The URL can be used to link to this page

11-03-08 agneda packet entire AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber Monday, November 3,2008 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 B. Minneapolis - Joint Water Commission Water Task Force Final Report 1. Presentation by Scott Harder, Environmental Financial Group, Inc. 2. Designating Creation of a Water Advisory Board and Adopting its Vision Statement for a Sustainable Regional Water Supply 08-51 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 Minutes - City Council Meeting - September 16 and October 7, 2008 B. Approval of Check Registers: 1. City 2. Housing and Redevelopment Authority C. Licenses: 1. General Business Licenses 2. Solicitor's License - Vintage Waste Systems, Inc. D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. Planning Commission - September 22, 2008 2. Board of Zoning Appeals - September 25, 2008 3. Human Rights Commission - September 11, 2008 4. Environmental Commission - September 22, 2008 5. Human Services Foundation - September 8, 2008 6. Civil Service Commission - August 4,2008 7. Open Space and Recreation Commission - September 22, 2008 8. Bassett Creek Water Management Commission - September 18, 2008 E. 2009 Pavement Management Program: 1. Award Bid 2. Authorization to Sign Contract with SEH Inc. for Staking and Engineering 3. Authorization to Sign Contract with WSB for Construction Observation 4. Authorization to Sign Agreement with Xcel Energy for Relocation of Streetlights F. 2010 Pavement Management Program: 1. Call for Feasibility Study 08-52 2. Authorization to Sign Contract with SEH Inc. for Design Services G. Authorization to Sign Hennepin County Violent Offender Task Force Co-operative Agreement 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 PM 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS A. First Consideration - Ordinance #410 - Amendment to Section 4.20 - Adding Language Regarding 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District Signage B. Announcements of Meetings C. Mayor and Council Communications 7. ADJOURNMENT alley M mora du Public Works 763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 3, 2008 Agenda Item 1. B. Minneapolis - Joint Water Commission Water Task Force Final Report Prepared By Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Summary The Joint Water Task Force was convened in late 2005 to address several goals outlined in the 2003 Water Purchase Agreement between the City of Minneapolis and the Joint Water Commission (JWC). The water policy goals of the Task Force were as follows: . Compile and review existing technical planning information needed to make joint water supply planning decisions; . Consider a stronger governance role for the JWC; . Evaluate an emergency backup water supply; . Evaluate conjunctive use of JWC groundwater and Mississippi River water; and . Develop policy on emergency interconnections. Membership from the Task Force consisted of officials from the cities of Minneapolis, Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope. Mayor Loomis, Council Member Shaffer, and City Manager Tom Burt served on the Task Force as Golden Valley's representatives. Scott Harder of the Environmental Financial Group, Inc., who facilitated the work of the Task Force, will present a summary of the accomplishments at the Council meeting. After the presentation, staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution, which supports creation of a Water Advisory Board. Attachments Resolution Designating the Creation of a Water Advisory Board and Adopting its Vision Statement for a Sustainable Regional Water Supply (3 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Designating the Creation of a Water Advisory Board and Adopting its Vision Statement for a Sustainable Regional Water Supply. Resolution 08-51 November 3, 2008 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE CREATION OF A WATER ADVISORY BOARD AND ADOPTING ITS VISION STATEMENT FOR A SUSTAINABLE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley is a member of the Joint Water Commission along with the cities of Crystal and New Hope; and WHEREAS, the Joint Water Commission (JWC) has purchased treated, potable water from the City of Minneapolis since 1963 and continues to do so under the terms of a 2004 Water Purchase Agreement; and WHEREAS, the 2004 Water Purchase Agreement between the Joint Water Commission and the City of Minneapolis stipulates that "the parties agree to participate in a joint Minneapolis Water Works (MWW)/JWC water task force that will meet regularly over the next four years to consider a stronger governance role for the JWC in theMWW water system, emergency interconnections with neighbors of the JWC, conjunctive use of JWC groundwater and MWW river water, development of an emergency backup water supply, and the use of JWC groundwater to augment MWW's supplies"; and WHEREAS, the work of the Joint Water Task Force recently concluded, following the adoption of sustainable strategy guidelines and endorsement of the creation of a water advisory board; and WHEREAS, stewardship of Golden Valley's Mississippi River through this regional water partnership water supply involves diligence in conservation, drought management and response, climate-aware planning, and other matters requiring regular coordination among our partners; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley: 1. That the City of Golden Valley supports the creation of a Water Advisory Board, which purpose, membership, operations, finance, duties, and responsibilities are outlined in Exhibit A and attached hereto. 2. That the City of Golden Valley adopts the Vision for a Sustainable Regional Water Supply for the MWW/JWC Task Force, which goals, objectives, and recommendations are outlined in Exhibit B and attached hereto. 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. Exhibit A Proposed Water Supply Advisory Board Minneapolis - Joint Water Commission Water Task Force Purposes The Water Supply Advisory Board shall communicate with and make recommendations to the City of Minneapolis regarding matters relating to its operation, maintenance, cost and cost apportionment, financing, operating budget, and capital planning. Strengthen the regional water partnership through enhanced advisory governance with voting to be commensurate with the financial risks borne by each member. Advocate for the protection of the Mississippi River surface water supply, groundwater sources, and provide for the management of climate change impacts and water demand. Membership Minneapolis and wholesale customers shall be members. Members shall serve staggered, three-year terms. Voting Minneapolis shall maintain a minimum 51 percent of voting representation. Matters with the exception of approval of operating budgets and capital projects shall require a simple majority. Financial matters shall require a supermajority. Operations Advise on all matters pertaining to the quality and quantity of water deliveries to wholesale customers. Finance Advise on matters pertaining to Minneapolis Water Works annual operating budgets, capital improvement plans, and audits. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Identify criteria to be considered in prioritizing capital improvement projects. Develop and recommend suggestions and recommendations to the proposed Capital Improvement Plan, specific capital projects, and in the capital planning and financing process. Review and comment on the Minneapolis Water Works Capital Improvement Plan. Make a presentation to the Mayor of Minneapolis annually as part of the budgeting process. Host an annual meeting to discuss the Capital Improvement Plan on a schedule sufficient to allow wholesale customers participation in Minneapolis Water Works capital budget review process. Participate in review of the Minneapolis Water Works Operations and Maintenance budget. Ensure wholesale customers effectively participate in annual budget deliberations. Review efforts to develop and implement water conservation and drought response plans. Make recommendations to the City of Minneapolis regarding demand management to ensure consistency in water conservation efforts throughout the service area. Advocate for the protection and prudent use of water resources. Goal: Objectives: Exhibit 8 A Vision for a Sustainable Regional Water Supply Minneapolis - Joint Water Commission Water Task Force Strengthen a 30-year regional water partnership Demonstrate a commitment to long-term water supply sustainability through conservation, climate-aware water supply planning, proactive drought planning and response, and preservation of future supplemental and emergency supplies Celebrate stewardship of the Mississippi River Position Minneapolis and its municipal partners to take advantage of emerging state and regional funding opportunities through => Economies of scale => "Best Practices" demand management policies and practices => Grantable projects offering substantial regional benefits => Stronger drought management position with Federal government Collectively enhance water system sustainability by => Providing advisory governance for effective budgetary and capital investment oversight => Reducing material, energy, and greenhouse gas emissions ~ Leveraging financial investments in system capacity through additional wholesale agreements = Establishing interconnections with surrounding communities = Maintaining future ability to supplement Mississippi River water with groundwater ~ Conserving and protecting Mississippi River supply Recommendations: Launch new Water Supply Advisory Board with budget and capital oversight Commit to long-term water supply sustainability 1 Hey e randum Finance 763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 3, 2008 Agenda Item 3. B. 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. :;~.-, ndu Finance 763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax) ~IValley Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 3, 2008 Agenda Item 3. B. 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. alley Mernoran urn Inspections 763-593-8090 I 763-593-3997 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 3, 2008 Agenda Item 3. C. 1. General Business Licenses Prepared By Kathryn Pepin, Administrative Assistant 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. #3491 Valley Comm. Pres. Church 3100 Lilac Drive N. Christmas Tree Sales Lot $ 75.00 Recommended Action Motion to authorize the issuance of licenses as recommended by staff. alley M morandum City Administration/Council 763-593-8002/763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 3,2008 Agenda Item 3. C. 2. Solicitor's License - Vintage Waste Systems, Inc. Prepared By Christine Columbus, Administrative Assistant Summary As per City Code, any individual or group intending to go door-to-door within the City selling products, taking orders or soliciting for business or donations must be licensed by the City to do so. Attachments Peddler/Solicitor License Application (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve the solicitor's license for Vintage Waste Systems, Inc. Application and fee must be submitted to the City Manager's Office the Wednesday prior to the City Council Meeting. Council Meetings are normally held the first and third Tuesday of each month. PEDDLER/SOLICITOR liCENSE APPLICATION TO: Golden Valley City Council Fee Paid: $ 3D O() 7800 Golden Valley Road Number. of Persons: r--- , Golden Valley, MN 55427 Type of License Requested: SQ' IC-ffilvs Enclose the sum of $ 2jIO for f (number) peddlers/solicitors as required by City Code of the City of Golden Valley and have complied with all the requirements of said Code necessary for obtaining this license. lne. (Business or dividual Name t be Licensee) 2-.1~L~J;;".v~l, ~) MM. 553la.4- (Address, including City, State and tip Code) -95~..47Z,,0A:0J I q5Z--lqZ'S'55~ (Telephone Number, including Area Code)' NOW, THEREFORE, 6;l.ee. C' Md~fP: hereby makes application for the (Applicant Name) period of / j-fJ/-09 through 6/30/ tYI ,subject to the conditions andproVisionsofsaid Oity Code. REQUIRED LICENSE INFORMATION ~~~i~ant~~i~~m~ Address~~t1~~dlal~~bd~~~4r b:~":~~~~~(~~~\~~~~~~~~ arealb'1~~/lltZ".~$S-' :::~~:SN~e~.Ap; 1;m~~~:~i(()~C-' Define Business ':('1\ L (Corporation, Proprietorship, Partnership, etc.; State of Incorporation) Description of goods or services for sale (include prices) or indicate if sol.iciting donations. If more space is needed, attach additional sheets (be specific): V~(~ItiJ... -tr~ I ij)~~t~. ' NOTE: If the products for sale are changed or modified, you must give the City complete information regarding such change or modification. If the Peddler or Solicitor is so engaged on behalf of an organization, supply: Name of Organization V J"'- bt ~ W?tcfl- e .s;s /.evJA.-), -4l c- Address of Organization ;;;rJ 4?- (.erA Lu..^-€ fl/\ou ~ ~.1./ (Include City, State and Zip Code) SS>~36Y Telephone Number (Including Area Code -d9 -855 Define Business ~ f\ Q.. (Corporation, Proprietorship, Partnership, etc.; State of Incorporation) Lis~ the names and addresses of EACH person who will be peddling or soliciting on behalf of said organization in the City, or, in the alternative, the name, address and telephone number or numbers where a responsible person of said organization will maintain a list of names and addresses of all persons engaged in peddling or soliciting in the City: -ffiUJu ~ z IJ. S-Ssfo+ (If more space is needed, attach additional sheets) STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) (I I, ~ C /VIdea/-F of -0 nf~ !AJa8fe c)lf11-~ / nC (Officer/Individual) (Name f Organization) ) being first duly sworn, depose and say that all the foregoing information is true to his/her own knowledge except as to matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to such matters, he/she believes them to be true. ~~~ (Signature of Applicant/Principal icer) Subscribed and sworn to before me this 200( , JUDITH A. NALLY NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA My Commission Expires Jan. 31,2010 Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 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, September 22, 2008. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Keysser, Kluchka, McCarty, and Schmidgall. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioners Eck and Waldhauser were absent. Mayor Loomis was in attendance to discuss the Lilac Planting project scheduled for October 4. She explained that the idea to plant lilacs and other shrubs and trees along Highway 55 came from Envision Golden Valley and Bridge Builders. She explained that the funds for the plant materials and landscape plans came from MnDOT. She referred to a map of the area and stated that they will be planting on both sides of Highway 55 from General Mills Blvd. to Winnetka Ave and invited the Planning Commissioners to participate in the volunteer efforts. 1. Approval of Minutes August 11, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting McCarty referred to the third paragraph on page 15 and stated that he would like it clarified that his intention was that he would like to see the proposed building be set back further (not just taller) from the property line along Golden Valley Road. MOVED by Cera, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the August 11, 2008 minutes with the above clarification. 2. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision - Quail Woods -1825 Quail Avenue - SU06-03 Applicant: Peter Knaeble (Golden Valley Land Co.) Address: 1825 Quail Avenue Purpose: The subdivision would create three separate lots and allow for the construction of two new homes. The existing home will remain. Grimes referred to a location map and noted that the location of his proposed subdivision is at the southwest corner of Golden Valley Road and Quail Avenue near Scheid Park. He explained that the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 38,714 square foot lot into three new lots. He added that the existing home will remain, but the existing garage will be relocated. He stated that all three lots exceed the minimum lot size requirements and noted that utilities are available to each lot. He explained that when building permits are applied for, a tree preservation plan and grading and erosion control plan will be required for each lot. He stated that staff is recommending approval of this proposed subdivision because it meets all of the requirements of the zoning code and subdivision code. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 2 Kluchka asked if there are any covenants on this property. Grimes said he is not aware of any covenants on this property. Kluchka asked about the owner of the property. Grimes stated that the applicant has purchased this property from a trust. Peter Knaeble, Applicant, stated that his intent is to remodel the existing house which has been vacant for about a year. He clarified that the sale of the property closes at the end of October at which time he will rearrange the location of the existing driveway and garage and start renovating the existing home. He reiterated that all three lots exceed the minimum standards and that all three homes will meet all of the setback requirements. He stated that the property is heavily wooded and that the vast majority of the trees will remain however one or two may be removed on each lot in order to construct the new homes. Keysser asked the applicant if he plans to sell the parcels after the property is subdivided or if he is planning on building the homes on the lots and then selling them. Knaeble stated that he is subdividing the property then selling the lots to builders or buyers who would then build custom homes. Keysser asked the applicant if he anticipates doing any grading of the property. Knaeble said no and explained that the grading on the individual lots will be done by the builders when the homes are built. McCarty referred to Lot 3, the northern most lot, and asked about the square footage of the proposed home. Knaeble said the footprint would be approximately 1,500 square feet and the home would be approximately 2,500 to 3,000 square feet in size. Grimes added that staff and the applicant have made sure that the existing home and both new homes will meet all of the new setback requirements without any variances being issued. Kluchka suggested adding a condition of approval that states no variances will be granted in the future for any of these homes. Schmidgall asked the applicant if he is planning on "rouging-in" the utilities to the proposed new lots. Knaeble said they will be "roughing-in" the utilities but not until the first house is ready to be built. Grimes asked the applicant to discuss the trees on the property. Knaeble said they did a complete tree survey. He explained that on Lot 1 there may be one tree removed depending on the placement of the house. On Lot 2 there may be a couple of trees removed behind the existing house and on Lot 3 one or two trees may be removed in order to build a new house. He stated that they will be doing individual tree preservation plans for each lot. Keysser asked if there will be a rain garden installed on Lot 2 where the existing house is located. Knaeble said he is not planning on installing a rain garden at this point but he is waiting to see what the Bassett Creek Management Commission will require. Grimes added that this development is small enough not to require any ponding but it will require that best management practices be followed. Keysser opened the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 3 Roma Witzig, 1840 Quail Avenue North, asked if the developer could give some background information on his company, projects they've done in the past and builders they have used. She asked what assurances the neighbors have as to the quality of these proposed new homes. She said she is very concerned about these homes becoming rental properties and she wants to be notified when the proposed new homes are to be built. Lynn Gitelis, 4945 Golden Valley Road, said she will end up living next to whatever is built on this property. She said that some of the existing trees may not be worth preserving because they are dying. She said she is concerned about having extra activity and a garage and cars right next door to her. She said she would prefer if two houses were built instead of three. She referred to the traffic in the area and stated that it is very difficult to turn left off of Quail Avenue onto Golden Valley Road throughout most of the day. She said it would be great to see someone living at this property again but reiterated that she would rather see two houses built, not three. She said she would like to see the property cleaned up and she is also concerned about the design of the new houses. Catherine Martignacco, 4846 Golden Valley Road, said she keeps her eye on Golden Valley. She said she is concerned, and knows there are others concerned, about these houses becoming rental properties and she would strongly object to any kind of twin home or rental property being built here. She said she agrees that two houses would be better than three and that traffic is a concern. Sam Madrid, 4900 Frontenac Avenue, said he is concerned about the impact to the side yard setback area next to his property. He said he realizes this project isn't going to be stopped by the neighborhood but he lives next to Lot 1 and even though the applicant is legally meeting the setback requirements he would like to see a larger setback area between his property and the proposed new Lot 1. He said he thinks the side and front yard setbacks should be consistent with the other side and front yard setbacks in the neighborhood. He added that he would also like windows along the south side of the proposed house on Lot 1 minimized for his privacy. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. Knaeble discussed some of the other projects he has done in Golden Valley and other cities and discussed his background. Kluchka referred to the other projects the applicant has done and asked if he just subdivided the properties to prepare them for sale or if he has built houses on the properties and then sold them. Knaeble said he mostly does infill developments where he subdivides properties and sells them to builders to build what they want. He explained that he doesn't know what type or style these proposed new homes will be, but the plans will be reviewed by the City and the City does not have any design standards so he doesn't know if the neighbors will be able to have input on the building design. He said he recognizes that this property has been abandoned and is run-down but it is his intent to clean it up. He referred to the concerns expressed regarding traffic and said he doesn't see two more lots having an impact to the existing streets. He referred to the concerns about rental properties and stated that the property is zoned R-1 so single-family homes Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22,2008 Page 4 will be built but if someone wants to rent out their home in the future he has no control over that and he is not sure if the City does either. Kluchka questioned the proposed location of the existing garage. Knaeble said he is not sure yet where on the lot the garage will be placed but it will probably be attached to home and it will meet all setback requirements. Grimes referred to the concern about the quality of the proposed new homes and stated that the City does not require single-family homes to be reviewed by neighboring property owners. McCarty said he would be in favor of this proposal with the condition added that there will be no variance requests made in the future. Keysser questioned if the City can legally not allow someone to ask for a variance. Grimes stated that a stipulation regarding not allowing future variances has been put in subdivision development agreements in the past. He stated that the City Council can always choose to override a subdivision development agreement. He added that he thinks there is plenty of room for good sized houses on these proposed lots without needing any variances. Knaeble said he thinks it would be unfair to the new homeowners to preclude variances because it is not required for any of the other homes in Golden Valley. He added that he would ask the City Council to strike language in the subdivision development agreement regarding not allowing future variances because no one can foresee what the future zoning code requirements will be. Keysser suggested getting the City Attorney's opinion regarding future variances. He noted that just because a homeowner asks for a variance doesn't mean they would get one and he would like to leave that condition out of the Planning Commission's approval and let the Board of Zoning Appeals do their job regarding variance requests. Cera said he agreed with McCarty and Kluchka that there should be a condition of approval that no variances will be allowed on these lots in the future. Grimes agreed and said there really is no reason or justification for variances on any of these proposed lots. He explained that there is a state statute that says subdivision agreements are subject to the zoning regulations currently in place for two years from the time of approval of the subdivision agreement. McCarty stated that putting language in the subdivision development agreement about not allowing future variances doesn't mean that a homeowner can't come before the Board of Zoning Appeals and ask for a variance especially if it is for a hardship created by the City if the zoning code requirements are amended. Keysser suggested the Commissioners take a separate vote on the issue of adding a condition regarding allowing future variances. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22,2008 Page 5 The following Commissioners voted yes to add a condition of approval stating that future variances would not be allowed: Cera, Kluchka and McCarty. Commissioners Keysser and Schmidgall voted no. Kluchka asked Grimes about the best way for the neighbors to mitigate the traffic issues. Grimes stated that there has been additional right-of-way given as a part of this proposal. He stated that this proposal would add approximately 20 trips per day to the existing traffic, not counting the 10 trips per day for the existing home. He noted that the City Engineer does not have concerns about the traffic being generated by this proposal, but he could ask him to address the issue before this proposal goes on to the City Council. Kluchka asked what the neighbors could do to be proactive about the traffic issues. Grimes suggested they talk to the Director of Public Works or the City Engineer about their traffic concerns. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the request to subdivide the property located at 1825 Quail Avenue into three lots with the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. A park dedication fee in the amount of $1,100 shall be paid prior to final plat approval. 3. A Subdivision Agreement will be drafted for review and approval by the City Council that will include issues found in the City Engineer's memo dated September 12, 2008. 4. No future variances will be allowed on any of these lots. Roma Witzig, 1840 Quail Avenue North, asked the applicant when the existing home would be renovated and if there is a prospective buyer for the house. She asked who would be responsible for the upkeep of the property until they sell the lots. She added that she never realized how few rights property owners have. Knaeble said he would be responsible for the properties when they close on the sale at the end of October. He said the renovations will begin right away and then the existing home and new lots will be sold. Grimes explained that there is a single-family housing maintenance code that these houses will be subject to follow. Knaeble stated that there will be a period of transition but that the existing house has been in transition for a year and a half already. He added that in 2006 when the streets were reconstructed in this area the City assessed the property owner for three lots, not two, so the owners expected there to be three lots in the future. ---Short Recess--- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2008 Page 6 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings McCarty reported on the September 16 City Council meeting. He stated that the Preliminary PUD plan for Applewood Pointe was approved and that most of the discussion was related to the appropriateness of the size of the project on the property. Kluchka added the City Council did not approve the rezoning of the property but rather sent it back to the Planning Commission to further discuss the language and requirements in the R-4 zoning district. McCarty stated that the Council also approved a variance request that was appealed to them regarding the height of a proposed new house to be located at 6925 Medicine Lake Road. 4. Other Business No other business was discussed. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 pm. Lester Eck, Secretary Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25,2008 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Thursday, September 25, 2008 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Sell called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Kisch, Nelson, Segelbaum, Sell, and Planning Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes - August 26, 2008 MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve the August 26 minutes as submitted. II. The Petitions are: 6400 Hampshire Place North (08-09-14) Kayle Vick, Thomas Renovations, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 8 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 27 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage. Hogeboom stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a garage. Currently, there is no garage on the property. He referred to a survey of the property and noted that the proposed new garage is placed on an angle or askew to the property lines. The reason for the angular placement according to the applicant is that this is a corner lot and angling the garage as proposed will help mitigate the traffic noise from Douglas Drive. Hogeboom stated that this variance request is supported by staff and discussed the Douglas Drive corridor study currently underway. He added that placing the garage as proposed will also help shield the view from the house to any potential future sidewalk along Douglas Drive. McCarty asked if there is already an existing sidewalk along Douglas Drive. Hogeboom said yes but explained that it will probably need to be widened in the future in order to meet ADA requirements. Segelbaum asked if the fact that this property is a corner lot is considered to be a hardship. Hogeboom stated that there is also some vegetation that the applicant is trying to preserve but the main hardship noted is the noise from traffic along Douglas Drive. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25,2008 Page 2 Segelbaum asked if there is any information published yet regarding the Douglas Drive corridor study. Hogeboom stated that the Douglas Drive corridor study began in July of 2008 and there is nothing published yet, but staff is expecting there to be recommendations made by January of 2009. McCarty commended the home owner for improving this property. He said he understands the reasons for proposing to construct the garage at an angle but he is concerned because there is enough room on this property to do this project without the need for a variance. He suggested building a garage that would be in line with the front of the house or even pushed back slightly toward the rear property line. Don Weld, owner of the property, explained that there is not enough room to move the proposed garage back on the lot because there is a slope in the rear yard. McCarty noted that the proposed garage is also wider than a typical two-car garage. Weld stated that there are also large trees that would have to be removed if he didn't build the garage at an angle. He added that he also doesn't want to build the garage in line with the house because the house and garage would then be approximately 80 feet in length and it would look like a hotel. Segelbaum questioned if building the proposed garage at an angle would really create a sound barrier. Weld said that angling the garage creates more privacy and will help with the noise issues. Segelbaum questioned where the new driveway would be located. Weld referred to the survey of the property and pointed out where the driveway would be located. McCarty reiterated that the garage could be built in line with the house or even pulled slightly forward right to the front setback line and the applicant would get the same sound mitigation. Weld discussed the location of a doorway that would connect the house to the proposed new garage. He stated that they have considered alternate locations for the garage but the way they are proposing it is what they really prefer and is what they think will work best. Nelson said she is sensitive to the applicant's noted hardships. She said she thinks the property will be aesthetically better and more valuable with an attached garage angled away from Douglas Drive. Kisch questioned if the angle of the proposed garage could be minimized slightly which would require a lesser variance. He questioned if the proposed angle is really optimal for mitigating sound or if the angle is more for visual impact. Weld noted that there is only one tree on the entire corner and does not want to remove it. McCarty said he likes the proposed design but he is having difficulty finding a true hardship. He stated that planting trees and bushes would absorb sound better than any garage. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 3 Sell questioned why the proposed garage is 30 feet in width and suggested it be made 28 feet in width instead. Weld said he would like to have a little bit of room on the sides of the garage for storage. Sell asked the applicant if the rear yard is wet. Weld said he has not any problems with water. Segelbaum asked the applicant what he thinks the disadvantages would be to building the garage in line with the house rather than at an angle. Weld said that a tree would have to be removed and building the garage in line with the house would look terrible because the house and garage would be almost 80 feet in length. Nelson asked Hogeboom to discuss why staff is supporting this variance request. Hogeboom stated that one reason staff is supporting this request is because the multi- family units and rental homes along Douglas Drive are increasing in disrepair. He explained that this property was previously considered a non-compliant rental home so creating a separation from Douglas Drive with this proposed garage would be a major improvement on a long term basis. Sell suggested allowing the proposed garage to be angled but as a compromise allowing a variance of 5 feet off the required 35 feet instead of the requested 8 feet off the 35 feet. He stated that allowing 5 feet off the front yard requirement would be similar to the setback requirements for a front porch addition. He said he agreed with the applicant that adding a garage in line with the house would be 80 feet in length and it would look too long. He added that constructing a detached garage to the side of the house would look like a separate building so he thinks allowing a smaller, angled, attached garage would be a good compromise. Nelson agreed with Sell and added that because it is a corner lot on Douglas Drive and it would not impact any houses around it, she is in support of a variance to allow the garage to be built. Segelbaum stated that if the other houses in the area are in alignment and this proposed garage comes further forward then it does impact the neighboring houses. Hogeboom stated that in preliminary conversations with Hennepin County they have indicated that they would like to close off access to Douglas Drive from several residential streets. With this in mind, Hampshire Place could potentially one day become a cul-de- sac. McCarty stated that it is hard to see around this corner now and that if this proposed garage is built it might make visibility worse. Sell stated that if trees were planted on this corner as suggested, it would add to the visibility issues too. Sell opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25,2008 Page 4 McCarty said he would like to support this proposal but he is not seeing the hardship with the property because the applicant can still build a really nice garage without needing variances. Kisch stated that he is having a hard time approving this request based on the Douglas Drive corridor study, when that study isn't done yet. He said given the uniqueness of the site and the slope he can see a benefit to angling the garage slightly, but he thinks that angle can be minimized. He said he would support a variance of 5 feet or less and added that he realizes trees aren't a hardship but anytime they can be saved it is good and he would like to see a compromise in this case. Segelbaum said he is in favor of people improving their properties but he is having difficulties finding a hardship in this case. He asked if reducing the requested variance to allow 5 feet off of the required 35 feet would mean that the applicant would have to angle the garage less or make it narrower. Sell stated that he would have to do one or the other or maybe both if the variance request is reduced. Kisch agreed and stated that the overall impact would be lessened if a smaller variance is approved. Segelbaum asked for help in defining the hardship. Kisch discussed the slope off the back of the property and the amount of shoring that would need to be done if the garage were to be moved further back on the property. Nelson agreed that the slope off the back of this property makes building a garage problematic. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Kisch and motion carried 3 to 2 to approve a variance for 5 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a garage. Members McCarty and Segelbaum voted no. 1300 Kelly Drive (08-09-15) Brent Behn, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 3 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 12 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction (replacement) of a new deck. Hogeboom explained the applicant's request to replace his existing deck. The hardship noted by the applicant is the topography and odd shape of the lot. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and noted that the east property line jogs in approximately 15 feet in the area of the proposed deck which is creating the need for a variance. He added that because of the jog in the property line staff is supporting this variance request. Sell asked about the dimensions of the proposed new deck. Brent Behn, Applicant, explained that the deck will have two tiers. The first level is 8 feet deep and 12 feet wide Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25,2008 Page 5 which is as large as he can build it because of the existing location of egress windows. He added that this proposed new deck will be much safer and much more appealing than the existing deck. He discussed the shape of the lot and reiterated that the jog in the east property line is why he needs to request a variance. Kisch asked about the size of the deck's second level. Behn referred to a drawing of the proposed deck and stated that the second level will be 12 feet deep and 16 feet wide. He noted that there would also be a step leading down to the second level. Sell asked the applicant how long he has lived in this house. Behn said he's lived in this house for 10 years. Nelson asked about the dimensions of the existing deck. Behn said the existing deck is approximately 12 feet by 17 feet in size and has been there approximately 35 years. Segelbaum asked how much further the new deck will extend toward the east compared to the existing deck. Behn said it would extend approximately 3 feet further toward the east than the existing deck. Kisch asked how far above grade the east end of the new deck would be. Behn said it would be approximately 18 to 24 inches above grade. Segelbaum asked the applicant if he has considered extending the larger deck level out 9 feet instead of the proposed 12 feet. Behn said he considered that but then the deck would be 12 feet by 16 feet in size and it would not be very usable. Kisch asked the applicant if he has considered replacing the existing deck as it was, all on one plane. Behn said his proposed new deck will be much more pleasing and will follow the grade of the lot. He added that it will also improve the property without causing an impact to the neighboring properties. McCarty asked the applicant if hewould consider building a one level deck right up to the setback line. Behn said he would prefer not to because what he is proposing is much more appealing and will be more usable. He said he wants the deck to look nice and improve the curb appeal of his house. McCarty stated that the applicant could get the same square footage by building the deck 8 feet out along the length of the house rather than going so far out from the house with a two level deck. Behn said if he built the deck that way it would be too long and narrow. Kisch asked the applicant if he had considered building the first level of the deck then having a couple of steps leading down to an on-grade patio rather than to another deck. Behn explained that this proposal is phase one of his plans. He would like to level the grade a bit and add on to the house in the future so he doesn't want to build a deck further to the north. McCarty noted that the Board can't grant variances based on future plans. Behn said he thinks his plans fit in with the intent and spirit of the zoning code and have no impact on any neighbors. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 6 Sell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hearing. McCarty said he can see other ways for the applicant to build a deck without needing a vanance. Segelbaum said he is somewhat persuaded by adding a level of safety by lowering the deck down. He said he understands that the applicant would like more usable space but that is not a tremendous hardship. He said he would prefer to grant a lesser variance because he can see the advantage to lowering this deck. Kisch stated that the grade is more of constraint in this case. He agreed that it is a safety issue to lower this deck and he can see the benefit of the proposed deck design. Nelson agreed that the grade in this case is a hardship and the applicant is not asking for a huge variance. She said she is inclined to support this proposal because it is a side yard and not a front yard. Sell agreed and noted that if the east property line were straight this deck would not even be an issue. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Nelson and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve a variance request for 3 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 12 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line to allow for the construction (replacement) of a new deck. Member McCarty voted no. 1800 Mendelssohn Avenue North (08-09-16) Marlin Henrikson, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 19 Driveway Setback Requirements . 3 ft. off the required 3 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new driveway. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 3 ft. off the required 12 ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new deck. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 7 Hogeboom stated that the variance request listed above regarding the construction of a new deck should be removed from this agenda. He explained that the proposed new "deck" is really considered to be a landing and that 25 square feet of stairs and landings can be located within a setback area. He stated that the applicant has agreed to work within the parameters of the zoning code regarding the construction of the new stairs and landing without requiring a variance. Hogeboom referred to the variance request regarding the construction of a new driveway and explained that the applicant is asking for a variance from the driveway setback requirements in order to construct a new driveway right up to the south property line. He noted that a portion of the applicant's proposal involves constructing a patio and there has been concern by staff and neighbors that this proposed patio area will be used as a driveway and not as a patio. Hogeboom stated that the applicant has been made aware that cars will not be allowed to be parked on the patio. McCarty asked about the reasoning behind the zoning code amendment in 2005 regarding driveways. Hogeboom said the language regarding driveways was added to the code in 2005 in order to require that driveways be paved (not gravel) and that they aren't paved right up to the property line. Segelbaum asked if it would be appropriate to add a condition of approval saying that the proposed patio could not be used as a driveway. Hogeboom stated that the City can not restrict a homeowner from driving over a patio and the code already addresses the issue of parking on patios. Marlin Henrikson, Applicant, explained that his existing driveway comes to within approximately 1 foot of the south property line. He said that he is proposing to build a new driveway that goes right to the property line because he doesn't have a flat spot to park on. He added that he has a disabled relative that visits so it would also help to have a flat spot so she can get in and out of her car. He referred to the proposed attached patio and stated that cars will not be parked on it. He added that he is also proposing to build a retaining wall and fence so the area will be safer for the neighbor to the south. Sell asked the applicant if he is intending on keeping the existing tree that is located approximately in front of the driveway. Henrikson said he would like to keep the tree because it shades and cools the house. Kisch referred to the survey and noted that there is 14 feet between the applicant's garage and the property line and questioned how a flat spot would be created and how usable the driveway would be if the tree remains. Segelbaum said he assumed if the tree were removed then there would be a flat parking area on the driveway. Henrikson referred to photos of his property and discussed the location of the driveway and fence. McCarty said it appears that the tree would be in the way of the proposed new stairs. Segelbaum asked how close the existing driveway is to the property line. Henrikson said the existing driveway is approximately 1 foot away from the property line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 8 Nelson referred to the survey and asked if the area in question was paved at any time in the past. Henrikson said yes the area was paved but it was in really bad shape so he removed the pavement. McCarty said he thinks it would look cleaner to have the entire driveway follow the same line instead of having part of the driveway a foot or two away and then having another part of the driveway right on the property line. The other board members agreed. Henrikson said he intends to install a curb along the edge of the proposed new driveway to help direct water away from the neighboring property to the south. Hogeboom explained that in order for the applicant to replace his existing driveway in the exact same location the applicant would need to prove where the original driveway was located before it was removed. He noted that the as-built survey shows that the existing driveway is 2 located feet away from the property line. Sell opened the public hearing. Ginger Dunlap, 1720 Mendelssohn Avenue North, asked the Board to deny the variance request. She said she has a right to have a 3-foot setback from the property line for the proposed driveway. She noted that the applicant could have a flat driveway if he removed the tree that has been discussed. She added that there is no hardship in this case and that the existing driveway has never been "blacktop". She referred to several pictures and stated that the proposed driveway will be a safety hazard and that her family has the right to breathe clean air and they won't be able to if cars are parked that close to her door. She referred to the staff report regarding this variance request and said the proposed patio area will be used to park cars on and that the applicant is just calling it a patio so he can build it right to the property line but she knows the entire thing will really be a driveway. She stated that the applicant started the work on his property without talking to the City or to her and that he removed the existing staircase and buried the debris in his front yard. She said he is doing this work with no regard to her even after she told him that his new driveway had to be set back 3 feet from the property line. She said she has tried to talk to the applicant several times about his plans but it is futile because he is going to do whatever he wants to do. She said she caught him in his yard with a metal detector and shovel trying to put in new metal stakes. She referred to the survey and noted that the applicants existing retaining wall and fence are located completely on her property and he has dug holes 5 to 6 inches into her yard. She said the applicant has "skirted" around the code requirements and she wants this variance denied. McCarty referred to the existing retaining wall and fence and asked if the applicant is the person who installed them. Dunlap said the applicant installed the wall and fence before she moved into her house. Paul Grandbois, 1720 Mendelssohn Avenue North, asked the Board to deny the variance request because there is no hardship. He reiterated that there would be a flat spot to park on the driveway if the existing tree were removed. He showed the Board pictures indicating how much room there would be to park if the tree was removed. He stated that the applicant started this project with no permits, variances or plans. He stated that the Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25,2008 Page 9 applicant told him that he was going to build a driveway leading to his backyard and that should be able to be done with enough room to follow the setback requirements. He said the only thing that has changed regarding the applicant's plan from the beginning is that he is now calling part of the driveway a patio. He said he knows that this "patio" is really going to be a driveway and asked that it be required to be set back 3 feet from the property line. Sell asked if there is a previous survey on file that would show where the driveway was originally located. Hogeboom stated that there are no other surveys in the City's files. Nelson clarified that because there is no proof of the location of the driveway that used to be on the property the applicant can't replace it with a new driveway in the same location. Hogeboom said that is correct. Segelbaum asked about the definition of a patio versus a driveway. Hogeboom said the zoning code doesn't define a driveway so staff uses the dictionary definition. He noted that when he first spoke with the applicant he was referring the project as a driveway, not part driveway and part patio. Kisch asked if the proposed deck would be located the required 15 feet away from the side yard property line. Hogeboom stated that he erred in calling the landing area a deck and that is why he is removing it from the agenda. He reiterated that the applicant should be able to build a landing within the 25 square feet allowed. Segelbaum said he is also concerned about the location of the applicant's shed. Hogeboom said the applicant's shed does conform to the zoning code requirements. Sell noted that the shed on the neighboring property to the south is only 6 inches away from the property line. Dunlap said she would be willing move her shed. Henrikson said he realizes that his retaining wall and fence are located Ms. Dunlap's property and he intends to move them back onto his property next summer. Grandbois, referred to the survey and reiterated that there is 14 feet between the applicant's house and the property line. He stated that the applicant's plans show that everything is 6 inches over the property line or he wants everything to be right on the property line. He said he wants to make sure that everything is located on the applicant's side of the property line. Kisch said he is still uncertain about where the previous driveway was located. He said if there was proof of where the driveway used to be located he would feel more comfortable allowing the new driveway to be built in the same location. Otherwise, he would like to see the driveway built 3 feet away from the property line. Nelson agreed that without proof of the previous driveway location the applicant should keep the driveway 3 feet away from the property line. Kisch referred to the concerns about the patio really being used as a driveway and said that it is hard for the Board to say what the applicant's intent is regarding the use of the patio. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 10 Segelbaum asked if the Board has the authority to require that the driveway and patio be separated. Hogeboom said the City cannot limit access to a backyard. McCarty asked what the Code says about driving over a patio. Hogeboom said a patio can be driven over but cars can't be parked on it. MOVED by Segelbaum to deny the variance request for 3 ft. off the required 3 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of new driveway. The motion died due to the lack of a second. Kisch suggested tabling the applicant's request to allow him time to provide proof of the original driveway's location. Hogeboom noted that the City does not have any proof on file of the original driveway location. Henrikson said he has proof of where the original driveway was located and he would be willing to have his reque~t tabled. Dunlap asked if the applicant comes to the City with a picture of a pile of rocks if that would be considered proof of the driveway location. Hogeboom stated that the Director of Planning and Development will look at what the applicant submits and make a decision. He added that he thinks it will be hard for the applicant to prove where the previous driveway was without having an old survey. Kisch said he wants to give the applicant a chance to prove the location of the previous driveway. He stated that he thinks no more work should be done by the applicant until the City has the proof that has been requested. Dunlap said the work the applicant has done so far looks horrible. Nelson explained that the Board has to go by what the zoning code requires and not by how things look. Kisch stated that if it turns out there is no proof of the previous driveway's location then he thinks the Board will agree to deny the variance requested. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to table the variance request (per the applicant's request) for 3 ft. off the required 3 ft. to a distance of o ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of new driveway. The applicant has until the October 2008 Board of Zoning Appeals to prove to the City the location of the previously existing driveway. III. Other Business 2310 Byrd Avenue North - Continued (tabled) Item Hogeboom reminded the Board that the property owner at 2310 Byrd Avenue North came before them at their June 24, 2008 meeting requesting a variance to build a deck. At that meeting that Board tabled the applicant's request to the September meeting in order for him to come back to the Board after he had time to consider alternative designs for his proposed deck. He stated that the applicant has not proposed any alternative designs so staff is therefore asking that the Board officially deny this variance request. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 11 MOVED by Nelson, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to deny the applicant's request for 16 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 19 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line to allow for the construction of a deck on the side of the home. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 pm. Mike Sell, Chair Joe Hogeboom, Staff Liaison GOLDEN VALLEY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MEETING Minutes from the Meeting of September 11, 2008 Members Present: Ron Brandon, Marion Helland, Anne Dykstra, Jay Sandvik, Christopher Jordan, Roger McConico & Debra Yahle. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: 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 Jordan moved to approve the minutes of the June 12, 2008 meeting; seconded by Commissioner Dykstra. The minutes were unanimously approved. INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBERS Debra Yahle, Christopher Jordan and Roger McConico introduced themselves and were welcomed by commissioners. COMMITTEE REPORTS SCHOOL EDUCATION Commissioner Helland gave an overview of the annual essay contest and requested additional commissioners to assist with the contest. Commissioner Helland will e-mail this year's essay contest topic to commissioners. This year may include a separate contest for high school students to enter. HOUSING There was nothing to report. Commissioner Jordan volunteered to head this committee. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS Commissioner Helland distributed a brochure outlining the LMHRC's purpose and describing what it is. Fliers for the annual conference to be held October 3rd & 4th in Rochester were also distributed to commissioners. SHARE THE DREAM Commissioner Helland gave an overview of this committee and its purpose. Chair Brandon will schedule committee meetings in late October/early November to begin planning the event for February 2009. Commissioners Jordan and Yahle volunteered to join this committee. Human Rights Commission September 11, 2008 Page 2 DISCRIMINATION Commissioner Sandvik inquired if commissioners could obtain a copy of the city's Affirmative Action plan. Chief Altonen will report back to commissioners at the next meeting. OLD BUSINESS BIAS/HATE CRIMES POLICY Commissioner Dykstra advised the policy has been presented to and accepted by the city council. Chief Altonen advised the police policy manual is being revised and once it is completed it will be posted on the city's website. RECRUITMENT STRATEGIES Commissioner Dykstra expressed appreciation for the appointment of three new members. In addition, she is aware of one other person who has applied for appointment to the HRC. Commissioner Dykstra encouraged commissioners to continue to recruit diverse members to join the commission. NEW BUSINESS ELECTION OF OFFICERS Commissioner McConico moved to elect Ron Brandon as Chair; seconded by Commissioner Helland. Chief Altonen advised rules may exist prohibiting chairpersons from serving back-to-back terms. The rules will be reviewed and if there is a prohibition, a new chair will be elected at a future meeting. Commissioner Dykstra moved to hold off on vice-chair elections for a month or two; seconded by Commissioner McConico. Both motions carried unanimously. HUMAN RIGHTS DAY CONFERENCE/CLOSE THE GAP WORKSHOP Commissioner Jordan gave an overview of the workshop being held on Friday, December 5th, and the conference being held on Saturday, December 6th. Attendees must register in advance and must attend the Friday workshop in order to attend the Saturday conference. Commissioner Jordan will e-mail other commissioners a registration form should there be interest in attending. Chair Brandon requested a statistical report on demographics within Golden Valley. Chief Altonen will report back with her findings. Commissioner Dykstra advised new members of a resolution that was passed to facilitate cooperation with Crystal, Robbinsdale and New Hope in capacity building planning under the Bremer Grant. Human Rights Commission September 11, 2008 Page 3 NEXT MEETING Chief Altonen advised the next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, October 9th, which is a religious holiday. Commissioners agreed to re-scheduled the meeting for Thursday, October 16th, beginning at 7PM. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Chair Brandon, seconded by Commissioner Jordan to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 pm. GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes September 22, 2008 Present: Commissioners Anderson, Baker, Chandlee, Hill, Pawluk, St. Clair and Stremel. Also present were Jeannine Clancy, Public Works Director; AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator; and Lisa Nesbitt, Administrative Assistant. 1. Call to Order Pawluk called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. 2. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes - July 28, 2008 MOVED by Chandlee, seconded by Baker, and the motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the July 28, 2008 meeting. 3. Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement . Measurement - Staff has requested a report of energy usage in the public buildings but to date, has not received the information. . Education articles - Lundstrom passed out a copy of the article, written by Chand lee, which will be in the September/October CityNews publication. Staff will check to see when there will be room in a future CityNews for another article. The City Communications Coordinator has expressed a willingness to work with the commission on future communication plans. Staff will invite her to the next meeting. . Develop materials for developers reqarding environmentally friendly development - Staff gave Baker materials that are currently being given to developers. . Education Forum - Possibilities for an education forum were discussed. Clancy suggested that there may be a possibility of joining efforts with the Remodeling Fair in February. She will pass along the contact information to Pawluk. Lilac Planting Mayor Loomis stopped by with information regarding the Lilac Planting project scheduled for Saturday, October 4th. She explained the purpose of the project and invited any Commissioners that are interested to join the other volunteers at the Brookview tennis court shelter at 9:00 am. 4. Program/Proiect Updates TMDL - The in-lake samplings are wrapping up. Next is the load allocations (identifying the contributors). 1/1 - Approximately 80% of the homes in the 2008 PMP area had their service inspections and already 44% of the 2009 PMP residents have had inspections. Effective 10/1/08 MCES is extending the Foundation Drain Disconnection grants to include any repairs to the service lateral. Funds continue to be on a first-come, first serve basis so when the money is gone, the program will end. Minutes of the Environmental Commission September 22, 2008 Page 2 of 2 Private Development Updates - Quail Woods is a lot-split at Golden Valley Rd and Quail Ave. The developer wants to split a single lot into three. It is before the Planning Commission. A preliminary plan approval was given by Council for the Applewood PUD. There are some zoning codes that need to be addressed by the Zoning Commission. Increased traffic is a concern as well as the single point of access. A second round of approvals is required. Teachers Federal Credit Union has been given the approval to replace the station on Hwy. 55 and Boone Ave. A conditional use permit was approved for a drive-thru. Olympic continues to work with City staff. An anchor tenant has not been identified. Calvary Lutheran was given the approval for a columbarium. 5. Commission Member Council Reports None. 6. Other Business Plymouth signed a recycling contract with Waste Management. This means that Golden Valley's recycling day will remain on Friday. Lundstrom reported that Waste Management is continually looking for end markets so additional items can be recycled. Mighty Tidy Days is coming up October 11th. This year residents can drop off electronics at no charge. 7. Adiourn MOVED by St. Clair, seconded by Anderson, and the motion carried to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 8:24 pm. The next scheduled meeting will be on October 27, 2008 at 7:00 pm. Golden Valley Human Services Foundation (GVHSF) Meeting Minutes September 8, 2008 Present: Daniel Blumb, Elissa Heilicher, Gloria Johnson, Chris Monroe, Diane Nimmer, Connie Sandler, and Steve Schumacher. Also present Jeanne Fackler, Staff Liaison. Not Present: Shannon Breimhurst, Hilmer Erickson, Teri Holgate, Bob Hoyt and Toots Vodovoz. Call to Order: Chairperson Blumb called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. August 11 minutes: Monroe moved and Heilicher seconded the motion to approve the minutes of August 11. The motion passed unanimously. Golf Tournament: Heilicher has contacted Crossroad's Deli and Piazza's. Volunteer positions were discussed. Everything is ready for Friday. New Business: Taste of Golden Valley: Monroe reported that there are 48 restaurants in Golden Valley. Letters will be sent this week asking for participation. Doolittle's has committed to the event. Sandler has offered to speak at the city commission meetings urging their support of the event. Nimmer has contacted John Ewald, StarTribune columnist, who will attend. Nimmer is meeting with Nina Cook, host of Seniors on Screen" to promote the event. It was suggested to give each participating restaurant a plaque as a thank you for participating. Fackler will contact Town Crier Promotions for a price. Sponsorship packet/brochure: Nimmer reported that the committee is gathering information on the HSF events and sponsor opportunities. They will meet with the Communications Department in the near future. Old Business: By-laws review: The Council discussed the by-law change. At this time, the recommendation is to leave the by-laws as is. Presentations: The Commission listened to presentations and requests for funding from ten agencies: Northwest Suburban Dinner At Your Door - requesting $5,000 Tree House - requesting $7,500 Right to Live USA - requesting $6,800 Greater Minneapolis Crisis Nursery - requesting $10,000 The Bridge for Youth - requesting $5,000 Senior Community Services HOME - requesting $6,000 Senior Community Services Outreach - requesting $3,000 Home Free Shelter - requesting $2,500 Community Mediation Services - requesting $4,000 Crisis Connection - requesting $3,000 Neighborhood Involvement Program - requesting $3,000 Commission members felt it was very beneficial to hear the presentations and ask questions. Human Services Foundation September 8, 2008 Page 2 October meeting: Blumb reminded members that the October meeting has been changed to October 6th. It is important for all members to attend as allocation requests will be discussed. Adjournment: Nimmer moved to adjourn the meeting, Sandler seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jeanne Fackler GVHSF Staff Liaison CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 7800 Golden Valley Road - Golden Valley, MN 55427 MEETING Monday, August 4, 2008 - 9:30 AM Public Safety Building Conference Room MINUTES Call to Order Attendance/Roll Call The meeting was called to order by Chair Peterson at 9:35 AM. Present at the meeting were Commissioners Bruce Peterson, Gloria Kumagai and Marshall Tanick; and Police Chief Stacy Altonen, Commander Mike Meehan and Administrative Assistant Amanda Johnson. Approval of Minutes of April 1 0, 2008 Chair Peterson advised of a correction on page 2, second paragraph, first sentence. The sentence was revised to state"... recru itmenVselection process was managed consistent..." In addition, the third paragraph was revised to state "Tanick moved approval of the eligibility register; seconded by Kumagai. The register was approved unanimously." Corrections were approved by motion. CSO Application Process for Position of Police Officer Altonen outlined the need to revise the rules and regulations of the Civil Service Commission to legally allow current community service officers (CSOs) to apply for police officer positions when all requirements to becoming eligible to be licensed have been met. CSO candidates would then be ranked by score on a "Promotional Police Officer Eligibility Register" which is separate from a "Police Officer Eligibility Register." When a vacancy occurs, police administration would have the option to choose which register to select "Rule of Three" candidates from to fill the position. Altonen suggested the "promotional" register have no expiration date and the application process be continuously open. An outlined proposal for this process was presented to commissioners for review and feedback. Kumagai expressed concern that the promotional register would have no expiration date and Chair Peterson questioned the removal of (5) preference points for current CSO candidates. A/tonen stated the register could have a two~year expiration, however, candidates on the register would be able to apply again immediately upon expiration as the process would remain open. Altonen advised the preference points would not be necessary as CSO candidates would all be given the same number of points and their ranks on the promotional register would not change. Altonen advised it is not legal to merge the scores from CSO candidates and candidates who have already been ranked and placed on the eligibility register; thus, the need for a separate "promotional" register. Altonen was advised by the city's attorney that the "Rule of Three" must be applied to only one list, either the Police Officer Eligibility Register ~or- the Police Civil Service Commission Meeting Minutes August 4, 2008 - Page 2 Promotional Police Officer Eligibility Register. Candidates cannot be considered from both lists. simultaneously. The following points of agreement were established: 1. The commission supports the establishment of a Promotional Police Officer Eligibility Register with a two-year expiration date per candidate as they are added to the register, with the understanding that all of the same requirements must be met by the community service officer candidates as are met by all other police officer candidates. 2. The (5) preference points currently granted for 1000 or more hours of service will no longer be awarded. 3. The police administration will be permitted to consider either the Police Officer Eligibility Register -or- the Promotional Police Officer Eligibility Register for "Rule of Three" presentation consistent with existing legislation pertaining to "Rule of Three," with a prior explanation to the Civil Service Commission as to why a particular register was chosen and subject to Commission approval. Note: Chair Peterson advised commissioners should be notified of the candidates selected under "Rule of Three" and copies of appointment letters should also be sent. Tanick inquired what the outcome would be if there was contention between police administration and commissioners over which register was considered for "Rule of Three" presentation. Chair Peterson advised the selected register is subject to the advice and consent of the Civil Service Commission. Tanick moved to adopt the proposal outlined above; seconded by Kumagai. Motion unanimously approved. Chair Peterson asked police administration to update the Rules & Regulations and send revised copies to commissioners for review. Adiournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 AM. Respectfully submitted, Marshall Tanick, Secretary ~lley OPEN SPACE & RECREATION COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Brookview Community Center Monday, September 22,2008 7:00 PM I. Call to Order Sandler called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. Roll Call Present: Roger Bergman, Jim Johnson, Kelly Kuebelbeck, Bob Mattison, Jerry Sandler, Jim Vaughan, Linda Loomis, Mayor; Rick Jacobson, Director of Parks and Recreation; and Sheila Van Sloun, Parks and Recreation Administrative Assistant. Absent: Ken Graves and Anne Saffert. III. Agenda changes or Additions None made. IV. Approval of Minutes - July 28, 2008 MOTION: Moved by Johnson and seconded by Vaughan to approve the July 28th meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously. V. Comprehensive Plan/Park System Plan Update Jacobson gave an update on the progress and layout of the Comprehensive Plan. After some discussion on the layout, the Commission concluded they would like the Parks System Planto be a stand-alone document or an appendix for easier accessibility in making changes and updates. VI. Brookview Community Center Study Jacobson gave a brief history of Brookview Community Center, including renovations and updates made to the building since it was built in 1919. He then explained that after the recent Brookview Community Center study, it was determined that there is $1.2 million worth of necessary building maintenance items to be done as prioritized by Environmental Process, Inc. Minutes of the Golden Valley Open Space and Recreation Commission September 22, 2008 Page 2 VI. Brookview Community Center Study - Continued He reported that the Council suggested that the best approach to correcting the deficiencies at Brookview may be to replace the building. Therefore, they are considering appointing a task force to study building a new community center. The task force may consist of commissioners, city staff, Courage Center, Golden Valley civic group representation and the community at large. The Council would like to give the task force about a year to study the project and then make a recommendation. The Council will be discussing this further at the October Council/Manager meeting. VII. Lilac Plantings Loomis gave details for the lilac planting event along Highway 55 that will take place on Saturday, October 4th. She shared a map with planting locations and asked for volunteers for the event. VIII. Old Business Regional Trail Jacobson gave an update on the work in progress done along Douglas Drive and eastward thru With Park. He added that the Three Rivers Park District is appointing a task force to study a possible north/south trail along the Canadian Pacific Railroad thru New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, St. Louis Park, Edina and Bloomington. IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Bergman and seconded by Mattison to adjourn at 7:50 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) was called to order at 11:40 a.m., Thursday, September 18, 2008, at Golden VaDey City Hall by Chair Welch. Ms. Herbert conducted roll call. Roll Call Crystal Golden Valley Medicine Lake Minneapolis Minnetonka New Hope Plymouth Robbinsdale St. Louis Park Also present: Alternate Commissioner Stu Stockhaus Commissioner Linda Loomis, Treasurer Not represented Commissioner Michael Welch, Chair Commissioner Kris Suudberg Commissioner Daniel Stauner Commissioner Ginny Black, Vice Chair Alternate Commissioner Wayne Sicora Not represented Counsel Engineer Recorder Charlie LeFevere Len Kremer Amy Herbert Laura Adler, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of St. Louis Park Derek Asche, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Plymouth Terrie Christian, Association of Medicine Lake Area Citizens Jack Frost, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Lee Gustafson, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Minnetonka Dave Hanson, Alternate Commissioner, City of Golden Valley Guy Johnson, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of New Hope Sharon Klump, Springsted, Inc. Randy Lehr, Three Rivers Park District Tom Mathisen, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Crystal Mark Nagel, Springsted, Inc. Jeff Oliver, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Golden VaDey Jason Quisberg, Alternate Commissioner, City of New Hope Brad Schleeter, City of New Hope Liz Stout, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Minnetonka Elizabeth Thornton, Alternate Commissioner, City of Plymouth Chair Welch announced that item 6E - T AC Recommendations - would be moved up in the agenda to become the first Old Business item. Ms. Black moved to approve the agenda as amended. Ms. Loomis seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Chair Welch removed the August meeting minutes from the Consent Agenda. Ms. Black moved the Consent Agenda as amended. Ms. Loomis seconded the motion. The motiou carried unanimously. [Cities of Medicine Lake and St. Louis Park absent from the vote]. #249010 vI Page 1 BCWMC September 18, 2008, Meeting Minutes ..'.".;".}j\,\..'.. .. ;..,;~g~ Ms. Terrie Christian, Association of Medicine Lake Area Citizens (AMLAC), announced that AMLAC's annual newsletter would be available in the next month and asked if the BCWMC would like her to send a an electronic copy to Ms. Herbert to forward to the BCWMC. Chair Welch directed Ms. Herbert to forward the newsletter to the BCWMC. A. Presentation of the August 21,2008, BCWMC meeting minutes. Chair Welch requested the substitution of the word "in" for the word "below" in the first paragraph of page 3. The corrected sentence reads: "... final phase of the project consists of work in the floodplain." Chair Welch requested the removal ofthe word "due" in front ofthe word "process" in the fifth paragraph on page 3. The corrected sentence reads: "...the City wants to make sure the project goes through the Army Corps of Engineer's process." Chair Welch requested the insertion of the phrase "how the projects are conducted" in the eighth paragraph of page 4. The corrected sentence reads: "...He said the Commission is largely a funding source and doesn't have much say in how the projects are conducted." Chair Welch requested the substitution of the word "waste" for the word "work" in front of "load" in the second paragraph of page 9. The corrected sentence reads: "...creating possibilities for things to take place such as individual waste load allocations." Ms. Loomis requested the context be added to her comments in the third paragraph of page 9. The revised comments read: "Ms. Asleson commented that the MS4s will be participating in the stakeholder involvement committee as MS4s so the BCWMC will want to select for the committee a representative of the Commission that is not an MS4 member. Ms. Black asked if the Commission's representative needs to be a technical person. Ms. Asleson responded that the technical and stakeholder groups will be combined and will receive two half-day trainings about TMDLs, hydrology, and modeling and so the representative does not need to be a technical expert to participate. She said she would like the committee to have a good mix of technical and non technical participants. Ms. Asleson encouraged as many of the BCWMC members as possible to attend the kickoff stakeholder meeting. Ms. Loomis stated that if the Commission asks a Commission technical representative from one ofthe non-MS4 cities to attend the stakeholder meetings on the Commission's behalf then the Commission should offer to pay for that person's time. She said if the Commission were to send the Commission Engineer then the Commission would pay the Engineer, if the Commission asks a city to send one of their technical staff to attend the meetings, from a city perspective she would expect some kind of...(Ms. Loomis was interrupted.] Chair Welch interjected that it is appropriate that if the Commission sends someone to the meetings as the Commission representative then the Commission can't expect the city to pay for it because that #249010 vI BCWMC September 18, 2008, Meeting Minutes Page 2 person is Dot there to represent the city. He said that is a good point for the Commission to consider.n Ms. Black moved to approve the August 21, 2008, BCWMC meeting minutes as amended. Ms. Sundberg seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously (Cities of Medicine Lake and St. Louis Park absent from the vote]. B. Presentation of the Financial Statement. The general and construction account balances reported in the September 2008 Financial Report are as follows: Checking Account Balance TOTAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE 484,548.67 484,548.67 Construction Account Balance (cash) Investment Balance TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT BALANCE -Less: Reserved for CIP projects Construction cashl investments available for projects 2,483,855.64 0.00 2,483,855.64 3,722,769.86 (1,238,914.22) C. Presentation of Invoices for Payment Approval. Invoices: i. Kennedy & Graven - Legal Services through July 31,2008 - invoice for the amount of $1,354.94. ii. Barr Engineering Company - Engineering Services through August 29, 2008 - invoice for the amount of $30,174.96. iii. Barr Engineering Company - Sweeney Lake TMDL Services August 2 - August 29, 2008 - invoice for the amount of $723.20. iv. Amy Herbert - August Recording Administrator Services - invoice for the amount of $3,082.53. v. SEH, Iuc. - Sweeney Lake TMDL Study Phase 2 Services through July 31, 2008 - invoice for the amount of $4,963.50. vi. SEH, Iuc. - Sweeney Lake TMDL Study Phase 2 Services through August 31, 2008 - invoice for the amount of $3,870.00. Ms. Loomis moved to approve payment of all invoices. Ms. Black seconded the motion. By call of roll, the motion carried unanimously [Cities of Medicine Lake and St. Louis Park abseut from the vote]. D. Resolution No. 08-05 Approving the Local Plan Prepared by the City of Minnetonka. Chair Welch announced two edits to the resolution. Ms. Loomis moved to approve the edited resolution 08-05. Ms. Black seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously [Cities of Medicine Lake and St. Louis Park absent from the vote]. #249010 vI BCWMC September 18, 2008, Meeting Minutes Page 3 E. Resolution No. 08-06 Approving the Local Plan Prepared by the City of Golden Valley. Chair Welch announced two edits to the resolution. Ms. Black moved to approve the edited resolution 08-06. Ms. Loomis seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously [Cities of Medicine Lake and St. Louis Park absent from the vote]. F. Reimbursement Request to MPCA for Sweeney Lake TMDL Study Project Costs through August 31, 2008. Ms. Loomis moved to approve send to the MPCA the project reimbursement cost request in the amount of $4,134.20. Ms. Black seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously [Cities of Medicine Lake and St. Louis Park absent from the vote]. A. Shoreline Restoration Presentation: Derek Asche, City of Plymouth. Mr. Asche gave a PowerPoint presentation about the City of Plymouth's shoreline restoration program. He informed the Commission that more than 40 restorations have been completed on the shores of Medicine, Schmidt, and Parkers Lakes combined for a restoration of more than 7% of developed shoreline. Mr. Asche reported that due to the shoreline restoration program, the City has benefited from decreased erosion and nutrient loading and increased riparian habitat, infiltration, and water treatment. Mr. Asche educated the BCWMC on natural groundcovers, existing shoreline issues, the restoration process including funding, selection of locations, finding and working with a contractor, finding and working with the property owner, building a shoreline restoration, maintenance, and program signage. B. City of Plymouth Local Water Management Plan Review. Mr. Kremer referred to the September 9, 2008, memo from Barr Engineering regarding the Review of the Plymouth surface water management plan. Mr. Kremer said all but one of the comments made in the memo were asking for more information. He said the one comment that was significant was that the plan's water quality goals for Parkers Lake do no meet the BCWMC's Level I management goals [the plan's total phosphorus goal for Parkers Lake is 38 ug/J and the BCWMC's goal is 30 ug/J]. Mr. Kremer said the Commission Engineer's recommendation is that the BCWMC review the MPCA's goals for Parkers Lake. He commented that in general it doesn't make sense to set the water quality goal higher than the MPCA's standards for that lake. Chair Welch directed Ms. Herbert to add to the TAC's agenda a review of the difference in the City of Plymouth's and the BCWMC's water quality standards for Parkers Lake. Ms. Loomis moved to send the BCWMC's comments to the City of Plymouth for its response. Chair Welch seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously [Cities of Medicine Lake and St. Louis Park absent from the vote). A. T AC Recommendations. i. Reimbursement for Wetland Mitigation on BCWMC CIP Projects. Chair Welch summarized for the Commission that the West Medicine Lake Park Pond project cost estimate includes $200,000 for wetland mitigation. He reminded the Commission that it has not paid for this type of cost in past projects. He said that the T AC's previous recommendation to the Commission was that it consider wetland mitigation project costs on a case-by-case basis and that last month the BCWMC asked the TAC to evaluate the West Medicine Lake Park Pond project in terms of the project's wetland mitigation and to recommend to the BCWMC whether the project's wetland mitigation costs should be included in the ad valorem tax request to Hennepin County. #249010 vI BCWMC September 18, 2008, Meeting Minutes Page 4 Mr. Gustafson stated that historically the BCWMC has not had a policy of land acquisition and that the BCWMC's flood work in the 1980s did not set the stage for any land acquisition policy. He said that aU project costs must be reviewed at the beginning of any project and the TAC feels that land acquisition and wetland mitigation costs should be included in project feasibility reports for analysis and should be weighed through a cost- benefit analysis. He said the T AC believes that projects and aU options for the projects need to be ~valuated on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Gustafson said that in the case of the West Medicine Lake Park Pond project, it needs to be considered that the project removes a lot of phosphorus out of the Medicine Lake watershed. He said the TAC thinks that the cost of wetland mitigation is a valid project cost for the West Medicine Lake Park Pond and that if the BCWMC proceeds with the project then the BCWMC should pay all project costs out of BCWMC funds. Mr. Stauner commented that he would have liked the September 11, 2008, TAC memo to have rationalized why the TAC recommends the BCWMC pay for the wetland mitigation project costs for the West Medicine Lake Park Pond project. Mr. Stauner said he doesn't support the Commission making a policy decision today. Chair Welch stated that today the Commission needs to make a decision on how much it will request from the County for the levy. Ms. Black asked if the T AC could put into words the criteria that the BCWMC should evaluate on the case-to-case basis. Chair Welch said he agrees that criteria need to be set but he doesn't thiuk the TAC should just come back to the Commission with a list. He said he thinks there needs to be a joint Commission and TAC meeting to discuss it and that the cities need to provide feedback. Mr. LeFevere remarked that it might be helpful for the Commission to look at its CIP and see how many projects are affected. Ms. Loomis said she didn't think the discussion should just include wetland mitigation. She stated that there are other costs the BCWMC has not traditionally paid for, such as utility relocation, and that the BCWMC needs to see this discussion as larger than property acquisition. Ms. Loomis pointed out that the Twin Lake Pond and the Wirth Lake Pond projects have been ordered by the BCWMC and taxes for them have been collected but the projects are languishing because of issues of property and maintenance costs. She commented that ifthe BCWMC wants projects to get done, it needs to step up to the plate regarding the costs. Ms. Loomis said she agrees that the BCWMC is not ready to make a policy decision today. Mr. Gustafson said it was the TAC's intent to communicate to the Commission that it needs to develop a policy but not to adopt a policy at this point. He said the TAC made its recommendation specifically on the West Medicine Lake Park Pond project. Chair Welch requested that the Commission make a funding decision about West Medicine Lake Park Pond and then craft a rough plan to move forward regarding a method for developing a policy. He said the Commission reviews its CIP annually and the Commission Engineer can come back to the Commission with a structure for reviewing the CIP projects. Ms. Loomis moved that the Commission go forward with the West Medicine Lake Park Pond project and pay for the wetland mitigation costs with the caveat that this is not an adoption of a wetland mitigation or land acquisition cost policy by the Commission. Ms. #249010 vI BCWMC September 18, 2008, Meeting Minutes Page 5 Black seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously [Cities of Medicine Lake and St. Louis Park absent from vote.] ii. BCWMC Policy for Land Acquisition as Part of Commission Projects. See discussion above for 6. A. i. - Reimbursement for Wetland Mitigation on BCWMC CIP Projects. iii. Flood Elevations for Crane Lake and Oak Knoll Pond. Ms. Black moved to table the discussion of adopting different flood elevations for Crane Lake and Oak Knoll Pond until the BCWMC's next minor plan amendment. Ms. Loomis seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously [Cities of Medicine Lake and St. Louis Park absent from vote]. iv. Comments on Medicine Lake TMDL Work Plan. Chair Welch announced that an update on the Medicine Lake TMDL study will be on the October BCWMC agenda. Ms. Black announced that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is trying to get businesses involved in the Medicine Lake TMDL study steering committee so anyone who has contacts in the business community in the watershed should forward the contact information to the MPCA. B. 2009 Ad Valorem Tax Request to Hennepin County. i. Addendum to Cooperative Agreement for West Medicine Lake Park Pond. Ms. Loomis moved to approve the addendum to the Cooperative Agreement to the West Medicine Lake Park Pond. Chair Welch seconded the motion and requested typographical edits. The motion carried unanimously [Cities of Medicine Lake and St. Louis Park absent from vote). ii. Resolution 08-07 to Certify to Hennepin County for Costs of West Medicine Lake Park Pond Project. Ms. Loomis moved to approve resolution 08-07 certifying to Hennepin County $800,000 for CIP project costs and directing the Commission to send the certified levy request to the County. Ms. Black seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously [Cities of Medicine Lake and St. Louis Park absent from vote). iii. Direction to Send Tax Levy Request and Certification to Hennepin County. See discussion above in B. ii. C. Presentation of BCWMC Organizational Analysis Findings: Springsted, Inc. Ms. Klump and Mr. Nagel delivered a to-minute presentation on the methodology, analysis, findings and recommendations from the organizational analysis Springsted, Inc. conducted for the BCWMC. [The final report was included in the BCWMC September meeting packet). After tbe presentation Ms. Sundberg questioned if the Commission was looking to discuss the findings and recommendations today or looking to take action today. Chair Welch stated that the Commission can ask questions of Springsted, Inc. today and that the Administrator Services Committee will come back to the Commission in December with its recommendations. Mr. Nagel stated that Springsted, Inc. could attend an Administrator Services Committee meeting to go through the report in more detail. Chair Welch asked if Springsted would charge additional to attend a Committee meeting. Mr. Nagel said Springsted, Inc. will look at the budget of the analysis to-date and will let the BCWMC know. He also said the BCMWC should e-mail him any questions so Springsted, Inc. can address them at the Committee meeting. [Kris Sundberg departs the meeting.1 #249010 v1 BCWMC September 18, 2008, Meeting Minutes Page 6 D. City of New Hope Local Water Management Plan Review. The BCWMC discussed the September 3, 2008, response from the City of New Hope to comments on the New Hope local water management plan. Ms. Loomis moved to direct the BCWMC's legal counsel to draft a resolution of approval of the City of New Hope's local water management plan. Ms. Black seconded the motion. Mr. LeFevere recommended that Ms. Herbert can prepare the resolution. The BCWMC agreed to the recommendation. The motion carried unanimously [Cities of Medicine Lake, Minnetonka, and St. Louis Park absent from vote]. E. Board of Soil and Water Conservation District Forum. Chair Welch stated that the Goldeu Valley League of Women Voters is holding a candidate forum for the office of Soil and Water Supervisor and that instead of the BCWMC holding its own fomm, those interested from the BCMWC could attend the one already scheduled. Ms. Loomis added that the fomm will be held on Wednesday, October 15, at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Golden Valley City Hall. Ms. Loomis stated that the fomm will be videotaped and if the BCWMC is interested, the BCWMC could show the tape before or after the October meeting. F. Feasibility Report Requirements. Deferred to October BCMWC meeting. G. Resource Management Plan. Deferred to October BCMWC meeting. A. Chair: i. Chair Welch stated that the Commission Engineer can put the updated Requirements for Improvements and Development Proposals document on CD-Rom for mailing to the cities and will also have the document posted on the Web site. ii. Chair Welch announced that Barr Engineering has been contracted for the Wirth Lake TMDL Study project. iii. Chair Welch stated that a City of Medicine Lake council member contacted the BCWMC with a green roof project idea for the Medicine Lake City Hall and that the BCWMC provided information about contacts for the BCWMC's education small grant program, the Clean Water Legacy Web site, and potential future funding due to the Medicine Lake TMDL study implementation plan. iv. Chair Welch said that the BCWMC has asked Ron Leaf of SEH to provide the Commission with an update ofthe Sweeney Lake TMDL study when the monitoring season is finished. Mr. Kremer added that SEH is arranging for Bernie Lentz, the former SEH limnologist working on the Sweeney Lake TMDL study, to consult with SEH on the Sweeney Lake TMDL study. v. Chair Welch moved to authorize the expenditure of up to $150 for the cost of transferring the VHS training video to DVD format. Ms. Black seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously [Cities of Medicine Lake, Minnetonka, and St. Louis Park absent from vote]. B. Commissioners: i. Mr. Hanson announced that the aerators on Sweeney Lake will be turned on for the winter again this year. C. Committees: #249010 vI BCWMC September 18, 2008, Meeting Minutes Page 7 i. Education and Public Outreach Committee: Ms. Black announced that Pioneer Sarah-Creek Watershed Management Organization will be joining the Joint Education and Public Outreach Committee. She stated that the Joint Education and Public Outreach Committee will be meeting in October. D. Counsel* E. Engineer: Mr. Kretner reported that Clean Water Legacy Act funds are available for monitoring costs and he recomtnends the BCWMC investigate whether it could get a grant for the fecal coliform monitoring costs. He added that funds are also available for protection projects such as unique property and that there is potential that the Twin Lake project would qualify. He requested authorization to find out more information on both opportunities. Ms. Loomis requested the Commission direct the Commission Engineer to follow up on both items and to report fmdings to the Commission at the October meeting. The BCWMC directed the Commission Engineer to gather the information and report back at the October meeting. Mr. Sicora moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Black seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 2:10 p.m. Michael Welch, Chair Date Amy Herbert, Recorder Date Pauline Langsdorf, Secretary Date #249010 vI BCWMC September 18, 2008, Meeting Minutes Page 8 alley Memorandum Public Works 763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 3, 2008 Agenda Item 3. E. Bid & Quotes - Award Contract for 2009 Pavement Management Project Staking and Engineering Services Construction Observation Services Relocation of Decorative Streetlights Prepared By Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Summary Award Construction Contract Bids for the 2009 Pavement Management Project (PMP), City Improvement Project 09-1, were opened on October 21,2008. Eleven bids were received and analyzed for bid alternates. The corrected bids are listed as follows: Budgeted Amount $6,939,724.98 $7,188,695.64 $7,468,794.93 $7,521,119.48 $7,782,341.15 $7,934,644.05 $7,982,305.40 $7,987,064.78 $8,026,718.96 $8,184,851.34 $8,412,203.24 $7,025,000.00 Palda & Sons, Inc. Shafer Contracting Co. Forest Lake Contracting, Inc. Northwest Asphalt, Inc. Eureka Construction C.S. McCrossan Construction, Inc. Veit Inc. Valley Paving Park Construction Co. Thomas & Sons, Inc. Hardrives, Inc. Staff has reviewed the bids and found them to be accurate and in order. These bid amounts include the following bid alternates: 1. Mill and overlay of Scott Avenue North and Toledo Avenue North, located west of Regent Avenue and north of Duluth Street. As outlined in the feasibility report for this project, these streets were included in the project due to the age of the pavements and proximity to the rest of the project. The bid alternate for the mill and overlay of these streets totaled $52,805, which is within the budget for the project. 2. The bid amounts listed above also include a bid alternate for the use of recycled bituminous pavement for Class 5 gravel, a contract savings of $33,800, and the use of an alternate catch basin inlet protection product that was not an increase or decrease in the bid amount. 3. The reconstruction of the asphalt parking lot at the Brookview Golf Maintenance building was also included as a bid alternate. The total bid amount is $85,153.50, which is within the budgeted amount of $125,000. This project is included in the 2009 Capital Improvement Program currently considered by the City Council. Based upon the budget available, staff recommends that all of the bid alternates discussed above be included in the 2009 PMP contract. Stakinq and Enqineerinq Services Staff has received a proposal from the consulting engineering firm of Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH), dated October 22, 2008, for construction staking and engineering services for the 2009 PMP. The engineering services include specialized work in geotechnical engineering for soil conditions, structural engineering for the helical piling required for sanitary sewer replacement on Westbend Road and Scott Avenue, and environmental engineering. The construction staking includes all survey work during construction, and record drawing survey and drawing preparation following construction. The proposal includes a not to exceed amount of $122,000. Construction Observation Staff has received a proposal, dated October 17, 2008, for construction observation services for the 2009 PMP from the consulting engineering firm of WSB & Associates, Inc. (WSB). This contract includes one full-time person to provide inspection services to ensure that the project is constructed to the City's technical specifications. The consultant will supplement City staff that will also be working on the construction project. The proposal includes a not to exceed amount of $129,584. Streetliqht Replacement During the design of the 2009 PMP, decorative streetlights within the project area were identified for removal and replacement due to conflicts with street improvements. Many of these lights are in excess of 30 years old and show signs of deterioration of the poles. Therefore, staff and Xcel Energy recommend that the entire decorative streetlight system within the project area be replaced in conjunction with the street reconstruction project. The replacement of the streetlights will include new poles, fixtures, and wiring, as well as complete removal of the existing system. The cost from Xcel Energy Outdoor Lighting for the removal and replacement of these streetlights is not to exceed $173,285. This cost was included in the construction costs for the 2009 PMP project. Attachments Location map ( 1 page) Letter dated October 22,2008, from Susan Mason, SEH, to Jeannine Clancy (3 pages) Letter and contract dated October 17, 2008, from Jupe Hale, WSB, to Jeannine Clancy (10 pages) Construction Agreement for Street Lighting Facilities dated October 28, 2008, from Xcel Energy (5 pages) Recommended Actions 1. Motion authorizing a contract with Palda & Sons, Inc. in the amount of $6,939,724.98 for the construction of the 2009 PMP, City Improvement Project No. 09-1. 2. Motion to authorize entering into a contract with SEH, Inc. for construction, staking, and engineering services for the 2009 PMP, not to exceed $122,000. 3. Motion to authorize entering into a contract with WSB & Associates, Inc. for construction observation services for the 2009 PMP, not to exceed $129,584. 4. Motion to authorize entering into an agreement with Xcel Energy Outdoor Lighting not to exceed $173,285 to replace decorative streetlights and appurtenances in the 2009 PMP. w c.:> o ) iE ) CO ) ) ~ ~ ~ ~ 2008 CONSTRUCTION SEASON (SEE PAGE 1) NO SCALE , . . ... ... I .1--'" --':I'f -- -.'n 7'f~ ~ ~.1 . F' ~~ ":'. ~F""" or ..V:....,. II".. I.... ~ "fill ~ ... ~ -" ..AI ~A I ..alI...o1 .al ..d.J."" "" h-~~ -=; , ,... ,.. II tI,.. ..,.. tI,.. ,.. """., ~ ~ \\...V!... ~ ~ 17 it ... ..., ...,;". I"':;;; .... ~ ,. ill' If" I.... If'" ~ @ ~ """'1; _.G .0111 AIJ'IJ'I..-"" ~ ~ ~ l!!:... . ,eee.ow.. n .A ".. '" f: e@e 11/1 UK po F ",I'~ ~ -= ~ " ..ol! .... c.l/ ...a ~~ iP.. '" @ G-~ ~ !IW~.... ~ If'" .... I r. IfilI..II~' -:II ~ -:.i "J6I" ,.. lIP' e e ;;; ILA ~~ .11 -- ~~ ~ =-::;;c I'IlI" _:'". -. z "..,,, ~" 8~e IlJl~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ et& ... ..,.... ~~ ~ .. '\~ ~~ ". ~~ , -, '-Je~~ ~~ ~~ " ~" .,-' rr IP~\\ ~~- se~.i,Iii :-~ ....,I'!r, @e~ ~i~~~ -:. 1~..-~llklrI f"ilrb j ~~~!!!-.lii"";:fh f tI tI tI tI ~'-~" I e [N.~ ..u ,- j ~ ~..., - _I ~ ,~ \\ill P ~e ,...-.u.r I -"' {;- , ~.. Ia eg~ I... ~ l<< ~ r'J ~ \\\~~~ ~-..;[fL\:: · /' rsl. -~ " ,-.~ - .I, ." Qf ~I~~I 0 ~~~ __ _ .A''', . NIH-.f",\ .. "" '" I.... I.IfN A u: I~~ I' M# - 1".... IoMlIl' """" r- '-- P Y U - ,,;< ",... I.IfN '--:;;; .11IM IN?' ~ -... .#.;:' , ~ ..... ~ _z ~ __ __ I_'~_ ".,,. ~ 7 < ;Ii I~- ..... IJf.U """ 'loUt_ __ 11'I4 "';..K .... ,; -;>;~ ~ -' _7- ';;- - ..... '1' . ; ~ .IIW. ~ """ ..", ..."., ~"" ~ ~ - ~ ~.~ ~r..\~;;;- t Jt1dJ ~ ""'N7\:,J r Iiii' ~ A.MII? ~ ~ ~ . I '-"""l">. ~ a , ... ~ ~ ~ til ,-r-~........ 'c:.-"'-_~ - ~~ql~ I'~;I'.~~~~~ DULUTH ~z ~ ..61 <I "' "'. .6. :.t. = ~ V 'ell! r, /;. - ~~ ""'" ~~ ~ l' {.y)\ -i"1_ ." .- "'" ..., ~ ':s~*~~ I~!~ _ ~ -= ':i;;.: Iii. ~ t?\t?\f. ~' 51 ~ r _l:!IY.. ~ 2009 CONSTRUCTION SEASON PROJECT LOCA TION MAP 2008-09 PA VEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 0 G: \DWGS\CITYMAPS\AODRESS.DWG ~ SEH October 22, 2008 RE: Golden Valley, Minnesota 2009 PMP Construction Services SEH No. A-GOLDV0701.01 10.00 Ms. Jeannine Clancy Director of Public Works City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588 Dear Jeannine: Thank you for the opportunity to continue to provide professional services to the City of Golden Valley for the 2009 PMP Construction services. This letter serves as the Supplemental Letter Agreement in accordance with the Agreement for Professional Services between the City of Golden Valley and SEH. Background The City of Golden Valley proposes to rehabilitate approximately 4 miles of local streets in 2009. The neighborhood areas proposed for street improvements are located east of TH 100, South of Culver Avenue, West of Noble and North of Duluth Street. The proposed improvements include construction of storm sewer pipe, drainage structures and ponds, sanitary sewer and water main repairs and hydrant relocations. Some of the utility pipe replacements will be on new pile foundations. All of the streets will be reconstructed with concrete curb and gutter. The City will be managing the construction of this project. SBH prepared the plans and will be providing construction staking services and a record plan survey as well as some specialty services relating to construction observation as described below and detailed in the task summary. Scope of Work Construction Staking SEH will provide a survey crew to provide the construction staking for the 2009 PMP construction project. Staking tasks. for this project will include placement of horizontal and vertical control, centerline or offset stakes,. blue tops for gravel, blue tops for fInished grade, stonn sewer stakes, curb and gutter stakes, sanitary sewer s~g. and water main staking. All survey coordination for construction staking will be between the survey crew chief and the City. Record Plan Survey and Drawings This work includes providing final top of structure surveys on new storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water main manhole structures. The work also includes providing inverts for these new structures. Benchmarks will be reestablished in the construction areas in conjunction with the record survey; it is our understanding that the City would also like us to electronically locate all of the new hydrants and gate valves. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive. St. Paul. MN 55110-5196 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.comI651.490.2000 I 800.325.2055 I 651.490.2150 fax Jeannine Clancy October 22, 2008 Page 2 Project Team Susan Mason, P.E. will manage coordination as required between city staff and the surveying. She will also provide administration of our contract with the City. Paul Haugen will be the lead Survey Crew Chief assigned. Ron Farmer will be available for to review shop drawings for new pile foundations and retaining wall shop drawings and also to provide geotechnical field support for the proposed piling foundation work and as may be required with the installation of the lightweight material and subgrade correction work. Schedule We anticipate the majority of construction staking to take place in the 2009 construction season within the months of May to November. However, there is potential that the contractor will choose to start some work yet" this fall. Staff hours for staking work in 2008 is covered in our fee estimate. The record plan survey will follow completion of the construction. Compensation SEH proposes to be compensated for the scope of work proposed in the Agreement on an hourly basis. Compensation will be based on the hourly cost of personnel plus reimbursable expenses, including reproductions, mileage, car allowance, and equipment. Additional services required beyond the tasks and estimated hours as described can be negotiated or provided as extra work on an hourly basis. We have estimated these costs to be $122,000. This agreement is an understanding of the project to date. If this document satisfactorily sets forth your understanding of our agreement, please sign in the space below and return one copy to our office. We look forward to working with you, your staff, and the community on this project. Thank you for the opportunity to continue to work with the City of Golden Valley. Respectively submitted, SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. , ?!l~ San. Mason, PE nc10sures s:lIj\glgo."'070100\l-geD1l1............... services letter 2009.doc Approved this day of ,2008 Oty of Golden Valley, Minnesota By ConstnJct/on Services 2009 PMP Dellverables: ConsllllCllon Observation, Slaking, Record Plan Projed Gookdm.... Projed RU Wen! So...." Task Manager J!o&bIeor J!o&bIeor I'nJcossar Crow ....... . A. 0bIervaU0n 8 8 precon MeetIng 4 4 4 Shop drawing review 20 4 8 Field RevIew 4 20 30 ProJeCt CIoae Out 4 B. Coll8lruction Staklna 16 20 liorlzantalllJld Vertical Control 3lI CenterllnelOlflet Stakes 80 Wall. and EM_ents 8 Storm Sewer Stakes 80 SlInItary Sewer Stakes 16 Water main Stakes 16 Curb lIJId Gulter Stabs 80 Grevel Blue T_ 40 MIsceIan_ . ponds, trall, slltfllJlce,lightlna 20 D. Record PllIIs 1 Survey 5C "-d Plan Prep 20 4 > . . I Total hours 599 17 44 74 24 16 424 Project LlIbor $108,770 Expenses Survey equlp-m $10,000 Mileage and Expentes $1,300 Mlacelleneoua . copies, huba,lalh $1,930 Totsl prqJ/>c1 eosl 'I1L... ",...... W2JIllII Unlaue llGmponllllls ar assumptions: Survey Craw as required. ConstruolJon services are largely dependant on weather and Contrador's schedule. Materials testing by 0\herS ~ WSB October 17, 2009 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763 541-4800 Fax: 763 541.1700 & Associates. 1nc. Infrastructure - Engineering - Planning - Construction Ms. Jeannine Clancy City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588 Re: 2009 Construction Services Dear Ms. Clancy: WSB & Associates, Inc. (WSB) is pleased to be able to continue our relationship with the City of Golden Valley. For the past few construction seasons, our staff has developed strong relationships with City staff on many different levels while working on the PMP projects. Working for the City on the upcoming summer's PMP project, provides WSB with another opportunity to demonstrate our level of service and design expertise to the City and its residents. We are proud of what we provide to our clients and the work that we do. We are once again proposing Jake Newhall as the Construction Observer for the City. We know the City is very comfortable with Jake's work to date in Golden Valley, which mirrors WSB's opinion of Jake's performance and his potential. Because you know Jake personally, I have not enclosed a resume for him. Should you desire an updated resume for Jake, I am happy to provide it. In addition, WSB has other available staff members to assist the City. If there is an opportunity for additional services, we will submit appropriate resumes for your consideration and will bring prospective candidates over to the City should you wish to meet with them in person. We have enclosed two copies of our standard professional services agreement including scope of work and fee estimate based on our discussions with City staff. The scope and fees are based on my conversations with your staff regarding anticipated hours and project duration. Similar to last year's contract, we will submit monthly bills for hours worked and are flexible as to actual contract start and termination. As primary client contact for the City, I will be in touch with you periodically to discuss the performance of Jake or any other staff we may provide, as well as your needs pertaining to work start and completion. Thank you again for this opportunity. Should you [md the proposed agreement acceptable, please execute both copies and return one to us. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 763-287-8311 should you have any questions regarding this proposal. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. 9ilA! Associate Enclosures ACEC 2008 Firm of the Year Minneapolis _ 51. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer K:\01701 ~02\Admin\C01lrraCl\ContraCt 2009\f'.over l.etter.doc WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT This Agreement is made ~ of the 21 st day of October 2008, by and between the City of Golden Valley, hereinafter referred to as City, and WSB & Associates, Inc., hereinafterreferred to as Engineer, with offices located at 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416. Witnesseth, that the City and Engineer, for the consideration herein named, agree as follows: SECTION 11 GENERAL CONTRACT PROVISIONS These provisions shall be as set forth in Exhibit A. SECTION 21 SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work to be performed by Engineer is set forth in Exhibit C. The work and services to be performed hereunder and described in Exhibit C shall be referred to herein and in the General Contract Provisions as the Project. SECTION 3/ COMPENSATION Compensation to Engineer for services described in this agreement shall be as designated in the attached Exhibit D and as hereinafter described. SECTION 41 WORK SCHEDULE The anticipated schedule is set forth in Exhibit C. SECTION 5 / SPECIAL CONDITIONS Special conditions, ifany, are as set forth in Exhibit G. CITY: CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY ADDRESS: 7800 GOLDEN V ALLEY ROAD GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427 BY: Linda R Loomis SIGNATURE: TITLE: Mayor BY: Thomas D. Burt SIGNATURE: TITLE: City Manag:er SECTION 6 / EXHIBITS The following initialed Exhibits are attached to and made a part of this Agreement: X Exhibit A General Contract Provisions X Exhibit B Definitions X Exhibit C Scope of Work X Exhibit D Compensation X Exhibit E Insurance Schedule Exhibit F Rate Schedule SECTION 7 / ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEMENT All work and services described in this agreement shall be performed by Engineer only after written acceptance of the City. The undersigned hereby accept the terms and conditions of this agreement and Engineer is hereby authorized to perform the services described herein. WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDRESS: 701 XENIA AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 300 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 BY: SIGNA TU BY: Donald W. S1J!J:2 SIGNATURE: ~_ TITLE: Vice President Professional Services Agreement Page 1 of 1 K,10110)'()2IAdmiDIContraot\Co_Cl2009IPSA.dOc WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC. EXHIBIT A GENERAL CONTRACT PROVISIONS ARTICLE 1 . GENERAL These general contract provisions are incorporated in and become a part of the Agreement to which it is attached between WSB & Associates, Inc., hereinafter referred. to as Engineer, and the otb.et party to the Agreement, City of Golden Valley, hereinafter referred to as City, wherein the City engages the Engineer to provide certain services more particlilarly described in Exhibit C, Scope of Work. Either party may be hereinafter referred to as party or, collectively, parties. The starting date will commence when authotUed. by the City. ARTICLE 2. CHANGED CONDmONS If the Engineer determines that any services it has been directed or requested to perform are beyond the scope as set forth in Exhibit C or that, due to changed conditions or changes in the method or manner of administration of the Project,. the Engineer's effort requlred to perform its services under this Agreement exceeds the estimate which formed. the basis for the Engineer's compensation, Engineer shall prompdy notify the City of that fact. Additional work and additional compensation for such work, and the extension of time for completion thereof, shall be set forth in a supplemental agreement entered. into by the parties prior to proceeding with any additional work or related expenditures. Such supplemental agreement shall be incorporated in and become a part of this Agreement. In. absence of said supplemental agreement, amounts of compensation and timefor completion shall be equitably adjusted. ARTICLE 3 . TERMINATION This Agreement may be tenninated byeitb.er party upon thirty days' written notice without cause. In the event of termination, copies of plans, reports, specifications, electronic drawing/data files (CADD), field data, notes, and other documents whether written, printed or recorded on any medinm whatsoever, finished or unfinished, prepared. by the Engineer pursuant to this Agreement and pertaining to the work or to the Project, (hereinafter "Instruments of Service"), shall be made available to the City pursuant to Article 4. All provisions of this Agreement allocating responsibility or liability between the City and Engineer shall survive the completion of the services hereunder and/or the termination of this Agreement. ARTICLE 4 . REUSE AND DISPOSmON OF INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE During the course of the work, the IIngineer (shall, if requested,) make available to the City copy(ies) of the Instruments of Service. At the time of completion or tennination of the work, the Engineer may make available to the City upon (i) payment of amounts due and owing for work performed. and expenses incurred to the date and time of termination, and (ii) fulfillment of the City's obligation under this Agreement. Any use or re-use of such Instruments of Service by the City or others without written verification or adaption by the Engineer except for the specific purpose intended will be at the City's risk and full legal responsibility. The City agrees, to the fullest extent permitted. by law, to indemnify and hold the Engineer harmless from any claim, liability or cost (including reasonable attorneys' fees, and defense costs) arising or allegedly arising out of any unauthorized. reuse or modification of these Instruments of Service by the City or any person or entity that acquires or obtains the reports, plans and specifications from or through the City without the written authorization of the Engineer. Under no circumstances shall ttansfer of Instruments of Service be deemed. a sale by Engineer, and Engineer makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, of merchantability and fitness for any particular purpose. ARTICLE 5 . AGREEMENT As used herein Agreement means: (1) The agreement for engineering, surveying and planning sentices; (2) These general contract provisions; (3) The attached exhibits; and (4) The supplemental agreement, where applicable. As to superseding effect, the attached exhibits shall govern over these general provisions, and the supplemental agreement, where applicable, shall govern over attached. exhibits and these general provisions. The Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the Engineer and City. The Agreement supersedes all prior written or oral understanding and may only be amended, supplemented, modified or cancelled by a duly executed written instrument. ARTICLE 6 . RESPONSlBILlTIES A. In order to permit the Engineer to perform the services required under this Agreement, the City shall, in proper time and sequence and where appropriate to the Project, at no expense to the Engineer: 1. Provide available information as to its requlrements for the Project. 2. Guarantee access to and make all provisions for the Engineer to enter upon public and private lands to enable the Engineer to perform its work under this Agreement. 3. Provide such legal, accounting and insurance counseling services as may be required for this Project, (such as review of insuranCe certificates, bonding clarifications and legal questions regarding property acquisition or assessment). 4. Notify the Engineer whenever the City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any defect in the Project. S. The Golden Valley City Council or a person or persons designated, shall act as City's representative with respect to the services to be rendered. under this Agreement. The City's representative shall have the authority to ttansmit and receIve instructions and information and to interpret and de6ne the City's policies with respect to services rendered by the Engineer. 6. Furnish data (and professional interpretations thereof) prepared by or services performed by others, including where applicable, but not limited to, previous reports, core borings, probings and sub. surface explorations, hydrographic and hydrogeologic surveys, laboratory tests and inspection of samples, materials and equipment; appropriate professional interpretations of the foregoing data; environmental assessment and impact statements; property, boundary, easement, right-of.way, topographic and utility surveys; property description; wning, deed. and other land use restrictions; and other special data. 7. Review all reports, sketches, drawings, Specifications and other documents prepared and presented by the Engineer, obtain advice of legal, accounting and insurance counselors or others as City deems necessary for such examinations and render in writing decisions pertaining thereto within reasonable times so as not to delay the performance by the Engineer of the services to be rendeted pursuant to this Agreement. 8. Where appropriate, endeavor to identify, remove and/or encapsulate asbestos products or materials or pollutants located in the project area prior to accomplishment by the Engineer of any work on the Project. 9. Provide record drawings and specifications for all existing physical plants of facilities which are pertinent to the Project. 10. Where available provide other services, materials, or data as may be set forth. 11. Bear all costs incidental to compliance with the requirements of this article. 12. Provide the foregoing in a manner sufficiently timely so as not to delay the performance by the Engineer of the services in accordance with the Contract Documents. B. Engineer shall be entitled to rely on the accuracy and completeness of information or services furnished by the City or others employed by the City. Engineer shall endeavor to verify the information provided and shall promptly notify the City if the Engineer discovers that any information or services furnished by the City is in error or is inadequate for its purpose. Exhibit A - General Con1ract Provisions Page 1 !('\01701.02\Adm1n\Con-oc...-.2lJ09\li>h Adoc ARTICLE 7 - OPINIONS OF COST Opinion, if any, of probable cost, construction cost, financial evaluations, feasibility studies, economic analyses of alternate solutions and utilitarian considerations of operations and maintenance costs provided for are made or to be made on the basis of the Engineer's experience and qualifications and represent the Engineer's best judgment as an experienced and qualified professional design firm. The parties aclmowledge, however, that the Engineer does not have control over the cost of labor, material, equipment or services fumished by others or over 1Dll1'ket conditions or contractor's methods of determining their. prices, and any evaluation of any facility to be constructed or acquired, or work of necessity must be speculative undl completion of construction or acquisition. Accordingly, the Engineer does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual costs will not vary from opinions, evaluations or studies submitted by the Engineer. ARTIClE 8 -INSURANCE Engineer has procured insurance in the types and amounts set forth in Exhibit E. ARTICLE 9. ASSIGNMENT This Agreement, intended to secure the service ofindividuals employed by and through the Engineer, shall not be assigned or transferred without written consent of the'City. ARTICLE 10 . CONTROLLING LAW This Agreement is to be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. ARTIClE 11 . NON.DISCRIMINATION Engineer will comply with the provisions of applicable Federal, State and Local Statutes, Ordinances, and Regulations pertaining to human rights and non-d/scriminat.ion. ARTIClE 12. CONFLICT RESOLUTION In an effort to resolve any conflicts that arise during the design or construction of the project or following the completion of the project, the City and Engineer agree that all disputes between them arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be submitted to nonbinding mediation unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. ARTICLE 13 . CONFIDENTlALlTY The Engineer agrees to keep confidential and not to disclose to any person or entity, other than the Engineer's employees, subconsultants and the general contractor and subcontractors, if appropriate, any data and information not previously known to and generated by the Engineer or furnished to the Engineer and marked CONFIDENTIAL by the City. These provisions shall not apply to information in whatever form that comes into the public dornai:n, nor shan it restrict the Engineer from giving notices required by law or complying with an order to provide information or data when such order is issued by a court, administrative agency or other authority with proper jurisdiction, or if it is reasonably necessary for the Engineer to defend himself or herself from any suit or claim. ARTICLE 14. LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENTS The Engineer and/or his or her authori:ed subconsultant will conduct the research that in his or her professional opinion is necessary and will prepare a plan indicating the locations intended for subsurface penetrations with respect to assmned locations of underground improvements. Such services by the Engineer or his or her subconsultant will be performed in a manner consistent with the ordinary standatd of care. The City recogni2es that the research may not identify all underground improvements and that the information upon which the Engineer relies may contain errors or may not be completed. The City agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to waive all claims and causes of action against the Engineer and anyone for whom the Engineer may be legally liable, for damages to underground improvements resulting from subsurface penetration locations established by the Engineer, except that the City does not release the Engineer, its principals, employees, agents and consultants from negligence which causes damage to underground improvements resulting from subsurface penetration locations established by the Engineer. ARTICLE 15 . CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION The Engineer shall visit the project at appropriate intervals during construetion to become familiar with the progress and quality of the contractors' work and to determine if the work is proceeding in general accordance with the Contract Documents. The City has not retained the Engineer to make detailed inspections or to provide exhaustive or continuous project review and observation services. For City-observed projects, the Engineer shall accept the construction of the project as being completed according to the construction documents upon a similar justification by the City observer. The Engineer does not guarantee the performance of, and shall have no responsibility for, the acts or omissions of any contractor, subcontractor, suppHer or any other entity furnishing materials or performing any work on the project. If the City desires more extensive project observation or full.time project representation, the City shall request such services be provided by the Engineer as Additional Services in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. In this instance, the Engineer shall accept the construction of the project as being completed according to the construction documents. However, the Engineer does not guarantee the performance of, and shall have no responsibility for, the acts or omissions of any contractor, subcontractor, supplier or any other entity furnishing materials or performing any work on the project. ARTIClE 16 . INDEMNIFICATION The Etlghieer agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any damage, liability or cost (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of defense) to the extent caused by the Engineer's negligent acts, errors or omissions in the performance ofprofessional services under this Agreementand those of his or her subconsultants or anyone for whom the Engineer is legally liable. The City agrees to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify and hold the Engineer harmless from any damage, liabi1ity or cost (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of defense) to the extent caused by the City's negligent acts, errors or omissions and those ofhis or her contractors, subcontractors or consultants or anyone for whom the City is legally liable, and arising from the project that is the subject of this Agreement. Exlnbit A - General Contract Provisions K:\01701.o21Admin\CODlractlC_ 2tlO9\1!xb A.doc Page 2 WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC. EXHIBIT B DEFINITIONS B.1 HHOURL Y BASIS" means that the fee shall be determined by multiplying the number of hours of work performed, times the direct personnel cost for the appropriate labor classification shown on the fee schedule. B.2 HCONSTRUCTION COST" means the amount of the construction contract awarded for the improvement project, plus the value of any equipment, materials or supplies furnished by the City for installation or use by the construction contractor, plus any increases in the contract amount implemented by change order, supplemental agreement or other instrument subsequent to award of the contract. Reductions in the contract amount subsequent to award will not be a basis for reducing the fee. If a construction contract is not awarded, the construction cost shall be considered to be the engineer's estimated cost for the construction of the improvement project, as prepared for the bid opening, unless the City believes the engineer's estimate is unreasonable, in which case, the Engineer and the City shall agree upon an alternate basis for determining the construction cost. Such alternate basis may include negotiation, development of an independent estimate by a third party, or other means. B.3 HEXPENSES" means costs incurred in the performance of the services described herein or authorized by the City which are not direCt personnel costs or overhead costs. Expenses include long distance telephone charges, subconsultant fees, testing costs, outside reproduction and printing costs, equipment rental costs and similar costs. BA HLUMP SUM PRICE" means an amount negotiated between the City and Engineer for performance of the services specified in the Design Agreement which is subject to adjustment only if the Scope of Services changes or if circumstances beyond the control of the Engineer causes an increase in the cost of performance of the services. B.5 HDESIGN AGREEMENT" means a written order executed by an authorized representative of the City describing the scope of services and engineering fee arrangement for an improvement project. B.6 HIMPROVEMENT PROJECT" means public improvement projects authorized by the City and paid for with public funds. B.7 HDEDICATIONPROJECT" means those proposed improvement projects to be constructed by private funding for eventual dedication to the public. Exhtbit B - Definitions Pagel K.\01701.02\Admin\Conttact\Contract 2009\Exh B.doc WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC. EXHIBIT C SCOPE OF WORK GENERAL SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Engineer shall act as a representative of the City during the construction of City hnprovement Project No. 09-1: 2009 Pavement Management Project. Engineer shall also provide engineering and construction services that extend beyond this project at the direction of the City. The anticipated completion date for the scope of services provided below is October 31,2009. Subject to further clarification and refinement on an ongoing basis, the Engineer shall perform the following general tasks to the level and frequency directed by the City: C.l Consult with and advise the City and act as the City's representative. Engineer shall have a work station at the City and shall work at that station unless performing field duties related to the project. C.2 Attend the pre-construction meeting and weekly construction meetings for the project. Attend or direct additional meetings for engineering or construction purposes. C.3 Make contact and coordinate with City residents within the project area in order to implement the City's driveway replacement and sanitary sewer replacement program. Document all contacts and coordination for inclusion in the project files. C.4 Provide documentation, calculations and other services for preparation of preliminary and final assessment rolls. C.5 Visit the construction site at intervals determined by the City. Perform observation duties while on the project site. Observation duties may include, but not be limited to, project progress and compliance with the project specifications and contract documents. Duties shall not include evaluation of the contractor's safety methods. It is agreed that safety matters are the contractor's responsibility. The Engineer shall be obligated, however, to disclose known dangerous circumstances to the City. C.6 Review samples, schedules, shop drawings, the result oftests and inspections, and other data which the contractor is required to submit, but only for conformance with the design concept of the project and compliance with the information given in the contract documents. Such review shall not extend to means, methods, sequences, techniques, procedures of construction, or to safety precautions and programs incidental thereto. C.7 Issue instructions of the City to the contractor; issue necessary interpretations and clarifications of the contract documents, and in connection therewith prepare change orders as required for City's approval. Exhibit C - Scope of Work Page 1 PI\UTI'BRPROPOSALS\GoIden Va1le.y\2OO7 ComtNctloo SenrIc:a\!M C.doe WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC. EXHIBIT C SCOPE OF WORK C.8 Review the contractor's application for payment, determine the amount owing the contractor, and make recommendations to the City regarding the payment thereof. The Engineer's recommendations are based on on-site observations as an experienced and qualified design professional. The recommendations by the Engineer constitute a representation to the City that to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, the work has progressed to the point indicated on said application and the quality of work is in accordance with the contract documents, subject to the results of any subsequent test called for by the contract documents and any qualifications stated in his recommendations. C.9 Conduct, in the presence of the designated representative, a site visit to determine if the project is substantially complete, and conduct a final site visit to determine if the work has been completed in accordance with the contract documents. Such site visits may include representatives from the City and/or other involved governmental agencies. If the contractor has fulfilled all of his obligations, the Engineer shall give written notice to the City and the contractor that the work is acceptable for fmal payment. C.10 Furnish the City with a list detailing final quantities and costs, along with a written statement that to the best knowledge of the Engineer, the work is in compliance with the plans, specifications and change orders. C.II Additional services in connection with the project not otherwise provided for in this Agreement. Exhibit C - Scope of Work Page 2 P;\t.BI11!Il PROJ'OSAJ.S\Go1dcq VallqoUOD7 ComtruttlOQ Servlcllf\llM c.doc WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC. EXHIBIT D COMPENSATION The City shall pay the Engineer for Basic Services rendered on an hourly basis as mutually agreed to and deemed fair and reasonable for the particular work to be performed. Engineer's fee schedule for 2009 has not been established at this time. Prior to December 31, 2008, Engineer will provide the City with a fee schedule showing 2009 hourly rates for all pay categories. The rate schedule will be for 2009, and will remain in effect for services rendered through December 31, 2009. The fee schedule will be evaluated on an annual basis by the Engineer and adjusted to account for inflation and other factors. The Engineer will submit a revised fee schedule prior to December 31 on an annual basis. The following represents the compensation terms: D.l General City Engineering Duties Engineer will be compensated for these services based on the hourly rates listed in the fee schedule. Overtime hours shall be billed at the same rate as regular hours. Two different pay scales will be utilized: Senior Construction Observer and Construction Observer. A not-to-exceed fee has been estimated for these services based on anticipated project duration and level of effort. For estimating purposes, the following assumptions were made: Construction Observer: 26-week duration 40 regular plus 16 overtime hours per week $89 per hour (estimated rate) Weekly Rate, Construction Observer, (40+16) x $89.....................................$4,984 Estimated Fees, 26 x $4,984 .............................. ........................................$129,584 D.2 Receipt of Payment In order to receive payment for services, the Engineer shall submit monthly invoices describing in detail the services performed in accordance with this contract. The City shall pay Engineer upon receipt of each monthly invoice. The personnel who worked on the project shall be included. Invoices shall include daily reports detailing the time for each day that the individual was working on the project. All invoices will include the City representative who authorized the work. D.3 Expenses Engineer shall be reimbursed for reasonable expenses related to the scope of services of Exhibit D - Compensation Page I "UTI'ER PROPOSALS'/Joldoo Va1Iey\2007 Couotmotioa ~ D.doo this contract and/or individual projects. The Engineer shall be reimbursed for the actual cost of the expenses, without markup. Typical expenses include, but are not limited to, the following: · Plan and specification reproduction fees · Costs related to the development ofproject photos The following shall not be considered reimbursable expenses: · Mileage · Mobile phone usage · Computer equipment time · Preparation and reproduction of common correspondence · Mailing Exhibit D - Compensation Page 2 P:\LE.TtER PROPOSAl.S\GoJde.D VaDctl2007 ConsIructioD SeMoes'&h D.doo GENERAL LIABILITY Carrier: Type offusurance: Coverage: AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY Carrier: Type of Insurance: Coverage: WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC. EXHIBIT E INSURANCE SCHEDULE The Hartford Insurance Company Commercial General Liability General Aggregate Products-Comp/Ops Aggregate. Personal & Advertising Injury Each Occurrence The Hartford Insurance Company Hired Autos Non-Owned Autos Combined Single Limit WORKER'S COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Carrier: Coverage The Hartford fusurance Company Statutory Each Accident Disease-Policy Limit Disease-Each Employee PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY (ERRORS AND OMISSIONS) Carrier: Coverage: XL Specialty Insurance Company $2,000,000 each claim/$4,000,000 annual aggregate Certificates of Insurance will be provided upon request. $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Exhibit E - Insurance Schedule Page I of 1 K;101701-02\Admin1OmlractlComrac 2009lExh El.cIo<: II XcelEnergye Outdoor Lighting 825 Rice Street St. Paul, MN 55117 Construction Agreement For Street Lighting Facilities The City of Golden Vallev ("Customer") and Northem States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation d/b/a Xcel Energy ("Xcel Energy" or "Company") agree to this Construction Agreement for Street Lighting Facilities, including the attached Terms and Conditions, for the following street light facilities: Customer: City of Golden Valley Address: 7800 Golden Valley Road City: Golden Valley State: MN Zip Code: 554275 Project charges of: One hundred seventy three two hundred eighty five dollars and no/100 Dollars: $173,285 In accordance with the following terms of payment: Payment due 3~ ~ays after construction is complete For Association or City of: Golden Valley Streetlights/Facilities Location: Golden Valley 2009 Pavement Improvement Project - Rate Code: A30 Q - Prepay Option - Monthly street light fee - 100W HPS Traditional Fixture - $6.09. Service consisting of: Installation of Comoanv Owned streetliaht facilities consistina of: Desianation of LamDs: Number of Luminaries: 2009 Golden Vallev PMP 2009 -Remove/abandon old wire and poles. Plow/direct bore in approx. 10,800' of #6 AL Duplex in conduit and install 64-100W traditional fIXtures on 18' direct buried FG poles. Moving the following Company Owned street light facilities to a new location: N/A Construction orocess valid for 30 days from Auaust 2008 Customer and Xcel Energy agree to the attached terms and conditions for the installation and moving of the facilities identified above. Customer and Xcel Energy agree that the operation of the newly installed or moved facilities shall be subject to the General Street Lighting Contract for Operations & Maintenance Services between Customer and Xcel Energy, dated January 1, 1991. Dated this day of City of Golden Valley 20 Dated this day of 20 Customer. Xcel Energy: By: By: Title: Stephen R. Foss, Director Business Operations - Minnesota as authorized agent for Northern States Power Co. Title: XCEL ENERGY USE ONLY Date: October 28, 2008 Edward P Bie in Jr. Div: Minneapoll s Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc. August 2006 Page 1 of 5 II Xcel Energy- Outdoor Lighting 825 Rice Street St. Paul, MN 55117 TERMS AND CONDITIONS Customer and Company agree to the following terms and conditions: 1. Acceptance. Execution of this Agreement constitutes Customer's acceptance of the express terms of Company's proposal and the offer contained therein, which are included and incorporated into this Agreement. Any additional or different terms proposed by Customer, or any attempt by Customer to vary in any degree any of the terms in this Agreement in Customer's acceptance, are hereby objected to and rejected, and (i) such additional or different terms shall not operate as a rejection of the incorporation of the Company's proposal in this Agreement unless such variances are with respect to terms involving the description, quantity, or delivery schedule of the Work to be performed by Company as described in Company's proposal f'the Work" means the supplying of any labor, materials, or any other work of Company expressly described in Company's proposal); (ii) such additional or different terms shall be deemed a material alteration hereof; and (iii) Company's proposal shall be deemed accepted by Customer and incorporated into this Agreement without said additional or different terms. 2. Request for Installation; Rights. Customer requests that Company install outdoor lighting at the location(s) designated on page one and/or as shown on the attached exhibit. Customer grants Company any right, privilege and easement to install, operate and maintain its facilities, including underground facilities, on the property. 3. Installation Requirements. Customer agrees that, prior to Company starting work: (1) the route of Company's service installation shall be accessible to Company's equipment; (2) Customer will remove all obstructions from the route at no cost or expense to Company; (3) Customer will clearly mark all septic tanks, drain-fields, sprinkler systems, water wells, owner-installed electric or pipeline facilities, or other Customer-owned facilities in the installation route; and (4) the ground elevation along the route shall not be above or more than four inches below the final grade. Company will contact the appropriate agency to locate 3rd party utility facilities (phone, cable, etc.) on Customer property. Customer agrees Company is not responsible for damage to Customer-owned underground facilities not marked at the time of outdoor lighting service installation. 4. Installation Cost Contribution. Customer agrees to pay an installation cost contribution provided in Project Charges on page one. Customer is responsible for any additional installation costs incurred by Company because of (1) soil conditions that impair the installation of underground facilities, such as rock formations, etc., and (2) sidewalks, curbing, black top, paving, sod or other landscaping and obstructions along the cable route, such as extensive existing underground facilities, etc. 5. Winter Construction Charges. When underground facilities are installed between October 1 and April 15, inclusive, because of failure of Customer to meet all requirements of the Company by September 30, or because the Customer's property, or the streets leading thereto, are not ready to receive the underground facilities by such date, such work will be subject to a Winter Construction Charge when winter conditions of six inches or more of frost exist, snow removal or plowing is required to install service, or burners must be set at the underground facilities in order to install service for the entire length of the underground service. Winter construction will not be undertaken by the Company where prohibited by law or where it is not practical to install underground facilities during the winter season. The charges apply to frost depths of 18" or less. At greater frost depths, the Company may individually determine the job cost. The Company also reserves the right to charge for any unusual winter construction expenses. All winter construction charges are non-refundable and are in addition to any normal construction charges. 6. Schedule; Delays. Quoted shipping and completion dates are approximate and are based on prompt receipt of all necessary information and approvals from Customer and access as required by Company and its contractors or subcontractors (if any) to the site and to the equipment which is the subject of this Agreement. If Company's performance is delayed by Customer's suspension of work, in whole or in part. or by any act or omission of Customer, the time for performance will be extended by the period of time required by Company to return to the state of performance that existed before the delay. If the delay or suspension continues for sixty (60) days, Company has the right to cancel or renegotiate the Agreement. Customer will pay an equitable adjustment based on a claim submitted by Company for all reasonable costs, damages and expenses incurred by Company incident to the delay or suspension. Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation and wholly owned subSidiary of Xcel Energy Inc. August 2006 Page 2 of 5 tl XcelEnergy- Outdoor Lighting 825 Rice Street St. Paul, MN 55117 7. Changes. The prices for any extras or changes to the scope of the Work or modifications to the payment or performance schedule will be agreed upon in writing before either party will be obligated to proceed with such changes. Performance of any change will not waive any claims for equitable adjustment in price or schedule. 8. Relocating Facilities. Customer agrees to pay the cost of relocating any portion of facilities, including underground facilities, to accommodate Customer or as required due to altering of grade, additions to structures, installation of patios, decks, gardens, sidewalks, curbing, paving, blacktop, sod, landscaping or any other condition which makes maintenance of the Company's facilities impractical. 9. Environmental. Prior to the start of the Work, Customer will provide notice of any hazardous materials or hazardous situations that it is aware of with respect to the facilities where the Work is to be performed or that could affect the Work. In the event Company encounters the existence of asbestos, asbestos containing materials, formaldehyde, lead, or potentially toxic or otherwise hazardous .materlal in the performance of the Work, the discovery thereof shall constitute a cause beyond' Company's reasonable control and Company shall have the right to cease or not commence the Work until the area has been made safe by Customer or Customer's representative, at Customer's expense. 10. Restoration. Company will restore any excavation of the boulevard on Customer's property with existing soil so it is level and clean. Customer is responsible for the final compacting, loam, seeding, sod or watering of the boulevard at Customer's expense unless otherwise noted on page one of this Agreement. 11. Additional Charges. In addition to the project charges on page one of this Agreement, Company shall be compensated for any added costs of performing the Work attributable to anyone or more of the following: (i) any and all extras and change orders and any and all other additional work mutually agreed by Customer and Company; (Ii) any and all costs and expenses related to asbestos or other environmental matters, any unforeseen conditions or any changes in the law; and (iii) any and all added costs and expenses of performing the Work attributable to any change by Customer in the criteria or information for the facility or to any delay or breach by Customer or its subcontractors. 12. Operations; Maintenance. Customer requests and authorizes Company to provide illumination and maintain the street lighting facilities under the Terms and Conditions as described in Customer's General Street Ughting Contract for Operations & Maintenances Services with Company, which shall be effective upon the completion date of the street light installation. 13. Payments. Unless otherwise specified in Company's proposal, Company may at its option invoice Customer upon completion of the Work or invoice Customer on a monthly basis for construction work performed under this Agreement. Customer shall pay Company all invoiced amounts within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice. 14. Termination. Customer may terminate the Agreement only upon written notice to Company and payment to Company for all (i) services and Work rendered or performed to the effective date of such termination; (ii) materials, supplies and equipment purchased prior to the effective date of such termination; and (iii) costs incurred by Company as a result of such termination. 15. Warranties. Company shall perform the Work in a safe and professional manner in accordance with all applicable codes, standards, regulations and laws. Company shall repair, replace or correct to Customer's satisfaction all faulty or substandard work or defects in materials which appear within ninety (90) days from the date of completion of the Work. Acceptance of the Work or payment by Customer shall not affect this obligation. THE WARRANTIES SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT ARE EXCLUSIVE AND IN LIEU OF ALL STATUTORY OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES (INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR ANY IMPUED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE). 16. Limitation of Remedies. IN NO EVENT. WHETHER BASED ON CONTRACT. INDEMNITY. WARRANTY. TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE). STRICT LIABILITY OR OTHERWISE. SHALL COMPANY BE LIABLE TO CUSTOMER FOR SPECIAL. INDIRECT. INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION. LOSS OF PROFITS OR REVENUE. In no event whatsoever shall Company ever be liable to Customer for any damages or other amounts (including, without limitation, direct or actual damages), whether arising in contract or tort (including, without limitation, negligence) or otherwise, under or Northem States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc. August 2006 Page 3 of 5 II JCceIEnergy-' Outdoor Lighting 825 Rice Street St. Paul, MN 55117 in connection with this Agreement or the Work, in an amount, in the aggregate, in excess of the total price paid for the Work; any and all claims for damages in excess of such amount being hereby forever waived and released by Customer; provided, however, that nothing contained in this sentence shall waive or limit any direct damages which Customer may suffer on account of Company's gross negligence or willful misconduct. 17. Force Majeure. Neither party will be liable to the other for any delay or failure to perform due to any cause beyond its reasonable control, including fire, flood, strike or other labor difficulty, act of God, or act of any govemmental authority. The party experiencing the force majeure will notify the other party promptly, and appropriate adjustments will be negotiated. In the event of delay in performance due to force majeure, the date of delivery or time for completion will be extended by a period of time reasonably necessary to overcome the effect of such delay, provided that if such delay continues for 60 days the party not experiencing the force majeure may terminate this Agreement. 18. Document Approval. Company may request that Customer review documents developed by Company for conformity with Customer requirements or specifications. Unless Customer advises Company otherwise in writing within fifteen (15) days after Company's submission, Company may consider the documents approved and proceed with work. Changes thereafter, made at the direction of Customer, will entitle Company to adjustment by change order. 19. Documentation and Proprietary Information. Customer will provide Company with accurate and complete information in order to permit Company to successfully undertake and complete the Work. Company shall not be prohibited from disclosure or use of proprietary or confidential information or documents necessary for Company to secure or maintain in effect any license or permit, or otherwise to complete the Work. Where Customer information is incomplete or incorrect, resulting in delay or extra work, Company will be entitled to adjustment by change order. 20. Work Product. All reports, drawings, plans, specifications, calculations, studies, software programs, tapes, models and memoranda, if any, assembled or prepared by Company or Company's affiliates, independent professional associates, agents, consultants, contractors or subcontractors pursuant to this Agreement are instruments of service in respect of the Work, and Company shall retain all ownership and property interest therein, whether or not the Work is completed. Customer may make and retain copies for information and reference in connection with the Work; provided, however, that it is understood and agreed that such documents are not intended to be re-used by Customer or others on extensions of the project or on any other project or any other purpose other than as expressly set forth in this Agreement, and Customer shall not re-use or disclose to any third party all or any portion of such work product without the express prior written consent of Company. 21. Customer Facilities. Company does not assume any responsibility for the adequacy, safety or satisfactory performance of Customer's facilities. Customer shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, indemnify, defend and hold harmless Company and its officers, directors, agents, employees, and representatives from and against any and all losses, claims, damages, expenses (including attomeys' fees and costs) arising, for any reason whatsoever, out of the failure, non-operation or faulty performance of Customer's facilities (except to the extent of Company's gross negligence or willful misconduct). 22. Subcontracting. Company may subcontract any portion or all of the Work without the approval of Customer. 23. Independent Contractor. Nothing contained in this Agreement nor any acts of the parties shall be construed to create the relationship of principal and agent, or of limited or general partner, or of joint venture or of any association between or among the parties to this Agreement, except that of owner and independent contractor. 24. Title; Rights of Access~ Customer warrants that it has fee simple title to the property. Customer hereby grants to Company the right to enter and improve the real property for the purposes stated herein. 25. OWnership. Customer shall acquire no right, title or interest in any portion of the Work or Company's equipment or facilities placed in, on, over, through and/or under the real property by Company. The Work constructed and installed by Company on the real property of Customer shall be and mean the personal property of Company, shall not be considered a fixture of the property, shall not attach to the realty, and shall not be alienable or lienable by Customer or any other party. Further, Company may remove, repair and replace the Work and its component system and equipment at any time without notice in Company's sole and absolute discretion. Northem States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc. August 2006 Page 4 of 5 fl XcelEnergr Outdoor Lighting 825 Rice Street St. Paul, MN 55117 26. Other. It is agreed that failure by Customer or by Company at any time or from time to time to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement shall not be construed to be a waiver of such provision or of Customer's right or Company's righf, respectively, to thereafter enforce each and every provision hereof. This Agreement contains, with respect to the specific services to be performed by Company, the entire understanding of the parties, and shall supersede any other oral or written agreements and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' successors and assigns. This Agreement may not be modified in any way without the written consent of both parties. If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court to be unenforceable, then such provision will be deemed null and void but the remaining provisions shall be enforceable according to their terms. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Minnesota (as opposed to conflicts of laws provisions) as though all acts and omissions contemplated hereby or related hereto occurred in Minnesota. No course of prior dealing, usage of trade and course of performance shall be used to modify, supplement or explain any terms of this Agreement. Neither Party.will assign or otherwise transfer its rights or obligations hereunder, in whole or in part, without the advance written consent of the other. Notwithstanding the above, Company may assign its rights or obligations to any of its affiliates without the written consent of Customer. 27. Governing Law. The Terms and Conditions provided herein and the rights of all the parties hereunder shail be construed under and governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc. August 2006 Page 5 of 5 alley Me oran um Public Works 763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 3, 2008 Agenda Item 3. F. ~010 Pavement Management Program 1. Request Feasibility Report 2. Authorize Agreement with Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. for Professional Services Prepared By Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Summary The proposed Pavement Management Program (PMP) for 2010 includes reconstruction of approximately 2.7 miles of local streets. The streets within the project area are generally in poor condition. Streets within the proposed project area are listed below: . Cutacross Road: Meander Road to Ski Hill Road . Edgewood Avenue North: Glenwood Avenue to Westchester Circle . Georgia Avenue North: Glenwood Avenue to Westchester Circle . Harold Avenue: Idaho Avenue North to cul-de-sac . Idaho Avenue North: cul-de-sac to Olson Memorial Frontage Road (south) . Kingston Circle: Idaho Avenue North to cul-de-sac . Meander Road: Glenwood Avenue to Cutacross Road (w.est) . Olson Memorial Frontage Road (south): Douglas Drive to Glenwood Avenue . Olson Memorial Frontage Road (south): cul-de-sac to 375 feet east of Schaper Drive . Paisley Lane: Glenwood Avenue to Cutacross Road . Pomander Walk: Paisley Lane to cul-de-sac . Ski Hill Road: Paisley Lane to cul-de-sac . Westchester Circle: Olson Memorial Frontage Road (east) to Olson Memorial Frontage Road (west) . Windy Draw: Ski Hill Road to cul-de-sac If the City Council authorizes staff to proceed with the preparation of a feasibility report, staff will begin the preliminary work required for project development. The administration of the 2010 PMP will be performed by City staff. A letter proposal for the preliminary design of the 2010 PMP has been received from the consulting engineering firm of Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH). The proposed preliminary design services include preliminary survey; geotechnical review and recommendation; traffic and water resource engineering; public participation; preparation of a feasibility report; and completion of construction plans, specifications, and bidding documents. The estimated cost for these professional engineering services is not to exceed $465,200 as outlined in the attached proposal from SEH dated October 25, 2008. The public participation and preliminary engineering services portions of the project will begin shortly after the Council's authorization of the feasibility report and the SEH professional services contract. Attachments Map of 2010 Pavement Management Program (1 page) Resolution Ordering Preparation of Report for 2010 Pavement Management Program (1 page) Proposal letter dated October 25, 2008, from SEH to Jeannine Clancy (10 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Ordering Preparation of Report for 2010 Pavement Management Program. Motion to authorize entering into an agreement for professional engineering services with SEH in an amount not to exceed $465,200. .-. D. :E D. ~ :E ~ C) o ~ D. I- Z w :E w C) <C z <C :E I- Z w :E w ~ D. o ~ o N I- - In - ::I: >< W ru ..J ..J ~.~ z:E Wz Co ..J_ 01- C)<C u.O og ~ - o Resolution 08-52 November 3, 2008 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF REPORT FOR 2010 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, it is proposed to reconstruct the streets listed below and to assess the benefited properties pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 for the following streets: 2010 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT STREET LIST: · Cutacross Road: Meander Road to Ski Hill Road . Edgewood Avenue North: Glenwood Avenue to Westchester Circle . Georgia Avenue North: Glenwood Avenue to Westchester Circle . Harold Avenue: Idaho Avenue North to cul-de-sac . Idaho Avenue North: cul-de-sac to Olson Memorial Frontage Road (south) . Kingston Circle: Idaho Avenue North to cul-de-sac . Meander Road: Glenwood Avenue to Cutacross Road (west) . Olson Memorial Frontage Road (south): Douglas Drive to Glenwood Avenue . Olson Memorial Frontage Road (south): cul-de-sac to 375 feet east of Schaper Drive . Paisley Lane: Glenwood Avenue to Cutacross Road . Pomander Walk: Paisley Lane to cul-de-sac . Ski Hill Road: Paisley Lane to cul-de-sac . Westchester Circle: Olson Memorial Frontage Road (east) to Olson Memorial Frontage Road (west) . Windy Draw: Ski Hill Road to cul-de-sac NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota that the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer for study and that he is instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvements are feasible and as to whether they should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvements, and the estimated cost of the improvements as recommended. 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. ~ SEH October 25, 2008 RE: Golden Valley 2010 Pavement Management Program SBH No. GOLDVI05949 Jeannine Oancy Director of Public Works City of Golden Valley 3400 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Dear Jeannine: Thank you for the opportunity to provide professional services to the City of Golden Valley for 2010 Street Improvement Program. We are happy to see the success of the program continue to grow over the years. This letter serves as the Supplemental Letter Agreement in accordance with the Agreement for Professional Services between the City of Golden Valley and SBH. Background The City of Golden Valley proposes to rehabilitate approximately 2.7 miles of local streets in 2010. The streets proposed for improvements are located in the central part of the City, south of TH 55. The project area is bounded on the east by the CP Rail, on the north by TH 55, and on the south and east by Glenwood Avenue (CSAH40). Harold Avenue from Glenwood Avenue, west to Winnetka Avenue and Rhode Island from Harold to the cul-de-sac will not be part of the 2010 project. Three of the streets, Kingston Circle, Idaho Avenue and Harold Avenue are currently paved with concrete. Scope of Work Preliminary Survey SEH will provide preliminary survey services for the streets within the project area, described above. The proposed survey work will include obtaining vertical and horizontal control, available property comer and monument control. and the gathering of topographic, profile and x-section information. Public Involvement The public involvement approach to this project is expected to consist of assisting the City with an initial newsletter to introduce the project to the neighborhood and one open house format meeting. SBH will assist the City by providing both exhibits and staff at the public involvement open house proposed at the end of preliminary design. The exhibits for the open house will consist of City supplied aerial photography on which the project area is illustrated and preliminary design layouts prepared by SEH. We have also included time to prepare 3 to 4 large graphic boards. The City will provide sign in sheets, comment cards and other information iiJ .project folders. At this time, we have assumed that Sue Mason. the Project Manager, Brad Reifsteck, Project Engineer and Mike Kotila, Traffic Engineer will be present at the open houses. . The purpose of the open house will be to present the preliminary design . layouts and answer any follow up questions. This meeting is expected to be held toward the end of the preliminary design phase of the project. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, St. Paul. MN 55110.5196 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.comI651.490.2000 I 800.325.2055 I 651.490.2150 fax Jeannine Clancy October 25. 2008 Page 2 For the purpose of this proposal. we have included time for the PM, or another staff member (as needed) to attend three issue specific meetings. tl1at may be necessary in the improvement project area. ProJed CcmununieatiQnIM~ngs We propose to attend a kick off meeting with Public Works staff at the begiJDling of the project. The purpose of this meeting will be to plan the public process, check in once more with the scope and schedule, receive direction. and assign tasks. We have included a number of staff meetings in the scope, expecting to hold monthly progress meetings for the majority of the project and then meetings twice a 11'lOnth during the final. design phase. We believe consistent design team meetings will provide good timing for feedback and critical to keeping the design, schedule and design budget on track. Geotechnical Street Analysis and JtepQrt . SEll's geotechnical engineers will be providing the geotechnical boring coordination. evaluation and technical assistance with the project. They will coordinate the boring locations and material testing program, sub grade and pipe bedding reco~ndations.. SEH will review the subsurface materials and borings. identify potential problems, develop an additional boring program (if necess.ary) and make recommendations based upon the information that is available. The recomntendations will be summarized in a memo for your information and project file. Soil borings and Lab Testing services will be performed by AET and subcontracted by SEH. Sub watershed Water Quality Investigation The project area is in the Sweeney Lake District Surface water for those streets located on the westerly part of the project is disc~ged through a series of ponds and low areas to Courtlawn Pond. The storm sewer system is much more developed for the streets between Paisley Lane and Meander Road, whicb is then discharged toward the CP Rail line and into Glen Pond. The street improvements are expected to be of urban design with concrete curb and gutter and storm sewer. The preliminary design phase will. provide sizing and outlet locations for the discharge. Design of storm water ponds is not anticipated for this area, however. discharge of storm sewer into low areas and backYard drainage areas will need to be reviewed and evaluated. Opportunities for inline treatment and downstream system impacts and will be reviewed. Sidewalks and Trails While the street reconstruction area is in a small residential area, it is bounded by collector streets providing good continuity and connections for multi-modal facilities. The most recent trail plan show~ : trail recommendations along the Frontage Road south ofTH 55. Tbere is also a trail recoD1111eJ)dation r,: the north side of Glenwood Avenue, although this is a County Road. The design team will review an~'...' evaluate the Frontage Road trail in the preliminary de.sign and make a recomntendation to the City. TraftidIntersectiQll Ianprovements , The City is currently reviewing traffic related concems at streets in the project area at Georgia A~~ Edgewood Avenue. and Westchester Circle. The discussion with concerns neighbors willlikeIYC(!)Jltin~e . into the design considerations for the project. In. addition. the recently completed transp~()fipl~tl includes a short term reconnnendation for an intersection safety improvement a.t the intersection of Glenwood Avenue and the TH 55. south frontage road, which is in the project area. The design team will review the intersection geometry and evaluate the options available for improvements. Jeannine Clancy October 25, 2008 Page 3 Additional time has been budgeted. to assist the City with minor/miscellaneous traffic issues as they arise during the project. SEH can anticipa~ answering questions regarding signage, constrUction staging, traffic calming etc. Prellmi~ry, Final Design and Plan Preparation SEH will prepare preliminary street and utility design for the area. Existing profiles and alignments will be reviewed and optimized for drainage, stOrm sewer added as needed, and driveway grades reviewed and improved if possible. The condition of the water main and sanitary. seWer is not known at this time, but we included time for some replacement and repairs if needed in addition to the routine maintenance and adjustments because of the JleW construction. The plans will be prepared according to City standards in City format and submitted to the City staff for review and approval. Project Team Mike Kotila, traffic engineer will participate in the public involvement activities and other traffic related matters. Other technical experts may be called upon to participate in meetings, depending onilie issues that are brought forth by residents and other stakeholders. Sue Mason and Brad Reifsteck will join the team to attend the project staff meetings and Neighborhood Open Houses as needed. Brad Reifsteck is assigned to the project as the Project Engineer, providing preliminary and final design, concrete evaluation and technical production work. Ron Farmer will provide the geotechnical analysis and evaluation for the 2010 program. Deric Deuschle, wetland specialist, will provide technical assistance in the area of Bassett Creek Watershed permitting if required. Schedule We expect to begin working on the preliminary survey immediately upon authorization. The subsurface soils investigation field work will begin this fall as well. The feasibility report is anticipated. for FebruarylMarch 2009, with final design and plans following in the spring and summer of 2009. The first open house is expected to be held in February, prior to publishing and presenting the feasibility report. The actual date for the public hearing has not yet been determined, however, it is understood that the meetings wiU be held in ApriJlMay 2009. Final plans will be ready for letting in late fall 2009. The individual meetings, traffic studies, and concept work will occur over the spring and summer of 2009. Compensation SEH proposes to be compensated. for the scope of work proposed in this. Agreement on an hourly basis. C'Ompensation will be ~sed On the hourly cost of personnel plus reimbursable expenses. including reproductions, mileage and ~uipment. We have estimated the services described above to Cost a totalQf $465.200. We evaluated the cost of the work compared to the estimated constrUction cost. .~ engineering services for the SEa portion of the project and prorated percentages of the overall work'~lt as preliminary services represents 7.75% of the estimated construction cost of 2.7 miles of l0C4l construction of $6,000,000. This appears to be in a typical range of services required for s~y projects with public involvement and traffic and drainage study. The personlhour task budgetsf(:)Ii~h. phase Of the work are attached. The sumtnary of engineering services is as follows: Preliminary Survey Public Involvement and Meetings Geotechnical Services AET Drilling and Testing Services Drainage and Water Quality Analysis Preliminary Design & Feasibility Report $ S3,OOO $ 33,200 $ 20,400 $ 14,600 $ 16,000 $ 120,000 Jeannine Clancy October 25, 2008 Page 4 Final Design & Plan Preparation $ 208.000 $ 465,200 Total Estimated Engineering Fees This agree:ment is an understanding of the project to date. If this document satisfactorily sets forth you understanding of our agreement, please sign in the space below and return one copy to our office. We look forward to working with you, your staff and the community on this project. Thanks for the opportunity to continue to work with the City of Golden Valley. Respectively submitted, SHORT ELLIOIT HENDRICKSON INC. .^"' "'VlJ1 lA. _ ~.-:--~. .. / , l r'~ an . MaSon, P.E. Pri pal Approved this day of ,2008 City of Golden Valley, Minnesota By C: Mike Kotila, Ron Farmer .:\fj\c1goIdvloommo.\propo8aIs\IeI........._2010.doc 2018 Pavemen' Management Project .Prelimlna!'y ~""VlPata CoI18llt1011 Origlllll Survey Data (.ASC Fol'l1l80, Structure Survey 01111I PmJW Spedalty p~ SdeRtlsII WIri Task IlurYer Coord ....d $vrvey Qew FlJtiIllatlli" MillIlpr IlIlJl_r Ji)JgJl,.S A_ Tedmleian ..-.... A. PriIIInlln-. Ho~ntal Control 8 Vertical Control 16 Cornel1MoOUffienl.Search 30 Tooo-Proflle.ofO$s Sections 74 $1rucIure S\JN~ 8 80 Oata Tr~ to SotbNare/CQorclinates 16 16 Coordirlation 2 SU,ye" Rnrinn" 8 B. Private utllltv survev CoordInatiOn ~ & SUrvev 2 16 20 . . Total hours 296 16 4 24 80 172 Project labor CDS' this phas, $48,572 Equipment tIIMrgf1S SUrvey \lehlCIe $648 MIIIlIIge S540 Sunrey Equipment $3,200 MiscellaneOUS $40 ua.mtll .n \\SpIDes1\spli\FJ\GoIdv\050300\exceI\PDS-2006-PMP.xls 10121/2008 Public Involvement Mee1intlS. Exhibits. Design COotdlnatlori Meetfngs TraIlk '.1 WAle. StJedoII.,. SdemlstI Word Tut Resource Lead lllaIr~ IllIllI-r Mlllacer 'EIIal_ EIJ&lueer TeduIidul ~ A. Publlc InvoIVInl8III staff kick off} 3 3 3 3 1 PubliC Hearlna 3 3 Council Worl<$hoo 3 3 1 _Hou~11meetina) 8 6 8 4 8 4 Individual eel 8 a 2 1 AQdll/onalNeIghtxlrf:J(j , 9 9 a 4 1 lB. P!8DlIIe &xhIbits Council Hearing 6 6 8 4 Opjm HollSe . Aerials 2 20 PmenlaJlon Boafl.1s 2 8 16 a Power Point Presentation 4 4 16 Traffic Meetlr\a& 6 8 2 C. WriUenCommufllc:at/Ons NeW6letler Articles 4 8 12 8 8 MiscelIaneOU$ 8 \) ToIel hours 290 50 64 21l 43 32 54 18 Projftct .bor cost this phase $31,984 Equlp~t charges Mllealle $650 Expenses $86 Repn;IductIonJ $SOO Tot., p~ COBt "* flIsk m.2QI! Un\qJle COIIIpIlIllllltll or .118~' Eatlmate Includes revllrion of 6 presenbltion boards. Hand- out copies of all boards. power point presentation. various exhlbltsllluslfatlng technlcal8upporllng IntOrmatlon S:\FJ\G\Goldv\Common\proposals\Flnal Oe$ign Hours Worksheel2010PMP,xls 10127/2008 zu10 Pfw",."t.,.gem.nt Pf'O/fICl . "I8OI8CI1illCal Study allQ Il!Hf$In ~otachillCet Report, Recommendations Sr. GeoIeclI SdeIIIlslI SUdf Word Task ...... ~ I'rqjt!d Leal! EflgInew ~"'aer ~ !lIlgJL8 Aida ~ TeeIlRldan "- . . .. .i' .' ....Ci A. Street RecommeildatlotlS GlIOloav Marls, Plan I n 4 Drive Streets IdentifvProblein$ MarkBOrinas 4 Ea- 4 s\ll:rConsultann VI at Driller's Lab Plot I '-:: ~ Profiles 4 6 8 SUbarade Aecommendatlons 8 4 Reoort 20 2 8 4 8 Plans & Soecs 12 2 12 4 3 MeeIlnas 10 MIsceIIanous Geotechnical 5lIPPOrt 8 . '.','.. ,. '. Total hours 135 88 4 20 12 0 0 11 Project labor ~ this PhItae $18,319 Equip,.. -1'fI8I1 MI"'ge $104 OIherISubs $14,600 Ml$celleneous $977 I3.5JUlIl UnlqJll! CDfIlpftftAftt8 Dr ....Ulftt)tlans: AET 1t18Ubcontracted S:\FJ\G\Goldv\Common\proposals\Flnal Design Hours Worksheet 2010PMP.Kls 1012712008 ~Oft) Ptlvement."',.,...m PfO/eCf. DrIIlf/agfland Water ~11ty ANliY$lS Drainage Report, teChnicallnforrnatlon for Pul:lllc invoIvemllnt PreUmlnary Costs Sr. Wa.... Wale1' Res. Sr. Lead Atl.....; SlImy Task ~ ~ B~ T..tmIdu TedmIdalI AIlSIsIaDl Crew -- A. pata CoIlecIionaodRflvieW e B. Drain 20 C.~lklationofeaokYa~AreaS 8 20 D. n 16 Eo PrQIiln. . lonsof.ProbabIe Cost 8 f. Ora 2 12 4 8 4 G. Permit$ for Pond1Lake Modifications 4 20 8 2 ofal hours 2 76 44 16 6 ProJect .bor~ 1hlspl1ase $15.672 Sq!lipment dWges Mlleege $140 ReprodUoUon $162 PhoIoProceasing $26 Tofal prt1Jet:t /mBt fhIII phfte I.WIID UnIqJIe ~or..s~lan.: The worI( required for pondlll9fwater quaUIty wUI not be developed until after the preUrnloary invesligation l2mo PaVement ~ PrOject- Prelmlnarv o.tltgn & FeasblUty Report 11~17 e~blIa for report, ~nary desijJn 8ketchetl afld layouts, leaablllty repOrt, prellminary CO$tI Pro.I~ 'I'Qllte ~ SdtatIsII StaIr ~ Task Load MaIIRger ~. EaJ.ILS Arch T....lIidall ~I\h ~r . " A. Prellml . Roedwav TVDlnA11lecllons 2 4 8 HoriZontal and deeIM 2 24 24 Centeflln& r>Ynrdes 4 20 40 Frontaae Road Trail 8 16 16 16 SI"Weeklv Meeif.;ftAl6 monthS" 48 32 48 40 l' B. P~rvora n DrllinaaaAreas 4 24 Pfelim Storm Sewer 16 48 92 40 C. PnlIImlnarv UIIHtv Deskin SumtlA 2 20 32 Sewer 4 20 40 Water 4 20 ~ I). Tratftc 8tudieI Westcll$ster, EdoewDod. Geomia 4 32 16 16 TH 55 ami Fronlagll Roali 4 32 16 40 ~ 40 8 18 16 40 40 80 P....llIlinery eos.Estlmate 16 16 40 4C " . 0Ia1 hours 1216 174 104 332 200 376 30 ProJet;I labor ClOSt this phase $119,278 Equipment .,.,.. fJllle9 $222 ReprOduetlon $500 Mltcen.naoua TatlJ'~_thlstMk $12OJIDO Jjntqpa IllllllpoftAftt8 or ...umpUaM; Scope of W(lI'k for traffic ami trail work wiD be de.ermil\ed by preliminary studies and investigations S:\FJ\G\Goldv\Common\proposals\Final Design Hours Worksheet 2010PMP.xls 1012712008 2010 Ps~t M~nt PrDjeCl- Final De8iOn" PIIn Preparation Dellyerables; 11x11 plant ..lid epees for IeView and Permit aJ2pflcalkms. Plant and apecJflc4ltIons for BIdding l5ngI""I..u""Je p~ Spoeiallt)' I'rojt:ei SdedIslI S1.8' W4ll'd Teak Lead Me....... EngIneer Ilag.Il.$ ArdJ ~ 1\!ClIalcllln l'~ , A. Detal,IDeslan - Roadway finalize tvDical $8Olions 4 16 a finalize horlzontal8hd MllITIetriC dmoItm 4 12 20 Flnallz&centarllnEl nrtIflles 4 20 40 Final cross sections and earthwoJk 4 eo WElEikl 6 months 96 16 00 48 2A lB. Permit I A_v Cclordlnatlon PreIlllr8 Mrmlt amlleat{ons to: MSA, BasSett Creek WaterShed DNR USCOE 4, 8 4 4C 8 " C. Pl'8DlIre Alnhtof efttrVis 16 8 16 ~ D. FfniI PreDare final storrtlsewet dMlftn 4 40 130 E. Plan Tille sheet 2 4 Tvillcal secIlons 4 2 16 standafdDlates and JabulatiOils 2 8 16 DeJalls 4 16 16 Plan and Profile 4 40 40 40 SkmIna and AIrinInn 2 20 20 Turf EsJablishrnent and Erosion ConttoI Sheets 4 24 24 UtIIllIes 4 40 80 40 Cross sections 8 20 80 Contour Plan -211 20 40 F. ..nom... ,Eatlmate lo..llIltY Takeoff Street 8 20 40 40 40 G. Streel8 eo 20 20 12 ,'</ ',' < . . I ToJaI hours 1648 238 124 486 592 176 52 ProjlU:f 1abor1JOSt_ phQe $2OS.964 Equlplllflllt.",.. Mif8age S4SO Reproductton $1,500 MllICleIIaneoue .- IZOBJlQD S:\FJ\G\Gok:lv\Commonlproposals\Flnal DesIgn Hours Wor/sShee12010PMP,xls 10/2712008 Memorandu Police Department 763-593-8079 I 763-593-8098 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 3, 2008 Agenda Item 3. G. Authorization to Sign the Hennepin County Violent Offender Task Force Co-operative Agreement Prepared By Stacy Altonen, Chief of Police Summary The Golden Valley Police Department desires to enter into an agreement with the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office to join the Hennepin County Violent Offender Task Force. This agreement would enhance the ability of the Police Department to effectively conduct investigations and enforcement activities through a partnership with agencies with advanced intelligence-gathering resources and experience; specifically, in regards to violent crimes. The Task Force will be comprised of at least one member from each participating agency and members will serve a minimum term of one year. The Task Force Commander(s) will direct investigative and enforcement activities based on intelligence provided by Task Force members, with priority given to case investigations that directly impact the member cities. The Violent Offender Task Force was formed in 2007, and currently has officers assigned from the Brooklyn Park Police Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The next step towards joining this partnership is for each agency's director/governing council to sign a Co-operative agreement. The Council is asked to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Hennepin County Violent Offender Task Force Co-operative Agreement. Attachments Hennepin County Violent Offender Task Force Co-operative Agreement (11 pages) Recommended Action Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Hennepin County Violent Offender Task Force Co-operative Agreement. HENNEPIN COUNTY VIOLENT OFFENDER TASK FORCE CO-OPERATIVE AGREEMENT The parties to this Co-operative Agreement are units of government responsible for the enforcement of laws in their respective jurisdictions. The parties desire to work cooperatively in the enforcement of violent offender laws including but not limited to the enhancements and crimes set forth in Minnesota Statutes S 609.1095, and, for that purpose, are hereby forming the Hennepin County Violent Offender Task Force. \ The undersigned governmental units, in the co-operative and mutual exercise of their powers, agree as follows: 1. Name. The name of the co-operative powers entity shall be the Hennepin County Violent Offender Task Force. (HCVOTF). 2. Defmitions: a. Officer '- means a peace officer, employed by a Member, who is assigned to the Task Force and has been approved by the Task Force Commander(s). b. Board - means the governing board of the Task Force. c. Fiscal Agent - Hennepin County agrees to perform this function during the initial term of this Agreement. d. Member - means a governmental unit that is a signatory to this Agreement or a counterpart. e. Task Force - means the Hennepin County Violent Offender Task Force. f. Task Force Commanders - means one (1) supervisor from the Hennepin County Sheriffs Office. The original Task Force Commanders will be assigned by HCSO without Board action, but subsequent replacements shall be nominated and voted on by the Board. g. Non-Voting Member - means the Hennepin County Attorney's Office or the United States Attorney's Office. 3. Members. The initial Members of the Task Force are the following governmental units: Hennepin County Sheriffs Office Brooklyn Park Police Department Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Golden Valley Police Department 3.1 The Members shall cooperate and use their best efforts to ensure that the various provisions of the Agreement are fulfilled. The Members agree to act in good faith to undertake resolution of disputes, if any, in an equitable and timely manner and in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. 4. Term. 4.1 The term of this Agreement shall be for seven years, commencing December 1,2008 and terminating March 31, 2015, unless terminated earlier pursuant to section 11.4 of this Agreement. This Agreement may be extended by mutual written agreement of the parties for one successive seven year term upon the same terms, conditions, and covenants, unless the Task Force is dissolved prior to expiration of the initial or successive term. 4.2 Upon dissolution of the Task Force, the Board shall provide for the distribution of all Task Force funds and assets in the following manner: (1) The Board may determine to sell and liquidate non-monetary assets prior to distribution; (2) Only governmental units that have been Members of the Task Force continuously for the 24 months immediately preceding dissolution shall be entitled to share in the distribution; and (3) Assets and funds shall be distributed in proportion to the full-time staffing contributions and other financial contributions of each Member to the Task Force during the 24 months immediately preceding dissolution, determined by the full time equivalent contributions of each Member for each of the 24 months immediately preceding dissolution. Property owned by Members shall be returned to the Members upon dissolution. A Member whose membership terminates prior to dissolution of the Task Force is entitled to the return of its own property, but is not entitled to any share or portion of Task Force funds or assets. 2 5. Executive Board. 5.1 The Task Force shall be governed by an Executive Board (Board). Members of the Board will be known as "Directors." The Chief Law Enforcement Officer from each Member, or his or her designee, shall serve as a Director. Each Director and, accordingly, each Member agency is allowed no more than one (1) vote, regardless of the number of employees assigned to the.Task Force or in attendance at any meeting from the respective Agency. 5.2 Directors shall not be deemed employees of, nor compensated by the Task Force. 5.3 The Hennepin County Sheriff shall be the chair of the Board. The Chair's responsibilities include but are not limited to the following: giving notice of meetings when scheduled or otherwise called; calling meetings to order and providing for their orderly and efficient conduct; and providing for the preparation of minutes. 5.4 The Board will delegate operational control over activities toa Task Force Commander(s). 5.5 The Board shall meet on a quarterly basis or more frequently as needed. 5.6 The Board may take action based on the vote of a simple majority. A quorum shall exist, and votes may be taken, if a majority of the Directors or their designees are present. 5.7 The Board may recommend changes in this Agreement to its Members. Such changes shall not become effective until the governing body of each Member has, by resolution, approved such changes. 5.8 Non-Voting Members may attend Board meetings. 6. Powers and Duties of the Task Force. 6.1 To accomplish the objectives herein, all Task Force Members shall assign at least one peace officer licensed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ~ 626.84, subd.1, or similar licensing statute or regulation, to the Task Force. The assigned peace officer must comply with Minnesota Statutes ~ 471.59, subd. 12. 6.2 A typical assignment to the Task Force should be for a minimum period of one year. However, assignments shall be at the pleasure of both the Task Force Board and the Officer's employing agency and may be terminated at any time. 6.3 The Task Force Commander(s) will direct investigative and enforcement activities based on intelligence provided by the Task Force Members with priority given to case investigations that directly impact the Members' Minnesota communities. 3 6.4 While assigned to the Task Force, all personnel shall be under the direct supervision and control of the Task Force Commander(s) or his designee(s). The Task Force Commander's duties shall include, but not be limited to: (a) Guiding and directing the activities of personnel assigned to the Task Force; (b) Establishing goals, priorities, and work assignments; (c) Reviewing and approving reports; (d) Scheduling assigned personnel; (e) Providing input on employee evaluations, if requested; (f) Allocating overtime work, if necessary; and (g) Approving officers to serve on the Task Force. 6.5 The Task Force Commander(s) shall cooperate with other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to accomplish the purpose for which the Task Force is organized. 6.6 The governmentallinit serving as the Fiscal Agent shall cause to be made an annual audit of the books and accounts of the Task Force and shall make and file a report to its Members which includes the following information: (a) The financial condition of the Task Force; (b) The status of all Task Force projects; (c) The business transacted by.the Task Force; (d) Quarterly.financial report; (e) Other matters which affect the interests of the Task Force. 6.7 The Task Force's books, reports, arid records shall be open to inspection by its Members at all reasonable times. 6.8 Nothing herein is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of co-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting one of the Members as the agent, representative or employee of another Member for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. Personnel assigned to the Task Force by one of the Members shall not be considered temporary or permanent employees of any other Member for any purpose whatsoever or be entitled to tenure rights or any rights or benefits by way of workers' compensation, re-employment insurance, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, severance pay, PERA or any other right or benefit of another Member. 4 6.9 The Members acknowledge and agree that it is their sole responsibility to provide all salary compensation and fringe benefits to their separate employees. Benefits may include, but are not limited to: health care, disability insurance, life insurance, re-employment insurance, FICA, Medicare, and PERA. 6.10 The Members acknowledge and agree that it is their responsibility to provide the equipment necessary to enable their assigned employee to complete their duties. 6.11 The Members acknowledge and agree that Hennepin County will provide initial start-up funds, to include headquarter space. 6.12 The parties acknowledge and agree that entering into and carrying out the terms and conditions oftrus Agreement will not violate or constitute a breach of any obligation binding the party and shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws including but not limited to Minnesota Statutes ~ 471.59. 7. Liability. 7.1 Each Governmental Unit agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and the acts of its officers and employees and any liability resulting therefrom to the extent authorized ~y law and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other Governmental Units or any liability resulting therefrom. Each Governmental Unit acknowledges and agrees that it is insured or self-insured consistent with the limits established in Minnesota state statute. Each Governmental Unit agrees to promptly notify all Members if it becomes aware of any potential Task Force related claims, or facts giving rise to such claims. 7.2 Each Member shall be resp~msible for injuries to or death of its own personnel. Each Member will maintain workers' compensation insurance or self-insurance coverage, covering its own personnel while they are assigned to the Task Force or are otherwise participating in or assisting with Task Force operations or activities. Each Member waives the right to, and agrees that it will not, bring any claim or suit against the Task Force or any other Member for any workers' compensation benefits paid to its own employee or dependents, that arise out of participation in or assistance with Task Force operations or activities, even if the injuries were caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other Member or its offi~ers, employees, or volunteers. 5 7.3 Each Member shall be responsible for damages to or loss of its own equipment. Each Member waives the right to, and agrees that it will not, bring any claim or suit against the Task Force or any other Member for damages to or loss of its equipment arising out of participation in or assistance with Task Force operations or activities, even if the damages or losses were caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other Members or its officers, employees, or volunteers. 8. Finances. 8.1 Task Force operations will be financed from funds and resources contributed by Members. Members shall provide Officers to be assigned to the Task Force. 8.2 The Fiscal Agent shall serve as sole administrator of all funds contributed by Task Force Members or otherwise received by the Task Force, and in such capacity is authorized to receive all funds for deposit and make disbursements therefrom in accordance with Hennepin County policy and generally accepted accounting principles. In conjunction therewith, the Fiscal Agent shall maintain current and accurate records of all obligations and expenditures of Task Force funds in accordance with Hennepin County policy and generally accepted accounting principles. It shall also produce quarterly fmancial and statistical reports which shall be disseminated to all Directors and the Task Force Commander(s). The Task Force shall maintain all such reports and related records for a period of six (6) years after dissolution of the Task Force. 9. Officers. 9.1 The Task Force Commander(s), or his designee(s), shall refer disciplinary matters or other instances of misconduct involving an Officer to the Officer's Chief Law Enforcement Officer for investigation, referral, or disposition. However, nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the Task Force Commander(s) from reporting suspected criminal conduct directly to an outside agency for investigation. 9.2 Officers will be responsible for focused investigation on targeted violent offenders, including intelligence management, case development, and case charging. . Officers may also assist other Officers in surveillance and undercover operations. Task Force Officers will work cooperatively with assisting agencies. Officers acting under this Agreement in the 6 jurisdiction of another Member are acting in the line of duty and in the course of employment and are authorized to exercise the powers of a peace officer therein. 10. Forfeiture, Seizures and Fines. All proceeds generated by Task Force operations shall be returned to the Task Force. When the Task Force seizes property or funds in cooperation with other law enforcement agencies, the Task Force Commander(s) and Task Force Board will negotiate the distribution of the forfeited funds with those agencies. 11. Additional Members and Change in Membership. 11.1 A governmental unit may join the Task Force and become a Member upon approval by the Board of Directors and execution of a copy of this Agreement by its governing body. 11.2 The Board of Directors may involuntarily terminate a Member if that Member has failed to provide a minimum of one Officer to staff the Task Force for more than 12 consecutive months. 11.3 In any case in which a party identified in paragraph 3 joins the Task Force after the effective date of this Agreement or any other governmental unit joins the Task Force pursuant to paragraph 11.1, contributions by and reimbursement to such Members shall be equitably determined and adjusted by the Board to reflect the participation by that Member for less than one full year. The decision of the Board shall be final. 11.4 A Member may, upon ninety (90) days' written notice to all other Members, withdraw and cancel its participation in this Agreement with or without cause. 12. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original, all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned governmental units, by action of their governing bodies, caused this Agreement to be executed. (signatures continued on the following page) 7 . . HENNEPIN COUNTY VIOLENT OFFENDER TASK FORCE AGREEMENT CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK The Brooklyn Park City Council duly approved this Agreement on the , 2008. day of City of Brooklyn Park Approved as to form and legality: By: Its Mayor Brooklyn Park City Attorney And: Its City Administrator (signatures continued on the following page) 8 , . HENNEPIN COUNTY VIOLENT OFFENDER TASK FORCE AGREEMENT CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY The Golden Valley City Council duly approved this Agreement on the ,2008. City of Golden Valley Approved as to form and legality: By: Its Mayor Golden Valley City Attorney And: . Its City Administrator (signatures continued on the following page) 9 day of HENNEPIN COUNTY VIOLENT OFFENDER TASK FORCE AGREEMENT UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION The Drug Enforcement Administration duly approved this Agreement on the , 2008. day of Drug Enforcement Administration Approved as to form and legality: By: Its Director DOJ Attorney (signatures continued on the following page) 10 HENNEPIN COUNTY VIOLENT OFFENDER TASK FORCE AGREEMENT Hennepin County Board Approval Task Force Members, having signed this Agreement, and the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on the _ day of , 2008 and pursuant to such approval, the proper County officials having signed this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provision herein set forth. County of Hennepin State of Minnesota Reviewed by County Attorney's Office: Chair of its County Board Assistant County Attorney And: Assistant/Deputy/County Commissioner And: Hennepin County Sheriff Attest: Deputy/Clerk of County Board 11 alley M mora dum Planning 763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 6, 2008 Agenda Item 6. A. First Consideration - Ordinance #404 - Amendment to Section 4.20 - Adding Language Regarding 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District Signage Prepared By Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Summary In August, the City Council rezoned the properties within the 1-394 Corridor to Mixed Use zoning, effective December 1, 2009. At that time, staff requested additional time to construct a sign code ordinance which would compliment the mixed use vision and language used in the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. This proposed sign code allows signage specific to various land uses to coexist within the 1- 394 Corridor. Once adopted, a signage plan must be submitted and approved by the Inspections Department at the time of site plan review. Existing signage in the 1-394 Corridor will be allowed to remain in place as a legal non-conforming use. Attachments Ordinance No. 410, Amendment to Section 4.20 - Adding Language Regarding 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District Signage (6 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt on First Consideration, Ordinance No. 410, Amendment to Section 4.20 - Adding Language Regarding 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District Signage. ORDINANCE NO. 410, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amendment to Section 4.20 - Adding Language Regarding 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District Signage The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. Section 4.20 is amended by adding the following in Subdivision 9: J. 1-394 Mixed Use District 1. A signage plan must be submitted and approved at the time of site plan review or consideration for a conditional use permit as provided in the City Code Section 11.48. The approved signage plan shall determine all futuFe sign installation until and unless the site plan is amended with a new and approved signage plan that is in conformance with the sign ordinance in effect at the time of submission of the amended plan. 2. Temporary signs. a. Real estate signs. The following limits apply: ! Sin~le-use ~~t~I~~~~I~ ] 32 sq. ft. ~:x~~~s~~gle or mixOduOOG . 64 sq. fl. b. Construction signs. The following limits apply: I ~\~~~~~:: I: :~: ~. c. Garage Sale signs are permitted for single-use Multiple Dwellings, as requlated by Chapter 4.20 of City Code. d. The sign surface area shall not exceed seventy-five percent (75%) of the permanent sign surface area allowed. 3. Permanent signs. (See permanent sign total allowance chart) --- ...., .. ..-- 1 public or private street front3ge - 50 sq. ft. 2 public or private stroet frontages 100 sq. ft. 3 public or private stroet frontages - 150 sq. ft. 4 public or private street Total Maximum 50 sq. ft. if there front3ges 200 sq. ft. Residential :~ _~ I__~~ a I_~~ _. .~:~~ Total Maximum 200 sq. ft. 1 1 public stroot frontage 50 sq. ft. 2 public street frontages 82 sq. ft. 3 public streetfrontages - 114 sq. ft. 4 public street frontages 136 sq. ft. Institutional Commercial , Office, Hotel, and Industrial 1 public street frontage 50 sq. ft. 2 public street frontages - 82 sq. ft. 3 public street frontages 114 sq. ft. 4 public street frontages 136 sq. ft. 50 sq. ft. 82 sq. ft. 114 sq. 1 public street frontage 2 public stroot frontages 3 public street frontages ft. 4 public street frontages - 136 sq. ft. Mixod uso Total Maximum - 64 sq. ft. Wall signs are allov,'ed on up to four elevations. Total Maximum - 300 sq. ft. \J\fall signs are allov'.'ed on up to four elevations. No one sign Maximum of 200 sq. ft. of 'Nail sign surface area for anyone tenant. Ground level: 2 sq. ft. per linear ft. Maximum of one sign per building elevation occupied by the tenant. Above ground le'.'ol: Maximum of two signs per elevation. Maximum sign surface is the same as is allo\".'ed for the occupying use a. Additional design standards applicable to all uses. 1) Signs shall be integrated with the architectural elements of a building. 2) Illuminated signs shall utilize indirect lighting, utilizinQ reflected or diffused light only. Illuminated signs must meet liQhtinQ criteria established in Chapter 4.20 of City Code. b. Freestanding Identification Informational Signs. Freestanding identification informational signs are allowed for all permitted and conditional uses. 1) Types permitted. a) Monument signs are permitted for all uses. Monument signs must be of compatible design and materials as the principal building on the lot. b) Pylon signs are permitted only within four hundred (400) feet of 1-394. One (1) pylon sign per property is allowed. Pylon signs cannot exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height. 2 2) Minimum Setbacks. a) Front. The minimum setback for any portion of a freestanding sign is ten (10) feet from any public street right-of-way. No portion of a freestanding sign is allowed in a right-of-way or easement. b) Side and Rear. No portion of a freestanding identification sign may be located closer than five (5) feet from a side or rear property line. 3) Maximum Sign Surface Area and Number of Signs. The total amount of freestanding sign surface area and number of signs allowed is calculated and distributed in the following way: a) Fifty (50) sq. ft. of sign surface is allo'Ned for the first public street frontage. b) Thirty t\...o (32) sq. ft. of sign surface area is allm....od for each additional public street frontage. c) The total sign surface area can be divided betv.:een any number of freestanding signs on the property. No one (1) sign can exceed fifty (50) sq. ft. '1) Minimum separation. The minimum separation bet\...een two (2) freestanding identification signs is one hundred (100) feet. c. Building Signs. (signs attached to the building) 1) General regulations. a) Building signs are allowed for permitted, accessory, and conditional uses. b) The total amount of building sign surface area allowed for each use is to include an accumulation of all wall, projecting, suspended awning, and canopy signs. c) The amount of sign surface area for projecting, suspended, awning, canopy, or window signs will be subtracted from the amount of sign surface area allocated for wall signs. d) The linear measurement of any wall sign must not exceed eiqhty percent (80%) of the linear frontaqe of the applicable facade of the buildinq. e) All wall siqns on a buildinq must be of similar desiqn including wall siqns on different elevations. 3 f) Siqns located on a window may occupy no more than fifty percent (50%) of the total area of the window. g) Multiple tenant buildings: 1) Ground level tenants may locate signs only on the ground level. 2) All other tenants may locate signs only on the upper half of the top level. 3) Signs should be primarily located in the top quadrant of the prescribed level. d. 'Nail Signs. 1) General Regulations. a) The linear measurement of any 'Nail sign must not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the linear frontage of the applicable fac;ade of the building. b) All wall signs on a building must be of similar design including \vall signs on different elevations. c) Signs located on a window may occupy no more than fifty percent (50%) of the total area of the windO'.v. 2) Single Uses a) Residential Uses (Uses permitted in the Residential Zoning District). One (1) wall sign of up to fifty (50) square feet is allowed for developments of six (6) or more lots or dwellinq units. Developments with less than six (6) lots or dwelling units are allowed one (1) sQuare foot of siqnage. b) Institutional Uses (Uses pormitted in the Institutional Zoning District). Single use institutional properties are allO'.fl.'ed a total of sixty four (64) sq. ft. of sign surface area. 'Nail signs are allCYNed on up to four (4) elevations. c) Commercial, Office, Hotel, Institutional, and Industrial/Light Industrial uses (Uses permitted in the Commercial, Business and Professional Office, Industrial, and Light Industrial Zoning Districts). A total of three hundred (300) sq. ft. of sign surface area is allowed. Wall signs are allowed on up to four (4) elevations. No one (1) wall sign may exceed one hundred (100) sq. ft. There is a maximum of two (2) signs per building elevation. 4 3) Other Uses Including Accessory Retail and Service Uses Mixed with Residential, Institutional, Hotel, Office, Industrial, or Light Industrial Uses. a) The maximum sign surface area allowed for residential, institutional, hotel, or office uses when combined with other uses is the same as prescribed for single uses. A maximum of two (2) signs per elevation above the ground level is allowed. b) The ground level of a mixed use building is allowed a total wall sign surface area not to exceed two (2) square feet for each linear foot per building elevation. Each tenant on the ground level is allowed one (1) wall sign per building elevation occupied by the tenant. A maximum of two hundred (200) sq. ft of wall sign surface area for anyone (1) tenant on the ground level is allowed. e. Projecting and Suspended Signs. 1) One (1) pedestrian oriented projecting or suspended sign with up to twelve (12) square feet of sign surface area is permitted per exterior public entrance to a building. 2) Projected or suspended signs must be at least eight (8) feet above the walking surface. 3) Projecting or suspended signs must not project more than five (5) feet from the building or structure. f. Awning and Canopy Signs. 1) The linear measurement of the sign on the awning or canopy must not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the linear frontage of the awning or canopy. 2) No awning or canopy siQn is allowed above the first floor of the building or twelve (12) feet above grade, whichever is lower. 3) Awnings or canopies signs must clear sidewalks by at least eight (8) feet and may extend to within one (1) foot of the vertical plane formed by the curb or the right-of-way line. g. Window Signs. Window signs are permitted for all uses. Section 5. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 4.99 entitled "Violation a MisdemearlOr" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. 5 Section 6. This Ordinance shall take effect after its publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 6th day of August, 2008 21st day of October. 2008. IslLinda R. Loomis Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: IslSusan M. Virniq Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk 6