Loading...
09-03-19 CC Agenda Packet (entire)      REGULAR MEETING AGENDA      1.  Call to Order    A.  Pledge of Allegiance  Pages    B.  Roll Call      C.  Proclamation for the 100 th Anniversary of Unity Minneapolis  3‐4    2.  Additions and Corrections to Agenda    3.  Consent Agenda    Approval of Consent Agenda ‐ All items listed under this heading are considered to be routine  by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no discussion of these  items unless a Council Member so requests in which event the item will be removed from the  general order of business and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.      A.  Approval of Minutes:         1.  City Council Meeting – August 20, 2019  5‐7    B.  Approval of City Check Register  8    C.  Licenses:       1.  Temporary Liquor License for Loppet Foundation  9      2.  Temporary Liquor License for Good Shepherd Catholic Church 10    D.  Minutes of Boards and Commissions:        1.  Environmental Commission – July 22, 2019  11‐13      2.  Board of Zoning Appeals – July 23, 2019   14‐17      3.  Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission – July 18, 2019  18‐22    E.  Bids and Quotes:       1.  Consideration of Bids for the 2019 Bike Lane Improvements Project No. 19‐02  23      2.  Approve Fire Hydrant Painting  24‐26    F.  Acceptance of Donations for Brookview Golf Park Benches 19‐46  27‐28    G.  Accept Resignation from the Open Space & Recreation Commission   29    H.  Approve Amendment to City Manager’s Employment Agreement 19‐47  30‐32    4.  Public Hearing      A.  Public Hearing – Ordinance #669 – Replacing the I‐394 Mixed Use Zoning District with a  new Mixed Use Zoning District  33‐58    B.  Public Hearing – Vacate Easement at 424 Turnpike Road 19‐48  59‐66    5.  Old Business        Sept 3, 2019 – 6:30 pm  Council Chambers  Golden Valley City Hall  7800 Golden Valley Road  City of Golden Valley     City Council Regular Meeting  September 3, 2019 – 6:30 pm          2  6.  New Business    All Ordinances listed under this heading are eligible for public input.    A.  Review of Council Calendar    B.  Mayor and Council Communications    7.  Adjournment    Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 3, 2019 Agenda Item 1. C. Proclamation for the 100th Anniversary of Unity Minneapolis Prepared By Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Summary Unity Minneapolis located at 400 Golden Valley Road is celebrating 100 years of service in the City of Golden Valley and has requested a proclamation recognizing this anniversary. Representatives from Unity Minneapolis will attend to accept the proclamation. Attachment: Proclamation for the 100th Anniversary of Unity Minneapolis (1 page) CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PROCLAMATION FOR THE 100th ANNIVERSARY OF UNITY MINNEAPOLIS WHEREAS, 100 years ago in 1919, Unity Minneapolis began as a small home study group led by Mrs. Lila Rainey, originally named Minneapolis Truth Center and later Unity Truth Center, followed by Unity Christ Church; and WHEREAS, in 1974, Unity Christ Church purchased a former Mormon church then operating as Torah Academy) at 4000 Golden Valley Road in Golden Valley; and WHEREAS, in 1982, Unity Christ Church undertook a building expansion at 4000 Golden Valley Road adding education classrooms and a 320 seat sanctuary; and WHEREAS, during the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s, Unity Christ Church facilitated and supported the creation of satellite Unity churches in St. Paul, Bloomington, Woodbury, Savage, St Cloud, Coon Rapids, Rochester, and Eau Claire, WI; and WHEREAS, in 2014, Unity Christ Church adopted the name Unity Minneapolis; and WHEREAS, through the 13 years of leadership of Rev. Pat Williamson, Unity Minneapolis has continued to grow as an inclusive, accepting, and vibrant spiritual community; and WHEREAS, during its 100-year history, Unity Minneapolis has reminded all who visit the church or make it their spiritual home that “Wherever you are on your spiritual journey, you are welcome here.” NOW, THEREFORE, let it be known, that the Mayor and City Council of the City of Golden Valley hereby recognize the 100th Anniversary of Unity Minneapolis, Golden Valley, and ask all to join in celebrating this commemorative occasion and urge all citizens to express appreciation for its contributions to Golden Valley and the greater community. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the great seal of the City of Golden Valley to be affixed this 3rd day of September, 2019. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm by Mayor Harris. 1A.Pledge of Allegiance 1B.Roll Call Present:Mayor Shep Harris,Council Members Joanie Clausen,Larry Fonnest,Gillian Rosenquist and Steve Schmidgall Staff present:City Manager Cruikshank,City Attorney Cisneros and City Clerk Luedke 2.Additions and Corrections to Agenda MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest,seconded by Council Member Clausen to approve the agenda of August 20,2019,as submitted and the motion carried. 3.Approval of Consent Agenda MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest,seconded by Council Member Clausen to approve the consent agenda of August 20,2019,as revised:removal of 3G Grant Funding Update and the motion carried. 3A1.Approve Minutes of Council/Manager Meeting July 9,2019 3A2.Approve Minutes of City Council Meeting August 7,2019. 3B.Approve City Check Register and authorize the payments of the bills as submitted. 3C1.Authorize the renewal of the new and used vehicle dealer licenses for the 2019 2020 license period as follows:Borton Volvo,Inc.,Morrie’s GV Cadillac,LLC,Morrie’s Luxury Auto,LLC,Jim Lupient Infiniti,Minnesota Auto Sales,Rudy Luther Toyota,Poquet Auto Sales,Inc.,Golden Valley TCAA,LLC,Golden Valley TCAP,LLC,Jim Lupient Company and ABC Cars and Leasing LLC. 3D.Minutes of the Boards and Commissions: 1. Planning Commission Minutes June 24,2019 2. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes June 25,2019 3.Human Rights Commission June 25,2019 3E.Bids and Quotes: 1.Approve and authorize Change Order No.1 with GMH Asphalt Corporation in the amount of 50,568.75. 3F.Adopt Resolution 19 45,amending 2019 General Wages and Salary for Certain Positions and 2019 Budget Amendment. 3G.Receive and file the 2019 Grant Report. 3H.Receive and file the July 2019 Financial Reports. 3I. Approve amended Memorandum Of Understanding and Office Lease between the City of Golden Valley and the Golden Valley Community Foundation. August 20,2019 6:30 pm Council Chambers Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting Minutes August 20,2019 6:30 pm 2 3.Items Removed From the Consent Agenda: 3H.Grant Funding Update Council thanked staff for their efforts on applying and receiving available grants for the City and the partnerships that make these grants available. MOTION made by Council Member Rosenquist,seconded by Council Member Clausen to receive and file the 2019 Grant Report and the motion carried. 4.Public Hearing 5.Old Business 6.New Business 6A.Approve Amendment 2 to Globus Golden Valley Addition PUD No.112 Development Agreement Assistant City Engineer Kakach presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall,seconded by Council Member Clausen to approve the Second Amendment to the Globus Golden Valley Addition PUD No.112 Development Agreement and the motion carried. 6B.Consideration of a Moratorium on the Establishment of New Tobacco Retail Facilities Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Attorney Cisneros answered questions from Council. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest,seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt Ordinance 668,imposing a Six Month Moratorium on the Establishment of New Tobacco Retail Facilities.Upon a vote being taken,the following voted in favor of:Clausen,Fonnest,Harris, Rosenquist,and Schmidgall,the following voted against:none and the motion carried. 6C.Review of Council Calendar Some Council Members may attend the Golden Valley Business Council on August 22,2019, from 7:30 to 9 am at Brookview. Some Council Members may attend the Market in the Valley on August 25 and September 1, 2019,from 9 am to 1 pm in the City Hall Campus Parking Lot. Some Council Members may attend Congresswoman Omar’s Office Immigration Symposium and Forum on August 27,2019,from 1 to 5:30 pm in North Minneapolis and 7 to 8:30 pm in South Minneapolis. The City Offices will be closed on September 2,2019,in observance of Labor Day. City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting Minutes August 20,2019 6:30 pm 3 6C.Review of Council Calendar continued The next City Council meeting will be held on September 3,2019,at 6:30 pm. Some Council Members may attend the Golden Valley Art Music Festival on September 14, 2019,from 9 am to 10 pm on the City Hall Campus. Some Council Members may attend the Experience Adventure at Sochacki Park Expo on September 14,2019,from 1 to 5 pm at Sochacki Park. Some Council Members may attend the Golden Valley Greens Classic on September 16,2019, at 1 pm at Brookview Golf Course. Some Council Members may attend the League of Women Voters Presentation on September 16,2019,at 6:30 pm in the Council Chambers. 6D.Mayor and Council Communication Mayor Harris thanked the Golden Valley Rotary for the Taste and Tour event this year.He also said the Golden Valley Human Rights Commission would be holding a week of service in September by collecting donations for PRISM. 7.Adjourn MOTION made by Council Member Clausen,seconded by Council Member Schmidgall and the motion carried to adjourn the meeting at 6:58 pm. Shepard M.Harris,Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A.Luedke,City Clerk Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 3, 2019 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=717279&dbid=2 The check register for approval: o 08/23/2019 Check Register Recommended Action Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 3, 2019 Agenda Item 3. C. 1. Temporary On-Sale Liquor License - The Loppet Foundation Prepared By Kris Luedke, City Clerk Summary The Loppet Foundation has applied for a temporary on-sale liquor license their event, Trail Loppet, located at 1221 Theodore Wirth Parkway on Saturday, September 21 from 9 am to 1 pm. The City Code does provide for temporary sales of liquor with Council approval. In addition, the City Code requires a certificate of liquor liability insurance naming the City as an additional insured for $1,000,000. The Loppet Foundation has provided this certificate. Recommended Action Motion to approve a temporary on-sale liquor license for The Loppet Foundation for their event at 1221 Theodore Wirth Parkway on September 21, 2019. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 3, 2019 Agenda Item 3. C. 2. Temporary On-Sale Liquor License – Good Shepherd Catholic Church Prepared By Kris Luedke, City Clerk Summary Good Shepherd Catholic Church has applied for a temporary on-sale liquor license their event, Fall Festival, located at 145 Jersey Avenue South on Saturday, October 5 from 11 am to 7 pm. The City Code does provide for temporary sales of liquor with Council approval. In addition, the City Code requires a certificate of liquor liability insurance naming the City as an additional insured. Good Shepherd Catholic Church has provided this certificate. Recommended Action Motion to approve a temporary on-sale liquor license for the Good Shepherd Catholic Church for their event at 145 Jersey Avenue South on October 5, 2019. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm by Chair Seys. 2. Roll Call Commissioners present: Tracy Anderson, Dawn Hill, Joseph Ramlet, Scott Seys, Jim Stremel and Debra Yahle Commissioners absent: Tonia Galonska and Lynn Gitelis Staff present: Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director; Eric Eckman, Development and Assets Supervisor; and Claire Huisman, Administrative Assistant 3. Approval of Agenda MOTION by Commissioner Hill, seconded by Commissioner Stremel to approve the agenda of July 22, 2019 with the following change: move item 6A discussion to just after item 4, and the motion carried. 4. Approval of Minutes MOTION by Commissioner Stremel, seconded by Commissioner Ramlet to approve the minutes of May 20, 2019 as submitted and the motion carried. 6A. Solid Waste Licensing Requirements & Waste Hauling Matrix Marc Nevinski presented the solid waste licensing update along with the waste hauling matrix. The discussion for ordinance modifications included the following items. 1. To ensure that residents have options for the type and level of waste disposal services they desire, the following items were presented for Commission feedback on hauler licensing requirements. What is the right number of licenses for Golden Valley? (The Commission requested more data on how many haulers are licensed in other cities similar in size to Golden Valley to determine the ideal number of haulers for our City which might be 3-5. If the City puts a limit on the number of haulers, then that may prevent the City from getting a hauler that provides organic pick-up if the City is at its limit of haulers.) Hauler should provide and offer basic standards and services. Provide service for residents with mobility limitations. Provide yard waste option, Christmas tree pick up, bulk item pick-up and organics. (Organics discussion will be put on hold for a few months to allow staff to research best options for the City and its residents.) Offer bi-weekly or weekly services. July 22, 2019 – 6:30 pm Council Conference Room Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road City of Golden Valley Environmental Commission Regular Meeting Minutes July 22, 2019 – 6:30 pm 2 2. To establish waste disposal practices that improve environmental outcomes, options to consider included: To minimize fossil fuel emissions, City may require use of only CNG/LP fueled trucks and or have a minimum fuel efficiency standard for trucks. (It was suggested to use broader language as to not limit the type of trucks to just CNG/LP since something more efficient may come along. This requirement may also drive out smaller haulers.) To promote route planning efficiency, City may require haulers to map address and route information. To prioritize drop off and tipping facilities for haulers, City may require receipts for tipping. To increase knowledge of operations, City may require reporting of collection data, etc. 3. Items considered to establish standards for waste collection included: Licensing requirements would include: increase licensing fee and insurance standards; provide route information and mapping; require vehicle standards, cameras & DOT inspection records. Limit collection days or assign haulers to specific days Require rear loading trucks (This was not seen as feasible by the Commission due to labor costs and safety issues.) Require minimum number of axels per truck 4. To avoid significant operational or capital cost increases to the city and residents, the city may require the following: Hauler would provide detailed rates and fees along with their tipping and disposal fees. These should be kept up to date on the City website. Hauler could not charge more to a resident without providing the cost increase to the City beforehand.) City would provide minimum standard requirements and enforce penalties for actions that pose a threat to infrastructure, human safety and environmental health through administrative citations. 5. To increase understanding of the waste disposal process, the City would require the following: Reporting of issues log from the hauler and request timeline for responding to their customers. Set quarterly to annual meetings with the licensed haulers. Provide data on the participation rate of the haulers customers. Haulers should provide customer education by: offering facility tours; providing do’s and don’ts labels on containers; provide information on why loads may be rejected by facilities. Commissioners agreed with requiring reference stickers on containers, including more information on the bills regarding the fee structure and to receive from hauler what is problem trash.) A draft ordinance will be presented to the Commission at their August meeting. Marc Nevinski left the meeting at 7:40p. 5A. GreenStep Cities – Step 5 – 5.1 Transportation Modes and Miles MOTION by Commissioner Hill, seconded by Commissioner Yahle to approve the Performance Metrics entry for Step 5 – 5.1 Transportation Modes and Miles into the GreenStep Cities website at the time when all core topic areas and optional topic areas are completed and the motion carried. City of Golden Valley Environmental Commission Regular Meeting Minutes July 22, 2019 – 6:30 pm 3 5B. Review Commission Bylaws MOTION by Commissioner Stremel, seconded by Commissioner Hill to approve the changes to the Bylaws as presented along with additional typographical corrections and the motion carried. Corrections included: removing capitalization of the words at the beginning of bullet points five and six under Article I and adding the word “be” under Article II, item “A”, third sentence….” Youth members shall live or attend school within Golden Valley and be enrolled in school grades 9 through 12.” It was requested for the Commission to receive a red lined version of the Bylaws from the old form to the new form. 6B. Program/Projects Update The complete Program/Project Update is on file. Topics briefly discussed included: Reaching out and resolving issues with property owners who have encroachments into the City nature areas as part of the Bassett Creek Nature Area Restoration Project. Downtown Study along with a demonstration project near City Hall that would connect the Luce Line Regional Trail with the downtown. This is still under discussion with Hennepin County. DeCola Ponds Project. Question was asked if the City was creating too much flood storage since the reservoirs now don’t seem to contain water even after a large quantity of rain. It was stated that the flood storage is in preparation of the 100-year flood which will require a large flood storage area. 6C. Council Updates - None 6D. Other Business Commissioner Anderson presented pictures of large amounts of grass clippings in the street as well as clogged storm drains from yard waste. This was mainly due to the new sod from the PMP area. She suggested sending out information to remind residents on how to take care of their new sod and not to blow the clippings into the street. Eckman said to also let City staff know as soon as possible when problem areas arise and letters can be sent to the resident. Chair Seys reminded everyone of the Tobacco Sales Forum being held at Brookview on August 5th from 6p-8p. 7. Adjournment MOTION by Commissioner Hill, seconded by Commissioner Yahle to adjourn the meeting at 8:15pm and the motion carried. ATTEST: Claire Huisman, Administrative Assistant REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Chair Nelson. Roll Call Board Members present: Kade Arms-Regenold, Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, David Perich, Andy Snope, and Planning Commissioner Chuck Segelbaum Board Members absent: None Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman Approval of Agenda Nelson stated that two variance requests regarding the location of the existing shed should also be listed for 4701 33rd Avenue North. MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Snope to approve the agenda of July 23, 2019, with the above noted change and the motion carried unanimously. Approval of Minutes Nelson referred to the last sentence in the first paragraph on page five and stated that it should be amended to read “He said he would recommend approval because they are making every effort to make the new house blend in…” Snope noted that he did not second the adjournment of the meeting because he was absent from the June 25 meeting. The Board agreed that Johnson, not Snope seconded the motion. MOTION made by Snope, seconded by Orenstein to approve the minutes of June 25, 2019, with the above noted correction and the motion carried unanimously. 4701 33rd Avenue North David Kopischke, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 113-152, Screening and Outdoor Storage, Subd. (c)(1)(a) Height Requirements To allow a fence along a portion of Noble Avenue North to be 2 ft. taller than the allowed 4 ft. in height for fences in a front yard. July 23, 2019 – 7 pm Council Chambers Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting July 23, 2019 – 7 pm 2 Request: Waiver from Section 113-88 (g)(1)(a), Accessory Structure Location Requirements To allow the existing shed to remain and not be located completely to the rear of the principal structure. Request: Waiver from Section 113-88 (g)(1)(b), Accessory Structure Front Setback Requirements To allow the existing shed to remain closer than 35 ft. to the front yard property line. Zimmerman referred to a location map of the property and explained the applicant’s proposal to install a new 6 ft. tall fence in a front yard rather than the allowed 4 ft. He stated that during the review process staff also realized that the existing shed on the property is located in a non-conforming location. The shed is not located completely to the rear of the house and it is not 35 ft. away from the front property line along Noble Ave as required by Code. Zimmerman referred to an aerial photo of the property and showed the Board the front yard setback area and the conforming location for the shed. Zimmerman discussed the staff analysis and alternatives and said the use of a 4 ft. tall, not a 6 ft. tall security fence is reasonable and added that a 6 ft. fence could be installed if it shifted to the side/rear yard. He explained that the fact that this is a corner lot is not a unique circumstance because corner lots are prevalent throughout the City, the placement of the house leaves space for side and rear yards, and a 6 ft. tall fence would alter the essential character of the locality because there are no other 6 ft. tall fences is front yards nearby. He stated that the use of a shed is reasonable, however there is space available to relocate it to a conforming location in the southwest corner of the property, or it could be removed. He noted that there are other sheds in the area that are located in conforming locations. Zimmerman stated that staff is recommending denial of the variance request to allow for an additional 2 ft. of fence height for the portion of the fence in a front yard along Noble Ave. Staff is also recommending denial of a variance to allow the existing shed to remain in its nonconforming location, but is recommending approval of a modified variance request to relocate the shed to be at least 35 ft. from the front yard (east) property line. Nelson asked about the setback requirements for the shed. Zimmerman explained that accessory structures are required to be located behind the front plane of the house so in this case that would be the southwest corner of the property. Orenstein asked if the applicant requested the variances for the shed. Zimmerman said no, staff suggested they be added to the variance request for the fence height. Orenstein asked about the consequences if the shed wasn’t moved. Zimmerman said it would be in violation of the Zoning Code. Segelbaum asked if part of a structure is nonconforming if there are limitations on what a person can do with the rest of the property. Zimmerman explained that if something is built legally, in a conforming City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting July 23, 2019 – 7 pm 3 location and if the codes change later it is considered to be legally nonconforming. However, sheds have never been allowed in front yards. Segelbaum said his recollection is that the Board seldom grants fence variances. Zimmerman said there have been a few granted because there were unique circumstances. Arms-Regenold asked if the City receives complaints about shed locations. Zimmerman said yes, but not in this case. Nelson asked if this were not a corner lot if the shed would still have to be moved behind the house. Zimmerman said the shed would be conforming if this were not a corner lot. David Kopischke, Applicant, said when he walks on Noble Avenue he sees 4 or 5 fences that are 6 ft. in height. Zimmerman stated that variances are looked at on a case by case basis and that the other 6 ft. tall fences may exist for other reasons or they may have been installed before the current rules applied. Kopischke asked if Noble Ave. being a collector street affects him building on his property. Zimmerman said no and explained that properties on arterial streets are allowed to have taller fences. Orenstein asked Kopischke how he felt about moving his shed. Kopischke said he would like to avoid moving it because it is old. He said he plans to rebuild it in a conforming location in the future. Nelson asked Kopischke when he bought the property. Kopischke said he bought it in 2015. Segelbaum asked Kopischke what the shed is made of and what it sits on. Kopischke said it is made of cedar and sits on a wood platform. Segelbaum asked if there is a way to allow a limited amount of time to keep the shed where is currently located. Zimmerman said no, variances run with the land. Snope asked about the procedure if the Board refuses to consider the variance requests regarding the shed. Zimmerman stated that the Board could vote on the requests, or table the requests. Segelbaum questioned who the applicant is for the shed variances. Zimmerman said Mr. Kopischke is the applicant, staff just noticed the nonconforming location of the shed when the variance application was submitted so the necessary requests were added. MOTION made Orenstein, seconded by Snope to deny the variance request to allow a fence along a portion of Noble Avenue North to be 2 ft. taller than the allowed 4 ft. in height for fences in a front yard and the motion carried unanimously. Segelbaum made the following findings: a 6 ft. tall fence alters the essential character of the locality, the fence could be 6 ft. tall if it were 35 ft. from the front (east) property line, or the applicant could build a 4 ft. tall fence is the proposed location. City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting July 23, 2019 – 7 pm 4 MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Nelson to table the two variance requests regarding the location of the shed and the motion carried unanimously. Adjournment MOTION made by Nelson, seconded by Orenstein and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 pm. Nancy Nelson, Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant 1. CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. in the Council Conference Room at Golden Valley City Hall (7800 Golden Valley Rd.), Chair Prom called the meeting of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) to order. Commissioners and city staff present: City Commissioner Alternate Commissioner Technical Advisory Committee Members (City Staff) Crystal Dave Anderson Vacant Position Mark Ray Golden Valley Absent Jane McDonald Black Eric Eckman Medicine Lake Clint Carlson Gary Holter Absent Minneapolis Michael Welch Vacant Position Lisa Goddard Minnetonka Absent Bill Monk Sarah Schweiger New Hope Absent Pat Crough Megan Hedstrom Plymouth Jim Prom Catherine Cesnik Ben Scharenbroich Robbinsdale Absent Absent Absent St. Louis Park Jim de Lambert Patrick Noon Erick Francis Administrator Laura Jester, Keystone Waters Engineer Karen Chandler, Barr Engineering Recorder None Legal Counsel David Anderson, Kennedy & Graven Presenters/ Guests/Public Rachael Crabb (Minneapolis Park and Rec Board), Elaine Hove (Plymouth resident), Chuck Schmidt (New Hope resident), Glenn Byers (Contech) Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting Thursday, July 18, 2019 8:30 a.m. Golden Valley City Hall, Golden Valley MN BCWMC July 18, 2019 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 5 2. CITIZEN FORUM ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Chuck Schmidt, a resident of New Hope, wondered whether the City of Crystal or the Commission had plans to address the buckthorn and other weeds on the south side of Winnetka Pond as part of the CIP project there. Mark Ray indicated there were no plans for that activity. Mr. Schmidt also commented on a walnut tree he planted many years ago near the outlet of the pond that is now being encroached by another tree. Mr. Ray indicated he would have the Crystal Forester look into that. Mr. Schmidt also wondered if the Hennepin County crews would be performing maintenance of the pond’s buffer. Mr. Ray noted that was likely a “Sentence to Serve” crew and that the city doesn’t have a contract for crew work. Chair Prom encouraged Mr. Schmidt to contact the county about it. Elaine Hove, a resident of Plymouth, noted her concerns about flooding in a residential area near Medicine Lake (the same issue brought to the Commission by Terrie Christian in October 2018). She reported that runoff from Hwy. 169 and the adjacent industrial area floods yards in their neighborhood and that there was 8 inches of water on the road after the recent 2-inch rain. She noted rain is not being filtered before it runs directly into Medicine Lake. Chair Prom indicated that some Plymouth City Council members have spoken to residents in the area about the issue. Ben Scharenbroich said there is some city property there and that redevelopment of the commercial property would be a good opportunity to address the issue. Ms. Hove noted that there is substantial unused property in the area that might be used as a holding pond. Mr. Scharenbroich noted he would follow up with residents. Commissioner Welch indicated he sympathized with Ms. Hove and residents in the area noting the localized flooding is a common problem in these times of high precipitation. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Alternate Commissioner McDonald Black moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Welch seconded the motion. Upon a vote, the motion carried 8-0 [City of Robbinsdale was absent from the vote]. 4. CONSENT AGENDA The following items were approved as part of the consent agenda: June 20, 2019 Commission meeting minutes, acceptance of the July 2019 financial report, payment of invoices, approval to set a public hearing on the 2020 capital improvement projects for September 19, 2019. The general and construction account balances reported in the July 2019 Financial Report are as follows: Checking Account Balance $ 657,203.29 TOTAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE $ 657,203.29 TOTAL CASH & INVESTMENTS ON-HAND (07/10/19) $ 4,298,149.14 CIP Projects Levied – Budget Remaining $ (4,635,407.70) Closed Projects Remaining Balance $367,121.67 2012-2017 Anticipated Tax Levy Revenue $7,330.29 2018 Anticipated Tax Levy Revenue $8,770.47 Anticipated Closed Project Balance $383,222.43 MOTION: Alternate Commissioner McDonald Black moved to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion. Upon a vote, the motion carried 8-0 [City of Robbinsdale was absent from the vote]. BCWMC July 18, 2019 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 5 5. BUSINESS A. Consider Proposal to Prepare Feasibility Study for Project to Dredge Accumulated Sediment in the Main Stem of Bassett Creek in Wirth Park (2021 CIP Project BC-7) Commission Engineer Chandler reviewed the proposal for the feasibility study preparation, first showing the location of the project area and reviewing the issues currently impacting the area. She reported that the lagoons in Theodore Wirth Park were built in the mid 1930’s by the Civilian Conservation Corps but filled in with sediment over the years, particularly during the 1990’s. She noted that the project area includes “Lagoons” D, E, and F, but that “Lagoon E” is particularly in need of dredging to improve the pond’s capacity, improve water quality and improve habitat. She noted that the other two lagoons will also likely need some dredging but that the $400,000 earmarked for this project in the Commission’s CIP list is likely only enough to dredge one lagoon. Commission Engineer Chandler noted that although quite a bit of study has already occurred in this area, more study is needed including bathymetric, topographic, tree, and utility surveys and a wetland delineation. She noted the lagoons would be treated like stormwater ponds when following MPCA guidance on sediment testing. She also noted that because the lagoons are public waters, only accumulated sediment can be removed. There was discussion about the possibility of State or Federal funding being available to address issues within a historical site like this. Engineer Chandler reported that the historical significance of the site will likely require more and lengthy review by officials to get necessary permits for the project. Commissioner Welch volunteered to look into whether or not there is funding available. Commissioner Welch reported he is often asked about the sediment accumulating in the lagoons, as it has created islands over time. He noted that public outreach on this project will be crucial and that it will be important to distinguish between the flood reduction benefits to the MPRB vs. the benefits to natural resources and water quality. Alternate Commissioner McDonald Black noted that the Loppet Foundation should be included with project outreach. Jeff Oliver noted that the City of Golden Valley is working with the MPRB to resolve flooding issues on the trail. MOTION: Commissioner Welch moved to approve the scope of work and authorize the Commission Engineer to complete the feasibility study as proposed; Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion. Upon a vote, the motion carried 8-0 [City of Robbinsdale was absent from the vote]. B. Consider Recommendations from Technical Advisory Committee TAC chair Mark Ray, gave a brief overview of the TAC’s recommendations noting that the TAC met on May 29th and July 8th to discuss how the Commission should review proprietary stormwater manufactured treatment devices (MTDs) proposed to be used in development or redevelopment projects. Mr. Ray walked through each of the four recommendations in the TAC’s memo including: 1. The BCWMC require project applicants to provide verification that the proposed stormwater MTDs have achieved General Use Level Designation (GULD) certification from the State of Washington’s Technology Assessment Protocol Ecology (TAPE) program (Option 3). The BCWMC will then accept and apply 50% TP and 80% TSS removals for the MTDs, as long as the MTDs are designed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations/guidelines. 2. The BCWMC allow project applicants to seek acceptance of higher pollutant removal efficiencies by submitting data from the TAPE program for analysis by the Commission Engineer (Option 6) using the following protocol: a. Commission will develop a new “MTD pre-approval” review application form for these situations. b. City staff would encourage the applicant to coordinate with the Commission Engineers early in the process. This would avoid a possible scenario where a project is almost entirely through a city review process only to need considerable site revisions due to differing analyses of MTD pollutant removals by Commission Engineers and negotiations therein. BCWMC July 18, 2019 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 5 c. Commission would require applicants to submit the “MTD pre-approval” form and a $1,000 alternative BMP review fee. (The BCWMC already requires this $1,000 review fee for projects involving review of alternative BMPs that are not in the MN Stormwater Manual.) The applicant would pay the remaining BMP review fees when they submit the full BCWMC application form. 3. The Commission Engineer will maintain a list of MTDs that have been approved through Option 6 for use by future applicants. 4. The BCWMC not allow the manufacturer of an MTD to apply for consideration through the Commission’s review process without it being part of an actual development/redevelopment project and submittal of a formal BCWMC application. Currently the BCWMC’s review process and fee structure is set up for development and redevelopment projects and not review of specific components of the projects. Administrator Jester noted she recently asked other Metro watersheds if they were interested in signing a letter to the MPCA requesting that the MPCA take the lead on evaluating and verifying or certifying MTDs (a TAC recommendation approved at the June meeting). She and Engineer Chandler reported that they learned from the Capitol Region Watershed District that the Water Environment Federation is leading a nationwide program called Stormwater Testing and Evaluation for Products and Practices (STEPP). There was consensus that the letter to MPCA include participation in the STEPP as an alternative to developing a Minnesota verification program. Commissioner Welch asked the Administrator to also determine if the Center for Watershed Protection is involved in this or a similar program and noted this might be a good topic for a future Metro MAWD meeting. He also noted his appreciation for the TAC’s thoroughness on working through this issue. It was noted that the TAC’s recommendations set a defensible framework for reviewing MTDs in the short term. MOTION: Alternate Commissioner McDonald Black moved approval of the TAC recommendations. Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion. Upon a vote the motion carried 7-1 [City of Minneapolis voted against the motion. City of Robbinsdale was absent for the vote.] C. Discuss Request for Resolutions from Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts Administrator Jester gave an overview of MAWD’s resolution process noting that possible resolutions could be developed by any member watershed and submitted by September 1st for consideration by the MAWD Resolutions Committee and then at MAWD’s Annual Meeting in December. Administrator Jester reviewed some additional MAWD communications and requests including ideas for sessions at the annual meeting and request for committee members (early next year). She also noted that the Commission will need to appoint two commissioners to represent the BCWMC at the annual meeting, if desired, so they could vote on MAWD business. No commissioners nor staff had ideas for MAWD resolutions at this time. Administrator Jester was asked to put this on the August agenda and to make sure TAC members know they can also submit resolution ideas. 6. COMMUNICATIONS A.Administrator’s Report i. Report on Outcomes of 50 th Anniversary Event – Administrator Jester reported that the 50th event and tour came in under budget and that she had mailed the 50th booklet to city council members and county commissioners. ii. AIS Early Detection Training – Set for July 23 rd, 6:00 p.m. at the Plymouth Library. Administrator Jester requested commissioners and TAC members to help recruit participants iii. Smart Salting for Property Managers – Set for September 24 th at the Crystal Community Center. Administrator Jester requested commissioners and TAC members to help recruit participants or let her know how to get in touch with property managers. Alternate Commissioner McDonald Black suggested contacting the Building Owners and Managers Association B.Chair i. Chair Prom thanked Commissioner Welch for emceeing the 50 th event. BCWMC July 18, 2019 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 5 C.Commissioners i. Commissioner Welch reported that he attended the Metro MAWD meeting and recommended that other commissioners consider attending future meetings. D.TAC Members i. Mr. Oliver reported that Golden Valley recently awarded the construction contract for the DeCola Ponds Project to Dahn Construction and that work would begin in September. ii. Mr. Scharenbroich reported that creek crossing signs for Plymouth Creek are being installed. E.Committees - none F.Legal Counsel - none G.Engineer - none 7. INFORMATION ONLY (Information online only) A. Administrative Calendar B. CIP Project Updates http://www.bassettcreekwmo.org/projects C. Grant Tracking Summary and Spreadsheet 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:53 a.m. Signature/Title Date Signature/Title Date Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 3, 2019 Agenda Item 3. E. 1. Consideration of Bids for the 2019 Bike Lane Improvements Project No. 19-02 Prepared By Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer R.J. Kakach, PE, Assistant City Engineer Summary Bids for 2019 Bike Lane Improvements Project No. #19-02 were opened on August 22, 2019. Three bids were received. Staff reviewed the bids and although the bids were accurate and in order, the low bid exceeded the allotted budget for this project. Therefore staff is recommending that the following bids be rejected, with funding moved to and work rebid in 2020. Thomas & Sons $332,141.10 Sunram Construction, Inc. $367,197.00 Urban Companies $422,489.50 Anticipated funding for these services is included in the 2019 Street CIP Program (S-030) in the amount of $325,000. The additional bike lanes originally planned for installation in 2020 are proposed to remain on schedule. January/February 2020: Advertise Project March 2020: Open Bids April 2020: Award Project June 2020: Begin Construction August 2020: Complete Construction Recommended Actions Motion to reject all bids from the August 22, 2019 bid opening for the 2019 Bike Lane Improvements Project No. 19-02. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 3, 2019 Agenda Item 3. E. 2. Approve Fire Hydrant Painting Prepared By Tim Kieffer, Public Works Maintenance Manager Joe Hansen, Utility Maintenance Supervisor Summary Fire hydrants corrode over time due to exposure to weather and winter de-icing chemicals. Periodic sandblasting and painting is needed to keep the hydrants maintained and in good working condition. Staff proposes to paint 150 hydrants, which is approximately half a maintenance district. This schedule allows every hydrant to be repainted every 10 years. Staff received quotes to sandblast and repaint 150 fire hydrants. The results are as follows: B & B Commercial Coating, LLC. $23,250 Ultra Painting, Inc. $26,250 Funding for this project is in the 2019 Water Maintenance Operating Budget (7123.6340) which includes $65,000 for hydrant painting. Attachments B & B Commercial Coating Quote (1 page) Ultra Painting Quote (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to approve fire hydrant painting by B & B Commercial Coating, LLC. in the amount of 23,250. Estimate Date 04/08/19 Estimate No. 1478 Name/Address City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Rd Golden Valley, MN 55427 Project Hydrants 2019 B & B Commercial Coating LLC PO Box 663 Maple Lake MN 55358 Item Description Quantity Cost Total 4110 - Hydrant non-enclosed) Sand/Vapor blast and recoat Fire Hydrant - 2 coat system 150 155.00 23,250.00 23,250.00Total$23,250.00 Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 3,2019 Agenda Item 3.F.Acceptance of Donation for Benches for Brookview Golf Course Prepared By Rick Birno,Director of Parks Recreation Ben Disch,Brookview Golf Operations Manager Summary As adopted in the Donation/Gift Policy,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.We have prepared the following resolution detailing the specific donor and their fiscal gift for your consideration. Attachments Resolution accepting the Donation of benches for Brookview Golf Course from the family of Phil Sherman and the friends of Henry Berg 1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution accepting the Donation of benches for Brookview Golf Course from the family of Phil Sherman and the friends of Henry Berg. RESOLUTION NO. 19-46 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE DONATION OF A BENCH FROM THE FAMILY OF PHIL SHERMAN AND THE FRIENDS OF HENRY BERG FOR BROOKVIEW GOLF COURSE 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 accept the following donations on behalf of its citizens: Donation for a bench to be located on the first tee box at Brookview Golf Course in memory of Phil Sherman from his family in the amount of $750. Donation for a bench to be located on the second tee box at Brookview Golf Course in memory of Henry Berg from his friends in the amount of $750. Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 3rd day of September, 2019. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 3, 2019 Agenda Item 3. G. Resignation from Open Space & Recreation Commission Prepared By Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Summary Commissioner Cindy Carow-Schiebe has submitted her resignation from the Open Space & Recreation Commission. Recommended Action Motion to accept the resignation of Cindy Carow-Schiebe from the Open Space & Recreation Commission. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 3, 2019 Agenda Item 3. H. Approve Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement Prepared By Kirsten Santelices, Human Resources Director Summary Upon completion of the City Manger’s review, a 3% increase is proposed. This will bring the Manager’s compensation to $162,732.51. All other terms of the Agreement remain the same. Attachments Resolution amending the City Manager Employment Agreement (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution amending the City Manager Employment Agreement. RESOLUTION NO. 19-47 RESOLUTION UPDATING THE CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley that it hereby adopts the attached Addendum to the City Manager Employment Agreement. This Agreement is effective September 9, 2019. Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 3rd day of September, 2019. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk ADDENDUM TO CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT DATED: September 3, 2019 Salary:* $162,732.51 Auto Allowance: $400 / month This Addendum was approved by the City Council on September 3, effective September 9, 2019. Timothy J. Cruikshank, Employee CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA By: Shepard M. Harris, Mayor Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk Maximum 2019 compensation under Minn. Stat. §43A.17, subd. 9 is $175,621.                     Executive Summary For Action  Golden Valley City Council Meeting  September 3, 2019    Agenda Item   4. A. Public Hearing ‐ Replacing the I‐394 Mixed Use Zoning District with a new Mixed Use Zoning  District    Prepared By  Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager    Summary  Over the past five months, the Planning Commission and staff have engaged in discussions  regarding significant revisions to the current I‐394 Mixed Use Zoning District. These changes were  suggested in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan and would potentially remove some of the  barriers to mixed use development that are a result of complicated regulations and limited  applicability. With the adoption of the new language, the Mixed Use Zoning District could be  utilized throughout Golden Valley at appropriate locations where targeted and flexible  development is desired.    Beginning with an introductory discussion in April, staff led the Planning Commission through a  series of conversations to begin to assess various parts of the current mixed use code and to  suggest modifications that could result in improvements. Key topics included:   the creation of new subdistricts that related in scale to their surroundings;   a close look at the lists of permitted and conditional uses allowed;   changes to setback and height requirements;   modifications to impervious and open space regulations; and   moving architectural and material standards to the newly adopted section of the zoning  code that deals with those topics.    The Planning Commission recommended approval (7‐0) of updated mixed use language at their  meeting on August 12. If approved by the City Council, staff is recommending setting a date of  January 1, 2020, for the new code to take effect in order to allow time for key property rezonings  to take place and for additional zoning code language to be aligned with the new Mixed Use  district.      Background  The I‐394 Mixed Use Zoning District was adopted in 2008 after a long period of investigation,  community engagement, and help from an outside consultant. After the adoption of the new  zoning language, a swath of properties just north of I‐394 was rezoned to Mixed Use.    Over time, new developments were approved within the Mixed Use Zoning District.  Unfortunately, while many of the site and building standards were followed, no mixed use  buildings resulted from any of the new projects and Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning was  often used to avoid the requirement that new developments consist of a mix of land uses.    Ten years after the zoning language was adopted, the City was able to utilize the expertise of  consultants developing Transit Oriented Development (TOD) zoning language as part of the  METRO Blue Line Extension work with Hennepin County. The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan  was being developed at the same time, with staff and the Planning Commission taking a hard  look at the Future Land Use map. The draft Comp Plan included a recommendation that the City  modify the I‐394 Mixed Use Zoning standards so that they could be applied in other locations  across the city. Staff worked with the Blue Line consultants to develop new language that was  more flexible and more easily understood by developers and the general public.    The Planning Commission and staff investigated the topic of an updated Mixed Use district at the  following meetings:    Meeting Date  Discussion  February 25  Summary of 2040 Comprehensive Plan; recommendation to proceed  with an update to the I‐394 Mixed Use district  April 8  Assessment of the current I‐394 Mixed Use district to identify problem  areas and opportunities for improvement  April 22  Identification of main topics for investigation: revised subdistricts, uses  allowed, height and setbacks, lot coverage and open space  May 13  Discussion of impervious surface percentages, building/lot coverage, and  open space  June 10  Discussion of height and setbacks  June 24  Additional analysis of impervious surface percentages, building/lot  coverage, and open space  July 22  Debrief of local site visits conducted by Commissioners; additional  analysis of height and setbacks  August 12  Public hearing to consider updated language for a new Mixed Use district    Proposed Standards  The new code language differs enough from the existing text that staff intends to remove and  replace the entire section of zoning code. Even though numerous tweaks were made to the  mixed use regulations, the starting point for the majority of the new code is the work that was  done in 2007 and 2008. The key differences in the proposed code are outlined in more detail  below.        Purpose  The purpose of the new Mixed Use Zoning District was updated slightly in order to expand the  focus beyond the I‐394 Corridor. The following principles are included in the new code language:  (1) Implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.  (2) Enable appropriate locations within the City to evolve towards a diverse mix of  compatible uses.  (3) Maximize integration rather than separation of uses.  (4) Improve connectivity for all modes of transportation.  (5) Provide a context suitable for high‐frequency transit.  (6) Foster neighborhood‐serving retail and service uses.    Subdistricts  The I‐394 Mixed Use district contains three subdistricts that are distinguished by the maximum  height of buildings allowed. Generally, the tallest buildings are located closest to I‐394 (10  stories) and then step down towards the single family neighborhoods to the north and west  (three stories).    The revised Mixed Use district still proposes to consist of three subdistricts, but instead of being  distinguished solely by height, they would be focused on slightly different types of uses and  scales of activity:    Neighborhood Subdistrict (MU‐N) – This subdistrict allows a mix of uses including medium‐ density residential and medium‐scale commercial, office, and institutional uses. Properties  zoned for Neighborhood Mixed Use typically sit adjacent to County Roads or other roads  classified as arterials or collectors and are accessible via a variety of transportation modes.  The target market is the surrounding neighborhood. The built environment could incorporate  freestanding businesses, religious or civic institutions, and attached housing options including  small apartment buildings. These areas allow for both vertical and horizontal mixed use and  do not require a mix of uses within every building.  Community Subdistrict (MU‐C) – This subdistrict allows a mix of uses including high‐density  residential and commercial, office, and institutional uses. Properties zoned for Community  Mixed Use typically sit adjacent to State Highways or Interstates and are accessible through  frequent transit service.  Target markets encompass the surrounding neighborhoods, the  broader community, and even the wider region. The built environment could include  freestanding businesses, shopping areas, employment centers, and apartment buildings.  Envisioned as compact urban development areas that serve as gateways to the city and as  activity centers for the community, they allow for both vertical and horizontal mixed use and  do not require a mix of uses within every building.  Employment Subdistrict (MU‐E) – This subdistrict is similar to the Community Subdistrict, but the  focus is on employment in a variety of settings, including light industrial uses. No residential  uses are allowed in these areas.    Building Setbacks and Height  A repeated focus of the Planning Commission with respect to the new Mixed Use district was the  importance of creating pedestrian‐friendly environments that are walkable and that have a scale    that is relatable. These aspects are directly related to building setbacks and to building height.  Over a number of conversations, the following priorities were identified:   require buildings be located close to the front lot line and push surface parking to the rear  of a lot;   avoid “canyon‐like” streetscapes by stepping back the fronts of buildings along streets;   establish a minimum and a maximum height of buildings to help provide a pedestrian‐ friendly environment; and   reduce the potential impact of building height on adjacent single‐family homes by limiting  the numbers of stories within a certain distance of abutting properties.    To achieve these objectives, front setbacks were designed to ensure the front façades are close  to the right‐of‐way by utilizing both a minimum and a maximum setback distance. Surface  parking is prohibited in front yards and buildings are required to be at least 26 feet tall. To  protect nearby single‐family homes, side setbacks include limits to height when buildings are  within specified distances of R‐1 and R‐2 zoned properties.     Although there are slight variations in the requirements between the subdistricts, all three follow  these general rules.    Impervious Coverage and Open Space  A desire to increase the building density in the mixed use areas was balanced with concern about  the potential amount of impervious coverage on a lot. Open space was viewed as being  important, even if it was only available for private use by building tenants. Through discussion  with the Planning Commission, the following priorities were identified:   allow additional impervious coverage as a way to support increased density in the mixed  use areas, but prioritize building coverage over surface parking;   require useable outdoor spaces be included in most, if not all, mixed use developments;  and   encourage larger, coordinated open space amenities within mixed use areas.    In order to limit impervious coverage that is not associated with a structure, a new “non‐ structure coverage” maximum was introduced to each subdistrict. Although there was interest in  seeing coordinated open space amenities, it was ultimately decided that the best way to achieve  this was through the creation of small area plans (such as the one being developed for the  downtown area).    Uses  Overall, the types of uses allowed in the mixed use areas did not change greatly, but certain  restrictions that complicated the evaluation of uses were removed. Home occupations  (previously identified as live‐work units) were retained, but language was revised to be more  consistent with the home occupation regulations in other residential zoning districts. Gas stations  and auto repair services were prohibited in this district, and the maximum floor area allowed for  certain uses – such as offices – was limited to reflect the scale of the corresponding subdistrict.  Drive‐thrus were relegated to the rear of the lot, and surface parking by religious or other  institutional uses was minimized by establishing a maximum number of surface spaces. One    additional significant change was the inclusion of light industrial, R&D, and other collaborative  workspace uses in the Employment Mixed Use subdistrict, which is targeted for jobs and does not  include residential uses.    Other Development Standards  Many of the remaining development standards that were created for the I‐394 Mixed Use district  were retained, though some of the architectural and material standards were removed and will  be included in Section 113‐157 as part of a future text amendment.    Analysis  Once implemented, these changes should allow for a clearer, more user‐friendly, code that is  consistent with the vision of the Planning Commission and City Council and allows for new mixed  use development in targeted locations across the city (see attached map). Staff has already been  receiving inquiries regarding a few of these locations based on the information included in the  2040 Comprehensive Plan.    In order to coordinate additional zoning code changes that need to be made to be consistent  with the new Mixed Use district, and because of the property rezonings that will be considered as  a result of the new Future Land Use map included in the 2040 Comp Plan, staff is recommending  that the Council set the effective date for the new district to be January 1, 2020. This will allow  time for outreach and education of effected property owners and for the necessary rezoning  processes to play out.    With the adoption of the new zoning language and the rezoning of certain properties, there are  buildings and/or uses that will become nonconforming. As already anticipated by the City Code,  any nonconformity may be continued, including through “repair, replacement, restoration,  maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion” in all but a handful of limited  circumstances (Sec. 113‐26).    Summary  Staff is recommending the current I‐394 Mixed Use Zoning District be replaced with revised and  updated Mixed Use Zoning District code language, to become effective on January 1, 2020.    Attachments   Memo to Planning Commission dated August 12, 2019 (5 pages)   Planning Commission Minutes dated August 12, 2019 (5 pages)   Map of Proposed Mixed Use Areas (1 page)   Ordinance #669 Amending City Code Chapter 113 Zoning, Section 113.97 – Mixed Use Zoning  District (9 pages)   Summary of Ordinance #669 for Publication (1 page)    Recommended Action  Motion to adopt Ordinance #669 ‐ Replacing Section 113‐97: I‐394 Mixed Use Zoning District with  new language for a revised Mixed Use Zoning District.    Motion to adopt Summary of Ordinance #669 for Publication.  1 Date: August 12, 2019 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment – Amending the Mixed Use Zoning District Summary Over the past four months, the Planning Commission has been engaged in discussions regarding significant revisions to the current I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. These changes were suggested in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan and would potentially remove some of the barriers to mixed use development that are a result of complicated regulations and limited applicability. With the adoption of the new language, the Mixed Use Zoning District could be utilized throughout Golden Valley at appropriate locations where more dense and flexible development is desired. Background The I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District was adopted in 2008 after a long period of investigation, community engagement, and help from an outside consultant. After the adoption of the new zoning language, a swath of properties just north of I-394 was rezoned to Mixed Use. Over time, new developments were approved within the Mixed Use Zoning District. Unfortunately, while many of the site and building standards were followed, no mixed use buildings resulted from any of the new projects and Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning was often used to avoid the requirement that new developments consist of a mix of land uses. Ten years after the zoning language was adopted, the City was able to utilize the expertise of consultants developing Transit Oriented Development (TOD) zoning language as part of the METRO Blue Line Extension work with Hennepin County. The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan was being developed at the same time, with staff and the Planning Commission taking a hard look at the Future Land Use map. The draft Comp Plan included a recommendation that the City modify the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning standards so that they could be applied in other locations across the city. Staff worked with the Blue Line consultants to develop new language that was more flexible and more easily understood by developers and the general public. 2 Beginning with an introductory discussion at the April 8, 2019, Planning Commission meeting, staff led the Commission through a series of conversations to begin to assess various parts of the current mixed use code and to suggest modifications that could result in improvements. Key topics included the creation of new subdistricts that related in scale to their surroundings, a close look at the lists of permitted and conditional uses allowed, changes to setback and height requirements, modifications to impervious and open space regulations, and moving architectural and material standards to the newly adopted section of the zoning code that deals with those topics. The Planning Commission considered a number of changes at meetings on April 22, May 13, June 10, June 24, and July 22, and conducted visits to local sites in order to “field test” some of the concepts being proposed. The public hearing being held at tonight’s meeting is the next step in the adoption of new code language. Proposed Standards The new code language differs enough from the existing text that staff intends to remove and replace the entire section of zoning code. Even though numerous tweaks were made to the mixed use regulations, the starting point for the majority of the new code is the work that was done in 2007 and 2008. The key topics of the proposed code are outlined in more detail below. Purpose The purpose of the new Mixed Use Zoning District is captured by the following principles: 1) Implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 2) Enable appropriate locations within the City to evolve towards a diverse mix of compatible uses. 3) Maximize integration rather than separation of uses. 4) Improve connectivity for all modes of transportation. 5) Provide a context suitable for high-frequency transit. 6) Foster neighborhood-serving retail and service uses. The district includes specific standards for building form, height, bulk, and placement in order to encourage development that enhances walkability, frames the public realm, and seamlessly transitions to adjacent development. Mixed Use Subdistricts In contrast to the current subdistricts, which are generally distinguished by the maximum building height allowed in each as they radiate out from I-394, the new subdistricts are designed to be implemented at key locations throughout the City and to respond to their surroundings. Neighborhood Subdistrict (MU-N) – This subdistrict allows a mix of uses including medium- density residential and medium-scale commercial, office, and institutional uses. Properties zoned for Neighborhood Mixed Use typically sit adjacent to County Roads or other roads classified as arterials or collectors and are accessible via a variety of transportation modes. 3 The target market is the surrounding neighborhood. The built environment could incorporate freestanding businesses, religious or civic institutions, and attached housing options including small apartment buildings. These areas allow for both vertical and horizontal mixed use and do not require a mix of uses within every building. Community Subdistrict (MU-C) – This subdistrict allows a mix of uses including high-density residential and commercial, office, and institutional uses. Properties zoned for Community Mixed Use typically sit adjacent to State Highways or Interstates and are accessible through frequent transit service. Target markets encompass the surrounding neighborhoods, the broader community, and even the wider region. The built environment could include freestanding businesses, shopping areas, employment centers, and apartment buildings. Envisioned as compact urban development areas that serve as gateways to the city and as activity centers for the community, they allow for both vertical and horizontal mixed use and do not require a mix of uses within every building. Employment Subdistrict (MU-E) – This subdistrict is similar to the Community Subdistrict, but the focus is on employment in a variety of settings, including light industrial uses. No residential uses are allowed in these areas. Building Setbacks and Height A repeated focus of the Planning Commission with respect to the new Mixed Use district was the importance of creating pedestrian-friendly environments that are walkable and that have a scale that is relatable. Over a number of conversations, the following priorities were identified: Require buildings be located close to the front lot line and push surface parking to the rear of a lot Avoid “canyon-like” streetscapes by stepping back the fronts of buildings along streets Establish a minimum and a maximum height of buildings to help provide a pedestrian- friendly environment Reduce the potential impact of building height on adjacent single-family homes by limiting the numbers of stories within a certain distance of abutting properties To achieve these objectives, front setbacks were designed to ensure the front façades are close to the right-of-way by utilizing both a minimum and a maximum setback distance. Surface parking is prohibited in front yards and buildings are required to be at least 26 feet tall. To protect nearby single-family homes, side setbacks include limits to height when buildings are within specified distances of R-1 and R-2 zoned properties. Although there are slight variations in the requirements between the subdistricts, all three follow these general rules. Impervious Coverage and Open Space A desire to increase the building density in the mixed use areas was balanced with concern about the potential amount of impervious coverage on a lot. Open space was viewed as being important, even if it was only available for private use by building tenants. Through discussion with the Planning Commission, the following priorities were identified: 4 Allow additional impervious coverage as a way to support increased density in the mixed use areas, but prioritize building coverage over surface parking Require useable outdoor spaces be included in most, if not all, mixed use developments Encourage larger, coordinated open space amenities within mixed use areas In order to limit impervious coverage that is not associated with a structure, a new “non- structure coverage” maximum was introduced to each subdistrict. Although there was interest in seeing coordinated open space amenities, it was ultimately decided that the best way to achieve this was through the creation of small area plans (such as is being developed for the downtown). Uses Overall, the types of uses allowed in the mixed use areas did not change greatly, but certain restrictions that complicated the evaluation of uses were removed. Home occupations previously identified as live-work units) were retained, but language was revised to be more consistent with the home occupation regulations in other residential zoning districts. Gas stations and auto repair services were prohibited in this district, and the maximum floor area allowed for certain uses – such as offices – was limited to reflect the scale of the corresponding subdistrict. Drive-thrus were relegated to the rear of the lot, and surface parking by religious or other institutional uses was minimized by establishing a maximum number of surface spaces. One additional significant change was the inclusion of light industrial, R&D, and “makerspace” uses in the Employment Mixed Use subdistrict, which is targeted for jobs and does not include residential uses. Other Development Standards Many of the remaining development standards that were created for the I-394 Mixed Use district were retained, though some of the architectural and material standards were removed and will be included in Section 113-157 as part of a future text amendment. Questions for Discussion A handful of minor issues remain to be resolved: Should a minimum height exemption be allowed for small buildings (under 5,000 square feet) in the Neighborhood Subdistrict? This is included in the I-394 Mixed Use regulations. Should drive-thru facilities remain as conditional uses – as they are currently – or are the development standards that are included enough to allow them to be permitted with restrictions? Should gasoline sales and auto repair be allowed in the Employment Subdistrict? Just gasoline sales? In the Employment Subdistrict, should Child Care be allowed as an accessory use (but not as a primary use)? What is the right definition of “makerspaces”? Recommendation 5 Staff recommends removing and replacing the text of the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District with the new Mixed Use Zoning District. Attachments Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of July 22, 2019 (4 pages) Draft Code Language for Sec. 113-97: Mixed Use Zoning District (8 pages) Sec. 113-97: I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District (10 pages) REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Chair Blum Roll Call Commissioners present: Rich Baker, Ron Blum, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl, Ari Prohofsky, Ryan Sadeghi, and Chuck Segelbaum Commissioners absent: Adam Brookins Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Planning Intern Emily Anderson, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman Council Liaison present: Steve Schmidgall Approval of Agenda MOTION made by Pockl, seconded by Baker to approve the agenda of August 12, 2019, as submitted and the motion carried unanimously. Approval of Minutes MOTION made by Pockl, seconded by Johnson to approve the July 22, 2019, minutes as submitted and the motion carried. Commissioner Baker abstained. Public Hearing – Mixed Use Zoning District Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider amending the existing I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District language Zimmerman gave some background information about the current I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. He stated that the changes to this district which the Commission has been discussing over the past four months were suggested in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan as a way to take some of the same development principles in the current I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District and apply them elsewhere in the City. Zimmerman referred to the proposed new Zoning Code language and said he would like to review the purpose statement, the descriptions of the proposed three subdistricts, the building setbacks and height regulations, uses, and other development standards. Zimmerman reviewed the proposed purpose statement and each of the proposed subdistricts which include the Neighborhood Subdistrict, the Community Subdistrict, and the Employment Subdistrict. August 12, 2019 – 7 pm Council Chambers Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 12, 2019 – 7 pm 2 Zimmerman next reviewed the principles used when considering building setbacks and height regulations. He stated that the main focus was to require buildings to be located close to the front lot line and to push surface parking to the rear of a lot, to avoid canyon-like streetscapes by stepping back the fronts of buildings along streets, to establish a minimum and a maximum height of buildings to help provide a pedestrian-friendly environment, and to reduce the potential impact of building height on adjacent single family homes by limiting the number of stories within a certain distance of abutting properties. Zimmerman stated that the next area their discussions focused on was impervious surface coverage and open space. He stated that the proposed code language allows additional impervious coverage as a way to support increased density in the mixed use areas, but it prioritizes building coverage over surface parking. He said the Code also requires useable outdoor spaces to be included in mixed use developments, and it encourages larger, coordinated open space amenities within mixed use areas. Zimmerman stated that the last area their discussions focused on was uses and other development standards. He explained that in the proposed code language multiple uses within a single parcel or building are encouraged, home occupations are allowed, and some uses are restricted by having limits placed on gross square footage, and the number of surface parking spaces allowed. He added that the Employment Subdistrict includes Light Industrial uses which could be manufacturing uses, R&D, makerspaces, and warehouses. Zimmerman said the outstanding questions/items for discussion include: whether there should be a minimum height exemption for small buildings, whether drive-thrus should be conditional or restricted uses, if gasoline sales and auto repair should be allowed in the Employment Subdistrict, if Child Care as an accessory use should be allowed in the Employment Subdistrict, a definition of “makerspaces,” and right-of-way obstruction permits for awning/canopies over sidewalks. Segelbaum asked Zimmerman if he is looking for feedback regarding “height” or “number of stories.” Zimmerman said the consensus in past discussions was not to consider stories but to require all buildings to be a minimum of 26 feet in height. He said there is currently an exemption in the Code that allows buildings 5,000 square feet or less in size in the Neighborhood Subdistrict to be less than 26 feet in height. Baker questioned if the exemption should apply to the square footage of the lot and not the square footage of the building. Zimmerman said the current language in the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District says that buildings 5,000 square feet or less in size are exempt. He said the concern is creating a sufficient pedestrian supportive environment if there are one-story buildings. Segelbaum asked if the 5,000 square feet refers to the building itself, gross floor space, or finished floor space. Zimmerman said the language is just 5,000 square feet but he assumes that means gross floor space. Johnson said any of the Mixed Use properties could have buildings that were four stories and it would seem way out of proportion to have a smaller building. He added that taking the exemption out might encourage a group of properties to be developed together as opposed to one at a time with a single building that might be out of proportion. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 12, 2019 – 7 pm 3 Pockl questioned how the minimum height exemption issue was raised and if other cities allow for similar minimum height exemption for small buildings. Zimmerman said he believed it came about with the creation of the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District because there are a lot of existing buildings that the City wanted to accommodate and not make nonconforming. Baker asked if the exemption would encourage the retention small buildings. Zimmerman said potentially it could and that without allowing the exemption they may be more encouraged to have something above the first story of a smaller building. Segelbaum said in most cases buildings match the lot size and developers don’t typically build a small building on a large lot so it seems likely that they don’t need to change the exemption based on lot size. Sadeghi said he thinks having the exemption would make sense if there are opportunities for smaller single story businesses, restaurants, etc. if they are able to make it work. Blum questioned if that is a trade-off with the goals of walkability and the style of the district and if allowing a smaller building surrounded by cars and pavement would be the opposite of what they’ve been trying to design. He added that changes can be made in the future if the City isn’t seeing the appropriate development. Segelbaum asked if the height of a building is measured at the front. Zimmerman said yes, height is measured at the front facade. Segelbaum proposed that buildings less than 5,000 square feet have to be 20 feet in height rather than 26 feet. Johnson asked what the height requirement would be if it didn’t have to be 26 feet. Zimmerman said it varies between 12 and 20 feet. Johnson said he wants to avoid having a small building surrounded by tall buildings. Zimmerman reiterated that the existing I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District and the current proposed Mixed Use Zoning District language has the height exemption in it. Johnson proposed that the exemption language be taken out of the Code so that all buildings are required to be 26 feet in height and to handle exceptions as they come. The consensus of the Commission was to remove the exemption language. Zimmerman said the next question staff would like feedback on is drive-thrus. He stated that currently a Conditional Use Permit is required for drive-thrus in all zoning districts. He referred to the proposed language regarding drive-thrus in the Mixed Use Zoning District which states that drive-thru facilities and lanes shall be located behind the principal structure, queuing lanes shall not interfere with pedestrian circulation, and canopies and other structures shall be constructed from the same materials as the principal structure. He explained that the options are to have these be the guiding rules or to require drive-thrus to go through the review and approval process for a Conditional Use Permit. Baker asked about the pros and cons of the two options. Zimmerman said that he has had feedback that drive-thrus seem so straightforward that it is burdensome to have to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council for approval. Zimmerman said he would recommend that drive-thrus are a restricted use which would still require site plan review. Segelbaum said people have very strong opinions about drive-thrus and he thinks it would be helpful to the City Council to have the review process so he suggests they be left as a conditional use. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 12, 2019 – 7 pm 4 Johnson questioned how parking and drive-thru lanes could both be located behind a building without interfering with pedestrian circulation. Zimmerman agreed that the site design will have to make sure queuing lanes are set up so that they don’t cross main walkways. Zimmerman asked the Commissioners for their feedback regarding gasoline sales and auto repair in the Employment Subdistrict. Pockl asked if those uses would be subject to the 26-foot height requirement. Zimmerman said as the Code is currently written they would have to be 26 feet in height. Pockl referred to setbacks for gasoline stations and asked if they are measured from the pumps or from the building. Zimmerman said they are measured from the building and that it seems to imply that it may be challenging to have this use in this district. Baker said it doesn’t seem like this district is suitable for gasoline sales or auto repair uses. Blum agreed. Zimmerman next asked the Commissioners about allowing child care as an accessory use to a larger office building, or as a stand-alone child care business in the Employment Subdistrict. He explained that the proposed new Mixed Use District language would allow child care as an accessory use along with a business, but not as a stand-alone child care business. The Commissioners agreed that stand-alone child care businesses should also be allowed in the Mixed Use District. Zimmerman next referred to “makerspaces” and explained that the TOD consultants have discussed allowing them in the Employment Subdistrict. He explained that “makerspaces” are collaborative spaces where people can share tools, equipment, ideas, etc. that tend to be in light industrial areas. He said if the Commission likes the idea of allowing “makerspaces” staff can work on developing a clear definition and requirements. Blum asked if “makerspaces” are really so different that they need to be separate and called out in the Code. Zimmerman said that they are unusual and new and doesn’t fit nicely with any of the existing use categories so it felt like it was worth calling out and defining. Baker asked where in the Zoning Code “makerspaces” would be located. Zimmerman said there would be a definition and they would be allowed in the Light Industrial Zoning District as well as the Employment Subdistrict in the Mixed Use District. Segelbaum said it is fine to encourage “makerspaces” but he doesn’t think it needs to be specially carved out in the Zoning Code. The Commissioners agreed. Zimmerman said the last question he wanted feedback about is allowing canopies and awnings in the front of buildings over sidewalks, and if they would require a right-of-way obstruction permit. Baker said he doesn’t think canopies and awnings on a public sidewalk are very inviting. Segelbaum asked if there are requirements such as height, etc. Zimmerman said yes, and noted that currently the Zoning Code requires 10 feet of height. He added that ultimately the City would have the ability to not grant a permit. Sadeghi said awnings feel urban and allowing those types of features would improve walkability. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 12, 2019 – 7 pm 5 Zimmerman said that the next step will be to bring this proposed Zoning Code language to the City Council with an effective date set in the future to allow time for property rezonings to take place. He explained that there will also be other necessary code changes such as amending the architectural and materials standards section and the sign regulations to include this new Zoning District. Blum opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment Blum closed the public hearing. Johnson asked to see the Future Land Use map and asked Zimmerman to point out all of the locations that would be Mixed Use. Zimmerman referred to the map and discussed each location. Johnson asked if language encouraging public art could be added. Zimmerman said yes and noted that there is language regarding public art in the existing I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District that could remain in the proposed new language. MOTION made by Baker, seconded by Johnson to recommend approval of replacing the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District with a new Mixed Use Zoning District and the motion carried unanimously. C I T Y O F C R Y S T A L C I T Y O F R O B B I N S D A L E CITY OF MINNEAPOLISC I T Y O F S T . L O U I S P A R K CITY OF MINNEAPOLISCITY OFST. LOUIS PARKCITY OFROBBINSDALECITY OF CRYSTAL CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK C I T Y OF N E W H O P E CITY OF PLYMOUTHCITY OF MINNEAPOLISC I TY O F S T . L O U I S P A R KCITY OFPLYMOUTH456766 456770 456766 456740 456740 4567156 4567102 394 394 Æÿ55Æÿ55 Æÿ100 Æÿ100 169 169 Laurel Ave Duluth St 10th Ave N Regent Ave NNoble Ave NOlympia St Western Ave Culver Rd 23rd Ave N Kelly DrWayzata Blvd Knoll St Plym ou th Ave N Sumter Ave NPennsylvania Ave NN Frontage Rd S cottQuebec Ave NValders Ave NCountry Club Dr 26th Ave N SandburgRd ZaneAve NManor DrWinsdale St Brunswick Ave N34th Ave N Boone Ave NEarl St Rd A veNBridgewaterRdTryol Tra ilFlorida Ave NHanley RdGolden Hills Dr Lowry Ter Winnetka Ave SXerxes Ave NIndependence Ave NMajorDrZenith Ave NFlag Ave NWestwood Dr SWestbend Rd Sumter AveSHampshireL nOrchard Ave NCircle Down Lindsay St NobleDrPoplar DrAve Heights Dr Heights Dr S FrontageR d Dres d e n L n Lege ndDrFrontage RdBrookridgeAveNWinnetka Ave NLawn TerNatchezAve SGettysburg Ave NMarket St Naper St Decatur Ave N Oregon Ave NKewanee W ay Pennsylvania Ave SDona Ln ArdmoreDrGlenwoodPk w y Tryol TrailWestbrook Rd M cN airDr Phoenix St OttawaAve NThotland Rd Wisconsin Ave NUtah Ave SJersey Ave SBies DrWills PlColon i al DrEdgewood Ave NBassettCree k DrAdair Ave NJuneAveSNevada AveNHarold Ave BrookviewPkwyNWynnwood Rd Lee Ave NTurners Cr ossroadNAquil aAveNMendelssohn Ave NBrookviewPkwy SE lm daleRd M ea nderRd Jersey Ave NSorell Ave Dakota Ave SVista DrKyleAveNWindsorWayAve SGoldenValley Road/ County R o ad 66Highway 100Ros eMarylandAve NAlfred Rd Cortlawn Cir SIdaho Ave NIndianaAve N7th Ave N RhodeIsland Ave NBrunswick Ave SZ a n e Av e NBurntsideDrRoanoke Rd WoodstockAve PerryAveNAve NTrailMedle y L n Georgia Ave NWallySt Cutacross Rd Xenia Ave NHampshireKillarney DrKentucky Ave SJuneAve NZephyr PlLouisiana Ave SCloverLnC loverleafDr Clo v erleafDrLilacLoop MaryHillsDrFloridaAveSXylonAveNDecaturAveNKent uckyAveNTopelRd YorkAve NGreenValley Rd Chatelain T er No r m an d y Bo n n i e L n Elgin Pl MerribeeDr Louisiana Ave NDuluthLn Marie Ln E Kalt ernLnOrkla DrLilacDrNToledoAveNM a rkayRidge WestbendRd FairlawnWayGo ldenValley R d NevadaAve SMarieLnW WestmoreWay WolfberryLn HamptonRd YukonCtHampshireAve NKentleyAve Cortlawn Cir WWinnetka OregonAve SPlUnityAveNB a s s e t t C reek Dr BassettCreek Ln M innaq u aD rToledoA v e NWinfieldAveUnity Ave NB re n nerP a s s FaribaultSt ArcherAve N AdelineLn K in g s t o n C ir G o lde n V a lleyD rVarnerCirValders Ct Greenview LnHampshire Ave NWinnetka Phoenix St Duluth St Wayzata BlvdWisconsinAveN Adell A ve MajorAveNZealandAveNEnsignAveNKelly DrXerxes Ave NKnoll St Lilac Dr NFlag Ave NRhode Island AveNPlymouth Ave N Wayzata Blvd G o lden Valley R d Orkla DrWayzata BlvdAve NZealandAveNS tCroixCirLeeAveNLamplighterLnSandburg LnMadisonAve WLewis RdLilac Dr NHamptonRd Elgin Pl Boone Ave NCircleDownJersey Ave NWinsdale St OttawaAve NOlympiaSt Winnetka Heights Dr LilacDrNLouisiana Ave NKyleAveNNoble AveManor 10th Ave N RhodeIslandAveSHalfMoonDr OrdwayLaurel Pt Lo rin gL n Winsdale StZane Ave NHarold Ave FloridaAve NJerseyAve NParkview TerPh o en ix StWisconsin Ave NW a y zataBlvd FranceAve NHiddenLakesP k wyIsland DrTryolTrail Maryla ndAveNMedicine Lake Road / County Road 70B e t t y CrockerDr RidgewayRdRhodeIslandAveNTerrace LnCastleCtFieldIndiana Ave NSchaper Rd Colonial Rd 24th Ave N 27th Ave N SussexRdKing Hill RdConstance Dr W25th Ave N SpringValley CirFrontena cAve SkylineDrSkyline DrHampshirePlCavellAveNLaurelAveSkiHillRdMeridianDrWesternTerLouisianaAveNColoradoStMargaretD rRoanoke CirCherokeeOak GroveQu e b e cAv e SKennethWayWasatchLnWelcomeTyrolCrest CortlawnCir N NatchezAveNBur n t s ide DrG oldenV alleyRdGeneralMillsBlvdEdge w ood Ave SEdgewoodAve SEllis LnJonellen LnWestwoodLn Gregory Cr est vi ewAveColoradoWis c o n si n A v e S Valley- woodCir Maryland Ave SMedicine Lake Road / County Road 70 SchullerGettysburgCtVermont AveSFloridaCtMajorCir PrincetonAve SValery RdBrogger CirGardenPark QuailAve NOrchardLouisiana Ave SWestern Ave PerryAve NIdahoAve NWayzataBlvdValdersAveNValdersAve NYosemiteAve NWinsdale St Decatur AveNNatchezAve SG len w o o d P kw yOttawaAve SEdgewoodAve NSpringValleyRdSt Croix AveN Wat erfordDrMendelssohn Ave NManches te r Dr HeritageCir StCroix AveN W el comeWinnetka Avenue North / County Road 156Douglas Drive / County Road 1021 Highway1693 S F r o ntage Rd DuluthStreet /County R o ad 66 LaurelCurvEnsign Ave NOrchardAve NIdaho Ave NKnoll WestbrookRd Winsdale St BrunswickScott Ave NWynnwood Rd HillsboroAve NSunsetRidge DrQuebec StOttawaA veSAngeloDrWoodlandTrailHiddenLakes PkwyWinsdaleSt AlpinePa ssAvondaleRd Dou glasA ve QuentinAveSRavineMaddausLn LnKyle PlUnity Ave NToledoAveNSpruce TrWes tchesterCirCirCt WaterfordScottAveNDawnview Ter Dawnview Ter ConstanceDrELilac Dr NPlymouth Ave NWisconsinAveNMedley Rd 6 PaisleyLnGlendenTer P l Noble Ave NTer Byrd Ave N Parkview BlvdYorkAveNMeadowLnSLilacDr NAve NDuluth St Patsy Ln 2 3 H illsboroINDEX1 - English Cir2 - Kings Valley Rd3 - Kings Valley Rd E4 - Kings Valley Rd W5 - Marquis Rd6 - ORDINANCE NO. 669 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Chapter 113 Zoning, Section 113-97. - Mixed Use Zoning District The City Council of the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. City Code Chapter 113, Zoning is hereby amended by repealing Section 113-97. - I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District and replacing it with a new Section 113-97 titled Mixed Use Zoning District as follows: Sec. 113-97. - Mixed Use Zoning District. a) Purpose The purpose of the Mixed Use Zoning District is to implement the following principles: 1) Implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 2) Enable appropriate locations within the City to evolve towards a diverse mix of compatible uses. 3) Maximize integration rather than separation of uses. 4) Improve connectivity for all modes of transportation. 5) Provide a context suitable for high-frequency transit. 6) Foster neighborhood-serving retail and service uses. The district includes specific standards for building form, height, bulk, and placement in order to encourage development that enhances walkability, frames the public realm, and seamlessly transitions to adjacent development. b) District Established Properties must be developed in the manner provided for in Section 113-29. The district and/or any subsequent changes to it shall be reflected in the Official Zoning Map of the City as provided in Section 113-56. c) Subdistrict Descriptions The subdistricts of the Mixed Use Zoning District reflect the character of the surrounding areas and support the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Neighborhood Subdistrict (MU-N) – This subdistrict allows a mix of uses including medium-density residential and medium-scale commercial, office, and institutional uses. Properties zoned for Neighborhood Mixed Use typically sit adjacent to County Roads or other roads classified as arterials or collectors and are accessible via a variety of transportation modes. The target market is the surrounding neighborhood. The built environment could incorporate freestanding businesses, religious or civic institutions, and attached housing options including small apartment buildings. These areas allow for both vertical and horizontal mixed use and do not require a mix of uses within every building. Community Subdistrict (MU-C) – This subdistrict allows a mix of uses including high- density residential and commercial, office, and institutional uses. Properties zoned for Community Mixed Use typically sit adjacent to State Highways or Interstates and are accessible through frequent transit service. Target markets encompass the surrounding neighborhoods, the broader community, and even the wider region. The built environment could include freestanding businesses, shopping areas, Ordinance No. 669 -2- September 3, 2019 employment centers, and apartment buildings. Envisioned as compact urban development areas that serve as gateways to the city and as activity centers for the community, they allow for both vertical and horizontal mixed use and do not require a mix of uses within every building Employment Subdistrict (MU-E) – This subdistrict is similar to the Community Subdistrict, but the focus is on employment in a variety of settings, including light industrial uses. No residential uses are allowed in these areas. d) Dimensional Standards 1) Front Yards. a. Building façades must be located within the minimum and maximum front yard setbacks. b. If there is more than one front yard, staff will determine the assignment of the primary and secondary front yards. 2) Building Height. a. Building height in each of the Subdistricts reflects the policies of the Comprehensive Plan as follows: Subdistrict Scale Min Height Max Stories Max Height MU-N Neighborhood 26 feet 4 62 feet MU-C Community 26 feet 6 90 feet MU-E Community 26 feet 6 90 feet b. Building stepback requirements for upper stories shall be 15 feet from the façade of the story below. c. Stories are measured as follows: i. Stories are measured from finished floor to finished ceiling. ii. Ground floor height is subject to the following requirements: 1) Ground floor height must be no less than 12 feet. 2) Ground floor height is limited to 20 feet, above which it counts as an additional story. iii. Stories above the ground floor are limited to 14 feet in height. iv. The following projections are exempt from building height restrictions: 1) Chimneys, vents, or antennas 2) Spires, belfries, domes, or architectural finials 3) Mechanical equipment or elevator penthouses 3) Façades. a. Building entries must be provided along street frontages as follows: i. The primary building entrance must be located along a street frontage. ii. One entry must be provided for every 80 feet of building façade. Where a building fronts onto two or more streets, the façade of a secondary front yard under 50 feet in length is exempt from the entry requirement. iii. Building entries may be recessed from the façade up to six feet in depth b. Encroachments are permitted as follows: i. Underground parking within the front yard setback provided the structure is not visible from the sidewalk. ii. Roof overhangs, cornices, window and door surrounds, and other façade decorations may encroach up to two feet into the front yard setback. Ordinance No. 669 -3- September 3, 2019 iii. Canopies and awnings with a right-of-way permit may encroach into the public right-of-way to within two feet of the curb. A minimum clearance of 12 feet above the sidewalk is required. iv. Storefront display windows may project into the front yard setback no more than five feet and not beyond the property line v. Balconies, bay windows, and bow windows may encroach into the front yard setback up to three feet. e) Uses 1) Multiple uses within a single parcel or building are encouraged. 2) Home Occupations. The use of a dwelling for an occupation or profession shall be allowed for units that have direct access to the public right-of-way, subject to the following requirements: a. The business of the home occupation must be conducted by a person who resides in the dwelling unit. The business shall not employ more than two workers on-site at any one time who live outside of the unit. b. A home occupation shall not result in noise, fumes, traffic, lights, odor, excessive sewage or water use or garbage service, electrical, radio, or TV interference in a manner detrimental to the health, safety, enjoyment, and general welfare of the surrounding area. c. The business component may include offices, small service establishments, home crafts which are typically considered accessory to a dwelling unit, or limited retailing associated with fine arts, crafts, or personal services. It may not include a commercial food service requiring a license, a limousine business or auto service, repair for any vehicles other than those registered to residents of the property, or the sale or repair of firearms. d. Clients, deliveries, and other business activity shall be limited to the hours of 8 am to 9 pm. e. All buildings that permit home occupations shall adopt rules to regulate their operations in order to ensure that these units function harmoniously with other tenants within the building. 3) Uses in the Mixed Use Zoning District are subject to the requirements listed in Subsection (f) where the use notations have the following meanings: P Permitted R Permitted subject to restrictions C Allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit N Not permitted f) Subdistrict Standards 1) Neighborhood Mixed Use (MU-N) Subdistrict a. Principle Structure Setbacks. i. Primary front yard – three feet minimum to 12 feet maximum ii. Secondary front yard – six feet minimum to 15 feet maximum iii. Front yard across a public right-of-way from an R-1 or R-2 zoned property – 10 feet minimum to 15 feet maximum Ordinance No. 669 -4- September 3, 2019 iv. Side property line – 50 feet abutting R-1 or R-2 districts; 10 feet abutting all other districts v. Rear property line – 75 feet abutting R-1 or R-2 districts; 15 feet abutting all other districts b. Parking and Storage Setbacks. i. Primary front yard – 30 feet ii. Secondary front yard – 15 feet iii. Side property line – six feet iv. Rear property line – six feet c. Height. i. Minimum – 26 feet ii. Maximum – four stories or 62 feet, whichever is less iii. Parking structure maximum – building height less one story iv. Building height limited to two stories or 34 feet, whichever is less, within 75 feet of R-1 or R-2 zoned properties d. Stepbacks. i. 15 foot minimum stepback is required above three stories for frontages on rights- of-way less than 70 feet in width e. Lot Coverage. i. Impervious maximum – 85% ii. Non-structure coverage maximum – 15% iii. Useable outdoor space minimum – 10% f. Uses. Restrictions RESIDENTIAL Units within a mixed use building P Multifamily dwellings (three or more units) P Senior and disability housing P Home occupations R See Subsection (e)(2) above Single-family dwellings N COMMERCIAL Medical clinics P Restaurants, brewpubs P General retail/service R 20,000 square feet maximum gross floor area Breweries P Taprooms C Micro-distilleries P Cocktail rooms C Parking R Only as accessory to principal use Child care C Drive-thru facilities C Must follow the requirements of Subsection (g)(3) below Gasoline sales and automotive repair N Self-storage N Ordinance No. 669 -5- September 3, 2019 Outdoor storage N Sale or repair of firearms N Firing range N OFFICE Financial institutions without drive- thru facilities P Financial institutions with drive- thru facilities C Offices up to 5,000 gross square feet per floor P Offices more than 5,000 gross square feet per floor C INSTITUTIONAL Civic R 50 surface lot parking spaces maximum Medical R 50 surface lot parking spaces maximum Assembly R 50 surface lot parking spaces maximum 2) Community Mixed Use (MU-C) Subdistrict a. Principle Structure Setbacks. i. Primary front yard – five feet minimum to 15 feet maximum ii. Secondary front yard – 10 feet minimum to 15 feet maximum iii. Front yard across a public right-of-way from an R-1 or R-2 zoned property – 10 feet minimum to 15 feet maximum iv. Side property line – 50 feet abutting R-1 or R-2 districts; 10 feet abutting all other districts v. Rear property line – 75 feet abutting R-1 or R-2 districts; 25 feet abutting all other districts b. Parking and Storage Setbacks. i. Primary front yard – 30 feet ii. Secondary front yard – 15 feet iii. Side property line – six feet iv. Rear property line – six feet c. Height. i. Minimum – 26 feet ii. Maximum – six stories or 90 feet, whichever is less iii. Parking structure maximum – building height less one story iv. Building height limited to two stories or 34 feet, whichever is less, within 75 feet of R-1 or R-2 zoned properties d. Stepbacks. i. 15 foot minimum stepback is required above three stories for frontages on rights- of-way less than 70 feet in width e. Lot Coverage. i. Impervious maximum – 80% Ordinance No. 669 -6- September 3, 2019 ii. Non-structure coverage maximum – 20% iii. Useable outdoor space minimum – 15% f. Uses. Restrictions RESIDENTIAL Units within a mixed use building P Multifamily dwellings (three or more units) P Senior and disability housing P Home occupations R See Subsection (e)(2) above Single-family dwellings N COMMERCIAL Medical clinics P Hotels P Restaurants, brewpubs P General retail/service R 30,000 square feet maximum gross floor area Breweries P Taprooms C Micro-distilleries P Cocktail rooms C Parking R Only as accessory to principal use Child care C Drive-thru facilities C Must follow the requirements of Subsection (g)(3) below Gasoline sales and automotive repair N Self-storage N Outdoor storage N Sale or repair of firearms N Firing range N OFFICE Financial institutions without drive- thru facilities P Financial institutions with drive- thru facilities C Offices up to 7,000 gross square feet per floor P Offices more than 7,000 gross square feet per floor C INSTITUTIONAL Civic R 50 surface lot parking spaces maximum Ordinance No. 669 -7- September 3, 2019 Medical R 50 surface lot parking spaces maximum Assembly R 50 surface lot parking spaces maximum 3) Employment Mixed Use (MU-E) Subdistrict a. Principle Structure Setbacks. i. Primary front yard – five feet minimum to 15 feet maximum ii. Secondary front yard – 10 feet minimum to 15 feet maximum iii. Front yard across a public right-of-way from an R-1 or R-2 zoned property – 10 feet minimum to 15 feet maximum iv. Side property line – 50 feet abutting R-1 or R-2 districts; 10 feet abutting all other districts v. Rear property line – 75 feet abutting R-1 or R-2 districts; 25 feet abutting all other districts b. Parking and Storage Setbacks. i. Primary front yard – 30 feet ii. Secondary front yard – 15 feet iii. Side property line – six feet iv. Rear property line – six feet c. Height. i. Minimum – 26 feet ii. Maximum – six stories or 90 feet, whichever is less iii. Parking structure maximum – building height less one story iv. Building height limited to two stories or 34 feet, whichever is less, within 75 feet of R-1 or R-2 zoned properties d. Stepbacks. i. 15 foot minimum stepback is required above three stories for frontages on rights- of-way less than 70 feet in width e. Lot Coverage. i. Impervious maximum – 80% ii. Non-structure coverage maximum – 20% iii. Useable outdoor space minimum – 15% f. Uses. Restrictions COMMERCIAL Medical clinics P Hotels P Restaurants, brewpubs P General retail/service R 30,000 square feet maximum gross floor area Breweries P Taprooms C Micro-distilleries P Cocktail rooms C Parking R Only as accessory to principal use Child care C Ordinance No. 669 -8- September 3, 2019 Drive-thru facilities C Must follow the requirements of Subsection (g)(3) below Gasoline sales and automotive repair N Self-storage N Outdoor storage N Sale or repair of firearms N Firing range N OFFICE Financial institutions without drive- thru facilities P Financial institutions with drive- thru facilities C Offices up to 10,000 gross square feet per floor P Offices more than 10,000 gross square feet per floor C INSTITUTIONAL Civic R 50 surface lot parking spaces maximum Medical R 50 surface lot parking spaces maximum Assembly R 50 surface lot parking spaces maximum LIGHT INDUSTRIAL Light manufacturing, R&D, or collaborative work spaces that do not constitute a nuisance or health hazard to adjacent properties P Warehouses C g) Development Standards 1) Parking. a. Required parking. Minimum required parking may be fulfilled in the following locations: i. Off-street parking shall be located to the side and rear of buildings. ii. Spaces may be provided on-site or between multiple connected sites with a recorded shared parking agreement. iii. Spaces may be leased from a private or public parking facility with a shared parking agreement with the parking facility owner. b. Access. i. Driveways are limited to 20 feet in width. ii. Sites with alley access must use the alley for ingress and egress. iii. Pedestrian access to off-street parking must be provided from front yards. Ordinance No. 669 -9- September 3, 2019 c. Screening. Parking areas shall be screened from public streets, sidewalks, and paths with a masonry wall or evergreen hedge not less than 50 percent opaque on a year-round basis. The height of the screening shall be between 36 and 48 inches. d. Structured parking. The ground floor of any parking structure abutting a public street must have habitable space for a depth of 30 feet facing the street. i. Upper floors must be designed and detailed in a manner consistent with adjacent buildings. ii. Entrances shall be located to minimize conflicts with pedestrian movement. iii. Ramped floors are prohibited. 2) Pedestrian Circulation. a. Sidewalks shall be required along all street frontages, and sidewalk and trail design shall be consistent with the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. b. Walkways of at least six feet in width are required along all building facades that abut parking areas. c. A well-defined pedestrian path shall be provided from the sidewalk to each primary entrance of a building. 3) Drive-thru Facilities. a. Facilities and lanes shall be located behind the principal structure. b. Queuing lanes shall not interfere with pedestrian circulation. c. Drive-through canopies and other structures shall be constructed from the same materials as the principal structure and with a similar level of architectural quality and details. 4) Outdoor Dining Areas. Outdoor seating is permitted within rights-of-way, provided that sidewalks remain clear to a width of five feet. 5) Landscaping. In addition to the minimum landscaping requirements listed in Sec. 111-8, the six foot parking and storage setback areas along the side and rear property lines shall be landscaped, planted, and maintained as a green buffer. 6) Public Art. Public art is encouraged as a component of new development. Section 2. 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 3. This ordinance shall take effect from and after January 1, 2020. Adopted by the City Council this 3rd day of September, 2019. s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: s/ Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 669 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Chapter 113 Zoning - Replacing Section 113-97: I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District with a new Section 113-97 titled Mixed Use Zoning District This is a summary of the provisions of the above Ordinance which has been approved for publication by the City Council. This Ordinance amends language in the Zoning Code to update the regulations regarding Mixed Use areas throughout the City. This Ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2020. A copy of the full text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk’s Office. Adopted by the City Council this 3rd day of September 2019. 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 September 3, 2019 Agenda Item 4. B. Public Hearing to Vacate Easement at 424 Turnpike Road Prepared By Maria Cisneros, City Attorney Eric Eckman, Development and Assets Supervisor Summary While reviewing plans to remodel and expand the existing home at 424 Turnpike Road, the City and property owner discovered that a flowage easement extends up to the house located on this property. The easement is shown on the attached exhibit. The flowage easement was dedicated to the City around the time of development when the low area behind the home was landlocked with no outlet pipe for stormwater to exit the area. The easement was for “permitting the overflow and flooding of that certain municipal drainage ponding area lying at the westerly portion of the premises.” In the years since the easement was recorded, many drainage improvements have been completed in the area including the addition of curb and gutter and storm sewers on adjacent streets and construction of an outlet pipe to drain the basin. A stormwater report submitted by the owner’s engineer indicates that the calculated high water level of the backyard basin is much lower than it was historically. In addition, the Stormwater Management section of city code restricts development near ponds and basins and any new development would have to meet code requirements. Therefore, the flowage easement is no longer needed and can be vacated. The flowage easement also contained a waiver clause wherein the grantor “for themselves and their heirs and assigns” waived “any and all claims for damages, past, present, or future, which may exist or may result from the overflowing or flooding unto the premises.” The owners agreed to continue this waiver clause by executing the attached Acknowledgement & Agreement with the City. A notice of public hearing regarding the proposed easement vacation was published and posted and letters were sent to the affected property owners. Staff sent a letter to all private utility companies requesting their review and comment, and there have been no objections to this easement vacation. Since the easement is 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) Resolution Vacating Easement at 424 Turnpike Road (1 page) Acknowledgement & Agreement (3 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Vacating Easement at 424 Turnpike Road. Motion to approve Acknowledgement & Agreement. Easement Vacation Exhibit RESOLUTION NO. 19-48 RESOLUTION VACATING EASEMENT AT 424 TURNPIKE ROAD WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, pursuant to due notice, has conducted a public hearing on the vacation of an easement on the property commonly known as 424 Turnpike Road, legally described as follows: That part of Tract A lying Southeasterly of a line and its Northeasterly extension drawn from the most Southwesterly corner of said Tract A to a point in the Northeasterly line of said Tract A distant 5 feet Northwesterly from the Southeast corner thereof; Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1335, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “Subject Property”). WHEREAS, all persons present were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, no public utilities exist within the flowage easement proposed for vacation; 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 easement located in the Subject Property and legally described below be vacated: A variable width flowage easement lying within Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1335, Hennepin County, MN. Said easement to be vacated is described as follows: A flowage easement over that part portion of Tract B, RLS #1335, which lies below an elevation of 883 feet sea level datum (U.S.C.G.S.) this easement being for the purpose of permitting the overflow and flooding of that certain municipal drainage ponding area lying at the westerly portion of the premises described above and as a permanent waiver by grantors for themselves and their heirs and assigns of any and all claims for damages, past, present or future, which may exist or may result from the overflowing or flooding unto the premises described herein. Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 3rd day of September, 2019. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk 1- ACKNOWLEDGEMENT & AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on , 2019, by and between the City of Golden Valley, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”) and Wade W. Wiestling and Stephany Wiestling (“Owners”). WHEREAS, Owners are the fee owners of the property located at 424 Turnpike Road, Golden Valley, Hennepin County and legally described as follows (the “Property”): That part of Tract A lying Southeasterly of a line and its Northeasterly extension drawn from the most Southwesterly corner of said Tract A to a point in the Northeasterly line of said Tract A distant 5 feet Northwesterly from the Southeast corner thereof; Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1335, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, on or about October 7, 1975 Stobbe Development, Inc., Owners’ predecessor in interest, entered into an easement agreement with the City granting a flowage easement over a portion of the Property (the “Easement”). The Easement was memorialized in an Indenture recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as document number A1155153. WHEREAS, the stated purpose of the Easement was for “permitting the overflow and flooding of that certain municipal drainage ponding area lying at the westerly portion of the premises.” WHEREAS, the Easement also contained a waiver clause wherein the grantor “for themselves and their heirs and assigns” waived “any and all claims for damages, past, present, or future, which may exist or may result from the overflowing or flooding unto the premises.” WHEREAS, on or about July 17, 2019, Owners petitioned the City to vacate the Easement. WHEREAS, the City has approved vacation of the Easement provided Owners acknowledge and affirm the waiver contained in the Easement. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: In consideration for the City vacating the Easement, Owners hereby waive for themselves and their heirs and assigns, any and all claims for damages, past, present or future, against the City which may exist or may result from overflowing or flooding onto the Property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this acknowledgement and agreement to be executed as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY Shepard M. Harris, Mayor Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Signed and sworn before me this day of , 2019, by Shepard M. Harris, Mayor, and Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager of the City of Golden Valley. Notary Public This instrument drafted by: City of Golden Valley (MTC) 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55416 OWNERS Wade W. Wiestling Stephany Wiestling STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Signed and sworn before me this day of , 2019, by Wade W. Wiestling, and Stephany Wiestling. Notary Public