The URL can be used to link to this page

agenda packet (entire) AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber Wednesday, March 5, 2008 6:30 p.m. The Council may consider item numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 prior to the public hearings scheduled at 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Roll Call PAGES 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA 3. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no discussion of these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests in which event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. A. Approval of Check Registers: 1. City 2. Housing and Redevelopment Authority B. Licenses: 1 . Rental Property 2. Gambling Premises Permit Renewal Application - American Legion Post #523 08-13 3. Gambling Premises Permit Renewal Application - Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #7051 08-14 C. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. Planning Commission - February 11, 2008 2. Board of Zoning Appeals - January 22, 2008 3. Building Board of Review -October 15, 2007 4. Environmental Commission - January 28, 2008 5. Human Rights Commission - January 10, 2008 6. Open Space and Recreation Commission - January 28, 2008 7. Bassett Creek Water Management Commission - January 17, 2008 D. Bids and Quotes: 1. Squad Cars - Quotes 2. Crime Prevention Vehicle - Quotes 3. Single Axle Cab Chassis Truck and Attachments - Quotes 4. Utility Box and Hoist - Quotes 5. Solid Manhole Covers - Quotes 3. CONSENT AGENDA - CONTINUED E. Letters, Emails and/or Petitions: 1. Letter from Scott Fultz Regarding Noise Pollution 2. Email from Boyd Savage Regarding DukelWest End Project 3. Petitions Requesting Winter Maintenance of City Trails at James Ford Bell Technical Center and General Mills Nature Preserve 4. Regent Avenue Sidewalk Boulevard: a. Letter from Gary and Cynthia Malinowski b. Letter and Petition from Gary and Cynthia Malinowski 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 PM A. Public Hearing - Ordinance #396 - Employee-only Daycare Centers in Business and Professional Office Zoning District 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Declaration of Hazardous Building - 4125 Woodstock Avenue B. Announcements of Meetings C. Mayor and Council Communications 7. ADJOURNMENT l alley Me rand Finance 763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 5, 2008 Agenda Item 3. A. 1. Approval of City Check Register Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Approval of check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley. Attachments Loose in agenda packet. Recommended Action Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. Hey Morand Finance 763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 5, 2008 Agenda Item 3. A. 2. Approval of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Check Register Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Approval of check register for various vendor claims against the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Attachments Loose in agenda packet. Recommended Action Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. ~lle PUblic Safety Y Memo ndu Fire Department 763-593-8055 I 763-512-2497 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 8, 2008 Agenda Item 3. B. 1. Rental Property Prepared By Becky Perkins, Office Clerk Summary As per City Code, some businesses are required to be licensed by the City. Listed below are the License Number, Applicant, License Type and Fee of those who have submitted an application for approval. #3102 Anderson Triplex Rental Property 6212 Golden Valley Road Provisional One unit is NOT habitable - Provisional until 3/1/09 $160.00 Recommended Action Motion to authorize the issuance of licenses as recommended by staff. Mern urn Police Department 763-593-8079 J 763-593-8098 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 5, 2008 Agenda Item 3. B. 2. Gambling Premises Permit Renewal Application - American Legion Post #523 Prepared By Stacy Altonen, Chief of Police Jim Roberts, Detective Summary The Golden Valley American Legion submitted a renewal application for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premises Permit. The Golden Valley American Legion operates the pull-tab booth at their establishment located at 200 North Lilac Drive. Documents received from the applicant show that the Minnesota Gambling Control Board currently licenses the organization and its gambling manager, Jon Fredrick Prentice. An investigation was conducted by the Public Safety Department reference this permit renewal application. This investigation included checks with the City of Golden Valley Finance Department, the Gambling Enforcement Division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, and the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. No negative information was uncovered by the investigation. The applicant has met statutory and ordinance requirements for renewal of a lawful gambling premises permit. Attachments Resolution Approving Issuance of a Premises Permit Renewal for the Conduct of Lawful Gambling - American Legion Post #523 (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Approving Issuance of a Premises Permit Renewal for the Conduct of Lawful Gambling - American Legion Post #523. Resolution 08-13 March 5, 2008 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT RENEWAL FOR THE CONDUCT OF LAWFUL GAMBLING (AMERICAN LEGION POST 523) WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 provide for the licensing of lawful gambling by the State Gambling Control Board ("Board"); and WHEREAS, a licensed organization may not conduct lawful gambling at any site unless it has first obtained from the Board a premises permit for the site; and WHEREAS, the Board may not issue or renew a premises permit unless the organization submits a resolution from the City Council approving the premises permit; said resolution shall have been adopted within 60 days of the date of the application was received by the City; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Golden Valley that the applicant listed below does meet the criteria necessary to receive a premises permit and the application is hereby approved: (Name and Address of Organization) American Legion Post 523 (Name and Address of Site where Premises Permit Sought) American Legion Post 523,200 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and her signature attested by the City Clerk. em ra Police Department 763-593-8079 I 763-593-8098 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 5, 2008 Agenda Item 3. B. 3. Gambling Premises Permit Renewal Application - Golden Valley VFW Post #7051 Prepared By Stacy Altonen, Chief of Police Jim Roberts, Detective Summary The Golden Valley VFW submitted a renewal application for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premises Permit. The Golden Valley VFW operates the pull-tab booth at their establishment located at 7775 Medicine Lake Road. Documents received from the applicant show that the Minnesota Gambling Control Board currently licenses the organization and its gambling manager, Roland Earl Musolf. An investigation was conducted by the Public Safety Department reference this permit renewal application. This investigation included checks with the City of Golden Valley Finance Department, the Gambling Enforcement Division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, and the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. No negative information was uncovered by the investigation. The applicant has met statutory and ordinance requirements for renewal of a lawful gambling premises permit. Attachments Resolution Approving Issuance of a Premises Permit Renewal for the Conduct of Lawful Gambling - Golden Valley VFW Post #7051 (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt the Resolution Approving Issuance of a Premises Permit Renewal for the Conduct of Lawful Gambling - Golden Valley VFW Post #7051. Resolution 08-14 March 5, 2008 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT RENEWAL FOR THE CONDUCT OF LAWFUL GAMBLING (VFW POST 7051) WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 provide for the licensing of lawful gambling by the State Gambling Control Board ("Board"); and WHEREAS, a licensed organization may not conduct lawful gambling at any site unless it has first obtained from the Board a premises permit for the site; and WHEREAS, the Board may not issue or renew a premises permit unless the organization submits a resolution from the City Council approving the premises permit; said resolution shall have been adopted within 60 days of the date of the application was received by the City; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Golden Valley that the applicant listed below does meet the criteria necessary to receive a premises renewal permit renewal and the application is hereby approved: (Name and Address of Organization) VFW Post 7051, 7775 Medicine Lake Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 (Name and Address of Site where Premises Permit Sought) VFW Post 7051, 7775 Medicine Lake Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and her signature attested by the City Clerk. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2008 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, February 11, 2008. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, Planning Intern Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes January 14, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting McCarty referred to the third paragraph on page 2 and stated that the word "to" should be the word "the". He referred to the fifth paragraph on page 2 and stated that the word "also" should be omitted. He referred to the last paragraph on page 5 and questioned if the language regarding 10% of a building's footprint was worded correctly. The Commission decided to leave it as it was written. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the January 14, 2008 minutes with the above noted corrections. 2. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Amending the R-1 Single Family Zoning District Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To amend the R-1 Single Family Zoning District in regard to infill housing development Grimes referred to the last Planning Commission meeting and reminded the Commissioners that the biggest issue raised at that meeting was how to determine the side yard setback requirements and when the proposed new requirements should be used. He stated that the other issues addressed were clarifying how the height of a house is determined, making sure that existing conforming structures don't become non- conforming once the new ordinance is adopted and defining the average grade of a lot. Cera asked about the requirements for new construction versus the requirements for a house that is torn down. Grimes explained that if a house is destroyed or torn down it can be rebuilt exactly as it was, however it can not be expanded. Cera referred to the proposed new language regarding side yard setback requirements and stated that it was his understanding that the entire setback was supposed to become larger once a house was taller than 15 feet, not that the setback was supposed to be larger only on the part of the house that is over 15 feet in height. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2008 Page 2 Grimes clarified that would mean that the side yard setback requirement for a house 28 feet in height on an 80"foot wide lot would be 16.5 feet. Kluchka said yes. He added that the Planning Commission agreed at their last meeting that for new construction the entire structure would have to be set back further from the side yard property lines, not just the part of the structure that was greater than 15 feet in height. Grimes asked the Commissioners if they wanted this requirement on both side yard lot lines. Kluchka said yes because it would help avoid the "alley affect" between houses. Waldhauser said she thinks both sides should be looked at separately. Keysser clarified that there are two options for new construction to consider. One option is to increase the side yard setback requirements on both sides of a lot for houses that are taller than 15 feet. The other option is to consider increasing the side yard setback requirement only for the side of the house that is taller than 15 feet. Keysser referred to houses that are torn down. Grimes reiterated that state law says that if a structure was built in a conforming way it can be replaced, repaired and maintained but not expanded. Keysser asked if a one"story cottage could be torn down and replaced with a two-story home as long at the same footprint was used. Grimes said no because that would be considered an expansion. Eck said he wants to be consistent and questioned why somebody would be allowed to remodel one way but not allowed to build a new house the same way when the net result is the same. Cera said if someone is spending the money to tear a house down they can spend the money to rebuild it right. Keysser referred to the language about additions to houses. Waldhauser suggested allowing a certain number of square feet instead of saying that an addition up to 10% of the footprint could be built without following the proposed new setback requirements. Cera agreed with Waldhauser's suggestion. Keyser said he would be more comfortable allowing a percentage but suggested language that would allow an addition to be 10% of the original footprint, not to exceed 400 square feet. Grimes stated that it is going to be difficult to figure out 10% of a structure's footprint because the measurements are going to have to be verified before and after construction. He suggested measuring houses using the outside dimension. He questioned if the 10% language would only apply one time or to one addition. The Commissioners agreed on allowing a 10% addition one time based on the current footprint of the house. Eck stated that the proposed new side setback language doesn't address new construction. He suggested different language. Keysser opened the public hearing. Marcia Fluer, 225 Janalyn Circle, stated that the City has been working on the "McMansion" issue for nearly two years and she is proud to say that Golden Valley will Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2008 Page 3 soon join the ranks with other cities that have moved to protect their communities. She urged the Planning Commission to keep it simple and recommend the proposed new changes so the City Council can act quickly. She also urged the city to apply the new recommendations to remodels and partial teardowns as well as new construction. She noted that some Planning Commissioners have expressed concern about young couples who buy homes in Golden Valley with the dream of expanding later and asked about current home owners' dreams being threatened by the potential of monster houses that take away their light, their view, their neighborhood's character and the value of the existing homes. She added that thousands of residents fit into this category and she doesn't think the City should be worrying about the "could-be" young buyers because they'll find something that fits and their first home probably won't be their last. She said she feels that if an expansion or rebuild won't meet the new code requirements, the current house is already right-sized for the lot. Owners or developers can build anything they want within the setback and height limitations. She added that there is nothing ambiguous about applying the rules to all housing and if the code isn't applied across the board, it is meaningless and homeowners are still free to petition for a variance. She suggested the City keep the current residents happy by giving them a measure of security and rules everybody concerned can understand and follow. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. McCarty stated that he doesn't think that Councilmember Shaffer's proposal is a simple proposal and he would like to go back to the Planning Commission's original report. Cera showed the Commission an aerial photo of a house in St. Louis Park that had a second story addition on it that went straight up on top of the first floor. He said he is worried that the same thing will happen in Golden Valley so remodels and teardowns should be treated the same way as new construction. He said he is against allowing a 10% increase in a footprint before the new setback language applies. Keysser suggested going through the proposed new ordinance one item at a time and voting on them individually. He started with the first one which is the definition of "Average Grade of a Lot". McCarty asked if the measurements are equidistant. Grimes stated that one measurement would be taken on both sides of a proposed house and one in the middle. Keysser said he thought measurements should be taken at the lowest point and the highest point on a lot. McCarty stated that the language regarding grade should be either "average grade" or just "grade" but it should be consistent. The Commissioners agreed that the language regarding grade/average grade should be changed to just "grade". Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2008 Page 4 MOVED by Eck, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the following definition: "Grade of a Lot" - The ground elevation of a house or structure taken at three points along a building line facing a street. If the house or structure faces more than one street, the grade shall be for all sides facing the street. Keysser referred to the next item which is the definition of "Building Height Determination" . Kluchka asked if illustrations are going to be added to this ordinance. Grimes said illustrations could be added to the code or they could be handed out as part of the building permit process. Waldhauser suggested putting illustrations on the City's website. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the following definition: "Building Height Determination" - The vertical distance or height of a structure shall be measured from the grade at the front building line (street side) to the average height of the highest pitched roof or the highest point of a flat roof structure. The grade of a lot is established at the time of subdivision approval by the City. If the grade was not established at the time of subdivision approval by the City, the Director of Public Works shall establish the grade prior to construction of the structure. In the case where a house or structure has been removed from a lot for the construction of a new house or structure, the grade for the new house or structure shall be no more than one foot higher than the grade that existed for the house or structure that was removed. In the case of a corner lot, the grade is taken from all sides of the house or structure facing a street. Keysser referred to the next item regarding building lot coverage. Waldhauser asked if impervious surface requirements include swimming pools. Grimes said yes. Cera asked if the sentence regarding total impervious surface can be made into a separate item. Grimes said yes. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the following subdivision: Subdivision 10. Total impervious surface. Total impervious surface, including swimming pools, on any lot or parcel shall not exceed 50% of the lot or parcel area. Keysser referred to the next item regarding side yard setbacks. Eck read his proposed new language. McCarty questioned if an addition up to 10% of the building's footprint would still be allowed to be built straight on top of a first floor addition without having to be stepped back. Grimes said yes. Schmidgall said he doesn't support the language regarding 10% of the building's footprint and that any addition should have to meet the new requirements. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Eck and motion carried 4 to 3 to recommend approval of the following language in Subdivision 10(A)(3): Cera, Schmidgall and Waldhauser voted no. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2008 Page 5 (a.) In the case of lots having a width of 100 feet or greater, the side setbacks for structures 15 feet or less in height shall be 15 feet. The side setbacks for any structure greater than 15 feet in height shall be 15 feet plus one-half foot for each additional one foot (or portion thereof) of structure height over 15 feet. In the case of additions to existing structures, these setback rules shall apply if the foundation size or footprint of the structure is increased by 10% or more. If the foundation size or footprint is not increased by 10% or more, vertical additions may be made without increasing existing side setbacks. (b.) In the case of lots having a width greater than 65 feet and less than 100 feet, the side setbacks for structures 15 feet or less in height shall be 12.5 feet. The side setbacks for any structure greater than 15 feet in height shall be 15 feet plus one-half foot for each additional one foot (or portion thereof) of structure height over 15 feet. In the case of additions to existing structures, these setback rules shall apply if the foundation size or footprint of the structure is increased by 10% or more. If the foundation size or footprint is not increased by 10% or more, vertical additions may be made without increasing existing side setbacks. (c.) In the case of lots having a width of 65 feet or less, the side setbacks for structures 15 feet or less in height along the north or west side shall be 10% of the lot width and along the south or east side shall be 20% of the lot width (up to 12.5 feet). The side setbacks for any structure greater than 15 feet in height shall be 15 feet plus one-half foot for each additional one foot (or portion thereof) of structure height over 15 feet. In the case of additions to existing structures, these setback rules shall apply if the foundation size or footprint of the structure is increased by 10% or more. If the foundation size or footprint is not increased by 10% or more, vertical additions may be made without increasing existing side setbacks. Keysser referred to the next item regarding side wall articulation. McCarty asked if the side wall articulation language applies to a second story. Grimes said he could add language regarding articulation on a second story. Schmidgall said he likes the language as is because it says "any wall". The Commissioners agreed. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the following language in Subdivision 10(A)(3): (d.) For any new construction, whether a new house, addition or replacement through a tear-down, any wall longer than 32 feet in length must be articulated, with a shift of a least 2 feet in depth, for at least 8 feet in length, for every 32 feet of wall. Keysser referred to the next item regarding height limitations. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the following language in Subdivision 10: B. Height Limitations. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning District to exceed a height of 28 feet for pitched roof houses and 25 feet for flat roof houses. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2008 Page 6 Keysser referred to the next item regarding the amount of accessory structure space allowed on a lot. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the following language in Subdivision 11: E. Each property is limited to a total of 1,000 square feet of the following accessory structures: detached and attached garages, detached sheds, greenhouses and gazebos. Swimming pools are not included in this requirement. No one detached accessory structure may be larger than 800 square feet in area and any accessory structure over 120 square feet in area requires a building permit. Keysser referred to the next item regarding the roof design on accessory structures. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the following language in Subdivision 11: J. Roof. Gambrel and Mansard roofs are not permitted on any accessory building with a footprint of more than 120 square feet. Keysser referred to the next item regarding the height and side setback requirements for structures built prior to the adoption of this proposed new ordinance. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Schmidgall and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the following language: Subdivision 13. Height and Side Setback of Pre-2008 Structures. For all existing structures constructed in the R-1 Zoning District prior to January 1, 2008, if the side setback and height were compliant with the Zoning Code at the time a building permit was issued, the location and height are considered conforming to current Zoning Code. However, new construction and additions to such properties must comply with current requirements of the Zoning Code. Keysser referred to the next item regarding driveway requirements. Cera asked about the use of pervious pavers for driveways. Grimes explained that part of the driveway requirements include considering the look of a driveway. The Commissioners decided not to add an adjustment for pervious pavers to the driveway requirements. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the following language in Subdivision 17: C. Coverage. No more than forty percent (40%) of the front yard may be covered with concrete, bituminous pavement, stone or pavers. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2008 Page 7 3. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Regarding Employee Only Daycare Facilities in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To amend the language in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District to list employee-only daycare centers as a Conditional Use. Hogeboom reminded the Commission that at their meeting last month they reviewed a Conditional Use Permit to allow an employee only daycare center to operate in a property zoned Business and Professional Offices. At that meeting the Commission directed staff to amend the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District to include daycare centers as a conditional use. Hogeboom stated that after that meeting staff realized daycare centers were already allowed as a conditional use in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District, the language was just in a different section of the code so this public hearing is to recommend that the daycare center language be moved to the section that lists the uses allowed as a conditional use. Keysser asked if the Planning Commission would still review daycare center proposals. Hogeboom said yes, because a daycare center would still need to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Waldhauser asked why it is limited to employee-only daycare centers. Hogeboom stated that limiting daycare centers to employee-only centers in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District would provide consistency with the other zoning districts and that other types of daycare centers are better suited to the Commercial Zoning District. Keysser said he wants to encourage employee-only daycare centers. The Commissioners agreed. Cera asked about the zoning of existing daycare centers. Grimes stated that most of the regular daycare centers in Golden Valley are located in churches in the Institutional Zoning District. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval to amend the language in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District to list employee-only daycare centers as a Conditional Use. - Short Recess- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2008 Page 8 Keysser said he would like to switch agenda items four and five. 4. Discussion Regarding Duke Development Grimes showed the Commissioners a site plan of the proposed Duke development in St. Louis Park. He stated that the St. Louis Park Planning Commission has done a preliminary review of the proposal and the St. Louis Park and Golden Valley City Councils are still discussing the possibility of having a joint powers agreement. He explained that the proposal is to build the parking structure in Golden Valley and the rest of the development in St. Louis Park. He stated that the proposal is for 340,000 square feet of retail space and 1.1 million square feet of office space in three or four buildings. They would like to start the retail portion this summer and the office space later this year or next year. He referred to the proposed joint powers agreement and stated that originally it was felt that it made more sense to have one zoning authority over the entire development but the Golden Valley City Council has not yet approved that agreement. He stated that there have been neighborhood meetings with the residents in the area to discuss traffic and sewer capacity issues. He discussed some of the traffic calming options and noted that the biggest concern of residents is how much traffic from this development will go to the east. Another concern is pedestrian and bicycle connections. Keysser asked if the Golden Valley Planning Commission will be reviewing this proposal. Grimes stated that if a joint powers agreement is not signed by the two cities than the proposal will probably come to the Planning Commission for review as a PUD. Keysser suggested having a joint Planning Commission meeting with St. Louis Park and Golden Valley. Grimes said he thinks these major issues would be better dealt with by the respective City Councils. Waldhauser asked if the proposal is looking at providing better pedestrian access over 1-394. Grimes said yes and explained that both cities have received grants to look at pedestrian connections. Cera asked if this development is proposing two hotels. Grimes said yes and noted that from a traffic standpoint hotels are a good use because they don't create peak hour trips. 5. Discussion Regarding Mixed Use Zoning District Language Hogeboom stated that the City Council has adopted the 1-394 Corridor Study as a part of the Comprehensive Plan so now the Planning Commission and City Council need to look at adopting the Mixed Use Zoning District language in order to match the Comprehensive Plan designations. He asked the Commissioners to review the proposed Mixed Use Zoning District language and stated that staff will be putting this item on an agenda in the near future for another discussion. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2008 Page 9 Grimes added that the last time the Planning Commission reviewed this language it was slightly premature because the Comprehensive Plan hadn't yet been amended. So now that the Comprehensive Plan has been amended this language needs to be adopted. Cera asked if this proposed Mixed Use Zoning District language is only for the 1-394 Corridor area. Grimes said yes, this zoning district is very specific to the 1-394 Corridor area. He told the Commissioners that they will also be reviewing the proposed sign code for this area. Keysser discussed an amortization clause that would allow the City to foreclose on a property after a certain amount of time. Grimes stated that he doesn't think that is the direction the City Council wants to take. Kluchka asked about variances from this language. Grimes stated that anything in the zoning code is subject to variances. 6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Grimes reminded the Commission of the BZA's meeting to discuss hardships on March 19, 2008 at 7 pm. 7. Other Business Kluchka asked about the status of the Comprehensive Plan update. Hogeboom stated that staff is still working on a few of the chapters. He added that there is an open house scheduled in May. Kluchka asked how the public will be reviewing it. Hogeboom explained that at the open house there will be booths with consultants available to discuss the various chapters and the chapters will also be posted on the City's website. Eck referred to the infill development public hearing earlier this evening and stated that it was pointed out to him that he had changed his vote from the last discussion the Commission had. He wanted it on record that he meant to vote against the language regarding allowing a 10% increase in a structures' footprint before the proposed new language applies. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9: 18 pm. Lester Eck, Secretary Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2008 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Boudreau-Landis called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members, Boudreau-Landis, Hughes, Nederveld, Segelbaum and Planning Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes - December 18, 2007 MOVED by Nederveld, seconded by Boudreau-Landis and motion carried unanimously to approve the December 18, 2007 minutes as submitted. II. The Petitions are: 9400 Golden Valley Road (08-01-01) Steve Johnson, TDB Builders, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.45, Subd. 4(A)(3) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 5.72 ft. off the required 20 ft. to a distance of 14.28 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a parking structure. Grimes explained that the applicant is proposing to build a 3-stall parking structure along the east property line. He stated that this property is zoned Business and Professional Offices and that parking structures are allowed in this zoning district. However, the side yard setback requirement is 20 feet and the proposed garage would be located 14.28 feet from the east property line. Grimes stated that the owner of this property is in the process of building an addition onto their existing building and as a part of that process they had to meet the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission's water quality requirements and build a pond. The pond's location is one of the reasons they feel they can't meet the setback requirements for the proposed new parking structure. Steve Johnson, TDB Builders, representing the owner of the property, reiterated that because of the location and requirements of the pond they had to move the proposed parking structure further to the east. He stated that the owners have an ambulance, two company vehicles and general maintenance items that they would like to store in this proposed parking structure. He added that the size of the ambulance is also dictating the Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2008 Page 2 size of the parking structure and that the owner would like to have this parking structure for safety of the vehicles and to clean up the look of the site and the parking lot. Johnson referred to renderings of the proposed new parking structure and explained that the materials will match the existing building and the new addition which will be a LEED certified building. McCarty asked how far along construction is on the garage. Johnson stated that the pad is ready but that they aren't planning on building the garage until spring. He added that there is a slight swale along the east property line and the new trash enclosure and the new garage will help direct the water to the pond. Hughes asked if the new parking structure will reduce the number of parking spaces. Johnson said no. McCarty asked what the term "proof-of-parking" means. Grimes explained that "proof of parking" means they have the ability and the room to put more parking on the site if it is required in the future. Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing. Teresa Raymond, 9326 Golden Valley Road, said she wants to make sure that this proposal won't affect her property in any way. Grimes explained that the proposed garage would be five feet closer to the property line than required and that it won't affect her property at all. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Boudreau-Landis closed the public hearing. McCarty said he doesn't have any objections to the proposal. Nederveld said that the pond requirements are a unique aspect of this property. He said he's not sure that needing a garage is a hardship but he doesn't have any objections to the proposal either. Boudreau-Landis agreed and added that the ponding requirements were not created by the property owner so he would also support the variance request. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Hughes and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 5.72 ft. off the required 20 ft. to a distance of 14.28 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line to allow for the construction of a parking structure. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2008 Page 3 2440 Valders Avenue North (08-01-02) Thomas Bequette, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(1) Accessory Structure Location Requirements . 4 ft. off the required 10ft. to a distance of 6 ft. at its closest point to the principal structure. Purpose: To bring the existing garage into conformance with accessory structure location requirements. Hogeboom stated that the applicant is requesting a variance in order to bring his existing garage into conformance with accessory structure location requirements. He explained that the garage is located 10 feet away from the home as required, but it is only 6 feet away from a deck. He stated that the hardship noted by the applicant is that the location he built the garage in is the only suitable location on the lot because of the topography. Nederveld asked when the garage was constructed. Grimes said it was just recently constructed and upon inspection it was discovered that the garage was built too close to the existing deck. Grimes said it is his guess that when the applicant applied for a building permit for the garage the existing deck wasn't shown on the survey. He added that this is the reason staff would like to see current surveys when applicants apply for building permits. Hughes asked why there needs to be 10 feet between the garage and the deck and noted that a fire truck couldn't fit between the deck and garage anyway. Grimes stated that the zoning code requires 10 feet between principal and accessory structures. Nederveld asked the applicant if he received a building permit for the garage. Thomas Bequette, applicant, stated yes. Grimes asked the applicant if he received a building permit for the deck. Bequette said no. He stated that he knew the garage was supposed to be built 10 feet away from the house but he did not realize that it was supposed to be built 10 feet away from the deck as well. Nederveld asked about the distinction between the deck being attached or unattached to the house. Boudreau-Landis said his guess is that the deck would have to be bolted to the house to be considered attached. Grimes explained that even if the deck were considered an accessory structure and not part of the principal structure there would still need to be 10 feet of separation between it and the garage. Segelbaum asked if retaining walls are considered accessory structures. Grimes said no. Segelbaum asked if the property has the same slope on the other side (the north) of the house. Bequette stated that there are large trees on the north side of the property and the Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 22, 2008 Page 4 driveway was already located on the southwest side of the lot so it was the most logical place to put the garage. McCarty asked about the distance from the garage to the south property line. Bequette said he thinks the distance from the garage to the south property line is approximately 5 or 6 feet. Grimes asked the applicant if there was a garage previously on the site. Bequette said no, there was no garage on the property. Segelbaum asked the applicant if he had to bring in fill in order to build the garag.e. Bequette said yes and he also had to build a retaining wall behind the garage. Boudreau-Landis opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment Boudreau-Landis closed the public hearing. Boudreau-Landis said he doesn't have any issues with the garage but he does have an issue with the deck being built without a building permit. Nederveld stated that the applicant didn't have a garage, the garage is minimal in size and it was built in a reasonable place and the Board probably would have granted a variance for it if the applicant would have come to them before it was built so he is inclined to approve it. McCarty said he agrees but if the applicant would have come before the Board prior to building the garage they could have asked him to push it back a little bit further and it might not have needed a variance. Grimes said he would talk to the Inspections Department about requiring all structures to be shown on a survey at the time a building permit is requested. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Boudreau-Landis and motion carried unanimously to approve a variance for 4 ft. off the required 10ft. to a distance of 6 ft. at its closest point to the principal structure to bring the existing garage into conformance with accessory structure location requirements. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 pm. Jason Boudreau-Landis, Chair Mark Grimes, Staff Liaison MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY BUILDING BOARD OF REVIEW October 15, 2007 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Building Board of Review was held on Monday, October 15, 2007, at 8 pm, at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN. The following Board Members, constituting a quorum, were present: Thomas Parker, Venora Hung and Angie Knodel. Also present was Staff Liaison, Gary Johnson from the Inspections Department and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Parker called the meeting to order at 8 pm. 1. Approval of Minutes of April 2, 2007 MOVED by Knodel, seconded by Hung and motion carried unanimously to approve the April 2,2007 minutes as submitted. 2. Request for building plan review and approval for: RHT 9400 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Owner: RHT 9400 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Contractor: TDB Builders 24400 Greenway Avenue, Suite #4 Forest Lake, MN 55025 Presentation By: Steve Johnson 24400 Greenway Avenue, Suite #4 Forest Lake, MN 55025 Landscape Costs: $15,000.00 Steve Johnson, TDB Builders, referred to a site plan and explained that the owner of the building is proposing to construct two additions one would be on the south side of the building and the other would be a smaller addition on the north. He referred to an elevation of the proposed new look of the building and discussed the interior layout and the materials that are being proposed on the new additions. He said that they were able to match the brick used on the existing building. He added that the Minutes of the Golden Valley Building Board of Review October 15, 2007 Page 2 building owner is interested in building a LEED certified structure. He referred to the site plan and stated that there will be extensive ponding added to the site. He discussed how they are planning to match the new building with the existing building. He said there will be a metal band around the top of the building and they will be using green Hardie siding in a wide and narrow pattern so it won't look like traditional siding. The window framing will be a bronze color and they will use a combination of green and clear glass. He stated that the owners have an ambulance that they would like to store on the property so they are proposing to build a garage on this site but are not sure if it will be possible because of the front yard setback requirements. He stated that if they are allowed to build the garage it would be constructed with the same materials they are proposing for the additions. He referred to the trash enclosure on the east side of the property and stated that it would act as a retaining wall and will be made of brick and would also match the new additions. Parker asked about the trash enclosure doors. Steve Johnson explained that there will be double swing doors that will be made of cedar with a full metal backing. Parker asked the applicant to explain the Hardie siding pattern. Tony Vannelli, TDB Builders, said they are proposing to use 4-inch wide and 8-inch wide, horizontal boards that would overlap. Parker referred to the lighting plan and noted the lighting in the parking lot. He asked if there would be any lighting on the building itself. Steve Johnson said there would be 6 lights in the canopy overhang. Parker noted that the lighting meets the footcandle cutoff requirements at the edge of the property. Parker asked about the proposed garage roof style. Vannelli, said it would have a gable roof with shingles that would match the color of the brick. Parker asked about the garage doors. Vannelli said it would just be a standard metal garage door that would match the color scheme. Parker asked if the Board can address the garage at this time. Gary Johnson said yes, they could address the garage at this meeting so they wouldn't have to come back to the Board if they end up building the garage. Parker asked if there will be new mechanicals on the roof. Vannelli said yes and explained that whey would use the same metal clad from the building as fencing for the mechanicals. He added that the existing gas and electricity are both sufficient for the new addition so will only be adding new water and sewer lines. Minutes of the Golden Valley Building Board of Review October 15, 2007 Page 3 Parker noted that the parking lot surface drains into the ponds and asked if the ponds ore sized sufficiently. Vannelli said yes and explained that is part of LEED certification process. Parker asked if the parking lot will be blacktop. Vannelli said yes, but that they would probably use a recycled base. Knodel referred to the "tot-lot" shown on the plans and asked about the fencing and the ground surface materials. She asked if that is part of their future plans or if it is a part of this proposal. Steve Johnson said the "tot-lot" is part of this current proposal and they are proposing to use a vinyl coated fence and a mulch ground surface per state requirements. Vannelli asked if the existing mechanicals on the roof have to be screened. Parker said it would be the Board's preference that they all be screened to look the same. Gary Johnson said he believes that the Board can only require screening on the proposed new additions. After the presentation and discussion by the Board, it was MOVED by Knodel and seconded by Hung that the Board recommend approval of a building permit, subject to the following: 1. The landscape bond shall be in the amount of $22,500 and shall run for two (2) full growing seasons and until released by the Golden Valley Inspection Department. The bond shall be executed and delivered to the Golden Valley Inspection Department before the building permit is issued. 2. All utilities shall be underground. 3. All mechanicals on the roof or ground shall be screened by an architectural element such as a parapet to match the building material. 4. The structure and grading shall meet all the requirements of the Golden Valley Building Department, the Fire Marshal, Engineering Department and Sanitarian. 5. All waste generated by the occupancy shall be screened in an approved area with walls to match the building material. 6. Sidewalks shall be provided from all required exits to the public way. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 pm. GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes January 28, 2008 Present: Commissioners Anderson; Baker; Chand lee; Hill; Pawluk and St. Clair. Also present were AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator; and Lisa Nesbitt, Administrative Assistant. 1. Call to Order Pawluk called the regular meeting of the Environmental Commission to order at 7:00 pm. 2. Approval of Joint Meetina Minutes - December 17.2007 MOVED by Anderson, seconded by Baker, and the motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the December 17, 2007 joint meeting. 3. Approval of Meetina Minutes - December 17.2007 MOVED by Chandlee, seconded by Baker, and the motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the December 17,2007 Environmental Commission meeting. 4. U.S. Maior's Climate Protection Aareement Council approved the resolution and directed the Mayor to sign the agreement. The Commission will look at suggested ideas, from the Climate Protection website as a starting point. They will also look at the Envision goals as it has an environmental component. Staff will recommend that the signing of the agreement be mentioned in a CityNews edition. 5. 2008 Plan Development Pawluk will draft a matrix aligning Envision goals with Climate Protection suggestions. This will be reviewed at the next meeting. Hill requested that recycling be a priority in 2008 as it too goes hand-in-hand with the Climate Protection agreement. 6. Proaram/Proiect Updates TMDL - On hold for the winter. III - Things have slowed down a bit in January. All City buildings are being inspected during this slow period. Private Development Updates - Westwood Office area is moving forward with an expansion project. They will be adding another building where the parking lot is located. There is no agreement yet with Duke Development regarding the sanitary sewer service. Recycling Collection Options - The consultant has been hired to assist with the RFP. Hill encouraged the committee to "think big" when creating the RFPs. Minutes of the Environmental Commission January 28, 2008 Page 2 of 2 Sweeny Branch Bank Stabilization Project - Lundstrom showed the Commission a map of the area around Duck Pond. The plan is to armor the banks of the stream, that feeds Duck Pond, with 2 % to 3 feet of river rock with some vegetation. The pond will be dredged as well. They are hoping to start next month. The City is heading up the project and being reimbursed by the Watershed. Commission Baker requested an update on the deer management. Staff will bring an update to the next meeting. 7. Commission Member Council Reports Baker has been involved with the Planning Commission meetings. They have been discussing "McMansions" and reviewing some of the suggestions made by Council member Shaffer. 8. Other Business None. 9. Adiourn MOVED by Hill, seconded by Baker, and the motion carried to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 pm. The next scheduled meeting will be on February 25, 2008 at 7:00 pm. GOLDEN VALLEY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MEETING Minutes from the Meeting of January 10, 2008 Members Present: Ron Brandon, Marion Helland, Anne Dykstra, Theresa Jorgenson. Samuel Deputie. Members Absent: Andrea Purvis. Staff Present: DeDe Scanlon, Chief Stacy Altonen. The meeting was called to order by Chair Brandon at 7:05 pm. OPEN FORUM There was no one present requesting to address the Commission. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Jorgenson moved to approve the meeting minutes of November 8,2007; seconded by Commissioner Helland. COMMITTEE REPORTS SCHOOL EDUCATION Commissioner Helland advised essays will be reviewed on March 14th. Commissioner Jorgenson advised the Robbinsdale School Board will be meeting on Monday, January 14th at 7PM at the District #281 office at 42nd and Winnetka Avenue. A work session to discuss budget cuts and school closings will begin at 5:30. HOUSING Nothing to report. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS Commissioner Helland advised the December meeting was held at Brookview Community Center. Helland expressed appreciation for coverage of the rental and food by city staff. The next meeting will be held January 19th near Audubon Park in Minneapolis. The annual conference will be held in Rochester and the chair of the Rochester commission will attend the committee meeting at 1 PM on January 13th in Edina to assist in planning the conference. SHARE THE DREAM Chair Brandon advised meetings are scheduled next week and the following week to finalize the plan for the Share the Dream event in late February/early March. DISCRIMINATION Nothing to report. COMMUNITY EDUCATION and MULTI-CULTURAL TASK FORCE Chair Brandon advised there was a funding issue in the past, and he is unaware if the task force still exists. PROCLAMATIONS Chair Brandon inquired if a proclamation has been made for Martin Luther King's birthday. Chief Altonen advised proclamations have not been made in the past for this holiday. Altonen stated proclamations for upcoming dates are on file with the council liaison and will be placed on the council agenda as the dates draw near. OLD BUSINESS BIAS/HATE CRIME RESPONSE AND PREVENTION PLAN Chief Altonen presented the most current draft of this response plan, the proposed police department policy, and a summary of past meeting minutes pertaining to the bias crime draft. Commissioner Dykstra advised this item was discussed at the council/manager work session and council member Freiberg asked that this item be expedited as it has been in the works for some time. Chief Altonen stated final edits to the draft response plan can be made immediately upon commission revision, and the document would be given to Judy Nally to place on the council agenda for review and adoption. A review meeting will be tentatively scheduled for Thursday, January 1 yth with commissioners Dykstra, Purvis and Jorgenson, and Mayor Loomis, Council Member Scanlon and Chief Altonen. CITY COUNCIUMANAGER WORK SESSION Commissioner Dykstra advised old business was discussed and the same-sex marriage letter was presented and accepted by the mayor and council. Commissioner Dykstra was asked if surrounding cities have a policy of acceptance of same-sex marriages and she checked into this matter and was unable to find another city that has a policy in place surrounding this topic. Further discussion ensued and commissioners decided no further action will take place regarding same-sex marriage unless another issue arises. It was agreed the responsibility for any further action rests with the State of Minnesota. Commissioners expressed interest in diversity training. Grant money is available through the League of Minnesota Human Rights Commission. RECRUITMENT FOR HRC MEMBERS Commissioners discussed recruiting student members for the commission. Commissioner Helland volunteered to write letters to high school principals to help facilitate the recruitment process. BY-LAWS UPDATE Commissioner Dykstra stated the scope of work document presented to the council should be included in Article I: Mission Statement once it is approved. Commissioner Dykstra motioned to revise the meeting schedule to monthly meetings; seconded by Commissioner Helland. Commissioner Deputie opposed; motion carried. Commissioner Jorgenson advised Article III: Meetings should be amended to state "monthly meetings" instead of "bi-monthly meetings." Commissioner Dykstra motioned to accept the revised by-laws; seconded by Commissioner Jorgenson. Motion carried unanimously. HOBBS AWARD Commissioner Helland advised the deadline for submissions is February 22nd, and no submissions have been received. Commissioners agreed notification should be placed in the Sun Post newspaper and fliers should be mailed to organizations listed on the mailing list. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Helland presented a draft of the annual report. Copies will be distributed via e-mail to other commissioners for final review and revision before presentation to the City Council. Andre Koen, Affirmative Action Officer/Cultural Confidence Coordinator for Anoka County, introduced himself and advised he works with the City of Anoka's Human Rights Commission. He stated the two commissions would benefit from working together to share ideas/expertise. NEXT MEETING The next meeting will be on Thursday, February 14, 2008 beginning at 7 pm. ADJOURNMENT MOVED by Commissioner Jorgenson, seconded by Chair Brandon to adjourn the meeting at 8:23 pm. Hey OPEN SPACE & RECREATION COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Brookview Community Center Monday, January 28, 2008 7:00 p.m. I. ROLL CALL Present: Roger Bergman, Ken Graves, Kelly Kuebelbeck, Bob Mattison, Roger McConico, Anne Saffert, Jerry Sandler, Veronica Anderson, SEH; Rick Jacobson, Director of Parks and Recreation; Sheila Van Sloun, Park and Recreation Administrative Assistant. Absent: Jim Johnson and Jim Vaughan. II. AGENDA CHANGES OR ADDITIONS No changes or additions. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 22, 2007 MOTION: Moved by McConico and seconded by Saffert to approve the October 22nd meeting minutes as corrected. Motion carried unanimously. IV. PARK SYSTEM PLAN/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW Veronica Anderson and the Commission went through the Park System Plan and the Comprehensive Plan and made appropriate changes that will be reflected in a future version. VII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by McConico and seconded by Bergman to adjourn at 9:25 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Bassett Cre.ek Wate Meed The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) was called to order at 11:35 a.m., Thursday, January 17, 2008 at Golden Valley City Hall by Chair Welch. Ms. Herbert conducted roll call. Roll Call Crystal Golden Valley Medicine Lake Minneapolis Minnetonka New Hope Plymouth Rohbinsdale St. Louis Park Note: Also present: Commissioner Pauline Langsdorf Alternate Commissioner Dave Hanson Not Represented Commissioner Michael Welch, Chair Not Represented Commissioner Daniel Stauner Commissioner Ginny Black Commissioner Karla Peterson Commissioner Richard Johnson Counsel Engineer Recorder Charlie LeFevere Karen Chandler Amy Herbert Commissioner Linda Loomis (Golden Valley) arrived after roll call Laura Adler, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of St. Louis Park Brooke Asleson, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Terrie Christian, Association of Medicine Lake Area Citizens Lee Gustafson, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Minnetonka Richard McCoy, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Robbinsdale Tom Mathisen, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Crystal Bob Moberg, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Plymouth Jeff Oliver, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Golden Valley Stu Stockhaus, Alternate Commissioner, City of Crystal Elizabeth Thornton, Alternate Commissioner, City of Plymouth Chair Welch announced the deferral to next month of invoice item Cvi Hennepin County River Watch. He also requested the addition of agenda item I under Old Business to discuss the Administrator Committee's Request for Proposals. Ms. Black moved to approve the amended agenda. Ms. Langsdorf seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously [the Cities of Medicine Lake and Minnetonka were absent from the vote]. Chair Welch removed the Counsel Communications and the financial report from the Consent Agenda and stated that there is no Consent Agenda this month. A. Presentation of the December 21st meeting minutes. Mr. Stauner moved to approve the December 21s1 meeting minutes. Ms. Black seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. #2486521 vI BCWMC January 17, 2008 Meeting Minutes Page 1 B. Presentation of the Financial Statement. Chair Welch commented that the financial report's current month expenses column had the header of October- 07 and asked if that was a typo. Ms. Herbert said she confirmed with Deputy Treasurer Sue Virnig that it was a typo and that it should have been labeled December-07 and the figures listed are the December 2007 figures. The general and construction account balances reported in the January 2008 Financial Report are as follows: Checking Account Balance TOTAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE 293,379.79 293,379.79 Investment Balance TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT BALANCE -Less: Reserved for CIP projects Construction cash! investments available for projects 0.00 2,367,113.80 4,002,646.46 (1,140,963.77) C. Presentation of Invoices for Payment Approval. Invoices: i. Kennedy & Graven - Legal Services - invoice for the amount of $1,692.48. ii. Barr Engineering Company - December Engineering Services - invoice for the amount of $23,073.28. iii. Amy Herbert - December Recording Administrator Services - invoice for the amount of $3,314.65. iv. Decision Resources, Ltd. - Final payment for Joint Education Survey - invoice for the amount of $1,437.00. v. Featherlite - BCWMC Exhibit - invoice for the amount of $933.19. vi. Hennepin County Environmental Services - 2007 River Watch participation. Invoice deferred to Febrnary due to updated invoice submitted from Hennepin County. Ms. Peterson moved to approve the invoices. Ms. Langsdorf seconded the motion. By call of roll, the motion carried unanimously [Cities of Medicine Lake and Minnetonka were absent from the vote]. No New Business. A. City of Golden Valley Request for Final Payment - Floodproofing 2725 Scott Avenue. Ms. Chandler reported that the City of Golden Valley has submitted the final invoice for the costs of floodproofing 2725 Scott Avenue. Mr. Hanson moved to approve the payment of the invoice from the City of Golden Valley in the amount of $2,083.40 for the completion of floodproofing work on #2486521 vI BCWMC January 17, 2008 Meeting Minutes Page 2 2725 Scott Avenue. Ms. Black seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. B. WOMP (Watershed Outlet Monitoring Program). Ms. Herbert clarified that the Commission does not have a contract with the Metropolitan Council (Met Council) regarding the Watershed Outlet Monitoring Program (WOMP) and that the Met Council will not be submitting any invoice to the Commission for the Met Council's WOMP work. Ms. Herbert said Leigh Harrod of the Met Council explained in a phone conversation that the Commission and the Met Council had an executed agreement in 2000 that outlined that the Commission would pay 25% of the construction costs to establish the WOMP station and that the Commission agreed to develop the rating curve. Ms. Harrod said the Commission paid the construction costs per the agreement and since 2000 - 2001 the Met Council has not sought funding from the Commission. Ms. Harrod said that the Commission does still maintain the rating curve and this has been occurring under a good faith verbal agreement. Ms. Harrod said the rating curve has been maintained by Barr Engineering. Ms. Harrod also stated that since the summer of 2001 the Met Council has paid the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board $4,000 per year to cover the costs of field labor for monitoring and for delivering the water quality samples to the Metro plant water quality laboratory in St. Paul. Chair Welch asked Barr Engineering to make sure its work on the WOMP rating curve has been invoiced to the Commission and that the funds have come out of the WOMP budget. Ms. Black asked what would dictate if the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board bills the Commission or not for the WOMP sample pick up. Chair Welch directed Barr Engineering to follow up with the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board regarding its WOMP work and to fmd out if the BCWMC needs a relationship with the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board regarding WOMP. C. Fisheries and Biota Data Collection on Main Stem. Ms. Chandler explained that the Main Stem of Bassett Creek was listed as impaired for biota (fish) by the MPCA in 2006 based on the results of sampling at one location at the downstream end of the watershed. She said that in May 2007 the Commission Engineer recommended that fish samples and macroinvertebrate data be collected in 2008 at various locations along the creek to determine if the creek is impaired for biota throughout the whole watershed. Ms. Chandler said the Commission directed a letter be sent to Tim Larson of the MPCA requesting its participation in the sampling program. She said that the MPCA has agreed to conduct the monitoring in 2008 for both the fish sampling and the macroinvertebrate data. Mr. Hanson asked how the Commission will get the results of the sampling. Ms. Asleson responded that the MPCA will enter the data into its main system and can then give the results to the Commission. Ms. Chandler commented that the fecal coliform data caught the Commission Engineer and the Commission by surprise because they weren't informed of the sampling. She said that having the data early would be helpful to the Commission. Chair Welch said he would like the Commission Engineer to be in the loop on the sampling regarding the schedule and the protocols and he would like the Commission Engineer to have an opportunity to provide input on the schedule and protocols. Ms. Black moved that the BCWMC work with the MPCA as the lead for sampling Bassett Creek for fish and biota impairment. Chair Welch added the friendly amendment that the MPCA work with the Commission Engineer on the sampling schedule and protocols and he seconded Ms. Black's motion. Ms. Black accepted the friendly amendment. The motion carried unanimously [the Cities of Medicine Lake and Minnetonka were absent from the vote}. D. 2007 Annual Flood Control Project Inspection. Ms. Chandler said the inspection report is in the meeting packet and the report includes comments on each feature inspected. She said the Commission Engineer recommends that the Commission direct the Engineer to send inspection #2486521 vI BCWMC January 17, 2008 Meeting Minutes Page 3 comment letters to the cities and MnlDOT as has been done in the past. Mr. Moberg commented that the City of Plymouth's Plymouth Creek fish barrier repairs may make more sense to be a part of the 2009 stream bank restoration project. Ms. Black suggested that the City of Plymouth and the Commission Engineer discuss the issue. Ms. Black moved to approve Barr Engineering sending letters to the member-cities and MnlDOT with the results of the 2007 annual flood control project inspection. Ms. Peterson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. E. Status of 20- Year Inspection of Bassett Creek Phase I and II Tunnels. Ms. Chandler said the inspection is set for February 20tb. She said Barr coordinated with the Army Corps of Engineers and Xcel Energy for the pool to be lowered for inspection day, which means the inspection can occur without needing to plug and dewater the tunnel to lower the water level. Ms. Chandler said there is a possibility of the unexpected during the inspection such as extra equipment needs or dewatering due to unanticipated snow melt. She said Barr Engineering recommends the Commission approve contingency funds of $10,000 from the long-term maintenance budget to cover unanticipated expenses should they arise during the inspection. Ms. Chandler said Barr also recommends the Commission send letters of appreciation to the Army Corps of Engineers, Excel Energy, and the St. Anthony Falls lab for their assistance in the coordination of the inspection. Ms. Chandler said that since the inspection was delayed until February 2008 due to weather, Barr recommends that the remaining funds in the annual inspection budget be transferred to the 2008 bndget. Mr. LeFevere asked who will do the contingency work ifit arises. [Ms. Loomis arrives.] Mr. LeFevere said if the City of Minneapolis can't do the work then the Commission needs to back up and figure out who will do the work. Chair Welch said just to clarify the contingency work isn't emergency repair work but instead is work that needs to be done in order to ensure the inspection can take place. He said he doesn't think contracting requirements will be triggered. Mr. LeFevere said Minneapolis has all its own procedures, which are different than the state laws, and Minneapolis does emergency work all the time; however, he said, if Minneapolis isn't planning to do that contingency work to make sure the inspection can happen, then the Commission needs to figure out how it is going to happen. Ms. Black made the motion that the Commission send letters of appreciation to the Army Corps of Engineers, Excel Energy, and the St. Anthony Falls Lab, that the Commission transfer the remaining annual inspection budget to the 2008 budget, that the Commission authorize a $10,000 contingency budget to be used on unanticipated events during the inspection process and that Barr and the City of Minneapolis discuss plans for any emergency contracting needs and the result of the discussion be verified with the Commission Counsel on behalf of the Commission. Mr. Hanson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. F. Proposed 2008 Sampling for Chlorides, E. Coli, and Phosphorus. Ms. Chandler explained that in 2008 the MPCA listed Bassett Creek as impaired for fecal coliform. Ms. Chandler said the Commission Engineer recommends that other Bassett Creek sites be sampled. She reported that Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board staff said their staff could collect additional samples at seven stations in the watershed during the WOMP sample collection and the MPRB could test the samples. The MPRB said the cost for collection and testing would be about $7,000. Ms. Chandler said the Commission Engineer recommends the Commission have the MPRB do tbe additional sampling and testing for fecal coliform and E. coli at tbe cost of about $7,000 and per the MPCA's recommendation have the MPRB test at the same time for chlorides and phosphorus at a cost of about $4,000. She said the total cost of the additional sampling and testing would be about $11,000. Chair Welch asked if the impairment listing was based on sampling at a single location. Ms. #2486521 v 1 BCWMC January 17, 2008 Meeting Minutes Page 4 Asleson of the MPCA said it was based on 60 samples collected over the last two years at the one outlet station. Ms. Peterson asked about the possibility of delisting Bassett Creek if the additional samples indicate no impairment in different reaches of the creek. Ms. Asleson replied that Bassett Creek is considered one reach so if any part of the creek is impaired then the entire creek is considered impaired. Ms. Asleson said there is a process for delisting and the MPCA's guidelines and procedures need to be followed so the MPCA would consider the data to be valid. Ms. Asleson said the MPCA manages its own 303d list [list of impaired water bodies]. Mr. LeFevere asked the Commission to consider whether it is in a hurry to get its water bodies listed on the 303d list. He said that due to Shingle Creek's chloride TMDL it's possible that chloride levels will be lower in the future and said the BCWMC could possibly receive benefits from Shingle Creek's MS4s' reduction in chlorides. Ms. Black commented that it sounds like there isn't a lot of data for chlorides in Bassett Creek and asked if the MPCA has a data collection protocol. Ms. Asleson said that every two years there is an assessment cycle and the 2008 assessment cycle is just ending. She said the assessment cycle is the same as the 303d listing cycle. Chair Welch recommended the Commission ask the TAC to discuss at its March meeting the issue of additional sampling and to provide a recommendation to the Commission at its March meeting. Ms. Black moved that the Commission direct the T AC to discuss at its March meeting the issue of additional sampling of Bassett Creek and to provide a recommendation to the Commission at the March meeting. Mr. Hanson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously [the Cities of Medicine Lake and Minnetonka were absent from the vote]. Ms. Black said a map should be created that shows where sampling is being done in the watershed and who is doing it. Ms. Asleson passed around her map from the MPCA that shows sampling being done in the area. Ms. Asleson explained that the MPCA has an extensive database of sampling data although there may be data that exists that has not been entered into the system. Chair Welch asked Ms. Asleson to e-mail Ms. Herbert the link to existing MPCA data. G. BCWMC Education Committee. i. Grant Criteria Revisions. Ms. Black said the Education Committee recommends that individual property owners remain eligible for the grants. She said the Committee recommends changes to the eligible! ineligible costs descriptions. She said the new language would read that eligible costs are those accrued after the contract is signed and for activities described in the contract. She said the new language would clarify that costs for projects in process prior to the signing of the contract are ineligible. Chair Welch said he prefers that the names of specific projects listed in the graut criteria be removed. Chair Welch moved to approve the proposed language changes. Ms. Langsdorf seconded the motion. Ms. Loomis commented that she does not support the motion because she doesn't support the policy that individual property owners are eligible for the grant because she thinks it is too problematic and that the Commission could be inundated with requests and wouldn't know how to differentiate between the requests. Mr. Johnson said sometimes the baD needs help to get rolling to show what could be done and to show the benefits and he said that is what demonstration projects do. Chair Welch amended his motion to accept the Committee's recommended changes to the grant criteria language and to direct the Education Committee to continue to look at the criteria and to propose in a timely manner additional language that addresses the commissioners' concerns. The motion carried unanimously [Cities of Medicine Lake and Minnetonka were absent from the vote]. #2486521 vI ii. Education Grant Contract Form. Deferred to future meeting. BCWMC January 17, 2008 Meeting Minutes Page 5 iii. Adding New BCWMC Logo to Web Site. Ms. Loomis moved to add the new logo to the Commission's Web site. Ms. Black seconded the motion. The motion carried. H. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Recommendations: i. Medicine Lake TMDL Work Plan. Mr. Gustafson said, as reflected in the Technical Advisory Committee's January 10tll, 2008 Memo, the TAC looked at three options for determining wasteload allocations: 1. The recommendation from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). He said the TAC was informed that the MPCA is recommending the wasteload allocations for the Medicine Lake TMDL be based simply on percentage of area. 2. Allocating loads based on each MS4's impervious surface in the watershed multiplied by a loading rate per acre of impervious surface. 3. The load allocation recommended by the Commission Engineer, which is to use a detailed water quality model that would cousider loading rates for each MS4. Mr. Gustafson reported that the T AC recommends the Commission proceed with option 3, the detailed wasteload allocation process, similar to the Sweeney Lake TMDL study. Mr. Gustafson said the fIrst reason the T AC recommends a very detailed model is that it is the best way to evaluate existing BMPs (best management practices). He commented it is in the best interest of each MS4 that existing BMPs and natural features that reduce loads be considered in the determination of the wasteload allocation. Mr. Gustafson displayed a map showing the subwatershed areas in Minnetonka and southern Plymouth that flow into Medicine Lake. He said all of Minnetonka's subwatersheds drain into water quality ponds before draining into Crane Lake. He said Crane Lake also acts as a huge water quality pond, treating the water before it drains into a large wetland. He said water then flows into Plymouth, where it goes through wetlands before that water drains into Medicine Lake. Mr. Gustafson said the water from Minnetonka that hits Medicine Lake is superb, so if the City of Minnetonka needed to reduce its load into Medicine Lake by 10 pounds then the City would likely need to reduce the load by 100 pounds or more in the City of Minnetonka to achieve a 10-pound reduction at Medicine Lake. Mr. Gustafson said it is not fair to the City of Minnetonka to have a wasteload allocation based on percentage of area because the City of Minnetonka's area is treated very well. He said it would be unfair if the Commission did not do a detailed study and did not credit the City for its water quality treatment. Mr. Gustafson said the January lOth TAC Memo lists two other reasons the TAC is recommending the detailed water quality modellnote: the memo lists the second reason as "The model can also be used to accurately assess the benefIts of any additional BMPs identifIed as part of the TMDL stakeholder participation process..." and the third reason as "A detailed model provides a useful tool that each MS4 and/ or the Commission could use in the future to track the completion of the TMDL implementation plan, as recommended by the MPCA, or to model the effect of additional BMPs that might be installed in the future."} Mr. Gustafson said he thought it would be an injustice to the City of Minnetonka and the other MS4s if the Commission didn't do a detailed study to fInd out the actual loads from each MS4 and how the existing BMPs and natural features treat the water as it goes into Medicine Lake. Mr. Oliver said another strong reason is that most people here are familiar with the involvement of Mn/DOT and there will be an increasing presence of Hennepin County and there is a strong chance that those two MS4s will not react well to load allocations that are assigned to them. He said wasteload allocations based on anything but the best available #2486521 vI BCWMC January 17, 2008 Meeting Minutes Page 6 science and the most detailed study will expose the Commission and all the MS4s involved to liability. Mr. Oliver said the information that permit modifications are based on needs to be the best possible information. Mr. Gustafson commented that it doesn't make sense that the Commission would spend $130,000 on the Sweeney Lake TMDL and only $50,000 - $60,000 for Medicine Lake. He said the Commission should be doing the same process throughout the entire watershed for all the TMDL studies so the information can be used in the future to develop implementation plans. Mr. Gustafson said the T AC also discussed the Medicine Lake TMDL stakeholder process. He said the Commission spent a ton of time on the update of the Watershed Management Plan and that the Commissiou ended up spending a year more than anticipated updating the plan. Mr. Gustafson said the Commission spent tens of thousands of dollars more on the stakeholder process because of the questions and concerns that were raised at that time. He said the Commission directed the Commission Engineer to do a lot of extra steps and it cost a lot of extra money that hadn't been budgeted, but, he said, the expense was worth it because everyone got their answers. Mr. Gustafson said that he is concerned about having only 60 hours in the stakeholder process for the Medicine Lake TMDL. He said both the Commission Engineer and the MPCA are recommending the same amount of hours but he is concerned that 60 hours is not enough for the stakeholder process because sometimes they evolve more than anticipated. Mr. Gustafson recommended wrapping in a contingency plan with the MPCA of a certain amount of extra stakeholder participation hours. Ms. Asleson said the MPCA never recommended that one particular technique be used but instead said there is a host of possibilities. Mr. Gustafson said the MPCA didn't give the Commission a scope of services to react to but only gave a project dollar amount of $50,000 to $60,000. Mr. Gustafson said one the MPCA's engineers said if he would have done it, he would have prepared the scope the same way as the Commission Engineer. Mr. Gustafson said the MPCA didn't prepare anything detailed to show why the TMDL should cost $50,000 to $60,000. Ms. Asleson said the MPCA has recommended a meeting of some of the Medicine Lake TMDL stakeholders so they can come together and discuss what work has been done already and where to go from here. Mr. Welch said the next step is the February 5th meeting to discuss the Medicine Lake TMDL work scope. Mr. Hanson made the motion for the Commission to approve the T AC's recommendation of using the third option to determine the wasteload allocation. Ms. Asleson said no one needs to decide at this point how the wasteload allocation will be determined. She said that decision will be discussed after the first meeting where people discuss the work plan. Mr. Oliver said the Commission Engineer provided a very detailed scope of work and the T AC is very confident that the detailed scope of work proposed will provide the best possible information to allow the Commission to make the best possible decisions that will be equitable to all parties. Mr. Stauuer clarified that even the detailed model will result in estimates. Mr. Stauner said he doesn't see it as an issue of fairness but an issue of having more complete data. He said he #2486521 vI BCWMC January 17, 2008 Meeting Minutes Page 7 tends to agree that the more complete the data the better because in terms of decision making, the better the data, the better the decision making process. Ms. Black said it is her understanding that Medicine Lake has been sampled for a long time and there is a lot of available data compared to the amount of data available for the Sweeney Lake TMDL study. She said what is being proposed is using the existing data in an updated model. Chair Welch said he doesn't have the technical background to analyze the technical issues, which is why he thinks it is important to have the T AC's perspective on the issue. Mr. Hanson said the Commission sounds like it is ignoring the T AC's perspective. Mr. LeFevere said that when the Commission enters data into the model, the Commission is checking the real world against the model and the model gets better. Mr. LeFevere said the model gets refined each time more data is entered. He commented that at some point there is a point of diminishing returns and the model is good enough. He said the question is whether the $40,000 model is good enough for the Commission's purposes or whether the Commission needs better data than that. Chair Welch said his inclination is to go with the more intense data analysis system but he is nervous about the reduction in the stakeholder process in the second version of the Medicine Lake TMDL work scope and he is worried about shortchanging the stakeholder process. Ms. Asleson stated that the MPCA's review of the work plan was in no way intended to be a new scope of work. She said their review for the Commission was to assist the Commission in discovering that there are other areas to think about before moving onto the TMDL study. She said the MPCA's review was at the Commission's request and it was to help the Commission figure out why there is a difference in opinion about how the TMDL should be handled. She said the MPCA is recommending the meeting between the City of Plymouth, the Three Rivers Park District and the Commission and any other parties that are heavily invested to discuss the scope of work. She said the intent of the MPCA's review of the work scope was to aid the Commission in making a decision and to point out that there is more out there by Three Rivers Park District and the City of Plymouth that could and should be incorporated into this TMDL. Mr. LeFevere commented that the expectation is for the MPCA to pay for the Medicine Lake TMDL. He said if the MPCA doesn't want to pay for the more elaborate model then the Commission probably needs to know that. Ms. Asleson said the MPCA wants to make sure that the project isn't missing anything or isn't duplicating modeling or work already done. Mr. LeFevere asked if that is something the MPCA can figure out without the Commission's involvement. Ms. Asleson said she thinks the Commission needs to work with the Three Rivers Park District and the City of Plymouth to get a better handle on what modeling they have done and what information do they have. Ms. Black said she is not ignoring the Commission Engineer's position. She said the person she has been talking to is the Three Rivers Park District. She said the Three Rivers Park District has done all the modeling and is familiar with the model already used and the model being proposed by the Commission Engineer. Ms. Black explained that the Three Rivers Park District told her that although the model being proposed has more ability because it is newer and it has more data points so it will provide more treatment information, the Park District has done a lot of this work already so the Commission would be paying for work that has already been done. #2486521 v1 BCWMC January 17, 2008 Meeting Minutes Page 8 Ms. Christian said she talked to John Barten of the Three Rivers Park District about the proposed model and Mr. Barten is saying that a lot of the work has already been done. Ms. Loomis said the Commission goes around and around with the same discussion about this topic every meeting. She said she thought the purpose of the meeting in February was to have the parties sit down and figure out what we have and what we need to do and define a scope of work based on that information. Chair Welch said he thinks his role as the Commission representative at the February 51b Medicine Lake TMDL work scope meeting will be to hear what the different parties are saying and to come back to the Commission and present tbat information for tbe Commission to make a decision. ii. City of Plymouth Request for Curlyleaf Pondweed Funding. Mr. Moberg said that page 3 of the January 10, 2008 Engineer's Memo summarizes some of tbe history of tbe curlyleaf pondweed treatment of Medicine Lake and what the City is looking for in terms of cost for the 2008 spot treatment. Mr. Moberg reminded the Commission that there were unspent funds from the Commission's CIP budget for the 2005 and 2006 Medicine Lake curlyleaf pondweed treatment projects and tbe City of Plymouth is requesting that a portion of those funds be allocated to a one-time curlyleaf spot treatment project for Medicine Lake in 2008. Cbair Welch asked what total amount the City of Plymouth is requesting from the Commission since tbe City of Plymouth is also requesting grant funds from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Ms. Christian stated that she is concerned tbat tbe estimate is low regarding the amount of Medicine Lake that will have to be spot treated in 2008. Chair Welch said tbe City of Plymouth has given an estimate of approximately 50 acres that would need treatment and that is the idea currently in front of the Commission to take action on and if it is necessary the topic may come in front of the Commission again regarding more treatment. Mr. LeFevere said the Commission could make a motion that staff brings back to the Commission a proposed contract amendment between the City of Plymoutb and the Commission to amend the original contract to add the additional money in tbis extra year. Chair Welch said tbat is his motion with the addition that the contract will include a contingency in the event tbat Minnesota DNR funds are secured for the work. Mr. Stauner seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously [Cities of Medicine Lake and Minnetonka were absent from the vote). I. Administrator Request for Proposals (RFP). Chair Welch announced that the Commission's Request for Proposals for a watershed organization operations analysis hasn't yet been distributed. He said the Commission can either decide that the RFP should be distributed or that the Administrator Services Committee should meet again to discuss the RFP and its distribution. Ms. Black asked if it would be helpful for the Administrator Services Committee to talk with the Department of Administration to see if they have ideas. Chair Welch asked for a motion for Ms. Black to work with Ms. Herbert to update the dates listed in tbe RFP and to complete the RFP distribution list and to discuss strategic planning options with the Department of Administration. Ms. Black moved that motion. Ms. Peterson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously [the Cities of Medicine Lake and Minnetonka were absent from the vote). #2486521 vI BCWMC January 17, 2008 Meeting Minutes Page 9 .~. : '~~m" 'm' 'U'."b~.Ni<i~n's"" :~,/::':;_'~~"l~_.,.._;_' ~_ :. " il"~,,~,,,"':'II,'L'. ", A. Citizen Input on Non-agenda Items: No citizen input. B. Chair i. Chair Welch asked the Commission to read over the communication from the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) included in the meeting packet. He said the letter describes BWSR's new Performance Review and Assistance Program (PRAP). He announced that Jim Haertel is now going to be the metro technical assistance person. ii. Chair Welch stated he has had a brief conversation with Joel Settles about a possible Commission presentation in March to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. iii. Chair Welch presented Resolution 08-01 A Resolution of Appreciation for Services of Richard Johnson to the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. Ms. Langsdorf moved the adoption of Resolution 08-01. Ms. Black seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously [the Cities of Medicine Lake and Minnetonka were absent from the vote]. C. Commissioners: No communications. D. Committees: i. Education and Outreach Committee - Ms. Langsdorf announced that the joint survey has been completed and a presentation of the results by Decision Resources has been tentatively scheduled for January 31'1 at 8:30 a.m. at Plymouth City Hall and staff, T AC, and the Commission are invited to attend. Chair Welch asked the Education Committee to evaluate whether the Commission should request a special presentation by Decision Resources and to find out how much it would cost and for the Committee to make a recommendation at the next Commission meeting. Mr. Stauner said Shingle Creek circulated a report of the results and said it would be appropriate for the Bassett Creek Commission to receive the report as well. E. Counsel: Mr. LeFevere said Hennepin County would like to sponsor legislation that would give the County a ditch abandonment law that would be easier to work with that would either allow them to abandon ditches or cause the legislature itself to abandon ditches in Hennepin County or to have a facilitated process to transfer ditches to another body such as a city. Mr. LeFevere said it is time sensitive and the County is looking for a sponsor and he recommended the Commission get its oar in the water on this issue. He said he is waiting for a map from Joel Settles, of Hennepin County, that depicts the ditches the County is asking to have abandoned. Mr. LeFevere said he has prepared a memo. He said he recommends that the Commission refer the map and topic to the T AC so that each city can look at the proposed abandoned ditches in their city and decide if they have any issues with the proposal. Mr. LeFevere said if any city has issues with the proposals the Commission can deal with it and if no cities care then it would be in everyone's best interest to get the ditches abandoned. Ms. Loomis moved that once Mr. LeFevere receives the map that it get distributed to the T AC and the T AC review it and provides a recommendation to the Commission. Chair Welch seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously [Cities of Medicine Lake and Minnetonka were absent from the vote]. F. Engineer: No communications. #2486521 v1 BCWMC January 17, 2008 Meeting Minutes Page 10 Ms. Black moved to adjourn the meetiug. Ms. Langsdorf seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 2:25 p.m. Michael Welch, Chair Date Amy Herbert, Recorder Date Pauline Langsdorf, Secretary Date #2486521 vI BCWMC January 17, 2008 Meeting Minutes Page 11 PubliC ~U~Y Mem ndu Police Department 763-593-8079 I 763-593-8098 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 5, 2008 Agenda Item 3. D. 1. Quotes - Three 2008 Squad Cars Prepared By Stacy Altonen, Police Chief Roger Johnson, Deputy Police Chief Summary The Police Department requests authorization from the City Council to purchase three police squad cars (V&E-001, page 23), as provided for in the 2008-2012 Capital Improvement Program. The marked squad budget allows for $90,000 for the purchase and replacement equipment for three marked police vehicles. After evaluation of the condition and mileage of the vehicles in our police fleet that are due for replacement, we are recommending the purchase of three new squads this year. The purchase will be made under the State of Minnesota Squad Contract - Crown Victoria's A-174(5), Dodge Charger A-228(5) - and the vendors are Monticello Ford, Monticello, Minnesota, and Nelson Dodge, Fergus Falls, Minnesota. Two of the marked vehicles will be Ford Crown Victoria's with a contract price of $21 ,835 each. The third squad car will be a Dodge Charger, which will be used as a semi-marked traffic squad. The contract price for this vehicle is $22,925. The total cost for the three vehicles is $66,595. An additional amount from the budget is reserved for as needed replacement equipment for the marked squads, including light bars, siren controls, and other squad equipment. Recommended Action Motion to authorize the Police Department to purchase, through the State of Minnesota Squad Contract, two 2008 Ford Crown Victoria's from Monticello Ford for $43,670 and one Dodge Charger from Nelson Dodge for 22,925. morandum Police Department 763-593-8079 I 763-593-8098 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 5, 2008 Agenda Item 3. D. 2. Quotes - Crime Prevention Vehicle Prepared By Stacy Altonen, Police Chief Roger Johnson, Deputy Police Chief Summary The Police Department requests authorization from the City Council to purchase a 2008 Dodge Caravan as the Crime Prevention Vehicle (V&E-034, page 33), as provided for in the 2008-2012 Capital Improvement Program. The budget allows for $25,000 for the purchase. After evaluation of the type of vehicle needed for our crime prevention function, including hauling displays and program supplies, it was determined by staff that a mini-van type vehicle would best meet the needs of the Department. The purchase will be made under the State of Minnesota Mini-van Contract A-175(5) and the vendor is Elk River Chrysler, Elk River, Minnesota. The contract price is $21,829, and the additional amount will be used to pay sales tax and license fees. Recommended Action Motion to authorize the Police Department to purchase, through the State of Minnesota Mini- Van Contract, a 2008 Dodge Caravan from Elk River Chrysler for $21,829, not including sales tax and license fees. } alley em du Public Works 763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 5, 2008 Agenda Item 3. D. 3. Purchase of One Single Axle Cab Chassis Truck and Attachments Prepared By Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Summary The 2008-2012 Capital Improvement Program includes $160,000 for one single axle cab, chassis truck and equipment (page 35). This truck will be equipped with a swaploader system dump body, front snowplow and wing, underbody scraper, sander and associated hydraulics. Staff uses this equipment for snow removal and other maintenance activities. The swaploader system allows staff to utilize various truck boxes and accessories for one truck. The Minnesota Materials Management Division awarded Contract No. 439006 for the Sterling single axle cab and chassis to Boyer Ford Trucks, Inc.; and Contract No. 438584 for the swaploader model SL400 hook system 10.5-foot dump body, snow plow, wing underbody plow, sander, lights and controls to Aspen Equipment Company, Inc. The City's cost to purchase the truck, swaploader, and equipment is as follows: 2008 Sterling cab and chassis Tax Swaploader Model SL 400, Plow, Wing, Underbody and equipment Tax Total Purchase Price to City $ 70,439.00 $ 4,578.54 $ 94,838.86 $ 6.164.53 $176,020.93 The City had budgeted $25,000 for an asphalt melter. Staff has deferred this purchase until 2009. Staff recommends utilizing the $25,000.00 from the asphalt melter to cover the cost overrun of the dump truck and attachments purchase. Recommended Action 1. Motion to approve purchase of one 2008 Sterling L7500 Cab Chassis Truck from Boyer Trucks, Inc. in the amount of $75,017.54. 2. Motion to approve equipment purchases from Aspen Equipment, Inc. in the amount of $101,003.39. Hey Memora du Public Works 763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 5, 2008 Agenda Item 3. D. 4. Purchase Utility Box and Hoist for F550 Truck Prepared By Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Summary The 2008-2012 Capital Improvement Program includes $71,000 for one new F550 truck (page 131). The F550 cab and chassis was approved for purchase at the January 22,2008 City Council meeting for the total cost of $35,614.65. The remaining balance of $35,385.35 is for the purchase of the utility box and hoist equipment. Staff utilizes this equipment for sanitary sewer and storm sewer maintenance activities, such as pulling storm sewer and sanitary sewer pumps for service. The Minnesota Materials Management Division awarded Contract No. 437073 to Aspen Equipment for this equipment. The City's cost to purchase the equipment is as follows: 2008 Utility Box and Hoist Tax Purchase Price to City $29,589.65 $ 1.923.33 $31,512.98 Recommended Action Motion to approve the purchase of new utility box and hoist for a total purchase price, including Minnesota Sales Tax, of $31,512.98. I hlley Me orand Public Works 763.593.8030 I 763.593.3988 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 5, 2008 Agenda Item 3. D. 5. Purchase New Solid Manhole Covers Prepared By Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Summary The 2008 Public Works Utilities Budget includes $50,000 for the purchase of solid manhole covers to aid in the reduction of inflow and infiltration of clear water into the sanitary sewer system throughout the community. The new solid manhole covers will replace existing manhole covers that have open pick holes. It is anticipated that this will be an ongoing project until all of the existing manhole covers with pick holes are replaced. Staff has received the following bids for 450 solid manhole covers: Ess Brothers and Sons, Inc. Municipal Castings, Inc. $41,694.75 $43,132.50 Recommended Action Motion to approve the purchase of 450 solid manhole covers, including Minnesota Sales Tax of $41,694.75, from Ess Brothers and Sons, Inc. 512 Ardmore Golden Valley, MN 55422 February 19, 2008 Golden Valley City Council 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Council Members: You may be aware of communications between residents of North Tyrol Hills and various Golden Valley city departments over a recent modification to the PCA plant at 4300 Highway 55 in Golden Valley. That modification resulted in a marked increase in noise levels which, in turn, led to complaints and inquiries. The issue of noise pollution as a nuisance is addressed by the Golden Valley noise ordinance but it is also a public health concern. The World Health Organization has issued a publication called Guidelines for Community Noise. Chronic noise, even at what would seem to be low levels, is deemed by WHO to have a negative health impact. PCA noise levels and duration clearly exceed those guidelines. Beyond the scope of issues directly related to PCA, a more serious failing in oversight was exposed. Modifications to manufacturing plants like peA are not permitted nor are they inspected. peA is not under the supervision of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. That agency, in fact, deferred authority to the local municipality. On checking with Golden Valley's Inspections and Planning departments, it was found that no process was in place to insure that: . Plant operation changes that engender a modification to equipment are appropriate and/or safe for the location and surrounding community . Modifications are properly engineered to adequately deal with the change in plant operations . Permits are issued before modifications are done and modifications are inspected to insure that they are done in compliance with design specifications Clearly, this represents a very serious failing in the stewardship of public safety, one that applies to any industrial operation within Golden Valley city limits. It is hoped that this letter will be a catalyst for the following action on the part of Golden Valley's City Council: . Develop a standard of oversight for industrial operations within Golden Valley city limits . Pursue some degree of retroactive inspections for industrial operations, especially those near residences and schools . Actively and consistently apply Golden Valley's existing noise ordinance standard to industry, especially near residential areas. Respectfully, Scott Fultz Page 1 of 1 Andre, Jeanne From: Savage, Boyd [bsavage@fredlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 12.2008 11 :45 AM To: Andre. Jeanne Subject: FW: Correction to notes of January 29th Neighborhood meeting Ms. Andre, I sent this to you originally at an incorrect e-mail address. I hope you get this one. From: Savage, Boyd Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 11:30 AM To: 'jeanne.andre@cLgolden-valley.mn.us' ~ Cc:'linda.loomis@ci.golden-valley.mn.us'; 'mikeJreiberg@ci.golden-valley.mn.us'; 'paula.pentel@ci.golden-valley.mn.us'; 'dede.scanlon@ci.golden-valley.mn.us'; 'bob.shaffer@ci.golden-valley.mn.us' Subject: Correction to notes of January 29th Neighborhood meeting Ms. Andre, There is one error contained in the notes of the January 29th neighborhood meeting which you attached to your February 1 st memo to the City Council. On the last row of page one of those notes, you find the text "Duke also responded that there are 2 exits to the east and 3 to the west." In fact, those numbers are reversed. According to the Duke plans (and what the Duke representative stated at the neighborhood meeting), there are 2 exits facing Utica, and 3 exits which are on the eastern side of the proposed parking structure, with an additional exit at the north end of the parking structure which would feed directly onto Wayzata Boulevard. This is the source of some of the neighborhood concern about traffic flow out of the parking ramp, i.e. that only 2 of 6 proposed exits are western exits. The remaining four exits would (or could) easily feed directly into Wayzata Boulevard, based on the proposals made to date by Duke Realty. I believe the distinction is an important one. Boyd Savage 4520 Douglas Avenue Golden Valley, MN 55416 2/12/2008 alley Mem randu Public Works 763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 5, 2008 Agenda Item 3. E. 3. Request for Winter Maintenance of City Trails at James Ford Bell Technical Center and General Mills Nature Preserve Prepared By Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Summary Staff has received two petitions from employees of General Mills, Inc. The petitions request that the trails located at the James Ford Bell Technical Center (which are located on General Mills' property) and the trails at the General Mills Nature Preserve (located on property owned by the City), be maintained by the City in the winter months. Due to limitations of staff resources and manpower, these trails do not have a maintenance priority assigned to them for winter use and are not plowed. Staff recommends that this item be directed to the Open Space and Recreation Commission for consideration. Attachments Petition from General Mills employees regarding the winter maintenance of the General Mills Nature Preserve trails (1 page) Petition from General Mills employees regarding the winter maintenance of the James Ford Bell Technical Center trails (4 pages) Map of the General Mills Nature Preserve trails (1 page) Map of the James Ford Bell Technical Center trails (General Mills Research Area) (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to receive and file the petitions and direct the petitions to the Open Space and Recreation Commission for consideration. RECErVE:)I JAN 1 8 2008 A petition has been started asking for the n necessary) from the walk/run paths in the nature preserve north of the Geberal Mills MGO. Pleas~ sign t;>elow if you are interested in having this service e.stablished by the City of Golden Valley. NAME ,/1'" Phone Number '--(C'f.3 '3 -- JAJl '8--~Olh -; - 'J.?5/ 3 ~ JJ l/ g ~ t-t-:)$'-{S 4- ~. Ltq6 ~ '-}- 1 c;q'-S ''7Qoo I RECEIVED 8 Have City of Golden Valley Assist in clearing the trails in back 40 NAME I SIGNATURE ~~ '0~ 1"' fJa'fl e~ v;)z Have City of Golden Valley Assist in clearing the trails in back 40 NAME I SIGNATURE ~1ILtA"" Have. City of Golden Valley Assist in clearing the trails in back 40 '.... b0flJeln~ P/llU7<, I1ll;J-~ .:i / j/ Have City of Golden Valley Assist in clearing the trails in back 40 NAME I SIGNATURE A-~:v E:..- \-'\ \J. (Lp ~ ---~.,..,... I' Q' D D CJD D D CJ D ~ ! I I I c:=:=J o o LJ . I DO _ .__- - -.... _ GOLDEN - -VACCEY---:RD -=-- D o~ CJO c:::::J - ~ ~ ~ C) Cii z w WALLY ST . ~f?; HARO tJ o / / - -.- -'7 I Trails in General Mills Nature Preserve Print Date: 2/27/08 Sources: Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2008). o 162.5 325 N A 650 Feet ~B\:\~\ ~ ~~"~~~ ISl -- ~: l 7 ~~ bJ:irm~\'- \ -.-- - !2 ~ i' ~-T-H-S:r. ---~. " ; -DII,..;--:....... UJ I(~~;~I :! ~O i . z . . w J:>, ~ rJ LL w ~ ::;,. ~r' 1- - ~ - .~__ . I.: - !!:t::1 I~I I. ;. i I )IA ST . . . , I ,2 . W .> I I . I .0. . ; ~~lley .. "'-J 7' , G 1;1 v - \- \ - ~: D I ;: ~I , \r- . '\ \~ ~ \.~ ~. .l -;:K r!' >< t3 E2- - ~ .., ~ --= - -: - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --K '--- r--L. J AQUILA :\ I \~ \~ \ \ \ \ N A Trails In Print Date: 2/27/08 . . Sources: General Mills Research ~e;;::/Lf:e~n(~O~~J.eyorsofficefo' Nature Area 0 150 300 600 Feet Hey M morandu Public Works 763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 5, 2008 Agenda Item 3. E. 4. Receive and File: a) February 21,2008, Letter from Gary and Cynthia Malinowski regarding Regent Avenue Sidewalk Boulevard b) February 25,2008 Letter and Petition from Gary and Cynthia Malinowski regarding Addendum to Regent Avenue Sidewalk Boulevard Prepared By Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Summary Public Works staff has received two letters and a petition from Gary and Cynthia Malinowski, 2405 Regent Avenue North, regarding the surface treatment for the two foot wide concrete shoulder between the five foot concrete sidewalk and the curb line of Regent Avenue North. The two letters from the Malinowski's, dated February 21 and February 25,2008, request that stamped and colored concrete, or planting daylilies, be substituted for the brushed concrete finish included in the approved project design. Public Works staff received direction from the City Council on the brush finished shoulder at the December 11, 2007 Council/Manager Meeting, and based the final project design upon this direction. Proiect Status: The 2008 Pavement Management Project, which is now out for bids, includes a base bid of the five foot wide sidewalk and two foot wide concrete shoulder with a brushed finish as approved by the City Council. In addition, two add alternates (additional costs for alternate finishes) are included in the bid. These add alternates include an un- colored, brick stamped pattern and an exposed aggregate finish. Cost implications for these add alternates will be discussed at the time the City Council considers bids for this project, which is currently scheduled for the April 15, 2008 City Council meeting. A colored concrete shoulder is not being considered as an add alternate due to budget considerations. The estimated cost of a colored concrete shoulder is approximately $91,000 for the 2008 and 2009 PMP projects. The letters also request that daylilies be installed in the boulevard area in lieu of concrete, similar to Winnetka Avenue south of Trunk Highway 55. The estimated cost to install daylilies on Regent Avenue ranges between $77,500 and $382,000 in additional costs above the project costs as designed and currently being bid. This cost estimate is based upon the unknown extent of planting, and the potential of a variable boulevard in order to minimize other impacts. It should also be noted that the Winnetka Avenue installation of day lilies included a commitment from property owners to maintain the plantings. Since the streetscaping was installed in 2003, there have been a significant number of property owners who are no longer maintaining the boulevard plantings, resulting in complaints to Public Works staff. Attachments Letter to Mayor Loomis and City Council of Golden Valley, dated February 21,2008 from Gary and Cynthia Malinowski (1 page) Letter to Mayor Loomis and City Council of Golden Valley, and petition, dated February 25, 2008, from Gary and Cynthia Malinowski (4 pages) Recommended Action Motion to receive and file February 21, 2008 letter and February 25, 2008 letter and petitions from Gary and Cynthia Malinowski, 2405 Regent Avenue North, regarding the 2008-2009 Pavement Management Program sidewalk boulevard on Regent Avenue; and direct staff to write a letter of response indicating the project status as discussed herein. ,. R~A.v~ R~ February 21, 2008 FEB 26 LUU~ <,;To: . :Subject: Mayor Loomis and the City Council of Golden Valley Sidewalk Boulevard At the city council meeting, held Tuesday, the 19th of February, the city engineers presented a 5 foot sidewalk design which includes a two foot boulevard, referred to as a buffer zone during the meeting. This design seemed to be a good compromise in reducing the last proposed design from 8 ft to 7 ft, and still incorporating functional features to allow snow removal and storage, as well as enabling the sidewalk to remain 4 feet over the driveway without changing elevations. The boulevard design has a simple brushed pattem, which was the least expensive option the engineers could propose. We are requesting that the boulevard design be changed to a stamped pattem and colored to enhance the appearance of the street. The brushed pattern looks utilitarian. A seven foot wide, all white concrete strip along Regent Avenue N, seems harsh and uninviting. Changing the surface areat()an attractive pattern and color would break up the monotonous white, making the transition from the road to the sidewalk less jarring, and beautifying,tbe street. T.hecity took pride in its own city center, adding features like decorated side walks, benches, and flowers. The same care should be focused in the presentation of its neighborhoods. Stamped, colored concrete has been added to other city projects, including the walk in front of city hall and the medians on Duluth near 100. The City Council stated that this plan is a once in 50 years opportunity to improve the street. You have chosen to alter the street's appearance forever, based on functionality. Please consider modifying it for how the city of Golden Valley wishes to be seen aesthetically as well. ~, ~/ Gary & Cynthia Malinowski 2405 Regent Avenue North GOk.!en. Valley, MN 55422-3506 ~~V~,.~AAI.~~ R~AlI~ R~ February 25, 2008 FEB 2 5 lUU~ To: Subject: Mayor Loomis and the Ci~ Council of Golden Valley Addendum to Sidewalk Boulevard Knowing that time is of the essence for the engineers to respond to a change request, this petition is being turned in today with as many signatures as could be obtained in a few days. As to be expected, many people were not home when called on, and I ran out of time to call on about two dozen homes. Nevertheless, all but one home signed this petition for the decorative pattern to be added to the boulevard. A request that the color be more natural like the color used in front of city hall or on the median on Duluth near 100, not red, was expressed. Interestingly most of the homeowners would prefer the boulevard to be a green space as long as it was not planted with grass, but a ground cover or daylilies. The objections at the June meeting was for a grass boulevard, using the example of the dead grass areas along Noble, and how difficult it is to keep turf green along the road. Several homeowners arre willing to donate day lilies and time to plant them. A suggestion included polling block by block to see if this could be allowed. The city is interested in reducing impervious space, and daylilies allow for the snow removal machinery to run over the landscaping edge and not be damaged. Everyone believes flowers are better than concrete. Many are aware that the city has planted the Winnetka boulevard in front of Brookview with day lilies, and find these plantings to be very attractive. There are three people on my block alone who are more than willing to care for them. The conclusion by the City that the neighborhood did not want a green boulevard is erroneous. The neighbors do not want a grass boulevard. Finally, a huge concern was the snow removal in the winter. It is known that Noble Avenue North's sidewalks are often not cleared till two days after a snowfall. This allows the snow to be packed down and iced over before the City comes to clear the sidewalk. Walkers are then forced to walk on the street instead of the slippery sidewalks. Since the City of Golden Valley intends to hire no more manpower or equipment to remove snow, and the City can not keep Noble's sidewalks cleared, there is fear that the sidewalk on Regent will become dysfunctional 3 months out of the year. This year was slightly colder than normal, but the snowfall was well below average. The City of Golden Valley came up with the sidewalks as a solution to a perceived safety problem on Regent and to connect the trails. However, the sidewalk solution does not resolve these problems 100%. 1) Sidewalks introduce conflicts between bicycles and pedestrians as the curb prevents bicyclists from avoiding pedestrians by turning into the street. One or the other will have to stop or walk on to the grass. Imagine a 12 yr old bicyclist meeting an elderly couple out walking and how this could pan out. 2) Most bicyclists who are going from trail to trail do not see sidewalks as a bike pathway. Bicyclists will be on the road in conflict with traffic to almost the same degree as before. Bicyclists do not and will not see the sidewalk as connecting the trails in the least. 3) As the snow will probably not be removed in a manner which will make them safe to walk in the winter, they will be dysfunctional around 3 months out of the year based on how well Noble Avenue North's sidewalks are currently cleared. An alternate solution would be to widen the road and put in a pedestrianlbicycle lane which would be similar to a shoulder. This would allow bicyclists and pedestrians to move around each other more easily, having access to the road if necessary. The bicyclists would feel comfortable using this separate space from the main road, allowing for the City to boast that the trails were truly connected. The snow would be removable by snow plow instead of by the snow sweepers, and would be removed when the streets were normally cleared, not at a later time. This would also be less expensive than a sidewalk. Notably, 85% of the residents chose this neighborhood because there were no sidewalks. We chose this neighborhood because we liked the more rural appearance, knowing all of the risks that come with it and we still do not see a need for sidewalks. Many of us are avid walkers, and walking is a part of our lifestyle right now. The sidewalks change the appearance of the neighborhood, urbanizing it, making it more inviting to those who fearful of life's risks. In this day and age of tightened budgets, the $200,000 ($350,000 quoted by engineers to one resident days before the meeting) being spent on the sidewalk seems extravagant and many would prefer seeing our tax dollars to go towards such needs as helping those who can not afford the upgrades to their sewer lines, or to the schools. Regent residents who want sidewalks feel even the 7 ft sidewalk is more than necessary. Neighbors outside of Regent who have expressed an interest in sidewalks, feel that the size of the sidewalks are excessive and that the Regent residents should have the final say as to whether there should be sidewalks and what type of sidewalks should go into the neighborhood. These neighbors sympathized and did not necessarily want a sidewalk plunked in front of their home. This petition is to modify the design of the boulevard, changing the brushed pattern to a colored brick pattern, to make the sidewalk more aesthetically pleasing. Ifthe city wished to take this further and reduce the impervious surface, the boulevard could be changed to a green space planted with day lilies, $:her the whole street or block by block if approved by the neighbors. Finally, a more compre1lensive and less expensive solution to the safety and trail connecting concerns, would be a pedestrian/bicycle lane instead of a sidewalk. ~, Gary & Cynthia Malinowski 2405 Regent Avenue North Golden Valley, MN 55422-3506 ~4~t;J4,~S+~~~ R~A4I~ R~ address {tkp5~ 7 8 --..-,..,-"'.... '-1'1-..2 tJ ~ k~ 20 21 ~~ A-tI~ ~~ 26 28 \ I --~". ..) . ,....-./ Hey M morandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 5, 2008 Agenda Item 4. A. Public Hearing - Ordinance #396 - Employee-only Daycare Centers in Business and Professional Office Zoning District Prepared By Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Summary In January 2008, it was brought to the attention of the Planning Commission that a child care facility for employee dependents is not clearly listed as an individual conditional use in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. As a result, inconsistencies exist between language and format among the Zoning Districts within the City Code. Child care facilities for employee dependents are conditional uses in the Industrial and the Light Industrial Zoning Districts. Currently, language in Section 11.45 of the City Code allows any child care facility in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District as a conditional use. Amending the City Code to include language limiting child care facilities which serve only employee dependents as a conditional use provides consistent guidelines between Golden Valley Zoning Districts, as well as properly formats conditional use guidelines in Section 11.45. Attachments Memo from Joe Hogeboom dated February 5,2008 (1 page) Planning Commission Minutes dated February 11,2008 (1 page) Underline/Overstrike pages showing amendments to Section 11.45 Business and Professional Offices Zoning District (2 pages) Ordinance No. 396, Amendment to Section 11.45 Listing Employee-Only Child Care Facilities as a Conditional Use in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 396, Amendment to Section 11.45 Listing Employee-Only Child Care Facilities as a Conditional Use in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: February 5, 2008 To: Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, Planner Subject: Child Care Services in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District At the January 14, 2008 meeting of the Planning Commission, RHT Office LLC requested preliminary approval for a Conditional Use Permit allowing an employee-only child care facility to be located at 9400 Golden Valley Road. The site is located in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. At the time, planning staff assumed that child care facilities were not a specified conditional use in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District, since such a provision was not listed under Section 11.45, Subdivision 7, Paragraph B of City Code. Upon further examination of the Zoning Code, staff discovered child care facilities are, in fact, permissible conditional uses in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. The language of the Chapter reads as follows: "Without limiting generality and foregoing, such uses may include Child Care Facilities as defined in this chapter." The above clause is listed in Section11.45, Subdivision 7, Paragraph A of City Code. To create a more well-structured document, staff is recommending removing the above clause from Paragraph A and creating a new item in Paragraph B that specifically lists employee-only child care facilities as a conditional use. Staff feels that child care facilities that serve employee dependents are compatible to the overall uses contained in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. Amending the Business and Professional Offices Zoning Code to include this change will instill uniformity throughout the City's zoning districts with regard to child care opportunities. Staff asks for your support in amending Section 11.45, Subdivision 7 of City Code to relocate language pertaining to child care from Paragraph A to Paragraph B. Attachments: Section 11.45: Business and Professional Offices Zoning District showing proposed language addition (5 pages) Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2008 Page 7 3. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Regarding Employee Only Daycare Facilities in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To amend the language in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District to list employee-only daycare centers as a Conditional Use. Hogeboom reminded the Commission that at their meeting last month they reviewed a Conditional Use Permit to allow an employee only daycare center to operate in a property zoned Business and Professional Offices. At that meeting the Commission directed staff to amend the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District to include daycare centers as a conditional use. Hogeboom stated that after that meeting staff realized daycare centers were already allowed as a conditional use in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District, the language was just in a different section of the code so this public hearing is to recommend that the daycare center language be moved to the section that lists the uses allowed as a conditional use. Keysser asked if the Planning Commission would still review daycare center proposals. Hogeboom said yes, because a daycare center would still need to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Waldhauser asked why it is limited to employee-only daycare centers. Hogeboom stated that limiting daycare centers to employee-only centers in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District would provide consistency with the other zoning districts and that other types of daycare centers are better suited to the Commercial Zoning District. Keysser said he wants to encourage employee-only daycare centers. The Commissioners agreed. Cera asked about the zoning of existing daycare centers. Grimes stated that most of the regular daycare centers in Golden Valley are located in churches in the Institutional Zoning District. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval to amend the language in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District to list employee-only daycare centers as a Conditional Use. - Short Recess- 9 11.45 Subdivision 6. Lot Area. No building or other structure located in this zoning district shall be located on a parcel of land that is less than one acre in area or less than 100 feet in width. Source: Ordinance No. 541 Effective Date: 5-8-81 Subdivision 7. Conditional Uses. A. Conditions. In addition to those uses specifically classified and permitted within this district, there are certain uses which may be allowed in a Business and Professional Offices District because of their unusual characteristics or the service they provide to the public. These conditional uses require particular considerations as to their proper location in relation to adjacent established or intended uses, or to the planned development of the City. The conditions controlling the location and operation of such conditional uses are established under Section 11.80 of this Chapter. Without limiting-the generulity of the foregoing, such uses m<:lY include Child C<:lre F<.:lcilities uS defined in this Ch<.:lpter. Source: Ordinance No. 712 Effective Date: 6-23-88 B. Authority. The Council shall have the authority, after having received the recommendations of the Planning Commission, to permit the following types of the conditional uses of land or structures, or both, within a Business and Professional Offices District, if the Council finds that the proposed location and establishment of any such use will be desirable or necessary to the public convenience or welfare and will be harmonious and compatible with other uses adjacent to and in the Vicinity of the selected site. Source: Ordinance No. 541 Effective Date: 5-8-81 1. Buildings exceeding three (3) stories in height, subject to the provisions of Subdivision 5, Subparagraph A, Item 2, and Subparagraph B. above, and all other applicable provisions of this Chapter. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 2. Recreational facilities such as ballfields, swimming pools and playgrounds. 3. Daytime activity centers and/or other facilities providing school and/or training for retarded or handicapped people. 4. Financial institutions, including drive-in facilities. 5. Limited retail services within a professional office building. Source: Ordinance No. 541 Effective Date: 5-8-81 6. Heliports, as herein defined. Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of6 S 11.45 7. Other uses which, in the opinion of the Council, are compatible with the uses specifically described above. Source: Ordinance No. 643 Effective Date: 11-16-84 8. Adult Day Care Center. Source: Ordinance No. 264, 2nd Series Effective Date: 12-13-02 2.... Child care facilities provided that said facilities serve only the dependents of persons employed on the same premises as are_.9ttJ.~rw.~tl~rIT1it.tE;!.hLQ.y' this chapter. Source: Ordinance No. ,2nd Series Effective Date: Subdivision 8. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the Business and Professional Office District: A. Offices B. Essential Services - Class I. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28~91 Subdivision 9. Accessory Uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in this Zoning District: A. Essential Services - Class I. B. Accessory Structures. The following regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in this Zoning District: 1. Location. A Detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the front setback as the principal structure. If an addition is built on to an existing principal structure that would create a situation where an existing garage or accessory structure would not be completely to the rear of the addition to the principal structure, the addition to the principal structure may be built and the existing garage or accessory structure may remain and be considered conforming as long as there is at least 10 feet of separation between the existing principal structure with the addition and the existing garage or accessory structure. Additions may be made to the existing garage or accessory structure as long as the 10 feet of separation can be met. Golden Valley City Code Page 4 of6 ORDINANCE NO. 396, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amendment to Section 11.45 Listing Employee-Only Child Care Facilities as a Conditional Use in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains: Section 1. City Code Section 11.45, entitled "Business and Professional Offices Zoning District" Subd. 7(A) by deleting the last sentence and amending it to read: A. Conditions. In addition to those uses specifically classified and permitted within this district, there are certain uses which may be allowed in a Business and Professional Offices District because of their unusual characteristics or the service they provide to the public. These conditional uses require particular considerations as to their proper location in relation to adjacent established or intended uses, or to the planned development of the City. The conditions controlling the location and operation of such conditional uses are established under Section 11.80 of this Chapter. Section 2. City Code Section 11.45, entitled "Business and Professional Offices Zoning District" Subd. 7(B) by adding number 9 as follows: 9. Child care facilities provided that said facilities serve only the dependents of persons employed on the same premises as are otherwise permitted by this chapter. Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 5th day of March, 2008. IslLinda R. Loomis Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: IslSusan M. VirniQ Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk Public ~U~Y Me 0 ndu Fire Department 763-593-8055 I 763-512-2497 (fax) Executive Summary for Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 5, 2008 Agenda Item 6. A. Declaration of Hazardous Building - 4125 Woodstock Avenue Prepared By Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections Summary The house located at 4125 Woodstock Avenue is abandoned and in disrepair. Minnesota Statutes 463.15 subdivision 3 states that a "hazardous building or property, which because of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, physical damage, unsanitary conditions or abandonment, constitutes a fire hazard or a hazard to public safety or health." The present condition of the house meets the criteria of a hazardous building. We will be contacting the owner of the property to obtain consent in writing of the owner for removal of the hazardous building by the City. All costs associated with the removal will be charged against the real estate. The governing body may provide that the cost assessed be paid, not to exceed five equal annual installments with interest at eight percent per annum. Staff recommends three equal installments at eight percent annum. Attachment Order for Removal of Hazardous Building (5 pages) Consent to Removal of Hazardous Building (2 pages) Recommended Action Attached for your review are an Order and a Consent. If satisfactory, staff recommends that the Council make a motion to order removal of the hazardous building in the form of order attached and direct staff to proceed pursuant to the order obtaining the owner's consent, if possible. ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLDEN V ALLEY, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA TO: GLENN C. OVERLEE, AND ANY AND ALL OTHER PERSONS OWNING, CLAIMING A LIEN UPON, OCCUPYING OR HAVING ANY INTEREST WHATSOEVER IN THE PREMISES LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS Street Address: 4125 Woodstock A venue, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 RE: Legal Description: Lot 052, Glenwood Addition, Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota Property ID: 19-029-24-41-0028 HAZARDOUS BUILDING REMOVAL FROM: CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF GOLDEN V ALLEY HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA YOU AND EACH OF YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes sections 463.16 to 463.261, inclusive, to take the following action with respect to the above-described property, upon which the City Council of the City of Golden Valley has determined there exists a hazardous building within the meaning of the aforesaid Minnesota Statutes. REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS BUILDING By this Order, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 463.151, the City orders the owner of the property to correct or remove the hazardous condition of the building and property. 1. Remove the building/structure now located on the above-described premises. 2. Seal the sanitary sewer line, water line, and other utilities leading from the premises. 3. Fill to grade and cover any excavation remaining after the removal hereinabove ordered. FINDINGS OF FACT The foregoing Order is based upon the finding by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley that the property is a hazardous building as defined by Minnesota Statutes section 463.15 due to its "inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, physical damage, unsanitary condition, or abandonment" and the following findings of fact based on the report of the City's Building Inspector. A. InadeQuate Maintenance and Phvsical Damae:e: The following is evidence of inadequate maintenance and physical damage to the property: Roof is missing shingles, has exposed roof boards and possible water intrusion issues. Chimney: The concrete chimney cap is missing, the chimney flashing is corroded and rusting, and the chimney has broken and loose bricks. The chimney is missing 50% of its mortar joints. These conditions are all contributors to water intrusion. In addition, the furnace stack that used to be routed through the masonry chimney has been redirected through a basement window and is held off the ground by a piece of concrete. Some failure to the chimney may have caused the owner to make an emergency repair to remove the soot, causing staining of interior walls. Soffit/Fascia: Peeling and blistering paint found on all exterior wood surfaces including the garage. Missing and rotten fascia found hanging from the house and garage. B. Dilapidation: The following damage is evidence of the property's fall into ruin or decay by neglect: Roof: The roof is missing shingles, resulting in water intrusion. .., Chimney: Missing concrete cap, resulting in water intrusion. Chimney flashing is rusting. Chimney contains loose and broken bricks and is missing 50% or more of its mortar joints. Soffit/Fascia: Paint over the perimeter of the house is peeling and blistering. Rotten wood trim is falling off the house. Foundation: The foundation must be adequate to support the building load. The exterior foundation walls show signs of severely deteriorating masonry, cracks, holes, and several inches of settling. Windows: Paint is blistered and peeling. The windows have rotting wood and broken glass, and one of the window frames is ready to fall off the house. The upper level windows are covered in chicken wire to prevent animal entry. Exterior Walls: The building is missing 50% of west wall covering (siding, insulation, rotted wood studs, lath and plaster). The siding is severely deteriorated and falling off the house on the north, east and west sides. The west wall is structurally compromised due to severely rotted structural members (rim joist, sill plate, wall studs). The granular asphalt siding shows extreme wear, deterioration and decay. Large areas have fallen off the house. Over many years without protection from water intrusion, severe rot, decay, and deterioration to the wall studs, sill plate, ceiling joist and rim joist has occurred. The wood studs no longer make contact with the floor, making that wall structurally unsafe. The interior plaster wall has weathered away, allowing anyone to view the inside of the bedroom from the outside of the house. Rodents pass through this area to store their food and build nests into the bed and dressers. Windows and Doors: Paint on wood window frames, moldings, and trim is peeling and blistering. Window screens are missing and/or tom and window glazing is missing and/or 1 broken. Window glazing on the upper level has been broken out, and chicken wire has been applied to the open area to keep animals from entering the house. The front porch door is screwed shut. Accessory Structure/Detached Garage: The detached garage is structurally failing. The south wall and roof have partially collapsed, and the garage appears to be leaning to the south. c. Unsanitary Conditions: The drinking water supply was shut off at the street and the meter has been removed. The house is not heated. D. AbandonmentNacant ProDertv: The property has been abandoned since December 1,2007. Mr. Overlee stated that no one will be living in the house and added that he has no intentions to repair the property. E. Fire HazardIPublic Hazard: The Building Inspector of Golden Valley has concluded that the property is indeed a fire and public hazard. The garage is already partially collapsed and leaning, the west wall of the property has rotted and fallen off, which allows access to the interior by rodents and other animals. The property incites the public to explore the property, presenting the potential for numerous injuries, fires and other dangers to the public. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley that you have thirty (30) days from the service of this order upon you within which to comply with the terms of this order. You are hereby notified that a motion for summary enforcement of this order will be made to the District Court of Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, unless corrective action is taken by the aforesaid compliance date, or unless an answer to this Order is served upon the City of Golden Valley within twenty (20) days from the date of the service of this Order upon 4 you, in the manner for service of such Answer as is provided in Minnesota Statutes section 463.18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all costs of this proceeding and the removal of the hazardous condition be charged to the owners or assessed against the real estate pursuant to Minn. Stat. ~~ 463.21 and 463.22. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, pursuant to the action duly ordered by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley on this _ day of March, 2008, the Mayor and the City Clerk hereunto set their hands and the seal of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk This document drafted by: ADB Best & Flanagan, LLP 225 South 6th Street, Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 000090/480568/687561_1 '\ CONSENT TO REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS BUILDING Street Address: 4125 Woodstock Avenue, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Legal Description: Lot 052, Glenwood Addition, Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota Property ill: 19-029-24-41-0028 The above-referenced property has been identified by the City of Golden Valley as a hazardous property due to its inadequate maintenance, physical damage, dilapidation, unsanitary condition and abandonment, as defined by Minnesota Statutes section 463.15, subdivision 3. "Hazardous building or property" is defined by the statute as "any building or property, which because of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, physical damage, unsanitary condition, or abandonment, constitutes a fire hazard or a hazard to public safety or health." The City of Golden Valley's Buildings Inspector, Roger McCabe, inspected the property, concluding that it presents a fire hazard and a hazard to public safety and health as follows: a. The buildings' conditions reflect inadequate maintenance, evidenced by damage to the roof allowing water intrusion, corrosion and missing bricks and mortar joints on the chimney, broken windows with tom or missing screens, rotted window frames, siding, and other fascia hanging from the house, partially rotted exterior walls, deterioration of wall studs, sill place, ceiling joist, and rim joist, lack of plaster on some interior walls, severe deterioration of foundation masonry and settling, and other evidence of severe disrepair. b. The roof, chimney, windows, interior walls, flooring, and exterior of the buildings show severe dilapidation, as detailed above. c. Physical damage to the property is clearly visible to the interior and exterior of both the building and the garage, as detailed above. The lot surrounding the structure is also in damaged condition. d. The buildings and the lot are in unsanitary condition. e. The buildings are unoccupied and abandoned. f. The property's hazardous condition represents a fire hazard. g. The property's hazardous condition represents a public hazard. By signing this consent, the owners of record, occupying tenants, and all lien holders of record of the property acknowledge the hazardous condition of the property under Minnesota Statutes section 463.15 and consent to the City's actions under Minnesota Statutes section 463.151 to correct the hazardous condition by removing or razing the hazardous building and removing or correcting any hazardous condition of the real estate. In addition, the owners of record, occupying tenants, and all lien holders of record of the property consent to the assessment against the real property of all charges for all costs of the process and the repairs, razing, correction, or removal of the hazardous building, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 463.21 and 463.22. Glenn C. Overlee STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing document was acknowledged before me this , 2008, by Glenn C. Overlee. day of Notary Public 000090/480568/687794_1