10-20-09 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
of the
City Council
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chamber
October 20,2009
6:30 p.m.
The Council may consider item numbers 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6
prior to the public hearings scheduled at 7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Roll Call
B. Oath of Office - Police Officer Daniel Wilcox
C. Presentation of Envision Award - Golden Valley Arts and Music Festival - Scott
Grayson, Don Keysser, Peter Knaeble, Anna Silverman and Luke Weisberg
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 15, 2009 and
Council/Manager Meeting - October 13, 2009
B. Approval of Check Registers:
1. City
2. Housing and Redevelopment Authority
C. Licenses:
1. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Second
Harvest Heartland
D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1. Human Services Foundation - September 14, 2009
Envision Connection Project Board of Directors - September 17, 2009
E. Bids and Quotes:
1. Refurbish Aerial Ladder Truck - Bids
F. 2011 Pavement Management Program:
1. Call for Feasibility Study 09-51
2. Authorization to Sign Agreement with Short Elliott Hendrickson for Engineering
Services
G Waiver of Public Hearing and Certification of Special Assessments:
1. 2009(A) Pavement Management Program Driveways 09-52
2. 2009(A) Pavement Management Program Sanitary Sewer Repairs 09-53
H. Acceptance of Donation of Camera Equipment from Fireman's Fund Fire
Department Grant Designation Program 09-54
I. Sale of 1986 Ford L-9000 Fire Pumper and Miscellaneous Equipment 09-55
J. Proclamation for Toastmasters Month
K. Proclamation for Minnesota Manufacturer's Week
L. Authorization for Submittal of Application for Hennepin Youth Sports Program Grants
09-56
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PUBLIC ITEMS 7:00 PM
A. Appeal from Board of Zoning Appeals Denial - 316 Meadow Lane North - Maggie
Bostrom, Applicant 09-57
5. OLD BUSINESS
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Announcements of Meetings
B. Mayor and Council Communications
7. ADJOURNMENT
Public ~H~y
Memo
Police Department
763-593-8079 I 763-593-8098 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 20, 2009
Agenda Item
1. B. Oath of Office - Police Officer Daniel Wilcox
Prepared By
Stacy Altonen, Chief of Police
Summary
Officer Daniel Wilcox will be present to take his oath of office as a Golden Valley police
officer.
Recommended Action
Mayor Loomis administers the oath of office to Officer Wilcox.
Hey
M rn
City Administration/Council
763-593-8014/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary for Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 20, 2009
Agenda Item
1. C. Presentation of Envision Award - Golden Valley Arts and Music Festival - Scott
Grayson, Don Keysser, Peter Knaeble, Anna Silverman and Luke Weisberg
Prepared By
Jeanne Andre, Assistant City Manager
Summary
The five initial board members of the Golden Valley Community Events Fund have been
recommended to the City Council to receive an Envision Award for their work originating and
carrying out the Golden Valley Arts and Music Festival. Scott Grayson, Don Keysser, Peter
Knaeble, Anna Silverman and Luke Weisberg conceived, and planned the first festival in
2003 and have grown and expanded the event, bringing in other participants over time.
In her nomination of these five individuals, DeDe Scanlon noted that, "This weekend event
has grown to include activities for all ages of residents. It has also created a summer event
that draws people from surrounding areas to participate in the community of Golden Valley.
The potential for growth in this event is boundless."
Recommended Action
Award an Envision Award to Scott Grayson, Don Keysser, Peter Knaeble, Anna Silverman
and Luke Weisberg for establishing the Golden Valley Arts and Music Festival which has
occurred annually since 2003.
alley
e n
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 20, 2009
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.
alley
o
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 20, 2009
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
M mo
City Administration/Council
763-593-8006 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 20, 2009
Agenda Item
3. C. 1. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Second Harvest
Heartland
Prepared By
Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant
Summary
As per State Statute organizations that conduct gambling within the City limits have to submit
an application for a lawful gambling permit to the State after the permit has been approved or
denied by the City. Depending upon the timing of the permit the applicants may request the
City to waive the 3D-day waiting period.
Attachments
Application for Exempt Permit (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to receive and file the gambling license exemption and approve the waiver of notice
requirement for Second Harvest Heartland.
Minnesota Lawful Gambling
Page 1 of 2 7/09
LG220 Application for Exempt Permit Application fee
If aoolication oostmarked or received:
An exempt permit may be issued to a nonprofit organization that: less than 30 days more than 30 days
- conducts lawful gambling on five or fewer days. and before the event before the event
- awards less than $50,000 in prizes during a calendar year. $100 $50
ORGANIZATION INFORMATION Check # $
Organization name Previous gambling permit number
Si:Cc:l^,= N ;4n...,d:J"r /-IE;4A.7'-~ -
Type of nonprofit organization. Check one.
D Fraternal D Religious D Veterans ~ Other nonprofit organization
Mailing address City State Zip Code County
/ / y;) ?c /Z-i/A..,J' /+vc /..J ,I??.4;:' c.L,..., €I "...:> /?7rJ ,s-fi 07 ?~J 4:7
Name of chief executive officer (CEO) Daytime phone number Email address
J<tJ.B 2.€p..r~ Gr/- 20 ~ -79,7/ ~ ~EA.r.J;:~@ .;).H,./7-,;E.J;:cl'l.(,
Attach a copy of ONE of the following for proof of nonprofit status. Check one.
Do not attach a sales tax exempt status or federallD employer numbers as they are not proof of nonprofit status.
D Nonprofit Articles of Incorporation OR a current Certificate of Good Standing.
Don't have a copy? This certificate must be obtained each year from:
Secretary of State, Business Services Div., 180 State Office Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 651-296-2803
~'IRS income tax exemption [501 (c)] letter in your organization's name.
Don't have a copy? To obtain a copy of your federal income tax exempt letter, have an organization officer
contact the IRS at 877-829-5500.
D IRS. Affiliate of national, statewide, or international parent nonprofit organization (charter)
If your organization falls under a parent organization, attach copies of both of the following:
a. IRS letter showing your parent organization is a nonprofit 501(c) organization with a group ruling, and
b. the charter or letter from your parent organization recognizing your organization as a subordinate.
D IRS - proof previously submitted to Gambling Control Board
If you previously submitted proof of nonprofit status from the IRS, no attachment is required.
GAMBLING PREMISES INFORMATION
Name of premises where gambling activity will be conducted (for raffles, list the site where the drawing will take place)
CIaTr- C- -- 1_c. J.I E;J""G r /....
/fi/L" t....
Address (do not use PO box) City Zip Code County
/.;2. 0 Q /7? c,vpE'-..s:ro~ ,4;~ Sr ~() c ~/JEjJ Ylt-J'e~ rS.- '7;).'7
Date(s) of activity (for raffles, indicate the date of the drawing)
.:2./ (, /~ "/0
"heck the box or boxes that indicate the type of gambling activity your organization will conduct:
o Bingo' ,J:lfRaffles o Paddlewheels' o Pull-Tabs' o Tipboards'
* Gambling equipment for pull-tabs, bingo paper, tipboards, and It1so complete .1
paddlewheels must be obtained from a distributor licensed by the
Gambling Control Board. EXCEPTION: Bingo hard cards and bingo Page 2 of this form.
number selection devices may be borrowed from another organization
authorized to conduct bingo. I Print Form. .1
To find a licensed distributor, go to www.gcb.state.mn.us and click on List I ResetFoyml
of Licensed Distributors, or call 651-639-4076.
LG220 Application for Exempt Permit
Page 2 of 2
7/09
LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT
If the gambling premises is within city limits,
a city official must check the action that the city is
taking on this application and sign the application.
Xhe application is acknowledged with no waiting period.
_The application is acknowledged with a 30 day waiting
period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30
days (60 days for a 1st class city).
_The application is denied.
(Jjle/) Vall
Print city name
On behalf of the city, I acknowledge this pplication.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S SIGNA TURE
If the gambling premises is located in a township, a
county official must check the action that the county is taking
on this application and sign the application.
A township official is not required to sign the application.
_The application is acknowledged with no waiting period.
_The application is acknowledged with a 30 day waiting
period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30
days.
_The application is denied.
Print county name
On behalf of the county, I acknowledge this application.
Signature of county official receiving application
Title
Date~~_
(Optional) TOWNSHIP: On behalf of the township, I
acknowledge that the organization is applying for exempted gambling
activity within township limits. [A township has no statutory authority
to approve or deny an application [Minnesota Statute 349.166)]
Print township name
Signature of township official acknowledging application
Title
Date~~_
Complete a separate application for each gambing activity:
- one day of gambling activity,
- two or more consecutive days of gambling activity,
- each day a raffle drawing is held
Send application with:
- a copy of your proof of nonprofit status, and
- application fee for each event.
Make check payable to "State of Minnesota."
To: Gambling Control Board
1711 West County Road B, Suite 300 South
Roseville, MN 55113
Financial report and recordkeeping required
A financial report form and instructions will be sent with
your permit, or use the online fill-in form available at
www.gcb.state.mn.us. Within 30 days of the activity date,
complete and return the financial report form to the
Gambling Control Board.
Questions?
Call the Licensing Section of the Gambling Control
Board at 651-639-4076.
Data privacy. This form will be made available
in alternative format (i.e. large print, Braille)
upon request. The information requested on
this form (and any attachments) will be used by
the Gambling Control Board (Board) to
determine your qualifications to be involved in
lawful gambling activities in Minnesota. You
have the right to refuse to supply the
information requested; however, if you refuse to
supply this information, the Board may not be
able to determine your qualifications and, as a
consequence, may refuse to issue you a permit.
If you supply the information requested,
the Board will be able to process your
application. Your name and and your
organization's name and address will be public
information when received by the Board. All
the other information you provide will be private
data until the Board issues your permit. When
the Board issues your permit, all of the
information provided to the Board will become
public. If the Board does not issue a permit, all
information provided remains private, with the
exception of your name and your organization's
name and address which will remain public.
Private data are available to: Board members,
Board staff whose work requires access to the
information; Minnesota's Department of Public
Safety; Attorney General; Commissioners of
Administration, Finance, and Revenue;
Legislative Auditor, national and international
gambling regulatory agencies; anyone pursuant
to court order; other individuals and agencies
that are specifically authorized by state or
federal law to have access to the information;
individuals and agencies for which law or legal
order authorizes a new use or sharing of
information after this Notice was given; and
anyone with your consent.
Golden Valley Human Services Foundation (GVHSF) Meeting
Minutes
September 14,2009
Present: Dan Blumb, Hilmer Erickson, Elissa Heilicher, Chris Monroe, Diane
Nimmer, Connie Sandler, Steve Schumacher and Toots Vodovoz. Also present
Jeanne Fackler, Staff Liaison.
Not Present: Gloria Johnson and Brenda McGhie.
Call to Order: Chairman Blumb called the meeting to order at 6: 1 0 p.m.
August 10 minutes: Heilicher moved and Vodovoz seconded the motion to
approve the minutes of August 10. The motion passed unanimously.
Old Business:
Golden Valley Golf Classic: Nimmer composed a letter which was sent to
sponsors about the cancelation of the tournament. Follow-up to the letter is
taking place this week. Sponsors will be offered four tickets to the Taste to thank
them for their sponsorship.
Blumb reported that he and Nimmer met with Mayor Loomis about the GVHSF.
Fackler presented information about placing an ad for "Run the Valley" in the
MORA publication. Members felt it was not necessary at this time.
Fackler reported that she attended the Council/Manager meeting discussing the
GVHSF budget for 2010-2011 and the revised budget for 2009 with the loss of
revenue from the Golf Classic. The Council thanks the GVHSF for their hard
work and looks forward to the Taste event.
New Business:
Fackler will contact Rachel and set a facility tour for next week. Sandler will send
the list of restaurants to the group. Fackler will send the invitation letter with
members following-up. Monroe and Heilicher have several items for the auction.
McGhie has sent publicity and has scheduled a "Coffee with KARE" in October.
Blumb has a tentative agreement with Tim Mahoney and is waiting for the
contract. McGhie has Perpich students interested in performing and will contact
them with a time after Tim Mahoney is confirmed.
Fackler reported that she has been contacted by Hennepin County
Environmental Health. Itinerant licenses need to be purchased by participating
restaurants and portable hand washing stations need to be available for
restaurant personnel. Members decided to incur the cost of the license for
vendors and look into hand washing stations. Fackler will contact Hennepin
County for clarification on licensing and hand washing.
Vodovoz will work on getting volunteers for the event. TreeHouse and the YMCA
have offered to assist at the event. Other possibilities are: GV Women of Today,
GV Lutheran Church.
Human Services Foundation
September 14, 2009
Page 2
Grant Application Process was reviewed. Presentations this evening, allocation
discussion will be held at the October 12 meeting with recommendations going to
the Council in November.
Adjournment: Heilicher moved to adjourn the meeting, Vodovoz seconded the
motion. The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. so agency presentations could
begin.
Presentations: The following agencies presented information to the members:
Northwest Suburban Dinner At Your Door, Crisis Connection, Community
Mediation Services, Greater Minneapolis Crisis Nursery, TreeHouse, The Bridge
for Youth, Home Free, PRISM, Northwest YMCA, Senior Community Services,
and LOA Minnesota.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeanne Fackler
GVHSF Staff Liaison
Envision Connection Project
Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
September 17,2009
Present: Sharon Glover, Jim Heidelberg, Helene Johnson, Linda Loomis, Philip Lund,
Dean Penk, Marshall Tanick, Blair Tremere and Luke Weisberg (GVCEF Representative)
Staff: Jeanne Andre
The meeting began at 7: 13 pm in the Council Conference Room.
Approval of Minutes
TremerelWeisberg moved to approve the minutes of August 20,2009 as presented.
Motion carried.
Proposed Community Foundation/Non-Profit
Chair Loomis reported that she met with Dan Blumb and Diane Nimmer from the Human
Services Foundation (GVHSF) to follow up on the foundation's earlier discussion with
Luke Weisberg. She said Dan and Diane were receptive to continuing discussions on the
idea of a community foundation.
Dean Penk presented the Overview on the Proposed Community Foundation and
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) sheet which he and Philip Lund prepared to
incorporate recommendations made at the last meeting. The members reviewed the new
draft and further tweaked it. Linda Loomis said she would check with the Council at the
next Council/Manager Meeting to see if Council Members support further discussions with
the GVHSF and the Golden Valley Community Events Fund. If the Council gives the go
ahead to further discussions, meetings with these groups will be set up with the goal of
developing a broader consensus regarding a community foundation. Board Members
suggested that if there is consensus to move in this direction the groups should also seek
feedback from funders on whether this model suits their funding objectives.
Sharon Glover distributed copies of the Chronicle of Philanthropy and a brochure for the
upcoming joint state conference for the Minnesota Council of Non-Profits and the
Minnesota Council on Foundations. She invited members to subscribe and attend. Helene
Johnson reported that she will be attending the conference.
Bridge Building Activities
October 17 Bridge Builder Training - A group met at the American Legion prior to the
meeting to discuss the format for the event. Jeanne Andre distributed a list of prospects
for the training, including four people who have already registered. Members identified
people they would call to invite to the training. Jeanne Andre will send out a notice to past
Bridge Builders inviting them to recruit others who might be interested in attending and
prepare a flyer to hand out at the lilac planting event.
Lilac Planting - Plans are in place for the event, scheduled on September 26. Linda
Tremere is coordinating the food and Blair Tremere has secured donations. Spirit of Hope
Church volunteers will make the building and restrooms available to the planting
volunteers. Channels 11 and 12 should be promoting the event.
Luke Weisberg left the meeting.
Envision Connection Project
Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
September 17, 2009 - Page 2
Ice Cream Social - The group supported the summary of the 2009 event included in the
agenda packet
Buckthorn Busting - Blair Tremere is considering an educational event this fall,
recruiting attendees to spearhead buckthorn busting next year.
Garden Club - The evening garden club is proceeding with regular meetings on the first
Wednesday of the month at 6:30 pm. Their efforts are featured in the September/October
issue of CityNews.
Envision Award
Jeanne Andre distributed DeDe Scanlon's nomination of the Golden Valley Days founders
to receive and Envision Award. It was determined that all five people are nominated for
individual awards for a single project. Moved by Heidelberg seconded by Johnson, to
recommend the Envision Award go to Scott Grayson, Don Keysser, Luke Weisberg, Anna
Silverman and Peter Knaeble as founders of the Golden Valley Arts and Music Festival,
under the auspices of the Golden Valley Community Events Fund.
Future Meetings
The next meeting will be on October 15.
The meeting ended at 9 pm.
Jeanne Andre, Assistant City Manager
alley
M u
Fire Department
763-593-8079 I 763-593-8098 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 20, 2009
Agenda Item
3. E. 1. Bids - Refurbish Aerial Ladder Truck
Prepared By
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections
Summary
The 2009 Capital Improvement Program, Vehicles and Equipment, V&E-037, allocates
$150,000 for refurbishing the 1993 Pierce aerial ladder truck. Bids were received from Pierce
Manufacturing, Inc. and General Safety. The bids are as follows:
Pierce Manufacturing, Inc.
General Safety
Base bid and Option 5.1.12 rear steps
Base bid and Option 5.1.12 rear steps
$202,154
215,658
A reserve of $65,000 from two recent capital improvement projects, V&E-023 fire pumper
refurbishment and V&E-036 new fire pumper, will be used to fund the difference in the
amount allocated for the aerial refurbishment V&E-037.
Recommended Action
Motion to award the base bid and Option 5.1.12 for refurbishing the 1993 Pierce aerial ladder
truck to the lowest responsible bidder, Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. for a total of $202,154.
Hey
e ran m
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 20, 2009
Agenda Item
3. F. 2011 Pavement Management Program
1. Request Feasibility Report
2. Authorize Agreement with SEH, Inc. for Professional Services
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer
Summary
The proposed 2011 Pavement Management Program (PMP) includes reconstruction of
approximately 2.4 miles of local streets within the south-central portion of the City. The
streets included in the proposed project are:
. Circle Down: Turners Crossroad South to cul-de-sac
. Colonial Drive: Lawn Terrace to cul-de-sac
. King Creek Road: King Hill Road to Glenwood Avenue
. King Hill Road: King Creek Road to Glenwood Avenue
. Lawn Terrace: Turnpike Road to Glenwood Avenue
. Phoenix Street: Welcome Circle to Lilac Drive
. Radisson Road: Turners Crossroad South to Turnpike Road
. Turners Crossroad South: south end of pavement to Golden Hills Drive
. Turnpike Road: Turners Crossroad South to Radisson Road and Turnpike Road (loop
street)
. Welcome Avenue North: Phoenix Street to Golden Valley Road
. Welcome Circle: Welcome Avenue North to Phoenix Street
Portions of Welcome Circle, Welcome Avenue North and Phoenix Street have been
reconstructed to City standards in the past. The City will evaluate to determine whether or not
these streets can be rehabilitated with an overlay.
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 2011 PMP will be performed by City staff. A letter proposal for the
design services for the project has been received from the consulting engineering firm of
SEH, Inc. The proposed design services include preliminary survey, geotechnical review and
recommendation, traffic and water resource engineering, public participation, preparation of
the feasibility report, and completion of construction plans, specifications and bidding
documents. The estimated cost of these professional engineering services is not to exceed
$388,400 as outlined in the attached proposal from SEH dated October 9, 2009.
The public participation and preliminary engineering services for this project will begin shortly
after the Council's authorization for the feasibility report and the SEH professional services
contract.
Attachments
Map of 2011 Pavement Management Program (1 page)
Resolution Ordering Preparation of Report for 2011 Pavement Management Program (1 page)
Proposal letter from SEH, Inc. to Jeannine Clancy dated October 9,2009 (4 pages)
Recommended Action:
Motion to adopt Resolution Ordering Preparation of Report for 2011 Pavement Management
Program.
Motion to authorize entering into an agreement for professional engineering services with
SEH, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $388,400.
ffiBJE~1 . f"'- ;; ~ EI;1 ~~ i=~l=i ;,<
, "~, ~.t ~ ... ~~. "" ):: ==' ~= ~~i' ]\\ \ \:.
~ 9 [F ~gO ~ ~
, _~~\ e ~ 1#
· i..~~ . ~ ~-_ J.
{J if:" ~ ~ k": P J7
iti c:J" ~~ ~EI~ 011 ~~ j' ~
OUNrRY 0 ~~ '-= . .if/. $t>S 0 31 ~ ~
~,~~~~~= E~l:~I:WI~ ~I~ JI~~~~
~)'l!.2' --- I f--- ~ 1=\ ;;, .
bI~ ~"1 J.J /1 " ~~" J!-rr W/.. t r+-tt
~ ,- -!~~~ rl~~.. ~:tf:=-Jj ~ ~ ~A =1
g~v<' ~t; :F,1Y;~ ~~ ," 4<. _ ~~: 1\
R 1-(/ l-'~ 1"1 c- \\ ~ ~~ViSer ... ~m~;=: =I!~ RO
I IS ----; ~ El "i~ 1- ,
LI ot::l: J--:
< r-J GLENW - I)TIJ ItJ ;< ]~ 1---/
~~ t:: ~E= =- . YI H\~l~ ~n~--' ~ ~ l;r- I (l
m ~ . ~.~-G ." -. ~ n II ~ ~~ ~ I tErn
~- J
~
I iJ
~ LAU ELAVE -- l If ~\ cb J - t.~ s ~;~ ~
~! 91 ~ilR ----\ I 1l!II ~ \2::;cV
i1~;tL f~rii!t ~ .~ ~
-~ ~~
I Oll n-,-.-.-
'"
~
w
>
w
or
~
~
AVE
\\ #'
/7~
o
Hey
2011 CIP
Print Date: 10/09/09
Sources:
Hennepin County Surveyors Office jar
Property Lines (2008).
t
Location Map
o
500
1,000
2,000
Feet
Resolution 09-51
October 20, 2009
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF REPORT FOR
2011 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:
2011 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT STREET LIST:
. Circle Down: Turners Crossroad South to cul-de-sac
. Colonial Drive: Lawn Terrace to cul-de-sac
. King Creek Road: King Hill Road to Glenwood Avenue
. King Hill Road: King Creek Road to Glenwood Avenue
. Lawn Terrace: Turnpike Road to Glenwood Avenue
. Phoenix Street: Welcome Circle to Lilac Drive
. Radisson Road: Turners Crossroad South to Turnpike Road
. Turners Crossroad South: south end of pavement to Golden Hills Drive
. Turnpike Road: Turners Crossroad South to Radisson Road and Turnpike Road
(loop street)
. Welcome Avenue North: Phoenix Street to Golden Valley Road
. Welcome Circle: Welcome Avenue North to Phoenix Street
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 9, 2009
RE: Golden Valley
2011 Pavement Management Program
SEH No. GOLDV
Jeannine Clancy
Director of Public Works
City of Golden Valley
7800 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 2011
Pavement Management Program. Weare 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 SEH.
Background
The City of Golden Valley proposes to rehabilitate approximately 2.4 miles of local streets in 2011. The
streets proposed for improvements are located in the central part of the City, in various neighborhoods.
For the purpose of this proposal, these neighborhoods will be identified by one of the streets that are part
of the area and they will generally be referred to as:
1. Lawn Terrace
2. King Creek
Please refer to the attached map
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 cross-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 fonnat meeting. SEH 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 in project folders. At this time, we have assumed that Sue Mason,
the Project Manager, Dan Erickson, Project Engineer and Mike Kotila, Traffic Engineer will be present at
the open house.
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive. St. Paul. MN 55110-5196
SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com I 651.490.2000 I 800.325.2055 I 651.490.2150 fax
Jeannine Clancy
October 9, 2009
Page 2
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.
For the purpose of this proposal, we have included time for the project manager, or another staff member
(as needed) to attend three issue specific meetings that 111.ay be necessary in the improvement project area.
Project CommunicationlMeetings
We propose to attend a kick off meeting with Public Works staff at the beginning 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 pr.ogress meetings with bi-monthly meetings during the final design phase. We
believe consistent monthly design team meetings will provide good timing for feedback and critical to
keeping the design, schedule and design budget on track.
GeoWchnical Street Analysis and Report
The geologic atlas revealed that the subsurface soils in the proposed 2011 project will be mixed. There are
streets in both neighborhoods that will have streets with underlying swamp deposits and till.
SEH'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 recommendations. SEH will review ~e subsurface materials and
borings, identify potential problems, develop an additional boring program (if necessary) and make
recommendations based upon the information that is available. The recommendations will be summarized
in a memo for your information md project file. Soil borings and Lab Testing services will be performed
by AET as a subcontractor to SEH.
Sub watershed Water Quality Investigation
All of project area neighborhoods are located in the SWeeney Lake District. The Lawn Terrace
neighborhood has minimal storm sewer on Turnpike, Lawn Terrace and Colonial Drive. The sUrface
water is directed. toward the intersection of Turnpike and Lawn Terrace where it is eventually ties into
trunk storm sewer that continues north on Turners Crossroad. The SEH design team will specifically
evaluate the storm sewer system that begins near 1-394, south of Circle Down, then continues through
backyards and ties in at Radisson Road for condition and capacity. King Creek's stonn sewer will need to
be reviewed. The majority of the neighborhood discharges into backyard drainage that runs along the rail
road, then over to the Glenwood pond system. Overall, opportUhities for inline treatment and downstream
system impacts and will be reviewed during the preliminary design phase.
Sidewalks and Trans
There are no identified sidewalks or trails identified in the comprehensive plan for any of the streets in the
project area.
TrafficlIntersection Improvements
There are a few traffic issues that may arise during the course of the project, based on information that is
captured by the City's traffic safety committee. The Lawn Terrace neighborhood also voiced concern for
cut through traffic on Lawn Terrace and will likely need to be discussed in more detail with the
neighborhood. In that same neighborhood, there is a developer interested in developing the property
JeanniIle Oancy
October 9, 2009
Page 3
owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation located off the Golden Hills alignment and east of
Tl.ltIlers Crossroads. This necessitates the need for review and evaluation of street and utility options.
The design team will review the intersection geometry and evaluate the options available for
improvements.. Additional time l1as been budgeted to assist the City with min<>r/miscellaneous traffic
issues as. they arise during the project. 8EH can anticipate answering questions regarding sigIIage.
construction staging, traffic cabning etc.
Preliminary, Final Design and Plan Preparation
SEH will prepare preliminary street and utility design for the area. Existing profiles alld 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
the scope includes time for some replal;ement and repairs if needed in addition to tl1e routine :maintenance
and adjustments because of the new construction. The plans will be prepared according to City standards
and Municipal State Aid standards for those streets section 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 on the issues
that are brought forth by residents and other stakeholders. Sue Mason and Dan Erickson will join the team
to attend the project staff meetings and Neighborhood Open Houses as needed. Dan Erickson is assigned
to the project as the Project Engineer, providing preliminary and final design, concrete evaluation alld
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 Watershed
permitting if reqUired.
Schedule
We expect to begin working on the preliminary survey as soon as the contract is signed. The subsurface
soils investigation field work will begin this fall as well. The feasibility report is anticipated for March
2010, public hearing in April, with final design and plans following in the spring and summer of 2010.
The letting could be in September/October 2009.
The first open house is expected to be held in January 2010, 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 will be held in April/May 2010.
Campen$atian
SEH proposes to be compensated for the scope of work proposed in this Agreement on an hourly basis.
Compensation will be based on the hourly Cost of personnel plus reimbursable expenses, including
reproductions, mileage and equipment. We have estimated the services described above to cost a total of
$388,400. We evaluated the I;ost of the work compared to the estimated construction cost. The
engineering services for the SEll portion of the project and prorated percentages of the overall work such
as preliminary services represents 8% of the estimated construction cost of 2.4 miles of local street
construction of $4,855,000. This appears to be in a typical range of services required for street design
projects with public involvement and traffic and drainage study. The person/hour task budgets for each
phase of the work are attached. The summary of engineering services is as follows:
Jeannine Clancy
October 9, 2009
Page 4
Prelhninary Survey
Public Involvement and Meetings
Traffic OD studies (1)
Geowchnical Services
AET Drilling aud Testing Services
Drainage and Water Quality i\nalysis
Preliminary Design & Feasibility Report
Final Design & Plan Preparation
$ 45,500
$ 25,400
$ 6,000
$ 18,600
$ 13,000
$ 8,000
$ 105,900
$ 166.000
$ 388,400
Total &1;imated Engineering Fees
This agreement is an understanding of the project to date. If this document satisfactorily sets fQrth you
understanding of out 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 ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON lNC.
~...us~~~
. cipal
Approved this
day of
,2009
City of Golden Vaney, Minnesota
By
c: Mike Kotila, Ron Farmer
s:\ljlglgC)IdYlcomtrDn\2011 prop\leltefal11'llenl(>l1l:/011b.doe
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 20, 2008
Agenda Item
3. G. 1. Waiver of Public Hearing and Certification of Special Assessments - 2009(A)
Driveways
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Agreements have been signed with the property owners regarding total costs and waiving the
public hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031. By adopting the resolution it allows
the property owner to pay for their driveway improvement over time with their property taxes.
Not all driveways were completed in time to be approved with this notification so the Council
will be considering this item again later this year.
Attachments
List of Driveways Assessed in 2009(A) (1 page)
Resolution Waiving the Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031 and Ordering
Certification of Special Assessments on Driveways that Involve 2009(A) City Street
Improvements (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Waiving the Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
429.031 and Ordering Certification of Special Assessments on Driveways that Involve
2009(A) City Street Improvements.
City of Golden Valley
2009A Private Driveway Assessments
levy #17407
PID Address Assessment Paid Amount Due
18-029-24-21-0046 4865 Bassett Creek Dr. 5,655.02 5,655.02
18-029-24-21-0047 4895 Bassett Creek Dr. 266.75 266.75 0.00
18-029-24-21-0033 5050 Bassett Creek Dr. 172.25 172.25
07-029-24-34-0014 4830 Dawnview Terr. 431.95 431.95
07-029-24-33-0005 5030 Dawnview Terr. 5,244.02 5,244.02
07 -029- 24- 34-0048 4800 Dona lane 5,495.20 5,495.20
07-029-24-34-0062 4915 Dona lane 8,412.13 8,412.13
07-029-24-34-0055 4960 Dona lane 5,675.93 5,675.93
07 -029- 24-34-0077 4800 Marie lane East 4,188.16 4,188.16
07 -029- 24-34-007 4 4900 Marie lane East 2,828.05 2,828.05
18-029-24-21-0009 2500 Perry Ave. N. 6,235.28 6,235.28
18-029-24-21-0015 2505 Perry Ave. N. 4,519.89 4,519.89
18-029-24-21-0014 2545 Perry Ave. N. 4,774.63 4,774.63
18-029-24-21-0013 2585 Perry Ave. N. 697.59 697.59 0.00
07-029-24-34-0090 2620 Perry Ave. N. 1,158.79 1,158.79
07-029-24-34-0073 2695 Perry Ave. N. 2,828.05 2,828.05
07-029-24-34-0027 2765 Quail Ave. N. 1,186.64 1,186.64
07 -029- 24-33-0028 5055 Marie lane West 3,637.99 3,637.99
07 -029- 24-33-0031 5150 Marie lane West 3,655.69 3,655.69
18-029-24-24-0043 2136 Orchard Ave. N. 552.23 552.23
18-029-24-24-0044 2148 Orchard Ave. N. 285.06 285.06
07 -029- 24- 34-0020 2650 Regent Ave. N. 3,359.51 3,359.51
07-029-24-34-0022 2670 Regent Ave. N. 3,691.79 3,691.79
07-029-24-33-0018 2600 Scott Ave. N. 2,782.35 2,782.35
07-029-24-33-0022 2660 Scott Ave. N. 4,683.80 4,683.80
07-029-24-33-0011 2725 Scott Ave. N. 5,750.91 5,750.91
18-029-24-24-0053 2117 Windsor Way 386.57 386.57
07-029-24-33-0039 5045 Dawnview Terr. 4,020.10 4,020.10
18-029-24-22-0186 5100 Minnaqua Drive 1,966.04 1,966.04
18-029-24-24-0009 2070 Ordway 1,631.38 1,631.38
96,173.75 964.34 95,209.41
Resolution 09-52
October 20, 2009
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION WAIVING THE PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA
STATUTES 429.031 AND ORDERING CERTIFICATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
ON PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS THAT INVOLVE 2009(A) CITY STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Project Years Interest Rate First Year Levy Total Assessed
2009(A) City 10 7% 2010 $96,173.75
Driveways
1. Each individual address (lots) will be assessed the full value of the signed contract
with the homeowner for the various driveway improvement(s).
2. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper
assessments for each of said property respectively together with interest at the rate of
seven (7) percent per annum accruing on the full amount thereof unpaid, shall be a lien
concurrent with general taxes upon parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such
assessment not prepaid shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending
over a period of 10 years, as indicated in each case.
3. The first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment for the
period of January 1 through December 31, 2010, will be payable with general taxes for the
year of 2009, collectible in 2010, and one of each of the remaining installments, together
with one year's interest on that and all other unpaid installments, will be paid with general
taxes for each consecutive year thereafter unless the entire assessment is paid in full by
November 21,2009.
4. The owner may payoff the assessment in full after November 21,2009 with interest
accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must
be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the
succeeding year.
5. The City Clerk shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor
a certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each
unpaid assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the
County and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessment in the manner
provided by law.
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.
alley
em d
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 20, 2008
Agenda Item
3. G. 2. Waiver of Public Hearing and Certification of Special Assessments - 2009(A) Sanitary
Sewer Repairs
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Agreements have been signed with the property owners regarding total costs and waiving the
public hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031. By adopting the resolution it allows
the property owner to pay for their sanitary sewer repairs over time with their property taxes.
Attachments
List of 2009(A) Sanitary Sewer Repairs (1 page)
Resolution Waiving the Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031 and Ordering
Certification of Special Assessments on Sanitary Sewer Repairs that Involve 2009(A) City
Street Improvements (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Waiving the Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
429.031 and Ordering Certification of Special Assessments on Sanitary Sewer Repairs that
Involve 2009(A) City Street Improvements.
PIO
18-029-24-21-0048
18-029-24-21-0007
City of Golden Valley
2009A Sanitary Sewer Assessments
Levy #17408
Address
4905 Bassett Creek Or
2440 Perry Avenue N.
Assessment
3,713.31
5,587.00
Total
9,300.31
Resolution 09-53
October 20 I 2009
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION WAIVING THE PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA
STATUTES 429.031 AND ORDERING CERTIFICATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON
SANITARY SEWER REPAIR THAT INVOLVE 2009(A) CITY STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Proiect Years Interest Rate First Year Levy Total Assessed
2009 (A) 10 7% 2010 $9,300.31
Sanitary Sewer
Repairs
1. Each individual address (lots) will be assessed the full value of the signed contract
with the homeowner for the various driveway improvement(s).
2. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper
assessments for each of said property respectively together with interest at the rate of
seven (7) percent per annum accruing on the full amount thereof unpaid, shall be a lien
concurrent with general taxes upon parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such
assessment not prepaid shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending
over a period of 10 years, as indicated in each case.
3. The first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment for the
period of January 1 through December 31,2010, will be payable with general taxes for the
year of 2009, collectible in 2010, and one of each of the remaining installments, together
with one year's interest on that and all other unpaid installments, will be paid with general
taxes for each consecutive year thereafter unless the entire assessment is paid in full by
November 21,2009.
4. The owner may payoff the assessment in full after November 21,2009 with interest
accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must
be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the
succeeding year.
5. The City Clerk shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor
a certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each
unpaid assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the
County and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessment in the manner
provided by law.
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.
alley
e ra
Fire Department
763-593-8079 I 763-593-8098 (fax)
Executive Summary for Action
Golden Valley City Council
October 20, 2009
Agenda Item
3. H. Fireman's Fund Fire Department Grant Designation Program
Prepared By
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections
Summary
Fire Department staff has been notified by Fireman's Fund that the Golden Valley Fire
Department has been selected to receive a $250 donation as part of their Fire Department
Grant Designation Program. Fireman's Fund and their parent organization, Allianz, have a
mission to support local fire service organizations. Upon City Council approval, this donation
will be used to purchase camera equipment for fire investigations.
Attachment
Resolution Accepting Donation From Fireman's Fund Fire Department Grant Designation
Program For Camera Equipment (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Accepting Donation From Fireman's Fund Fire Department Grant
Designation Program For Camera Equipment.
Resolution 09-54
October 20, 2009
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATION FROM
FIREMANS FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT GRNT DESINGATION PROGRAM
FOR CAMERA EQUIPMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 04-20 on March 16,2004 which
established a policy for the receipt of gifts; and
WHEREAS, the Resolution states that a gift of real or personal property must be
accepted by the City Council by resolution and be approved by a two-thirds majority of the
Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council accepts the following
donation:
$250 from the Fireman's Fund Fire Department Grant Designation Program for
camera equipment for fire investigations
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.
~lle
Public Safety Y
o du
Fire Department
763-593-8055 I 763-512-2497 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 20, 2009
Agenda Item
3. I. Sale of 1986 Fire Pumper and Miscellaneous Equipment
Prepared By
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspection Services
Summary
The Fire Department will be receiving a new fire pumper later in October. After training is
completed with the new pumper and it is placed in service staff is recommending the sale of
the 1986 Ford L-9000 fire pumper along with other miscellaneous fire equipment.
The equipment will be advertised for sale in the League of Minnesota Cities publications and
fire service publications. Minnesota Statute 417 requires that the City Council approve a
resolution authorizing the sale of excess equipment.
Attachment
Resolution Authorizing Sale of Excess Equipment (1986 Ford L-9000 Fire Pumper and
Miscellaneous Fire Equipment) (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing Sale of Excess Equipment (1986 Ford L-9000 Fire
Pumper and Miscellaneous Fire Equipment).
Resolution 09-55
October 20, 2009
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF EXCESS EQUIPMENT
(1986 FORD L-9000 FIRE PUMPER AND MISCELLANEOUS FIRE EQUIPMENT)
WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley has determined the need to sell excess
equipment consisting of the 1986 Ford L-9000 Fire Pumper and other miscellaneous
firefighting equipment, and
WHEREAS, the equipment has become excess as a result of purchasing a new fire
pumper,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden
Valley, Minnesota that:
1. Staff is authorized to sell the 1986 Ford L-9000 Fire Pumper and other
miscellaneous firefighting equipment.
2. The equipment will be advertised and sold in compliance with all applicable
requirements.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
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.
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PROCLAMATION FOR TOASTMASTERS MONTH
OCTOBER 2009
WHEREAS, the vision of the Toastmasters International organization is to
empower people to achieve their full potential and realize their dreams; and
WHEREAS, Toastmasters International is the world's leading organization
devoted to communication, public speaking and leadership skills, and has over 211,000
members in 90 countries; and
WHEREAS, since the Toastmasters organization began in 1924, more than three
million men and women have benefited from its communication and leadership
programs; and
WHEREAS, members of Toastmasters benefit from improved communication,
meeting facilitation, and leadership skills, constructive evaluations, increased self-
confidence; and
WHEREAS, the mission of a Toastmasters club is to provide a mutually
supportive and positive learning environment in which every member has the
opportunity to develop communication and leadership skills, which in turn foster self-
confidence and personal growth; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Golden Valley hereby proclaims October 2009 as Toastmasters Month in the City of
Golden Valley.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the great
seal of the City of Golden Valley to be affixed this 20th day of October, 2009.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PROCLAMATION FOR MANUFACTURER'S WKKE
OCTOBER 26 - 30, 2009
WHEREAS, the manufacturing industry is a dynamic part of Minnesota's
economy, and promotion of this sector's strength, success and high quality of life
is an integral part of Minnesota's economic development strategy; and
WHEREAS, manufacturing provides high skill, high wage jobs which
significantly contribute to Minnesota's high standard of living and economic
vitality; and
WHEREAS, manufacturing has the largest total payroll of any business
sector in Minnesota, providing 17.9 billion in 2008 wages; and
WHEREAS, manufacturing produces $33.6 billion for the state economy
and is the largest share, 17 percent of our gross domestic product; and
WHEREAS, manufactured exports brought over $17.3 billion into the
Minnesota economy in 2008.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Linda R. Loomis, Mayor of Golden Valley,
Minnesota, do hereby proclaim that, the week of October 26 - October 30,2009
shall be observed as MINNESOTA MANUFACTURER'S WEEK in the City of
Golden Valley, Minnesota.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the
great seal of the City of Golden Valley to be affixed this 20th day of October,
2009.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
alley
m
Park and Recreation
763-512-2342 I 763-512-2344 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 20, 2009
Agenda Item
3. L. Authorization for Submittal of Application for Hennepin Youth Sports Program Grants
Prepared By
Rick Jacobson, Director of Parks and Recreation
Summary
With the recent release of information regarding applications for the Hennepin Youth Sports
Program Grants, the Open Space and Recreation Commission appointed a subcommittee to
examine possible projects that may be eligible. Commission Members, staff and youth
athletic association representatives met to discuss future athletic field needs. After
subsequent discussions, two projects surfaced, which include additional Little League fields
at the Honeywell site, and a soccer field at Medley Park. These were discussed at the
October 13 Council/Manager Meeting, with the subcommittee recommendation to proceed
with an application in the first grant cycle, due November 2, 2009, for the construction of two
ballfields to the south of the exiting Honeywell Little League Field
At the Council meeting the Council directed staff to work with the Golden Valley Little League
to prepare an application for Council consideration at the October 20 Council Meeting.
The attached resolution, approving a grant submission, outlines a proposal for the
construction of two new ballfields on City property south of the existing Little League field.
The grant request will be for $400,000, with the local match of $67,500 to be secured by the
Golden Valley Little League Association (GVLLA). If the grant is awarded the Council has
expressed an interest in further negotiating with the GVLLA to develop procedures to deal
with construction cost overruns and ongoing maintenance of the fields. The Council also
indicated that fields could be an interim use, as there is still the possibility of constructing a
water treatment plant on this site in the future.
Attachment
Resolution Authorizing Submittal of Application for Hennepin Youth Sports Program Grant
(1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing Submittal of Application for Hennepin Youth Sports
Program Grant.
Resolution 09-56
October 20,2009
Member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATION FOR
HENNEPIN YOUTH SPORTS PROGRAM GRANT
WHEREAS, Hennepin County, via its Youth Sports Grant Program, provides for
capital funds to assist local government units of Hennepin County for the deveopment of
sports or recreation facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley desires to develop the Honeywell Field
Expansion for the purposes of construction of ballfields;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden
Valley:
1. The estimate of the total cost of development the Honeywell Field Expansion
shall be $467,500 and the City of Golden Valley is requesting $400,000 from the
Hennepin County Legacy Grant program and will assume responsibility for a
match requirement of $67,500.
2. The City of Golden Valley agrees to own, assume one hundred (100) percent of
operation costs for the Honeywell Field Expansion, and will operate the
Honeywell Field Expansion for its intended purpose for the functional life of the
facility, which is estimated to be 30 years.
3. The City of Golden Valley agrees to enter into necessary and required
agreements with Hennepin County for the specific purpose of constructing a
sport or recreational facility and long-term program direction.
4. That the City Manger and/or Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized and
directed to execute said application and serve as official liaison with Hennepin
County or its authorized representative.
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.
alley
m nd
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 20, 2009
Agenda Item
4. A. Appeal of Board of Zoning Appeals Decision - 316 Meadow Lane North
Prepared By
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Summary
Maggie Bostrom and Leo Furcht, owners of the property located at 316 Meadow Lane North,
have appealed a variance ruling given by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). At the August
25,2009 meeting of the BZA, Ms. Bostrom requested that a variance be granted to bring the
existing deck on the south side of her home into conformance with City Code. Section 11.21 J
Subd. 11 (A)(3)(c) of City Code requires an 8 foot setback on the south side of Ms. Bostrom's
property. Ms. Bostrom's deck, constructed in July 2009, originally extended 0.2 feet over the
south side property line, intruding into the lot at 312 Meadow Lane North. No building permit
was obtained for the construction of this deck.
In her original request, Ms. Bostrom claimed a hardship existed due to the narrow shape of
her lot and her inability to safely walk between her front and back yards. The deck, as argued
by Ms. Bostrom, was necessary to improve this situation. Ultimately, the Board of Zoning
Appeals voted 3-2 to deny Ms. Bostrom's request to grant a variance for the deck (see
attached meeting minutes). Two members of the Board indicated that they were in support of
the project. Citizens both in favor and in opposition to Ms. Bostrom's request attended the
BZA meeting. The immediate neighbor to the south has indicated opposition to this request.
While staff understands that the layout of Ms. Bostrom's lot creates a challenging situation,
staff is unable to support a structure of such magnitude that is located directly adjacent to the
property line. The Zoning Code allows Ms. Bostrom to construct a 25 square foot landing
platform, with stairs on both sides, to be built within the setback area. Staff feels that a
smaller landing platform, as permitted by code, would allow access to the home and yards,
while creating less of a negative impact on the neighboring property. The owner of the
property to the south has indicated disapproval of the deck, as well as to the trespass that
occurred on her property during construction of the deck.
Since the August meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, Ms. Bostrom has modified her
deck so that it no longer extends to the neighboring property. The revised survey submitted
now shows the deck to be located 0.05 feet north of the property line at its closest point. This
modification to the deck was done without a building permit. Ms. Bostrom requests that the
Council grant a variance to allow the existing deck to remain in place.
Attachments
Location Map ( 1 Page)
Memo from City Planner Joe Hogeboom dated August 20,2009 (1 page)
BZA Minutes dated August 25, 2009 (5 pages)
Appeal Form from Applicant (8 pages)
Resolution of Findings and Determination with Respect to Variance Appeal - 316 Meadow
Lane North - Maggie Bostrom, Applicant (2 pages)
Photos of Site (3 pages, loose in agenda packet)
Recommended Action
Staff does not support Ms. Bostrom's request and recommends that the Council uphold the
BZA's ruling and adopt Resolution of Findings and Determination with Respect to Variance
Appeal - 316 Meadow Lane North - Maggie Bostrom, Applicant. However, if the Council
wishes to allow the deck structure to remain, then it must make a motion to amend variance
#09-08-13 by issuing a waiver to Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(c) of City Code, allowing the
existing deck to remain within 0.05 feet of the south side property line.
=:j rl Il108 I I \~ /
501 ''''~'
SOl) ---
-
!'
WOODSTOCK AVE
-
425
42 42S
4213 4205 4135 4127 412:1 4U3 449 420 ,
411
408 421 ,
405
4Ui 417
,
401 400
4212 401 325 401
4200 4124 4116 410B
404 ,
Z ~
:5 I z:
in 324 ~
I a 325 <
4011 il ~
BEVERLY AVE ----- :i "' 320
:E: 311 Ii ~
320
4115 315 .. 31f. ,
4:i8$ 4127 41n 4111 4113 :m 321 ,
~316 ,
- 312
4tta Meadow Lane N
4200 4124 4112 410lI 303
4016 3D3 I I 3QO II BUI J I
'POPLAR'DR
24S \~
412s 240 235 3901
\
221 221 220
~ no \
215
I 0 "- /w
"
''\ 219 \ 207 ")/ /
\tUJ 1."".:'0;....:1..\ ;..'I.U,T 1\'15 ':(l~~;':' tiil; .:C; .,f,).;;:;.iS Gl~ ~'I)~ " ~,9jl; 214
. I
""
alley
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
August 20, 2009
From:
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
To:
Through:
Subject:
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
316 Meadow Lane North
Maggie Bostrom and Leo Furcht, Applicants
Background
Maggie Bostrom and Leo Furcht are the owners of the property located at 316 Meadow Lane
North. Ms. Bostrom and Mr. Furcht are requesting a variance from the Zoning Code to bring
the existing deck on the south side of the home into conformance. The deck was constructed
earlier this year, and did not receive City authorization prior to construction. The deck is within
0.1 feet of the side property line.
Ms. Bostrom has stated that a hardship exists due to her inability to access her home or her
back yard, and this deck provides the access that is needed. (The applicant has submitted
letter to the Board, dated August 4,2009 in which she explains her perceived hardship.) Ms.
Bostrom has informed staff that she was unaware of any city regulation concerning the location
of the deck.
No prior variances have been obtained for this property.
Variances
The proposal requires a variance from the following section of City Code:
. Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements.
For this property, City Code requires a distance of 8 feet between a home/attached deck and
the south side yard property line. The applicant is requesting 7.9 feet off of the required 8 feet
to a distance of 0.1 feet between the existing deck and the south side yard property line.
Recommended Action
Staff has concerns over the proximity of the deck to the property to the south, and therefore
recommends denial of this variance. If denied, the City would issue an order for the deck to be
removed.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
August 25,2009
Page 5
316 Meadow Lane North (09-08-13)
Ma~ulie Bostrom/Leo Furcht. Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback
Requirements
. 8 ft. off the required 8 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to
the side yard (south) property line.
Purpose: To bring the recently constructed deck into conformance with zoning
code requirements.
Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and stated that there was an error on the
agenda. The variance request should be for 8 feet off the required 8 feet to a distance of 0
feet at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. The survey showed that the
southeast corner of the deck is located 0.1 feet away from the property and the southwest
corner of the deck is 0.2 feet over the property line. He explained that the Board of Zoning
Appeals cannot grant a variance to allow something to be built on another person's
property. He added that staff is recommending denial of this request because the deck is
too close to south property line that the deck was built earlier this year without a building
permit. He noted that the applicant could build a 25 square foot landing area with stairs in
the setback area without the need for a variance.
Segelbaum asked Hogeboom if this request would have even come to the Board of
Zoning Appeals had staff realized that the deck was built over the property line. He asked
about the City Attorney's opinion in this case. Hogeboom said if staff had realized that the
deck was built over the property line the City would have required that the deck be
removed and would not have given the applicant the option to come before the Board of
Zoning Appeals.
Maggie Bostrom, Applicant, apologized for not obtaining a building permit. She said she
was under the impression that if the deck was not attached to the home she wouldn't need
a permit.
Brian Dillon, Applicant's Attorney, explained that they realized after obtaining the survey
that the southwest corner of the deck encroaches 0.2 feet into the neighboring property to
the south. He referred to the survey and stated that he doesn't understand how it can be
accurate because the retaining wall located on the property is visually closer to the
property line than the deck. He showed the Board photos of the deck, the retaining wall
and the survey stake. He asked the Board if this item could be tabled to allow more time to
show that perhaps the retaining wall encroaches, but not the deck. Segelbaum asked how
close the deck would be to the property line if Mr. Dillon is correct about the survey being
inaccurate. Dillon said he thought the deck would still be within inches of the property line,
but he doesn't think the deck crosses over the property line.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
August 25, 2009
Page 6
McCarty asked who built the deck. Dillon said a contractor built the deck. McCarty said it is
clear on the survey that there is an encroachment over the property line. Dillon said he
would rather remove the retaining wall than the deck.
Segelbaum noted that one way the Board could handle this issue would be to vote on the
original request for 7.9 feet off of the required 8 feet to a distance of 0.1 feet then the
applicant would have to comply and remove the portion of the deck or retaining wall that is
encroaching on the neighboring property.
Dillon asked if the Board could conditionally grant approval for the deck and explained that
they have not been able to communicate with the neighbor to south to try and resolve the
issue. Segelbaum asked if the applicant has considered moving the retaining wall as a
gesture of good will. Dillon reiterated that they haven't been able to talk to the neighbor to
the south.
Nelson asked Hogeboom if retaining walls have the same setback requirements as decks.
Hogeboom said retaining walls can be built right up to a property line.
Segelbaum asked about the hardship in this case. Dillon stated that the lot is only 40 feet
wide with very narrow setbacks on both sides of the house so anything built on the south
side would encroach into the setback area because the existing house already does. He
stated that there is also a significant slope on this lot that creates a dangerous condition
and the previously existing concrete steps and retaining wall were deteriorating and
needed to be replaced. He noted that the south side of the house is a high traffic area and
is the entrance most used. He stated that the slope makes that area hard to traverse and
added that there is a safety issue without a deck that has platforms and there is also no
parking allowed on the street so cars have to park in the back and use this entrance.
Bostrom showed the Board some photos and explained that she cannot access the back
yard on the north side of her property because that neighbor installed a fence.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing.
Daria Heiden, 312 Meadow Lane North, said it is not true that the applicant couldn't get a
hold of her. She stated that had the applicant pulled a building permit she would have
known the rules. She said that because part of the deck is on her property it will affect the
value of her home and will be problem for her in the future if she tries to sell her house.
Laura Kisling, 303 Meadow Lane North, showed photos of Ms. Heiden's property and
pointed out how the deck encroaches on Ms. Heiden's property. She stated that allowing
the deck to encroach will cast a cloud on the deed of the property and could cause
problems when selling the property.
Segelbaum explained that the Board of Zoning Appeals and/or the City cannot allow
anyone to build something on someone else's property. The Board could only allow a
structure to be built right up to a property line. Hogeboom added that the City would not
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
August 25,2009
Page 7
stop a person from removing something from their property. He reiterated that if the Board
grants a variance for the applicant's deck it should be noted that any portion encroaching
on the neighboring property must be removed.
Kisch asked Ms. Heiden if she would object to the deck if it were built right up to the
property line and how she would feel about a fence along the property line. Heiden said if
a fence was located on the applicant's property she would not object to it but the deck is
too close to her house and she is concerned about the value of her property. She added
that no one is allowed to park on Meadow Lane so that should not be considered a
hardship for the applicant.
Rose, Neighborhood Letter Carrier, said that the applicant has turned her house around
and people comment to her how beautiful the house is and everyone in the neighborhood
is in favor of the deck. She added that that deck allows for better access to the back yard.
Linda Martineau, 315 Meadow Lane North, agreed that the applicant has made her house
much better. She said if she were to buy Ms. Heiden's house the deck in question is
something she'd like to look at. She said there have been issues between the neighbors in
the past before the applicant built this deck. She added that the neighboring house isn't as
well maintained as the applicant's and that the applicant has offered to buy property from
her neighbor in order to resolve the issue.
Son of the Applicant, stated that the deck is beautiful and great. It makes accessing the
house and yard easier and to have to tear it down over 0.2 feet sounds ridiculous. He said
it would hurt him to watch his mom have to tear the deck down because he sees it as an
improvement to the house and neighborhood.
Avis Veselka, 320 Meadow Lane North, said if there had been a permit obtained they
wouldn't have this problem. She stated that the applicant has to walk on her property
when she goes around the north side her house and this situation is unfair to Ms. Heiden.
She said she is not in favor of the deck.
Mary Ann Gilbert, 321 Sunnyridge Lane, said that most people in the neighborhood are in
favor of the deck and she knows the applicant is willing to come to some sort of
agreement with the neighbor to her south to resolve the issue.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public
hearing.
Dillon stated that the opposition to this deck is based on personal animosity. He reiterated
that the applicant has tried to converse with Ms. Heiden and clearing up the title is exactly
what they are trying to do, they just need more time. He said he really doesn't think the
deck will negatively affect property values. He added that hardship is really the only
relevant factor in this case and the encroachment issue can be resolved.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
August 25, 2009
Page 8
Segelbaum explained that the Board has a few options. They could grant a variance for
7.9 feet off the required 8 feet with the condition that everything complies without seeing a
new survey, they could deny the variance request or they could table the request as the
applicant has asked.
Eck said that the deck is very attractive and enhances the property. He said he has
difficulty rationalizing the hardship based on the narrowness of the lot because there is a
way to build an access to the house and the yard without requiring a variance so the fact
that the applicant chose to build a deck instead does not constitute hardship. He said he
would have a hard time supporting this request.
Kisch said he understands there were alternate ways to build an access but if a 6-foot high
fence were built along the south property line it would create the same effect with less of a
landscaped area. He said he is in favor of granting a variance for 7.9 feet of the required 8
feet with the understanding that the entire structure must be located on the applicant's
property. He added that he believes the narrowness of the lot is the hardship in this case.
Eck said he doesn't understand the relevance of comparing a deck and a fence because
fences are allowed to be built in setback areas but decks are not. He questioned why the
City even has setback requirements if that is the case.
Hogeboom explained that if this variance request was approved staff would recommend
that the applicant obtain some sort of easement with the neighboring property because the
applicant would have to trespass on the neighbor's property in order to maintain the deck.
McCarty stated that a 25 square foot, conforming landing located a foot away from the
property line would still require the applicant to trespass on the neighbor's property to do
maintenance. Hogeboom reiterated that a 25 square foot land would however be allowed
by the Zoning Code.
McCarty said he is frustrated that there was no permit process or variance process before
the deck was built but even if the project went through the proper channels he would
support the deck being built right up to the property line because he does see a hardship
in this case. Eck noted that a landing with steps on both sides would provide the same
access as the deck. McCarty stated that the Board has given variances in the past for
structures that have already been built that have less of a hardship than this property and
he think this is a reasonable use.
Nelson questioned if the City knows whether or not the deck was built properly or is
structurally sound since no permits were obtained. Hogeboom stated that if this variance
request is granted that applicant would still have to apply for a building permit.
Segelbaum said he thinks the deck is a reasonable use but he doesn't think it is
reasonable to build something using the entire setback area. He said there are alternate
designs that could have been considered and there is an impact to surrounding property
owners. He said the deck may increase the value of this property but he is concerned
about it being built right up to the property line. He added that the deck seems fairly high
and would "look over" a 6-foot high fence. He stated that if a fence could be built that
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
August 25, 2009
Page 9
would hide the deck from view he may be in favor of granting the variance request. Kisch
noted that the proximity of what was the existing stoop puts a person at the same level as
a fence.
Eck said he still doesn't understand what the hardship is in this case. He agreed that the
lot is narrow and it was difficult to access the back yard, but there are alternatives that
don't require variances.
McCarty reiterated that the shape and size of the lot to him are true hardships and the
applicant can't have a deck elsewhere. Eck questioned if not being able to have a deck is
a hardship. McCarty said this is one of the greatest hardships he has seen since he's
been on the Board.
Kisch stated that a stoop would create more of an issue with allowing a ladder or
maintenance because the access is better with the deck.
Segelbaum questioned if the allowed 25 square feet of landing area is not sufficient.
McCarty said a 25 square foot landing would leave a foot or two of setback space that
would not be usable and at least the deck is usable space. Segelbaum said he can't justify
the deck being right at the property line. Nelson said she is concerned that three staff
member, the City Attorney and the neighbor are against this proposal. Kisch reiterated that
to him the impact of a fence and this deck are the same.
Segelbaum asked if the Board could consider allowing a variance for a landing bigger than
25 square feet. Hogeboom stated that anything over 25 square feet in area would be
considered a deck.
MOVED by Kisch, seconded by McCarty to allow a variance for 7.9 ft. off the required 8
ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line for the recently constructed
deck with the condition that the deck receives a building permit and a final inspection.
The motion was denied 3 to 2. Members Segelbaum, Eck and Nelson voted no.
III. Other Business
No other business was discussed.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:42 pm.
Chuck Segelbaum, Chair
Joe Hogeboom, Staff Liaison
APPEAL FORM
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DENIAL
DATE: September 31, 2009
TO:
Golden Valley City Council
FROM:
Petitioner
Name: Maggie Bostrom I Leo Furcht
Address: 316 Meadow Lane North, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Home Phone: 612-251-6565
Street address of property involved in this petition:
316 Meadow Lane North, Golden Valley, MN 55422
If you are not the owner of all of the property involved in this petition,
give the name of the owner and describe the petitioner" s interest (legal and
otherwise) in this property:
N/A
Waiver requested and denied was:
Petitioners request a waiver from the side yard set back requirement
included in section 11.21, subd. 11(A)(3)(c) of the City of Golden
Valley Ordinances. The side yard at issue has a set back of 6.5 feet
from the existing house. Under the ordinance, the required set back is
8 feet. Thus, by definition, any non-exempt structure erected in the
side yard requires a variance.
Appellant's reasons for requesting council's review and consideration ofthe BZA
denial:
I. BACKGROUND
In July 2009, Petitioners built a deck in the south side set back of their lot.
Petitioners did not obtain a building permit for the project because, shortly
before the deck was constructed, a Golden Valley building inspector lead
Petitioners to believe that City permission was not required to build the deck,
as long as it was not tied into the house.
Unfortunately, the Petitioners and the building inspector realized their
miscommunication after the deck was constructed. At that time, the building
inspector examined the deck and informed the Petitioners that, given its size
and shape, an after-the-fact building permit would have to be obtained.
The building inspector took photographs of the completed deck and
complimented the quality of both its appearance and construction. After an
unofficial inspection, the building inspector also informed the Petitioners that
the bottom rung of the railing along the surface of the deck had to be lowered
from six inches to four inches from the deck surface. The Petitioners
immediately modified the deck according to these instructions. However,
before they could apply for an after-the-fact building permit (and whatever
other city permits are required to maintain the deck as is), the Petitioners
received a letter from the City Planner informing them of the need to obtain
a waiver from the applicable set back. These proceedings ensued.
ll. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PETITIONERS' WAIVER REQUEST.
An as-built survey of the deck dated September 25, 2009 is attached as
Exhibit A. The deck is approximately 25 feet in length, and it occupies most
of the 6.5 foot set back along the south side of the Petitioner's lot.
A photograph of the south side set back before the deck was built is attached
as Exhibit B. This photograph shows that before the deck, a door on the
south side of the Petitioner's home was accessible from a small and
deteriorating concrete stoop. The stoop was in turn accessible from a small
set of concrete stairs the opened to the front (but not the back) of the
Petitioners' lot. A dramatic earthen slope from the front (west) to the back
(east) of the lot made traversing the south side yard difficult, and often
dangerous, particularly when the slope was covered with mud, snow, or ice.
Finally, a railroad tie retaining wall along the south property line was rotten,
infested with ants, and needed to be replaced.
Notwithstanding the often dangerous conditions presented by the slope on
the south side of the Petitioner's lot, the south side set back is a high traffic
area because: (a) there is no door along the north side of the house; (b) the
north side set back is even narrower than the south side set back; (c)
Petitioners' neighbor to the north recently built a fence along the property
line, furthering restricting the Petitioners' ability to traverse the north side
set back; and (d) the Petitioner's house is accessible from the rear only
through the door to Petitioner's one-stall garage. Moreover, although the
Petitioners' home has a front door, parking is prohibited along Meadow
Lane. As a result, visitors to the Petitioners' hom~which is located in the
middle of the block-typically park in the driveway behind the house and
enter the home through the south side door entering the kitchen.
Taken together, the unique shape of the Petitioners' lot (narrow set backs,
severe slope, and limited ability to traverse the lot in a safe and efficient
manner), coupled with the high level of traffic along the south side set back,
form the basis for the undue hardship that would result from strict
application of the set back ordinance. These conditions also justify
Petitioners' request for a waiver from the set back and permission to
maintain the deck as is.
Views of the newly constructed deck taken from the south of the Petitioner's
lot (Exhibit C), from the street in front of the lot (Exhibit D), and from the
alley in back of the lot (Exhibit E) are attached. The new deck provides Oat,
functional, and useable space along the south side of the house, as well as
storage underneath. The deck also provides safer access to and egress from
the south side door, and its railings, Oat landing areas, and stairs provide a
far safer way to traverse the south side set back. The deck is visually
appealing, unobtrusive, and blends in with the character of the
neighborhood. It clearly adds value to the Petitioners' property as well as to
the neighborhood as a whole.
Petitioners request a waiver from the side yard set back requirement that
will allow them to maintain the deck as is, subject to any other modifications
that may be necessary to comply with applicable code. Without a waiver, the
deck will almost certainly have to be tom down, and something will have to
be built in its place. The Petitioners' request should be granted because the
deck is a reasonable and efficient use of a narrow but often used space, and it
was constructed to address unique and undue hardships prese~ted by a
uniquely shaped lot.
ID. THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD ADOPT THE MINORITY VIEW
OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
On August 25, 2009, the Board of Zoning Appeals ("Board") had a spirited
debate over the Petitioners' request for a waiver. TheBoardultimately
denied the Petitioners' request on a 3-2 vote. Members Kisch and McCarty
voted in favor of the Petitioners' application. Their analysis should be
adopted by the City Council.
Certain members of the Board who voted against the Petitioners' request
suggested that alternative designs (e.g., a 25 foot square landing) might have
addressed the Petitioners' hardship concerns and not required a waiver.
This logic ignores the purpose of a waiver in this context, which is to permit
an exception to the set back requirement when its strict application would
result in undue hardship. Indeed, one of the Board members (Mr. McCarty)
acknowledged that the Petitioners' situation presents "one of the greatest
hardships he has seen since he's been on the Board." See 8/25/09 meeting
minutes.
Opposition to the deck was raised at the Board meeting by certain
individuals who harbor personal animosity toward the Petitioners for
reasons that are not relevant here. The objections raised by these individuals
relate primarily to the fact that the Petitioners did not apply for a waiver in
advance, and that the deck initially encroached on the abutting neighbor's
property. Aside from the complaints of these individuals, Petitioners' waiver
request has substantial support in the community.
Since the Board meeting, Petitioners have made slight modifications to the
deck and a related retaining wall so that neither encroach on the property of
the abutting neighbor. See Exhibit A. In fact, the deck now sits 0.05 feet
north of the side yard (south) property line at its closest point. In order tff
maintain the deck as is, Petitioners respectfully request a waiver of 7.95 feet
off the required 8 foot set back, to a distance of 7.95 feet at its closet point to
the side yard (south) property line.
As shown in the attached exhibits, the deck was designed to (and does) blend
in with the character the neighborhood and other significa,nt improvements
the Petitioners have made to the exterior of their home. Ms. Bostrom is an
avid gardener, and the time and effort she has invested in her gardens and
other exterior improvements are the type of activity the City should
encourage. The deck adds not only to the value of the Petitioners property,
but to the value of the neighborhood in general, and the Petitioners should be
allowed to maintain it.
Attach 7 copies ofthe site plan and/or drawings that may clarify the requested
variance. If your plan is 11" x 17" or smaller, only one copy is needed.
See Exhibit A.
GP:2648376 v1
~;~;'-j:'~:[~li:,':mlf.:~f~~i:'~?lf~'~
'.r: '..r31....'... _ 'V ......, .' . ,II
~J}~?~t~!i~1!
;I'IIJil~[~!~
~t':i):~:,.:{~":.
.;;::::.~'.:::::::
....~...
':;:.:';.~~::.>.:.
. u. . .
;X~::~;':..:.~::
...~....
':".':... .:.::..1..
-..-.. . ,
"::;;::"'::::':::'~.:"
...... ,.; .j ~ .
~fff~illt~1
Lttgnl CJa!!Jty"itJlinn l!WrJiJlJad bv diftnf)
Lot 201, GLENwoaJ. according to the record<<J plat
thereof, ~nnepin County. IIlnne6OttJ. Subject to ony
ond all easMnents of record.
As-BuILT SURVEY'
Prepared for: Margaret Bostrom
,,, ".~....
", #I
4. .,_.
I
EXHIBIT
Pr
'" I
I
I
r
I
I
I
J I
~t-
~I
~ I
S88':J4'31T 126.64 (c.) 127.13 (p,)
I
I
------ J6.7 -----
~
i
I
~
~8
~~
8"-
c:
... ,..,
" , ,
,. .; ,
\
~~~~~.~~)CP;!. .
~
sPJ
~f;
~
I I
O<<:k -"et' Is Q.f' ---__~
nOl'th of line
I \ I
I "--Oedr ___ 18 0." ~th of line
....-Dedc _..- Is 0.05' ~ of line
-'
,-,.,. ,.
", " ,
<I. ..,.,
S88':J4'37"C 126.90 (c.) 127.11 (p.)
/JJtl6lJ!J
. Found Iron Monument
o Set Iron Monument (LS 14700)
(c.) Computed Distance
(p.) Plot Distance
x 000.0 Existing Elevation
Parcttl Address:
J16 Meadow Lone N.
Golden Valle~ MN
IiJ1.lJl; As-buDt only shows parts of deck It retaining
wall neor south line of Lot 201 os of 8- 11-09.
SCHOBORG
SERVICES
INC.
SCALE
20 0 10 20 40
~~ I
1 inch . 20 feet.
Bearing$ based on assumed datum.
14
I hereby certify that this certificate of survey was prepared by me
or under my direct supervision and that I om 0 duly Registered
Land Surve~nder the.. laws of the State of Minnesota.
18J-972-JW
_~GftCI;~
Paul B, Schab
':: :: ~ I Dote: J.ffJ!.r_?J~q.1~----
Registration No. 14700
9-17-09
, .
-~. ...
I. t,
\
l EXHIBIT
- .t j
~.. : ~
~
,
-- =----------
i
,I
\ ,(j
f'
, 't
if'
..,4-,-
:f_,..
I ft.r: Ti
I~
\1\ ~ r
I "...~'
.
/"
. '...... r
. \' ~ ,t 'i .: .
HtH.+.\\', I
\\ .....
. HH\ H ; ~ ,
,H' U,."
'h\'H+~l
,\H+ 1 · H . . .
.u\'" H.. .. .
,-,-, '"
,. -~' I
.,., '.,..
l' .r ~~.:t:P~
.<E'. "1IIf~"' _
....) . ",,(t'. ,.J ~ ~.'\...~,. ~
..~. ...ll. . iI\...
~ ,:111 L">>iJ
<1~\ -I.,,~
. ~ .~Jit
l.' ,. -
.... lI"..~'.' t& .'
---_.~ ....
II
~
V.. 4
:,y,,~
j "- .
I'" ""
,,,1'.\\1,',,'\
,,,','1\,11111
,..1111..\....'
,."\\'.\\'111
"IIH;"II
"\11""11
11'1'11.'..".,
---
\l
EXHIBIT
I B
b
'~t~: L
it
.0
J t
--
r.WtC!lI -
~...~ ,"
,.I,.C'f' c .
~,. ~ ~ ~
'!":'i}'~ ot":r
I .
E
Resolution 09-57 October 20,2009
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION
WITH RESPECT TO VARIANCE APPEAL
316 MEADOW LANE NORTH
MAGGIE BOSTROM, APPLICANT
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on October 20, 2009 the City Council heard and
considered an appeal from a determination by the Board of Zoning Appeals denying a
variance requested by Maggie Bostrom at her residence at 316 Meadow Lane North
(09-08-13) to reduce the required 8 foot setback to a distance 0 feet at its closest point to
the south side property line from the existing deck structure.
WHEREAS, the Planning Department and the Building and Inspections Department
recommend the denial of the applicant's proposal.
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals voted to deny the applicant's proposal.
WHEREAS, the City Council is required by Section 11.90, subd. 4C(2) to make its
findings and determinations with respect to the appeal and serve a written report thereof
upon the appellant by United States mail.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as follows:
1. That it finds:
a. The deck structure was constructed without a Building Permit;
b. Trespass and destruction of neighboring property occurred during the
construction of the deck structure; and
c. Additional construction and modification occurred to the deck structure
after receiving the Notice of Final Order of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
2. That it finds that the complained of characteristics of the property have been
caused by the homeowner and do not constitute an undue hardship.
3. That the City Council affirms the determination of the Board of Zoning
Appeals denying the requested variance of 8 feet off the required 8 feet setback to a
distance of 0 feet at the closest point to the south side property line from the existing deck
structure.
4. The City Council denies the modified request of a variance of 7.95 feet off the
required 8 feet to a distance of 0.05 feet at the closest point to the south side property line
from the existing deck.
5. That this Resolution constitutes the report of the City Council and shall be
served upon the Appellant by United States mail within 30 days from the date of the appeal
which was September 30,2009.
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.