.
Tag: round, metal tag (numbers 1 - 30), along with a strip of blue ribbon, located about 5' above ground.
Tree Diameter(Dia): in inches, measured at 54"above ground.The diameters of multi-stem trees are
added together(except poor condition stems,which are not added in).
Tree Condition (Cond):Good, Fair, Poor. Good and Fair trees are considered healthy. Poor trees are
considered unhealthy, due to excessive decay.
Fate:Tree is to be Saved, Removed, or is Non-Significant . Non-Significant trees are not included in total
numbers because they are not healthy, but are provided to show location. There are 8 Non-Significant
trees on this Inventory.There are 9 Significant trees to be Removed, unless house pad location is moved in
the future. There are 13 Significant trees to be Saved.
Note:the 13 trees that are to be Saved will need Tree Protection Fencing around them.
X and Y Coordinates: Longitude and Latitude of the tree's location. O Resource Grade, not
REE AND
Survey Grade. + HORTICULTURAL
SPECIALISTS, INC.
a DAVEY company
TAG SPECIES DIA COND LEGACY FATE NOTES X Y
4-stem tree
12"+11".
Two other
stems are in
Birch, Poor
1 Paper 23 lGood No Remove condition -93.3354485367 44.9715774701
Spruce,
2 Blue 15 Good No Save -93.3355664711 44.9714764223
Spruce,
3 Norway 15 Good INo Save -93.3356069767 44.9714984945
Spruce, Non- Half of tree
4 Blue 25 Poor No Significant is dead -93.3356286900 44.9715562959
5 Pine, Red 18 Good No Remove -93.3356210459 44.9716409222
Cedar,
6 White 15 Good INo Remove -93.3355710272 44.9716610197
7 Pine, Red 16 IGood INo Remove -93.3356285378 44.9716802339
2-stem tree
Non- 28"+26".
8 Oak, Red 54 Poor No Significant Trunk Decay -93.3355972781 44.9717642532
Non- Dead or
9 Basswood 17 Poor INo Significant almost dead -93.3355691196 44.9718135398
Hollow area
inside trunk,
Non- weak branch
10 Oak, Red 42 Poor No Significant union -93.3356526039 44.9719003187
Non- Hollow
11 lOak, Red 24 Poor INo Significant inside trunk -93.3355953061 44.9719009516
12 Oak, Red 28 Fair No Save -93.3355037011 44.9719413956
Maple.
13 Silver 26 Good No Save -93.3354972398 44.9718903336
2 stem tree,
but 2nd
stem in Poor
cond.(top
14 Oak, Red 24 lFair No Remove broke out) -93.3354570284 44.9718313606
Non-
15 Oak, Red 30 Poor No Significant Trunk Decay -93.3353242472 44.9718105691
3-stem tree,
but 2 other
stems too
16 Birch, River 9 Fair No Remove small. -93.3352968131 44.9717782614
17 Oak, White 18 Fair No Remove -93.3352298307 44.9717366396
18 Hackberry 8 Good INo Remove -93.3351412114 44.9717362173
Cherry, Non-
19 Black 30 Poor No Significant Almost Dead -93.3350763310 44.9717476731
20 Walnut 10 Good No Remove -93.3351062561 44.9716637813
Non- Hollow area
21 Oak, White 18 Poor No Significant inside trunk -93.3351554579 44.9716220745
Cherry, 2 stem tree
22 Black 20 Fair No Save 11111+911 -93.3350856886 44.9716163397
Elm, 2 stem tree
23 American 28 Good No Save 15"+13" -93.3350168371 44.9716007356
Elm,
24 American 19 Fair No Save -93.3350018075 44.9715760808
Spruce,
25 lWhite 16 Fair No Save -93.3355383503 44.9721462466
Spruce,
26 White 20 Fair INo Save -93.3356546722 44.9721402478
Birch,
27 Paper 12 Fair No Save -93.3356598622 44.9720491101
28 Oak, Red 17 Good No Save -93.3355308970 44.9720377018
29 Oak, Red 10 Fair No Save -93.3354896265 44.9720298801
30 Oak, White 127 IFair INo Save -93.3354044527 44.9719692251
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
60 Day Deadline: December 9, 2018
60 Day Extension: February 7, 2019
Agenda Item
4. B. Public Hearing - Approval of Conditional Use Permit 119, Amendment #3 - 800 Boone Avenue
North
Prepared By
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Summary
Following a revocation of an existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a business located at 800
Boone Avenue North by the City Council on September 20, 2018, the applicant (David Olshansky
on behalf of DRAM Properties) has requested a CUP Amendment in order to address concerns
surrounding use of the property in the evenings and weekends.
Background
This request was considered at the Planning Commission meeting on October 22, 2018. After a
lengthy discussion, the item was continued to the regular meeting on November 26. Full
background of the property, recent complaints regarding the CUP, and the actions of the
Planning Commission can be found in the attachments.
In addition to the concerns about evening events, the Planning Commission investigated issues
related to the parking of buses used by the business, both on Boone Avenue and along the drive
aisle to the south of the building. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission
recommended approval (7-0) of the amendment to Conditional Use Permit 119 with an
additional restriction on loading or unloading from the public right-of-way. This change has been
incorporated into the staff recommendation. The Planning Commission supports this amendment
in place of the revocation.
Evaluation
Staff agrees that the adult day care services that are being provided by the property owner are a
benefit to Golden Valley and to seniors throughout the west metro. Condition 4 of the revoked
CUP allowed occasional evening events, stating that “the hours of normal operation shall be from
7 am to 5:30 pm with the exception of occasional evening social functions.” However, the
“occasional evening social functions” that occurred (frequent parties, large celebrations, etc.)
proved to be troublesome and resulted in numerous complaints from other nearby property
owners.
There may be a legitimate interest in allowing clients to use space in the building for gatherings
as an extension of the adult day care services being provided. However, enforcement would be a
challenge. It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether events held at the property are
related to the adult day care use, or whether the property is being inappropriately used as a
banquet/catering hall. Banquet/catering halls are not a permitted use in this zoning district.
Based on the property owner’s records, it appears the property was being used as a
banquet/catering hall prior to the revocation of the CUP. Trusting the property owner to self-
police and abide by this restriction has not proven to be successful in the past. Therefore, the
simplest and most straightforward solution is to completely prohibit evening adult day care
events at this location.
Furthermore, City Code and state law prohibit the consumption and sale of alcoholic beverages at
this location without the business first obtaining a liquor license or permit. A violation of this
regulation could subject the property owner to criminal charges.
If the property owner wishes to use any part of the facility as a banquet/catering hall, an
amendment to the Zoning Code to allow such activity in this district must first be approved by the
City Council. Any use of the property for this purpose absent that amendment would be a
misdemeanor offense.
The property owner has also violated Condition 12 of the revoked permit (“All other applicable
local, state, and federal requirements shall be met at all times.”) by violating other local ordinances
and state law.
Below are the findings made by the City Council on September 20 in support of revocation of the
CUP and staff recommendations on how to address these issues as part of an amended CUP:
1. Staff finds that the number of social events being held at 800 Boone Ave N exceeds what would
reasonably be considered “occasional,” as the calendar provided by the property owner shows
29 events scheduled between June and December in 2018. This also far exceeds the estimate of
approximately eight banquets per year that was referenced by the property owner in his
testimony to the Planning Commission on June 13, 2011.
Prohibiting evening adult day care events would satisfactorily address this issue.
2. As demonstrated in the 2018 summary police report, staff finds that the timing and length of
the events exceed what would reasonably be considered to be “evening” hours, as police calls
to the address in 2018 were being addressed well after midnight and in one case as late as five
o’clock in the morning.
Prohibiting adult day care events past 5:30 pm would satisfactorily address this issue.
3. Staff finds that the owner served or permitted alcohol on the property without a liquor license
in violation of local ordinances and state law. Despite assurances from the property owner in a
letter to the City dated March 9, 2009, that no liquor would be provided or brought into the
facility without the proper liquor license and liability insurance being obtained, public posts on
Facebook this summer advertised a party with live music and the Golden Valley Police confirm
that alcohol was present during at least one of these events. Event organizers denied selling or
providing alcohol, but allowing the consumption of alcohol on the property is a violation of
Minnesota statute 340A.414 which states that “no business establishment or club which does
not hold an on-sale intoxicating liquor license may directly or indirectly allow the consumption
and display of alcoholic beverages…without first having obtained a permit from the
commissioner.”
Clearly prohibiting the sale or distribution of alcohol without a license or permit would
address this issue.
4. Staff finds that the repeated use of the property for events such as conventions and other
large-scale events (up to 250 people) appears to qualify the facility as a banquet/catering hall. A
request to the City Council to allow this sort of use was made by the property owner at the
April 14, 2009, Council/Manager meeting and was not supported. Therefore, this remains a
prohibited use in the Light Industrial Zoning District and such activities are a violation of the
Zoning Code.
Prohibiting evening adult day care events would help avoid confusion around whether
evening events are permitted or not. Any use of the facility as a banquet/catering hall
would not be allowed.
In supporting the suggested changes to the CUP that would limit the hours of normal operation
of the adult day care use to 7 am to 5:30 pm, staff finds that the modifications to the existing CUP
would satisfactorily address the concerns that have been raised and that the following findings
supporting the amended CUP could be made:
Factor Finding
1. Demonstrated Need for Proposed Use Standard met. DRAM Properties has
demonstrated that there is a need for adult
day care by successfully operating two facilities
in Golden Valley.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Standard met. The Future Land Use Map
guides the site for long-term light industrial
use. Adult day care centers, through a
conditional use permit, are consistent with
that land use designation.
3. Effect upon Property Values Standard met. The approval of the amended
permit will not negatively impact property
values in the area.
4. Effect on Traffic Flow and Congestion Standard conditionally met. Clients utilizing the
daycare generally arrive via van or bus,
reducing the number of individual trips made
to and from the facility. However, the current
parking locations for the vans and buses on
Boone Avenue and in the entrance drive pose
problems to public safety and will need to be
relocated.
5. Effect of Increases in Population and
Density
Standard met. The use does not significantly
increase the general population of the area,
though the adult day care business does
temporarily impact the daytime population.
6. Compliance with the City’s Mixed-Income
Housing Policy
Not applicable.
7. Increase in Noise Levels Standard conditionally met. Minimum noise is
generated by the vans and busses transporting
clients. Past complaints of noise generated by
large events and evening and nighttime use of
the property will be mitigated by the
conditions of the amended permit.
8. Generation of Odors, Dust, Smoke, Gas, or
Vibration
Standard met. No such problems are expected.
9. Any Increase in Pests or Vermin Standard met. No such problems are expected.
10. Visual Appearance Standard met. The exterior of the building will
not be affected by the amended permit.
11. Other Effects upon the General Public
Health, Safety, and Welfare
Standard conditionally met. Impacts to the City
and its residents, in the form of complaints
and repeated police calls to the property, are
anticipated to be reduced under the amended
permit.
The Planning Commission recommended adjusting condition 5, below, to prohibit the loading or
unloading of adult day care clients on Boone Avenue. However, the applicant has indicated that the
poor condition of the pavement within the parking lot makes it difficult for seniors using
wheelchairs or walkers to navigate the route to the entrance.
Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 119, Amendment #3 allowing for an adult
day care center at 800 Boone Avenue North. The approval of a Conditional Use Permit is subject
to the following conditions:
1. The adult day care shall be limited to the number of clients specified by the Minnesota
Department of Human Services.
2. All necessary licenses obtained by the Minnesota Department of Human Services and the
Minnesota Department of Health shall be kept current.
3. The hours of normal operation for the adult day care shall be from 7 am to 5:30 pm, Monday
thru Friday.
4. The adult day care facilities shall not be used for any activities that are not permitted in the
Zoning Code.
5. All vans and buses shall be loaded, unloaded, and parked in the parking lot and shall not be
loaded, unloaded, or parked on Boone Avenue. No vans or buses may be parked in the angled
parking stalls or in the first 21 perpendicular stalls located south of the building along the
drive aisle.
6. No alcohol shall be served or distributed on-site without first obtaining the proper license or
permit.
7. All outdoor trash and recycling containers shall be screened in a manner acceptable to the
Physical Development Department.
8. The applicant shall provide an on-site bicycle rack allowing parking for a minimum of five
bicycles.
9. The requirements found in the memo to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Zoning, from
Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal, and dated May 17, 2011, shall become a part of these
requirements.
10. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with
authority over this development.
Failure to comply with one of more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the
CUP. Consistent with State statute, a certified copy of the CUP must be recorded with Hennepin
County.
If the Council chooses not approve the amended CUP, it should then adopt the alternate
ordinance which would finalize the revocation process.
Attachments
• Location Map (1 page)
• Memo to the Planning Commission dated November 26, 2018 (7 pages)
• Planning Commission Minutes dated November 26, 2018 (4 pages)
• Planning Commission Minutes dated October 22, 2018 (6 pages)
• Planning Commission Minutes dated October 8, 2018 (8 pages)
• Conditional Use Permit 119, Amendment #2 (1 page)
• Ordinance #649, Approval of Conditional Use Permit 119, Amendment #3 allowing for an
adult day care center at 800 Boone Avenue North (2 pages)
• Ordinance #650, Revoking Conditional Use Permit 119, Amendment #2 (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Ordinance #649, Approval of Conditional Use Permit 119, Amendment #3 allowing
for an adult day care center at 800 Boone Avenue North.
Alternate Action
Motion to adopt Ordinance #650, Revoking Conditional Use Permit 119, Amendment #2.
9040 1000
1021 8360
8900
915
10th Ave N Subject Property:
800 Boone Ave North
925
935 830 8511
8165
z
d
820 825 m
z `o
Q m m750
¢>
� 800 �
835 ,� 742 750
8350 0
8300
_w
730 745 730 8400 g300 3 8250
8401 8301
Boom, 8501
701 710 Op,,
Building A 710 Powe Sp3cv
Building B 8800 82
7th Ave N E240
8525
8845
8900 605 600
9050 9000 8815 8224 62
600
10 E950
city 0f :,
90 enMEMORANDUM
11 valley Planning Department
763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax)
Date: November 26, 2018
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Subject: Informal Public Hearing—Amend Conditional Use Permit (CU-119) Allowing for an
Adult Day Care Center in a Light Industrial Zoning District
Property address: 800 Boone Avenue North
Applicant: DRAM Properties Property owner: ProPartners Group, LLC
Zoning District: Light Industrial Lot size: 151,713 sq. ft. (3.5 acres)
Current uses: Adult day care, home health care Future Land Use: Light Industrial
Adjacent uses: Industrial, light industrial, office (north, west, south); multi-family residential (east)
won
p
x Z ft
4P.e:• 1
V
Aio
^_' �} _ 1T'ae+++"fir' ^� �''✓"
.lv ,..1➢ arrE+ 75���� �. �� t�
ee - e :q1 T
j
r ( 710 �!..
2015 aerial photo(Hennepin County)
1
Summary
Following a revocation of an existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a business located at 800
Boone Avenue North by the City Council on September 20, 2018,the applicant (David Olshansky
on behalf of DRAM Properties) has requested a CUP Amendment in order to address concerns
surrounding use of the property in the evenings and weekends.
Background
This request was considered at the Planning Commission meeting on October 22, 2018. After a
lengthy discussion, the item was continued to the regular meeting on November 26. Full
background of the property, recent complaints regarding the CUP, and the actions of the
Planning Commission can be found in the attachments.
In addition,the Planning Commission investigated issues related to the parking of buses used by
the business, both on Boone Avenue and along the drive aisle to the south of the building.
Proposed Use
The applicant has used, and would like to continue to use,the building at 800 Boone Avenue
(more specifically,the large dining area within the adult day care space)for evening and weekend
events. While the CUP for the adult day care use that was revoked by the Council on September
20 allowed occasional evening activities after 5:30 pm,the City received numerous complaints
about regular evening and late-night events occurring at the property, including complaints about
noise and physical altercations. The events appeared to be unrelated to the adult day care use,
however enforcement of the CUP condition that permitted "occasional evening social functions"
has been difficult.
Public Comments
In response to the hearing notice, staff has been contacted by at least one individual concerned
about the late night activities on the site,the buses parked on Boone, and the narrow drive to the
south of the building.
Zoning Considerations
Parking
As discussed on October 22, busses parked on Boone Avenue create difficulties in seeing oncoming
traffic when pulling out of driveways on either side of the street. Further,the driveway entering the
property,to the south of the building, does not have sufficient width to allow busses to be parked in
the perpendicular stalls along the south property line. The Deputy Fire Chief will require no busses
be parked in those spaces or that they be converted to angled parking.
Shoreland Overlay
Concerns have been raised about the removal of trees and other vegetation to the rear (east) of the
lot adjacent to Bassett Creek in order to construct a community garden for the adult day care users.
A separate investigation will be undertaken to address possible violations of the City's Shoreland
Overlay regulations and mitigation may be required.
2
Evaluation
Staff agrees with the City Council that the adult day care services that are being provided by the
property owner are a benefit to Golden Valley and to seniors throughout the west metro.
Condition 4 of the revoked CUP allowed occasional evening events, stating that "the hours of
normal operation shall be from 7 am to 5:30 pm with the exception of occasional evening social
functions." However, the "occasional evening social functions"that occurred (frequent parties,
large celebrations, etc.) proved to be troublesome and resulted in numerous complaints from
other nearby property owners.
There may be a legitimate interest in allowing clients to use space in the building for gatherings
as an extension of the adult day care services being provided. However, enforcement would be a
challenge. It is difficult, if not impossible,to determine whether events held at the property are
related to the adult day care use, or whether the property is being inappropriately used as a
banquet/catering hall. Banquet/catering halls are not a permitted use in this zoning district.
Based on the property owner's records, it appears the property was being used as a
banquet/catering hall prior to the revocation of the CUP. Trusting the property owner to self-
police and abide by this restriction has not proven to be successful in the past. Therefore,the
simplest and most straightforward solution is to completely prohibit evening adult day care
events at this location.
Furthermore, City Code and state law prohibit the consumption and sale of alcoholic beverages at
this location without the business first obtaining a liquor license or permit. A violation of this
regulation could subject the property owner to criminal charges.
If the property owner wishes to use any part of the facility as a banquet/catering hall, an
amendment to the Zoning Code to allow such activity in this district must first be approved by the
City Council. Any use of the property for this purpose absent that amendment would be a
misdemeanor offense.
The property owner has also violated Condition 12 of the revoked permit ("All other applicable
local, state, and federal requirements shall be met at all times.") by violating other local ordinances
and state law.
Below are the findings made by the City Council on September 20 in support of revocation of the
CUP and staff recommendations on how to address these issues as part of an amended CUP:
1. Staff finds that the number of social events being held at 800 Boone Ave N exceeds what would
reasonably be considered "occasional," as the calendar provided by the property owner shows
29 events scheduled between June and December in 2018. This also far exceeds the estimate of
approximately eight banquets per year that was referenced by the property owner in his
testimony to the Planning Commission on June 13, 2011.
Prohibiting evening adult day care events would satisfactorily address this issue.
3
2. As demonstrated in the 2018 summary police report, staff finds that the timing and length of
the events exceed what would reasonably be considered to be "evening' hours, as police calls
to the address in 2018 were being addressed well after midnight and in one case as late as five
o'clock in the morning.
Prohibiting adult day care events past 5:30 pm would satisfactorily address this issue.
3. Staff finds that the owner served or permitted alcohol on the property without a liquor license
in violation of local ordinances and state law. Despite assurances from the property owner in a
letter to the City dated March 9, 2009, that no liquor would be provided or brought into the
facility without the proper liquor license and liability insurance being obtained, public posts on
Facebook this summer advertised a party with live music and the Golden Valley Police confirm
that alcohol was present during at least one of these events. Event organizers denied selling or
providing alcohol, but allowing the consumption of alcohol on the property is a violation of
Minnesota statute 340A.414 which states that "no business establishment or club which does
not hold an on-sale intoxicating liquor license may directly or indirectly allow the consumption
and display of alcoholic beverages...without first having obtained a permit from the
commissioner."
Clearly prohibiting the sale or distribution of alcohol without a license or permit would
address this issue.
4. Staff finds that the repeated use of the property for events such as conventions and other
large-scale events (up to 250 people) appears to qualify the facility as a banquet/catering hall. A
request to the City Council to allow this sort of use was made by the property owner at the
April 14, 2009, Council/Manager meeting and was not supported. Therefore,this remains a
prohibited use in the Light Industrial Zoning District and such activities are a violation of the
Zoning Code.
Prohibiting evening adult day care events would help avoid confusion around whether
evening events are permitted or not. Any use of the facility as a banquet/catering hall
would not be allowed.
In supporting the suggested changes to the CUP that would limit the hours of normal operation of
the adult day care use to 7 am to 5:30 pm, staff finds that the modifications to the existing CUP
would satisfactorily address the concerns that have been raised and that the following findings
supporting the amended CUP could be made:
4
Factor Finding
1. Demonstrated Need for Proposed Use Standard met. DRAM Properties has
demonstrated that there is a need for adult
day care by successfully operating two facilities
in Golden Valley.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Standard met.The Future Land Use Map
guides the site for long-term light industrial
use. Adult day care centers,through a
conditional use permit, are consistent with
that land use designation.
3. Effect upon Property Values Standard met. The approval of the amended
permit will not negatively impact property
values in the area.
4. Effect on Traffic Flow and Congestion Standard conditionally met. Clients utilizing the
daycare generally arrive via bus, reducing the
number of individual trips made to and from
the facility. However, the current parking
locations for the buses on Boone Avenue and
in the entrance drive pose problems to public
safety and will need to be relocated.
S. Effect of Increases in Population and Standard met.The use does not significantly
Density increase the general population of the area,
though the adult day care business does
temporarily impact the daytime population.
6. Compliance with the City's Mixed-Income Not applicable.
Housing Policy
7. Increase in Noise Levels Standard conditionally met. Minimum noise is
generated by the busses transporting clients.
Past complaints of noise generated by large
events and evening and nighttime use of the
property will be mitigated by the conditions of
the amended permit.
8. Generation of Odors, Dust, Smoke, Gas, or Standard met. No such problems are expected.
Vibration
9. Any Increase in Pests or Vermin Standard met. No such problems are expected.
5
10. Visual Appearance Standard met. The exterior of the building will
not be affected by the amended permit.
11. Other Effects upon the General Public Standard conditionally met. Impacts to the City
Health, Safety, and Welfare and its residents, in the form of complaints
and repeated police calls to the property, are
anticipated to be reduced under the amended
permit.
The Engineering Division has reviewed the application and has no comments or concerns.
Engineering staff supports approval of the CUP subject to the conditions contained in this
memorandum.
Recommended Action
Based on the findings above, staff recommends approval of the amended Conditional Use Permit
119 allowing for an adult day care center at 800 Boone Avenue North, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The adult day care shall be limited to the number of clients specified by the Minnesota
Department of Human Services.
2. All necessary licenses obtained by the Minnesota Department of Human Services and the
Minnesota Department of Health shall be kept current.
3. The hours of normal operation for the adult day care shall be from 7 am to 5:30 pm, Monday
thru Friday.
4. The adult day care facilities shall not be used for any activities that are not permitted in the
Zoning Code.
5. All buses shall be parked in the parking lot and shall not be parked on Boone Avenue. No
buses may be parked in the angled parking stalls or in the first 21 perpendicular stalls located
south of the building along the drive aisle.
6. No alcohol shall be served or distributed on-site without first obtaining the proper license or
permit.
7. All outdoor trash and recycling containers shall be screened in a manner acceptable to the
Physical Development Department.
8. The applicant shall provide an on-site bicycle rack allowing parking for a minimum of five
bicycles.
9. The requirements found in the memo to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Zoning, from
Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal, and dated May 17, 2011, shall become a part of these
requirements.
10. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with
authority over this development.
Failure to comply with one of more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the CUP.
Consistent with State statute, a certified copy of the CUP must be recorded with Hennepin County.
6
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
Memo to the Planning Commission dated October 22, 2018 (6 pages)
Planning Commission Minutes dated October 22, 2018 (6 pages)
Planning Commission Minutes dated October 8, 2018 (8 pages)
Conditional Use Permit, CU-119, Amendment#2 (1 page)
7
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 19
St increasing the amount of runoff onto n hboring properties, or directing runoff where
it 't go before.
Segelbau the proposal seems to me t the criteria used when revi
subdivisions.
Pockl asked if there is a wa ondition t subdivisio nsure that any drainage
issues are addressed or resolve . . mer an stat at the stormwater management
permits issued at the time of construc i u 1 dress the issues. He added that it is
hard to determine the issues at this stage t house plans and that this process is
about splitting the land versus constr n o it usual to place that type of condition
on the subdivision.
MOVED by Segelbaum onded by Pock nd motion carrie nimously to
recommend approv the minor subdivis n at 4400 Sunset Ri ubject to the
following Condit'
1. The Ci ttorney shall determine if a tit review is necessary prior to ap al of the
fin at.
2. ark dedication fee of $10,800 shall paid before release of the final plat.
. A slope stability analysis of Lot 2 shall submitted for review by the City Engineer.
4. Continued Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit Amendment— 800
Boone Avenue North — CU-119, Amendment#3
Applicant: Home Health Care, Inc.
Address: 800 Boone Avenue North
Purpose: To explore possible modifications to the current Conditional Use
Permit in regard to social events being held at the facility.
Zimmerman reminded the Commissioners that this is a continued item regarding social
events being held at 800 Boone Avenue North. He explained that there is a condition in
the applicant's Conditional Use Permit that allows for occasional evening social functions
and that over the past year there have been issues with parties and noise. He stated that
based on complaints the City Council revoked the Conditional Use Permit and then
stayed that revocation and referred the matter to the Planning Commission to review the
issues and try to work out a solution to allow the adult daycare to continue while
addressing the other issues. He stated that on October 8, the Planning Commission
decided to hold a public hearing and consider amendments to the Conditional Use Permit.
A public hearing was held on October 22 and was continued to this meeting. This item is
now scheduled for City Council action on December 18 to either amend the Conditional
Use Permit or to finalize the revocation.
Zimmerman stated that at the October 22 Planning Commission meeting the Commission
considered allowing limited informational/marketing events to be held in the evenings and
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 20
on weekends. However, it was hard to get agreement on what that meant and how it
would be enforced. He stated that after speaking with the applicant and the City Attorney,
staff is now recommending that no adult day care activities be allowed after 5:30 pm and
that any other activities that happen at the site will have to follow all the rules in City Code
like any business in Golden Valley would. He noted that the Conditional Use Permit would
remain in effect and any violations could cause revocation in the future.
He discussed some of the other issues/concerns related to this site including: the removal
of trees in the Shoreland Overlay area along Bassett Creek in order to clear space for
community gardens and a paved area with benches, Fire Code issues in regard to
parking along the driveway to the south of the building, and buses parking on Boone
Avenue which may restrict the sight lines from the existing driveways. He stated that staff
is continuing to work with the applicant regarding these issues.
He stated that staff is recommending approval of this proposed Conditional Use Permit
Amendment with some amended conditions. Brookins referred to proposed condition
number five regarding parking the buses in the parking lot and asked if loading and
unloading would still occur in front of the building. Zimmerman said the condition was
written specifically to address the concern of the buses being parked on the street for long
periods of time and not the loading and unloading of their clients but that could also be
added as a condition of approval if the Planning Commission wants that to be considered.
Johnson asked if staff reviewed the definition of a bus. Zimmerman said he did look into it
but feels that in this case a reasonable person would agree that is what is being parked
on the street. Segelbaum said he would call the applicant's vehicles vans or passenger
vans. Zimmerman said the language can be amended to encompass buses, mini-buses,
vans, etc.
Brookins asked if there is any reason the loading and unloading can't occur in the parking
lot. Randall Strand, Applicant's Attorney, stated that many of the clients are in
wheelchairs and because of the condition of the parking lot it is somewhat more
dangerous to take them over the rougher terrain rather than using the sidewalk in front of
the building.
Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker
closed the public hearing.
Blum said he appreciates the simplification of the conditions and supports this proposal.
Brookins said he would like to see loading and unloading occur on the site itself and not in
the public right-of-way because of sight line and safety issues. Zimmerman added that
sometimes buses park on the west side of Boone Avenue and that people have to go
across the street to get to the site. Brookins suggested that condition number five be
amended to state that all buses shall be loaded, unloaded, and parked in the parking lot.
MOVED by Blum seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit#119, Amendment #3 subject to the
following findings and conditions:
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 21
Findings
1. Demonstrated Need for Proposed Use: Standard met. DRAM Properties has
demonstrated that there is a need for adult day care by successfully operating two
facilities in Golden Valley.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: Standard met. The Future Land Use
Map guides the site for long-term light industrial use. Adult day care centers, through
a conditional use permit, are consistent with that land use designation.
3. Effect upon Property Values: Standard met. The approval of the amended permit
will not negatively impact property values in the area.
4. Effect on Traffic Flow and Congestion: Standard conditionally met. Clients utilizing
the daycare generally arrive via van or bus, reducing the number of individual trips
made to and from the facility. However, the current parking locations for the vans and
buses on Boone Avenue and in the entrance drive pose problems to public safety
and will need to be relocated.
5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: Standard met. The use does not
significantly increase the general population of the area, though the adult day care
business does temporarily impact the daytime population.
6. Compliance with the City's Mixed-Income Housing Policy: Not applicable.
7. Increase in Noise Levels: Standard conditionally met. Minimum noise is generated
by the vans and buses transporting clients. Past complaints of noise generated by
large events and evening and nighttime use of the property will be mitigated by the
conditions of the amended permit.
8. Generation of Odors, Dust, Smoke, Gas, or Vibration: Standard met. No such
problems are expected.
9. Any Increase in Pests or Vermin: Standard met. No such problems are expected.
10. Visual Appearance: Standard met. The exterior of the building will not be affected by
the amended permit.
11. Other Effects upon the General Public Health, Safety, and Welfare: Standard
conditionally met. Impacts to the City and its residents, in the form of complaints and
repeated police calls to the property, are anticipated to be reduced under the
amended permit.
Conditions
1. The adult day care shall be limited to the number of clients specified by the
Minnesota Department of Human Services.
2. All necessary licenses obtained by the Minnesota Department of Human Services
and the Minnesota Department of Health shall be kept current.
3. The hours of normal operation for the adult day care shall be from 7 am to 5:30 pm,
Monday thru Friday.
4. The adult day care facilities shall not be used for any activities that are not permitted
in the Zoning Code.
5. All vans and buses shall be loaded, unloaded, and parked in the parking lot and shall
not be loaded, unloaded, or parked on Boone Avenue. No vans or buses may be
parked in the angled parking stalls or in the first 21 perpendicular stalls located south
of the building along the drive aisle.
6. No alcohol shall be served or distributed on-site without first obtaining the proper
license or permit.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 22
7. All outdoor trash and recycling containers shall be screened in a manner acceptable
to the Physical Development Department.
8. The applicant shall provide an on-site bicycle rack allowing parking for a minimum of
five bicycles.
9. The requirements found in the memo to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and
Zoning, from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal, and dated May 17, 2011, shall
become a part of these requirements.
10. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations,
or laws with authority over this development.
Informal Public Hearing — oning Code Text Amendment— Business and
Professional Offices Zoni g District Amendments — Z000-118
plicant: City of Gol n Valley
Pu se: To consid ways to update and moderni a uses allowed in the
Business d Professional Office Zoni istrict
This item was bled to the De mber 10, 2018, Pla. ng Commission meeting.
}
--Short Ress--
8. Reports on Me gs o he HousJob and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board o oni Appets and other Meetings
No meetings were discusse
9. Other Business
• Council Liaison o
No report was give
10. Adjourn t ` .
The meetin as adjourned 11:38 pm.
Ron Blum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 22, 2018
A regular meeting of the Planning mmission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
ncil Chambers, 7800 Golden Iley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday,
Oc , 2018. Chair Baker call the meeting to order at 7 ppm.
Those present w tanning Com 'ssioners Ange er, Blum, Brookins, Johnson,
Pockl, and SegeI au . o presen were Fi irector Sue Virnig, Planning Manager
Jason Zimmerman, Associ ann r/ riter Emily Goellner, and Administrative
Assistant Lisa Wittman.
1. Approval of Mi
October , 018, Regular Plann g Commission Mee
MOV y Brookins, seconded by Jo nson and motion carried unani ly to approve
t ctober 8, 2018, minutes as sub ted.
2. Conditional Use Permit Amendment— 800 Boone Avenue North — CU-119,
Amendment#3
Applicant: Home Health Care, Inc.
Address: 800 Boone Avenue North
Purpose: To explore possible modifications to the current Conditional Use
Permit in regard to social events being held at the facility.
Zimmerman reminded the Planning Commission about the discussion they had regarding
this Conditional Use Permit (CUP) at their last meeting. He stated that the City Council
voted to revoke this CUP, stay the revocation until November 7, and send it to the
Planning Commission to consider amendments to the existing CUP to allow the main use
to go forward while addressing the concerns.
Zimmerman gave a brief history of the property and stated that the CUP was originally
approved in 2007 with a condition that allowed for "occasional evening social functions." A
Zoning Code Text Amendment was proposed in 2009 to allow banquet/catering halls as a
permitted use in the Light Industrial Zoning District but the City Council did not support the
proposed amendment. In 2011 the CUP was amended to increase the number of clients
served at the facility.
Zimmerman explained that earlier this year the Police Department alerted staff to
complaints about activity at the property including: loud parties taking place in the late
night and early morning hours, activity and noise spilling out into the parking lot, alcohol
being consumed without a liquor license, and events being advertised on Facebook that
were open to the general public. He stated that staff reached out to the property owner to
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 22, 2018
Page 2
understand the scope of the events that were taking place. The owner provided a
calendar that showed 29 events scheduled between June and December of 2018 with
activities that included large numbers of attendees at conventions and parties that were
beyond the "cultural and social" events offered for those in the adult day care program.
Zimmerman added that staff proposed a set of mutual clarifying statements allowing for
occasional social events but the owner declined to agree to the revised conditions so the
issue was brought to the City Council to consider revocation of the CUP.
Zimmerman noted that the Council findings for revocation included that the number of
social events exceeded what would reasonably be considered "occasional," the timing
and length of the events exceeded what would reasonably be considered "evening"
hours, alcohol was being consumed absent a liquor license in violation of Minnesota
statutes, and the use of the facility as a banquet/catering hall is in violation of the Light
Industrial Zoning District regulations.
Zimmerman stated that staff has met with the applicant, as well as with the City Attorney
and Police Chief. The following conditions are now being recommended for consideration:
1. Regular adult day care operating hours would be Monday thru Friday, 7 am to 5:30
pm.
2. Limit events not associated with the adult day care to indoor informational/marketing
activities only and restrict the frequency to four times a year.
3. The informational/marketing activities must conclude by 10 pm.
4. No alcohol can be consumed or distributed without the proper license or permit.
5. The adult day care space within the building cannot be used by entities other than the
adult day care, employees of other businesses in the building, or the general public.
Zimmerman stated that the applicant would like the Planning Commission to consider the
following:
1. Allowing informational/marketing activities to be conducted on the weekend.
2. Allowing the other businesses in the building to conduct informational/marketing
activities in the adult day care space.
3. Allowing for greater frequency of those activities.
Zimmerman stated that there are other issues that have been brought to the attention of
staff to follow-up on including: the removal of trees in the Shoreland Overlay area along
Bassett Creek in order to clear space for community gardens and a paved area with
benches, the parking along the driveway to the south of the building does not meet Fire
Code, and buses parking on Boone Avenue are restricting the sight lines from existing
driveways.
Zimmerman stated that staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit
amendment with the following amended conditions:
1. The adult day care shall be limited to the number of clients specified by the Minnesota
Department of Human Services.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 22, 2018
Page 3
2. All necessary licenses obtained by the Minnesota Department of Human Services and
the Minnesota Department of Health shall be kept current.
3. The hours of normal operation for the adult day care shall be from 7 am to 5:30 pm,
Monday thru Friday.
4. The adult day care facilities may be used by the adult day care or other entities in the
building for indoor informational/marketing events to promote their businesses up to
four times per calendar year and not more than once per quarter. All such events must
conclude by 10 pm, Monday thru Thursday, and 5:30 pm, Friday thru Sunday.
5. Except as described in condition 4, the adult day care facilities shall not be used for
any evening or weekend events that are not permitted in the Zoning Code.
6. All buses shall be parked in the parking lot and shall not be parked on Boone Avenue.
No buses may be parked in the angled parking stalls or in the first 21 perpendicular
stalls located south of the building along the drive aisle.
7. No alcohol shall be served or distributed without first obtaining the proper license or
permit.
8. All outdoor trash and recycling containers shall be screened in a manner acceptable to
the Physical Development Department.
9. The applicant shall provide an on-site bicycle rack allowing parking for a minimum of
five bicycles.
10.The requirements found in the memo to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and
Zoning, from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal, and dated May 17, 2011, shall
become a part of these requirements.
Segelbaum stated that a couple of the proposed conditions are already required by law
and asked if there is a reason to include them. Zimmerman said he thought it was a good
idea to be specific considering the issues that have been occurring. Segelbaum
suggested adding a catch all provision that states all laws/rules have to be followed.
Zimmerman stated that Conditional Use Permits do have a statement on them that says
the CUP does not exempt the property owner or occupant from compliance with all
provisions of city code, or any other applicable regulations, laws, and ordinances. Blum
said he thinks the revised conditions are appropriate and he thinks it is important to point
out specific issues in this particular CUP.
Baker noted that there has been a misunderstanding by the applicant regarding the uses
by the other businesses in the building and asked if that was adequately addressed in the
proposed new conditions. He stated that he wants to mention that the prohibited uses
apply to the other businesses as well. Zimmerman stated that anyone using the facility has
to follow the conditions in the CUP and that the space can't be used as banquet space.
Baker referred to the buses parking on the south side of the property and on Boone
Avenue and asked how that relates to the City's parking regulations. Zimmerman stated
that there is enough space in the parking lot to park the buses in the back.
Johnson asked why proposed condition number four specifies "indoor" events as opposed
to just events. Zimmerman stated that in the past the applicant has had events and parties
that have spilled out into the parking lot so staff is trying to avoid that from happening.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 22, 2018
Page 4
Johnson asked if there is a definition for "informational/marketing events." Zimmerman
said there is not, but it is referring to events such as open houses, and tours, etc. that
have to do with marketing the adult daycare. Johnson said that is ambiguous.
Johnson asked if outdoor events would be prohibited. Zimmerman stated that under the
proposed conditions outdoor events would be prohibited.
Baker suggested adding the word "only" before the word "for" in condition number four to
be clear that events can "only" occur indoors.
Johnson asked if there is a definition for buses because one could argue that the pictures
shown were vans, not buses. Zimmerman said he would look into the definitions and
classification of vehicles.
Segelbaum noted that this CUP is related to adult day care services and questioned if the
Planning Commission is allowed to go as far as prohibiting the outdoor use of the property.
He asked what would happen if one,of the businesses chooses to have an event outdoors.
Zimmerman said the CUP is regarding the adult day care use and the regulations should
be crafted around that. He added that there are probably going to be events held that fall
outside of the adult day care use and the conditions in the CUP, but complaints about
those events would be handled the same way any other similar complaints would be
handled.
Angell asked if the Police Department expressed a desire to be notified of events happening
at this location. Zimmerman said they would like notification and that staff can let them know
about the informational/marketing events that would be allowed four times per year, but if
there is a party occurring they would handle it like any other complaint.
Blum referred to condition number seven regarding serving alcohol and asked if that could
be worked around with a catering license. Zimmerman stated that staff thought about that
but the applicant should not be having banquets so there should be no need for catering.
David Olshansky, Applicant, thanked the Planning Commission for helping to clear up
issues that were misunderstood. He stated that they have cancelled all of the parties that
were scheduled for the rest of this year and early next year. He referred to the issue of
buses parking on Boone Avenue and said buses do park there for drop-offs and pick-ups.
He said they are considering adding another entrance to the front of their building to have
less disturbance on Boone Avenue and to bring the clients closer to the building entrance.
He stated that in regard to the gardening area he has clients who want to have community
gardens and that the clients eat the produce themselves, they do not sell it. He added that
in regard to social events he came to the conclusion that it would be appropriate to have
informational/marketing events.
Pockl asked Olshanksy what his interpretation of indoor informational/marketing events is.
Olshansky stated for example they have art and painting classes and they invite people to
come to the facility like a gallery which is an informational event. He said they also have
special activities on Saturdays like Chinese New Year where they try to involve more
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 22, 2018
Page 5
customers. Pockl asked if catering is provided at these types of activities. Olshansky said
no, they have their own kitchen.
Pockl stated that the applicant's examples are not tailored to only market the adult day
care. Olshansky said the adult day care has its own marketing activities three or four
times per year that don't go later than 5:30 pm so he thinks the proposed language
stating that events must conclude by 10 pm would be fine.
Brookins asked about the use of the current banquet space Monday to Friday. Olshansky
said that is used for adult day care. Brookins asked Olshansky if his interpretation is that
the proposed CUP conditions only apply to that space. He also asked if the adult day care
space is used outside of normal business hours. Olshansky said other businesses use
the adult day care space after 5:30 pm. Segelbaum asked what other businesses use the
space for. Olshansky said it is used for meetings, therapy, conference room space, and
continuing education for social workers, nurses, doctors, etc. Segelbaum asked if it is only
employees that use the space. Olshansky said yes. Segelbaum asked if some of the
events could include a social hour afterwards. Olshansky said they could, but they usually
do not. Segelbaum asked if these are catered events. Olshansky said yes usually with
pizza, etc. He added that only related businesses use the space and that they also have
scheduled events for employees such as Christmas parties or employee appreciation
events.
Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker
closed the public hearing.
Zimmerman stated that the description of the types of events are different than the
conversations he's had with the applicant. He said his understanding was that there
would be open house types of events for new clients, not art gallery events, or catered
events with 100 people attending. He said he would like some more clarification.
Baker noted that the CUP does not apply to the other businesses who are using the
space. He said he is concerned that there has been abuse of the CUP.
Segelbaum asked Zimmerman if he believes the proposed amended CUP addresses the
after-hours events they've been discussing. Zimmerman said he now thinks the
conditions need to be made clearer. Segelbaum suggested the language focus on the
use rather than the space. Baker stated that it should define the physical space too.
Segelbaum said it still feels like there is a disconnect and questioned if it would be better
to let staff do some more work on the CUP language and bring it back to the Planning
Commission to review.
Johnson suggested language be added stating that the property is not for use by other
facilities. Segelbaum suggested defining "events." Zimmerman agreed.
Blum said he noticed a few themes which include: the timing of events late into the night
and early morning, the use of alcohol without a permit, noise, and parking/traffic
violations. He said he would like to address these things but he doesn't know if the City
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 22, 2018
Page 6
needs to be specific about what's going on inside the building. He added that a lot of the
complaints they've heard would be mitigated by not allowing outdoor events.
Johnson said he doesn't want to put a burden on the other businesses who aren't a part
of this CUP. Baker stated that they are talking about the space, not the businesses.
Segelbaum suggested not constraining it but just stating that the space can be used
between certain hours because laws will cover the other issues.
Johnson said the issue of safety and parking on Boone Avenue should be addressed
before anything else. He said the Planning Commission should focus on whether or not
this is a safe plan. Baker said the City Council specifically assigned the Planning
Commission to consider the amended CUP conditions. Blum stated that parties occurring
outside suggests a safety issue as well. Johnson said he is concerned about emergency
vehicles getting in and out and he would like to further explore the Fire Department's
concerns about the drive aisle width and the parking of buses on Boone Avenue. Baker
added that condition number six deals with the parking and drive aisle width issues.
Brookins asked how the kitchen is regulated. Zimmerman stated that Hennepin County
regulates kitchens and food. The issue in this case is who the food is for and using the
building as an event center. Baker stated that it would be good to know the different
businesses occurring, who is using the space, and how the space is being used.
Brookins said he would also like to see the Commercial Zoning District language.
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Pockl, and motion carried to table this item for one
month and to recommend that an extension of the stay be approved by the City Council.
Presentation of Capital Imp vement Program 2018-2022 (CIP) — Sue Virnig,
ity Finance Director
Zimmerm explained that the CIP a five-year fiscal planning instrument used to
identify nee capital projects and o delineate the financing and timing of the
associated proj and is presente to the City Council�withtiieF1'Rial budget.
Zimmerman stated t CIP is i luded as a the Comprehensive Plan and the
Planning Commission's ch is t evie or capital improvement plans against the
goals and objectives incorpora i Comprehensive Plan and determine if they are
consistent. He added that it is ole of the Planning Commission to suggest CIP
projects, only to look for Q rehe iIan consistency of those included in the CIP.
Zimmerman hi ted some of the ey items . he CIP and discussed how they meet
the Compr sive Plan goals. The 'rst item he ssed was water resources. The CIP
storm r section calls for DeCola onds projects th ill sustain and improve water
q , reduce stormwater runoff, a minimize the risk o oding along Bassett Creek,
ong other things.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 8, 2018
Page 3
made instead of just recommending tha eople obey the laws and rules. Zimmerman
reed that the City encourages people follow the rules but that there are some issues
t might have a higher priority than of rs.
Johns referred to the City Engineer's taff report where it states that the prg erty is not
complian 'th the City's 1/1 ordinance a d asked how the City knows the, erty is not
compliant if 1/1 inspection hasn't yet curred and the results are p ing review.
Zimmerman ex 'ned that means that ere is no certificate of co dance on record and
when the inspectid done and any r airs are made a certific will be issued.
Pocki asked why the lot i eing split i o two thirds ando third instead of in half.
Zimmerman said it is his un standin that the propo �' new property line is being drawn
where the existing lawn area m is th wooded are
Jack Benson, Applicant, stated that eighb at 1717 Xerxes will be purchasing the
proposed new west lot. He stated that s, oposing the new lot line where he is because
that is where the grass turns into woodsaid there isn't a month that goes by that he
doesn't get an offer from someone to hi ouse. He said he thinks people are
interested in flipping the property w . ould d to cutting down a very large oak tree
that is basically in the middle of t , pr osed ne t so he is interested in keeping the
area as it currently is.
Baker opened the public h ring. See g and hearing no o wishing to comment, Baker
closed the public hearin
Baker said he think is is a reasona a application. Segelbaum a ed and said he
doesn't see a bas' on which to deny t e proposal. Johnson agreed.
MOVED by B okins, seconded by Po I and motion carried unanimously t pprove the
proposed ior subdivision of 1711 X xes Avenue North subject to the folio
conditio
1. e City Attorney shall determine if title review is necessary prior to approval of the
inal Plat.
2 A park dedication fee of$1,980 sha be paid before release of the Final Plat.
3. Revocation Discussion — Conditional Use Permit— 800 Boone Avenue North —
CU-119
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Address: 800 Boone Avenue North
Purpose: To discuss the revocation of Conditional Use Permit #119
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 8, 2018
Page 4
Zimmerman stated that the City Council voted to revoke Conditional Use Permit #119
however they voted to stay the revocation and send it to the Planning Commission to
explore finding a way to accommodate the principal use at that location.
Zimmerman explained that this Conditional Use Permit (CUP) allows an Adult Day Care use
at 800 Boone Avenue North. The CUP was approved is 2007 with a condition that allowed
for "occasional evening social functions" to take place on the property. In 2009, the property
owner asked the City Council to amend the Zoning Code to allow banquet/catering halls as
a permitted use in the Light Industrial Zoning District. The City Council did not support this
proposed amendment. Zimmerman noted that in 2011 the CUP was amended to increase
the number of clients served at the facility.
Zimmerman stated that the Police Department alerted staff to complaints about activity
occurring at the property including: loud parties taking place in the late night and early
morning hours, activity and noise spilling out into the parking lot, alcohol being consumed
without a liquor license, and events open to the general public being advertised on
Facebook.
Zimmerman stated that staff reached out to the property owner to understand the scope of
the events that were taking place and the property owner provided a calendar to staff that
showed 29 events scheduled between June and December of 2018. These activities
included conventions and parties beyond the "cultural and social" events for those in the
adult day care program and had a large number of attendees. After reviewing the calendar,
staff fees that the spirit of the original condition as well at other parts of the City Code were
being violated.
Zimmerman explained that staff proposed a set of mutual clarifying statements to the
property owner regarding allowing occasional evening events and social functions because
the original condition was not worded very carefully. However, the owner declined to agree
to the proposed revised conditions so staff brought the issue to the City Council to explore
revocation of the CUP. At the Council meeting a number of findings were determined
including: the number of social events exceeded what would reasonably be considered
"occasional;" the timing and length of the events exceeded what would reasonably be
considered to be "evening" hours; alcohol was being consumed without a liquor license or
permit in violation of Minnesota statutes; and the use of the facility as a banquet/catering
hall is in violation of the City's Zoning Code for the Light Industrial Zoning District.
Zimmerman stated that the Council took two actions. They revoked the CUP which included
all of the adult day care operations, but they stayed the revocation until November 7, 2018,
because they think the adult day care is worthy use. They also decided to refer the matter to
the Planning Commission to review and advise them prior to that date.
Zimmerman noted that the Planning Commission's charge is to review the history of the
CUP and the recent issues leading to the revocation, review the findings made by the
Council to support the revocation, and to discuss if amending the current CUP conditions
might offer a solution to the problem short of revocation. He explained that there are three
possible actions the Planning Commission could take. The first action would be to support
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 8, 2018
Page 5
the revocation and send a recommendation back to the City Council with findings. The
second action would be to explore amendments to the current CUP conditions and call for a
public hearing on October 22 to gather public input and debate potential language changes.
The third action would be to recommend no change to the CUP and allow the activity to
continue as is.
Segelbaum noted that the CUP was issued to Heartland Adult Day Care, a subsidiary of
DRAM Properties, Inc and asked if they should be considered as one entity. Zimmerman
said his understanding is there are two businesses operating at this location. One is a home
healthcare business and the other is the adult care use. He clarified that they are linked but
the CUP is specific to the adult day care use. Segelbaum asked if a CUP applies to the
owner or the property, or if it applies to the space or to a tenant. Zimmerman stated that a
CUP goes with the land and would stay in place if the property is sold or transferred.
Segelbaum asked if a different portion of the space is hosting these events, or if the adult
day care space is. Zimmerman said it is all the same space.
Baker referred to the July 12 letter from DRAM Properties where it states that the property
has been used since 2001 as operational headquarters for several organizations. He asked
if the City specifies in the CUP all of the functions occurring in the space. Zimmerman stated
that only the adult day care use requires a CUP. All of the other uses occurring are
permitted uses in the Light Industrial Zoning District.
Johnson said he noticed in the agenda materials that it states that events could only be
organized on behalf of the employees or clients, but he does not see that in the CUP.
Zimmerman agreed that is what is causing some of the confusion because that was
discussed at the Planning Commission meetings, but the permit isn't as clear. Baker agreed
and reiterated that condition four in the CUP lists the hours of operation and states that
there is an exception for "occasional evening social functions."
Brookins asked about the uses at the rear of the building, adjacent to the creek and if there
are any concerns. Zimmerman said that the applicant has stated that there is a community
garden in that area but that he would have to talk to the Engineering staff about if it was
done according to all of the regulations and rules.
Blum asked if information about the police calls for service has been made part of the public
process. Zimmerman referred to the police summary report in the agenda packet which
highlights calls made between January and August. He said he could get some more
detailed information for the Planning Commission to review. Baker asked if the citations
issued were issued to the applicant or to attendees at the parties. Zimmerman said he
believes the citations were issued to the attendees. Baker asked why there has been no
enforcement related to the use of alcohol without a permit and the disturbance issues.
Zimmerman stated that part of what brought these issues forward was that the applicant
was told they could have evening events so the police weren't sure what the applicant was
really allowed to do or not, and what the CUP's limits are, so they brought it to Planning's
attention to get some clarification.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 8, 2018
Page 6
Segelbaum referred to the possible actions discussed earlier and asked if the second option
regarding exploring amendments to the current CUP would allow the Planning Commission
to come up with amendments, or to recommend that the Planning Commission has a public
hearing to come up with potential amendments at that time. Zimmerman explained that the
City Council's request to the Planning Commission is to explore if there is a way to solve
these issues short of revocation. He said the only way to modify the existing CUP conditions
is to do a formal CUP amendment process which includes a public hearing. He clarified that
staff is looking for feedback from the Planning Commission on what route they want to take
and then go forward from there. Segelbaum asked if it would help if the Planning
Commission offered amendment language or input now in order to avoid revocation. Baker
noted that the applicant was offered amendments/clarifications from staff and he turned
them down. Zimmerman said staff would welcome Planning Commission and public input.
Pockl asked Zimmerman if he knows of any complaints that have come forward during
normal hours of operation when it is being operated as an adult day care. Zimmerman said
he hasn't heard complaints about the adult day care but he has heard concerns about the
number of buses parking on the street and accessing the site. Baker noted that this is not a
residential neighborhood and asked who has issued complaints and what the nature of the
complaints has been. Zimmerman said there are some residential properties to the east and
to north and that most of the complaints have been about noise, loud music, and activity in
the parking lot. Blum asked approximately how far away the residential areas are located.
Zimmerman said the ones to the east are approximately 100 feet away and the ones to
north are much further away than that.
Baker asked if there was any mention by the applicant of the party that was to occur the
night after the City Council meeting regarding revocation. Zimmerman said no, the applicant
did not mention the event that was to occur the next night. Baker asked for clarification
about the juxtaposition between the revocation and the stay and how that transpired.
Zimmerman stated there is language in the City Code regarding revoking CUPs. He said
there is no way for the City to unilaterally change the conditions in a CUP so taking the step
of revocation and then sending it back to the Planning Commission for the CUP amendment
process is a way to allow the adult day care use to continue while addressing the other
issues.
Baker referred to the staff report where it states that the simplest and most straightforward
solution would be to completely restrict evening social events at this location. He asked
Zimmerman to discuss the pros and cons of that approach. Zimmerman reiterated that the
CUP really needs to focus on the adult day care use. He stated that any business is allowed
to have employee events and other activities take place after hours and if there were
problems the police would deal with them on a complaint basis. In this situation because the
evening events are lumped in with the adult day care use there is some hesitation to get too
involved until the CUP issues are straightened out. He stated that a lot of the events seem
to be banquet hall types of events which are not allowed so if it is made clear that only the
adult day care use is allowed and that no banquet hall types of events are allowed it would
be easier to enforce.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 8, 2018
Page 7
David Olshansky, Owner of DRAM Properties, gave some history of the businesses at this
site. He stated that the home health care business just uses the office space and is not part
of the adult day care business. He stated that the adult day care services started in 2003
and that they currently serve approximately 200 clients daily. He said they provide food,
snacks, transportation and medical services to their clients. He said they also meet the
cultural needs of their clients which would be very difficult to find elsewhere. He said he
probably extended too much by allowing the employees of Home Health Care to use the
space because he is trying to accommodate every need that people have including social
events. He said they don't provide food or liquor at these events, they just provide the
space. He stated that the facility has probably been misused and that it doesn't compliment
their services and good reputation. He said he is willing to work with the City to find a
solution to how they can operate and provide services at this location.
Segelbaum referred to the event space rental agreements in the agenda packet and asked
Mr. Olshansky if he charges people for the use of the space. Olshansky said yes, they
charge a minimal fee of between $700 and $1,200 to cover their costs and that some
people were not charged at all depending on the event.
Baker asked Mr. Olshanky about the other businesses he operates. Olshansky said they
operate Physical Therapy of Golden Valley which does physical therapy, occupational
speech therapy, and other services. He said they also operate Talent Solutions which is an
employment agency for Home Health Care. He said they don't do catering services or sell
food.
Johnson asked Mr. Olshansky how he would interpret the condition in the Conditional Use
Permit that states the hours of normal operation shall be from 7 am to 5:30 pm with the
exception of occasional evening social functions. Olshanky said the adult day care services
hours are 7 am to 5:30 pm and occupies approximately 15,000 square feet, but they have
other businesses as well occupying the rest of the space so he thought the Conditional Use
Permit only applied to the adult day care business not to the other businesses. He stated
that "occasional" to him means not every day. He said the events are for their participants
for example concerts and expositions which he thinks is a good use for people. He said
there are not events every day or every weekend and that he agrees the events should be
regulated and have probably been excessive. He clarified that the event held the day after
the City Council meeting was an employee appreciation event and he had a food truck
permit issued from the City for the event.
Baker referred to the letter from staff dated July 30, 2018, which offered four clarifications to
the existing CUP and asked Mr. Olshansky why he chose not to sign that letter or accept the
clarifications offered. Olshansky said it was a mistake and he probably didn't understand the
letter correctly. Baker asked Mr. Olshansky if he would now find the clarifications in the letter
acceptable. Olshansky said he would now sign the letter. He reiterated that he would like to
work with City and get clarification on the things he is allowed to do.
Baker stated that clearly Mr. Olshansky provides a service and he is reluctant to see this
service go away. He asked Mr. Olshansky if it would be acceptable to him if the City Council
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 8, 2018
Page 8
says there can be no after-hours events at all. Olshansky questioned if that would apply to
the adult day care business or to all of the businesses because that is his confusion.
Baker stated that staff felt confident in the clarifications written in the July 30 letter to Mr.
Olshansky and that Mr. Olshansky has made some mistakes that he has owned up to so he
doesn't see any obvious reasons not to offer the same clarifications if there is an opportunity
to do so.
Johnson said he didn't get a clear answer from Mr. Olshansky regarding his interpretation of
"occasional evening social functions." He said he doesn't think it is the Planning
Commission's role to be negotiating something that is really a question of how the City
should interpret those words. He said he is not sure why this issue has to be solved so
quickly and he's concerned about it exposing the City to more risk. He said he supports the
revocation of the CUP. Baker stated that the Planning Commission is being asked to
consider the three actions Zimmerman discussed earlier. Johnson said he doesn't agree
that they should be negotiating or trying to discuss what an amendment should be when
there are other mechanisms in the City including Codes, attorneys, etc. that can interpret
what "occasional evening social functions" means. He reiterated that he supports the
revocation because occasional evening social functions don't extend until three in the
morning. Cisneros clarified that the City Council and herself as City Attorney have
interpreted that condition and agree with Johnson that what was happening at the property
was in violation of the CUP so it was revoked. If the Planning Commission and the City
Council take no further action the CUP will be revoked and the adult day care will have to
close on November 7, so that is why there has been some urgency.
Blum said part of what the Planning Commission has been asked to do is discuss the City
Council findings. He highlighted some of the things that stood out to him including the fact
that there has been clear violation of City ordinances and CUP conditions, there have been
noise complaints from hundreds of feet away, there have been parties that were potentially
hosted by employees and profit being garnered by the property owner, and there were
several admissions by Mr. Olshansky of misuse of the property which is both positive and
negative. He suggested getting more details regarding the police reports to help with the
revocation discussion. He added that there are enforcement options in this case as well and
that citations could still occur. He stated that what they want isn't necessarily punishment,
but compliance so he supports the finding and conclusion of the revocation but they could
consider staying the revocation further to try to come to an agreement with the property
owner.
Zimmerman stated that this doesn't have to be a negotiation, as a body the Planning
Commission is asked to come up with conditions that are relevant for containing any
impacts of the use and to protect surrounding properties from negative impacts. Pockl asked
if option two is picked by the Planning Commission which would be to explore amendments
to the current CUP conditions if they could ultimately recommend revocation of the CUP.
Zimmerman said yes, the Planning Commission could ultimately recommend revocation.
Segelbaum said he feels that the Planning Commission has been charged with the task of
trying to figure out what is appropriate in this case. He said there isn't much room for
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 8, 2018
Page 9
misunderstanding. In 2009 Mr. Olshansky specifically asked to have a banquet business
and was denied. He was allowed to have occasional evening functions, and now those
activities have been going on until late in the evening. He said his sense is that if the City
Council is asking the Planning Commission what is appropriate, he feels the adult day care
use is an asset to the City. He said he doesn't understand how they are going come up with
language that permits certain types of parties and not others, or parties at certain times of
the day and not others so he would feel most comfortable not allowing any evening events
at all.
Johnson questioned if the Planning Commission were to proceed with the second option of
exploring amendments to the current CUP conditions how different they would be from the
options given to the property owner in Zimmerman's letter dated July 30. He asked why the
City couldn't just send the property owner another letter since he has indicated that he
would now sign it. Cisneros explained that the City Council has now revoked the CUP and
so the only way for the CUP to continue is for the Planning Commission to make a
recommendation to the City Council and to follow the CUP ordinance.
Baker said he is inclined to go with the second options because it still allows for revocation if
needed. Pockl agreed and said she thinks an adult care is a beneficial service in Golden
Valley.
Blum asked Cisneros if the Planning Commission can extend the revocation period in order
to monitor if the property owner is complying with City ordinances and the CUP conditions.
Cisneros said the City Council does have the authority to extend the stay but she didn't
know about placing a probationary period on the CUP itself without doing further research.
Brookins said he would be in support of the second option and possibly adding further for
restrictive conditions as needed to provide clarification.
Blum said he supports revocation of the CUP. He said the findings and actions were
appropriate. He said he also thinks option two would be reasonable as well if only to
preserve the adult day care use which is a positive service for the community.
Johnson asked what happens if the CUP is revoked on November 7. Zimmerman stated
that the adult day care would have to cease operations and re-apply for a new CUP. Blum
asked if there is a period of time that the property owner has to wait to reapply for a CUP or
if there is a penalty to reapply. Cisneros said people are prevented from reapplying when an
application is denied, but not revoked so the applicant could reapply right away.
Johnson stated that the City Council deals with these kinds of issues day in and day out and
are much closer with the business community than the Planning Commission. He said the
Planning Commission is being asked to revisit a rule that wasn't followed. The property
owner was sent a letter telling him to stop having events and he didn't stop and now they
are considering spending time rewriting the language to what end so he supports the first
action which is revoking the CUP. Segelbaum agreed, but doesn't want to discontinue the
day care service for 200 people in the community. Baker agreed. Johnson said the City
shouldn't be held hostage to that and that this issue is out of the scope of the Planning
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 8, 2018
Page 10
Commission. Brookins said he is in support of the second option to explore amendments
because they will have to opportunity to add conditions to the CUP.
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Brookins and motion carried 5 to 1 that the Planning
Commission review at its October 22 meeting an amendment to the current CUP conditions
for CU-116 at 800 Boone Avenue North. Commissioner Johnson voted no.
Blum asked if at the October 22 meeting the revocation could be finalized. Cisneros stated
that nothing further is needed to finalize the revocation, it is already final.
Johnson stated that this business incurred this revocation so maybe the business owner
and not the City could do something to take care of his 200 clients in the interim.
--S rt Recess--
Reports on Meetings of the Hou ng and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeal and other Meetings
Johns o oted that he attended a portio of the recent APA MN Planning Conference and
specifical earned a lot at a session on blic art.
5. Other Bu ' ess
• Planning Co issioner Training CUPS
Zimmerman introduced topic of CUP nd the fact t hey govern uses that are
permitted but may have un al impacts nd so co ions may be attached to the
approval. Evaluation must be ated to the impof the use and if the applicant can
show all of the criteria in the City de hatInen met then the CUP must be approved.
He gave some examples of both resi and commercial CUPS and then discussed
the difference between quasi-judice' and 1ri_siative decisions by the City. Blum asked
about the role of the Commissi in making"]
"gslative decisions. Cisneros replied that the
Commission can influence decision but 01tim\stand
e City Council decides.
Cisneros presented fi rules for CUPS, includinity's role is to evaluate the impact
of the use using t riteria set forth in the cndiordinance, conditions imposed
on a con ditiona e permit must bear a substantio hip to the criteria in the
ordinance a e City may not impose impossirea able conditions, the City
must cons' r mitigating conditions that maysatstand s of the ordinance, the
factual r ord must be carefully documente and on ho he facts relate to the
criteri n the conditional use ordinance, an hen enforce t `e terms and
con ions of conditional use permits.
e Commission discussed various legal cases related to CUPS and findings of fact.
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
No. CU-119, Amendment#2
Date of Approval: Original CUP - November 20, 2007 by the City Council in
accordance with Sec. 11.10 Subd. 2 and Section 11.30 of
City Code, Amendment 2 Approval —August 3, 2011
Issued To: Heartland Adult Daycare, a subsidiary of DRAM Properties,
Inc.
Approved Location: 800 Boone Avenue North, Golden Valley, MN
Approved Conditional
Use: To allow for an adult day care center in the Light Industrial
zoning district.
Conditions of Approval:
1. All signage shall meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. The Golden Ballroom
sign shall be removed immediately.
2. The site plan prepared by Buetow and Associates and dated May 6, 2011 and titled
"Existing Site Plan" shall become a part of this approval.
3. The adult day care shall be limited to the amount of clients specified by the Minnesota
Department of Human Services.
4. The hours of normal operation shall be from 7 am to 5:30 pm with the exception of
occasional evening social functions.
5. All improvements to the building shall meet the City's Building Code requirements.
6. All necessary licenses shall be obtained by the Minnesota Department of Human
Services and the Minnesota Department of Health before adult daycare operations
may commence. Proof of such licensing shall be presented to the Director of Planning
and Development.
7. All outdoor trash and recycling containers shall be screened in a manner acceptable
to the Inspections Department.
8. The trailer used for storage and other temporary storage buildings shall be removed
from the site immediately.
9. Inflow and Infiltration rehabilitation compliance shall be completed within 90 days of
the approval of the amended CUP. If the work is not completed by that time, the
City has the right to use the posted escrow to complete the work.
10. The applicant shall provide an onsite bicycle rack allowing parking for a minimum of
five bicycles.
11. The requirements found in the memo to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and
Development, from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal, and dated May 17, 2011
shall become a part of these requirements.
12. All other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met at all times.
13. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the conditional use permit.
Warning: This permit does not exempt you from all other city code provisions,
regulations, and ordinances.
Issued by: 6�11&
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
ORDINANCE NO. 649
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Approval of Conditional Use Permit Number 119, Amendment #3
800 Boone Avenue North
DRAM Properties (David Olshansky), Applicant
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. Ordinance No. 390, 2nd Series, is hereby rescinded in its entirety and of
no further force and effect.
Section 2. Ordinance No. 466, 2nd Series, is hereby rescinded in its entirety and of
no further force and effect.
Section 3. City Code Chapter 113 entitled “Zoning” is amended in Section 113-55,
Subd. b, and Section 113-93, by approving a Conditional Use Permit Amendment for a
certain tract of land located at 800 Boone Avenue North, thereby allowing for an adult
daycare use in the Light Industrial Zoning District.
This Conditional Use Permit is approved based on the application materials and plans
submitted by the applicant, staff memos, public comments and information presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council, and findings recommended by the Planning
Commission, this Conditional Use Permit is approved pursuant to City Code Section 113-
30, Subd. g, and adopted by the City Council on December 18, 2018.
This Conditional Use Permit is subject to all of the terms of the permit to be issued
including, but not limited to, the following specific conditions:
1. The adult day care shall be limited to the number of clients specified by the Minnesota
Department of Human Services.
2. All necessary licenses obtained by the Minnesota Department of Human Services and
the Minnesota Department of Health shall be kept current.
3. The hours of normal operation for the adult day care shall be from 7 am to 5:30 pm,
Monday thru Friday.
4. The adult day care facilities shall not be used for any activities that are not permitted in
the Zoning Code.
5. All vans and buses shall be loaded, unloaded, and parked in the parking lot and shall
not be loaded, unloaded, or parked on Boone Avenue. No vans or buses may be
parked in the angled parking stalls or in the first 21 perpendicular stalls located south of
the building along the drive aisle.
6. No alcohol shall be served or distributed on-site without first obtaining the proper
license or permit.
7. All outdoor trash and recycling containers shall be screened in a manner acceptable to
the Physical Development Department.
8. The applicant shall provide an on-site bicycle rack allowing parking for a minimum of
five bicycles.
9. The requirements found in the memo to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Zoning,
from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal, and dated May 17, 2011, shall become a part
of these requirements.
Ordinance No. 649 -2- December 18, 2018
10. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or
laws with authority over this development.
Section 4. The tract of land affected by this ordinance is legally described as follows:
Lot 9, except the North 350 feet of the East 186.69 feet thereof and further excepting the
North 375.15 feet of said Lot 9 lying West of the East 186.69 feet thereof; Also that part of
Lot 11, lying North of a line parallel with and distant 635.15 feet south of the North line of
said Lot 9, aforesaid; All in Busch’s Golden Valley Acres, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Section 5. City Code Chapter 1 entitled “General Provisions” and Sec. 1-8 entitled
“General Penalty; Continuing Violations” are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference,
as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 6. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication
as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council this 18th day of December, 2018.
/s/Shepard M. Harris
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/ Kristine A. Luedke
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 650
AN ORDINANCE RESCINDING ORDINANCE NUMBERS 390 AND 466, 2ND SERIES
Revoking Conditional Use Permit Number 119
800 Boone Avenue North
City of Golden Valley, Applicant
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2007, the City Council granted approval to
Conditional Use Permit #119 by passing Ordinance No. 390, 2nd Series; and
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2011, the City Council granted approval to Conditional
Use Permit #119, Amendment #2 by passing Ordinance No. 466, 2nd Series; and
WHEREAS, the property owner has held a number of evening social events that
exceed what would reasonably be considered “occasional” and “evening hours;” and
WHEREAS, the property owner has served or permitted alcohol on the property
without a liquor license in violation of local ordinances and state law; and
WHEREAS, the property owner has repeatedly used the property for events such as
conventions and other large-scale events which appear to qualify the facility as a
banquet/catering hall and are prohibited in the Light Industrial Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, there have been complaints and repeated police calls to the property in
regard to noise, after hours events, and parking.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains
as follows:
Section 1. Ordinance No. 390, 2nd Series, is hereby rescinded in its entirety and of
no further force and effect.
Section 2. Ordinance No. 466, 2nd Series, is hereby rescinded in its entirety and of
no further force and effect.
Section 3. The tract of land affected by this ordinance is legally described as follows:
Lot 9, except the North 350 feet of the East 186.69 feet thereof and further excepting the
North 375.15 feet of said Lot 9 lying West of the East 186.69 feet thereof; Also that part of
Lot 11, lying North of a line parallel with and distant 635.15 feet south of the North line of
said Lot 9, aforesaid; All in Busch’s Golden Valley Acres, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Section 4. City Code Chapter 1 entitled “General Provisions” and Sec. 1-8 entitled
“General Penalty; Continuing Violations” are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference,
as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 5. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication
as required by law.
Ordinance No. 650 -2- December 18, 2018
Adopted by the City Council this 18th day of December, 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 City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
4. C. Public Hearing - Zoning Map Amendment - 5530 Golden Valley Road
Prepared By
Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer
Summary
Watermark Enhanced Care Suites of Golden Valley, represented by Todd Ofsthun of TCO Design, is
requesting that the property at 5530 Golden Valley Road be rezoned from Commercial to Single
Family Residential (R-1). The property is bounded by Single Family Residential zoning to the north
and west, Business and Professional Office zoning to the south, and Hwy 100 to the east. It has
been vacant since late 2015 when Peaceful Valley Montessori Academy relocated to another
property in Golden Valley.
It has been the intention of staff to rezone this property to Single Family Residential early in 2019
as part of the implementation process for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 Comprehensive
Plan is expected to be adopted by the City Council in December 2018. The existing Comprehensive
Plan, also called the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, already guides this property for Low Density
Residential use.
In order to accelerate the timeline for potential redevelopment of this property, Watermark has
requested the rezoning be considered now. A proposal for a 25-unit Residential Facility for assisted
living, memory care, and transitional care has been submitted for this property as well as the
properties at 1530 Welcome Avenue and 5540 Golden Valley Road. Separate approvals of a lot
consolidation and Conditional Use Permit are needed.
A neighborhood meeting was hosted by the applicant on November 15, 2018, to discuss the project.
Approximately 12 people attended. Comments from attendees were focused on the impacts of the
proposed building rather than the rezoning of this property to R-1. On November 26, 2018, the
Planning Commission recommended approval unanimously (7-0).
Attachments
• Location Map
• Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated November 26, 2018 (10 pages)
• Memo to Planning Commission dated November 26, 2018 (2 pages)
• Applicant Narrative (3 pages)
• Official Zoning Map (1 page)
• Ordinance #651, Rezoning 5530 Golden Valley Road from Commercial to Single Family (R-1)
Residential Watermark Enhanced Care Suites of Golden Valley, Applicant (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Ordinance #651, amending the Official Zoning Map for 5530 Golden Valley Road,
rezoning from Commercial to Single Family (R-1) Residential.
y,a
5555
5323
5615 5601
1644
5645
1630
1610
1601
Z 1614 1608
'626 7620 Subject Properties
� ,530
1533
VVPICOMP Ave 1524
5340
} 1600
1516 1515
1805
5350
1520
1500 1511 150
1525
1450 1500
1437
CD 1503 5530
1430 1435 1434554G 5349
D
c
1420 Z 5610
1435
5630
5700 Ja`\el W6 1415
oder 14za
GO, 5545
5605
9420
5740 5615
1408
1325
5715 1324
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
NA regular meeting of the Planning C mission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
hambers, 7800 Golden V y Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday,
Novembe 18. Vice Chair Joh on called the meeting to 9,56r at 7 pm.
Those present were Pla Com sioners An er, Blum, Brookins, Johnson,
Pockl, and Segelbaum. Also p er ing Manager Jason Zimmerman, and
Associate Planner/Grant Writer E ellner
1. Approval of Min
Novemb , 2018, Regular anning Commission
MOV by Brookins, seconded by egelbaum and motion carried unanimously to
ove the November 13, 2018, utes as submitted.
2. Informal Public Hearing — Zoning Map Amendment— 5530 Golden Valley Road
—Watermark Senior Living —ZO11-18
Applicant: Watermark Senior Living Community of Golden Valley, LLC
Address: 5530 Golden Valley Road
Purpose: To rezone the property from Commercial to Single Family Residential
(R-1).
3. Informal Public Hearing — Lot Consolidation — 5530-5540 Golden Valley Road
and 1530 Welcome Avenue North — SU11-10
Applicant: Watermark Senior Living Community of Golden Valley, LLC
Address: 5530-5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North
Purpose: To consolidate three lots into one lot
4. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit— 5530-5540 Golden Valley
Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North — CU-162
Applicant: Watermark Enhanced Care Suites of Golden Valley
Address: 5530-5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North
Purpose: To allow a Residential Facility serving 25 people in the Single Family
(R-1) Zoning District
Items 2, 3 and 4 were presented and discussed together.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 2
Goellner referred to a location map of the properties and explained the applicant's
proposal for a 25-unit residential facility which would offer 24-hour care for assisted living,
transitional care, and memory care.
Goellner noted that 5530 Golden Valley Road is zoned Commercial and the other two
properties are zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. She added that all three properties
are currently guided for Low Density Residential on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map and that the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan also guides the properties Low
Density Residential.
Goellner referred to a site plan of the proposal and explained that the proposed lots
combined into one would be 39,563 square feet in size. She discussed the proposed
building footprint, the parking lot, the driveway out to Lilac Drive, and the setbacks.
Goellner reminded the Commissioners that in May 2018 the applicant proposed to rezone
these properties to build a similar facility which was recommended for denial by the
Planning Commission. She compared the differences between the previous and current
proposals. The previous proposal was to rezone the properties to R-3 with 40 units, 3
floors with the top floor as a full story, and a larger building footprint with smaller
setbacks. The current proposal is to rezone the properties to R-1 with 25 units, 3 floors
with the top floor as a half story, and a smaller building footprint with larger setbacks.
Goellner referred to a chart of the staff analysis regarding how the proposal fits in with the
Zoning Code and stated that the proposal meets all of the requirements of the R-1 Single
Family Residential Zoning District.
Goellner referred to the height of the proposed building and explained that the City
determines the average grade of a lot based on the grade of the previous structures. She
stated that the new building can only increase the average grade by one foot. Based on
those calculations the existing average grade is 894.1 and the proposed average grade
would be 895.0.
Goellner referred to a photo of the applicant's Fridley location and discussed the
similarities to the proposed Golden Valley location. The colors of the building would be
tan, white, light brown, and pale yellow. They are proposing to use manufactured stone,
and LP Smart Side, and there would be no PTAC (air conditioning) units located
underneath the windows.
Goellner stated that the applicant is proposing several architectural and landscaping
features to help the building fit in with its surroundings including: pitched roofs similar to
other homes in the neighborhood, articulation and relief in the walls of the building,
several windows on all levels and all sides of the building, a variety of exterior building
materials, fencing along the perimeter of the site, tree plantings along the perimeter of the
site, minimal grading of the site, and a trash enclosure. She added that the applicant has
also chosen to locate the parking lot and driveway access on the Lilac Drive side of the
property in order to minimize the impact on Welcome Avenue.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 3
Goellner referred to the tree and landscape plan and stated that the applicant is
proposing to remove all of the existing trees except for one and they are proposing
fencing and tree plantings along the perimeter. She added that staff is recommending that
coniferous trees be added along Welcome Avenue to provide year-round screening. She
said staff is also proposing that the proposed fence be a decorative fence, and that
shrubs/perennials be placed outside of the fence.
Goellner referred to the proposed parking and access and stated that the proposed
access is one driveway on Lilac Drive. She stated that the applicant is proposing to
provide 19 parking stalls (five are required), and three bike parking spaces (four are
required). She stated that deliveries should take place on the site, not on the street and
should occur only between 8 am and 5 pm and that the applicant should provide an
overflow parking plan. She stated that there is no parking allowed on Lilac Drive and on
most of Golden Valley Road, there is also no overnight parking allowed on Welcome
Avenue from November 1 to March 31, and there is no parking allowed after two inches of
snow on any city street.
Goellner referred to a chart showing the anticipated weekday and weekend time frames
for employees and visitors. She noted that at most there would be 11 to 12 cars on a lot
that can hold 19 so the applicant isn't anticipating the lot to be full on an average day.
Goellner noted that a neighborhood meeting was held on November 15. She stated that
there were 12 attendees and that there were numerous concerns regarding traffic,
parking, noise, odors, tree removal, construction, and the height and size of the building.
She added that a lighting plan will be required with the building permit application and that
there have been no comments or concerns from the Fire Department.
Goellner stated that staff is recommending approval of all three proposals subject to the
conditions listed in the staff reports. She explained that three of the evaluation criteria
used when evaluating a Conditional Use Permit have specific conditions attached to
them. They include ways to mitigate the effect on traffic flow and congestion by requiring
an overflow parking plan, mitigating the possible increase in noise levels by requiring
deliveries be limited to regular business hours, and mitigating the visual impacts by
requiring dumpster screening, the installation of trees, shrubs and perennials, and the
installation of a privacy fence.
Segelbaum asked if there is a need to add a condition regarding the construction
schedule and rules. Goellner stated that the City has construction regulations and that
applicants are required to sign a construction management agreement that addresses
issues such as the hours construction is allowed, noise, removing debris from the site,
etc. Baker asked if these requirements are prescribed by ordinance or if they are
negotiated between the builder and the City. Goellner stated that they are all ordinances
and that the construction management agreement puts all the regulations in one
document.
Segelbaum referred to the tree and landscape plan and asked about the mitigation
requirements. Goellner explained that the applicant is allowed to remove 30% of the trees
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 4
before they are required to add new ones. Baker asked if a condition could be added
requiring a specific number of trees to be planted. Goellner said if it could be tied to the
impact of the visual appearance then it would be appropriate.
Blum asked for clarification regarding where staff is recommending more coniferous trees
be planted. Goellner stated that the recommendation is to have more coniferous trees on
the west side along Welcome Avenue since that is the side of the property that is most
exposed to the single family neighborhood. Blum referred to the site plan and asked if it
meets staffs recommendations. Goellner said it does not and that the applicant has been
asked to provide an updated tree and landscape plan. Angell asked if the intention is to
have the trees planted on the exterior of the fence. Goeller said yes and explained that
there would be shrubs, then the fence, then the trees, then the building to help with visual
impact.
Baker asked about the purpose of requiring a fence that is only four feet tall. Goellner said
it won't help with screening but it will provide visual appeal and variety.
Pockl said she understands that if the factors of evaluation have been met for a
Conditional Use Permit the City is obligated to approve it and asked if that is the same for
the lot consolidation request. Goellner said yes. Blum asked if there is a requirement that
the zoning of the property and the Land Use Map have to match. Goellner said yes, that
is required.
Nathan Running, Property Owner, stated that he was involved in building their facility in
Fridley and that this whole process started for him five years ago when his grandfather
was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and he had to find a place for him to live. He
said the places he found were too institutional and he wanted to find a neighborhood
community with a home feel. He said that is the concept for this proposed 25-unit facility.
He stated that the demand for senior living in Golden Valley is high and that the proposed
location fits all of their criteria.
Todd Ofsthun, TCO Design, stated that the busier/noisier part of the proposed facility
would be on the Lilac Drive side of the property. That is where people, employees, and
deliveries would come and go so he doesn't see any reason for traffic to go through the
neighborhood streets. He stated that a six foot tall fence and trees are proposed along the
north side of the property to try and reduce the visual impact. He stated that the majority
of the rooms will face into the neighborhood so they feel like they are part of the
community. He stated that they will be replacing all of the trees with trees that are four
inches or more in diameter and 12 feet tall or taller. He said they are also proposing to
add seven ornamental trees. He noted that there are several other buildings in the area,
some are larger and some are smaller than what they are proposing so when he looks at
the overall neighborhood what they are proposing will fit in. He referred to the dumpster
and said they will be enclosing it and planting shrubs around it.
Segelbaum asked about the parking requirements if there is a special event. Ofsthun
stated that the property owners have reached out to other property owners in the area
regarding overflow parking. Jennifer Thorson, Director of the Fridley Watermark Facility,
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 5
stated that their Fridley location has 28 units and 13 parking spots. The proposed Golden
Valley facility will have 25 units and 19 parking spots. She noted that during the peak time
in Fridley they have approximately 12 cars. She explained that during special events
RSVP'ing is required so that they can properly plan for the parking.
Johnson asked the applicant to talk about how they came to the final design of the
building and what other options they considered. Ofsthun said they originally considered
two plans. The first plan had the access on Golden Valley Road, but that got a little too
close to the neighborhood. He stated that many of the decisions were dictated by the
grade and trying to keep the entrance away from the intersection of Golden Valley Road
and Lilac Drive. He said the shape and design of the building came from the number of
units, the amenities, and trying to keep the height down to fit in with the neighborhood.
Segelbaum asked if the building could have more units in the future if needed. Ofsthun
said he doesn't see that being an option and that there are no plans on expanding.
Segelbaum questioned if this proposal might be an incremental step in getting more units.
Ofsthun said the City Code and licensing wouldn't allow it.
Baker asked the applicant if they are planning on adding bike parking spaces. Ofsthun
said yes.
Pockl asked how often emergency vehicles are called to their site in Fridley. Thorson
stated that emergency vehicles come to the site approximately three times per month.
Blum asked if the sirens and lights are on when the emergency vehicles arrived. Thorson
said the sirens are always off. Johnson noted that this is right off Highway 100 where
sirens are heard all the time.
Baker opened the public hearing.
Gary Grenzer, 1525 Welcome Avenue North, showed the Commissioners a drawing he
made that illustrates how tall the proposed building would be compared to the height of
the houses nearby. He said he won't be able to see the sky from the inside of his house
and that the trees they are proposing will take 20 years to cover the main floor of the
building. He said there is no comparison between the trees they are taking out and the
trees they are proposing to put in. He said the building is going to look like a hotel and
there is nothing equitable about this proposal. It will not fit in with the neighborhood, and
is nothing like the other buildings on Golden Valley Road.
Ryan Thomson, 1200 Welcome Avenue North, said he is concerned about the massing
effect of the building. He said this proposal is not consistent with the neighborhood or the
objectives of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to preserve and promote single family
residences in Golden Valley. He said it is unconscionable that the Planning Commission
would undertake the approval of this proposal which inherently deviates from the
objectives of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan by destroying detached single family
residences. He said approval of this proposal would only prove to Golden Valley residents
that the Comprehensive Plan is a political tool to remain in power rather than a strategy to
maintain the best of their community.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 6
Mike Nelson, 1310 Welcome Avenue North, submitted a petition signed by 24 people
opposing the proposal and read the statement on the petition. He referred to the
possibility of expansion and noted that they are expanding their Fridley facility by an
additional 18 units. He said it seems like the applicant is trying to hide that fact. He
referred to the character of the neighborhood and said he loves his single family home
and having a number of mature trees and that he is opposed to the lot consolidation. He
said a huge part of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan was having a variety of single family
home pricing. Taking out three lots does not fit with the 2040 Comp Plan because the City
needs to have affordable single family homes within their neighborhood so that all types
of people can move into the neighborhood at a reasonable price. He said another thing
the 2040 Comp Plan talks about is the preservation of nature. He noted that the applicant
is taking out all of the existing trees except for one and putting in smaller trees that take a
long time to grow and that we can't keep taking down mature trees. He said the proposed
building fits within the R-1 requirements, but it completely towers over the neighborhood.
He strongly recommended that the Planning Commission not recommend approval.
Christine Nelson, 1310 Welcome Avenue North, said this is about the properties not being
single family homes. She said this is a property that is for profit and they are not as
invested as community owners. She stated that the FTK property behind her house at
1310 Welcome Avenue North has a dumpster that is frequently left open and trash blows
into her yard. She said she has also seen them use a leaf blower to push trash into her
yard. She said there is no consequences for the applicant, but the consequences are to
her family when her puppy has a rubber glove or glass shard in its mouth. She said she
has a question about where the dumpster will be placed with this proposal to make sure
that it isn't impacting families because there isn't the level of care or concern that a family
owner would have. She said this is a strong community and this proposal is breaking it
up.
Matt Bartholomew, 1240 Welcome Avenue North, said he is a real estate professional
and it is his opinion that this proposed facility will likely have a negative impact particularly
on the homes directly across the street. He said the wall and the highway noise are
already major issues and that adding another big building is going to be another issue
that anyone living in the area will face if they sell their home. He said there are multiple
buildings in the area and he feels like they are getting squeezed in so he would like to see
the properties stay single family homes.
Pan Wandzel, 1220 Welcome Avenue North, said when she moved in the neighborhood
was stable but also transitional. She said over the last five years their neighborhood has
become tight, they get together frequently, and they watch out for each other. She said
she is concerned about this proposal changing the integrity of this neighborhood. She
said she is not against senior housing and that she wants to age in place. She said she
wants to stay in a neighborhood that is safe and she doesn't want to have to worry about
parking or strangers walking down the street during their lunch break. She said she
worries about the density and that the building looks like a hotel or a townhome in
Plymouth or somewhere where there aren't separate homes that have character and light
between the buildings. She said she understands there is a need, but it doesn't belong in
their neighborhood and just because it's called a residential facility it's transitional. She
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 7
noted that the office building on Welcome Avenue has a covenant that states they will
keep up with the landscaping, but they don't because they got what they needed and the
residents are the ones who are suffering. She reiterated that she isn't against senior
housing; she is for the integrity of the neighborhood.
Richard Sheehan, 1533 Xenia Avenue North, asked if it was correct that staff said that if a
business can meet the requirements for consolidating lots that the City must approve the
application. Goellner said yes. Sheehan asked if it follows then that if the permit is issued
any application to do anything is automatically going to be approved. He said he thinks
there is an assumption that this proposal is going to happen and it is just a matter of
working through the nuts and bolts but he thinks there should be discussion about
whether the proposed facility should be there at all. He said he has the same concerns as
the previous speakers. He wants to see younger people move in the neighborhood and
these properties could be single family homes. He said he finds it disturbing that the very
nice house at 1530 Welcome Avenue is going to be torn down and questioned why the
City should be in the business of tearing down existing perfectly good structures so that
something else can be done with it. He said he wants to preserve the residential
character of the neighborhood and he wants to see single family homes on the two lots on
the Welcome Avenue side and not a health care facility. He implored the Commission to
think about the character of the neighborhood.
Grace Reilly, 1325 Welcome Avenue North, referred to the comment about emergency
vehicles not using their sirens when they are going into the site and said there will have to
be sirens when they are leaving the site. She said having sirens three times a month is
not something any of the Planning Commissioners would want in their neighborhoods and
it's not something any of them want in their neighborhood either. She said she doesn't
want to worry about strangers in her neighborhood and that it is nice to know she has a
community that supports her and people in the neighborhood that know her. She said she
doesn't think that this proposed facility would be good for them because they don't know
who will be in the neighborhood, who they can trust, and who they think is safe. She said
the Commission has to think about if they are taking the neighbor out of neighborhoods.
Pam Wittucki, 1136 Welcome Circle, said that the applicant mentioned that they don't use
lights and sirens at their facility but she knows that if it is an emergency they will use lights
and sirens, there will be a lot of lights and sirens and saying there won't be is a stretch.
She said that people who have memory issues, and have transitional care and elder care
probably aren't driving so they are going to need people to get them places. She said
there are already a lot of commercial buildings in the area, she understands that but she
doesn't want any more coming in and closer. She said this isn't a good fit for their
neighborhood and people are going to park on their street.
Marilyn Miller, 1316 Welcome Avenue North, requested that the Planning Commission
uphold the Comprehensive Plan. She said the other nursing home in the area fits in
because it is only one story and it doesn't overlook the neighbors' backyards. She said if
the applicants were concerned about the neighbors they would have kept up the land and
not let the grass grow three feet tall so she questions their integrity. She said that they
have already asked for an expansion at their Fridley facility so it is a real possibility that
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 8
they will ask for that in Golden Valley too. She asked how many of the parking spaces are
attributed to deliveries and stated that the grill will produce a smell.
Peter Lane, 5630 Golden Valley Road, said they moved to Golden Valley from St. Paul
and he grew up in a small suburb in Duluth. He said this feels like home because there
isn't a lot of huge commercial buildings and there is a lot of nature, trees, and wildlife. He
said he didn't know the names of his neighbors in St. Paul and he knew his neighbors
here within a couple of weeks. He said he's worked hard on landscaping and keeping up
their house and that no one is besmirching bringing in elder care, but he believes Golden
Valley is looking to bring in more young families so these homes really need to be
protected.
Chris Nelson, 5605 Phoenix Street, said he wants to raise his kids here and Golden
Valley is a community and he wants to stay here forever. He said he thinks they all want
to find value in their home and that a transitional home is not good for them or their
community.
Stephen Trull, 1600 Welcome Avenue North, said he was told that the distance from
fence along the north to the property line was 25 feet and that the peak of the roof on the
north end of the building would be 35 feet tall. He said to put that in perspective he is six
feet tall so 25 feet away from the fence, and up 35 feet would be six times his height or
about 5 houses tall so the pictures shown don't really give the scale of the enormity of the
proposed building. He said the building is going to block the sun and take away from the
small, livable, presentable nature of this neighborhood. He said he knows the house at
1530 Welcome was sold for $500,000 so he is concerned about the effect of that on his
property taxes and that it might price him out of the neighborhood.
Millie Segal, 4409 Sunset Ridge, said she is attempting to age in place in Golden Valley.
She said this can happen in any neighborhood and it is upsetting to her to hear that these
neighbors' way of life is in jeopardy. She said there are other facilities with vacancies that
are very nice and are in appropriate areas and not disrupting neighborhoods.
Georgeann Wobschall, 1503 Welcome Avenue North, said she has looked at this
property for 40 plus years. She said since the owners of 1530 Welcome Avenue have
moved out there have been papers on the property, weeds in the cement, the grass has
not been mowed, and the mail is not picked up. She said she is not sure who is
responsible for the upkeep of this property but as the Planning Commission considers this
proposal they should think about what Watermark has done with the property in the last
six months.
Gary Remick, 1114 Welcome Circle, said he is a dog owner and avid walker and there is
no sidewalk on the south side of the street so he has to walk right against the highway
wall. He said he is concerned about this facility and how it will affect his dog's enjoyment
of the neighborhood. He said a lot of people walk in this neighborhood and he is worried
about their safety.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 9
Celeste Reilly, 1325 Welcome Avenue North, said her husband passed away in their
home unexpectedly two years ago and there were sirens, ambulances, and police cars.
She said her neighbors helped her through that ordeal and every day that she hears an
ambulance or a police car brings her back to that day. She said to add more traffic and to
take away from the neighborhood and to take away from what should be single family
homes like in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan saddens her. She said this is a small little
community outside a larger community and her family and friends are grateful she has the
neighbors she has. She implored the Planning Commission to keep this area as a single
family neighborhood and not approve this proposal. She said eventually this
neighborhood will be gone and Golden Valley won't be a residential area anymore, it is
going to be industrial and overtake them.
Ann Bennion, 1125 Welcome Circle, said they are surrounded on all sides by industry and
therefore they are a fragile neighborhood and have had to remain vigilant. She said she
thinks rezoning the commercial property to R-1 single family residential would be
acceptable, but what is not acceptable is combining the lots. She stated that in the R-1
district there are no restrictions on the number of people who can live in a house if they
are all related, five people if they are unrelated. So by combining the three lots into one
there could be one family so what they are really asking for is a Conditional Use Permit
for 20 additional people. She noted that many of the lots in the neighborhood are actually
not that much smaller than the subject properties combined. She said it appears that the
only way this building was going to be built was to shoehorn it in this space with a
Conditional Use Permit on top of that. She said if the commercial lot is rezoned to R-1 it
should not be combined with the other two lots.
Peter Coyle, Larkin Hoffman, representing the applicant, said he would like to make a few
comments. Baker said he couldn't let Mr. Coyle respond to the public comments and that
the Planning Commission would let the applicant come back up and speak if they have
additional questions.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing.
Baker referred to the rezoning of the property at 5530 Golden Valley Road and noted that
staff is recommending approval of rezoning the property to R-1 Single Family Residential
because that is how it is currently designated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
and the two should be consistent with each other. He added that there were a number of
people who said that this proposal departs from the Comprehensive Plan but he feels
those comments pertain more to the CUP request than the rezoning proposal. The
Commissioners agreed.
Blum asked if there is a timeline as to when the Comprehensive Plan designation and the
Zoning Map designation have to match. Zimmerman said the zoning has to be consistent
with the Comp Plan within nine months of a Comp Plan amendment so this really should
have been rezoned 10 years ago when the last Comp Plan was adopted. Baker asked if
there are a lot of properties that weren't rezoned with the last Comp Plan update.
Zimmerman said there are several properties that will need to be rezoned after the 2040
Comp Plan update is adopted. Segelbaum said he has some hesitancy in rezoning this
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 10
property because the Planning Commission and the City Council has had discussions
about maintaining small commercial properties for things like coffee shops which make
neighborhoods more walkable. However R-1 does fit here and the Comp Plan guides it
for residential so rezoning it seems appropriate.
Baker asked about the history of the uses on this property. Zimmerman said it has been
used as a number of things including a gas station/convenience store and a Montessori
school. He added that most of the past uses occurred before Highway 100 cut off access
and Golden Valley Road went through. Baker said he wishes there were small
commercial uses in his neighborhood but that this neighborhood already has some
commercial uses nearby. Johnson stated that the setbacks for this property wouldn't allow
for a decent size commercial or office use. Zimmerman agreed.
MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Angell and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of rezoning the property at 5530 Golden Valley Road from Commercial to Single
Family Residential (R-1).
ker referred to the proposed lot consolid tion and read the staff's recommended
c itions. He reminded the Commission at the City is bound by the nine factors of
con ration found in City Code which in is case have been met or are not applic .
Pockl ed if the factors are the same for t consolidations as they are for min
subdivisi . Zimmerman stated that the ning Code refers to platting whi the
redrawing o ny property lines and that t process and conditions of c ideration are
the same. Go er reviewed the nine fac rs of consideration and exogined how this
proposal meets t e requirements.
MOVED by Brookins s nded by Johns n and motion c d unanimously to
recommend approval of t roposed lot onsolidation 530 and 5540 Golden Valley
Road and 1530 Welcome A ue North ubject to following conditions.-
1.
onditions:1. The City Attorney shall determ if a itl view is necessary prior to approval of the
final plat.
2. A park dedication fee of$15,180 s e paid before release of the final plat.
3. The proposed development is c State Highway 100 and therefore is subject
to the review and comments the ne a Department of Transportation.
Baker referred to the Con ' onal Use P` mit (CU roposal and asked staff to review
the evaluation criteria d when revie ng a CUP a ication. Goellner listed all of the
criteria from the Zo Code and sum rized how the oposal meets, or conditionally
meets, each one. a discussed the c ditions recomme d by staff including the
mitigation of tr c flow and impact, th itigation of increas noise levels, and the
mitigation of a visual appearance.
Johns eferred to the mitigation of in ease in noise levels and as d how they address
the ments made about emergency ehicle siren noise. Segelbau tated that the
is is if the noise is excessive and if is able to be mitigated. Baker a ed that the
y has to demonstrate that there is n way to mitigate an issue raised un r the criteria
C1tai o
s
V ct
. _ u.,= T Planning Department
4 763-593-8095 1763-593-8109(fax)
Date: November 26, 2018
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer
Subject: Informal Public Hearing—Zoning Map Amendment— 5530 Golden Valley Road
Summary
Watermark Enhanced Care Suites of Golden Valley, represented by Todd Ofsthun of TCO Design, is
requesting that the property at 5530 Golden Valley Road be rezoned from Commercial to Single-
Family Residential (R-1). The property is bounded by Single-Family Residential zoning to the north
and west, Business and Professional Office zoning to the south, and Hwy 100 to the east. It has
been vacant since late 2015 when Peaceful Valley Montessori Academy relocated to another
property in Golden Valley.
It has been the intention of staff to rezone this property to Single-Family Residential early in 2019
as part of the implementation process for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 Comprehensive
Plan is expected to be adopted by the City Council in December 2018. The existing Comprehensive
Plan, also called the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, already guides this property for Low Density
Residential use.
In order to accelerate the timeline for potential redevelopment of this property, Watermark has
requested the rezoning be considered now. A proposal for a 25-unit Residential Facility for assisted
living, memory care, and transitional care has been submitted for this property as well as the
properties at 1530 Welcome Avenue and 5540 Golden Valley Road. Separate approvals of a lot
consolidation and Conditional Use Permit are needed.
A neighborhood meeting was hosted by the applicant on November 15, 2018, to discuss the project.
Approximately 12 people attended. Comments from attendees were focused on the impacts of the
proposed building rather than the rezoning of this property to R-1.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of amending the Zoning Map to rezone the property at 5530 Golden
Valley Road from Commercial to Single-Family Residential.
1
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
Applicant Narrative (3 pages)
Official Zoning Map (1 page)
2
0
1
TVLGa S SEP 2
2018
9330 Thomas Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, MN 55444
Office 763-424-3676 cell 952-994-8276
August 20, 2018
Re: Conditional Use Permit Application,
Zoning Map Amendments and General
Land Use Map Amendment Applications
5530 Golden Valley Road,
5540 Golden Valley Road, and
1530 Welcome Avenue North
Golden Valley, MN 55422
City of Golden Valley
Planning Department
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
WATERMARK SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, LLC — Project
Narrative
Background
WaterMark Senior Living Community of Golden Valley, LLC discovered the three properties and determined it would be a
nice quiet location for their next building. The proposed project is an assisted living and transitional care facility with
approximately 24,000 SF containing 25 senior and transitional care units. The proposed structure will be two and a half
stories.
The project will use 5540 Golden Valley Road,1530 Welcome Ave N and 5530 Golden Valley Road. 5540 Golden Valley
Road and 1530 Welcome Ave N currently have houses on them and 5530 Golden Valley Road currently has a
commercial building on it. The properties have Welcome Avenue North to the West, Golden Valley Road to the South and
Lilac Drive North to the East. The new facility will be accessed with a curb cut from Lilac Drive North.
There are several advantages to a residential care facility for this neighborhood. It is important to the owner and operators
that this facility is well maintained and run. All aspects of site and building maintenance will be kept to high standards. The
families and groups associated with Comprehensive Care have high standards for this type of facility and for their
patients. They are caring family members, medical professionals or business professionals. These types of facilities are
quiet and low key. There will be no large and loud parties or gatherings. Its 24 hour a day security will be a nice buffer
from the busy Highway 100 area.
The maximum number of employees when the facility is full will be 11. This is the number of employees required by the
management company to provide the patients with meals, personal hygiene, housekeeping and any other patient needs in
compliance with the State for this type of facility and care. Building and exterior maintenance will be out sourced. There is
plenty of on-site snow storage space. The City requires 5 off street parking spaces for this type of facility with this number
of beds. We are providing 19 off street spaces. All deliveries will be at the front of the building off Lilac Drive North, away
from the residential neighborhood.
The group that makes up WaterMark Senior Living Community of Golden Valley, LLC completed a building in Fridley in
2017. The 28-unit building is currently full. The new building will be a similar facility. The Golden Valley facility will have
larger rooms, more amenities and more generous gathering areas. Please see attached picture of the Fridley Facility for
reference.
5
Factors of evaluation
1. All cities have demonstrated a need for assisted living and memory care facility. New facilities fill quickly. There is
a study showing a need for 46 units in this area of Golden Valley.
2. A small assisted living and memory care facility in a Low-Density neighborhood is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan of the City by providing a needed service while fitting with existing available City utilities in
this road and a busy Highway service road (Lilac Drive North).
3. The new building and lots will have a value of$1,500,000-$1,900,000 when finished compared to current property
values of$275,000-$325,000 in the area.
4. This type of facility will have minimum impact on traffic flow and congestion. None of the residents will have
vehicles. The number of car trips will be comparable to a single-family duplex. Lilac Drive North is adequate to
support such traffic.
5. Because the residents stay mostly on site or organized day trips, there will be minimal effect on surrounding land
uses. The staff will also perform their duties on site and will have a positive effect by patronizing local businesses.
6. The proposed use may be difficult to categorize within the City's Mixed Income Housing Policy. It is not a private
facility and therefore, is available to Resident's regardless of income. The proposed facility is not a market rate
residential rental development. It is designed for residents requiring 24-hour medical care and does not include
any units designed for independent living.
7. The proposed facility will not increase noise levels over the allowed uses for this neighborhood. The facility will
have more activity than the usual Low Density use in the mornings during the week but will be quieter in the
evenings and weekends compared to typical homes. No large parties or gatherings.
8. The proposed use does not generate unusual odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibrations.
9. The proposed facility will not increase flies, rats, or other vermin in the area. It will likely be less than the average
area land use by having a high level of maintenance by professionals.
10. The proposed building will use exterior materials consistent with current residential construction. We will use a
nice balance of manufactured stone and 'LP SmartSide'. The siding will vary using a combination of textures and
colors. Other architectural features such as decorative vents and brackets will be used to add visual interest. The
roof will be finished with 'shake look'architectural asphalt shingles.
11. The proposed facility will be highly maintained. It will have 24 hour a day security and will be taken care of
residents in need of their services. Because of this, this proposed facility will have a positive effect upon the
general public health, safety, and welfare of the City and its residents.
Zoning and Land Use
5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Ave N are currently guided and zoned Single-Family R-1 Residential. 5530
Golden Valley Road is currently guided and zoned Commercial. WaterMark Senior Living Community of Golden Valley,
LLC would like to re-guide and re-zone 5530 Golden Valley Road to Low Density R-1 Residential. The R-1 zoning for the
other two properties fit with the Conditional Use Permit application and will not need rezoning or re-guiding. The
combination of the three properties will result in a unified property totaling approximately 0.92 acres.
The Comprehensive Care Facility will be the sole principal structure on the property. A conditional use permit will be
required to allow the 25-unit assisted living use on the R-1 zoning. The City will also require us to go through a re-platting
application in order to combine the three properties into one.
Building
The proposed building will consist of two and a half floors of assisted senior living and transitional care units. There will be 7
care units on the main floor along with a generous gathering space that also includes a malt shop, library, chapel and
theatre. The lower level and half story floors will have 9 care units along with a small gathering area on each floor. There will
be a total of 25 care units. An elevator will be provided in the main entry.
The residents will get assisted living care, memory care and transitional care. Transitional care being patients that need
24-hour care, but do not qualify to stay in a hospital or have family or friends that can give them that level of care.
Examples would be post-op, pre-op, dialysis, bariatrics, respirator, etc. Transitional care residents are quiet and static.
Memory care patients are not allowed to wander outside of the facility without being accompanied by a care team
member. The facility will operate under the Minnesota state Comprehensive Care License.
The proposed building will use exterior materials consistent with current residential construction. We will use a nice balance
of manufactured stone and `LP SmartSide'. The siding will be vary using a combination of textures and colors. Other
architectural features such as decorative vents and brackets will be used to add visual interest. The roof will be finished with
'shake look'architectural asphalt shingles.
Site
The overall site is approximately 0.92 acres and the area to be disturbed for the proposed project is roughly 0.5 acres.
The site is designed to meet R-1 zoning standards. Setbacks for the property are per the table below.
Building Setback Pavement Setback
Required Proposed Required Proposed
Front/Lilac Drive 35 Feet 35 Feet 0 Feet 16 Feet
ROW
Street Side Yard/ 35 Feet 35 Feet 0 Feet 22 Feet
Golden Valley
Road
Rear Street Yard/ 35 Feet 35 Feet 0 Feet N/A
Welcome Avenue
North
Side Yard North 25 Feet 25 Feet
Access and Parking
Site access is provided with a curb cut off Lilac Drive North. The curb cut will be as far North as reasonable with grade
considerations. This will keep the access a good distance from the intersection of Lilac Drive and Golden Valley North.
Parking has been provided to serve the proposed building that exceeds City Code with 19 exterior surface stalls. An
accessible stall is provided in front of the building with a curb cut ramp providing access to the main concrete sidewalk.
The stalls are 9'x18.5' and adjacent to either a concrete sidewalk or landscape areas to account for bumper overhang.
The drive aisle is 24' in width. An emergency vehicle turn-around was not perceived to be necessary since the building
and property is surrounded by three public streets.
Landscaping and Tree Preservation
Landscaping is designed to provide site character and blend into the surrounding existing tree canopy. We plan to
preserve existing trees that fall outside of the grading limits and provide 4-0 tall fence and earth berm screening from
abutting residential properties. The project will have a proposed planting schedule which provides ample landscaping and
screening for the site. A landscape plan will be provided prior to building permit issuance with approval from city Staff.
The types (species) of new trees and minimum size specified will meet the City ordinance and approval of the Staff.
Grading, Drainaqe, Utilities and Stormwater Treatment
Proposed site grades, drive aisles, parking areas, utilities and stormwater treatment are addressed by our civil Engineer in
the preliminary civil documents provided.
Watermark Development Schedule
September,2018—Application to the City of Golden Valley
Fall, 2018—Building Permit Application
Fall, 2018—Begin Construction
Covt&vv me 0L Dre f>LL,%Q evL i ttovu.e DesL@vL
Dedicat%ovL to exceUevLce
Ivy
CL
Xr
+, 61 to y n o E� W G B ae C€ � f•,. .Q (� Le }I' M aas 3
32
f V Aga a N p EQ7TM�
oIR g
eo n
6 O E s 3I $ o v
c oga a �s
` .u.. Ww
0 gts $ T'j
j I
vvvN;ao Ho
p
E 9 0) QO
}
b CJ (n U] (n (! ° � n J% c 'o? 2 v E rri u
ett cV cn er In �g f e E w $" ? o 0
•p.� fit' ►�. " (� (! (n to v b yC Tl G G C C G v m §asr b �� pQ u E N „� T o }
•.7 .y y CJ b ggg 3 s S a O E o z t"m a < @ 0
�M- , O b0 'C 1 g R € 8a 0 �•a CL Z w a. N z 8
Ocn x U a w .; wsi cns �h� $ ¢ s z E. a 3 $
1 �
NOPE a E a w_c° Ti Tn
P�p C m N
o �
SI"IOdV3NN1W JO A1IJ SI-IOd VHNNIW.Jo JI.LIJ
zee f'
m
0co
' , 8I
u w °��7�a�� �t.•.��.,
-44 nom•"N w + �N �-� ;t �ssI s 3�a
RIVUSN199OTl ¢ -g $ „nn s �M�''•a:nu ^ � - L. ~!L �x..v.Ww s. s �5 fl z : #I ? ' Sand..".
44
Z
Vn •` a¢ x va« .., �",., o�v :w,,:w " �; Me e z „.,a naW 8F } d
c €
u,• f xV.Nnx -. M1, .1 P .n S J•y [ .� -. \
? Y
4.1
MI:
\ 4
x.."rro a..wwo _.. •.3. as.,,awn,« F O - � r' e 1 Y � J .� � `��
z x..Vyo U E nWnr S \
B
x wb. a
.x.,, • 'MxW,", s - � � I � � ,� x..n.ox.l § �v. Y";� g ' x. 3 � ,.,_ � I�
d
e
>y> � b W� . ?� .; wa �.�-; is .�,� L x•rvurvna - „vw.x I hr�� - j
x•.
r
AOX
.p
311
..
n
Af
17 1
eM rr
r 5q
Y
r 4 �T n..•
s
a
,
T ,
o• x _ o
s'
° #• �: '�� `,r:F'�o ,�, s s r III
s � ..ro ,� ��� , „• 0
� Y 1�. '` rwwn i � - nw �� � 1�'�� xvi N•,rw.p M�... >. ,� � � (7
ry • s
w .
,
W
��-�Fr
:..L
1 T
.. InI�tt -
, �' I r'T "�' —f_..aaa R,.o a � j• d� wn ro
`li t!- i r. �—:-•Fi'-T--.L 1 .,.t—` 1..
t e ��.w"x M`b �_ I y�'I 1 I��.�r�� -T�� :-S, •+ ��\ O w..?V �V `
IF r
a
y M> Aw
_ N pwwx +TMS yf—"{ 4•. �I l / tl
f
M ,
w
o
} 1 �
HF
o
,
n
t HZn0 WAId 90 7.11J
H1R0 WA � )INtld SIR07 1s � 'a Os��o
3 J 30 i.LIJ
ORDINANCE NO. 651
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Rezoning 5530 Golden Valley Road from
Commercial to Single Family (R-1) Residential
Watermark Enhanced Care Suites of Golden Valley, Applicant
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. City Code Chapter 113 entitled “Zoning” is amended in Section
113.55, Subd. b, by changing the zoning designation of certain tracts of land from
Commercial to Single Family (R-1) Residential.
Section 2. The tracts of land affected by this ordinance are legally described as:
That part of Government Lot 4 in Section 28, Township 118, Range 21, Hennepin
County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the
centerline of Watertown Road, now known as Golden Valley Road, with the East line of
said Government Lot 4; thence North 200 feet along said East Line; thence West 180
feet; thence South to the centerline of said Watertown Road; thence Northeasterly along
said centerline to the point of beginning. Except Road also except Parcel Number 430
as shown on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 27-105.
Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled “General Provisions” and Sec. 1-8
entitled “General Penalty; Continuing Violations” 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 18th day of December, 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 City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
60-day Deadline: November 19, 2018
60-day Extension: January 19, 2019
Agenda Item
4. D. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Watermark - 5530 Golden Valley Road, 5540
Golden Valley Road, 1530 Welcome Avenue North
Prepared By
Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer
Summary
An application to consolidate three lots into one lot was submitted by the property owner of 5530
Golden Valley Road, 5540 Golden Valley Road, and 1530 Welcome Avenue North. The property owner,
Casco Ventures, LLC, is represented by Todd Ofsthun of TCO Design. The application includes a survey
and preliminary plat showing the proposed lot consolidation (see attached). The existing structures
would be demolished in order to build a Residential Facility that meets R-1 zoning requirements. All
three lots are guided for Low Density Residential use in the Comprehensive Plan. The properties at
1530 Welcome Ave and 5540 Golden Valley Road are zoned for Single Family Residential (R-1) use. The
property at 5530 Golden Valley Road is zoned for Commercial use, but is expected to be zoned R-1 in
2019 as the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is implemented. The applicant has applied for a Zoning Map
Amendment to rezone 5530 Golden Valley Road from Commercial to R-1 Residential in an effort to
begin construction in 2019 before the City is expected to initiate the rezoning process. A Conditional
Use Permit application has also been submitted for a 25-unit Residential Facility for assisted living and
memory care.
The subject properties are bordered by single-family neighborhoods to the north, west, and south. An
office building is located to the south and Hwy 100 is located to the east. The existing lots are accessed
from Welcome Avenue North, Golden Valley Road, and Lilac Drive. The layout of the proposed lot
consolidation would create a single 39,563 square foot lot. The proposed lot exceeds the minimum lot
size required for an R-1 parcel of 10,000 square feet. City Code requires that a corner lot have a
minimum of 100 feet of width at the front setback line (35 feet) and maintain 100 feet of width for 70
feet of depth. The proposed consolidated lot meets the lot width requirements. The dimensions of the
combined lot would provide a sufficient building envelope for development.
The property at 1530 Welcome Avenue is compliant with the City’s Inflow and Infiltration
requirements. A deposit has been collected for 5530 and 5540 Golden Valley Road. The applicant is
proposing to remove the existing sanitary sewer services on the three existing lots and replace with a
single sanitary sewer connection. Upon completion, the new service must be inspected for compliance.
As required by the City Code, a tree inventory was performed in order to document all existing trees.
This inventory will be reviewed by the City Forester and used to calculate any required tree
replacement if the new lot is developed.
A neighborhood meeting was hosted by the applicant on November 15, 2018, to discuss the project.
Comments from attendees were focused on the impacts of the proposed building rather than the
proposed lot combination. On November 26, 2018, the Planning Commission recommended approval
unanimously (7-0).
Findings
According to Section 109-121 of the City Code, the following regulations govern approval of Minor
Subdivisions (lot consolidations):
Factor/Finding
1. A minor subdivision shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the minimum area
and dimensional requirements for the Zoning District in which they are located, or if vehicular
access is not provided from an abutting improved street.
Standard met. The proposed combined lot meets the requirements of the Single Family
Residential (R-1) Zoning District. Vehicular access is available from three abutting streets. The
applicant is proposing to access the site from Lilac Drive North. Engineering staff supports the
location of this access.
2. A minor subdivision may be denied upon the City’s determination that a resulting new lot
is encumbered by steep slopes or excessive wetness.
Standard met. The proposed lot is buildable.
3. A minor subdivision may be denied if sewer and water connections are not directly
accessible by each proposed lot.
Standard met. Sewer and water connections are available. Staff anticipates the development
will not place an undue strain on City utility systems. Due to the minor increase in sewer flows
expected from the development, the applicant may be required to post an escrow to fund the
City’s evaluation of the sewer system in the vicinity of this development to ensure that flows
can be accommodated without negative impacts to the system.
4. Approval shall be conditioned on the granting of easements for necessary public purposes.
Standard met. Drainage and utility easements are required along all property lines. The
preliminary plat submitted by the applicant appears to meet this requirement. However, the
oversized easement containing the infiltration basin should be removed from the plat as the
basin will be privately owned and maintained.
5. Approval may be conditioned on the requirements of outside public agencies with
jurisdiction.
Standard conditionally met. The proposed development is adjacent to State Highway 100 and
therefore is subject to the review and comments of the Minnesota Department of
Transportation.
6. Approval shall be conditioned on the resolution of any title issues raised by the City
Attorney.
Standard conditionally met. The City Attorney will determine if such a title review is necessary
prior to approval of the final plat.
7. Minor subdivisions of nonresidential parcels may be denied if new development will cause
undo strain on adjacent roads or on public utilities or will adversely affect adjacent uses.
Not applicable.
8. Approval shall be conditioned on the payment of a park dedication fee, sewer and water
access charge, and pending or levied deferred assessments.
Standard conditionally met. A park dedication fee of $15,180 would be required prior to release
of the final plat. Sewer and water access charges would be calculated and collected at the time
of permitting.
9. The conditions spelled out shall provide the only basis for denial of a minor subdivision.
Approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions.
Standard met.
Attachments
• Location Map (1 page)
• Planning Commission Minutes dated November 26, 2018 (10 pages)
• Memo to the Planning Commission dated November 26, 2018 (3 pages)
• Preliminary Plat submitted November 6, 2018 (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the Preliminary Plat for Watermark - 5530 Golden Valley Road, 5540 Golden
Valley Road, 1530 Welcome Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
1. The City Attorney shall determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final
Plat.
2. A park dedication fee of $15,180 shall be paid before release of the Final Plat.
+ 5555 5323
5615 5601
1644
5645
1630
1610
1601
Z 1614 1606
1626 1B20
Subject Properties
y ,s3o
1533
Welcome Ave 1524
1600 6340
1516 1515
1605 5360
1520
1500 1511
1625
1450 1500
1437
X 1503
1430 n
1435 d 1434 6349
m
1420 Z 5610
1436
5630
$700d
-44\164V 1415
\ago 1426
G° 6545
5605 1420
5740 5615
1406
1325
5715 1324
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
A regular meeting of the Planning Com ission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
uncil Chambers, 7800 Golden Valle Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on nday,
No ber 26, 2018. Vice Chair Johns called the meeting to order at 7
Those pr nt were Planning Commis oners Angell, Baker, Blu rookins, Johnson,
Pockl, and S Ibaum. Also present re Planning Manager on Zimmerman, and
Associate Plann Grant Writer Emily oellner
1. Approval of Minu
November 13, 2018, Regu la nin mmission Meeting
MOVED by Brookins, seconded by um and motion carried unanimously to
approve the November 13, 2018 n es a bmitted.
2. Informal Public He ' g — Zoni g Map Ame ent— 5530 Golden Valley Road
—Watermark Se r Living —Z 11-18
Applicant: Watermark Senio Living Community of en Valley, LLC
Add s: 5530 Golden Val l Road
urpose: To rezone the pr erty from Commercial to Single Fam esidential
(R-1).
3. Informal Public Hearing — Lot Consolidation — 5530-5540 Golden Valley Road
and 1530 Welcome Avenue North — SU11-10
Applicant: Watermark Senior Living Community of Golden Valley, LLC
Address: 5530-5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North
Purpose: To consolidate three lots into one lot
Informal Public Hea ng — Conditional Use Permit— 5530-5540 Golden Valley
oad and 1530 Wel me Avenue North — CU-162
Appli Wat ark Enhanced Ca uites of Golden Valley
Address: 5 den Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North
Purpos To ow 'dentia) Facility serving 25 people in the Single Family
(R- Zoning Di t
Items 2, 3 and 4 were presented and discussed together.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 2
Goellner referred to a location map of the properties and explained the applicant's
proposal for a 25-unit residential facility which would offer 24-hour care for assisted living,
transitional care, and memory care.
Goellner noted that 5530 Golden Valley Road is zoned Commercial and the other two
properties are zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. She added that all three properties
are currently guided for Low Density Residential on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map and that the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan also guides the properties Low
Density Residential.
Goellner referred to a site plan of the proposal and explained that the proposed lots
combined into one would be 39,563 square feet in size. She discussed the proposed
building footprint, the parking lot, the driveway out to Lilac Drive, and the setbacks.
Goellner reminded the Commissioners that in May 2018 the applicant proposed to rezone
these properties to build a similar facility which was recommended for denial by the
Planning Commission. She compared the differences between the previous and current
proposals. The previous proposal was to rezone the properties to R-3 with 40 units, 3
floors with the top floor as a full story, and a larger building footprint with smaller
setbacks. The current proposal is to rezone the properties to R-1 with 25 units, 3 floors
with the top floor as a half story, and a smaller building footprint with larger setbacks.
Goellner referred to a chart of the staff analysis regarding how the proposal fits in with the
Zoning Code and stated that the proposal meets all of the requirements of the R-1 Single
Family Residential Zoning District.
Goellner referred to the height of the proposed building and explained that the City
determines the average grade of a lot based on the grade of the previous structures. She
stated that the new building can only increase the average grade by one foot. Based on
those calculations the existing average grade is 894.1 and the proposed average grade
would be 895.0.
Goellner referred to a photo of the applicant's Fridley location and discussed the
similarities to the proposed Golden Valley location. The colors of the building would be
tan, white, light brown, and pale yellow. They are proposing to use manufactured stone,
and LP Smart Side, and there would be no PTAC (air conditioning) units located
underneath the windows.
Goellner stated that the applicant is proposing several architectural and landscaping
features to help the building fit in with its surroundings including: pitched roofs similar to
other homes in the neighborhood, articulation and relief in the walls of the building,
several windows on all levels and all sides of the building, a variety of exterior building
materials, fencing along the perimeter of the site, tree plantings along the perimeter of the
site, minimal grading of the site, and a trash enclosure. She added that the applicant has
also chosen to locate the parking lot and driveway access on the Lilac Drive side of the
property in order to minimize the impact on Welcome Avenue.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 3
Goellner referred to the tree and landscape plan and stated that the applicant is
proposing to remove all of the existing trees except for one and they are proposing
fencing and tree plantings along the perimeter. She added that staff is recommending that
coniferous trees be added along Welcome Avenue to provide year-round screening. She
said staff is also proposing that the proposed fence be a decorative fence, and that
shrubs/perennials be placed outside of the fence.
Goellner referred to the proposed parking and access and stated that the proposed
access is one driveway on Lilac Drive. She stated that the applicant is proposing to
provide 19 parking stalls (five are required), and three bike parking spaces (four are
required). She stated that deliveries should take place on the site, not on the street and
should occur only between 8 am and 5 pm and that the applicant should provide an
overflow parking plan. She stated that there is no parking allowed on Lilac Drive and on
most of Golden Valley Road, there is also no overnight parking allowed on Welcome
Avenue from November 1 to March 31, and there is no parking allowed after two inches of
snow on any city street.
Goellner referred to a chart showing the anticipated weekday and weekend time frames
for employees and visitors. She noted that at most there would be 11 to 12 cars on a lot
that can hold 19 so the applicant isn't anticipating the lot to be full on an average day.
Goellner noted that a neighborhood meeting was held on November 15. She stated that
there were 12 attendees and that there were numerous concerns regarding traffic,
parking, noise, odors, tree removal, construction, and the height and size of the building.
She added that a lighting plan will be required with the building permit application and that
there have been no comments or concerns from the Fire Department.
Goellner stated that staff is recommending approval of all three proposals subject to the
conditions listed in the staff reports. She explained that three of the evaluation criteria
used when evaluating a Conditional Use Permit have specific conditions attached to
them. They include ways to mitigate the effect on traffic flow and congestion by requiring
an overflow parking plan, mitigating the possible increase in noise levels by requiring
deliveries be limited to regular business hours, and mitigating the visual impacts by
requiring dumpster screening, the installation of trees, shrubs and perennials, and the
installation of a privacy fence.
Segelbaum asked if there is a need to add a condition regarding the construction
schedule and rules. Goellner stated that the City has construction regulations and that
applicants are required to sign a construction management agreement that addresses
issues such as the hours construction is allowed, noise, removing debris from the site,
etc. Baker asked if these requirements are prescribed by ordinance or if they are
negotiated between the builder and the City. Goellner stated that they are all ordinances
and that the construction management agreement puts all the regulations in one
document.
Segelbaum referred to the tree and landscape plan and asked about the mitigation
requirements. Goellner explained that the applicant is allowed to remove 30% of the trees
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 4
before they are required to add new ones. Baker asked if a condition could be added
requiring a specific number of trees to be planted. Goellner said if it could be tied to the
impact of the visual appearance then it would be appropriate.
Blum asked for clarification regarding where staff is recommending more coniferous trees
be planted. Goellner stated that the recommendation is to have more coniferous trees on
the west side along Welcome Avenue since that is the side of the property that is most
exposed to the single family neighborhood. Blum referred to the site plan and asked if it
meets staff's recommendations. Goellner said it does not and that the applicant has been
asked to provide an updated tree and landscape plan. Angell asked if the intention is to
have the trees planted on the exterior of the fence. Goeller said yes and explained that
there would be shrubs, then the fence, then the trees, then the building to help with visual
impact.
Baker asked about the purpose of requiring a fence that is only four feet tall. Goellner said
it won't help with screening but it will provide visual appeal and variety.
Pockl said she understands that if the factors of evaluation have been met for a
Conditional Use Permit the City is obligated to approve it and asked if that is the same for
the lot consolidation request. Goellner said yes. Blum asked if there is a requirement that
the zoning of the property and the Land Use Map have to match. Goellner said yes, that
is required.
Nathan Running, Property Owner, stated that he was involved in building their facility in
Fridley and that this whole process started for him five years ago when his grandfather
was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and he had to find a place for him to live. He
said the places he found were too institutional and he wanted to find a neighborhood
community with a home feel. He said that is the concept for this proposed 25-unit facility.
He stated that the demand for senior living in Golden Valley is high and that the proposed
location fits all of their criteria.
Todd Ofsthun, TCO Design, stated that the busier/noisier part of the proposed facility
would be on the Lilac Drive side of the property. That is where people, employees, and
deliveries would come and go so he doesn't see any reason for traffic to go through the
neighborhood streets. He stated that a six foot tall fence and trees are proposed along the
north side of the property to try and reduce the visual impact. He stated that the majority
of the rooms will face into the neighborhood so they feel like they are part of the
community. He stated that they will be replacing all of the trees with trees that are four
inches or more in diameter and 12 feet tall or taller. He said they are also proposing to
add seven ornamental trees. He noted that there are several other buildings in the area,
some are larger and some are smaller than what they are proposing so when he looks at
the overall neighborhood what they are proposing will fit in. He referred to the dumpster
and said they will be enclosing it and planting shrubs around it.
Segelbaum asked about the parking requirements if there is a special event. Ofsthun
stated that the property owners have reached out to other property owners in the area
regarding overflow parking. Jennifer Thorson, Director of the Fridley Watermark Facility,
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 5
stated that their Fridley location has 28 units and 13 parking spots. The proposed Golden
Valley facility will have 25 units and 19 parking spots. She noted that during the peak time
in Fridley they have approximately 12 cars. She explained that during special events
RSVP'ing is required so that they can properly plan for the parking.
Johnson asked the applicant to talk about how they came to the final design of the
building and what other options they considered. Ofsthun said they originally considered
two plans. The first plan had the access on Golden Valley Road, but that got a little too
close to the neighborhood. He stated that many of the decisions were dictated by the
grade and trying to keep the entrance away from the intersection of Golden Valley Road
and Lilac Drive. He said the shape and design of the building came from the number of
units, the amenities, and trying to keep the height down to fit in with the neighborhood.
Segelbaum asked if the building could have more units in the future if needed. Ofsthun
said he doesn't see that being an option and that there are no plans on expanding.
Segelbaum questioned if this proposal might be an incremental step in getting more units.
Ofsthun said the City Code and licensing wouldn't allow it.
Baker asked the applicant if they are planning on adding bike parking spaces. Ofsthun
said yes.
Pockl asked how often emergency vehicles are called to their site in Fridley. Thorson
stated that emergency vehicles come to the site approximately three times per month.
Blum asked if the sirens and lights are on when the emergency vehicles arrived. Thorson
said the sirens are always off. Johnson noted that this is right off Highway 100 where
sirens are heard all the time.
Baker opened the public hearing.
Gary Grenzer, 1525 Welcome Avenue North, showed the Commissioners a drawing he
made that illustrates how tall the proposed building would be compared to the height of
the houses nearby. He said he won't be able to see the sky from the inside of his house
and that the trees they are proposing will take 20 years to cover the main floor of the
building. He said there is no comparison between the trees they are taking out and the
trees they are proposing to put in. He said the building is going to look like a hotel and
there is nothing equitable about this proposal. It will not fit in with the neighborhood, and
is nothing like the other buildings on Golden Valley Road.
Ryan Thomson, 1200 Welcome Avenue North, said he is concerned about the massing
effect of the building. He said this proposal is not consistent with the neighborhood or the
objectives of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to preserve and promote single family
residences in Golden Valley. He said it is unconscionable that the Planning Commission
would undertake the approval of this proposal which inherently deviates from the
objectives of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan by destroying detached single family
residences. He said approval of this proposal would only prove to Golden Valley residents
that the Comprehensive Plan is a political tool to remain in power rather than a strategy to
maintain the best of their community.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 6
Mike Nelson, 1310 Welcome Avenue North, submitted a petition signed by 24 people
opposing the proposal and read the statement on the petition. He referred to the
possibility of expansion and noted that they are expanding their Fridley facility by an
additional 18 units. He said it seems like the applicant is trying to hide that fact. He
referred to the character of the neighborhood and said he loves his single family home
and having a number of mature trees and that he is opposed to the lot consolidation. He
said a huge part of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan was having a variety of single family
home pricing. Taking out three lots does not fit with the 2040 Comp Plan because the City
needs to have affordable single family homes within their neighborhood so that all types
of people can move into the neighborhood at a reasonable price. He said another thing
the 2040 Comp Plan talks about is the preservation of nature. He noted that the applicant
is taking out all of the existing trees except for one and putting in smaller trees that take a
long time to grow and that we can't keep taking down mature trees. He said the proposed
building fits within the R-1 requirements, but it completely towers over the neighborhood.
He strongly recommended that the Planning Commission not recommend approval.
Christine Nelson, 1310 Welcome Avenue North, said this is about the properties not being
single family homes. She said this is a property that is for profit and they are not as
invested as community owners. She stated that the FTK property behind her house at
1310 Welcome Avenue North has a dumpster that is frequently left open and trash blows
into her yard. She said she has also seen them use a leaf blower to push trash into her
yard. She said there is no consequences for the applicant, but the consequences are to
her family when her puppy has a rubber glove or glass shard in its mouth. She said she
has a question about where the dumpster will be placed with this proposal to make sure
that it isn't impacting families because there isn't the level of care or concern that a family
owner would have. She said this is a strong community and this proposal is breaking it
up.
Matt Bartholomew, 1240 Welcome Avenue North, said he is a real estate professional
and it is his opinion that this proposed facility will likely have a negative impact particularly
on the homes directly across the street. He said the wall and the highway noise are
already major issues and that adding another big building is going to be another issue
that anyone living in the area will face if they sell their home. He said there are multiple
buildings in the area and he feels like they are getting squeezed in so he would like to see
the properties stay single family homes.
Pan Wandzel, 1220 Welcome Avenue North, said when she moved in the neighborhood
was stable but also transitional. She said over the last five years their neighborhood has
become tight, they get together frequently, and they watch out for each other. She said
she is concerned about this proposal changing the integrity of this neighborhood. She
said she is not against senior housing and that she wants to age in place. She said she
wants to stay in a neighborhood that is safe and she doesn't want to have to worry about
parking or strangers walking down the street during their lunch break. She said she
worries about the density and that the building looks like a hotel or a townhome in
Plymouth or somewhere where there aren't separate homes that have character and light
between the buildings. She said she understands there is a need, but it doesn't belong in
their neighborhood and just because it's called a residential facility it's transitional. She
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 7
noted that the office building on Welcome Avenue has a covenant that states they will
keep up with the landscaping, but they don't because they got what they needed and the
residents are the ones who are suffering. She reiterated that she isn't against senior
housing; she is for the integrity of the neighborhood.
Richard Sheehan, 1533 Xenia Avenue North, asked if it was correct that staff said that if a
business can meet the requirements for consolidating lots that the City must approve the
application. Goellner said yes. Sheehan asked if it follows then that if the permit is issued
any application to do anything is automatically going to be approved. He said he thinks
there is an assumption that this proposal is going to happen and it is just a matter of
working through the nuts and bolts but he thinks there should be discussion about
whether the proposed facility should be there at all. He said he has the same concerns as
the previous speakers. He wants to see younger people move in the neighborhood and
these properties could be single family homes. He said he finds it disturbing that the very
nice house at 1530 Welcome Avenue is going to be torn down and questioned why the
City should be in the business of tearing down existing perfectly good structures so that
something else can be done with it. He said he wants to preserve the residential
character of the neighborhood and he wants to see single family homes on the two lots on
the Welcome Avenue side and not a health care facility. He implored the Commission to
think about the character of the neighborhood.
Grace Reilly, 1325 Welcome Avenue North, referred to the comment about emergency
vehicles not using their sirens when they are going into the site and said there will have to
be sirens when they are leaving the site. She said having sirens three times a month is
not something any of the Planning Commissioners would want in their neighborhoods and
it's not something any of them want in their neighborhood either. She said she doesn't
want to worry about strangers in her neighborhood and that it is nice to know she has a
community that supports her and people in the neighborhood that know her. She said she
doesn't think that this proposed facility would be good for them because they don't know
who will be in the neighborhood, who they can trust, and who they think is safe. She said
the Commission has to think about if they are taking the neighbor out of neighborhoods.
Pam Wittucki, 1136 Welcome Circle, said that the applicant mentioned that they don't use
lights and sirens at their facility but she knows that if it is an emergency they will use lights
and sirens, there will be a lot of lights and sirens and saying there won't be is a stretch.
She said that people who have memory issues, and have transitional care and elder care
probably aren't driving so they are going to need people to get them places. She said
there are already a lot of commercial buildings in the area, she understands that but she
doesn't want any more coming in and closer. She said this isn't a good fit for their
neighborhood and people are going to park on their street.
Marilyn Miller, 1316 Welcome Avenue North, requested that the Planning Commission
uphold the Comprehensive Plan. She said the other nursing home in the area fits in
because it is only one story and it doesn't overlook the neighbors' backyards. She said if
the applicants were concerned about the neighbors they would have kept up the land and
not let the grass grow three feet tall so she questions their integrity. She said that they
have already asked for an expansion at their Fridley facility so it is a real possibility that
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 8
they will ask for that in Golden Valley too. She asked how many of the parking spaces are
attributed to deliveries and stated that the grill will produce a smell.
Peter Lane, 5630 Golden Valley Road, said they moved to Golden Valley from St. Paul
and he grew up in a small suburb in Duluth. He said this feels like home because there
isn't a lot of huge commercial buildings and there is a lot of nature, trees, and wildlife. He
said he didn't know the names of his neighbors in St. Paul and he knew his neighbors
here within a couple of weeks. He said he's worked hard on landscaping and keeping up
their house and that no one is besmirching bringing in elder care, but he believes Golden
Valley is looking to bring in more young families so these homes really need to be
protected.
Chris Nelson, 5605 Phoenix Street, said he wants to raise his kids here and Golden
Valley is a community and he wants to stay here forever. He said he thinks they all want
to find value in their home and that a transitional home is not good for them or their
community.
Stephen Trull, 1600 Welcome Avenue North, said he was told that the distance from
fence along the north to the property line was 25 feet and that the peak of the roof on the
north end of the building would be 35 feet tall. He said to put that in perspective he is six
feet tall so 25 feet away from the fence, and up 35 feet would be six times his height or
about 5 houses tall so the pictures shown don't really give the scale of the enormity of the
proposed building. He said the building is going to block the sun and take away from the
small, livable, presentable nature of this neighborhood. He said he knows the house at
1530 Welcome was sold for $500,000 so he is concerned about the effect of that on his
property taxes and that it might price him out of the neighborhood.
Millie Segal, 4409 Sunset Ridge, said she is attempting to age in place in Golden Valley.
She said this can happen in any neighborhood and it is upsetting to her to hear that these
neighbors' way of life is in jeopardy. She said there are other facilities with vacancies that
are very nice and are in appropriate areas and not disrupting neighborhoods.
Georgeann Wobschall, 1503 Welcome Avenue North, said she has looked at this
property for 40 plus years. She said since the owners of 1530 Welcome Avenue have
moved out there have been papers on the property, weeds in the cement, the grass has
not been mowed, and the mail is not picked up. She said she is not sure who is
responsible for the upkeep of this property but as the Planning Commission considers this
proposal they should think about what Watermark has done with the property in the last
six months.
Gary Remick, 1114 Welcome Circle, said he is a dog owner and avid walker and there is
no sidewalk on the south side of the street so he has to walk right against the highway
wall. He said he is concerned about this facility and how it will affect his dog's enjoyment
of the neighborhood. He said a lot of people walk in this neighborhood and he is worried
about their safety.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 9
Celeste Reilly, 1325 Welcome Avenue North, said her husband passed away in their
home unexpectedly two years ago and there were sirens, ambulances, and police cars.
She said her neighbors helped her through that ordeal and every day that she hears an
ambulance or a police car brings her back to that day. She said to add more traffic and to
take away from the neighborhood and to take away from what should be single family
homes like in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan saddens her. She said this is a small little
community outside a larger community and her family and friends are grateful she has the
neighbors she has. She implored the Planning Commission to keep this area as a single
family neighborhood and not approve this proposal. She said eventually this
neighborhood will be gone and Golden Valley won't be a residential area anymore, it is
going to be industrial and overtake them.
Ann Bennion, 1125 Welcome Circle, said they are surrounded on all sides by industry and
therefore they are a fragile neighborhood and have had to remain vigilant. She said she
thinks rezoning the commercial property to R-1 single family residential would be
acceptable, but what is not acceptable is combining the lots. She stated that in the R-1
district there are no restrictions on the number of people who can live in a house if they
are all related, five people if they are unrelated. So by combining the three lots into one
there could be one family so what they are really asking for is a Conditional Use Permit
for 20 additional people. She noted that many of the lots in the neighborhood are actually
not that much smaller than the subject properties combined. She said it appears that the
only way this building was going to be built was to shoehorn it in this space with a
Conditional Use Permit on top of that. She said if the commercial lot is rezoned to R-1 it
should not be combined with the other two lots.
Peter Coyle, Larkin Hoffman, representing the applicant, said he would like to make a few
comments. Baker said he couldn't let Mr. Coyle respond to the public comments and that
the Planning Commission would let the applicant come back up and speak if they have
additional questions.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing.
Baker referred to the rezoning of the property at 5530 Golden Valley Road and noted that
staff is recommending approval of rezoning the property to R-1 Single Family Residential
because that is how it is currently designated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
and the two should be consistent with each other. He added that there were a number of
people who said that this proposal departs from the Comprehensive Plan but he feels
those comments pertain more to the CUP request than the rezoning proposal. The
Commissioners agreed.
Blum asked if there is a timeline as to when the Comprehensive Plan designation and the
Zoning Map designation have to match. Zimmerman said the zoning has to be consistent
with the Comp Plan within nine months of a Comp Plan amendment �o this really should
have been rezoned 10 years ago when the last Comp Plan was adopted. Baker asked if
there are a lot of properties that weren't rezoned with the last Comp Plan update.
Zimmerman said there are several properties that will need to be rezoned after the 2040
Comp Plan update is adopted. Segelbaum said he has some hesitancy in rezoning this
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 10
property because the Planning Commission and the City Council has had discussions
about maintaining small commercial properties for things like coffee shops which make
neighborhoods more walkable. However R-1 does fit here and the Comp Plan guides it
for residential so rezoning it seems appropriate.
Baker asked about the history of the uses on this property. Zimmerman said it has been
used as a number of things including a gas station/convenience store and a Montessori
school. He added that most of the past uses occurred before Highway 100 cut off access
and Golden Valley Road went through. Baker said he wishes there were small
commercial uses in his neighborhood but that this neighborhood already has some
commercial uses nearby. Johnson stated that the setbacks for this property wouldn't allow
for a decent size commercial or office use. Zimmerman agreed.
MOV hn n �'�i Angell and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of r roperty at 5530 Golden Valley Road from Commercial to Single
Fa ' en I (R-1).
Baker referred to the proposed lot consolidation and read the staff's recommended
conditions. He reminded the Commission that the City is bound by the nine factors of
consideration found in City Code which in this case have been met or are not applicable.
Pockl asked if the factors are the same for lot consolidations as they are for minor
subdivisions. Zimmerman stated that the Zoning Code refers to platting which is the
redrawing of any property lines and that the process and conditions of consideration are
the same. Goellner reviewed the nine factors of consideration and explained how this
proposal meets those requirements.
MOVED by Brookins seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the proposed lot consolidation at 5530 and 5540 Golden Valley
Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North subject to the following conditions:
1. The City Attorney shall determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the
final plat.
2. A park dedication fee of$15,180 shall be paid before release of the final plat.
3. The proposed development is adjacent to State Highway 100 and therefore is subject
to the review and comments of the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
B referred to the Conditif al Use Permit (CUP) proposal and asked staff to review
the a ation criteria used en reviewing a CUP application. Goellner listed all of the
criteria fr the Zoning Cod and summarized how the proposal meets, or conditionally
meets, each . She discu ed the conditions recommended by staff including the
mitigation of t low and pact, the mitijoWtIfn6rease in noise levels, and the
mitigation of the vis ppe rance.
Johnson referred to the of increase in noise levels and asked how they address
the comments out er vehicle siren noise. Segelbaum stated that the
issue is i oise is exces a and i i II&able to be mitigated. Baker agreed that the
Ci o demonstrate that there is no wa N mitigate an issue raised under the criteria
c y of
V .11
0_1 Planning Department
763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax)
Date: November 26, 2018
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer
Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Plan for Lot Consolidation —5530, 5540
Golden Valley Road, 1530 Welcome Avenue North
Summary of Request
An application to consolidate three lots into one lot was submitted by the property owner of 5530
Golden Valley Road, 5540 Golden Valley Road, and 1530 Welcome Avenue. The property owner,
Casco Ventures, LLC, is represented by Todd Ofsthun of TCO Design. The application includes a survey
and preliminary plat showing the proposed lot consolidation (see attached). The existing structures
would be demolished in order to build a Residential Facility that meets R-1 zoning requirements. All
three lots are guided for Low Density Residential use in the Comprehensive Plan. The properties at
1530 Welcome Ave and 5540 Golden Valley Road are zoned for Single Family Residential (R-1) use.
The property at 5530 Golden Valley Road is zoned for Commercial use, but is expected to be zoned R-
1 in 2019 as the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is implemented. The applicant has applied for a Zoning
Map Amendment to zone 5530 Golden Valley Road from Commercial to R-1 Residential in an effort to
begin construction in 2019 before the City is expected to initiate the rezoning process. A Conditional
Use Permit application has also been submitted for a 25-unit Residential Facility for assisted living and
memory care.
Staff Review
The subject properties are bordered by single-family neighborhoods to the north, west, and south. An
office building is located to the south and Hwy 100 is located to the east. The existing lots are
accessed from Welcome Avenue, Golden Valley Road, and Lilac Drive. The layout of the proposed lot
consolidation would create a single 39,563 square foot lot. The proposed lot exceeds the minimum lot
size required for an R-1 parcel of 10,000 square feet. City Code requires that a corner lot have a
minimum of 100 feet of width at the front setback line (35 feet) and maintain 100 feet of width for 70
feet of depth. The proposed consolidated lot meets the lot width requirements. The dimensions of
the combined lot would provide a sufficient building envelope for development.
1
The property at 1530 Welcome Avenue is compliant with the City's Inflow and Infiltration
requirements. A deposit has been collected for 5530 and 5540 Golden Valley Road. The applicant is
proposing to remove the existing sanitary sewer services on the three existing lots and replace with a
single sanitary sewer connection. Upon completion, the new service must be inspected for
compliance.
As required by the City Code, a tree inventory was performed in order to document all existing trees.
This inventory will be reviewed by the City Forester and used to calculate any required tree
replacement when the new lot is developed.
Neighborhood Meeting
A neighborhood meeting was hosted by the applicant on November 15, 2018, to discuss the project.
Comments from attendees were focused on the impacts of the proposed building rather than the
proposed lot combination.
Evaluation
According to Section 109-121 of the City Code, the following are the regulations governing approval
of minor subdivisions:
Factor/Finding
1. A minor subdivision shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the minimum area
and dimensional requirements for the Zoning District in which they are located, or if vehicular
access is not provided from an abutting improved street.
Standard met. The proposed combined lot meets the requirements of the Single Family
Residential (R-1) Zoning District. Vehicular access is available from three abutting streets. The
applicant is proposing to access the site from Lilac Drive North. Engineering staff supports the
location of this access.
2. A minor subdivision may be denied upon the City's determination that a resulting new lot
is encumbered by steep slopes or excessive wetness.
Standard met. The proposed lot is buildable.
3. A minor subdivision may be denied if sewer and water connections are not directly
accessible by each proposed lot.
Standard met. Sewer and water connections are available. Staff anticipates the development
will not place an undue strain on City utility systems. Due to the minor increase in sewer flows
expected from the development, the applicant may be required to post an escrow to fund the
City's evaluation of the sewer system in the vicinity of this development to ensure that flows
can be accommodated without negative impacts to the system.
4. Approval shall be conditioned on the granting of easements for necessary public purposes.
2
Standard met. Drainage and utility easements are required along all property lines. The
preliminary plat submitted by the applicant appears to meet this requirement. However, the
oversized easement containing the infiltration basin should be removed from the plat as the
basin will be privately owned and maintained.
5. Approval may be conditioned on the requirements of outside public agencies with
jurisdiction.
Standard conditionally met. The proposed development is adjacent to State Highway 100 and
therefore is subject to the review and comments of the Minnesota Department of
Transportation.
6. Approval shall be conditioned on the resolution of any title issues raised by the City
Attorney.
Standard conditionally met. The City Attorney will determine if such a title review is necessary
prior to approval of the final plat.
7. Minor subdivisions of nonresidential parcels may be denied if new development will cause
undo strain on adjacent roads or on public utilities or will adversely affect adjacent uses.
Not applicable.
8. Approval shall be conditioned on the payment of a park dedication fee, sewer and water
access charge, and pending or levied deferred assessments.
Standard conditionally met. A park dedication fee of$15,180 would be required prior to release
of the final plat. Sewer and water access charges would be calculated and collected at the time
of permitting.
9. The conditions spelled out shall provide the only basis for denial of a minor subdivision.
Approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions.
Standard met.
Recommended Action
Based on the findings above, staff recommends approval of the proposed lot consolidation at 5530
and 5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North subject to the following conditions:
1. The City Attorney shall determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat.
2. A park dedication fee of$15,180 shall be paid before release of the final plat.
3. The proposed development is adjacent to State Highway 100 and therefore is subject to the
review and comments of the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Attachments:
Location Map (1 page)
Preliminary Plat submitted November 6, 2018 (1 page)
3
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
60-day Deadline: November 19, 2018
60-day Extension: January 19, 2019
Agenda Item
4. E. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit 162 - 5530-5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530
Welcome Avenue North
Prepared By
Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer
Summary
Watermark Enhanced Care Suites of Golden Valley, represented by Todd Ofsthun of TCO Design, is
proposing to locate a residential facility with assisted living, memory care, and transitional care for
25 individuals in a new building at 5530 Golden Valley Road, 5540 Golden Valley Road, and 1530
Welcome Avenue North. The applicant has also applied for approval to rezone 5530 Golden Valley
Road from Commercial to Single-Family Residential (R-1) and for approval to consolidate the three
lots into one. The other two properties in the proposal, 5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome
Avenue North, are zoned Single-Family Residential. The layout of the proposed lot consolidation
would create a single 39,563 square foot lot. The single-family homes located at 1530 Welcome
Avenue and 5540 Golden Valley Road as well as the vacant commercial building at 5530 Golden
Valley Road would be demolished under this proposal.
Proposed Use
Residential Facilities are licensed by the State of Minnesota to provide 24-hour care. They are
permitted in the R-1 Zoning District when serving 6 or fewer persons. If the Facility serves between 7
and 25 persons, the Facility requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). This proposal would provide
housing for up to 25 individuals. The applicant is licensed by the Minnesota Department of Health to
provide assisted living and memory care services. The applicant operates a similar facility in Fridley
(see photo of Friday facility attached).
In the summer of 2018, the applicant began the process of proposing a 40-unit building at this site,
which required the rezoning of the properties to R-3 Medium Density Residential. The rezoning
application was denied by the Planning Commission unanimously. The applications were withdrawn
prior to the public hearing with City Council in order to work on a new proposal that met R-1 zoning
requirements.
Additional Details of Proposal
The proposed facility would be built into the existing hill and consist of two floors above grade and a
third floor being partially underground (known as a “lookout”). The details about parking, deliveries,
traffic, employees, visitors, exterior building materials, landscaping, architectural features, lighting,
setbacks, and building height are stated in the attached memo to Planning Commission dated
November 26, 2018. The proposal meets R-1 Zoning requirements. An explanation of how the
proposal compares to regulations in the City Code is included in the attached memo to Planning
Commission.
Neighborhood Meeting
A neighborhood meeting was hosted by the applicant on November 15, 2018, to discuss the project.
Approximately 12 people attended. There were numerous concerns regarding traffic, parking, noise,
odors, tree removal, construction, and the height and size of the proposed building.
Planning Commission Meeting
At the November 26, 2018 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
application (4-2-1). Four commissioners voted in approval of the CUP. Two voted to deny the motion of
approval and one abstained and requested more information. The following changes to the findings
and conditions were recommended by the Planning Commission:
Suggested Changes to Findings Notes
Provide more information
about how many units of
assisted living and memory
care have been added since
the Housing Study was
completed in order to more
clearly demonstrate the need
for the proposed use.
Staff has verified that since the Comprehensive Housing
Needs Assessment was conducted in 2016, a CUP for a 22-
unit Residential Facility for transitional care and assisted
living was approved. Also, one memory care/assisted living
project that was accounted for the in the study reduced
their proposal by two units since the study was published.
The number of vacant units has not dramatically fluctuated
since then. Therefore, the study is still adequate for
demonstrating the need for this proposed use.
There was extensive discussion
about how this proposal
relates to various sections of
the Comprehensive Plan.
Much of this discussion on this point was focused on the
site plan rather than the proposed use itself (a Residential
Facility). Staff has kept the original wording of this finding
since it reflects that this finding was made out of an
analysis of the proposed use and not the specific site plan,
building, and landscaping details.
Suggested Changes to
Conditions Notes
The finding and condition about
the overflow parking plan for
special events should be
amended to read that an
overflow parking plan should be
submitted.
The wording of this condition was changed.
Revise the Tree and Landscape
Plan to include many more trees
The applicant submitted a revised Landscape Plan that is
superior to the previous plan by providing more effective
and larger trees for immediate
and long-term screening of the
building from the neighborhood.
screening on the west side of the proposed building. The
revised plan includes more large coniferous trees planted
on an undulating berm in order to increase the height of
the screening. The berm will include other shrubs,
perennials, and boulder outcroppings to provide visual
interest and mimics the natural environment. The
coniferous trees will be 12 feet in height when planted.
Large shade trees are also included in the plan. The need
for a decorative fence was previously included in the
conditions of approval before a berm was proposed. With
the berm, a decorative fence is no longer necessary and
may actually distract from the visual appeal of the berm
and boulder outcroppings along Welcome Avenue. The
recommended conditions of approval have been updated.
Staff will continue to work through the details of the Tree
and Landscape Plan during the permitting process.
The Commissioners that recommended denial of the Conditional Use Permit noted that their denial was
based on the proposed building’s visual impact to the surrounding neighborhood due to the large size
and massing. A compilation of photos of the surrounding buildings is attached.
The Commission also agreed to encourage rather than require the applicant to apply for a variance to
allow for a six-foot fence along the perimeter of the site (instead of the allowed 4-foot fence) and that
venting of kitchen odors be done in a way that minimizes impacts to the north and west. One
Commissioner had additional questions about the use of sirens by emergency vehicles. The applicant has
responded that emergency response would use sirens when necessary, but that it is not the practice of,
nor it is common for, the facility to need sirens when utilizing an ambulance to transport residents to a
medical facility.
The following findings and conditions have been changed to reflect the Planning Commission’s
recommendations as summarized above.
Findings
The findings and recommendations for a Conditional Use Permit are based upon any or all of the
following factors (which need not be weighed equally):
Factor Finding
1. Demonstrated Need for
Proposed Use
Standard met. The Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment
was completed in 2016 and notes that there is a growing need
for assisted living and memory care in Golden Valley. The study
calculated demand for 75 units of assisted living in 2016 and
demand for 106 units by 2025 if no additional units are built. It
also calculated demand for 99 units of memory care in 2016 and
146 units by 2025 if no additional units are built.
2. Consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan
Standard met. The proposed residential facility use is consistent
with the Future Land Use Map and the goals of the
Factor Finding
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states that a
variety of housing types and designs should be provided in order
to allow for greater housing choices for Golden Valley residents.
Creating more opportunities for senior housing was noted as a
priority in the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Effect upon Property Values Standard met. Assessing staff does not see sufficient evidence to
support an argument that property values would be either
positively or negatively affected to such a degree that the
standard is not met.
4. Effect on Traffic Flow and
Congestion
Standard conditionally met. The number of trips associated with
the proposed use will not generate any negative traffic impacts
to the surrounding areas. Golden Valley Road, Lilac Drive, and
Welcome Avenue have the capacity to accommodate the minor
increase in traffic that is likely to occur. In order to ensure that
traffic moves safely and efficiently and in order to mitigate
short-term congestion, staff recommends that deliveries to the
property be made only from the off-street parking lot and not
from the adjacent public streets.
Based on the number of vehicle trips associated with the
proposed use, the reduction in the number of existing
driveways, and the location of the proposed driveway entrance,
Engineering staff does not anticipated negative impacts to traffic
flow and congestion in the surrounding area. The adjacent
streets (Golden Valley Road and Lilac Drive are municipal state
aid streets) have the capacity to accommodate any minor
increase in vehicle trips that may occur.
Parking is restricted on Lilac Drive and most of Golden Valley
Road, and is not restricted on other streets in the area. Although
it is not anticipated that the surrounding streets will be used for
parking on a regular basis, staff recommends that the applicant
submit an overflow parking plan.
Golden Valley Road and Lilac Drive are identified as signed bike
routes on the City’s Bike and Pedestrian Plan. Any improvements
located on the periphery of the development site and into the
adjacent rights-of-way must not negatively impact the City’s
plans for its bike and pedestrian routes. Staff will work with the
applicant at the time of permitting to address any conflicts that
may arise.
Factor Finding
5. Effect of Increases in
Population and Density
Standard met. The proposal will generate a small increase in the
population at the location as compared to the previous use. This
increase is not anticipated to have a noticeable impact.
6. Compliance with the City’s
Mixed-Income Housing Policy
Standard met. The Residential Facility is exempt from the Policy
requirements because it is not a market rate residential rental
development. The proposed building is designed for residents
requiring 24-hour medical care.
7. Increase in Noise Levels Standard conditionally met. This use may generate slightly more
noise than a typical single-family home due to regularly
scheduled deliveries. However, deliveries will be limited to
regular business hours and will be located in the off-street
parking lot on the east side of the site, away from most of the
homes in the area. Staff does not see sufficient evidence to
support the claim that sirens from emergency vehicles would
negatively impact surrounding properties to such a degree that
the standard is not met.
8. Generation of Odors, Dust,
Smoke, Gas, or Vibration
Standard met. The proposed use is not anticipated to generate
odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibrations.
9. Any Increase in Pests or
Vermin
Standard met. The proposed use is not anticipated to attract
pests.
10. Visual Appearance Standard conditionally met. The proposed facility adheres to the
R-1 zoning requirements of setbacks, height, and coverage, and
it is designed to complement the character of the surrounding
neighborhood. However, with 25 units on a large lot, it is a
relatively large building for this zoning district and
neighborhood. The architectural features presented in the
building proposal help mitigate the visual impact of the large
building.
The visual impact of the exterior dumpster can be mitigated by
placing it in the parking lot accessed off Lilac Drive and screening
it with an enclosure constructed of material compatible with the
building.
Staff has reviewed the site plan and landscape plan. The
applicant is proposing to install trees along the north, west, and
south property boundaries, which will help screen the building
and provide visual interest and appeal. Staff recommends that
the applicant provide year-round screening that mitigates the
visual impact to adjacent single-family properties. Staff
recommends that the applicant install a variety of coniferous
trees planted on undulating berms between the building and
Factor Finding
trees planted on undulating berms between the building and
Welcome Avenue, a variety of shrubs and perennials, boulder
outcroppings, and foundation plantings.
11. Other Effects upon the
General Public Health, Safety,
and Welfare
Standard met. Additional impacts on the surrounding area are
not anticipated.
Approval of this CUP is dependent on separate approvals of a zoning change for 5530 Golden Valley
Road and a lot consolidation.
Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 162 allowing for a Residential Facility serving
up to 25 persons at 5530 Golden Valley Road, 5540 Golden Valley Road, and 1530 Welcome Avenue
North, subject to the following conditions:
1. The Residential Facility may serve up to 25 persons and must maintain appropriate licensure
from the State of Minnesota.
2. All vehicle deliveries shall take place on‐site and shall not take place on the street. Scheduled
deliveries to the property must occur between 8 am and 5 pm on weekdays and weekends.
3. An overflow parking plan must be submitted and reviewed by the City prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
4. The exterior dumpster shall be placed in the parking lot and screened with an enclosure
constructed of material compatible with the building.
5. In order to mitigate visual impacts to adjacent single‐family homes, the applicant shall work with
the City Forester to complete a Tree and Landscape Plan that provides immediate and long‐term
screening and visual interest for the neighborhood to the west and north. This shall include a
variety of coniferous trees planted on undulating berms between the building and Welcome
Avenue, a variety of shrubs and perennials, boulder outcroppings, and foundation plantings.
6. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with
authority over this development.
Attachments
• Location Map (1 page)
• Planning Commission Minutes dated November 26, 2018 (17 pages)
• Memo to the Planning Commission dated November 26, 2018 (8 pages)
• Applicant’s Narrative (3 pages)
• Photo of Watermark Senior Living Community in Fridley, MN (1 page)
• Plans submitted by TCO Design on November 2, 2018 (13 pages)
• Revised Tree and Landscape Plan, Concept Drawing, and Photos submitted on December 13,
2018 (5 pages)
• Photos of Surrounding Properties (4 pages)
• Petition from Residents received on November 26, 2018 (3 pages)
• Letter from Residents received on December 10, 2018 (1 page)
• Email from Resident received on December 11, 2018 (4 pages)
• Ordinance #652, Conditional Use Permit 162 allowing for a Residential Facility located at 5530‐
5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Ordinance #652, approval of Conditional Use Permit 162 allowing for a Residential
Facility located at 5530‐5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North.
5555 5323
5615 5601
1644
5645
1630
1610
1601
Z 1614 1605
1626 1820 Subject Properties
a; ,530
1533
welcome Ave� 1524 5340
1600
1516 1515
1605 6350
1520
1500 1511
1525 M
1450 1500
1437
m 1503 V AME,
w
1430
14:35 d 1434 5348
14205610
Z
1436
5630
5700d
,.,\\el� 1415
\aer ,42e
G° 5545
5605 1420
bT40 5615
1406
1325
5715 1324
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
regular meeting of the Planning Com ission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Co Chambers, 7800 Golden Valle Road, Golden Valley, Minnes n Monday,
Novemb '6 2018. Vice Chair Johns called the meeting to at 7 pm.
Those present wer ning Commis oners An aker, Blum, Brookins, Johnson,
Pockl, and Segelbaum. A sent re PI g Manager Jason Zimmerman, and
Associate Planner/Grant Writer er
1. Approval of Minutes
November 18, Regular Pla ning Commission
MOVE Brookins, seconded by S elbaum and motion carried unanim sly to
a ve the November 13, 2018, min s as submitted.
2. Informal Public Hearing —Zoning Map Amendment— 5530 Golden Valley Road
— Watermark Senior Living — Z01 1-18
Applicant: Watermark Senior Living Community of Golden Valley, LLC
Address: 5530 Golden Valley Road
Purpose: To rezone the property from Commercial to Single Family Residential
(R-1).
3. Informal Public Hearing — Lot Consolidation — 5530-5540 Golden Valley Road
and 1530 Welcome Avenue North — SU11-10
Applicant: Watermark Senior Living Community of Golden Valley, LLC
Address: 5530-5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North
Purpose: To consolidate three lots into one lot
4. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit— 5530-5540 Golden Valley
Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North — CU-162
Applicant: Watermark Enhanced Care Suites of Golden Valley
Address: 5530-5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North
Purpose: To allow a Residential Facility serving 25 people in the Single Family
(R-1) Zoning District
Items 2, 3 and 4 were presented and discussed together.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 2
Goellner referred to a location map of the properties and explained the applicant's
proposal for a 25-unit residential facility which would offer 24-hour care for assisted living,
transitional care, and memory care.
Goellner noted that 5530 Golden Valley Road is zoned Commercial and the other two
properties are zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. She added that all three properties
are currently guided for Low Density Residential on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map and that the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan also guides the properties Low
Density Residential.
Goellner referred to a site plan of the proposal and explained that the proposed lots
combined into one would be 39,563 square feet in size. She discussed the proposed
building footprint, the parking lot, the driveway out to Lilac Drive, and the setbacks.
Goellner reminded the Commissioners that in May 2018 the applicant proposed to rezone
these properties to build a similar facility which was recommended for denial by the
Planning Commission. She compared the differences between the previous and current
proposals. The previous proposal was to rezone the properties to R-3 with 40 units, 3
floors with the top floor as a full story, and a larger building footprint with smaller
setbacks. The current proposal is to rezone the properties to R-1 with 25 units, 3 floors
with the top floor as a half story, and a smaller building footprint with larger setbacks.
Goellner referred to a chart of the staff analysis regarding how the proposal fits in with the
Zoning Code and stated that the proposal meets all of the requirements of the R-1 Single
Family Residential Zoning District.
Goellner referred to the height of the proposed building and explained that the City
determines the average grade of a lot based on the grade of the previous structures. She
stated that the new building can only increase the average grade by one foot. Based on
those calculations the existing average grade is 894.1 and the proposed average grade
would be 895.0.
Goellner referred to a photo of the applicant's Fridley location and discussed the
similarities to the proposed Golden Valley location. The colors of the building would be
tan, white, light brown, and pale yellow. They are proposing to use manufactured stone,
and LP Smart Side, and there would be no PTAC (air conditioning) units located
underneath the windows.
Goellner stated that the applicant is proposing several architectural and landscaping
features to help the building fit in with its surroundings including: pitched roofs similar to
other homes in the neighborhood, articulation and relief in the walls of the building,
several windows on all levels and all sides of the building, a variety of exterior building
materials, fencing along the perimeter of the site, tree plantings along the perimeter of the
site, minimal grading of the site, and a trash enclosure. She added that the applicant has
also chosen to locate the parking lot and driveway access on the Lilac Drive side of the
property in order to minimize the impact on Welcome Avenue.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 3
Goellner referred to the tree and landscape plan and stated that the applicant is
proposing to remove all of the existing trees except for one and they are proposing
fencing and tree plantings along the perimeter. She added that staff is recommending that
coniferous trees be added along Welcome Avenue to provide year-round screening. She
said staff is also proposing that the proposed fence be a decorative fence, and that
shrubs/perennials be placed outside of the fence.
Goellner referred to the proposed parking and access and stated that the proposed
access is one driveway on Lilac Drive. She stated that the applicant is proposing to
provide 19 parking stalls (five are required), and three bike parking spaces (four are
required). She stated that deliveries should take place on the site, not on the street and
should occur only between 8 am and 5 pm and that the applicant should provide an
overflow parking plan. She stated that there is no parking allowed on Lilac Drive and on
most of Golden Valley Road, there is also no overnight parking allowed on Welcome
Avenue from November 1 to March 31, and there is no parking allowed after two inches of
snow on any city street.
Goellner referred to a chart showing the anticipated weekday and weekend time frames
for employees and visitors. She noted that at most there would be 11 to 12 cars on a lot
that can hold 19 so the applicant isn't anticipating the lot to be full on an average day.
Goellner noted that a neighborhood meeting was held on November 15. She stated that
there were 12 attendees and that there were numerous concerns regarding traffic,
parking, noise, odors, tree removal, construction, and the height and size of the building.
She added that a lighting plan will be required with the building permit application and that
there have been no comments or concerns from the Fire Department.
Goellner stated that staff is recommending approval of all three proposals subject to the
conditions listed in the staff reports. She explained that three of the evaluation criteria
used when evaluating a Conditional Use Permit have specific conditions attached to
them. They include ways to mitigate the effect on traffic flow and congestion by requiring
an overflow parking plan, mitigating the possible increase in noise levels by requiring
deliveries be limited to regular business hours, and mitigating the visual impacts by
requiring dumpster screening, the installation of trees, shrubs and perennials, and the
installation of a privacy fence.
Segelbaum asked if there is a need to add a condition regarding the construction
schedule and rules. Goellner stated that the City has construction regulations and that
applicants are required to sign a construction management agreement that addresses
issues such as the hours construction is allowed, noise, removing debris from the site,
etc. Baker asked if these requirements are prescribed by ordinance or if they are
negotiated between the builder and the City. Goellner stated that they are all ordinances
and that the construction management agreement puts all the regulations in one
document.
Segelbaum referred to the tree and landscape plan and asked about the mitigation
requirements. Goellner explained that the applicant is allowed to remove 30% of the trees
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 4
before they are required to add new ones. Baker asked if a condition could be added
requiring a specific number of trees to be planted. Goellner said if it could be tied to the
impact of the visual appearance then it would be appropriate.
Blum asked for clarification regarding where staff is recommending more coniferous trees
be planted. Goellner stated that the recommendation is to have more coniferous trees on
the west side along Welcome Avenue since that is the side of the property that is most
exposed to the single family neighborhood. Blum referred to the site plan and asked if it
meets staff's recommendations. Goellner said it does not and that the applicant has been
asked to provide an updated tree and landscape plan. Angell asked if the intention is to
have the trees planted on the exterior of the fence. Goeller said yes and explained that
there would be shrubs, then the fence, then the trees, then the building to help with visual
impact.
Baker asked about the purpose of requiring a fence that is only four feet tall. Goellner said
it won't help with screening but it will provide visual appeal and variety.
Pockl said she understands that if the factors of evaluation have been met for a
Conditional Use Permit the City is obligated to approve it and asked if that is the same for
the lot consolidation request. Goellner said yes. Blum asked if there is a requirement that
the zoning of the property and the Land Use Map have to match. Goellner said yes, that
is required.
Nathan Running, Property Owner, stated that he was involved in building their facility in
Fridley and that this whole process started for him five years ago when his grandfather
was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and he had to find a place for him to live. He
said the places he found were too institutional and he wanted to find a neighborhood
community with a home feel. He said that is the concept for this proposed 25-unit facility.
He stated that the demand for senior living in Golden Valley is high and that the proposed
location fits all of their criteria.
Todd Ofsthun, TCO Design, stated that the busier/noisier part of the proposed facility
would be on the Lilac Drive side of the property. That is where people, employees, and
deliveries would come and go so he doesn't see any reason for traffic to go through the
neighborhood streets. He stated that a six foot tall fence and trees are proposed along the
north side of the property to try and reduce the visual impact. He stated that the majority
of the rooms will face into the neighborhood so they feel like they are part of the
community. He stated that they will be replacing all of the trees with trees that are four
inches or more in diameter and 12 feet tall or taller. He said they are also proposing to
add seven ornamental trees. He noted that there are several other buildings in the area,
some are larger and some are smaller than what they are proposing so when he looks at
the overall neighborhood what they are proposing will fit in. He referred to the dumpster
and said they will be enclosing it and planting shrubs around it.
Segelbaum asked about the parking requirements if there is a special event. Ofsthun
stated that the property owners have reached out to other property owners in the area
regarding overflow parking. Jennifer Thorson, Director of the Fridley Watermark Facility,
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 5
stated that their Fridley location has 28 units and 13 parking spots. The proposed Golden
Valley facility will have 25 units and 19 parking spots. She noted that during the peak time
in Fridley they have approximately 12 cars. She explained that during special events
RSVP'ing is required so that they can properly plan for the parking.
Johnson asked the applicant to talk about how they came to the final design of the
building and what other options they considered. Ofsthun said they originally considered
two plans. The first plan had the access on Golden Valley Road, but that got a little too
close to the neighborhood. He stated that many of the decisions were dictated by the
grade and trying to keep the entrance away from the intersection of Golden Valley Road
and Lilac Drive. He said the shape and design of the building came from the number of
units, the amenities, and trying to keep the height down to fit in with the neighborhood.
Segelbaum asked if the building could have more units in the future if needed. Ofsthun
said he doesn't see that being an option and that there are no plans on expanding.
Segelbaum questioned if this proposal might be an incremental step in getting more units.
Ofsthun said the City Code and licensing wouldn't allow it.
Baker asked the applicant if they are planning on adding bike parking spaces. Ofsthun
said yes.
Pockl asked how often emergency vehicles are called to their site in Fridley. Thorson
stated that emergency vehicles come to the site approximately three times per month.
Blum asked if the sirens and lights are on when the emergency vehicles arrived. Thorson
said the sirens are always off. Johnson noted that this is right off Highway 100 where
sirens are heard all the time.
Baker opened the public hearing.
Gary Grenzer, 1525 Welcome Avenue North, showed the Commissioners a drawing he
made that illustrates how tall the proposed building would be compared to the height of
the houses nearby. He said he won't be able to see the sky from the inside of his house
and that the trees they are proposing will take 20 years to cover the main floor of the
building. He said there is no comparison between the trees they are taking out and the
trees they are proposing to put in. He said the building is going to look like a hotel and
there is nothing equitable about this proposal. It will not fit in with the neighborhood, and
is nothing like the other buildings on Golden Valley Road.
Ryan Thomson, 1200 Welcome Avenue North, said he is concerned about the massing
effect of the building. He said this proposal is not consistent with the neighborhood or the
objectives of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to preserve and promote single family
residences in Golden Valley. He said it is unconscionable that the Planning Commission
would undertake the approval of this proposal which inherently deviates from the
objectives of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan by destroying detached single family
residences. He said approval of this proposal would only prove to Golden Valley residents
that the Comprehensive Plan is a political tool to remain in power rather than a strategy to
maintain the best of their community.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 6
Mike Nelson, 1310 Welcome Avenue North, submitted a petition signed by 24 people
opposing the proposal and read the statement on the petition. He referred to the
possibility of expansion and noted that they are expanding their Fridley facility by an
additional 18 units. He said it seems like the applicant is trying to hide that fact. He
referred to the character of the neighborhood and said he loves his single family home
and having a number of mature trees and that he is opposed to the lot consolidation. He
said a huge part of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan was having a variety of single family
home pricing. Taking out three lots does not fit with the 2040 Comp Plan because the City
needs to have affordable single family homes within their neighborhood so that all types
of people can move into the neighborhood at a reasonable price. He said another thing
the 2040 Comp Plan talks about is the preservation of nature. He noted that the applicant
is taking out all of the existing trees except for one and putting in smaller trees that take a
long time to grow and that we can't keep taking down mature trees. He said the proposed
building fits within the R-1 requirements, but it completely towers over the neighborhood.
He strongly recommended that the Planning Commission not recommend approval.
Christine Nelson, 1310 Welcome Avenue North, said this is about the properties not being
single family homes. She said this is a property that is for profit and they are not as
invested as community owners. She stated that the FTK property behind her house at
1310 Welcome Avenue North has a dumpster that is frequently left open and trash blows
into her yard. She said she has also seen them use a leaf blower to push trash into her
yard. She said there is no consequences for the applicant, but the consequences are to
her family when her puppy has a rubber glove or glass shard in its mouth. She said she
has a question about where the dumpster will be placed with this proposal to make sure
that it isn't impacting families because there isn't the level of care or concern that a family
owner would have. She said this is a strong community and this proposal is breaking it
up.
Matt Bartholomew, 1240 Welcome Avenue North, said he is a real estate professional
and it is his opinion that this proposed facility will likely have a negative impact particularly
on the homes directly across the street. He said the wall and the highway noise are
already major issues and that adding another big building is going to be another issue
that anyone living in the area will face if they sell their home. He said there are multiple
buildings in the area and he feels like they are getting squeezed in so he would like to see
the properties stay single family homes.
Pan Wandzel, 1220 Welcome Avenue North, said when she moved in the neighborhood
was stable but also transitional. She said over the last five years their neighborhood has
become tight, they get together frequently, and they watch out for each other. She said
she is concerned about this proposal changing the integrity of this neighborhood. She
said she is not against senior housing and that she wants to age in place. She said she
wants to stay in a neighborhood that is safe and she doesn't want to have to worry about
parking or strangers walking down the street during their lunch break. She said she
worries about the density and that the building looks like a hotel or a townhome in
Plymouth or somewhere where there aren't separate homes that have character and light
between the buildings. She said she understands there is a need, but it doesn't belong in
their neighborhood and just because it's called a residential facility it's transitional. She
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 7
noted that the office building on Welcome Avenue has a covenant that states they will
keep up with the landscaping, but they don't because they got what they needed and the
residents are the ones who are suffering. She reiterated that she isn't against senior
housing; she is for the integrity of the neighborhood.
Richard Sheehan, 1533 Xenia Avenue North, asked if it was correct that staff said that if a
business can meet the requirements for consolidating lots that the City must approve the
application. Goellner said yes. Sheehan asked if it follows then that if the permit is issued
any application to do anything is automatically going to be approved. He said he thinks
there is an assumption that this proposal is going to happen and it is just a matter of
working through the nuts and bolts but he thinks there should be discussion about
whether the proposed facility should be there at all. He said he has the same concerns as
the previous speakers. He wants to see younger people move in the neighborhood and
these properties could be single family homes. He said he finds it disturbing that the very
nice house at 1530 Welcome Avenue is going to be torn down and questioned why the
City should be in the business of tearing down existing perfectly good structures so that
something else can be done with it. He said he wants to preserve the residential
character of the neighborhood and he wants to see single family homes on the two lots on
the Welcome Avenue side and not a health care facility. He implored the Commission to
think about the character of the neighborhood.
Grace Reilly, 1325 Welcome Avenue North, referred to the comment about emergency
vehicles not using their sirens when they are going into the site and said there will have to
be sirens when they are leaving the site. She said having sirens three times a month is
not something any of the Planning Commissioners would want in their neighborhoods and
it's not something any of them want in their neighborhood either. She said she doesn't
want to worry about strangers in her neighborhood and that it is nice to know she has a
community that supports her and people in the neighborhood that know her. She said she
doesn't think that this proposed facility would be good for them because they don't know
who will be in the neighborhood, who they can trust, and who they think is safe. She said
the Commission has to think about if they are taking the neighbor out of neighborhoods.
Pam Wittucki, 1136 Welcome Circle, said that the applicant mentioned that they don't use
lights and sirens at their facility but she knows that if it is an emergency they will use lights
and sirens, there will be a lot of lights and sirens and saying there won't be is a stretch.
She said that people who have memory issues, and have transitional care and elder care
probably aren't driving so they are going to need people to get them places. She said
there are already a lot of commercial buildings in the area, she understands that but she
doesn't want any more coming in and closer. She said this isn't a good fit for their
neighborhood and people are going to park on their street.
Marilyn Miller, 1316 Welcome Avenue North, requested that the Planning Commission
uphold the Comprehensive Plan. She said the other nursing home in the area fits in
because it is only one story and it doesn't overlook the neighbors' backyards. She said if
the applicants were concerned about the neighbors they would have kept up the land and
not let the grass grow three feet tall so she questions their integrity. She said that they
have already asked for an expansion at their Fridley facility so it is a real possibility that
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 8
they will ask for that in Golden Valley too. She asked how many of the parking spaces are
attributed to deliveries and stated that the grill will produce a smell.
Peter Lane, 5630 Golden Valley Road, said they moved to Golden Valley from St. Paul
and he grew up in a small suburb in Duluth. He said this feels like home because there
isn't a lot of huge commercial buildings and there is a lot of nature, trees, and wildlife. He
said he didn't know the names of his neighbors in St. Paul and he knew his neighbors
here within a couple of weeks. He said he's worked hard on landscaping and keeping up
their house and that no one is besmirching bringing in elder care, but he believes Golden
Valley is looking to bring in more young families so these homes really need to be
protected.
Chris Nelson, 5605 Phoenix Street, said he wants to raise his kids here and Golden
Valley is a community and he wants to stay here forever. He said he thinks they all want
to find value in their home and that a transitional home is not good for them or their
community.
Stephen Trull, 1600 Welcome Avenue North, said he was told that the distance from
fence along the north to the property line was 25 feet and that the peak of the roof on the
north end of the building would be 35 feet tall. He said to put that in perspective he is six
feet tall so 25 feet away from the fence, and up 35 feet would be six times his height or
about 5 houses tall so the pictures shown don't really give the scale of the enormity of the
proposed building. He said the building is going to block the sun and take away from the
small, livable, presentable nature of this neighborhood. He said he knows the house at
1530 Welcome was sold for $500,000 so he is concerned about the effect of that on his
property taxes and that it might price him out of the neighborhood.
Millie Segal, 4409 Sunset Ridge, said she is attempting to age in place in Golden Valley.
She said this can happen in any neighborhood and it is upsetting to her to hear that these
neighbors' way of life is in jeopardy. She said there are other facilities with vacancies that
are very nice and are in appropriate areas and not disrupting neighborhoods.
Georgeann Wobschall, 1503 Welcome Avenue North, said she has looked at this
property for 40 plus years. She said since the owners of 1530 Welcome Avenue have
moved out there have been papers on the property, weeds in the cement, the grass has
not been mowed, and the mail is not picked up. She said she is not sure who is
responsible for the upkeep of this property but as the Planning Commission considers this
proposal they should think about what Watermark has done with the property in the last
six months.
Gary Remick, 1114 Welcome Circle, said he is a dog owner and avid walker and there is
no sidewalk on the south side of the street so he has to walk right against the highway
wall. He said he is concerned about this facility and how it will affect his dog's enjoyment
of the neighborhood. He said a lot of people walk in this neighborhood and he is worried
about their safety.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 9
Celeste Reilly, 1325 Welcome Avenue North, said her husband passed away in their
home unexpectedly two years ago and there were sirens, ambulances, and police cars.
She said her neighbors helped her through that ordeal and every day that she hears an
ambulance or a police car brings her back to that day. She said to add more traffic and to
take away from the neighborhood and to take away from what should be single family
homes like in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan saddens her. She said this is a small little
community outside a larger community and her family and friends are grateful she has the
neighbors she has. She implored the Planning Commission to keep this area as a single
family neighborhood and not approve this proposal. She said eventually this
neighborhood will be gone and Golden Valley won't be a residential area anymore, it is
going to be industrial and overtake them.
Ann Bennion, 1125 Welcome Circle, said they are surrounded on all sides by industry and
therefore they are a fragile neighborhood and have had to remain vigilant. She said she
thinks rezoning the commercial property to R-1 single family residential would be
acceptable, but what is not acceptable is combining the lots. She stated that in the R-1
district there are no restrictions on the number of people who can live in a house if they
are all related, five people if they are unrelated. So by combining the three lots into one
there could be one family so what they are really asking for is a Conditional Use Permit
for 20 additional people. She noted that many of the lots in the neighborhood are actually
not that much smaller than the subject properties combined. She said it appears that the
only way this building was going to be built was to shoehorn it in this space with a
Conditional Use Permit on top of that. She said if the commercial lot is rezoned to R-1 it
should not be combined with the other two lots.
Peter Coyle, Larkin Hoffman, representing the applicant, said he would like to make a few
comments. Baker said he couldn't let Mr. Coyle respond to the public comments and that
the Planning Commission would let the applicant come back up and speak if they have
additional questions.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing.
Baker referred to the rezoning of the property at 5530 Golden Valley Road and noted that
staff is recommending approval of rezoning the property to R-1 Single Family Residential
because that is how it is currently designated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
and the two should be consistent with each other. He added that there were a number of
people who said that this proposal departs from the Comprehensive Plan but he feels
those comments pertain more to the CUP request than the rezoning proposal. The
Commissioners agreed.
Blum asked if there is a timeline as to when the Comprehensive Plan designation and the
Zoning Map designation have to match. Zimmerman said the zoning has to be consistent
with the Comp Plan within nine months of a Comp Plan amendment so this really should
have been rezoned 10 years ago when the last Comp Plan was adopted. Baker asked if
there are a lot of properties that weren't rezoned with the last Comp Plan update.
Zimmerman said there are several properties that will need to be rezoned after the 2040
Comp Plan update is adopted. Segelbaum said he has some hesitancy in rezoning this
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 10
property because the Planning Commission and the City Council has had discussions
about maintaining small commercial properties for things like coffee shops which make
neighborhoods more walkable. However R-1 does fit here and the Comp Plan guides it
for residential so rezoning it seems appropriate.
Baker asked about the history of the uses on this property. Zimmerman said it has been
used as a number of things including a gas station/convenience store and a Montessori
school. He added that most of the past uses occurred before Highway 100 cut off access
and Golden Valley Road went through. Baker said he wishes there were small
commercial uses in his neighborhood but that this neighborhood already has some
commercial uses nearby. Johnson stated that the setbacks for this property wouldn't allow
for a decent size commercial or office use. Zimmerman agreed.
OVED byJohnson, seconded by Angell nd motion carried unanimously to recommend
a val of rezoning the property at 5530 olden Valley Road from Commerci Single
Family idential (R-1).
Baker referred to osed lot consoli tion and readbo the st recommended
conditions. He reminded omission at the City is by the nine factors of
consideration found in City Co ich in is case ha een met or are not applicable.
Pockl asked if the factors are the sa of con ations as they are for minor
subdivisions. Zimmerman stated that the ode refers to platting which is the
redrawing of any property lines and that t ro and conditions of consideration are
the same. Goellner reviewed the nine s of const tion and explained how this
proposal meets those requireme
MOVED by Brookins seco ed by Johnso and motion carried unan usly to
recommend approval a proposed lot nsolidation at 5530 and 554 Iden Valley
Road and 1530 We me Avenue North s ject to the following conditions:
1. The City orney shall determine if a ti review is necessary prior to approval o
final p
2. A p dedication fee of $15,180 shall b paid before release of the final plat.
3. e proposed development is adjacent State Highway 100 and therefore is subject
o the review and comments of the Minn sota Department of Transportation.
Baker referred to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) proposal and asked staff to review
the evaluation criteria used when reviewing a CUP application. Goellner listed all of the
criteria from the Zoning Code and summarized how the proposal meets, or conditionally
meets, each one. She discussed the conditions recommended by staff including the
mitigation of traffic flow and impact, the mitigation of increase in noise levels, and the
mitigation of the visual appearance.
Johnson referred to the mitigation of increase in noise levels and asked how they address
the comments made about emergency vehicle siren noise. Segelbaum stated that the
issue is if the noise is excessive and if it is able to be mitigated. Baker agreed that the
City has to demonstrate that there is no way to mitigate an issue raised under the criteria
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 11
used in order to deny a CUP proposal. Goellner said there is a possibility that there would
be more emergency vehicles at this proposed 25-unit facility when compared to a 6-unit
facility which would be a permitted use. Blum asked what the applicant can do by right.
Goellner said they could have a 6-unit residential facility on each lot. Blum stated that
they should be comparing the potential noise of emergency vehicles for 18 people versus
25 people. Baker said he thinks there are ways to beef up the conditions staff has
recommended, or to add conditions that will help address some of the concerns.
Johnson referred to the condition that requires MnDOT's review and said he doesn't
remember requiring that with other proposals. Zimmerman stated that staff always sends
the plans to the County or the State if a proposal is adjacent to their roads.
Pockl referred to comments regarding property values and asked who determines if there
would be an impact on property values and what that decision is based on. Goellner said
the County assessor determines property values and they would need very compelling
evidence that property values would be diminished by this proposal. She added that in
many cases new development increases property values rather than diminishing them.
Zimmerman agreed and said the assessors didn't see any evidence of significant impact
in this case. Baker said he thinks it would be hard to argue that the residential property to
the north of the proposed building wouldn't be impacted. Goellner said she could follow
up with the assessor and get more information.
Blum referred to the first criteria of consideration regarding the demonstrated need for the
proposed use and noted that staff's finding cited a housing study done in 2016 which
showed a demand for 80-100 units of assisted living at 100-120 units of memory care
units. He asked how many of units have been filled since that study. Goellner said there
have been zero units added. Blum asked about the recently approved facility to be built
on Douglas Drive. Goellner said that facility is approximately six units of transitional
housing and more medical in nature. Zimmerman said there is another building under
construction along 1-394 that will have 90 units of assisted living and memory care. Baker
said he has to believe that the people proposing the project wouldn't be doing so if there
wasn't a need. Blum stated there is also the J-HAP facility and that he thinks there needs
to be an accounting for this particular finding. Goellner said the J-HAP facility was
accounted for in the housing study and also anything under construction or approved at
the time. She added that vacancies were also analyzed and that she could review the
report and let the Commissioners know the vacancy rates in 2016 and which buildings
were counted.
Segelbaum referred to the proposed height of the building and asked if it is in excess of
what is allowed. Zimmerman said no. Baker added that 28 feet of height is allowed and
the proposed building would be 24 feet tall.
Johnson asked about the lighting plan. Zimmerman explained that the applicant will have
to follow the same requirements as any other R-1 property.
Segelbaum asked the applicant to discuss the concerns about sirens. Coyle said it would
be the same as any other single family residence and that Public Safety staff decides
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 12
when they use lights and sirens. He added that neither the applicant nor the Planning
Commission is in the position to regulate that so they would defer to what the City
decides. Segelbaum asked Coyle if in his experience it is common that sirens are used
when approaching or leaving a facility. Coyle said if the situation dictates the use of lights
and sirens then they will be used. He stated that the policy of the facility is to call the
family first to determine if they want the resident to go to the hospital and that the facility
has medical staff on site and if the judgement is that there is not an emergency then lights
and sirens wouldn't be used. Thorson added that they have yet to have an emergency
happen at their Fridley facility. She reiterated that on average they have had
approximately three ambulances come to the site monthly in order to pick up a resident
and bring them to the hospital.
Rocky DiGiacomo, Partner in the Watermark facility, said he feels strongly that a certain
voice is not being represented at this meeting and that is the elderly themselves. He
referred to the housing study done in 2016 and stated that over the past four decades
Golden Valley's population level has remained relatively flat and is not expected to
change much going forward with one major exception, people aged 65 and older. That
demographic is expected to go up by 54% by 2021. He stated that from planning to reality
these types of projects take approximately three years and that the City hasn't done much
to address this major demographic change. He said he is hoping to run a profitable facility
and also a caring facility that addresses the issues. He said the elderly can't always
advocate for themselves and hopes the people in attendance will take that into account.
Baker asked the applicant about the evidence they have showing that they won't increase
the size of this proposed facility like they have done with their Fridley facility. Running,
said their application is for 25 units and that is what they are proposing to build. He said in
Fridley they went through the same process and the opportunity came up to buy
additional property so they went through the same process again to expand. He said he
can't say that they will never want to expand this proposed facility in Golden Valley in the
future, but there are no plans to do so.
DiGiacomo stated that they have already shrunk the size of the proposed building to have
25 units and that all of the other space in the building not being used for rooms is being
used for some other function such as food preparation, staff space, etc. and there is no
way the rooms could be used for more than one person.
Pockl asked if the current proposed building is the same size as previously proposed just
with fewer rooms, or if the building is smaller than the previous proposal. DeGiacomo said
the current proposed building is smaller than in their previous proposal.
Baker went through each of the factors and findings used when considering CUPs and
noted that the first factor is the demonstrated need for the proposed use. Blum reiterated
that he wants to know how many units of assisted living and memory care have been
added since the housing study was done so that he can clearly understand how the
applicant has demonstrated the need for the proposed use.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 13
Baker said the next factor of consideration is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
He said the Comprehensive Plan does place a priority on a variety of housing types
including housing for seniors so in his view this proposal is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Segelbaum said he thinks the question posed is if eliminating single
family homes is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Blum stated that a reasonable
person could argue either way that the proposal either adds to the diversity or that
maintaining single family homes preserves existing housing so he doesn't think that
finding can be used to justify denial of the proposal. He suggested looking at
transportation, neighborhood character, greenery/nature, and the impact of different
juxtaposed zoning uses which are also parts of the Comprehensive Plan, are important to
their decision, and address the comments and questions from the public. He stated that
the Comprehensive Plan talks about multi-modal transportation and if there is increased
traffic from the proposed 25-unit facility it cuts against this factor of the Comprehensive
Plan because it has an effect on walkability. Although the streets can more than handle
the trips that are proposed for this particular use and since the entrance is on the edge of
the neighborhood it doesn't seem to affect the walkability as much so he doesn't think the
application can be denied based on this factor.
Baker asked if there is a proposal to add sidewalk on the Welcome Avenue side of the
site. Goellner stated that the bike and pedestrian task force decided not to add sidewalks
to most residential streets unless a road is scheduled for reconstruction. She said
requiring a sidewalk should only be a condition if it is noted in the Comprehensive Plan
and it is not in this case. Zimmerman added that there are sidewalks on Golden Valley
Road and on Lilac Drive. He noted that there are also no exits from the building on the
Welcome Avenue side of the property so that is another reason not to add a sidewalk
along Welcome Avenue.
Blum referred to the issue of neighborhood character including height and blockage of the
sun. He said it struck him how low the lot is and how tall the building might be and how
that would interact with the landscaping. He said the building won't be covered by any of
landscaping at all. He added that the applicant didn't add any evergreens to their site
plans as staff has suggested, and that nothing has been done to protect the transition of
different uses so he doesn't think that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Baker
agreed that the use of trees especially along the Welcome Avenue side is uncreative and
inadequate and is not screening the large mass from the neighborhood. Segelbaum said
that should be addressed under the tenth factor which is visual appearance. Johnson said
he understands what Blum is saying, but there are rules which say that this facility is
allowed. He stated that a person could build a monstrous single family home that wouldn't
fit in with the neighborhood character either. He said there probably isn't any area where
this facility would fit in exactly with the neighborhood.
Baker said they have to keep in mind that when they recommend approval of CUPs they
do so on the condition of mitigating the ability to address the factors of considerations.
Angell said there is a lot of mention of preserving single family homes in the 2040 Comp
Plan and that the same language is in the 2030 Comp Plan. Since the 2040 Comp Plan
hasn't officially been adopted yet, they should be basing their recommendation on the
2030 Comp Plan. Goellner agreed that preserving single family homes is a big
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 14
component of the 2030 Comp Plan. She stated that in the staff report to Council she is
going to highlight that these properties are guided for low density residential and that is
what this proposal is for. Zimmerman added that the Comp Plan goal is not to preserve
single family homes it is to preserve single family neighborhoods which is a little larger in
scope than individual homes and individual lots. Blum asked if there is specific language
in the 2030 Comp Plan about preserving rambler style homes. Zimmerman said there
might be some language regarding ramblers in the property maintenance parts of the
Comp Plan but he doesn't remember language regarding preserving ramblers as a
housing type.
Segelbaum said he thinks the major components of this decision are based on the
itemized criteria. He said this is a change in three properties and the question is whether
a nursing facility is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Blum said there is a lot to be said about the value of greenery and the differences in
aesthetics and environmental issues. He said he thinks the green aesthetic is something
they want to preserve and to basically take out everything except one tree and replace it
with something inadequate is inconsistent with the Comp Plan and the theme of wanting
to keep a green aesthetic.
Baker asked the Commissioners if they had any comments about factor number three
regarding the effect on property values. Blum said he doesn't think they can accurately
say that there is no evidence that property values would be either positively or negatively
affected so that finding should be reworded. He said testimony is evidence and it is worth
considering the comments they've heard about the property not being well maintained
and that those comments are material to their decision and should be considered. Pockl
agreed.
Baker referred to factor number four which is the effect of traffic flow and congestion and
asked the Commissioners for their thoughts. He said he believes that the fact that the
access is off of Lilac Drive is a great mitigating approach to this factor and there is no
reason to believe the neighborhood would be affected by the traffic created by the
proposed facility. Segelbaum said if the public were to park on Welcome Avenue that
might affect the traffic flow on that street and he doesn't know how to mitigate that, but it
will need to be monitored. Baker said he thinks it is mitigated by requiring the applicant to
submit an overflow parking plan. He suggested that the finding regarding the submission
of an overflow parking plan for special events be amended to read that a plan for overflow
parking should be submitted. Segelbaum agreed. Blum said he thinks that is reasonable
and asked if residents could apply for permit only parking on Welcome Avenue.
Zimmerman said residents are able to apply for permit only parking if they wish.
Baker referred to the fifth factor of consideration regarding the effect of increases in
population and density. He said he thought he heard the applicant state that the residents
of this proposed facility are not going to be walking around the neighborhood so he
doesn't see that there would be an effect on the population or density. Segelbaum asked
about the density limit in this location. Zimmerman said the Zoning Codes states that the
minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet for one unit and that it also allows for 25 people so
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 15
there is not an exact comparison between the number of units and the number of people
allowed. Baker said there will be 10 staff members and the neighborhood might not like
staff walking around the neighborhood but it might be something they would have to get
used to. He questioned if a condition could be placed on the approval that the staff would
have to stay on the property during their breaks. Blum said he would be against that and
he thinks this particular factor of consideration has been met.
Baker referred to the sixth factor of consideration which is compliance with the City's
Mixed-Income Housing Policy and noted that this proposal is exempt from the policy.
Baker referred to seventh factor of consideration which is the increase in noise level and
said he thinks the staff's finding stating that deliveries shall only take place between 8 am
and 5 pm on weekdays and weekends is a common sense approach. He added that
they've already discussed the siren issue so he is satisfied with the finding. Segelbaum
said he has a concern about sirens increasing the noise level and he doesn't know for
certain what the increase will be but he doesn't think it can be mitigated. Johnson said by
right there could be three residential care facilities in this location serving 6 or fewer
people each without the need for a CUP. Segelbaum said that is a fair way of looking at it,
but it seems this proposal will increase the noise level and it concerns him and it should
be analyzed further. Zimmerman noted that the standard isn't that there be no net
increase in noise, it is if the increase is reasonable and what could be done to mitigate it
to the extent that the City feels comfortable with approval. Johnson noted that this
neighborhood is also right next to Highway 100 so there already is noise in the area.
Baker referred to the eighth factor of consideration which is the Generation of Odors,
Dust, Smoke, Gas, or Vibration. Johnson referred to the comment made about the grill
and the kitchen. He said the kitchen is on the ground floor facing the parking lot. Baker
said they could consider adding a condition stating that the venting be directed away from
the neighborhood. Zimmerman said the area is called a grill, but it is not an industrial
kitchen and they won't be cooking or preparing food any differently than any other single
family home in the area.
Baker referred to the ninth factor of consideration regarding an increase in pests or
vermin. The Commissioners had no comments about this factor.
Baker referred to the tenth factor of consideration regarding visual appearance. He noted
that staff proposed several conditions regarding the visual appearance but he would like
to address the height, the dumpster, the landscaping, and the fencing. He said he would
like a condition added requiring that the dumpster be placed in the parking lot and
screened in order to address the neighbors' concerns. He reiterated that he would like
bigger trees and many more trees added to the landscape plan so there is an immediate
effect of screening and a relief to the neighborhood. Zimmerman said he understands, but
if too many trees are put in a small area they may get crowded out and die and that
slightly smaller trees grow faster and taller than larger trees. He suggested the details of
the trees get worked out with the City Forester. The Commissioners agreed. Blum stated
that staff's suggestion of year-round visual screening was not taken by the applicant and
that the applicant has not met the visual appearance standards. Zimmerman explained
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 16
that the applicant was given staffs suggestion at the neighborhood meeting so they didn't
ignore staffs advice, they just haven't submitted new landscaping plans yet.
Brookins referred to the proposed fence and asked if a six foot tall fence would be
allowed around the perimeter of the site. Zimmerman said there can be a six foot tall
fence along the north side of the property. He stated that the applicant could apply for a
variance to allow for a six foot tall fence along the other property lines, but staff can't
require them to do that.
Blum stated that the Planning Commission has looked at structures like this in the past
and he thinks that the proposed articulation, the windows, the varying peak heights, and
the varying colors are important and positive aspects of this proposal. Baker agreed.
Pockl said she doesn't think the visual appearance factor is satisfied. She said she thinks
the building looks like a nice residential structure but the monstrosity of it doesn't fit within
the character of the neighborhood and impacts the visual appearance as it sits within the
neighborhood. She said her opinion is that the factor can't be satisfied if it doesn't look
like the rest of the neighborhood character which is rambler style residential homes. Blum
agreed that the massing is an issue. Segelbaum noted that by right they are able to build
this size of building. Zimmerman agreed and reiterated that the proposal meets all of the
setback and height requirements and that the Zoning Code allows this type of structure.
Pockl stated that if a factor of consideration is that it has to be designed to complement
the character of the surrounding neighborhood then she doesn't think the proposal meets
that factor. If the building only has to meet the R-1 Zoning requirements then she thinks it
would satisfy the visual appearance factor. Blum said he thinks the building can
technically meet the R-1 Zoning requirements, but that doesn't mean it meets the
character of the neighborhood factor as proposed. Zimmerman noted that the Code
language specifically states the finding as "visual appearance of any proposed structure
or use" so there is nothing tying it to neighborhood character and the Planning
Commission and City Council evaluates proposals through that lens.
Blum compared this proposal to a proposal by the same applicant on Douglas Drive. He
stated that the Douglas Drive property is narrow and that from the front the structure looks
very similar to other single family homes in the area, whereas the visual appearance of
this proposal is substantially larger than any single family structure in the area on at least
two sides of the property. Baker questioned if the applicant could come back with a
proposal for the same number of units in two smaller buildings rather than one massive
building. Brookins said this proposal is a better representation of the character of the
neighborhood versus some type of row housing. He said everyone has different
preferences on design and they should be looking at ways to provide conditions to help
mitigate the visual impact without redesigned the building.
Segelbaum asked if there is consensus about the proposed conditions. Baker said he
would like condition number five regarding landscaping to be more effective at screening
the building from the neighborhood. Zimmerman suggested adding language stating that
the applicant should work with the City Forester to come up with the best landscaping
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 17
plan. Baker suggested adding a sentence stating that the goal of the condition is to
provide immediate and long term screening from the neighborhood to the west.
Johnson stated that a condition should be added about putting the dumpster location on
the plans. Segelbaum questioned how to the address the concern about trash blowing
around. Zimmerman said that would be a property maintenance issue.
Baker said he would like to recommend that the applicant apply for a variance to allow for
a six foot tall fence to be placed along the perimeter of the property and that venting of
kitchen odors be done in such a way to minimize impacts to the neighborhood to the west
and north.
MOVED by Baker seconded by Johnson and motion carried 4 to 2 to 1 to recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit 162 allowing for a Residential Facility serving up to 25
persons at 5530 and 5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North,
subject to the findings discussed and conditions as follows. Commissioners Blum and
Pockl voted no. Commissioner Segelbaum abstained and stated that he had incomplete
information about the potential increase in noise due to sirens and without that
information it was unclear to him if the impact could be mitigated.
Conditions
1. The Residential Facility may serve up to 25 persons and must maintain appropriate
licensure from the State of Minnesota.
2. All vehicle deliveries shall take place on-site and shall not take place on the street.
Scheduled deliveries to the property must occur between 8 am and 5 pm on
weekdays and weekends.
3. An overflow parking plan must be submitted and reviewed by the City prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
4. The exterior dumpster shall be placed in the parking lot and screened with an
enclosure constructed of material compatible with the building.
5. In order to mitigate visual impacts to adjacent single-family homes, installation of
coniferous trees between the proposed building and Welcome Avenue is required.
The goal of this condition is to provide immediate and long term screening for the
neighborhood to the west and north.
6. In order to mitigate visual impacts to adjacent single-family homes, installation of
shrub and perennial plantings between the proposed fence and the adjacent streets
(Welcome Avenue and Golden Valley Road) is required.
7. In order to mitigate visual impacts to adjacent single-family homes, installation of a
decorative fence along the perimeter of the property is required.
8. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations,
or laws with authority over this development.
Informal Publi4Heari Minor Subdivision — 4400 Sunset Ridge — SU09-15
Applic rn PropertieAddr dge
city 0f -
90
valley Planning Department
763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax)
Date: November 26, 2018
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer
Subject: Informal Public Hearing—Conditional Use Permit (CUP-162)to Allow for a
Residential Facility serving up to 25 persons at 5530 Golden Valley Road, 5540
Golden Valley Road, and 1530 Welcome Avenue North
Property addresses: 1530 Welcome Ave, 5530 Golden Valley Road, 5540 Golden Valley Road
Zoning District: R-1 (1530 Welcome Ave, 5530 GV Road), Commercial (5530 GV Road)
Current use: 2 homes (1530 Welcome Ave, 5530 GV Road), 1 vacant business (5530 GV Road)
Future land use: Single-family residential (all parcels)
Adjacent uses: Single-family residential, office, Hwy 100
M 7i
Applicant: Watermark
• isoo Enhanced Care Suites of
' 4. iga5. Golden Valley
3
1520
Authorized
Representative: Todd
1 2,i,
r �' r Ofsthun, TCO Design
17'' Property owner: Casco
• 15i} `' Ventures, LLC (all parcels)
5540
s,
�g Lot size: 39,563 sq. ft. (3
} lots combined)
56311
'"`mai
2015 aerial photo(Hennepin County)
�415' �
1
Summary
Watermark Enhanced Care Suites of Golden Valley, represented by Todd Ofsthun of TCO Design, is
proposing to locate a residential facility with assisted living, memory care, and transitional care for
25 individuals in a new building at 5530 Golden Valley Road, 5540 Golden Valley Road, and 1530
Welcome Avenue North. The applicant has also applied for approval to rezone 5530 Golden Valley
Road from Commercial to Single-Family Residential (R-1) and for approval to consolidate the three
lots into one. The other two properties in the proposal, 5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530
Welcome Avenue North, are zoned Single-Family Residential. The layout of the proposed lot
consolidation would create a single 39,563 square foot lot. The single-family homes located at 1530
Welcome Avenue and 5540 Golden Valley Road as well as the vacant commercial building at 5530
Golden Valley Road would be demolished under this proposal.
Proposed Use
Residential Facilities are licensed by the State of Minnesota to provide 24-hour care.They are
permitted in the R-1 Zoning District when serving 6 or fewer persons. If the Facility serves between
7 and 25 persons, the Facility requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Facilities serving more than
25 persons also require a CUP, but must locate only in the R-3 or R-4 Residential Zoning Districts. In
summer 2018, the applicant began the process to propose a 40-unit building at this site, which
included proposals to rezone the properties to R-3 Medium Density Residential. The rezoning
application was denied by the Planning Commission unanimously. The applicant withdrew the
applications prior to the public hearing with City Council in order to work on a new proposal that
met R-1 zoning requirements. The proposed facility would be built into the existing hill and consist
of three floors, with the lowest floor being partially underground (known as a "lookout"). The
applicant is licensed by the Minnesota Department of Health to provide assisted living and memory
care services. The applicant operates a similar facility in Fridley.
Zoning Considerations
Dimensional Standards
Required Proposed
Minimum lot size
10,000 square feet 39,563 square feet
Minimum lot width at 35 feet deep
100 feet (corner lot) Approx. 260 feet (west)
Approx. 180 feet (south)
Approx. 215 feet (east)
Minimum lot width at 70 feet deep
100 feet (corner lot) Approx. 245 feet (west)
Approx. 170 feet (south)
Approx. 235 feet (east)
Front Yard Setback
35 feet (west, south, east) 35 feet (west, south)
70 feet (east)
Side Yard Setback
NA
2
Required Proposed
Rear Yard Setback
25 feet (north) 25 feet (north)
Impervious Surface
50% maximum 46.65% (18,458 SF)
Building Coverage
30% maximum 20.9% (8,265 SF)
Height
28 feet (from average grade to midpoint of highest pitched roof) 24 feet
Maximum Average Grade Allowed
895.1 (increase limited to one foot) 895 feet (894.1 feet existing)
Employees and Visitors
The application states that there will be a maximum of 10 employees when the facility is full—the
number required by the State for this type of facility and care. The anticipated employee and visitor
counts during the day are as follows:
Estimated Weekday Visitors
Time Frames 6:30am-2:30pm 2:30pm-7:00pm 7:00pm-10:30pm 10:30pm-6:30am
Employees 10 (8 drivers) 7 (5 drivers) 4 (3 drivers) 4 (4 drivers)
Professionals 2-time (avg. 30 1-time (avg. 30 0 0
minutes) minutes)
Guests 2-time (avg. 30- 3-time (avg. 30- 5-time (avg. 30- 0
45 minutes) 45 minutes) 45 minutes)
Average Cars 12 9 8 4
Estimated Weekend Visitors
Time Frames 6:30am-2:30pm 2:30pm-7:00pm 7:00pm-10:30pm 10:30pm-6:30am
Employees 8 (6 drivers) 7 (6 drivers) 5 (4 drivers) 4 (4 drivers)
Professionals 0 0 0 0
Guests 2-time (avg. 30- 5-time (avg. 30- 4-time (avg. 30- 0
45 minutes) 45 minutes) 45 minutes)
Average Cars 8 11 8 4
Parking, Traffic, and Deliveries
The site will be accessed from Lilac Drive and it would include 19 exterior surface parking stalls. City
Code requires 5 parking spaces (1 space per 5 beds). This use would generate a small number of
vehicle trips—primarily from visitors, employees, and deliveries. Golden Valley Road and Lilac Drive
have sufficient capacity to accommodate this use. Staff recommends that all vehicle deliveries must
take place on-site and must occur between 8 am and 5 pm on weekdays and weekends to mitigate
traffic and noise impacts. This has been added to the recommended conditions for approval.
3
Parking is not permitted on Lilac Drive. Other than a 460 foot area for parking on the north side of
Golden Valley Road west of Xenia Avenue (roughly 475 feet from the site), parking is not permitted
along Golden Valley Road. Parking is permitted on Welcome Avenue. No overnight street parking
(from 2-6 am) is allowed between November 1 and March 31. Public street parking is also
prohibited after a snowfall of at least two inches.
The proposal includes three bicycle parking spaces. A minimum of four are required.
Exterior Building Materials Landscaping and Lighting
Due to the relatively large size of the proposed building for an R-1 Zoning District, the applicant is
mitigating visual impacts to the surroundings by providing the following architectural and landscape
features:
• Pitched roofs, similar to other homes in the neighborhood
• Articulation and relief in the walls of the building
• Several windows on all levels and all sides of the building
• Variety of exterior building materials incl. manufactured stone, no vinyl siding
• Fencing along the perimeter of the site
• Tree plantings along the perimeter of the site
• Minimal grading to the site—building proposed to be built into existing hill
• Trash enclosure
In order to screen the visual impact of this relatively large facility from the views of the single-family
homes to the west, staff recommends that coniferous trees, a decorative fence, and shrubs or
perennials must be maintained along the west property line along Welcome Avenue. This has been
included in the recommended conditions of approval.
A lighting plan will be reviewed with the submittal of a building permit application. The lighting
levels must be in conformance with the R-1 standards in the Outdoor Lighting Section (113-153) of
the City Code. Specifically, illumination may not exceed 0.3 footcandles at the lot line.
Mixed Income Housing Policv
This proposed Residential Facility is exempt from the Mixed Income Housing Policy requirements
because it is not a market rate residential rental development. The proposed building is designed for
residents requiring 24-hour medical care and does not include any units designed for independent
living.
Fire Department Review
The Fire Department has reviewed the application and has no comments or concerns.
Neighborhood Meeting
A neighborhood meeting was hosted by the applicant on November 15, 2018, to discuss the project.
Approximately 12 people attended. There were numerous concerns regarding traffic, parking, noise,
odors, tree removal, construction, and the height and size of the proposed building.
4
Evaluation
The findings and recommendations for a Conditional Use Permit are based upon any or all of the
following factors (which need not be weighed equally):
Factor Finding
1. Demonstrated Need for Standard met. The applicant completed a market study that
Proposed Use found a need for this housing type in Golden Valley. A Housing
Study completed for the City in 2016 showed demand for 80-100
units of assisted living and 100-120 units of memory care in
Golden Valley between 2016 and 2025.
2. Consistency with the Standard met. The proposed residential facility use is consistent
Comprehensive Plan with the Future Land Use Map and the goals of the 2040
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states that a
variety of housing types and designs should be provided in order
to allow for greater housing choices for Golden Valley residents.
Creating more opportunities for senior housing was noted as a
priority in the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Effect upon Property Values Standard met. There is no evidence to support an argument that
property values would be either positively or negatively affected
by the presence of a residential facility in this location. Assessing
staff anticipates that there will be no effect as long as the
property is well maintained.
4. Effect on Traffic Flow and Standard conditionally met. The number of trips associated with
Congestion the proposed use will not generate any negative traffic impacts
to the surrounding areas. Golden Valley Road, Lilac Road, and
Welcome Avenue have the capacity to accommodate the minor
increase in traffic that is likely to occur. In order to ensure that
traffic moves safely and efficiently and in order to mitigate
short-term congestion, staff recommends that deliveries to the
property be made only from the off-street parking lot and not
from the adjacent public streets.
Based on the number of vehicle trips associated with the
proposed use,the reduction in the number of existing
driveways, and the location of the proposed driveway entrance,
Engineering staff does not anticipated negative impacts to traffic
flow and congestion in the surrounding area. The adjacent
streets (Golden Valley Road and Lilac Drive are municipal state
aid streets) have the capacity to accommodate any minor
increase in vehicle trips that may occur.
5
Factor Finding
Parking is restricted on Lilac Drive and most of Golden Valley
Road, and is not restricted on other streets in the area. Although
it is not anticipated that the surrounding streets will be used for
parking on a regular basis, staff recommends that the applicant
submit an overflow parking plan for any special events that
might be held at the site.
Golden Valley Road and Lilac Drive are identified as signed bike
routes on the City's Bike and Pedestrian Plan. Any improvements
located on the periphery of the development site and into the
adjacent rights-of-way must not negatively impact the City's
plans for its bike and pedestrian routes. Staff will work with the
applicant at the time of permitting to address any conflicts that
may arise.
S. Effect of Increases in Standard met. The proposal will generate a small increase in the
Population and Density population at the location as compared to the previous use. This
increase is not anticipated to have a noticeable impact.
6. Compliance with the City's Standard met. The Residential Facility is exempt from the Policy
Mixed-Income Housing Policy requirements because it is not a market rate residential rental
development. The proposed building is designed for residents
requiring 24-hour medical care.
7. Increase in Noise Levels Standard conditionally met. This use may generate slightly more
noise than a typical single-family home due to regularly
scheduled deliveries. However, deliveries will be limited to
regular business hours and will be located in the off-street
parking lot on the east side of the site, away from most of the
homes in the area.
8. Generation of Odors, Dust, Standard met. The proposed use is not anticipated to generate
Smoke, Gas, or Vibration odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibrations.
9.Any Increase in Pests or Standard met. The proposed use is not anticipated to attract
Vermin pests.
10. Visual Appearance Standard conditionally met. The proposed facility adheres to the
R-1 zoning requirements of setbacks, height, and coverage, and
it is designed to complement the character of the surrounding
neighborhood. However, with 25 units on a large lot, it is a
relatively large building for this zoning district and
neighborhood. The architectural features presented in the
6
Factor finding
building proposal help mitigate the visual impact of the large
building.
The visual impact of the exterior dumpster can be mitigated by
screening it with an enclosure constructed of material
compatible with the building.
Staff has reviewed the site plan and landscape plan. The
applicant is proposing to install trees along the north, west, and
south property boundaries, which will help screen the building
and provide visual interest and appeal. Staff recommends that
the applicant install coniferous trees between the proposed
building and Welcome Avenue to provide year-round screening
that mitigates the visual impact to adjacent single-family
properties. According to the City's Tree and Landscape
requirements, shrubs and perennials must be planted on the
site. Staff recommends that the applicant install between the
proposed fence and the adjacent streets (Welcome Avenue and
Golden Valley Road)to enhance the visual appearance of the
fence from the public way and surrounding properties. Staff will
work with the applicant on the details of the landscape plan at
the time of permitting.
In order to ensure that the privacy fence is visually appealing,
staff recommends that the applicant provide details of the
specific type, color, and material of the fence.
11. Other Effects upon the Standard met. Additional impacts on the surrounding area are
General Public Health, Safety, not anticipated.
and Welfare
Approval of this CUP is dependent on separate approvals of a zoning change for 5530 Golden Valley
Road and a lot consolidation.
Recommended Action
Based on the findings above, staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 162 allowing for
a Residential Facility serving up to 25 persons at 5530 and 5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530
Welcome Avenue North, subject to the following conditions:
1. The Residential Facility may serve up to 25 persons and must maintain appropriate licensure
from the State of Minnesota.
7
2. All vehicle deliveries shall take place on-site and shall not take place on the street. Scheduled
deliveries to the property must occur between 8 am and 5 pm on weekdays and weekends.
3. An overflow parking plan for special events must be submitted and reviewed by the City prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
4. The exterior dumpster shall be screened with an enclosure constructed of material compatible
with the building.
5. In order to mitigate visual impacts to adjacent single-family homes, installation of coniferous
trees between the proposed building and Welcome Avenue is required.
6. In order to mitigate visual impacts to adjacent single-family homes, installation of shrub and
perennial plantings between the proposed fence and the adjacent streets (Welcome Avenue and
Golden Valley Road) is required.
7. In order to mitigate visual impacts to adjacent single-family homes, installation of a decorative
fence along the perimeter of the property is required.
8. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with
authority over this development.
Failure to comply with one of more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the
CUP. Consistent with State statute, a certified copy of the CUP must be recorded with Hennepin
County.
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
Applicant's Narrative (3 pages)
Plans submitted by TCO Design on November 2, 2018 (13 pages)
8
P
TC'0110 s It LSEP 2 12
2018
9330 Thomas Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, MN 55444
Office 763-424-3676 cell 952-994-8276
V(?(If?(nT(C(�F�IE;i'I flEf
August 20, 2018
Re: Conditional Use Permit Application,
Zoning Map Amendments and General
Land Use Map Amendment Applications
5530 Golden Valley Road,
5540 Golden Valley Road, and
1530 Welcome Avenue North
Golden Valley, MN 55422
City of Golden Valley
Planning Department
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
WATERMARK SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, LLC — Project
Narrative
Background
WaterMark Senior Living Community of Golden Valley, LLC discovered the three properties and determined it would be a
nice quiet location for their next building. The proposed project is an assisted living and transitional care facility with
approximately 24,000 SF containing 25 senior and transitional care units. The proposed structure will be two and a half
stories.
The project will use 5540 Golden Valley Road,1530 Welcome Ave N and 5530 Golden Valley Road. 5540 Golden Valley
Road and 1530 Welcome Ave N currently have houses on them and 5530 Golden Valley Road currently has a
commercial building on it. The properties have Welcome Avenue North to the West, Golden Valley Road to the South and
Lilac Drive North to the East. The new facility will be accessed with a curb cut from Lilac Drive North.
There are several advantages to a residential care facility for this neighborhood. It is important to the owner and operators
that this facility is well maintained and run. All aspects of site and building maintenance will be kept to high standards. The
families and groups associated with Comprehensive Care have high standards for this type of facility and for their
patients. They are caring family members, medical professionals or business professionals. These types of facilities are
quiet and low key. There will be no large and loud parties or gatherings. Its 24 hour a day security will be a nice buffer
from the busy Highway 100 area.
The maximum number of employees when the facility is full will be 11. This is the number of employees required by the
management company to provide the patients with meals, personal hygiene, housekeeping and any other patient needs in
compliance with the State for this type of facility and care. Building and exterior maintenance will be out sourced. There is
plenty of on-site snow storage space. The City requires 5 off street parking spaces for this type of facility with this number
of beds. We are providing 19 off street spaces. All deliveries will be at the front of the building off Lilac Drive North, away
from the residential neighborhood.
The group that makes up WaterMark Senior Living Community of Golden Valley, LLC completed a building in Fridley in
2017. The 28-unit building is currently full. The new building will be a similar facility. The Golden Valley facility will have
larger rooms, more amenities and more generous gathering areas. Please see attached picture of the Fridley Facility for
reference.
4 i
Factors of evaluation
1. All cities have demonstrated a need for assisted living and memory care facility. New facilities fill quickly. There is
a study showing a need for 46 units in this area of Golden Valley.
2. A small assisted living and memory care facility in a Low-Density neighborhood is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan of the City by providing a needed service while fitting with existing available City utilities in
this road and a busy Highway service road (Lilac Drive North).
3. The new building and lots will have a value of$1,500,000-$1,900,000 when finished compared to current property
values of$275,000-$325,000 in the area.
4. This type of facility will have minimum impact on traffic flow and congestion. None of the residents will have
vehicles. The number of car trips will be comparable to a single-family duplex. Lilac Drive North is adequate to
support such traffic.
5. Because the residents stay mostly on site or organized day trips, there will be minimal effect on surrounding land
uses. The staff will also perform their duties on site and will have a positive effect by patronizing local businesses.
6. The proposed use may be difficult to categorize within the City's Mixed Income Housing Policy. It is not a private
facility and therefore, is available to Resident's regardless of income. The proposed facility is not a market rate
residential rental development. It is designed for residents requiring 24-hour medical care and does not include
any units designed for independent living.
7. The proposed facility will not increase noise levels over the allowed uses for this neighborhood. The facility will
have more activity than the usual Low Density use in the mornings during the week but will be quieter in the
evenings and weekends compared to typical homes. No large parties or gatherings.
S. The proposed use does not generate unusual odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibrations.
9. The proposed facility will not increase flies, rats, or other vermin in the area. It will likely be less than the average
area land use by having a high level of maintenance by professionals.
10. The proposed building will use exterior materials consistent with current residential construction. We will use a
nice balance of manufactured stone and 'LP SmartSide'. The siding will vary using a combination of textures and
colors. Other architectural features such as decorative vents and brackets will be used to add visual interest. The
roof will be finished with 'shake look' architectural asphalt shingles.
11. The proposed facility will be highly maintained. It will have 24 hour a day security and will be taken care of
residents in need of their services. Because of this, this proposed facility will have a positive effect upon the
general public health, safety, and welfare of the City and its residents.
Zoning and Land Use
5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Ave N are currently guided and zoned Single-Family R-1 Residential. 5530
Golden Valley Road is currently guided and zoned Commercial. WaterMark Senior Living Community of Golden Valley,
LLC would like to re-guide and re-zone 5530 Golden Valley Road to Low Density R-1 Residential. The R-1 zoning for the
other two properties fit with the Conditional Use Permit application and will not need rezoning or re-guiding. The
combination of the three properties will result in a unified property totaling approximately 0.92 acres.
The Comprehensive Care Facility will be the sole principal structure on the property. A conditional use permit will be
required to allow the 25-unit assisted living use on the R-1 zoning. The City will also require us to go through a re-platting
application in order to combine the three properties into one.
Building
The proposed building will consist of two and a half floors of assisted senior living and transitional care units. There will be 7
care units on the main floor along with a generous gathering space that also includes a malt shop, library, chapel and
theatre. The lower level and half story floors will have 9 care units along with a small gathering area on each floor. There will
be a total of 25 care units. An elevator will be provided in the main entry.
The residents will get assisted living care, memory care and transitional care. Transitional care being patients that need
24-hour care, but do not qualify to stay in a hospital or have family or friends that can give them that level of care.
Examples would be post-op, pre-op, dialysis, bariatrics, respirator, etc. Transitional care residents are quiet and static.
Memory care patients are not allowed to wander outside of the facility without being accompanied by a care team
member. The facility will operate under the Minnesota state Comprehensive Care License.
The proposed building will use exterior materials consistent with current residential construction. We will use a nice balance
of manufactured stone and 'LP SmartSide'. The siding will be vary using a combination of textures and colors. Other
architectural features such as decorative vents and brackets will be used to add visual interest. The roof will be finished with
`shake look'architectural asphalt shingles.
Site
The overall site is approximately 0.92 acres and the area to be disturbed for the proposed project is roughly 0.5 acres.
The site is designed to meet R-1 zoning standards. Setbacks for the property are per the table below.
Building Setback Pavement Setback
Required Proposed Required Proposed
Front/Lilac Drive 35 Feet 35 Feet 0 Feet 16 Feet
ROW
Street Side Yard / 35 Feet 35 Feet 0 Feet 22 Feet
Golden Valley
Road
Rear Street Yard/ 35 Feet 35 Feet 0 Feet N/A
Welcome Avenue
North
Side Yard North 25 Feet 25 Feet
Access and Parking
Site access is provided with a curb cut off Lilac Drive North. The curb cut will be as far North as reasonable with grade
considerations. This will keep the access a good distance from the intersection of Lilac Drive and Golden Valley North.
Parking has been provided to serve the proposed building that exceeds City Code with 19 exterior surface stalls. An
accessible stall is provided in front of the building with a curb cut ramp providing access to the main concrete sidewalk.
The stalls are 9'x18.5' and adjacent to either a concrete sidewalk or landscape areas to account for bumper overhang.
The drive aisle is 24' in width. An emergency vehicle turn-around was not perceived to be necessary since the building
and property is surrounded by three public streets.
Landscaping and Tree Preservation
Landscaping is designed to provide site character and blend into the surrounding existing tree canopy. We plan to
preserve existing trees that fall outside of the grading limits and provide 4-0 tall fence and earth berm screening from
abutting residential properties. The project will have a proposed planting schedule which provides ample landscaping and
screening for the site. A landscape plan will be provided prior to building permit issuance with approval from city Staff.
The types(species)of new trees and minimum size specified will meet the City ordinance and approval of the Staff.
Grading, Drainage, Utilities and Stormwater Treatment
Proposed site grades, drive aisles, parking areas, utilities and stormwater treatment are addressed by our civil Engineer in
the preliminary civil documents provided.
Watermark Development Schedule
September, 2018—Application to the City of Golden Valley
Fall,2018—Building Permit Application
Fall,2018—Begin Construction
CQvu.vu.erc oil,Dra-ftCv.2 avis{ govv.e Des%�v
Dedlcat%ov,to excellevvice
Phb�a 4 4+eVHO'& Se4liPr �IVI �1
COMMUV141 O-F [;-id ley , MN
Y
U °
O c g o U z.y•o n a+ �'b ..,....� z Z m
LL c 3 � `u w n z
u .,c c � �v � =
E
> ti,S .Qqz�
Go V o m a °�'� $'o '�'G c W c m zg LL z
�S oc
h .G.I W N W.c 0
ao Y c c p>^ .� .F .. •.,w-..-.,: -1 � E o
(nam ce oz m" m
E E g z _
~_ N H� c��o N a•5 v.oz H X50 ° O �D y4 -6E
CO a 6ov�ayyN oo � c o og� �
Z 36 ai ca.„ O
�5 ° a'5 Z na mz
z 'c�
m
Q IYi :- E v' :a v rn m S? e
eW OzS v .. E>''3 ��u 3 J 0�3o ma II m N ��Pc� cu E brn
> Q 'S o 53 � $ S� 0t a° ° °$`oa V w "�5o w ! ci w m
Z W Q ` v
y Y ,�, ,S S L E D'0 � n C `li A C�•f„ � C.4 LL N F W E 1I II P II 11 11 11 �11 A• , N
!n Ea rn gy�a� v°a �5 � � 0 y $ V £� E � 3=gee g U tL” � o -IZzoN E
O N C7 q +y. o v4 C7 E m m v a," .� m o ._ '. c -
W > J °o'C v � °5 cs.5 o 0�' E.Su � a a'c m" uS° 0 > °! E LE S �c0> %
_ 'o �m'rnoamom�a
OC) Y au 5 v.F ac Era $z.�r. .�
M c 'O m�
Cl) S f- Uur1 m'SW a °31 m Ctm• m (7y��c wlo s
m V v m o$nr
c
Oo
- cn
16
N
Q o
v
cif
rn w �� 2
O U—
E z o
w N
>+ O
J
w 3 � �
C N
J ® � I � III
I iilli
6107'VA09 d0 2N/71Sar3
_-._._._._._.__�___._._._._._-0089 -_-� _._._._._._._._.__._.__._._.__._._._._._._._._._._._._._-_._._._._._._._._
` 00'000
I`
I I \
ON
•`♦ ^I� I 11/' i ^ as O
@ \ &
� AS - y wnrv,n Meio.e
m
I _
Aa Hyl l l ° m _«n e \
a �N 5
\ I Nm 1��� i wrw„,�ela.a «».- �o Ao �m \ oa\ ;3� -$--e,3}---------
CS
15—
`° M,49.04090 N I$\
p � �
v
e n - --------A------moo---
------------- ---
-- --------
-7 n o
,: "g � (� � ,co
. - / 'i �
9/ ON O
' / 09,91Sl ON
003 I $ A\ t
a�Ir�Prcay i' cD `«m W-15-1
� •a Y� sN \ � Pom
va -
� A\
-, Z8 NZM«6L I l 1.00S
_ ✓
Ad�.60,6, �$ Aa �,'N '9A V 9WO.?79/14
—.-.--..-.-_—.--_a-'--<-.c--•--. Y `Qj /
€ $ wW+H•At JlJ.9 rry wu wu \\3 �l �wt
" m «� MF—« �^ €«e€—« «.—«.— . —«r'I «a—wrv—ww—kw—Iwr—.rv_w�—«a—ww—w.— — — — A�«�\�x�� � ✓
------------ a
A A
-----------------I-----------$-- �8 81-------------------- ———————
$ � U
zo0
z
w U
c..s
z
Q
J
W
F-
U)
z
O
ih
w
ro �
a
u z
J ❑
J J
o
z Zm
z 11Q
Q w w w Z W w
p a p r r- -i ❑
na ' was r (D Q a z O w
a w aJ 5 wjX� ZZ W� y zx(nQ Wpp� co z
qaq y 3 C9�as1- �aQ�rOFw-�O z L--> =mD OOQ z
J U w K.6COD222wwafxo WU ZR JZ>=ZFFQ_d'�xxo $o
o z o ��UFOOQQ��zOUmzL�iW WW ��iaQ.Q Uzw$MOM
r 57 F > ZO W x- > >-QQ Q—O> LL
to W C7 mUoocno��o�Uoo LL tnoo�02c7U0o(n d'a000
N w w ww w ? �, OOwwOwoOwOOWwOwO OwWOwO00wwO000w
w a x cn cn cn cn cn cn O cn cn cn cn cn O�
U G v E ZZOozozzoZZooZOZ ZooZOZZ-00ZZZZow x
U a O Q W w =F-aa�=Q- LLL-F-aah-aF=-haar=ar=F-F-aaFf=F=-L=am �<
w oo-o- _ oo_o__o0_o_ Oo_ O2 Z
^ Cn cn cn cn COfn fn(n cn Cn(n (n fn In Cn fn(n cn fn O r
ry O °0 (J } U1 � � Z S2 wnfofx XXafX�wafXxX X��X�XXX��XX X��� Z W W.O
O 11 m z w w N — 3 J N w wwaawawwaw aawaW WarWawwwanwwwwaZ o5WT
_ W,�
r N < N O N ++ w UI !U- W ��J r U (J d W (Wf� W-M
O Ory < ry ZNa tOsaF- � � aNr � � r v nAA $ ', 7 -:4 �i;P-9� ®®Y-1 ,i�O-� 0Q£3
Wzz & z Wz w � g z � � � � 8 � � guri ui
J I � I �_ � r >
N J � Q2 Q � < 5 W w0D `OOZ � ? ZZZir
>> uJ > L,i wu� a, Wa Si$ acgv, � $ cgcg ? mcg
Z z J J o a a
Lu 9 > 8 > � w LL
Cl) CX�OOO�JOCXG
W Wp $Ur W W
Qa' p� N /h �T 1f1 fD f� aO Ol N
7S w a }ZZ
a ZWg
.._— -_---.---_ <z I E
_.
_.- o z
0 w>- A
U Y LL t
f
5- -
-..-
--
:D
N anljp orpl __ --+ O CO a z
.i O Z af 0
1 ^
it
\
-----------` \
W
- � `
w F
C Lt9
T
,N.
% LaL U W Z
ii o Q
91 oh,
b V. WJX Z J
.asa r .o.er 7.,1 "^.. I w d C Q
w OZ
z to
w
� w
W (�pp
g
___�_�. \. S a w
•N 9y?"-IAV nmosYaM rc
--' --- -- - - ------ --- - .L
0
was a
\,
R."
M W 7
Z�1 Fw" mQ
QTOz fj
F
` >3
z
uo G
Zo ❑
��
www
�Eo
=ma
m
� U U
W
O � U
d-P ueld a35\dV0\V Iq�15\uldauua4-LL-9LL�Z\FeNns\:j
U
OLLO
U w Z
V o O ru N
£o t/'� -_' �i nrni`�'•g cgi o o 0
O 11 S O
g a W° W ° z� � „ Z
3 w ~
ox Amo^ Zyae g w U) w� Cl) Q
o c7 o c~i¢ °� ?��O Z w m nd v J Z
gg w o a
o rF v W—< v2 a o� > £ W �0 Z O U W J
4� a a a>� 06 0
$ �no > oQ �� a E e u E _ F O O Q O
Q a N ch e ~ U O �' d.'( Q do a io ,n Q.' LLI J J m m'" N: r� ,2 Z m } W>Z Q W F- �-
N���Um� a s " �t a�� z o z g z MW�WU o z z
cn o �, - w 0 49 o a J O
N LL D o W U)M UNa m~~� 3 W0 = O LL O of
a U d O
LL p W p Da v a o Z WJLL F Y
o z 8 Z_ Z �..•, ' R i zp= F- h a w :Z:)W- W (>
Q z Z t �° w 3 OJL O O 2 D O ?J J O (7
N o - $ DDD D D D D D C7�wD D D
LLU LLU www w w w w wD� w w w
Z OfnNLL ONwLL Z r ,1�. Fw-. T C W O
5 b�n =b�, m m w 5 0 000 0 0 0 O O=woo O O z
B aaaaaa as o aaa
Uo�" � � < U ~£ m' 000000 00ma.r000 r°�
LL9 w
5� I p aaaaaasaa asaLL�ma_ aa
oo O '1 a
Z WNaoNd8 W $"�' Sgt IL�O Q8 cOOO Z
N a ~ w m 76 a0 C) 0 (1) j
0 N U lN d ~ + O
z ' #� � � F-(D O
65j
W F- S >
Q r J w w o�
D O w W O�
a e o W°� a O Qa a p w o
a
F w " FWr-ma z m Ir zz Sa Z�
ow
a jr-�D�wZZQ= H= O W��Q Wp>
o o WOUm(='oa -cwi��g���W(rz w z ~Jm(=7=� Q- $�
i Swg �A i N rU a O OF-Z(ncDm��Wxcrwa'a'U2 U Y JZ> UQ w 00
w� F-ZEZm�O�OWW~WUZ=WZ Z�JJ� SZF-F-�
w a g OJO Da F-F-F-Q O�UwW z�QJQ wU-F-F- W
�� w� z O zo U�UF �u� �pzUm )WW OR EDF � a�UzcnSw
A Y A c�rn Y O Z O D F
as zo w Q }aQ ¢_o>
cn r- U L,_� � Y UDmDUDDcAD��DDUDDu_DF- rnDDD2(9UDDCA�aO
02 8 to g w �N J owow(Dwwow ow owwr WO Ur W WUr WUr Ur Oww Vr Ur Ur
- w (9 (n (n 0 0 N O U O (n fn O O O O
Y zW U2 o9 Q z0ZOZOOZOZZ0ZZ00ZOZ ZOOZ0ZZZOOZZZZ
W 1 aF aF aaF aF F aF F aaF aF 1-a aF aF F F-a4.F-V-F F- OF
�Ow §> ww WOToOooUoTToTWoo�oLQ WOOTOT -Oou)000 z
om w o> 4a � a O x�x�>Z�� � � R��x�x R��x�XRxW�XRx>Z Z� �
> a0
U) U)
Z wawawaa a a waawmw waawawwwan.wwww N�Z
zp 'o< w 0 W o I I �' �' OW
Ly�1 LLJ F-w ~ /� }
l p W Z O x Z V v m n n - 3 "a I ..,_,.4 '�'< f s:0®r'. a
wug O aD ~Z O J I I I I Y $
O Y w
t g` BNS C m
u'5) mORm Mo
f �s — ?><wCi q
Wp MV or;
W� I IL�¢ UURQWy
p N
M O I „ -,-- — - _ — g
G _ YS
m
z's m rnw
m v
-�m Z(o
„ co u
H
�• O o0
• �c
t 'R q
_ _ Of tL I W Z
OCKw
W W co J} U)wz _
LO N IJO 7el'l �.--� 1 _ Z d2 O w a Z
P co8
< a
006
22OZz
...< - -.
C � � 006
F-m W w ' - -BSB �fl� ass 006
C3 0
i Z ZOy O ._ --�B66 g� M Off M M
co 00
o� O0OZZ
IXIY� I C6 Fm „ F gs
d a'
W W
/1 0- JOS�B o 2q l
,(y I n
t \ \
r $ xb a
��_ •—•--,� .� � w w I 'S!'. ,`� " is se. OZ.S 0p,,'_„—v 'F.,, �` ��` �'" \\
-'A Z �� Woe ��7w„ 0 --61L. lip6 -- ,.a�au W D <
co CD
�( co co
" Y
Of W
m 0 --. ....:, H \ '\ d V w Z
zz � ;� � � 2
W w 7 ` $m� W > >
Y O eS �,. J
4, 20 J " z
a�° w
ao m i
� .
00 ,-669 W OZ
* W W 'BB 888 Cl) -i
o D O In O
� o `o O
w =
�
-069
• i
o •N anUgAV awOVPIA
w
n
a LL
w ro
a�
�>TU
f
a
pzz o
USO
°u]0.
woo
oma
m
U
" &npveld e6euieip+B B-IME 10VOW 101 n 614euue4-LZ-BL L-gz\Ao Ml:d
r U
w °z o
ff w U
x
rn
o z
0-
z z
O
E
CD
is
z Z
O
Z m
> 0c
W J y za
W- W H U0OW W �w
LLI aF
I ? LLI� UWJ o�
D U W W WJm m0
IIYLU� (D Q a O to wHU �u
M LU
WF��II uu��`' ZZ U p?Z it zzz zU
rOv Lz<OwF-O >ci)< 02 000
C�C9«i1-U2 20f0f -�Z W Z I--J<::) a�F-XQ'W' $m
z`°mF3moog������afoLLjV Z�wU ZY �z>iz�H��=a���z o0
gwu-
5DW-F QQ��p�mWLL�Z�aQ< Q¢�Oz�W0000a
mU��cn��i�p�Upptipl c�pp�!O:C( 000 WaobDDDO
OOWWOw00woowwowo 0wwow000WwO0000000w
U U U u) rn cn U cn U U) U U) U) =
zz0Oz0zz0zz00z0Zz00z0zzz00zzzzzzzz0 �Q
H-Ha21=p-F-F-a.F-N(ldF-dF 1--LLd Ht1HF-f-'dal=1-F-1-1-HNHd
Z u�XnnXn'5�d'X a-mXo-X Lima- Lim w(9 O�F
UUOowowwowwoO(no�U)oO�O�MQ00TTLnw Q0 zW8
waawauawEiLLuc LLawawLima- wwww�wa bZz
�n
0
W I I I I I I U)
I
Wnn- � 8 - S � e�®®4. o � g � Aga^
o
0
M Zz�
rD >
....__--- -a
cn
o=;
Q�vC'46a U
w WY'w�
----a - U
°° 'Q- af W
0 � , _ -
_ _ $ .x..-__ �WW8
�.
LL
LL wrr:v>ti*'�� t
--- N anud oe117 0
_. F ai
o `
M -_-i_— _ _ _ v... -y•_ _.g� _._ ._. - 1
-1
- fA
W
UL
04
a
t .
-1 >
co
o 11
CL co
it II
LU LU Z
p�m� mU�ZZZZLL = L tw
M it II Y
m-4 J \\ W t1 C%4s���ry c \` F J
lw ma
w Z \� t LL>11 \ w _
QW Z \ OZ
C7 m _ 1-N
CI t
t- ---------` 'Q ~<
co
14�LO 00 OD
Co Co
o� floN cc0
.. N
w t � it
00 r oRc-, \ \ mUg»_ W pF
N� WU '.WW mc�CV ` \ •\ '. ', U�rrT T = � ao
Of Y co coo \` �; W — O U
cnp�p Fj> vOfu 11 W � xw
LL II i > W LLO N T'•.4 a U �- z
z (I 0o cn 0)(n o� -1 0 LL
xl o
-1951 ON i* U V co S C'4 r O W > >
a�uaPr6�/ tl 91 � N Q_ 1: '\' z J
T J
I�>I .: " • "o J U O
JW0z
0
z O v`ni oU
o . w
m w<
--— ---
--- �� t 6VCy 1Uw
U')
N—Mu—my QU OJ�9M
!.% ..•M UI.%M.7._ i vqy'+rnq o4fr.9 .,,,ry �.,C;.:r U _ _. _�'' 0'. W ..
ir
Qz-
C14 2
N q uo5-- e
- - - -
J
w' 1
wa�
x
wr w
OD
wNz �•-
NUS O
~OZ O
_ w Lj
\ LL z
z
UI0
U.O
m
-w"µ`
w�0
m > >
Z w
O Uw
Bap'u-id Am4movou,1G-6Xuldauua4-LZ-9W9Z4(-Im:d
� U
r o LL
z o
o w v
� w U
N Z
Q
c J
o a
_ o
z
W u° O
N Q
= m >
a
m
O W
W W
d N
GSL
� ^
Q N
m W
N W
Ql .y
F
n
0
N
J
D
Z W
N Z
•-1 e-1 — - - - N .-I N N - m
NLu
W Z Z w
73 w w
m U) w w
v '00 t: vo E 7 p C7 Q > w
Wu T-
> Lu Wwa ZZ CO -ZZ
O o N o N o N o 0.0 o rn N N N CL WO U) CO g W!!;
fV W N .M-i u1 H ti W M Oi 4 H 2
z m ry ry ti N C ry ry ry O SOU U)aa�wFWZ I-JQ�m1- OQ
C9(906)- )r>22x Www— w Z ZZQ<momw Ww
o O c c z �MWaOO�W�QpzO- ww w Z(D<-j HHZQZw?jw0
W m �, m 5 -(OQQ3ZOUmWL�- w(9(Do- ),<<�UQ U)O>a
A m Z `w a s mUDOU)D����UOOu 01- 6003�QT000Cv5M(LOO
a a m `ao a a a w C9gW,(W, wU'(7w(7(7ww(7w(7 W U'WWOWO`O WWO U'U`w
a n eo n a a a in IA v w ZZO ZOZZOZZOOZOZ >ZOOZOZZZOOZZZZO =
E L E o m o o 0 0 E E E 65 HF aw�a��aPl-aal-al- o r=aaF-al rr an l-FPr=a �Q
W Q w m x m S m z W W w U)U) (n U)U) U)U) U) U) U) U) U)U)U) U)U)U)U) o,
at wwwRXQ 00 O_ O 00QO w R wX00 O of R X 00 X XO
mmwmwula wmamw a'WaaLit M�i aWWW(L(MR—a 0z,zr
J 1 ' z
o
mo
zzp,
� �QZ'��X3
Z Lu a E
_ �0z
O W J E
Wz%
_
- — >>Z
N o <w
0020
r
_ . 1
r
3 tit
W
-----------
171 NYN
w �
q h
� 1 `
. \ z
W Q
0
n� Urz
�7 ga H = \e�`. S
�IX ca 14. �5' �" W J
W OZ
\\
Lo 0
,g a
.. .--y--�—•--•—a—••--�•—•--•—■--'—'—.�--_-=moi:--�—��.—rf—o—.--°"-y-""�i°"',,.'- _ °) .—•-., _»--•—•—»--•— »--•—t—•— Q
O
x •N anuan y aurmnM�4
:1,86,
ENull
e Brnp ueid uogemmwd aail\GVH\V P noB\uidauua4-LZ-9LtO09mmr �j
10,0i0'=OL u�,1d1'4'�S
3c4V:D9C1NV 1 PUP 3119
' 00 /
0�0-al I
I r
I z
y
1 A
£1
43NIVW3a
Ll I O133Xa
I I I 9NI191X3 I
pllvd u i I
Imo•' IN3do
I � NI8V9 ��"`
NOI1VMLlIdN1 1 1
ca9odoad ell 11
li. -- � ----
OMI 51"'
I --- 11 I E
I III m
91 .I�JIN3 I I
I I I NIV„W I l o {
604-a3noO snolna3dwl wnwlxvw
EIQ ZI® z I= d'S Z8L'61 •va6v 9noiANa iWl Wnwixvw
I A I I I m 659'9Y•a3/\0o 9noiANsdwl Mol
r ,lll TI017d 3JV O D -
m 1F E z 3"S 844'81•V321V SI101/J3dwl lvlol
-( r o 3woH 'dwo�
m El IA ry 'd'S 090E•ollvd puv�IvmaplS alanuo0
° Q390dO�d A m I •�•9££l8•6PMSAI14 puv 6ul-lied zleladeV
0 1 I 1 1n •d•9 49z8•vs1V 6ulplln9 Ivio1
D
O �3 IE ala]y�� L1 IIT I�' a3noo 30v=iNnS 9nolnaadwl
I N O ,lV'f� O(T11 I I II %O£•�43AOO 9N IC311n9 wnwlxvw
£l I Im
�� fS 89811•VaNV 9NI4lIn9 wnwlxvw
66'OZ=NaAOO 9NI(mm lV101
z 91 g `-IUt' •3•S 5968°VaNV 9NIalIn9 1V101
a
1 I I 1 " "9 49Z8•6ulpling vldloupd pseodold
WOON I z1 I i `2SaA00 vwn-ling
a39Ia
Alm
(vl6'O)'3'S£94'6£•V3NV 101 9906")
I 11 .lVfR3AILIQ 4NV
1 I SNOIlVIn�IV�vaNv 3119
101 VN�*avd 1 1
I 1lVM 9V I
41 I 1 '41314 NI 9NOUVOOl ONV 931111NVn0
TV."tZ!GA 01 a010Va1NOO 3dVO94NV1
I 910N
I 1 1 1 9/9'V10„9'E (VI10:0N2131nV 9nNNOO)
z 9/9'VIO„9'z (300MVO4=1V31 31VNa31-1V LL
0N3 I I I 9/9'VI0„9'E (V1VInouabi vvNIa.l9)
„9'z OVlIl 33a1393NVdv( 91
/ ' I z -MV113331Hola C91nV1N301770 VrnHl) 777
Y E 9/s'VIO„9'z aVa3O 311H11 Na3H1aON
I L1
71V113341H913 (VOnnv V3OId) 41
7E 9/9'VI4„9'z 3Onad9 311H01 '��''
30N34Ovnlad nnvl 0-9 1 � I 9/e'v10„sE (earnu-iro wnasna
d I ZS'Gill M „1J1,8i, f g N l E a/s"vIa„sz a3ov) 3'1dVW(33a E1
I r
�A z 9/a",o,(:,„9'E (WfINIaVHOOV9 213Z)V)
E 9/9"VIQ„5"L 3ldVW a3n119 Ll
SW002J 1S3n� HZ '£ z s/9 VIo„9"E (aonmis 9nOa3no)
1 S31?1015 Z/I 1 39 Ol IHID13H VNI(37in9 'Z E 9/9'V'10„sz Ivo 311Hm dWVOM 1
'd'9 OOHS
I (3WVN OI311N31O9)
o 'XONddV IV NMOH9 1N1NcJIOOd 'I I %U0 3d W3Z19 3WVN NOWWOO 'IOGWk9
i •SaION 19NI011119 a-incaHOS VNIINV"Id
I
I
ook311VA N3<3109
mi 0
saiins aNvo
C33:)NVHNS >NVWN31VM
u N
aCtvNjD CIaSOcEONc!
011b`d
Z'S68 £'668
1137 ATM
a
.lzl1N�
NIV'W
Q3SOc4ONC4
�9 a�alno�d Najd
IDNlaaNV WON=i Na>lal
9NOI.LVAa-l3 aCVNID)
(aC3VNr-) a9VNaAV)
O'868 = L .l9
C3CIIAICI Z'S9Z9 = 6168
+ 8'868 + Z'868 + i7-L68
+ 6'668 + 6'I68 + 9'8S8
:NOUv-lno-1,dO
NOUVAEM
�N E3avV�iz-) aJDbNEIAV
sar��
6'L68 8'888
/l3'f3 '/13-J:;
ookSlIVA N=ICIIOIV
:iO
gaffing aNv:)
C33:)NVHN3 >NVWN3IVM
w.� f+oIIOA usPlOID'&AIJO will Z ��
':)-M '.1aIIdA N3(M0V D II F (Q
I 1 4QJ � O �
�O JJ mwwoo Y U = o N
c a �NI/�I1 NOIN39 �FZ VWZ!3.LVM S; F�a
N �
Z
soIQ -4
X Q ° o
dap- ZLu �jjaU
� Ww � z � � N
Z - d)
a 81L
ru -4 Z == u. z
tu W z tj O � � s
—
Nu0 �
o � wooID
� J tL cr) z cr) I
N (i N
O a aa `vaaa
a
LU
U
U4
001 )..VIMHIVIH
l�
3/UI4 X11 � a _
p-P I a 1 _
z
a V \
0
WIL
i
\ 4 =
_�
Q W 31I I- - ��vnaoie313a7N07 a 0.�\ \\\\ \
IL
\\
Wo z �l Q µ \
W U!
_ � I �� O
0 (KOZNw0. Vu H
Z U-
\� \\g\\\ a, \ d)
3 �
----------------6*------
W
------------------- wovniad Trol oti---------------
L_ 1 ie•oez m „bin oo s
=0 8
�yma
N 3nN3AV' 3WO013M t5
- - - - - - - - - - - - �
\
LL LL \
4 - a � LL NNLLRrv�t
f
pp p pp O O p pp j LL epN� p � \
�d dd as a dd ad ,;
o So no � o� bo uo � m � >m +3'o •u�>
c an inn nn ek b nn no �1 'o °� � o� ES �tt
GGG❑111 �.� am N.; .�3� ,�o .r.. Na gtl �� � �u�> um >au�>a3
XX .
_ �rc as 3� 4o as
��°OFs
rsiwn-OPIOID'—IJ4 vvll1
r '7-n „J137T9INSM
0V
=io uwwwooa dmVHinn aoirSs >NVWl=wu�v�
S
„o-,ot
4
.. ...............................
n ff2 09%f1Qll
v - �
;....
` �O
00
.......................................
! !
I
4
—
F
e egg � c
i r
o�
!4i d
w
vi 4
Q •! �: LL
tnf O
9
3 F N W
..MM W JJ
cq
Qi
u
U
I
......................... i
Z O
............................
� I
� •o-,6
I
4i
Q......................................, .............m.....� ._....._ V
O ...�.. .....
N j
„o-,te
u `
e� �O 11NfWW07 OrL1910,,
IDNVII NOIN39 >NVIWZJ31dm
N
4 ,o-,oi .F,oi V
irc o+xnaii
IL
V
X
#-A0
MCA ><
m � H
Q Q
a'q
�E
/
0�y0 y
of
r \/
.64
V m as
p O U
LL
Oa
LL
� Oo �
as
4 � �
z
IU a� .o.+ .o-,+ r
o bo
IIK o+xMQtl IIK o++fMGLLI
a
„o-,u
,o-,ce
Foupn VvuI g
:40 kiINnwwoo
4
� o� 4
:::::_
Q � Oo
�dO�
,71,—11�
4 -
,P,E
m
cq P.4
�g Ul
N
d
H N
LL
W Q
Ov
L
n;�
j/X -
� O LL
WFom
� Oo
og
8
9 E
4 � p
o �
� 4
_.....
.............
FI
W W
O O m
4
m
„o-,se
W 114 1
Ih'1•ph•Ih•1' 1'i11'Ili 1+1°1'1111
IIInt 1t1 I� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII_Illllllllllllllll) '
1111111 11111II111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII'II
1,1,1,1 11,1i41,I,1,1i41,1,
h4'i+4144' 14hh44't'I1i44
44h^Ih441 !44444hh444 I
�i�yi�iiyi�i�i� � ------- li■1i'
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■■.. i•11P6p
1'1'1'4'1'1'1'• 1'1'1'1'141 II'1'1'1' ..■. ■1�.I
141,I,I,I,Irr 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 � Mo IN 1�1 111
14444'• 'd144444''''''1 111'111��
I'1'1'tl'Ir 1'141'1'1'1+1'1'1'14 i�,
1'1'1'11!
I'111'l,111'l,111.l,111'l,111'l,111't,141'l 111.l,11/'l,141'l 111 l',111 l,'111,'l 111'l,P11 l,„11 l,11 ,',,..'.,,�'•'1'+I I11II',111l!,1 1r.._—........�■�■■. 11 -- 11,,1,1111,,1,1111,,1,1111,i1,14114,,,1,
1■i.�!r�lel•ll!!l1lI
1IIIIIt1111I11111 1 u: 1 1111141 - !I
--
1 1 1 r 1 1 11 1 1
— — '1'1'1'1'14! 1.r.'11111111111 111II1 i. =:o= ���■■� 11 -- -- 1111■1. - !-.1111 -
111■1[11111111 1 — 111■ ■1 1 1111111111 11 1111 I 111 - 1 11 1 11 1 11 1 1 1 11 111 �•-���'— � t°I�•• 1'1'1'1'1' "•mama•-'- mama I,■
1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'11111'1'1'1'1'1' �Ii''j•'�}'�j1'! moi: ,1, - 1 1 1 1. - - - y 11 11111 1111 11111 :-.. - mamamama ;■
-
I'1°1'1'1'1'1'1'1°1'1'1'1'1'141,1 ,:S,aEE_EE EE■E iiE?_ia ■■■...
■■ IL•1� �'
1, 1,1,1 - EENNI mama
III 11 1 1 11 1 1.1 11tiH mass ■ ■
1111'lll'14'1'14'1! ll, _____ ,I
jtjtj1�1�1�I�1�1�1�' --__— __ 1'11.1:�i11: '_ II' ,�..•. .,.•.■■s■:.::F:.. a■■■ I•■
'''''''''1''4''111 ��'•' 1'1'P.•• —::�: �IIII ..NE .■■■ ,■
11111111. I - 'I' : :...■■■.- .■■■ '. ■
t4'144',41r 4't'l4:u: ...■ ■■.■ €1'EEE■:. : :
mama.■ .... i Y. t:NEVE ::: :
�4
.. :;I ool;:.i1:[s .... .
r III((IIIIIIII 1 1 1 1 1 1 ...Elp - h!,.:.:
111°1'1'11 �mama: • '1°1'111'1'1"• i:ii 14,11, r ra........--'- alEif
1111 EEEE ''.NI 111111) 11 E■■.":":`- ii:i
if
4441,• •�....; .... •I .. 1A14444"di hh44 ' ::::ss � II'L,
1
I,I,I,r �..... .... r1.. . 1'1'141'11,1°I`Y 1i441,Y,•s - - uu ,;!11 1 ��....- .... -I.. 1 1 1 1 1-I 1 I I 1 1 1 - E..... i 1a;e NONE ■I
.E■O E
1,■i
1111•. �..NE: .... .. 11111I�1' - 111111 I
.... 1'L,.r °14141111�•:11,w 11,41,111,1,,e- to...N..:..... EENE I IIS`EI
111 1 II III14711. 1 111111 _--
1141,1,1,11 — 1111111111 1111111' - - Ilio:'
111111. 1144444x144'4'1' I '1'1141'1'141i1�-� .■
111111. 'j-,T'j' 111111N11111 I 111111 IY I - Lc11
11111,11 � 111111111111 , I .
1111 11 ,1:,1 11,1,1 I I n 111111 I 11,1,1,1,11 11,. ................ . •I,
1,1,1,1 1°14h � 111 1 1'1'1°All'141'141'1•. I 1 1 1 1,,rr] 1 1 ,r1 I'I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (I I I IS- 11 .1�; ■
11114'1'141'1'14141'1'1'1'141'1'1 --,I:� I .1'14141'1'1'A44'1'1'141'1414111 1111'1 !'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1',1,1,. II _. 1.!..1,111
',,,',,,',11,',',1,1,1,1,1,1,11,x,1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '�r�i���i�!r�i 1141414141'1414'14141'141 I N11.1
1i4111,1,I,ui111,1,1,1,l,lrl,lid,l,l,l -!II QI '1l 11111111111111 '' I''
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1'14141'1'141111,41 • 1 1 1 1••"••••1,1,1,1,1 I M I III I:�!•b'L!• 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L... II•II II
�14j14�1�1�1�1�14�1�yy1�1�1�1 'i4i4i'ili�i�i�i�i�i ---====',d4 ��'Vl!V1!'I ' i4i4i'i'i4i'i'i4iti4i4i'i4i4i•. ::::� Il;lgll'
f44�t�14�r�14�14444�1y4I I'r I�1�AA444d444,, X41 111th 61111 Lhh 1444444444444444 ........ _II!ilil�l
I l l l l l t l l l l l l l l l l 1'141'111'1'll'llx,xl ,1,1 �ijl,!I'll'(!!,irq 111 1414141414414'1'1414141444141 T-.
,441,1,1,111,41,41,1,41,I,I 1 11/1111111 11 L1 I:_I1 LII ,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,111,1,1,1,1,.1,11 .... I - II•If
• 1�1,1,1,1,I,w,1,,,1, 1 1 f 1'Il' 1 1 1 1 f, 1 I I'p�l■I
1'14141'1'1'f'1'141'1'I't'141't'14 I l d l l l 1411 '6 N.NN
11111111111111111 41'1'14111111, ,1,1 111.... :1.11 ,1,1,1,11j1,1,1,1,1,1 .... j Ir1p
fee 'I,I,I,Ix I,I,A,1,1,4, 1I
ON 00 IIr 1111 111111 �LI:I■■
1 I l tl l l l� ,—�1 1 ■ ■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
dA4444444444444hh4: - - 'i4i4i4i444nh4,4, ,yl 1 00 111th ,Ii4441,4n,44y1 1 �pls■
1!1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1- --. . 1 1 1 1 1111 1 :EEEE 1 1 li EEEE Ili 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1�:E■
111,1,1,1°1,1°1,I,Irlrl,l,l,l,l,ll I ■■■■■I 1 1 1 1 I 1 R 1 1 1 ,
E■....�4141 '...E L I,1,1,1,1II,111111,1111 p. I•
h 1111 111111 I
1,1,1.1.11 Y.1.1.1.1.1•.•�� ..�' 11,1,1,1,1,1,x,1,1,4 •NNE.�" illi I'i '1'11 i 111111 I••.■
rrl•P1.1'1•r1.1'1 ...
11 h1•■'1'f7.1'1.1:.:: :• � 414'14,'1'1"1'1'1'1; :••••X141' 1141■111.1■111.1■1 I I 1 1114,1,1,1,1,1 i�!-I
on.
I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ::..�.u■ 141'144141411414141' ;...N X 1 1 IIII•h•lil•h•I • 11 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 � !
1414141'14141,1,1,/:-••`__'": 1111111111' _ 11 II 11 ,1,1,1,11 j1i411,1,1 B �11:■1
414141414111441,E 1 1 111�,�,�,�,�,�, 1111 I: 111 IIS �f 1111 14F41414�II 1 Illi Id
1 1 11 1[1 1 1 4'14111 I n l l 1' 1'11 � ■ ■ 1'14'141!1 1 1 1 1 '' ^IIr I
,44441,41144 II- 114111'1,41,1,1,1,, ,41 .L_1n.L.In.L.111111 141'1'1'1 tll{,444' I 1 (III
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - 1 1 1 1 I r 1 1 1 1 f �•i;il!
1,1,1,1i41,1,1,1, 1,4414141,1,11,1,1i1 4111 --jl �' 1141'14'44444'1 :ENNE'I E■EE f I•I o I
:::i !1I■■.
1'1'1'1'111'1'111+ 1 1 11,41;741,1, ..:..�:.�: 1 .1111 ,1,1,1,11,1,41,11111 �I ,■ N
1'1'141'1414x1141' � 4'141'41111y1,1;,::-:- :I,1 'SII 14441111414414,1,1 :L....I .... Illi N■
f444'14hh44i4'''''4i'i'w;!1.-= I•IN
III I
p. i :
11141411,1 ..-..:::•:!14 I`I 44411'!i'fli'iti'i I. �III:'1y1 I
11'lllll'111411j4 -- '1111111'1!'':�: . � p 1'1 I;!!'A 14141'1'Ij4j1j4j4j4j' II ii!IIIII'i
1.1.1.1.1.1.1•°.1 • i i i i!• :--:--x•oo■■.E��.i i h�.�i 11141 it�i i i i i I, : IIIIIII
1,1,1. :.-:�-:'EENE I�.I,I .... 11.1111 • 1'r'r'r'I',,F',',,1,1 ( iliLlil
1,1,1, 1. _ •....1.•1;1 .... 1,L I 1,4,41,''1 11111 11
11 11�\n:-:: :�E.■■j•.' .... I 1 1 1 1 11414,411 l 11.11•I• •
111 .-1::1:...0 1:�41' E■EE •1 11,1,1,11 1 d
1111 . _ 1 I IIT■ • 1111'1'141'1'
1,1141,'11 ::;111 111111',I,Ir/ .��::�::�::�ii: 1:!x1111:!41'1'1'1411 =::-::-:•-:r`:�•11 IhIII 444M1,4r!
':'::':'.�::��:■1 III. 1111111 ■'- '
141'1'141'1'■11 •_• _` _- _' '''1 I'1 1 11,1i411 1; ■_-■!'.i!:.;!:i!:. 11.11 11■I
1 1 11 1 1 1 � i:_i:_ ° 1 1 ••,I 1 1 1 1 41 /':--:-':�':•- Ilil
1111 I 1 1•. :..■_.■�_■�'.i111 119 I 1 1 1 I'1 ■•_■•- :: !a1
4111
11111 6 11 .111 •h� (IIIIIII! .:�::=:•�..NE I:.. .... IirIEEI
1'1 'I:i11•?- - -_ :_ I'I III' • ,,,,,,,, - • ....�:•• .... ,;!EEI
1
,
11,1,111,1. °,, --- 1 !.1' FI'11 /�"�.-��I:...E I;�I .u. •tl of
�1�1�t�i�i�i�1�, • ij1l 111111 ISI 11 I 1 EEE
M:ii
E !�°
� 4i'i4i'i'i4i4i4i4i4i' 't'4 -- 1•11 14''4'4'4 ;i��:?e:= .e::? ' ! Ili�i'�I'i
1111 11II 1111 11 1;1 ;,�;�I'1 1111 11 _� _• _• _- _• - 1. 'l
1111111111 1'11 11 .144'1'41'11. - ■!':I!�!'
41414141114iA11,4 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1. .•-.•-:•-:--:: rl'1.111
1111 11 4111 :Ea EE•1,11 1,1 1,1,111„1,1,1, ■.-■�-�.-■.-■.. 1■lil ■11
f44441h4h444' .....=44 41 I 1,41,4,4x141 :-: 6.1:11.1
L; 1111,11,1411441414141 ;E■NE 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, :? NO 111111 h i 1.
1,1,1,1,°'1'x'1'1i41,°'1'111'1'1 ------------ I I I I I I I I I L 1 1 1 1 1 1 11• 1 1 _- - i 1
111111 J 11111111111 1111 1111111 ..NEN X4141 !1; •'•' 1911- 1414141'1 I'1' Ito i Irl��l
1'1'111114149'14141'141'141441'11 141'1414144A414141! •EE■NI'1,11 ...IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII 41'1'1'1111111,1 i1 1:!NE1
1'1'1'1'''''!'''''1'1'1'1''''''''1 �:::i�� 1'141414II,Iy1,1,1,1 :....1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I Y 1 1 I ■
1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 111 1 11 I 1111111111 '1'I aN.E I 1111111 F4.1 1 I 111..■
1111 11"111 .... ,, 111111111'1111111111 11 '■..■
11111111111111111 ■.
ell • 141 .... ��■ 11,441111,1,41,41 I, 1. ..■
14141'141414441141! 4jlj EOEE I'I�1 1,1,1,4,1,111,1,1,1 , I1sE1
'h' Vi'i'i'41'1'1'11141 i1 Ili• 1:'
'1441414414A4'1'1'1'1'1414141'11 1111 114111 11 ll . 111111/111 I j-I!! !-
t4444'1'x't44444444'11 th44'144n4444' 44 Ib I. 1441,1„y1,41,1,1 q ■!1i.I■!1i
11111111111111111 X41,1,1141,1,1,11'; 11 I . '4'1114144444' 11 '� ''�I
44444111,1,11111,4441,1,1, . I l l l l t l l l l 1 1 III'( I.II 111.1
4441449,Ii41,1,1,1,1,1,111.. 1111 I,i1I1111111 .-_--_—...1141 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-I'll II'144'llllllllllll • 11 Ilil! �iili!I
1.1.1.1'1.11,11
1 1 1111 1 1 11 11 11111 III 1 rr'rl'1'1-11 11 11 1 11 1 1111 111 1 1111 11 •OEEN:11 O■■N !,IEE■
1144444°14444444444 44d1444114444444441
44yy4 .... Ip d1444hh41114 •o0 11 .■■. 6!..■
1,1i41,44y441,1,1i4114u. 1 1 11 11 1111111111 1 11 1 NNEE .1414141'114141,1,1, :NNNE.,I EE EE ■ .■■
1111111111 4 1111 4 111,11111111111 • 1'141111114'141 •••• Ir1h' 11 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 •EEEE I EEEE fill
'14444411444'1'1'14441'' 1444444.1444444444441i44 .... •Q1 44111u444444 :EEo:h EEo 11• o■
•. .Ij 11111 1 11111 �EN NN�! 1 I
"Mal
1111Ai�i�i4�i�i�i4�I
111111'1�' jl•hl, 1'141'll'1'1'1'1'1'4 �Il I r�=1.:'
I I I 1111111 !1'1'111111 J _■III'IIIIII�_ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11.! I�I�I�II�1�1�1�1�1�1 �1� I
41414141'1'114/' NNEE E.M• • �11�1�1� �i'i�1J•L'•111111 R 1111111111 1 � I•I ISI
1111111e�.... .... 11111 4II ■■ I,, ■111 1■1111 III■
1'1'1'14',114 1 1 1 1 11,w,1 ■■;;4441,1 .... j�!■ .,41,1,1444444 II h 11•I II
1,441,41,1.• :ii. .■.. 1111111111'141' �1�1�11.::_ .... 'Pi' 11111111,1,1,1,111, II I�i11Iii111
■EN. ■■■. :l���r'.ca- ::��
,,'''�.��;� I■ ::.';..-"._!' :No !111111'1 141'1411411.11 I:;y1;1�A11A1I�;A1 f�11 1'r�11
141'1!,: i' 14441,1,!X1 ■■ ■-:1:-1 .........11 1'1;111'I,1
11I'I,1,1'1;4'4,4'4�
11jlj..A-'F- 1444'11 441 I■■lir '111114111111111 1 1 a 111114141141911 „•�._- ,IXIXIXIXI,IXIXIX...IXIi41 h 11111
4 .61
1! :c:.■: 14441414e111i�F .o-9 II : 141,41,44°,1, 44441• 11i!11G!,
r ...:■■■ ��. 1 1 1 1 1 4711 1- ::�C7I.I! ' . ..•• 14t'14141414t41'1'1'14t'14r1 IIIIIIII i� L,
'::-■•I■ 4444111 tl l+��::'::--.-. �■■■.■■■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 x 1 1 1 1 I,IcI!LIrII
14'14 ..._- 1 1 111;P ■■ '1,''1;'''''1''1';4','• ii IL ilaii
111 11111 11 r' I 11111111111• I._.. ...
1411 1'1'1'1'11 j111 1111I11111114111r ■.NN '■N■■I
11 • 1�1�1�1�11 Ix IX41,1,1,1,1,1,41,1Moon NE Em■I
,
1 a 14111 1 ,1,1,1,1, :'1414141141 14141r _ _ ..■■ I IEEN1
1■
14, 1'1'1'1'1' '111'1'1111'1! ::�_.■_.■�'.�� s.s. 4•I.E N1
111111 �_i:ice "im- 1'1'1'1'1°•.._..e:.e:.e..• EOE. �II.N.1
:mom Iilirri,i,ilili,illrr_.. .!.o ■! .! II fll�lll�l�l
:MOM Ono=Mono.. C:C. ;lif11
ill!;I+Hill,
��ME
•i:�:e7 ■■------!-- I;illl�ll 1✓iII�I
111111'11111111111 I 1% h
111111 x 111/111111 11 / . _;I',^:■O.:�;�? .... s:ei
1414141'1414)'1'141414141114141411 1111, - 1 1 -- ! ----HH
.... m■ix ■
1 1 1 1 1 11 1 11 11 111 I I 11 -:^� ,y •1■■■.--- .... ■1111'
'i11'1'1'19,1,41,111,1,1X41111 '1'1'1 _ ,■, Qj�-1;�^: :� ■.1:� 1�■ N■
''11111411111411141'1'1'1'1'1411111 1 41'11141•i: 1 �II -..-. NNEE. .• ..■N I 1!■�■■
1111111 7 1111111111 I' 1111, 1,1 L NONE • - EEEs IP�';,i■■,i
i :_Luo: :; o0 1.`•..._..._....
t�4p�4�1�1�Ip-1�114�1�t�1�1�1
i i i i i i i i i :i:: II' h44444i1 �iiiei�i:.WE.=.2-!=.5 i•�I���1
XIXI'1,1'I'1711111111111,It1,! N.N. i 1 �1�14�1�1�h1i4'1 1,':^�:-�:;■s E:?;: ��il�li!Illih•
i i i"I",i i i i i' :::
1111111111111111 I 11111 11 I VIII 11 '•
iiiiiiiii
WRITE!. _i!• 1�1��11 °�1Y it = -- -- -- - I�:I!!I�I•-II•
444i4i4iri�iijl4, -II I�t4�ii '::ei:5::5::e::ii I;IIIII!I�Ip1;l
' 11111111111 I ■NNE 111.11
1 111 1 X 1111 ■NNE 111 11 .... I•II•II■1•111
14A144d14444141 _ no
1j4jljljlj p4j1j4j1j1 ■EEE 1 1 1 1114 1'll. .... �111!yh 111
11111111111 .....■ 1;-I,,1Y 1 1.!.1111.!,•Ip:
141'1'1'1'1"1'1'1'1'1 ■. 444 1 111, •••• .�'■I:.
___ 4�11��1p11 ..N. II�1�llh�11111II�
44411't'n'1't'1'1' � - 144'1'1444 . I�I1II 11;111 q,
44444444441 ■■■■pp ,4444444 G ISI ul
IIIIItl1111 1111,111 �
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �,hl:FlII'SII
144444°144'11' ::::::: '1'1'1'1'1'1'1' � 4■IJ�,1.1J�,y
t 1111A 11111 11111111 �
444�111a44411 ,,,,,,,,,,, I�y'14�14�y'1 p 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111�:'I'i!ll�:'I'i!III:'I
1.1.1.1.LM.1.1.1.1.
n 1 1 !
I
• 1 I n -
•
1. ' .1 I • I ( 1
1
„
,1
,1
=iO .kiiNnwwo:) 5
a E VNIAn JOIN3S >NVWw 017m S"
M> LK
o
baa go,IL
%
/
J� r
/
1
-w^
I ^ Q
I
U �
� I U
I
„Alis-J1 M111s-,11
I I I I I I I
X I I I I I I I I
Q „L£/5L OI-,5L w O
u
IL
�i QQ ml ml ImaA
I i
I I
I I �
I �
I (K
j z4
i W
j U
LU
j N
i O
A�
i u
i
i
i
w ,r
` I .
" O
� � M
> a
.1a
{ i 2
h
s
1
iy F
3
1n. a
c
t
LI J 1
L-4—
,41
— ,4a Ir
Page 1 of 1
r .
e�
t
yd
F tJ
�— https:Hi.pinimg.com/originals/e8/87/4b/e8874b4l65ae535f6306d7f374b4560b jpg 12/13/2018
•��tl��.�e7..+�6�+�`M�y:t'iii wz'�„'l'�5 M"��':. ... "!�7��t
s T�.ry.��. M • J...5 3. �i ,P�`_ ` t. ikY
X14
,
� y gg 1+7• 'a w•:
y A
"Fffi�5i' JRA, a1
"� ~ ` •Y'�i { `/ ^A i .�'T •`fie$. '°.r��""�^y'AF•a '�'^�h �`�
r
r _
' #'
1 Nom^ yq:♦ ",,, !'.'�.r. 7K'a &�C `` '"e T� '•4 r,
Ike
+rl
I
t { +�. 1 - •I 'q 4.r `V ¢'' �'j y',c� �as �y•«
tlf. f w .r 1
'M_w4•' �� .�� �p, .d r 4lysA/ r � iC rr�.
� r
++�.. 'a:gym - • ,f � ,� '�r� a' r._•/ � - •s/:' x""gkCan.
'LI 4
��;�.. .w\r r.w� .�, t � Fy;,^ 4 � 'l tl��'�. a' nut• � �-a...
1
uj
ru
ci
xx All!
XI
=3
--- --- its
Ln
2 so W!!!
2j VI�I Mi�S +
+ + +
d IN NDN cif
oz
Qyg I QQ�I
o6
U)
C(l))
,Laq
91
Umw DID
co
(q r- U% cz
06
cz
Of
q ca
..........
Tuo
.4,v v V" V" DI VD v
L,v
P.v 4. N
v v V:
v v DV 4
0 4 4
4 0 4
L v 41 �v
.VD IL v DlD. DV. CZ
vcz
4 0
cz
777;
CD
0 U Q 00
V
cz
LU
CD
ch
Ln
- g � d)
ui 4 1
L
Lu LL tam.
ui
a - 1 5 a 0>,:
Lu 'n ui
CD
LU
,or 0
Photos of • Avenue-Golden Valley
R• . • 1rive-Xenia Avenue Neighborhood
PhotosDecember 11, 2018
r
IN
t N •
•.a� ' .,2. +Cit p'p
�I
yF
µ
ri. ``•A�"moi 'I��t Y�N�. 9 � � t ��' Cyr
�..._ .,
aw —or _
Avl
lei
y• �) i
x` ry Y
/ 4
il' f
� `� '.�`:'>#!; �`� ,ick �, ' �•;�`�
IL
.; Wefa !
1
,� aI
Z
f
b
�Oh O
V
M ^d
4-,
O N i
y O
GL
o O
3
v 3
o
ami a�
� •cw
c
w UZn
� � v
v Q 0
ami o 0ri
U ° o oto Cd 0
V1
c� 4, S cd
l
>;
> 00
Cl
v �
° Cd a Q j
a�
N
H A L 3 > m z N M k
L
\
L
�
�
'
,
^
i
n
1
L`
� S
J
S
-- •-+ N N N N N N N
ECFIVE
DEC 10 2018
Dear Golden Valley City Council: BY.
The Golden Valley Planning Commission has been entertaining a proposal for several
months for a memory care facility to be placed on a residential block of Welcome Avenue, near
Golden Valley Road.(It is the 1500 block.) The plan will be forwarded to the City Council at its
next meeting.
My concern,as well as that of my neighbors, is that the plan will place a large health care
facility directly into a solid residential block,with no regard as to what it will do to the character
of the neighborhood.
The effects will be extreme. This block of Welcome Avenue has well designed and
tastefully executed homes in the Frank Lloyd Wright's Prairie School style. There is no tract
housing on this block,or anywhere in the vicinity. The health care building will be an affront to
the architecture of the neighborhood. It will also shatter the peaceful demeanor of quiet city
block which is hidden away from the rest of the city. With many of us in the over-40 generation,
we should build single family homes on the vacant spaces, so as to attract young married couples
who want to raise families. A health care facility does nothing to advance this goal.
In fairness to the people of this neighborhood, 1 am asking all City Council members to
personally tour Welcome Avenue and also the Watermark facility at 5400 4th Street NE, in
Fridley. Seeing a map of these areas or a picture on a website does not convey the real
appearance of the site or make one aware of the severe visual destruction which will ensue if this
project is approved.
Al�
l 62�?zlr
From: Celeste Reilly
Date: December 11, 2018 at 11:52:04 AM CST
To: "Harris, Shep" <sharris(a)goldenvalleymn.ov>, <jclausen(ugoldenvalleymn.gov>,
<lfonnest(a)goldetivalleymn.gov>, <sschmidgall(&goldenvalleymn. ov>,
< rosenquist(cr��goldenvalle)rnn. oy>
Cc: Celeste Reilly
Subject: Rezoning Welcome Ave N and Golden Valley Rd
Dear Mayor Harris and Esteemed City Council Members,
I would like to bring a few items to your attention prior to the meeting on December 18, 2018. I live at
1325 Welcome Ave N Golden Valley. I have been a resident here since 2003. My husband and I moved
here to have a start a family. We got more then we bargained for as we not only got a wonderful home in
a nice community, but the community in which we live is more than just a suburb outside a major
metropolitan area.
The residents in the Welcome Ave and Phoenix neighborhood area are neighbors, family and concerned
citizens,we ban together to help each other when in need such as in my case after my husband passed
away unexpectedly in 2017 and I didn't have to worry about lawn care all summer and several meals
delivered to my home, and had many visits just to make sure myself and daughter we are doing well. But
its more than that its watching out for each other's homes when we are out of town, picking up packages,
or mail, watching out or caring for each other's children, having National night out for the past 20 years,
or impromptu gatherings in summer when we see each other on walks in the neighborhood. Taking care
to watch vehicles and people in the area that they belong to the neighborhood to keep all members young
and old safe.
That being said I also would like to address some things that have come up with the planning commission
in the past meetings and point out as well that at the last meeting in November 2018, even though they
said that they will recommend the change in zoning to you all, I want to point out that one member
abstained as was not convinced this was a good idea and 2 voted against it again for the second time this
issue has come to the planning commission.
March 27, 2017 meeting: (from meeting notes on Golden Valley web site)
Zimmerman pointed out there was property there where the Montessori school was and inconsistency
between land use and zoning. The property is guided for low density residential and is zoned
commercial, so he would like to hear The Commissions feedback on what THEY think would work on
this property? At this time the only inquires for use were commercial use per Zimmerman reply to
Segelbaum. Waldhuser said this property seems like is should be residential of would be nice to put a
park on it. Kluchka said would be great for a yoga studio. Walhuser noted that it was a hair salon for
many years so maybe if the city has a smaller scale commercial distract that might work or a small-town
home development.
(what I get from this statement is not a large building of any sort as would be out of character. Keep it
residential with town homes, or if commercial a small scale would work. Also,the idea for a park for
residential community.)
Also want to address the already approved projects for senior housing this year:
Under construction
Global Pointe Senior
5200 Wayzata Blvd
New 98-unit senior building with 68 assisted living and 30 memory care units.
Schuett Companies
9000 Golden Valley Rd
Construction of a 102-unit senior facility along with the relocation of the Schuett headquarters to a ground
floor office
Completed
Talo Apartments
5100 Wayzata Blvd
Construction of 303 market rate apartment units and 125 senior living units
98 102 125=325 for senior housing with 30 of these being memory care (295 senior only)
Proposed:
Residential Facility by Retro Companies,Inc.
2429 Douglas Drive
Construction of a 2-story residential facility providing 24-hour care to 22 persons on a currently vacant
lot.
Add this in 325 to 22=347 for senior housing
These are additional to the 33 units at Meadow Ridge memory care at 7475 Country Club Drive built in
2015 and 34 in Sunrise of Golden Valley and 20 at Covenant village(all of which were discussed in the
Senior housing analysis for 2040.
With those added in we would have a total of 117 units currently for Memory Care alone.The 2040 plan
stated that they wanted to get to about 146 memory care in the plan and with the proposed Residential
facility on 2429 Douglas Dr. the city would be more then well on the way to their target as we would be
at 139 memory care units.
In the 2040 plan evaluation it was stated:
Senior Housing in Golden Valley
As of December 2016,Maxfield Research identified six senior housing developments in Golden
Valley. These properties contain a total of 776 units. Of the facilities that are not in their initial lease-
up period,there are 32 vacancies resulting in an overall vacancy rate of 4.8%for senior housing
developments.
Table S-1 provides information on the senior market rate properties and properties with public
assistance. Information in the table includes year built, number of units, unit mix, number of vacant
units, rents, and general comments about each project
Memory Care
- There are three facilities offering memory care services in Golden Valley. As of December 2016,
there were three vacant memory care units,for a vacancy rate of 5.6%. We do not include Meadow
Ridge in factoring in vacancy rate due to the site currently being in its initial lease-up period estimated
memory care needed by 2025 would be 146
This also indicates to me that we are keeping up with the need for memory assisted living and adding to
locations well suited for them in areas that they can thrive in which is so important.
In talking with my fellow neighbors and looking at our community in the Golden Valley Rd and
Welcome Ave N neighborhood none of us are opposed to helping the memory impaired have a good or
even excellent quality of life where they live.
The fact of the matter is that this building doesn't fit into the size, styles of homes, and residential use of
the area. The zone yes could allow this but is it best possible use for all in the area.
This community has many families who are active in their yards,walking their pets, or going on walks
with family and neighbors in evenings after dinner. They can walk to the grocery store; the kids can ride
bikes and walk to friends' homes. We have a community garden, we have a community that cares when
someone needs help we all step in to assist. This type of senior living where the residents will not be a
part of the community that is already established here,by the admittance of the builder and
management company,due to the fact that they won't be going outside,they won't be able to go on
walks or interact with the community. Sad as that is with the aging process just proves more how this
type of residential building is not part of what this community is.
Golden Valley City council has also stated we need to allow for more families in area and more
residential home. Why would we take 2 out of the three lots there already with homes on them tear them
down to put in its place something that doesn't fit? Think of families or residents who have stated in the
past 1-5 years moved into this neighborhood?Who have said how welcoming,how this was the draw for
them to come to Golden Valley and not other communities nearby. We are supporting what the city has
envisioned for its comprehensive plan and feel that leaving this truly residential homes not multi-unit
residential would best suit this particular lot location.
No one is opposed with senior housing,but we truly need to make sure that it's not at the cost of other
housing as well. I feel that Watermark came in the back-door plan with a plan to buy out the lots and
residents and put in an investment property as one of the owners said in the commissioner
meeting. Investing in lining his own pockets but, not in the community! There are much better suited
places for this to go in as we have seen approved and in process as stated prior
The planning commission had already once stated in the May 30, 2018 meeting this year how it didn't fit
with the area and homes here, all that has changed is that it's not 4 stories, but it still is a towering 2
stories above any other residents in the area.
Excerpts from May 30 2018 planning commission meeting;
Baker noted that other applications have very pointed sets of criteria that have to be considered. He
stated that the one that has always struck him as compelling is maintaining the character of the
neighborhood and said even though that isn't required in this case it is something that can be
considered. Zimmerman agreed.
Johnson referred to other proposals they've discussed where the height and massing's effect on a
neighborhood were considered. Baker added that a result of the subdivision moratorium was to reduce
massing in residential areas, so he is trying to apply that same thinking to this situation
Johnson said if you don't have commerce you don't have a city but it is ok to leave these properties
zoned R-1 and go back to what it is designated in the Comp Plan which is Low Density Residential.
Segelbaum said they have to consider what they believe is best for Golden Valley and thinks it has been
determined that locations that are appropriate for single family homes should be left as is and areas
that should support other types of businesses should be guided that way. He said he thinks R-3 is too
large for this location when he considers the impact to the neighborhood
Pockl said she thinks leaving the properties as they are makes the most sense to keep the character of
the neighborhood as it is currently. Baker said the concerns they've discussed lead him to conclude
that he also opposes the proposals.
I ask if you were to live on Welcome Ave N or Golden Valley road would you want a large hotel looking
building towering over your home? Or would you want residential homes and new neighbors that you
could interact with? Enjoy conversations with, have over for dinners and BBQ? Celebrate National
Night to Unite with.
I ask you to come and look at the site talk to neighbors in the area and see what your constituents who are
living here have to say and think. We want to live here and grow old and be members of this great
community that we all have worked hard to build up with each other. It is a small town feel just outside a
large city Minneapolis,and we would like to keep it that way.
Thank you for your time.
Celeste Reilly
1325 Welcome Ave N
Golden Valley MN 55422
ORDINANCE NO. 652
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Approval of Conditional Use Permit Number 162
5530-5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North
Watermark Enhanced Care Suites of Golden Valley, Applicant
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. City Code Chapter 113 entitled “Zoning” is amended in Section 113-55,
Subd. b, and Section 113-88, by approving a Conditional Use Permit for certain tracts of
land located at 5530-5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North, thereby
allowing for a Residential Facility serving up to 25 persons in the Single Family (R-1)
Zoning District.
This Conditional Use Permit is approved based on the application materials and plans
submitted by the applicant, staff memos, public comments and information presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council, and findings recommended by the Planning
Commission, this Conditional Use Permit is approved pursuant to City Code Section 113-
30, Subd. g, and adopted by the City Council on December 18, 2018.
This Conditional Use Permit is subject to all of the terms of the permit to be issued
including, but not limited to, the following specific conditions:
1. The Residential Facility may serve up to 25 persons and must maintain appropriate
licensure from the State of Minnesota.
2. All vehicle deliveries shall take place on-site and shall not take place on the street.
Scheduled deliveries to the property must occur between 8 am and 5 pm on weekdays
and weekends.
3. An overflow parking plan must be submitted and reviewed by the City prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
4. The exterior dumpster shall be placed in the parking lot and screened with an enclosure
constructed of material compatible with the building.
5. In order to mitigate visual impacts to adjacent single-family homes, the applicant shall
work with the City Forester to complete a Tree and Landscape Plan that provides
immediate and long-term screening and visual interest for the neighborhood to the west
and north. This shall include a variety of coniferous trees planted on undulating berms
between the building and Welcome Avenue, a variety of shrubs and perennials, boulder
outcroppings, and foundation plantings.
6. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or
laws with authority over this development.
Section 2. The tracts of land affected by this ordinance are legally described as
follows:
5530 Golden Valley Road - That part of Government Lot 4 in Section 28, Township 118,
Range 21, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the
intersection of the centerline of Watertown Road, now known as Golden Valley Road, with
the East line of said Government Lot 4; thence North 200 feet along said East Line; thence
West 180 feet; thence South to the centerline of said Watertown Road; thence
Northeasterly along said centerline to the point of beginning. Except Road also except
Ordinance No. 652 -2- December 18, 2018
Parcel Number 430 as shown on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way
Plat No. 27-105.
5540 Golden Valley Road – That part of Government Lot 4 in Section 28, Township 118,
Range 21, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at a point on
the East line of said Government Lot 4 distance 68.0 feet North from the centerline of
Golden Valley Road; thence West at right angles 180 feet to the actual point of beginning;
thence West 80.0 feet; thence South to said centerline of road; thence Northeasterly along
said centerline to the point 180 feet West at right angles from the East line of said
Government Lot 4; thence North to the point of beginning. Except Road.
1530 Welcome Avenue North – That part of Government Lot 4 in Section 28, Township
118, Range 21, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at a point
on the East line of said Government Lot 4 distance 200.0 feet North from the centerline of
Golden Valley Road; thence West at right angles 180 feet to the actual point of beginning;
thence South 132.0 feet; thence West 80.0 feet; thence North 132.9 feet; thence East 80.0
feet to the point of beginning.
Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled “General Provisions” and Sec. 1-8 entitled
“General Penalty; Continuing Violations” 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 18th day of December, 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 City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
4. F. Public Hearing to Vacate Right of Way and Utility Easements at 701 Lilac Drive North
Prepared By
Eric Eckman, Development and Assets Supervisor
Summary
The public hearing for this item was opened October 16, 2018, and continued to the December
18, 2018 City Council meeting.
As part of the Planned Urban Development No 114 Amendment #3 approved at the May 1, 2018
City Council meeting, the property owner is re-platting the property located at 701 Lilac Drive
North (see attached location map). The existing parcels are being reconfigured to facilitate the
construction of the future Damascus Way facility.
As part of this process, the existing public right-of-way and easements involved in the plat will be
vacated. In turn, the owner must dedicate new easements on the final plat. The locations of the
new easements better reflect the current and planned locations of public and private
infrastructure in the area.
A notice of public hearing regarding the proposed vacation was published and posted and letters
were sent to the affected property owners along with the proposed resolution. Staff sent a letter
to all private utility companies and public entities having a potential interest requesting their
review and comment, and there has been no objection to this vacation. Since the easements and
right-of-way are not adjacent to a public water, notice to the Commissioner of Natural Resources
is not required.
In accordance with state statutes, a four-fifths majority vote in favor of the resolution is required
to approve this easement vacation.
Attachments
• Location Map (1 page)
• Easement Vacation Exhibit (1 page)
• Proposed Final Plat (1 page)
• Resolution Vacating Right of Way and Utility Easements at 701 Lilac Drive North (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Vacating Right of Way and Utility Easements at 701 Lilac Drive North.
.tai 0
State Hwy No 100
State Hwy No 100
MIN
J _DB1 ---
! CL
� tQ
m c
° ° 10 , '
IE f
e OIIu�
W !' O I o
CO)
N any aueZ
i
II
EASEMENT VACATION EXHIBIT FOR:
TENNANT COMPANY
I
I NE CORNER OF —
I
--TRACT E,
R.L.S. NO. II t---•—
10 FT
I y, n nvi� ✓
,makV'
II I
I n n1T �Ibi I
I IN1 t1v 2200 I I
o r s�S I
INGRESS-EGRESS ESMT PER
I ` DOC.NOS AND
UTI IT ESMT
I " 8975
.I I DRAINAGE AND UTILITY ESMT OVER
ALL OF TRACT E PER DOC.NO. 1031441
A PUBLIC ROW ESMT OVER ALL
I J I — -r A t OF TRACT E PER DOC.NO. 1478756
`// �' t I MPLS.GAS CO.ESMT OVER ALL OF
Z p TRACT E PER DOC.NO. 1094766
NZi Z I
fN t
I W J
nr
W
I
z 1�
Q I � N �
V) v
I aJ
1``W d'
ETY EXTENSION OF
SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTH LINE OF
I TRACT C. S8*2 41.E I TRACT C. R.L.S. NO. 11
I R.L.S. N0. II PORTION OF
1 I r I EASEMENTS TO
��lJ✓ I BE VACATED I
I 3,971 SO. FT.
I ^ o J EAST LINE OF THE
li 1 Z WEST 25.00 FEET OF I
I J I 7 w TRACT E, R.L.S. NO. I I
N I SOUTH LINE OF
3 i� io I GOVT LOT 2
NORTH LINE OF
2 I GOVT LOT 3
J SW CORNER OF SW CORNER OF S T
LOT I, BLOCK I TRACT E, R.L.S. NO. I I SOUTH LINE OF
TRACT E• R.L.S. NO. 11
25.00= ,-
S89'27'04aE
I
I
I
I
I
NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE
OF STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY N0. 55 ~
WEST LINE OF " 7�•HIM
W.5_
�//�cc) 1
_GOVERNMENT (STA 7E HIMWA V"�'"
T. 118, RF SEC. 33, I o
�LSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY J "
I
l
T
�__CENTERLINE OF STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 55
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS 6TH AVENUE NORTH)
EASEMENT VACATION DESCRIPTION
I hereby certify that this sketch• plan, or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and
That part of the Drainage and Utility Easement as set forth that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the
in Document Number 1031441 and that part of the Public laws of the State of Minnesota.
Right of Way Easement as set forth in Document Number 0 60 120
1476756 described as the west 25.00 feet of Tract E lying Dated this 14th day of December, 2018
south of the easterly extension of the south line of Tract
C. REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 11, files of the Registrar SUNDE LAN�EY;�jLSCALE IN FEET
of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
By----- ----- -----
Arlee J. Carlson, Minn. Lic. No. 44900
JISUNDE 9�1 East Bloomington Minnesota
y(350)•Suite IIB
Bloomington,Mlnnesot0 55420-3435
952-881-2455(Fox: 952-888-9526)
20D9-127-G T.118.R.21,5.33 2009127G Esmt Vocati—dwg JMD LAND SURVEYING `A/` .sunde.com
ZQ M ��?h h�PT
7F SSH VIZ.. >F�—I '-
Mb
a
3 r�$- �.gJ N `� `� J 3 I m i� 3`.N '6v�'dr'd: •s: 1:35 s %
c4 Ln
Af.M.z.00S ;?-•I $,m„ (,C Q S,p.yl l � (PpN aNd) (ra14 aNI) o_ ;v
�r9 -Yi BLF ----- r•-; l__ I s aOO 1/I 3- sl •035 c H
♦♦ ys >a o 1 IaOIB•I lo, C��� w $g�g i g M w,ll.00s 1 I .Bs�sa,00s
V U F F o F o _ `-A0 N 15V3 NV / /`` 1� VJ_C o(V I L ieeZfz f II eB �
�` _
0 � � �� �' � �� �� /�i/( �}+�r �S;` z e9•BIo1�W ccilcl- I -,J`s I
�m \ q 'Sc (` 311' i
• O ® B ® % dyr'p m 3� '2 `� 0 I I�•"? ml�'e�o� PI
i\ ybmoyR;� � v }oy C��� 006 8W 12
eMR
HT
V \ $ 1J`' \ e+y ('� Q- Za�l� I I uR �• --__ `In
m t \I 3.zs,zz.00N _zs,zz,00N _
I- .E ~ • a"•-$$..,,~L`�! w • Z9161f1 LS'61[I :r M,BY, LOON
m 101 -----1'14 18 i�
\ 10�,• \g \SOY'� zM
/ �AS O -�g-5-9
-6
So - e'IBZB-zc1- 60,099a
Z, ecm
B - - --
7. w .II,IZ.00N M,4►,B►.O-
ONm W 3 -----_
UI
l
ff x
leb
Gil
- \Y
o c1 I01 ell
0o I
L4 m J 0 yy ZZ N
`A* J 3 O �JO mp H>U
pQOa
;
Col a tz-a'6Z'1'61 '035 dO •s
O ;_.______ CO __CL'ZICI 3wNN3A0O!O M.1O,I LOON-__ 1 a i 108N -11/1 MN dO 3Nn 153M
Di 1z a B11 1 VC 3S dO z lo,
1N3Nn 15Y3 \ 31
_T9B'ZLZ 3,fO,11.005 __••�\
rs�
SfZLZ 3.10.11.005 "�/ _. •.------ ---------- _ ;:t:/l/// _S,> I ---- -lz a roll 1 CC
M„Z�,/f;00S r "' ' ' ;dam-------- O3s"o C 10,— = AG 31���i + II- FS69F Al 0/*0 /OS x
g I ; I I 1 �O 0
8b1 ( t3ry +IN Oaon lY,d-/ dpi
I n, 8z AYM 30 114OBI loaNw BeOZ I / & 0 9( J
I F I ,3OWd dO Min AlN31S3M p I C J / g n rl b �l•C I §01
ZZO
g o 3 333 �E
101-LZ-ON 1Vld b'� I 1 W �1 U
AVM ll 1 10” 1`' I I G ; \Q h 8 C)Z
O .10M.401gR1- `
O 3Nn AVO 1 I �'1 2 > CO b 1
IJ,cr 10,1,Aoo AIDFl
1 I x Zd 0
311111OOS3K'3Nn
c> -I - c -
9L --1 1
C) I i < =——— 1 ———— -,rte '1 ----------
I�
C W Ioo,a I lo,-�
O c O I Iry !O 3Nn 15Y3 W
CP
a I Cj r10
a� \ ° 'n
0
`r> ��� �",
� �j, �y• I i �C�j oil• I I \�\� ` �o � (�I ^` I �
� I
z
^ ------------ -J���111 I 8'
W
------
�J I I •.
3„ZS,lZ,00N -=
Kal
l Itro I Z N O ----- —I
IM„lS,lloOS oou0z----
I
_C V Z S1O1 1,AW `
!0 3Nn 1S3M 3141 I 1
N11M',hard 3Nn
allRi
— ———8L'9SY 3,t/r9/.AON —
�_ -II 'ON—'SI'H AAO 3Nn n�j o
170 le-
00001 -' ��`7--}I- 11 CC a
00. 0Z 14 1/ I 7,141 n, z ;
M.z/,9/.00s '' �iN„Z/,9/,OOS � I--9 s -
” u I I 'ON•S'l'a c
Alm
�i�jNiO3NnAIQ
lisN �>
� I N�
\v ° tl I I S.T.
I �
eo 3Nn 153MTO
L _ q
of 3„7/,9/,6N ------oo ------I
z 8bt $ 6I IZ'a'ell '1
g —————
Th�._ --—————---——————— ———— J 'CC'O3S 10 C 10,
,I ON 01 sczcz -- — -- _ 1N3a3AoO I
_- 'SY3w OO'ZLz 3,ZS,ZZ.00N __ -- -- -- --- _
dO 3211 153M
Z5'L/O1
ZS
3N ls,al,oow --- L
M. ,ZZ,OOS
N LJ/ /1 A/ LGZBBB0 111�w$Y3
r Lyv/v A1nLLf1 OW AVMOYOa) A I A v 1A ry 7 OO'Cf
-- `\ ' r/ver,r 3.Oz,CZ.6B5 3.BI,c LOOS
`-Iz'a roil '1'm'335 io 1 3
z 101 1N3wNa3A0O dO 3Nn 1S3M
8
I I o 3'12
n
31
I I o
R Z
N 1
I 8 J
I
�all
y
l
RESOLUTION NO. 18-90
RESOLUTION VACATING RIGHT OF WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENTS
AT 701 LILAC DRIVE NORTH
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, pursuant to due notice,
has conducted a public hearing on the vacation of certain utility, drainage and right of way
easements on the property commonly known as 701 Lilac Drive North, legally described as
follows:
See attached Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”).
WHEREAS, all persons present were given the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is being re-platted to facilitate development; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the right-of-way easement over part of the Subject Property
is considered excess property not needed by the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has evaluated its interest and use of the property; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the vacation will benefit the public
interest because the vacation is predicted to foster economic growth in the City of Golden
Valley and, on a greater scale, the State of Minnesota benefits by the projected
measurable increase in tax revenue and general prosperity.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Golden
Valley that said drainage and utility and right of way easements located in the Subject
Property and legally described below be vacated:
All of the drainage and utility easements over Lot 1, Block 1 dedicated in the plat of
Tennant Companies PUD No 114, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and
That part of the Drainage and Utility Easement as set forth in Document Number
1031441 and that part of the Public Right of Way Easement as set forth in
Document Number 1476756 described as the west 25.00 feet of Tract E lying south
of the easterly extension of the south line of Tract C, Registered Land Survey No.
11, filed of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 18th day of December, 2018
_____________________________
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
Resolution No. 18-90 -2- December 18, 2018
EXHIBIT A
SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 18, 2018
Agenda Item
6. A. Approval of Plat and Authorization to Sign Amended PUD Permit - Tennant Companies 2nd
Addition PUD No. 114
Prepared By
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Summary
At the May 1, 2018, City Council meeting, the Council held a public hearing on the Preliminary
Plat for Tennant Companies 2nd Addition PUD No. 114. After the hearing, the Council approved
the Preliminary Plat which will modify the exiting PUD boundaries in order to remove the future
Damascus Way property from the PUD. The Final Plat has now been presented to the City. Staff
has reviewed the Final Plat and finds it consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat and the
requirements of City Code.
Attachments
• Underlined/Overstruck Amended PUD Permit (3 pages)
• Resolution for Approval of Plat Tennant Companies 2nd Addition PUD No. 114 (1 page)
• Final Plat of Tennant Companies 2nd Addition PUD No. 114 (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution for Approval of Plat - Tennant Companies 2nd Addition PUD No. 114.
Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Amended PUD Permit for Tennant
Companies 2nd Addition PUD No. 114.
Tennant Company - P.U.D. No. 114
City Council Approval: July 15, 2014
Amendment #1 City Council Approval: December 18, 2018
City of Golden Valley, Minnesota
Use Permit
for
Planned Unit Development
Project Name: Tennant Company P.U.D. No. 114
Location: 701 Lilac Drive North, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, Tennant Companies P.U.D. No. 114
Applicant: Tennant Company
Address: 701 Lilac Drive North, P.O. Box 1452, Minneapolis, MN 55440
Owner: Tennant Company
Address: 701 Lilac Drive North, P.O. Box 1452, Minneapolis, MN 55440
Zoning District: Industrial, Light Industrial, Business and Professional Offices,
and Single Family Residential
Permitted Uses: The PUD Permit allows for the consolidation of multiple
properties into one parcel to enable inter-campus connections.
Components:
A. Land Use
1. The plans prepared by LHB, dated April 25, 2014, and revised July 7, 2014,
submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permits for construction within PUD No. 114, the
applicant shall submit a final plat to the City for approval.
B. Construction
1. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memos from the Fire
Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated May 19,
2014, and July 9, 2014, shall become a part of this approval.
2. All signage must meet the requirements of the City’s Sign Code (Section 4.20).
Tennant Company P.U.D. No. 114 Page 2
3. The implementation of the fire access restriping shall be completed by
November 1, 2014.
4. The three Priority 1 items in the Fire Protection Plan shall be implemented by
November 1, 2014.
5. The three Priority 2 items in the Fire Protection Plan shall be implemented by
November 1, 2015. A financial guarantee shall be submitted as a guarantee the
work will be completed on time.
6. Bicycle racks shall be added to the site and shall be secured to either the ground
or a building.
7. The Applicant shall evaluate options to access the Luce Line Regional Trail, to
increase usage of mass transit, and reduce automobile traffic.
C. Grading, Utilities, Access and Other Engineering Issues
1. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Public
Works Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated
May 23, 2014, shall become a part of this approval.
2. The Applicant shall construct surface filtration (rain gardens) as part of the
walkway construction authorized under the Final PUD Plan.
3. The Applicant shall install a stormwater filtration chamber within three years of
the of the execution date of the Final PUD Plan (July 15, 2014). No later than
three years from the date of demolition of the first building located in the Tennant
Redevelopment District and identified in HRA Resolution 18-03 or by December
31, 2021, whichever is earlier. A financial guarantee security shall be submitted
as a guarantee the work will be completed on time.
4. The sanitary service for the buildings located at 5738 and 5808 Olson Memorial
Highway shall be brought into compliance by November 1, 2014, or the Applicant
must enter into an I/I Deposit Agreement for the repairs prior to approval of the
PUD Permit and Development Agreement.
D. Subdivision
1. 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.
2. The name of the final plat shall include “P.U.D. No. 114” in its title.
Tennant Company P.U.D. No. 114 Page 3
3. The name of the amended final plat shall be “Tennant Companies 2nd Addition
PUD No 114.”
It is hereby understood and agreed that this PUD Permit is a part of the City Council
approval granted on July 15, 2014 and December 18, 2018. Any changes to this PUD
Permit shall require an amendment.
Tennant Company
Witness: ______________________ By: _____________________________
Title: ___________________________
Date: ___________________________
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
Witness: ______________________ By: ____________________________
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
Date: ____________________________
Witness: _______________________ By: ____________________________
Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager
Date: ____________________________
Warning: This permit is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances,
regulations, or laws with authority over this development.
RESOLUTION NO. 18-91
RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT - TENNANT COMPANIES
2ND ADDITION PUD NO. 114
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Golden Valley, pursuant to due notice, has
heretofore conducted a public hearing on the proposed plat to be known as Tennant
Companies 2nd Addition PUD No. 114 covering the following described tracts of land:
Lot 1, Block 1, Tennant Companies PUD No. 114, except that part thereof lying East of Tract
E, Registered Land Survey No. 11, Hennepin County, Minnesota and lying Westerly and
Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point in the centerline of State Trunk
Highway No. 55, distant 478.53 feet East of the West line of Government Lot 3, Section 33,
Township 118, Range 21; thence North parallel with the West line of Government Lots 2 and
3, a distance of 658.69 feet more or less to the North line of the South ½ in area of that part of
said Government Lots 2 and 3 lying North of the center line of State Trunk Highway No. 55 an
South of the North 272.35 feet of said Government Lot 2; thence West along the North line of
said South ½ a distance of 139.25 feet to the Northeast corner of Tract E, Registered Land
Survey No. 11, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
And
Tract E, Registered Land Survey No. 11, County of Hennepin.
And
That part of Lot 1, Block 1, Tennant Companies PUD No. 114 lying East of Tract E,
Registered Land Survey No. 11, Hennepin County, Minnesota and lying Westerly and
Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point in the centerline of State Trunk
Highway No. 55, distant 478.53 feet East of the West line of Government Lot 3, Section 33,
Township 118, Range 21; thence North parallel with the West line of Government Lots 2 and
3, a distance of 658.69 feet more or less to the North line of the South ½ in area of that part of
said Government Lots 2 and 3 lying North of the center line of State Trunk Highway No. 55
and South of the North 272.35 feet of said Government Lot 2; thence West along the North
line of said South ½ a distance of 139.25 feet to the Northeast corner of Tract E, Registered
Land Survey No. 11, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, all persons present were given the opportunity to be heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Golden
Valley, that said proposed plat be, and the same hereby is, accepted and approved, and the
proper officers of the City are hereby authorized and instructed to sign the original of said plat
and to do all other things necessary and proper in the premises.
Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 18th day of December, 2018.
_____________________________
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
TENNA N T COMPANIES 2ND A DD/T/ON PUD NO 114
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Tennant Company, a Minnesota corporation, fee owner of the following described property situated in the County of
Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to wit:
And
And
Lot I, Block I, Tennant Companies PUD No. 114, except that part thereof
lying East
of Tract E, Registered Land
Survey No. 11,
Hennepin County,
Minnesota and lying
Westerly and Southerly of the following described line:
Beginning
at a point in the centerline
of State Trunk
Highway No. 55,
distant 478.53 feet
East of the West line of Government Lot 3, Section 33, Township 118, Range 21; thence North parallel with
the West line of
Government Lots 2
and 3, a distance of 658.69 feet more or less to the
North line
of the South 1/2 in area of
that part of
said Government Lots
2 and 3 lying North
of the center line of State Trunk Highway No. 55 and
South of
the North 272.35 feet of said
Government
Lot 2; thence West
along the North line
of said South 1/2 a distance of 139.25 feet to the Northeast corner
of Tract E, Registered
Land Survey No. 11, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
feet of said Government
Lot 2; thence West along the North line
of said South
1/2
a distance of 139.25 feet to the Northeast
Tract E, Registered Land Survey No. 11, County of Hennepin.
That
part of
Lot
I, Block I, Tennant Companies PUD No. 114
lying East of Tract
E, Registered Land Survey
No. 11, Hennepin County, Minnesota and
lying
Westerly
and
Southerly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point
in the centerline of State
Trunk Highway No. 55, distant 478.53
feet
East of
the West line of Government Lot 3, Section 33,
Township 118, Range
21; thence North parallel
with the West line of Government Lots 2
and
3, a distance
of 658.69 feet more or less to the North
line of the South 1/2
in area of that part of
said Government Lots 2 and 3 lying North
of the center
line
of State Trunk Highway No. 55 and South
of the North 272.35
feet of said Government
Lot 2; thence West along the North line
of said South
1/2
a distance of 139.25 feet to the Northeast
corner of Tract E,
Registered Land Survey No. 11, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as TENNANT COMPANIES 2ND ADDITION PUD NO 114 and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use forever
the drainage and utility easements as created by this plat.
In witness whereof said Tennant Company, a Minnesota corporation, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this _____ day of __________- 20___.
Tennant Company, a Minnesota corporation
SIGNED:
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
its
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
------------------------,the-------------
day of __________- 20___, by
_ of Tennant Company, a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public,
My Commission Expires
County, Minnesota
1, Arlee J. Carlson, do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of
Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all
monuments depicted on this plat have been or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section
505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat.
Dated this ______ day of
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
20___
Arlee J. Carlson, Licensed Land Surveyor
Minnesota License No. 44900
This instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of
Notary Public,
My Commission Expires
20___, by Arlee J. Carlson.
County, Minnesota
P��,,imiN ARYVISioN
supj�c
GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA
This plat of TENNANT COMPANIES 2ND ADDITION PUD NO 114 was approved and accepted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota,
at a regular meeting thereof held this ______ day of _____________. 20__. If applicable, the written comments and
recommendations of the Commissioner of Transportation and the County Highway Engineer have been received by the City or the
prescribed 30 day period has elapsed without receipt of such comments and recommendations, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section
505.03, Subd. 2.
CITY COUNCIL OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA
BY— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Mayor By
RESIDENT AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES, Hennepin County, Minnesota
I hereby certify that taxes payable in 20
Dated this _ day of
Mark V. Chapin, Hennepin County Auditor
SURVEY DIVISION, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Clerk
and prior years have been paid for land described on this plat.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 38313.565 (1969), this plat has been approved this
Chris F. Mavis, County Surveyor
REGISTRAR OF TITLES, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Deputy
day of ___________- 20___.
I hereby certify that the within plat of TENNANT COMPANIES 2ND ADDITION PUD NO 114 was filed in this office this ______ day of
20at o'clock __.M.
Martin McCormick, Registrar of Titles
M.
COUNTY RECORDER, Hennepin County, Minnesota
eputy
I hereby certify that the within plat of TENNANT COMPANIES 2ND ADDITION PUD NO 114 was recorded in this office this
20at o'clock __.M.
Martin McCormick, County Recorder
M.
eputy
day of
ISSUNDELAND
SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS
25
N
1V
1
-I--- NW CORNER OF
GOVT LOT 2 OF �- NORTH LINE OF
o SEC. 33, T. 118, R. 21
U5 NE CORNER OF
<Z
GOVT LOT 2 OF -
w '� GOVT LOT 2 OF
/ SEC. 33, T. 118, R. 21 O < SEC. 33, T. 118, R. 21
o�n Z /1 /� Z�
NN L �� / 1 _� �l _ QHS c11
LLI
L0�- 7/ �' �, i� lel F o
C14 / ° LJ °Lam ° l V L/ ° = o a~ o
`VA POINT 1080 FEET n �
0 1 M o
o g
A, C14 WEST OF THE EAST N o
f I
Z ,b °000 LINE OF GOVT LOT 2- / L) 7 / / - r' �
80 0 80 160
,- 0 / // L_ �' / - �) V/ 89°05'45"E 1080.19 ------_,
---- S89 0545 E 300.19 _ L _�_
_ - -- _-----------------------------1080.00-- -------------------------
'
FFO 0 � � ^_ � SCALE IN FEET
' M \/v,L_L_ 4 4
SS/ 0 L_ L / 11 // V L / i/A
li RIGHT 35 - = 2'44 /E `'��/ / V/ V-- ^ �r /n / _ J_
0. RIGHT LINE
- /t-/'l/v / �� 27-/04
/L_ \, „
V
_ (0 O
NSP TRANS - � �
M/S -
IMI O PER DOC N0 7330242 LINE EASEMENT -J , o - 1, _
S
O
09
O
J
5
U
I
I � I
I I
i
�i)
B L C C K >
I I�
NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 1/2
NORTHEAST CORNER OF -IN AREA OF GOVT LOTS 2 & 3---\
TRACT E, R.L.S. NO. I I - � LINE HELD JLM TO JLM PER
S89 *2-T'48 i TORRENS CASE N0. 13026 /
--60.00 - _ l
3 • N89°24'34"W
cp0 (11 9.47 MEAS I/ 139.25 ��
0 0 N89 24J4 W
S89 °2348 "E-
136.28
Lo Ld
1/ I
OT \(�; o le -
LL' w N o �_ w M
i I Z O TL) �l /• T Q 0 y
1� W
�I J w
W
Z CYj
J 0
J
M
W
I / /
/_r
A SOUTH LINE OF
LOT 1, BLOCK I -
I
I ,
I ,
I ,
,
I
33
I�
/9 68 5� E
h�?I W=Z 00 N
_J I I w �
�� I MTC I >o�
0
D_O I �+ w0
O w
O=ff I �Y� I c� I.i O
00 0) I ^I zo =
��� �`�' z
N I.
Joo I O I <O
I W J
of :2 \ CJ
F-
V) 0) <
3: CN I oQ
Q `y I
U)
I I;_^J
�C V,
J I =
Q2
N88
0`55 16 141 I I l \ C. BRG. =S03°09'36 "W
A POINT 33 FEET 9 84 IL �� I << C=57 47 "
WEST OF THE EAST �� `J
LINE OF GOVT LOT 2--_ I �C A=4 /0 58
---- R= 787.40
-- -L=57.48
Drainage and utility easements
are shown thus:
• DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND
O DENOTES 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON MONUMENT SET
AND MARKED BY PLS NO. 44900
OO DENOTES FOUND JUDICIAL LANDMARK
O DENOTES FOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT
® DENOTES FOUND MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY MONUMENT
O_ O_ THE WEST LINE OF THE GOVERNMENT LOT 2 OF SEC. 33,
TWP. 118, RNG. 21 IS ASSUMED TO BEAR N00°22'52"E
Being 10 feet in width and adjoining
Lot lines and right of way lines, unless
otherwise indicated, as shown on the plat.
295.46 --- - - - SOUTH LINE OF
1V89 °23'39 "W I �' MNDOTPARCEL RIGHT OF
WAY PLAT N0.
iy I 27-104
I
I J I
J of ) \
6i
�v
NQ I'� �J JZN �( \G 1
QUJ
Ep �Q �, <� I �oN �\�oo(zi��Q ti
Q v/\ v O J= 0
x892 , Z T o co �, N I SEE I \\\ /��� MNDOT R GHT-SOUTH LINEO OF WAYLPLAT
S Q8„ P o W oN o DETAIL B-
�/ N0.27-104
°o _ FI _ �ON89 °23'48 OZ
sO36.28
I ,
06
moo- I ;
- -- - F'ti �� F S S I 't
166.28 o FtiT �� / I
`° `°15 - -� _ ' I IIE I �\ �'�1 MNSOTTHERLY OF
RIGHT OF WAY
6 55 -N ° 3 �� R� QER �6` �\ 1 \ � /-PLAT NO. 27-104-
c\I �` f 00 1 -SOUTH LINE OF PN\�P�N� \g2�a \\ I %:` / Zc0\i
O _
c 3 I,
cp w I Soo
GOVT LOT 2 �pS�MNO G 9 \ \ / `�O W
�> 30.57 o
°p z N00°29'09" E w 0)
Z w J !/�/ 0 ° Ui
NORTH LINE OF- EASEMENT PER D��$5�66 T y `, ----- N89023'20"W 393.02------�i w
0 < - 5 0 �3/ /i ; GOVT LOT 3 1831383 R \k�O I/ SE CORNER OF GOVT LOT 2 V) V)
46 ,DOC. N0. �� / `\ cn
-----DRAINAGE AND - v!� SANITARY r GIE Ar1D / �v` OF SEC. 33, T. 1 18, R. 21 w W
102.89 -_-6 UTILITY EASEMENT I' �C42 -- I (T EASEMENT PER \\ ORA\0 SEMEN / r2 HENNEPIN COUNTY CAST IRON �o
�'> _-- 166.28 15 = - '_,\ --139.36 -- 2 �' �\ DOC. N0. 1982438 \\\; U11�\T!A / �j.V \[,� A Z MONUMENT
L1 J /
---- \ 1V89 °2704 "W 443.53----- I \ - - � - o II ��2 9 ry J F-
A M
I \
Cc, o o� 1 0 , 6 0� 1 w o X DETAIL N
3 R,3 5 �� J NO SCALE W w r-
-- 139.00 < W 0 V, N
Z
♦ w w ao
NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF - - - -' I l 0 / // j., w > 1 W
M M
__W_ I STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY N0. 55 /1V89 27 04 W � /2 Z 0 I.Or _45°13'40° J Z
ON LdLdW`V I
(n Z :2 0 0
H W M 0 N
V)
2CD_J
I
�1 / - /'1 n / A / r -A ///'1,E) / A /
lJL_."L// V lVIL-/V/ // \l/ -IL_
S89027'04"E 478.53
E; 4 I NORTHERLY RIGHT- ° J F- W L� =351.69 F- w M F- �'
F-
6-10 I OF WAY LINE OF / So0 /3/4 ,/ <� 0 S00°l3'46"E ,_ �=277.62 -- N> o
E - 8 , <00ri _
I oN o I STATE TRUNK SE /� E 0. /2 w 0 J n
o I HIGHWAY NO. 55 /, --J
Zo TAI O
L ' D �- 139.00 -' V) %
/IA/A\/ I /^T/I Tr- / ///1/ /IA//1 N89°27'04"W
`7/l7`7vv/-I / I I //-I / L_ `7/l7`7Yv/-I l / VL/.v/v/^/1A/ AA[-AA/l J/A/
L/L.- // V IWL-IWLI \lnL.
i ,%W I/4 COR OF
-- 7YYn� SEC. 19, T. 29, R. 24
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-HENNEPIN COUNTY CAST
IRO
IRON MONUMENT
-CENTERLINE OF STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY N0. 55 CENTER LINE OF HWY. NO. 55IS 0.51 FT NORTH OF
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS 6TH AVENUE NORTH) SECTION CORNER
10
DETAIL B I I
X � I_
F
NO SCALE Y N-
JZU
O
c~i� 00 O QFC\G�O�\G
Ld
OP
A SOUTHERLY LINE OF
-,- -MNDOT RIGHT OF WAY
2.09 PLAT NO. 27-104
� ; N 00 ° 22'
26.85 SOUTH LINE OF-)
�9 0�1 GOVT LOT 2
S NORTH LINE OF-
/Gg��'�g`L 60 j GOVT LOT 3
��\\k / O
\ / iK 9
moo\ 6
A //r -A W/) A /
L/L_. vl V IVIL-WIl./l \11 -IL-
/ ///�/ /IA//I \/
`7/6hYV/-I /
SECTION BREAKDOWN DETAIL
SEC. 33, T. 118, R. 21
� , Y
O_J
/
SEC33 -
."E \`
I S88°26'01 "E
Z_
S88°49'42
I ____ 82.76
W N
_37.86
_ 26 9"W
(FND HCM) ---- ----- S00°084
"� "
1319.09 - w 1318.77
A
`
_- 295.36
Z
Of
Ln
rn
C14
Lq� U')f \r
, ------
rn I I --NW COR
Ln
0)N
Lq
>
0-
0
'-
0
W F-
�L
-
E S890631E,I0
C14 _of
✓LINO DU
O
ri1
r,)
ZNICO
0)
NIN x
Ln I L r
0 -
Z
�
C�
N
to - Z
Ld
w
(n (n
<;
��
o''��
I
I ; w
wW
�o
N
L N
Lo
z
N p
I-
1320.00 1425.61
Co
2745.61
F-
o
S89°23'20"E, Gera
°
_J C)
� O
ti
=10 °��
' ..
�O �
Imo= U
�,
�Q I
C,
�I�
of
N
Ln
�QG
-----o {------�Lo
Qw
w
ON I
0IN
F-
N
N
Z i
Z i SI/4 COR
3wo
1 I
I SEC. 33-�
:2
c)
1294.37 -.I; 1289.92 -� t, 130.01
0<
--------
SW COR---- -
2584.29
�- SW COR
(FND HCM)
S89056'35"W
- SEC.
Ofw
J
\ J
� r
LIJ
I
4
w
0
N
to
00
00
006
_-
1320.00
' --
489023'20"W
`W 1/4 COR OFSEC.
"V�'
33
',�/
25,
25
HENNEPIN CAST
NOO°l3'46
IRON MONUMENT73
85 --`-_-
35
J
5
U
I
I � I
I I
i
�i)
B L C C K >
I I�
NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 1/2
NORTHEAST CORNER OF -IN AREA OF GOVT LOTS 2 & 3---\
TRACT E, R.L.S. NO. I I - � LINE HELD JLM TO JLM PER
S89 *2-T'48 i TORRENS CASE N0. 13026 /
--60.00 - _ l
3 • N89°24'34"W
cp0 (11 9.47 MEAS I/ 139.25 ��
0 0 N89 24J4 W
S89 °2348 "E-
136.28
Lo Ld
1/ I
OT \(�; o le -
LL' w N o �_ w M
i I Z O TL) �l /• T Q 0 y
1� W
�I J w
W
Z CYj
J 0
J
M
W
I / /
/_r
A SOUTH LINE OF
LOT 1, BLOCK I -
I
I ,
I ,
I ,
,
I
33
I�
/9 68 5� E
h�?I W=Z 00 N
_J I I w �
�� I MTC I >o�
0
D_O I �+ w0
O w
O=ff I �Y� I c� I.i O
00 0) I ^I zo =
��� �`�' z
N I.
Joo I O I <O
I W J
of :2 \ CJ
F-
V) 0) <
3: CN I oQ
Q `y I
U)
I I;_^J
�C V,
J I =
Q2
N88
0`55 16 141 I I l \ C. BRG. =S03°09'36 "W
A POINT 33 FEET 9 84 IL �� I << C=57 47 "
WEST OF THE EAST �� `J
LINE OF GOVT LOT 2--_ I �C A=4 /0 58
---- R= 787.40
-- -L=57.48
Drainage and utility easements
are shown thus:
• DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND
O DENOTES 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON MONUMENT SET
AND MARKED BY PLS NO. 44900
OO DENOTES FOUND JUDICIAL LANDMARK
O DENOTES FOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT
® DENOTES FOUND MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY MONUMENT
O_ O_ THE WEST LINE OF THE GOVERNMENT LOT 2 OF SEC. 33,
TWP. 118, RNG. 21 IS ASSUMED TO BEAR N00°22'52"E
Being 10 feet in width and adjoining
Lot lines and right of way lines, unless
otherwise indicated, as shown on the plat.
295.46 --- - - - SOUTH LINE OF
1V89 °23'39 "W I �' MNDOTPARCEL RIGHT OF
WAY PLAT N0.
iy I 27-104
I
I J I
J of ) \
6i
�v
NQ I'� �J JZN �( \G 1
QUJ
Ep �Q �, <� I �oN �\�oo(zi��Q ti
Q v/\ v O J= 0
x892 , Z T o co �, N I SEE I \\\ /��� MNDOT R GHT-SOUTH LINEO OF WAYLPLAT
S Q8„ P o W oN o DETAIL B-
�/ N0.27-104
°o _ FI _ �ON89 °23'48 OZ
sO36.28
I ,
06
moo- I ;
- -- - F'ti �� F S S I 't
166.28 o FtiT �� / I
`° `°15 - -� _ ' I IIE I �\ �'�1 MNSOTTHERLY OF
RIGHT OF WAY
6 55 -N ° 3 �� R� QER �6` �\ 1 \ � /-PLAT NO. 27-104-
c\I �` f 00 1 -SOUTH LINE OF PN\�P�N� \g2�a \\ I %:` / Zc0\i
O _
c 3 I,
cp w I Soo
GOVT LOT 2 �pS�MNO G 9 \ \ / `�O W
�> 30.57 o
°p z N00°29'09" E w 0)
Z w J !/�/ 0 ° Ui
NORTH LINE OF- EASEMENT PER D��$5�66 T y `, ----- N89023'20"W 393.02------�i w
0 < - 5 0 �3/ /i ; GOVT LOT 3 1831383 R \k�O I/ SE CORNER OF GOVT LOT 2 V) V)
46 ,DOC. N0. �� / `\ cn
-----DRAINAGE AND - v!� SANITARY r GIE Ar1D / �v` OF SEC. 33, T. 1 18, R. 21 w W
102.89 -_-6 UTILITY EASEMENT I' �C42 -- I (T EASEMENT PER \\ ORA\0 SEMEN / r2 HENNEPIN COUNTY CAST IRON �o
�'> _-- 166.28 15 = - '_,\ --139.36 -- 2 �' �\ DOC. N0. 1982438 \\\; U11�\T!A / �j.V \[,� A Z MONUMENT
L1 J /
---- \ 1V89 °2704 "W 443.53----- I \ - - � - o II ��2 9 ry J F-
A M
I \
Cc, o o� 1 0 , 6 0� 1 w o X DETAIL N
3 R,3 5 �� J NO SCALE W w r-
-- 139.00 < W 0 V, N
Z
♦ w w ao
NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF - - - -' I l 0 / // j., w > 1 W
M M
__W_ I STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY N0. 55 /1V89 27 04 W � /2 Z 0 I.Or _45°13'40° J Z
ON LdLdW`V I
(n Z :2 0 0
H W M 0 N
V)
2CD_J
I
�1 / - /'1 n / A / r -A ///'1,E) / A /
lJL_."L// V lVIL-/V/ // \l/ -IL_
S89027'04"E 478.53
E; 4 I NORTHERLY RIGHT- ° J F- W L� =351.69 F- w M F- �'
F-
6-10 I OF WAY LINE OF / So0 /3/4 ,/ <� 0 S00°l3'46"E ,_ �=277.62 -- N> o
E - 8 , <00ri _
I oN o I STATE TRUNK SE /� E 0. /2 w 0 J n
o I HIGHWAY NO. 55 /, --J
Zo TAI O
L ' D �- 139.00 -' V) %
/IA/A\/ I /^T/I Tr- / ///1/ /IA//1 N89°27'04"W
`7/l7`7vv/-I / I I //-I / L_ `7/l7`7Yv/-I l / VL/.v/v/^/1A/ AA[-AA/l J/A/
L/L.- // V IWL-IWLI \lnL.
i ,%W I/4 COR OF
-- 7YYn� SEC. 19, T. 29, R. 24
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-HENNEPIN COUNTY CAST
IRO
IRON MONUMENT
-CENTERLINE OF STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY N0. 55 CENTER LINE OF HWY. NO. 55IS 0.51 FT NORTH OF
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS 6TH AVENUE NORTH) SECTION CORNER
10
DETAIL B I I
X � I_
F
NO SCALE Y N-
JZU
O
c~i� 00 O QFC\G�O�\G
Ld
OP
A SOUTHERLY LINE OF
-,- -MNDOT RIGHT OF WAY
2.09 PLAT NO. 27-104
� ; N 00 ° 22'
26.85 SOUTH LINE OF-)
�9 0�1 GOVT LOT 2
S NORTH LINE OF-
/Gg��'�g`L 60 j GOVT LOT 3
��\\k / O
\ / iK 9
moo\ 6
A //r -A W/) A /
L/L_. vl V IVIL-WIl./l \11 -IL-
/ ///�/ /IA//I \/
`7/6hYV/-I /
SECTION BREAKDOWN DETAIL
SEC. 33, T. 118, R. 21
JISUNDE
LAND SURVEYING
SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS
NI/4 COR
SEC33 -
."E \`
I S88°26'01 "E
NW COR
S88°49'42
I ____ 82.76
_37.86
_ 26 9"W
(FND HCM) ---- ----- S00°084
"� "
1319.09 - w 1318.77
A
`
_- 295.36
Ln
rn
C14
Lq� U')f \r
, ------
rn I I --NW COR
Ln
0)N
00 I SEC. 19
_
w M
n I o
Z
_oI 3:1319.53 - 1412.69
_ o
0 S890631
o
LO
E S890631E,I0
C14 _of
✓LINO DU
+d
c
ZNICO
0)
NIN x
Ln I L r
0 -
M
nio
to - Z
�y-
IIn
W 1/4 COR'',, I-
��
o''��
I
I ; w
(FND HCM)
z
I-
1320.00 1425.61
2745.61
�.
S89°23'20"E, Gera
°
I
ti
=10 °��
' ..
�O �
Imo= U
�,
�Q I
C,
�I�
Ico 0 �0'
Ln
�QG
-----o {------�Lo
� \�
ON I
0IN
o LLI z
iN O �(n.wi
`J
Z i
Z i SI/4 COR
I
1 I
I SEC. 33-�
I ; N87047'02"W,
1294.37 -.I; 1289.92 -� t, 130.01
--------
SW COR---- -
2584.29
�- SW COR
(FND HCM)
S89056'35"W
- SEC.
19
JISUNDE
LAND SURVEYING
SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS