01-12-10 - Council/Manager Agenda PacketAGENDA
Council/Manager Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Conference Room
January 12, 2010
6:30 pm or immediately following the HRA meeting
1. Golden Hills Development Concept Proposal: The Three.Nine.Four
2. Transit for Livable Communities Funding Amendment Request
3. Proposed Ordinance Amendment - Massage Parlors, Saunas, and Other Adult -
Oriented Services
4. Proposed Ordinance Amendments:
a. Deck Front Yard Setback Restrictions in Single Family Residential Zoning District
b. Curb Cut Restrictions in Single Family Residential Zoning District (R-1)
5. Finished Grades of Manhole Castings
6. Winter Maintenance Three Rivers Park District Trail System
7. Legislative Priorities
8. Council Workshop
Council/Manager meetings have an informal, discussion -style format and are designed
for the Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and
provide general directions to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The
public is invited to attend Council/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public
participation is allowed by invitation of the City Council.
This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72 -hour request. Please call
763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats
may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc.
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095 1763-693-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
January 12, 2010
Agenda Item
1. Golden Hills Development Concept Proposal: The Three.Nine.Four
Prepared By
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Summary
Global One Commercial, a Minneapolis-based real estate developer, has created a
development concept for the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)-owned
property in the Golden Hills Redevelopment Area. The proposed development, entitled The
Three. Nine. Four, has been presented to staff in 2009. The proposed development includes a
six -story, 165 -room hotel (possible a Hilton Garden Inn) with an attached 3,000 square foot
branch bank as well as a six -story, 138 -unit luxury apartment building.
Staff met with representatives from Global One Commercial to discuss the project in 2009. At
that time, Global One Commercial reached out to neighboring property owners to inquire if a
cohesive redevelopment project was feasible. No adjacent property owners have committed
to such a venture. In addition, a traffic study was initiated to determine the impact that
development would have on area traffic patterns. The preliminary results of the traffic study
indicated that the proposed hotel, bank, and apartment are appropriate for the site.
The land uses involved in the proposed development meet the general criteria set forth in the
1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. However, staff has identified areas for further study if the
City Council/Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) desire to declare Global One
Commercial the designated developer for this site. Areas for further study include:
• Storm and sanitary sewer analysis.
• Zoning, Building, and Fire Code analysis.
• Access to the property.
• Finalize traffic study.
If the Council supports proceeding with this proposal, the next steps would be:
1. Direct staff to inform MnDOT that the developer will be working with the HRA on a
development proposed on the MnDOT excess property.
2. Direct Global One Commercial to seek designation as developer of the site by the
HRA.
If the Council does not want to proceed with this project, it should direct staff to inform
MnDOT that the City and HRA will not exercise the right of first refusal, allowing the excess
property to be sold at auction.
Attachment
The Three.Nine.Four- Proposed Site Plan dated November 30, 2009 (1 page)
O
a
gQ
�iy
Ln0
-
—3
im
Ww
�
L+U
�—'W
ZJW
LZN
p�N
U
Lwz
vet
aNz
�vic
ACL
<NCL
JN A-
Z
lzu
=zu
m
�%
0Q�
arc
SON
NDN
O
N
9��9
—
W) -o ..,
CF
- ;Q u
iw
xoF
�zu
-ops
F�6
1�
z
0
0
w
�u
Q4
0
w
w
z
z
w0
W z
w
Wz
w
x A
J
Q
WU
ZX
OW
J�
Q�
m0
U
J
Golden galley
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
January 12, 2010
Agenda Item
2. Transit for Livable Communities Funding Amendment Request
Prepared By
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Summary
In July 2009, the City was awarded a $1.05 million dollar federal grant to fund improvements
to Douglas Drive. The grant, administered by Transit for Livable Communities (TLC) has the
following requirements:
Restripe the road to three lanes (two through lanes and one center turn lane) from
Golden Valley Road to Medicine Lake Road allowing the shoulders to serve as bike
lanes.
• Reduce the speed limit to 35 miles per hour north of Golden Valley Road.
• Construct a sidewalk along the east side of the road between Duluth Street and the
Luce Line Trail.
Upon further evaluation, staff concluded that the above improvements would far exceed the
amount of money allotted. In December, staff met with TLC representatives to discuss
alternative options for the funding.
TLC has asked Golden Valley to meet with its Bike/Walk Advisory Committee (BWAC) in
February to discuss other options for the funding. If approved by BWAC, the proposal would
formally be presented to the TLC Board of Directors in March.
At the meeting between Golden Valley and TLC, the following activities were discussed as a
way to expend the funds in 2010:
1. Restripe the existing roadway from four lanes to three lanes on a temporary basis.
(Cost to be determined. Public Works staff from Hennepin County and the City are
working to develop a plan for conversion).
2. Allow funding to be used for the engineering and design of the reconstruction of
Douglas Drive currently requested to take place in 2016 with right-of-way acquisition to
take place in 2015. (Estimated cost range = $500,000 to $600,000).
3. Allow remaining funding to be used for right-of-way acquisition. (Cost to be
determined).
Staff seeks Council's support in this process, and will ask for formal action reaffirming the
City's amended proposal at the January 19 meeting of the City Council.
"Golden Vallev
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
January 12, 2010
Agenda Item
3. Proposed Ordinance Amendment - Section 6.36: Massage Parlors, Saunas, and Other
Adult -Oriented Services
Prepared By
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Summary
Over a decade ago, the City adopted a very detailed section of City Code (Section 6.36)
related to the licensing of both massage businesses and the persons performing massage.
One of the primary purposes of the Code is to make sure that massage done in Golden
Valley is done only for legitimate health reasons. The Code now requires that all persons who
perform massage must obtain a certificate from the City and operate in a licensed facility.
Certain business such as medical, counseling and chiropractic offices and health clubs are
exempt from the license requirements.
One of the reasons that this Code was adopted by the City was because the State or County
does not license people that do massage. The State does license schools that teach
massage but there is no state license or certificate similar to barbers or stylists. This puts the
burden of licensing on cities. In order to determine that someone applying for a massage
license is qualified, the City has outlined in Subdivision 7 of Section 6.36 the information that
is required to apply for a certificate from the City.
Since the City is not in a position of expertise on massage, one of the criteria found in
Subdivision 7(A) is that all persons must possess a certificate from a licensed school of
massage and have successfully completed 400 hours of training in massage therapy. The
staff believes that this requirement should be changed in order to allow people trained in
massage therapy in other states and in programs that may not be licensed by a state. The
wording currently is as follows in Subdivision 7(A):
Applicants must possess a certificate from a licensed school of massage, certifying their
successful completion of a course of study of not less than four hundred (400) hours of
training in massage therapy.
Staff is suggesting the following wording:
Applicants must possess a certificate from a school of massage certifying their successful
completion of a course of study of not less than four hundred (400) hours of training in
massage therapy. The school of massage must be licensed or accredited by the State of
Minnesota or another State, or certified by the National Certification Board for Therapeutic
Massage and Bodywork (NCBTMB). If the school of massage issuing the certificate is
not so licensed, accredited, or certified, the City shall determine whether the school of
massage issuing the certificate meets the intent of this section. The City shall charge the
applicant an additional fee (above the fee charged for the Certificate) in advance to cover
all its costs, expenses and staff time investigating the program of such an unlicensed,
unaccredited or uncertified school of massage.
The NCBTMB is a national certifying board for massage therapy. Thirty-five states use the
NCBTMB for the testing and certifying massage therapists and other persons that do other
forms of bodywork therapy. In any case, the minimum education requirement of 400 hours
would remain.
In conjunction with the change to individual massage licensing, the staff believes that there
should be a change to the Code dealing with massage therapists operating as a home
occupation. If a massage therapist has a license or certificate from the City, staff interprets
that this is a legal home occupation. Therefore, each home with a massage therapist would
have to meet the requirements of the Code for licensing massage establishments. Staff
believes that these requirements are excessive for home based massage therapy. Staff
would recommend that home based massage businesses not be required to obtain an
establishment license. However, staff recommends that Section 6.36 of the Code be changed
to state that there can only be one licensed massage therapist in any home occupation. The
home occupation section of the Zoning Code states that there can be one outside employee
working in a home occupation in addition to the residents.
Attachments
City Code Section 6.36: Massage Parlors, Saunas, and Other Adult -Oriented Services
(12 pages)
City Code Section 11.21, Subdivision 17. Home Occupation Requirements (3 pages)
Recommended Action
Direct staff to prepare changes to Section 6.36 of City Code expanding the approved types of
schools with accepted massage therapy programs; exempting home occupation massage
therapy businesses from establishment licensing; and restricting the number of licensed
massage therapists in any home occupation to one.
§ 6.36
Section 6.36: Massage Parlors, Saunas, and
Other Adult -Oriented Services
Subdivision 1. Findings and Statement of Policy
A. The Council deems it necessary to provide for the special and express
regulation of businesses or commercial enterprises which operate as
massage parlors, saunas, rap parlors, conversation parlors, adult sensitivity
groups, adult encounter groups, escort services, dancing services, hostess
services and similar adult-oriented services operating under different names
in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare and to guard against
the inception and transmission of disease. The Council further finds that
commercial enterprises such as the type described above, and all other
similar establishments whose services include sessions offered to adults,
conducted in private by members of the same or the opposite sex, and
employing personnel with no specialized training, are susceptible to operation
in a manner contravening, subverting or endangering the morals of the
community by being the site of acts of prostitution, illicit sex and occasions of
violent crimes, thus requiring close inspection, licensing and regulation.
Source: City Code
Effective Date: 6-30-88
B. The Council also finds that control and regulation of commercial
establishments of these types, in view of the abuses often perpetrated,
require intensive efforts by the Department of Public Safety and other
departments of the City. As a consequence, the concentrated use of City
services in such control detracts from and reduces the level of service
available to the rest of the community and thereby diminishes the ability of
the City to promote the general health, welfare, morals and safety of the
community. In consideration for the necessity on the part of the City to
provide numerous services to all segments of the community, without a
concentration of public services in one area working to the detriment of the
members of the general public, it is hereby decided that the number of
licenses issued pursuant to this Section for massage parlors, saunas, rap
parlors, conversation parlors, adult encounter groups, adult sensitivity
groups, escort services, model services, dancing services, hostess services or
for similar adult-oriented services which may be in force at any one time be
no more than a total of six such licenses.
Source: Ordinance No. 203, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 6-24-99
Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 12
Subdivision 2. Definitions
For the purpose of this Section, the following terms have the meanings stated:
A. Massage: means the rubbing, stroking, kneading, tapping or rolling of the
body of another with hands or objects for the exclusive purpose of physical
fitness, relaxation, beautification and for no other purpose. The term does
not apply to the practice of medicine, surgery, osteopathy, chiropractic,
physical therapy or podiatry and persons duly licensed in this State to
practice medicine, surgery, osteopathy, chiropractic, physical therapy or
podiatry, nurses who work solely under the direction of any such persons,
beauty culturists and barbers who do not give, or hold themselves out to
give, massage treatments, as defined herein, other than is customarily given
in such shops or places of business, for the purpose of beautification only.
Provided, however, that the persons practicing such excluded activities hold
valid licenses from the State of Minnesota.
B. Masseur: means a male person who practices or administers a massage.
C. Masseuse: means a female person who practices or administers a massage.
D. Massage Parlor: means any establishment or place providing to the public
at large massage services, other than a hospital, sanitarium, rest home,
nursing home, boarding home, or other institution for the hospitalization or
care of human beings.
E. Massage Services: means a business offering or providing massages to
others where a fee is charged and whether or not the massage services are
rendered at the licensed location.
F. Sauna: means any public facility used for the purpose of bathing, reducing
or relaxing, utilizing steam as a cleaning, reducing or relaxing agent.
G. Rap Parlor or Conversation Parlor or Adult Encounter Group or Adult
Sensitivity Group: means any person advertising, offering, selling, trading
or bartering the services of itself, its employees or agents as non-
professional counselors, teachers or therapists who may talk to, discuss or
have conversation with patrons or who deal in any way with patron's physical
senses whether or not other goods or services are simultaneously advertised,
offered, sold, traded or bartered and regardless of whether said goods or
services are also required to be licensed.
H. Escort Service or Model Service or Dancing Service or Hostess Service:
means any person advertising, offering, selling, trading or bartering the
services of itself, its employees or agents as hostesses, models, dancers,
escorts, dates or companions whether or not goods or services are
simultaneously advertised, offered, sold, traded or bartered and regardless of
whether said goods or services are also required to be licensed.
Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 12
§ 6.36
I. Similar Adult -Oriented Services: is meant to include all other services
which fall within the definitions of Items 4 through 8, inclusive, of this
Subdivision but are operated under different names.
J. Certificate: as used herein means a certificate issued by the City authorizing
the holder thereof to practice or administer a massage.
Subdivision 3. License Required
A. Persons. It is unlawful for any person to operate a massage parlor or
massage establishment, sauna, rap parlor, conversation parlor, adult
encounter group, adult sensitivity group, model service, escort service,
dancing service, hostess service or any other adult-oriented services either
exclusively or in connection with any other business enterprise, or hold
himself or herself out as being a masseur or masseuse or engaged in or
offering his or her services as a model, hostess, dancer, escort or counselor
in a rap parlor, conversation parlor, adult sensitivity or adult encounter group
without a license therefor from the City.
B. Establishments. It is unlawful for any person to hold out any establishment
as providing services as a massage parlor, sauna, rap parlor, conversation
parlor, adult encounter group, adult sensitivity group or model service, escort
service, dancing service, hostess service or similar adult-oriented service
without a license from the City. Whenever any establishment ceases to be
licensed as a massage parlor, sauna, rap parlor, conversation parlor, adult
encounter group, adult sensitivity group or model service, escort service,
dancing service, hostess or other adult oriented services, whether through
the suspension, cancellation, revocation or expiration, its owners shall
immediately remove from public view any sign or display which identifies the
establishment as being a massage parlor, sauna, rap parlor, conversation
parlor, adult encounter group, adult sensitivity group or as offering a model
service, escort service, dancing service, hostess service or other adult-
oriented service.
Subdivision 4. Certificate Required
It is unlawful for any person to engage in or hold himself or herself out as being
engaged in the practice of massage nor shall any person administer or practice
massage commercially or for hire, or for the exchange of any valuable consideration
without a certificate therefor from the City.
Subdivision S. Exceptions
This Section does not apply to the following individual persons and establishments:
A. Bona fide legal, medical, psychiatric, psychological, family or marriage
counseling services licensed by the State of Minnesota.
B. Bona fide financial counseling services or bona fide educational institutions
completely complying with State and local regulations or the regulation of
Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 12
§ 6.36
any licensing authorities nor does it apply to bona fide churches, synagogues
or institutions or organized religions or to seminars, panel discussions or
group classes sponsored by bona fide religious institutions or educational
institutions.
C. Bona fide health/sports establishments which meet the following criteria; 1)
the primary purpose of the establishment is health and fitness; massage
service is subsidiary; 2) no more than ten percent (10%) of the
establishment revenue is derived from massage; 3) the financial records of
the establishment are at all times available to the City for inspection; and, 4)
the establishment has an ongoing membership which list is available to City
officials for inspection at any time. Masseurs and masseuses employed by
such establishments are not required to be certified under this Section.
Subdivision 6. Contents of Application for License
A. Application for a license shall be made only on the forms provided by the City
Manager. Four (4) complete copies of the application must be submitted to
the City Manager's office containing the address and legal description of the
property to be used, the name, address and telephone number of two (2)
persons who shall be residents of Hennepin County who may be called upon
to attest to the applicant's, manager's or operator's character; whether the
applicant, manager or operator has ever been convicted of a crime or offense
and, if so, complete and accurate information as to the crime, place and
nature of such crime or offense, including the disposition thereof; the names
and addresses of all creditors of the applicant, owner, lessee, or manager
insofar as and regarding credit which has been extended for the purposes of
constructing, equipping, maintaining, operating, furnishing, or acquiring the
premises, personal effects, equipment or anything incidental to the
establishment maintenance and operation of a massage parlor, sauna, rap
parlor, conversation parlor, adult encounter group, adult sensitivity group,
escort service, model service, dancing service, hostess service or similar
adult-oriented service.
B. If the application is made on behalf of a joint business venture, partnership
or any Legally constituted business association other than a corporation, it
shall submit, along with its application, accurate and complete business
records showing the names and addresses of all partners, officers and
owners and, in the case of a corporation, the names and addresses of all
officers, general manager and members of the Board of Directors.
C. If the application is made on behalf of a joint business venture, partnership,
legally constituted business association or corporation, the applicant shall
also submit the names and addresses of any and all creditors who have
extended credit for the acquisition, maintenance, operation or furnishing of
the establishment.
Golden Valley City Code Page 4 of 12
§ 6.36
D. All applicants shall furnish to the City, along with their applications, complete
and accurate documentation establishing the interest of the applicant and
any other person having an interest in the premises upon which the building
is proposed to be located or in the furnishings thereof. Documentation shall
be in the form of a lease, deed, contract for deed, mortgage deed, mortgage,
credit arrangement, loan agreements, security agreements and any other
documents establishing the interest of the applicant or any other person in
the operation, acquisition or maintenance of the enterprise offering services
as a massage parlor, sauna, rap parlor, conversation parlor, adult encounter
group, adult sensitivity group, model service, escort service, dancing service,
hostess service or similar adult-oriented service.
Source: City Code
Effective Date: 6-30-88
E. Insurance in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) in professional
liability and general liability shall be in force and effect as a condition of
maintaining a valid licensed premises.
Source: Ordinance No. 203, 2nd Series
Effective: 6-24-99
F. All applicants shall state any other licenses for which they have applied
within the last ten (10) years and any denial, suspension or revocation of a
license along with an explanation of any such denial, suspension or
revocation.
Subdivision 7. Contents of the Application for Certificate
Application shall be made only on forms provided by the City Manager. The
application shall include the following information together with any information
which the City Manager may require:
Source: City Code
Effective Date: 6-30-88
A. Applicants must possess a certificate from a licensed school of massage,
certifying their successful completion of a course of study of not less than
four hundred (400) hours of training in massage therapy.
Source: Ordinance No. 203, 2"d Series
Effective: 6-24-99
B. Evidence of applicant's practical qualifications to practice massage.
C. Evidence that the applicant is of good moral character.
D. The names and addresses of two (2) persons, residents of Hennepin County,
who can attest to the applicant's character.
Golden Valley City Code Page 5 of 12
§ 6.36
E. Whether the applicant has ever been convicted of a crime or offense and, if
so, information as to the time, place and nature of such crime or offense.
Source: City Code
Effective Date- 6-30-88
F. Evidence that the applicant is at least eighteen (18) years of age.
Source: Ordinance No. 203, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 6-24-99
Subdivision 8. Licensing Conditions
A. Licenses shall be issued only if the applicant or all of its owners, managers,
employees, agents or interested parties are persons of good moral character
and repute.
B. Licenses shall be issued only if the applicant and all of its owners, managers,
agents, employees or interested parties are free of convictions for offenses
which involve moral turpitude or which relate directly to such person's ability,
capacity or fitness to perform the duties and discharge the responsibilities of
the licensed activity.
C. Licenses shall be issued only to applicants who have not, within three (3)
years prior to the date of application, had a license of this type revoked or
suspended in or by any community or political entity and whose owners,
managers, or any interested parties have not been similarly revoked or
suspended.
D. Licenses shall be issued only to applicants who have answered fully and
truthfully all of the information requested in the application, who have paid
the full license fee and fee for investigation and have cooperated fully and
truthfully with the City in the review of the application.
E. Licenses may only be granted when the premises involved are in complete
conformity with the Zoning Chapter of the City Code.
Source: City Code
Effective Date: 6-30-88
F. Licenses shall be granted only to establishments which meet the safety,
sanitary and building code requirements of the City.
G. A license shall not be granted if granting the license 1) would be inconsistent
with the comprehensive development of the City, or 2) would otherwise have
a detrimental effect upon other Property or properties in the vicinity.
Source: Ordinance No. 203, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 6-24-99
Golden Valley City Code Page 6 of 12
§ 6.36
Subdivision 9. Certification Conditions
A. Certificates shall be issued only to persons of good moral character and
repute and persons who are in good health and free from any communicable
disease.
B. Certificates shall be issued only to persons free of convictions of offenses
which involve moral turpitude or which relate directly to the person's ability,
capacity or fitness to perform the duties and discharge the responsibilities of
the occupation.
C. Certificates shall not be issued to persons who, within one (1) year prior to
the date of application, have been denied certification licensing or who has
had his or her certificate or license revoked or suspended by any community,
political entity or by the State of Minnesota.
D. Certificates shall be issued only to persons who have fully and truthfully
answered all of the information requested in the application and have paid
the full certification fee and certification investigation fee.
E. Certificates shall be issued only to persons eighteen (18) years of age or
older.
Source: City Code
Effective Date: 6-30-88
Subdivision 10. Granting or Denial of Licenses and Certificates
A. License applications and certificate applications shall be issued by the
Department of Public Safety upon review by the Inspections Department,
Planning Department, and such other departments as the City Manager shall
deem necessary. The review of license applications shall include an
inspection of the premises covered by the application to determine whether
the premises conform to all applicable code requirements.
Source: Ordinance No. 203, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 6-24-99
B. A license permitting the conduct of an establishment offering services as a
massage parlor, sauna, rap parlor, conversation parlor, adult encounter
group, adult sensitivity group, escort service, model service, dancing service,
hostess service or similar adult-oriented service is non -transferable and non-
renewable, and application must be made each year for a license permitting
and allowing the conduct of such business for the succeeding year.
C. A certificate permitting the holder thereof to practice or administer massage
commercially is non-renewable and non -transferable and application must be
made each year at least sixty (60) days before the expiration of the existing
certificate for a certificate permitting and allowing the holder thereof to
administer or practice massage for the succeeding year.
Golden Valley City Code Page 7 of 12
§ 6.36
Subdivision 11. Restrictions and Regulations
A. The licensee and any persons in the employ of such licensee or agents or
officers thereof and any and all persons with an interest in said business shall
comply with all applicable provisions of the City Code, the State of
Minnesota, and the United States.
B. If the licensee is a partnership or corporation, the applicant shall designate a
person to be manager and in responsible charge of the business and
employees. Such person shall remain responsible for the conduct of the
business and employees until another suitable person has been designated in
writing by the licensee. The licensee shall promptly notify the Department of
Public Safety in writing of any such change, indicating the name, address and
telephone number of the new manager and the effective date of such
change.
C. Every licensee shall allow an examination and inspection of every part of the
premises by any Department of Public Safety, inspections or health authority
of the City during normal business hours times each year. Refusal to allow
such inspection or to answer the request of the Department of Public Safety,
inspections, or health authority to be admitted to a licensed premises shall
be grounds for suspension or revocation of all licenses.
Source: City Code
Effective Date: 6-30-88
D. The licensed premises shall not be open for business nor shall patrons be
permitted on the premises between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am on any
day.
Source: Ordinance No. 203, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 6-24-99
E. Upon demand of any police officer, any person employed in any licensed
premises shall provide identification by giving such person's true legal name,
date of birth, and correct address.
F. No person under eighteen (18) years of age shall be employed in an
establishment requiring a license under the provisions of this Section.
G. The licensee shall furnish the Department of Public Safety with a list of
current employees, indicating their names and addresses and designating the
duties of the employees within the licensed premises. The licensee shall
promptly notify the Department of Public Safety of any additions or deletions
in the list of employees or changes in their job descriptions or duties.
H. The licensed premises must be kept and maintained in a sanitary condition
defined as being free from the vegetative cells of pathogenic microorganisms
and all equipment, personal property, tables, beds, towels, clothing and the
Golden Valley City Code Page 8 of 12
§ 6.36
like used in or for the licensed premises shall also be maintained in a sanitary
condition as defined herein.
I. No licensee shall employ any person as a masseur or masseuse without first
insuring that said employee possesses a valid certificate for the
administration or practice of massage.
Source: City Code
Effective Date: 6-30-88
I Except as otherwise provided in this Section, any person acting as a masseur
or masseuse shall have such person's certificate displayed in a prominent
place at such person's place of employment and upon demand by any police
officer or other authorized officer or agent of the City, any person engaged in
practicing massage shall provide identification by giving such person's true
legal name, date of birth, correct address and phone number.
K. Except as otherwise provided in this Section, any person practicing massage
within the City shall initially advise the City of such person's address and
telephone number and shall further advise the City of any changes in address
or telephone number within thirty (30) days of such change.
L. Any masseur or masseuse practicing massage shall remain fully clothed in a
non -transparent uniform or clothing at all times. The therapist must require
that the person who is receiving the massage will at all times have that
persons breasts, buttocks, anus and genitals covered with non -transparent
material or clothing.
Subdivision 12. Construction and Maintenance Requirements
A. The premises shall have private restrooms and changing facilities available
for patrons. The changing room need not be separate from the massage
room.
B. All massage rooms, locker rooms, restrooms and bathrooms used in
connection therewith shall be maintained in a sanitary condition. All
equipment, personal property, beds, towels, clothing and the like used in the
massage parlor shall be of a sanitary design and kept in a sanitary condition.
Source: Ordinance No, 203, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 6-24-99
C. All restrooms shall be provided with mechanical ventilation meeting the
ventilation requirements of the Building Code, a hand washing sink equipped
with hot and cold running water under pressure, sanitary towels and a soap
dispenser.
Source: City Code
Effective Date: 6-30-88
Golden Valley City Code Page 9 of 12
§ 6.36
D. All rooms in the licensed premises including, but not limited to, massage
rooms, sauna rooms, restrooms, bathrooms, rap rooms, conversation rooms,
modeling rooms, dancing rooms, janitor's closets, hallways and reception
areas shall be illuminated with not less than five (5) foot candles of
illumination.
Source: Ordinance No. 203, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 6-24-99
E. Each licensed premises shall have a janitor's closet which shall provide for
the storage of cleaning supplies.
F. Floors, walls and equipment in massage rooms, sauna rooms, restrooms,
bathrooms, rap rooms, conversation rooms, modeling rooms and dancing
rooms must be kept in a state of good repair and sanitary at all times. Linen
and other materials shall be stored at least twelve (12) inches off the floor.
Clean towels, washcloths and linens must be available for each customer
utilizing the sauna or shower facilities.
Source: City Code
Effective Date: 6-30-88
G. Such establishments shall provide adequate refuse receptacles which shall be
emptied as required.
Source: Ordinance No. 203, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 6-24-99
Subdivision 13. Health and Disease Control
No person afflicted with any disease in a communicable form or while a carrier of
such disease or while afflicted with boils, infected wounds, sores or any acute
respiratory infection shall work in or use the services of any licenses premises and
no person known or suspected of being afflicted with any such disease or condition
shall be employed or permitted in such area or capacity.
Subdivision 14. Revocation, Suspension or Non -Renewal of License
The license may be revoked, suspended or not renewed by the Council upon
recommendation of the City Manager by showing that the licensee, its owners,
managers, employees, agents or any other interested parties have engaged in any
of the following conduct:
A. Fraud, deception or misrepresentation in connection with the securing of the
license.
B. Habitual drunkenness or intemperance in the use of drugs including, but not
limited to, the use of drugs defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 152,
barbiturates, hallucinogenic drugs, amphetamines, Benzedrine, Dexedrine or
other sedatives, depressants, stimulants or tranquilizers.
C. Engaging in conduct involving moral turpitude or permitting or allowing
others within their employ or agency to engage in conduct involving moral
Golden Valley City Code Page 10 of 12
§ 6.36
turpitude or failing to prevent agents, officers, or employees in engaging in
conduct involving moral turpitude.
D. Failure to fully comply with any requirements of the City Code regarding
sanitary and safety conditions, zoning requirements, building code
requirements; or failure to fully comply with the City Code, the violation of
which involves moral turpitude, or failure to comply fully with any
requirements of this Section.
E. Conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude by any court of competent
jurisdiction.
F. Operation of the establishment without a valid license or during periods in
which the license has been suspended or revoked.
G. Engaging in any conduct which would constitute grounds for refusal to issue
a license herein.
H. The licensee may appeal such suspension, revocation or non -renewal to the
Council. The Council shall consider the appeal at the next regularly scheduled
Council meeting on or after ten (10) days from service of the notice of appeal
to the City Manager. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council may order:
1) that the revocation, suspension or non -renewal be affirmed; 2) that the
revocation, suspension or non -renewal be lifted and that the license be
returned to the license holder; or, 3) the Council may base either suspension
or issuance of the certificate upon any additional terms, conditions and
stipulations which it may, in its sole discretion, impose.
Subdivision 15. Revocation, Suspension or Non -Renewal of
Certificate
Certification may be revoked or suspended by the City Manager or not renewed by
the Council for any of the following:
A. Fraud, deception or misrepresentation in connection with the securing of the
certification.
B. Habitual drunkenness or intemperance in the use of drugs including, but not
limited to, the use of drugs defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 152,
barbiturates, hallucinogenic drugs, amphetamines, Benzedrine, Dexedrine or
other sedatives, depressants, stimulants or tranquilizers.
C. Conduct, inimical to the interests of the public health, safety, welfare or
morals.
D. Engaging in conduct involving moral turpitude.
E. Failure to fully comply with the requirements of this Section.
Golden Valley City Code Page 11 of 12
§ 6.36
F. Conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude.
G. The certificate holder may appeal such suspension, revocation or non-
renewal to the Council. The Council shall consider the appeal at the next
regularly scheduled Council meeting on or after ten (10) days from service of
the notice of appeal to the City Manager. At the conclusion of the hearing,
the Council may order: 1) that the revocation, suspension or non -renewal be
affirmed; 2) that the revocation, suspension or non -renewal be lifted and
that the certificate be returned to the certificate holder; or, 3) the Council
may base either suspension or issuance of the certificate upon any additional
terms, conditions and stipulations which it may, in its sole discretion, impose.
Subdivision 16. Prohibited Acts
It is unlawful for any employer to employ a person to practice or administer
massage nor permit, suffer or allow a person to practice or administer massage
unless that person has been granted a valid certificate pursuant to this Section and
every employer shall require that the certification be prominently and openly
displayed on the premises in plain view.
Subdivision 17. Illegal Acts
It is unlawful for any person to commit or attempt to commit, conspire to commit
or aid and abet in the commission of any act constituting a violation of this Section
or any act, which constitutes an omission and, therefore, a violation of this Section,
whether individually or in connection with one or more persons or as principal,
agent or accessory, and any person who does so shall be guilty of such offense and
it is unlawful for any person to falsely, fraudulently, forcibly or willfully induce,
cause, coerce, require, permit or direct another to violate any of the provisions of
this Section.
Source: City Code
Effective Date: 6-30-88
Golden Valley City Code Page 12 of 12
§ 11.21
time a building permit was issued, the location and height are considered
conforming to current Zoning Code. Howevr, new construction and additions to
such properties must comply with current r quirements of the Zoning Code.
Source: Ordinance No. 382, 2"d Series
Effective Date: 3-28-08
*Subdivision 15. Tem ry Outdoo Storage
Temporary Outdoor Storage i e R-1 zo ng districts verned by the
following requirements:
A. Duration. Temporary outdoor sto
for more than seven (7) days.
all not be stored on a property
e stored on a hard surface
riv jte property,
*Subdivision 16. De d Platfoi ms
Decks and platforms ore than thirt (30) inches but greater t eight (8)
inches above adj rade and not att ched to a structure with frost ' tings and
which is not p an accessible route all require a zoning permit issue the
Director of ng. The fee for the zoni g permit is established by the City
Council urpose of the zoning perrnk is to insure that decks greater than eight
(8) but less than thirty (30) inches in height are located in a conforming
loc on the lot. (See Subdivision 11.H).
*Subdivision 17. Home Occupation Requirements
A. Home occupations in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by the
following requirements:
1. The use of the dwelling for the occupation or profession shall be incidental
and secondary to the use of the dwelling for residential purposes.
2. The exterior appearance of the structure shall not be altered for the
operation of the home occupation.
3. There shall be no outside storage or display of anything related to the
home occupation.
4. An accessory structure, including a garage, shall not be used for a home
occupation.
5. A permitted occupation, shall not result in noise, fumes, traffic, lights,
odor, excessive sewage or water use or garbage service, electrical, radio
or TV interference in a manner detrimental to the health, safety,
Golden Valley City Code Page 7 of 10
§ 11.21
enjoyment and general welfare of the surrounding residential
neighborhood.
6. No physical products shall be displayed or sold on the premises except
such that are incidental to the permitted home occupation.
7. No signs or symbols shall be displayed other than those permitted for
residential purposes.
8. Clients, deliveries and other business activity where persons come to the
home shall be limited to between the hours of 9 am and 9 pm.
9. No more than twenty percent (20%) of the gross floor area of the
dwelling shall be used for the home occupation.
10. Parking related to the home occupation shall be provided only on the
driveway of the property where the home occupation operates.
11. A home occupation shall not generate more than eight (8) client trips per
day and serve no more than two (2) clients or customers at a time.
12. There shall only be one (1) outside employee allowed on the premises at
which a home occupation is located.
13. All other applicable City, State and Federal licenses, codes and
regulations shall be met.
B. The following uses are prohibited home occupations:
1. Repair, service, building, rebuilding or painting of autos, trucks, boats and
other vehicles
2. Restaurants or cafes
3. Animal hospital
4. Veterinarian Clinic
5. Funeral Home, mortuary or columbarium
6. Medical/Dental clinic or similar
7. Stable or kennel
8. Repair and service of items that cannot be carried by one (1) person and
repair and service of any item involving an internal combustion engine or
motor
Golden Valley City Code Page 8 of 10
9. Retail sales
10. Sale or repair of firearms
*Subdivision 18. Outdoor Storage
Outdoor storage of items on properties
by the following provisions:
A. Frol%Yard Storage.
1. StoraV_&of items in the front
in no oftr location.
§ 11.21
Source: Ordinance No. 292, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 3-12-04
(thin the R-1 Zoning District is 99perned
rd may occur solely u ,, a driveway, and
2. No personal torized recrea onal vehicl/"in
t may be stored in a
front yard, exc \upon a trail r.
3. Only one (1) of the owing ay be storfront yards of any lot:
a. Recreational campinehijle;
b. Trailer. The term "trailer as *(d in this Subdivision, means a trailer
for multiple purposes incl but not limited to hauling a boat,
personal motorized recre ig I vehicle, or fish house.
4. Storage in the front yard of ems o er than those listed in Subdivision
18.A.3 above may not exc thirty)days unless a Front Yard
Storage Permit is issued e propert owner. A Front Yard Storage
Permit may be issued a he discretion o he City Manager or City Staff
designated by the City, an er.
B. Setbacks.
1. Front Yard Stora: e. Any stI
rage of items in thent yard shall be behind
the property li ,
2. Side Yard St rage. Items s ored in that portion of thside yard to the
front of threar yard, may not be stored within three 3) feet of the
property I' e. Items stored in that portion of the side yard to the rear of
the prim ry structure or at ched garage, may not be stored within five
(5) fee of the property lin
3. Rear and Storage. Items s red in the rear yard may not be stored within
five/(5) feet of the propertyline.
C. Scr ning. Side and Rear Yard torage. Any storage of a recreational
ca ping vehicle, fish house, tra er, boat, or personal motorized recreational
Golden Valley City Code Page 9 of 10
Cx't
ly
Valley
G'o
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
January 12, 2010
Agenda Item
4. Proposed Ordinance Amendments:
a. Deck Front Yard Setback Restrictions in Single Family Residential Zoning District (R-1)
b. Curb Cut Restrictions in Single Family Residential Zoning District (R-1)
Prepared By
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Summary
Staff is proposing to make two separate changes to the Zoning Code. The first change would
amend Section 11.21, Subdivision 11 of City Code by allowing uncovered decks to be built to
within 30 feet of the front yard property line. This change is in response to numerous requests
by residents in the summer of 2009 to build decks in the front of their homes. Currently, only
covered front porches are allowed to be located to within 30 feet of the front yard property
line.
The Planning Commission voted 5-2 in support of this change. The two dissenting
Commissioners believed that this proposed change would allow a homeowner to artificially
raise the grade of a property in order to construct a deck. Staff, as well as the other
Commissioners, do not share the same concern.
The second change to the Zoning Code that is proposed impacts Section 11.21, Subdivision
19 of City Code. The proposed change would restrict street curb cut access in the Residential
Zoning District. Staff feels this change is necessary to ensure safety and consistency, as well
as to ensure quality street reconstruction programs.
Under the proposed language, residents who have two legally constructed garages, residents
who have a documented physical disability requiring alternate access to the property, or
residents who live on lots with existing horseshoe driveways may have one additional curb
cut assess point. By codifying the City's curb cut access policies, residents who face extreme
circumstances other that what is specified may apply for a variance to have an additional
curb cut access point.
Staff feels that the proposed changes to the Zoning Code will improve the safety and
aesthetics of Golden Valley neighborhoods and seeks Council's support.
Attachments
Underlined/Overscored Version - City Code Section 11.21 Subdivision 11 (2 pages)
Planning Commission Meeting minutes dated September 29, 2009 (3 pages)
Proposed Ordinance - Amending Section 11.21 Regarding Deck Front Yard Setback
Restrictions in Single Family Zoning District (R-1) (1 page)
Underlined/Overscored Version - City Code Section 11.21 Subdivision 19 (1 page)
Planning Commission Meeting minutes dated September 29, 2009 (2 pages)
Planning Commission Meeting minutes dated November 23, 2009 (3 pages)
Proposed Ordinance -Amending Section 11.21 Regarding Curb Cut Restrictions in Single
Family Zoning District (R-1) (1 page)
§ 11.21
*Subdivision 11. Principal Structures
Subject to the modifications in Subdivision 12, below, principal structures in the R-1
Zoning District shall be 'governed by the following requirements:
A. Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for
principal structures in the R-1 zoning district. Garages or other accessory
structures which are attached to the house or main structure shall also be
governed by these setback requirements, except for stair landings up to
twenty-five (25) square feet in size and for handicapped ramps.
1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be thirty-five
(35) feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line.
Decks and 8open front porches, with no screens, may be built to within
40 thirty (30) feet of a front property line along a street right-of-way line.
a. In the case of a corner lot, the side with the narrower street frontage
shall be considered the front of the lot.
2. Rear Setback. The required rear setback shall be twenty percent (20%) of
the lot depth.
3. Side Setback. Side yard setbacks are determined by the lot width at the
minimum required front setback line. The distance between any part of a
structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following
requirements:
Source: Ordinance No. 292, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 3-12-04
a. In the case of lots having a width of one hundred (100) feet or
greater, the side setbacks for structures fifteen (15) feet or less in
height shall be fifteen (15) feet. The side setbacks for any structure
greater than fifteen (15) feet in height shall be fifteen (15) feet plus
one-half (0.5) foot for each additional one (1) foot (or portion thereof)
of structure height over fifteen (15) feet;
b. In the case of lots having a width greater than sixty-five (65) feet and
less than one hundred (100) feet, the side setbacks for structures
fifteen (15) feet or less in height shall be twelve and one-half (12.5)
feet. The side setbacks for any structure greater than fifteen (15) feet
in height shall be twelve and one-half (12.5) feet plus one --half (0.5)
foot for each additional one (1) foot (or portion thereof) of structure
height over fifteen (15) feet;
c. In the case of lots having a width of sixty-five (65) feet or less, the
side setbacks for structures fifteen (15) feet or less in height along the
north or west side shall be ten percent (10%) of the lot width and
along the south or east side shall be twenty percent (20%) of the lot
Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 2
§ 11.21
width (up to twelve and one-half (12.5) feet) The side setback for any
structure greater than fifteen (15) feet in height along the north or
west side shall be ten percent (10%) of the lot width and along the
south or east side twenty percent (20%) of the lot width plus one-half
(0.5) foot for each additional two (2) feet (or portion thereof) of height
over fifteen (15) feet.
d. For any new construction, whether a new house, addition or
replacement through a tear -down, any wall longer than thirty-two (32)
feet in length must be articulated, with a shift of at least two (2) feet
in depth, for at least eight (8) feet in length, for every thirty-two (32)
feet of wall.
Source: Ordinance No. 382, 2"d Series
Effective Date: 3-28-08
4. Corner Lot Setbacks. To determine the rear yard setback, use the longer
lot line. To determine the side yard setback, use the shortest lot line.
Source: Ordinance No. 292, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 3-12-04
B. Height Limitations. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning
District with a building height exceeding twenty-eight (28) feet for pitched
roof houses and twenty-five (25) feet for flat roof houses.
Source: Ordinance No. 382, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 3-28-08
C. Structure Width Requirements. No principal structure shall be less than
twenty-two (22) feet in width as measured from the exterior of the exterior
walls.
D. Cornices and Eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than thirty
(30) inches into a required setback.
49 E. Decks. Decks over eight (8) inches from ground level shall meet the same
setbacks as the principal structure -in the side and rear yards.
Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 2
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 29, 2009
regular meeting of the Planning Co mission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Co I Chambers, 7800 Golden Vall Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Tuesday,
Septem X29, 2009. Chair Keysser c Iled the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present vI.Planning Commis
Schmidgall and Wal` terser. Also pre:
Mark Grimes and Adminisr'a iye Assis
1. Approval of Minutes
:)ners Cera, Eck,
nt was Director
nt Lisa Wwr -
June 22, 2009 Reguiir Planning pommissidMMeting
Eck and McCarty,r ted some typographical errors.
>eef luchka, McCarty,
nning and Development
MOVED ick, seconded by Waldhau r and motion carried unanimou' ty to approve
the J 22, 2009 minutes with the note corrections. Chair Keysser abstained from
v g.
2. Informal Public Hearing — Zoning Code Amendment - Regarding Front Yard
Setback Requirements for Decks
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Purpose: To allow decks to be located within 30 feet of the front yard property line
in the Single Family Zoning District (R-1)
Hogeboom stated that staff has been seeing more requests recently for decks to be
located in front yards. He explained that the City Code allows an open front porch to be
located 30 feet from a front yard property line but that decks have different requirements
even though an open front porch without a roof is considered to be a deck. He stated that
staff believes front yard decks and open front porches serve the same purpose so the
recommendation is to amend the Code to allow decks to be located within 30 feet of a
front yard property line just like open front porches.
Waldhauser questioned the language regarding a 5'x 5' landing area or stoop and asked
if front yard decks could be larger than 5' x 5'. Hogeboom explained that for a structure to
be considered a stoop or landing it has to be no larger than 25 square feet in area,
anything larger than that would be considered a deck. He added that a structure up to 25
square feet in size is allowed to be built in a setback area, however if it is larger than 25
square feet it has to meet setback requirements. Waldhauser asked how a raised patio
would be considered. Hogeboom said if it is more than 8" in height it would be considered
a deck.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 29, 2009
Page 2
Keysser asked if the word deck is defined in the Zoning Code. Hogeboom said it is not
defined in the Code. However, it is common to refer to a porch as having a roof and a
deck as not having a roof.
Keysser referred to the proposed ordinance language and asked if open front porches,
along with decks, should be included in, section E. Hogeboom stated that the Planning
Department has an intern who is currently working on language regarding garden
structures which might affect how open front porches are regulated.
Waldhauser asked if a person would be able to build an open front porch with a deck in
front of it. Hogeboom said with the proposed new language an open front porch and a
deck could be built together if it doesn't go closer than 30 feet to the front yard property
line.
Eck questioned if stairs leading to a deck or porch are included in the requirements.
Hogeboom said no and explained that stairs are allowed to be built in a setback area.
Kluchka asked where the definition of a deck should be placed in the ordinance. He
questioned if there should be some language added regarding locating the original or
existing grade of a lot before a deck is built to ensure that the grade isn't being built up
before a deck is built in order to get around the requirements. Hogeboom said there are
controls in place regarding the grading of property, but that language could be added to
this section of the City Code as well. Kluchka said he would like language regarding
original grade added to sections A(1) and E of the proposed new ordinance.
Cera questioned if the City would want to allow open front porches and decks to be larger
and therefore, closer than 30 feet to the property line. The Commissioners agreed they
want to see the front yard setback requirement remain 30 feet for open front porches and
decks. Grimes explained that when the language regarding open front porches was
originally discussed it was decided that 5 extra feet would be adequate space for an open
front porch.
Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Keysser closed the public hearing.
McCarty asked if the Planning Commission will be reviewing this ordinance again. Grimes
said the Planning Commission could choose to table this item in order to review any
changes made. McCarty said he is not comfortable adding language regarding the
original or existing grade of the property because this ordinance doesn't require that. He
said he likes how the proposed ordinance is currently written.
Kluchka said he thinks adding language regarding grade would be more consistent with
the rest of the City Code. Keysser suggested the language regarding grade be added
only to section E. McCarty suggested recommending approval of the ordinance as it is
written and if there is an issue with people building up their grade just to pour concrete
then the issue can be revisited.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 29, 2009
Page 3
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Cera and motion carried 5 to 2 to recommend
approval of the Zoning Code amendment to allow decks to be located within 30 feet of the
front yard property line in the Single Family Zoning District (R-1) with the language
currently proposed by staff. Commissioners Kluchka and Waldhauser voted no.
Informal Public Hearing — Zoning,Code Amendment - Regarding the Number
of Street Curb Cut Access Poin
icant: City of Golden Valley
Pu ose: To limit the number of
the gle Family Zoning District
Hogeboom stat that during the City's
several situations khere people want to
has been city policy only allow one ct
ordinance would add guage to the Zc
with certain exceptions ch as a having
disability which requires a` . itional drive
driveway.
Kluchka said he would rather "g1
allow for existing horseshoe driv
something they already have se
aprons are on City property, not
existing conditions to stay.�,�:r
Cera as ifff is' a cost issue. Hojeb
at the City would like re dived.
w
A
and a cost issue. The City d like t
associated with second c 06 cuts. Wa
or aesthetics, she think he City just
an underlying reason, i allowing only
/ancesaren't
asked - this issue has t
pbee not to allow second
que Toned if it makes sen;
ient Management Prog
ser questioned if the City v+
bpeople would then be allov
ould be to place the require
varen't allowed. Cera queE
rg a second curb cut.
I
eet curb cut access points to one per parcel in.
avement Management Project they lave been
lave more than one curb cut. H.eltated that it
b cut. He explained that aroving the proposed
ling Code which would_na'nly allow one curb cut
,,r
two legally construgcted garages, a physical
ray access or a lot"with an existing horseshoe
�r in' ally fisting driveway conditions and not just
le sad`not allowing a homeowner to keep
a icing to him Ho,gebooni-noted that'dr'iveway
onartv:` Kl66hka said he would still like to allow
n Nlaidneethat d there are some secondary curb
mes dd that it is a traffic issue, safety issue
home o ner to pay the additional costs
auser sa she doesn't think it is an issue of cost
its fewer c s into the street. Cera questioned if
curb cut is i pervious surface issues.
.In handled in the ' St. Hogeboom stated that the
irb cuts but it is not icially in the City Code.
to put this language i the City Code this far along
n process.
nts to put these requiremerks in the Zoning Code
�d to ask for a variance. Hoge • oom said another
lents in a different section of the City Code where
Dried what kind of hardship would apply in
ORDINANCE NO. , 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Amending Section 11.21 Regarding Deck Front Yard Setback Restrictions
in Single Family Zoning District (R-1)
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. City Code Section 11.21 entitled "Single Family Zoning District", Subd.
11(A)(1) is amended by changing the second sentence to read: "Decks and open front
porches, with no screens, may be built to within thirty (30) feet of a front property line along
a street right-of-way line."
Section 2. City Code Section11.21 entitled "Single Family Zoning District", Subd.
11(E) is amended to read: "Decks. Decks over eight (8) inches from ground level shall meet
the same setbacks as the principal structure in the side and rear yards."
Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99
entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as
though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and
publication as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council this day of 12010.
/s/Linda R. Loomis
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/Susan M. Virniq
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
§ 11.21
4A*Subdivision 19. Paved Area, Driveways and Street Access Requirements
Paved areas in the Single Family (R-1) Zoning District, include those constructed of
concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers, and are governed by the following
provisions:'
A. Driveways built or reconstructed on or after January 1, 2005, shall be paved.
B. Setbacks. Pa)
property line,
pursuant to a
ed areas shall be setback three (3) feet from a side yard
except for shared driveways used by multiple property owners
private easement.
Source: Ordinance No. 415, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 02-13-09
C. Coverage. No more than forty percent (40%) of the front yard may be
covered with concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers.
Source: Ordinance No. 382, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 3-28-08
*Renumbering Source
Ordinance No. 382, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 3-28-08
D. Street Access; -Each lot may have only one (1) street curb cut access. Lots
with the following situations may have up to two (2) street curb cut accesses
(cost for the additional street curb cut access point shall be assessed to the
property owner):
1. A lot that contains two (2) legally constructed garages.
2. A physical disability of a person residing on the property requires
additional driveway access.
3. A lot that contains an existing horseshoe driveway.
Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 1
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 29, 2009
Page 3
M McCarty, s conded b otion carried 5 to 2 to recommend
approval of t"a endment to allow decks to be located within 30 feet of the
front yard �r in in'iY'4E�iq Family Zoning District (R-1) with the language
cu roposed by staff. Commissi�Ika and Waldhauser voted no.
3. Informal Public Hearing — Zoning Code Amendment - Regarding the Number
of Street Curb Cut Access Points
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Purpose: To limit the number of street curb cut access points to one per parcel in
the Single Family Zoning District (R-1)
Hogeboom stated that during the City's Pavement Management Project there have been
several situations where people want to have more than one curb cut. He stated that it
has been city policy to only allow one curb cut. He explained that approving the proposed
ordinance would add language to the Zoning Code which would only allow one curb cut
with certain exceptions such as a having two legally constructed garages, a physical
disability which requires additional driveway access or a lot with an existing horseshoe
driveway.
Kluchka said he would rather "grandfather in" all existing driveway conditions and not just
allow for existing horseshoe driveways. He said not allowing a homeowner to keep
something they already have seems like a taking to him. Hogeboom noted that driveway
aprons are on City property, not private property. Kluchka said he would still like to allow
existing conditions to stay.
Cera asked if it is a cost issue. Hogeboom explained that there are some secondary curb
cuts that the City would like removed. Grimes added that it is a traffic issue, safety issue
and a cost issue. The City would like the homeowner to pay the additional costs
associated with second curb cuts. Waldhauser said she doesn't think it is an issue of cost
or aesthetics, she thinks the City just wants fewer cuts into the street. Cera questioned if
an underlying reason in allowing only one curb cut is impervious surface issues.
McCarty asked how this issue has been handled in the past. Hogeboom stated that the
policy has been not to allow second curb cuts but it is not officially in the City Code.
McCarty questioned if it makes sense to put this language in the City Code this far along
in the Pavement Management Program process.
Waldhauser questioned if the City wants to put these requirements in the Zoning Code
because people would then be allowed to ask for a variance. Hogeboom said another
option would be to place the requirements in a different section of the City Code where
variances aren't allowed. Cera questioned what kind of hardship would apply in
requesting a second curb cut.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 29, 2009
Page 4
Keysser asked if a person building a new home could construct a horseshoe driveway.
Hogeboom said city policy no longer allows horseshoe driveways at all.
Grimes stated that the Planning Commission could choose to table this discussion to
allow someone from Public Works to come to a meeting and talk about this issue.
McCarty said he thinks there are two separate issues. One is if it is a Public Works issue
or a Planning issue and the other is why the City limits property owners to one curb cut.
Kluchka said he doesn't think this ordinance change is a good idea. He said he doesn't
see a good reason to prevent a home owner from having more than one curb cut.
McCarty added that he is having difficulty understanding why this issue is being
addressed now when there is only a little bit of the project left.
Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Keysser closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to table this item
in order to obtain further clarification from the Public Works Department. Waldhauser
added that it would be helpful to see some pictures.
Reports on Meetings of the
Council, Board of Zoning A
No reporfivere given.
6. Other
--Short Recess --
using and Redevelopment Authority, City
,als and other Meetings
a. Planning Dertment Projct Upd
Hogeboom gave an update cui
progress of the Comprehensive
has received a copy of the he
such as streamlining the ogr-,
additional housing de ' inform;
implementing regu ons are defi
land uses, prov' g more detaile
redevelop areas and extend
Hogebo discussed the Dougla
final ase and is expected to bei
n house that was held in Au
�ning Department projects. He discussed the
update and stated that the Metropolitan Council
ias asked the City to make several adjustments
I forecast throughout the plan, providing
n, eating a section of the plan wherein the City's
d, pro ' ing more detailed data concerning future
data con ning the City's designated
traffic fore sting data.
Drive Corridor dy. He stated that the study is in its
�mpleted by the a of 2009. He talked about an
t to allow property o 1
rs a chance to view
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 23, 2009
Page 2
t dway to a three lane design an to make traffic improvements to accommodate
bicycle s on both sides of the road ay. She stated that the project is in the very
preliminary s and has not been ap oved by Hennepin County o,rJD nDOT. She
stated that the plaLeholder was put in t e Capital Improvements rogram and reiterated
that if the City desires to' u the funds om the TLC grapt--t�en it needs to set aside
money to match the grant.
Waldhauser asked Virnig to highli�y,01- 't
Improvement Plan since lastar's plar
replacement level has §ta,"ed the same
the golf course ha -'so considered del
MOVED Eck, seconded by Kluchka
aper of the 2010-2014 Capital Imp
noed correction, as it is consistent witl
r
.9f the biggest changes in the Capital
rni�'�evllained that the vehicle equipment
re were gqme delays in the building fund and
ying some of tti' quipment replacing as well.
ind motion carried unanim to recommend
)vement Program with Commissioner Eck's above
the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Continued Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Code Amendment – Regarding
the Number of Street Curb Cut Access Points
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Purpose: To limit the number of street curb cut access points to one per parcel in
the Single Family Zoning District (R-1)
Hogeboom reminded the Commission that this item was tabled at their September 29
meeting. He explained that the proposed ordinance language would restrict curb cuts in
the Residential Zoning District to one with a few exceptions. He added that by putting the
language in the Zoning Code residents could ask for a variance if there is a hardship
present.
Oliver stated that prior to 1999 Public Works staff had the practice of replacing existing
driveways as they were. He explained that during the 1999-2000 Pavement Management
Program the City Council received several complaints about driveway widths and
secondary driveways. The Council at that time asked staff to gather information regarding
the codes and policies in place. That discussion led to the City's current policy which limits
driveway widths to 25 feet maximum, eliminates all boulevard parking areas and
eliminates second driveways where no hardships exists. He stated that since 2000-2001
there have been approximately 50 properties where these types of issues have been
addressed and there have been several people each year who have appealed the
decisions. Based on recent appeals from residents to the City Council staff has been
directed to codify the existing policies and practices.
He reviewed the proposed new language regarding second driveways and explained that
lots containing two legally constructed garages, lots with a person residing on the property
with a physical disability that would require additional driveway access, and lots that
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 23, 2009
Page 3
contain an existing horseshoe driveway would be allowed to have up to two curb cuts with
the costs assessed to the property owner.
He stated that discussions regarding this issue have included reduction of impervious
surface area and the associated storm water runoff, the costs of installing driveway aprons
which varies from $500 to $1500 per driveway apron and the ongoing maintenance costs
of driveway aprons, safety issues particularly on arterial roads and the desire to treat all
residential properties the same.
Keysser asked about permitting new horseshoe driveways. Oliver stated that the proposed
code does not allow for new horseshoe driveways.
Cera asked if the hardship standards used in the Zoning Code when considering
variances are the same standards used when evaluating curb cut requests and appeals.
Oliver stated that when evaluating requests for second driveways they consider the actual
need for the second driveway including handicap access, legally built second garages, etc.
Hogeboom added that if the conditions in the proposed new driveway language were met,
residents wouldn't have to go the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance. Oliver explained
that each case would be looked at individually but the intent is to remove secondary
driveways.
McCarty asked about the procedure when a second driveway is removed. Oliver stated
that typically these issues happen during a pavement management program and in all
cases the secondary driveway or auxiliary boulevard parking space has been removed
and the yard restored.
Keysser asked what the argument is against allowing horseshoe driveways for new
construction since they are safer. Oliver reiterated that the number of driveways
particularly on an arterial road is a safety concern and allowing horseshoe driveways for
new construction is an issue of equity. He suggested the Planning Commission forward
their concerns onto the City Council. Clancy added that another concern regarding
secondary driveways is the City's need to reduce long term infrastructure costs.
Keysser opened the public hearing.
Don Lundquist, 1338 Edgewood, asked the Planning Commission to understand that the
City isn't absorbing the cost for secondary driveways, the taxpayers are.
Bruce Johnson, 6842 Olympia Street, said the issue hasn't been addressed regarding a
person who wants extra driveways and is willing to pay for them. He said this is a
nonsense issue and he doesn't see what the issue is if a resident is willing to pay for extra
driveways. Grimes stated that a typical lot in Golden Valley is only 80 feet wide so there
isn't always room for a second driveway and sometimes having more than one driveway
can cause other issues in terms of traffic and safety. Kluchka reviewed the proposed new
language and reiterated that some property owners will be allowed to have second curb
cuts. Johnson questioned the safety concerns that have been discussed. Oliver explained
that on high volume roads the more driveway points entering and exiting the flow of traffic
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 23, 2009
Page 4
presents a safety concern. He added that most developing communities do not permit
driveways onto high volume roadways.
Stacy Hoschka, 6400 Golden Valley Road, noted that there is an increase in impervious
surface with horseshoe driveways and thinks the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission
might have concerns. She added that horseshoe driveways might be safer for the driver
coming out of the driveway, but not necessarily for other people driving or walking by. She
also questioned if more curb cuts are easier or safer for pedestrians or people in
wheelchairs.
David Comb, 200 Jersey Avenue North, stated that he has a horseshoe driveway and he
just spent $6,000 repaving it. He is concerned about being forced to remove it if the City
deems it necessary. Oliver stated that Jersey Avenue between Laurel and Glenwood was
reconstructed in 1995 and he anticipates a long life for that roadway. Grimes reiterated
that the language in the Code allows existing horseshoe driveways to remain.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing.
Waldhauser agreed that part of the safety issue is not just for drivers but also for
pedestrians.
McCarty noted that the proposed new language affects the remaining properties in the
Pavement Management Program and questioned if it is too late in the process now to
codify these requirements. He asked how many properties would be affected by these
proposed new requirements. Oliver stated that some years have seen no second driveway
issues and other years there have been 10 or 12 issues. He stated that these proposed
requirements would apply to approximately 3 to 8 percent of properties.
Kluchka said he supports this proposal because it gives people a process to appeal.
MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of limiting the number of street curb cut access points to one per
parcel in the Single Family Zoning District (R-1).
Informal Public Hearing — G neral Land Use Comprehensive Plan Amendment —
iLdopting the Douglas Drive�orridor Study
Appli City of Golden Vall
Purpose: To rec end theoption of the Dpal lYfi e Corridor study as a
part of the Special Pla g D' trictsso the Comprehensive Plan
Hogeboom stated that the eras r orridor Study began in July of 2008. He
explained that thh to was overse ' n by ouglas Drive Corridor Study Advisory
Co;mi chi was comprised of , hree Plann Commissioners, three City Council
M and three staff members- a stated that t study looked at long term solutions
ORDINANCE NO. , 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Amending Section 11.21 Regarding Curb Cut Restrictions
in Single Family Zoning District (R-1)
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. City Code Section 11.21 entitled "Single Family Zoning District", Subd. 19
is amended by renaming it as follows: "Subdivision 19. Paved Area, Driveways and Street
Access Requirements"
Section 2. City Code Section 11.21 entitled "Single Family Zoning District", Subd. 19
is amended by adding Subdivision 19(D) to read as follows:
D. Street Access. Each lot may have only one (1) street curb access. Lots with the
following situations may have up to two (2) street curb cut accesses (cost for the additional
street curb cut access point shall be assessed to the property owner):
1. A lot that contains two (2) legally constructed garages.
2. A physical disability of a person residing on the property requires additional
driveway access.
3. A lot that contains an existing horseshoe driveway.
Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99
entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as
though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and
publication as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council this day of , 2010.
/s/Linda R. Loomis
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/Susan M. Virniq
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
G
o M alley
Public Works
763-593-8030 / 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
January 12, 2010
Agenda Item
5. Discuss Finished Grades of Manhole Castings
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer
Summary
In recent weeks, the City Council has expressed concerns regarding the finished grade of
manhole castings in pavement overlay and street reconstruction projects and the impact of
the casting elevations on the drivability of the streets. The purpose of this Executive
Summary is to summarize the standards and practices of the City of Golden Valley and to
provide comparisons to the standards of other communities and agencies.
The City of Golden Valley standard for the final grade of manhole castings is to set the top of
the casting a maximum of one-quarter of an inch (1/4 inch) below the top of the finished
pavement surface. This standard has been adopted to provide the best possible ride on the
street while providing a margin of safety for snow removal. Any manhole castings above the
pavement surface can be struck by snowplows resulting in damage to the manhole and
casting, as well as inflicting significant damage to the plows, trucks and the risk of injury to
the staff driving the plow equipment.
The Golden Valley standard for final casting elevations is more stringent than the
requirements of other agencies and communities, which are listed as follows.
City of St. Paul
City of Edina
City of Plymouth
City of Wayzata
City of Eden Prairie
City of Apple Valley
City of Woodbury
City of Chanhassen
Mn/DOT
0.5 inches
0.25 to 0.5 inches
0.5 inches
0.5 inches
0.5 inches
1/8 to 0.25 inches
0.25 to 0.5 inches
0.25 to 0.5 inches
2.0 inches
It should be noted that Mn/DOT does not allow utility manholes to be located within the
drivable portions of its highways. In addition, storm sewer manholes on State highways are
located within the shoulder areas.
As discussed in the attached December 15, 2009 memo from Ron Nims, Public Works
Project Coordinator, to Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works, City staff carefully verifies
the final elevations of manholes castings set by contractors prior to wear course pavement.
However, as discussed, there are several other factors that affect the drivability of the street
that are not easily controlled during this process. These factors can at times result in final
grades that are greater than the specified one-quarter inch. Following paving, staff re-
evaluates the elevations to determine if the grades are acceptable. In instances where the
grade differences are greater than desired, an evaluation of the drivability of the roadway
versus the ramifications of a pavement cut and patch needed to readjust the casting elevation
is undertaken. An additional factor in determining if castings are to be readjusted is that the
smallest available adjusting ring is one -inch thick. Therefore, if a casting is three-quarters of
an inch below the pavement and an adjusting ring is used, the final result would be a finished
grade one-quarter of an inch above the pavement.
One of the recent projects that brought the final grades of manhole castings forward was the
2009 overlay of Xerxes Avenue North. The subject project was managed by Golden Valley,
but most of the roadway and all of the municipal utilities were located within the City of
Minneapolis. Therefore, the Minneapolis standards for casting elevations were applied to this
project. Following completion of the overlay, staff from the Minneapolis Department of Public
Works reviewed and accepted the casting elevations. Golden Valley staff recently measured
the elevation difference between the castings and top of the pavement surface. This elevation
difference varied from a flush finished grade to approximately seven -eighths of an inch
(7/8 inch), with most differences at approximately 0.5 inches. However, there were two
castings that were approximately 1.5 inches below the pavement surface due to unusual
placement of manholes and street crown issues.
Public Works staff is seeking direction from the City Council regarding the City standard for
finished manhole casting elevations. If it is determined that adjustments to the standard are
needed, the revisions must be made immediately following the Council/Manager meeting to
be incorporated into the 2010 Pavement Management project.
Attachments
Memorandum to Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works, from Ron Nims, Public Works
Project Coordinator, dated December 15, 2009 (2 pages)
"Golden galley
Date: December 15, 2009
Public Works
763.593.8030 / 763.593.3988 (fax)
To: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
From: Ron Nims, Public Works Project Coordinator
Subject: Manhole Casting Depths
In response to concerns about the depth of manhole castings in recent projects, this
memo will describe what the policy is for adjusting manhole castings prior to paving on
City projects as well as the difficulty in actually getting the final result that is optimum.
To avoid rough ride conditions due to low manhole castings in the street, staff considers
the location of new manholes during the design phase of street and utility projects to
avoid placing them in the wheel paths of vehicles. Because there are many existing
underground facilities already in place, it becomes a challenge to maintain the required
clearances, minimize landscape impacts and still avoid the wheel paths. In addition,
recent City practice has been to construct streets narrower, which can result in new
structures being located in undesirable locations.
In addition, to avoid injury to snow plow personnel and damage to snow removal
equipment, the top of the castings are set a minimum of one-quarter inch below the
finished surface.
Prior to placement of the final layer of asphalt, staff checks casting vertical adjustments
to ensure compliance with City standards. However, many factors including the type of
asphalt mixture, the accuracy of placement of underlying roadway layers and the skill of
the paving personnel, contribute to the final depth of castings. Therefore, staff evaluates
the depth after completion of the paving to determine if raising castings to achieve
better ride conditions offset the damage done to the pavement that occurs while re-
setting them. On Xerxes Avenue for example, staff worked with City of Minneapolis staff
to determine which manholes were low enough to require adjustment after the final
paving and which ones were better left alone to avoid other maintenance issues that
were worse conditions. Approximately five castings were adjusted after final paving
operations on Xerxes at contractor expense.
In summary, the final depth of manhole castings is dependant on many factors including
the type of asphalt being placed, the accuracy of underlying layers (that all have
specified tolerances) and the skill of the contractor's paving staff. City staff checks the
height of manhole castings prior to placement of the final layer of asphalt. City staff also
reviews the final depth of castings after placement of the final layer of asphalt and
weighs the benefits of raising castings that are not at ideal heights along with accepting
less than ideal pavement "patch" conditions versus the ride quality that is achieved by
adjusting them.
Cat.
o en a11ey
Memorandum
Public Works
763-593-8030 / 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
January 12, 2010
Agenda Item
6. Winter Maintenance of Three Rivers Park District Trail System
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Summary
In 2009, the Three Rivers Park District completed the Luce Line Trail through Golden Valley.
Winter maintenance of the trails was defined in the agreement as follows:
a. Use of trails not within City right-of-way.
As of the date of this agreement the Park District policy is to close its trails to the
public in winter and to perform no maintenance on its trails. The Park District
reserves the right to open for winter use in its sole discretion any portion of the trail.
If the Park District closes any portion of trail for winter use, the City may apply to
the Park district for a permit to operate it during the winter, which permit the Park
District shall grant in the exercise of its reasonable discretion. Such permit will
require the City, among other things, to assume responsibility for trail maintenance
and operation and to assume responsibility pursuant to paragraph 12
(Indemnification) of this Agreement for liabilities associated with winter use.
b. Winter use of trails within City right-of-way.
Trail right-of-way located within City right-of-way, may be maintained during the
winter by the City at its sole discretion, such maintenance to include snow removal.
To the extent the snow removal and sweeping results in damage to such trails, the
City shall be responsible for repair of such damage. The City shall also be
responsible pursuant to paragraph 12 (Indemnification) of this Agreement for
liabilities associated with winter use.
Because the City desired to maintain the continuity of its pedestrian system in the winter
months, Section b above has been followed. As a result, Public Works staff maintains
1.21 miles of the Three Rivers Trails system within the City limits. The remaining 2.5 miles is
not maintained.
Over the past two winters, Public Works staff has received numerous phone calls and emails
requesting that the entire Three Rivers Park District trail system within the City be plowed and
cleared of snow. Staff has learned that Park District officials were referring the callers to the
City; however, after reviewing City concerns with Park District staff the calls have diminished.
The City of Golden Valley owns approximately 49 miles of trails and sidewalks. Of this,
43 miles are maintained during the winter months. Due to budget concerns, staff is not able
to add additional facilities to its winter maintenance workload. It should also be noted that
there have also been numerous requests for the trails at the James Ford Bell (JFB) General
Mills Nature Area to be maintained. Consistent with Council direction, staff has not
maintained the JFB trails in the winter.
Given the level of citizen interest in maintenance of year-round facilities, as well as emphasis
on healthy, active communities, Three Rivers Park District staff has encouraged the City to
consider drafting a letter to the Park District Board encouraging the Board to evaluate their
winter trail use policy.
Attachments
Luce Line Trail (Winter Maintenance) Map (1 page)
Three Rivers Park District - Winter Trail Maintenance Six City Survey (1 page)
y
Z-<
W
Cc
�L
�
m
z
r
—
00 LL
LL�
(7
Lr
a)
8
ca
�
0.
co
Z
�-ccZ
a�
cu—�
Z
�
c�
m
,c
■i
O >
O4-
O
O
w
0.
Cc
CD
W
°'
° c
c�
O
-C
a
O
oa
�
cU
U
Q
Three Rivers Park District
Winter Trail Maintenance Six City Survey
January 2010
City of Golden Valley
The Public Works Department maintains 1.21 miles of Three Rivers Park trails during
the Winter months. There are 3.72 miles of the Three Rivers trails located within the City
that are not maintained by the City.
City of Plymouth
The Park Department clears approximately 3 miles of the Luce Line trail through
Plymouth from Vicksburg Lane east to Medicine Lake Beach. Plymouth began this
winter maintenance more than 10 years ago as directed by their city council under an
agreement with Three Rivers Park District. Plymouth maintains 60 miles of trails with 3
sidewalk machines, 3 pickup trucks, 1 John Deere 1050 Tractor, and 1 Toro Polar Trac.
City of St. Louis Park
The Public Works Department plows the Three Rivers trails through St. Louis Park.
Snow removal is completed by using a pickup truck with a plow.
City of Minneapolis
The Park and Recreation Department does not complete any winter maintenance on
Three Rivers Park trails (Luce Line) in Minneapolis.
City of Hopkins
The Public Works Department plows approximately 1 mile of Three Rivers trails in
Hopkins. The City has been completing winter maintenance for a number of years now.
Hopkins completes a yearly permit from Three Rivers Parks for snow removal. Snow
removal is completed by using a pickup truck with a plow.
City of Maple Grove
The Public Works Department does not complete any winter maintenance on Three
Rivers Park trails in Maple Grove. Three Rivers does complete winter maintenance on
their trails located on Three River's park property in Maple Grove.
City of Brooklyn Center
The Public Works Department currently plows approximately 1/2 mile of Three Rivers
Park trails in Brooklyn Center. The City has been completing winter maintenance on the
half mile section for a number of years. Snow removal is completed using a one -ton
truck with a plow. Next winter, Brooklyn Center intends to add 2.5 additional miles to the
exiting half mile. The additional snow removal will be completed using a MT Trackless
for 1 mile of trail and a one -ton truck for the remaining 1.5 miles. Brooklyn Center also
completes a yearly permit from Three Rivers Parks for snow removal.
Golden Valley
Memorandum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8003 1763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
January 12, 2010
Agenda Item
7. 2010 Legislative Policies
Prepared By
Thomas Burt, City Manager
Summary
Attached is a copy of the 2009 Legislative Policies discussed last year. Staff is requesting the
Council review the policies and give direction on policies to include in the 2010 booklet.
Attachments
2009 Legislative Policies (30 pages)
Adopted by the City Council January 6, 2009
2 itv of Golden Vallev Legislative Policies '�1
Table of Contents
1. Fiscal Disparities.............................................................................................................. 4
2. Metropolitan Council Inflow/Infiltration Surcharge......................................................... 5
3. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Transportation Funding and Management ..... 6
4. Utility Relocation Under Design -Build Road Construction .............................................. 7
5. Funding for the Clean Water Legacy Act.......................................................................... 8
6. Education Funding.......................................................................................................... 10
7. Group Residential Facilities in the Single -Family (R-1) Zoning District ........................... 11
Appendix..........................................................................................................................................................................13
1-A. Fiscal Disparities: Metro Cities (AMM) Legislative Policy I -G ......................................
13
2-A. Metropolitan Council Inflow/Infiltration Surcharge:
Metro Cities (AMM) Legislative Policy IV K.......................................................................
14
3-A. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Transportation Funding
and Management: Metro Cities (AMM) Legislative Policy V-A ............................................
15
3-B. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Transportation Funding
and Management: League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) Legislative Policy LE -30 ...................
1.6
3-C. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Transportation Funding
and Management: Metro Cities (AMM) Legislative Policy V -E ............................................
18
3-D. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Transportation Funding
and Management: Metro Cities (AMM) Legislative Policy V -J .............................................
19
3-E. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Transportation Funding
and Management: Metro Cities (AMM) Legislative Policy V -O ...........................................
20
3-F. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Transportation Funding
and Management: League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) Legislative Policy LE -32 ...................
21
3-G. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Transportation Funding
and Management: League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) Legislative Policy LE- 15 ...................
22
4-A. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Transportation Funding
and Management: League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) Legislative Policy SD -6 ....................
23
5-A. Funding for the Clean Water Legacy Act:
Metro Cities (AMM) Legislative Policy III-Q.......................................................................
24
5-B. Funding for the Clean Water Legacy Act:
League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) Legislative Policy SD -42 ...............................................
25
6-A. Education Funding: Robbinsdale Area Schools Legislative Action Coalition:
2008 Session Priorities..........................................................................................................
27
6-B. Education Funding: Hopkins Public Schools Legislative Action Coalition:
2008 Platform...................................................................................................................... 28
7-A. Group Residential Facilities in the Single -Family (R-1)
Zoning District: Metro Cities (AMM) Legislative Policy II -H .............................................. 29
7-B. Group Residential Facilities in the Single -Family (R-1)
Zoning District: League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) Legislative Policy 10 ........................... 30
6 2n(Ifl City of Golden Vallev tenislative Piilic�es %
1. Fiscal Disparities
Issue
Since 1971, Fiscal Disparities has required cities to share a portion of their commercial and in-
dustrial tax base growth with other jurisdictions. The contribution amount is based on the rela-
tive fiscal capacity of each community, which is measured by the market value per capita. Each
year the City of Golden Valley receives its share and contributes to the pool. Because Golden
Valley has a high fiscal capacity, it contributes more to the pool than it receives. In 2009, Golden
Valley will contribute $4,664,476 in net tax capacity.
In recent years, changes in classification rates for commercial/industrial properties have decreased
the tax capacity available to cities to deal with the increased demand for services for these uses.
At the same time, traffic levels have increased while state funding for local roads has decreased.
For cities contributing to fiscal disparities, the burdens have increased while fewer resources are
available to address them, creating a higher burden for residential properties in these communi-
ties.
Commercial properties can contest their taxable market values until April of the current tax year.
If there were to be a mid -year adjustment in value, the city pays the abatement of taxes but is
not reimbursed from the fiscal disparities pool. With more adjustments mid -year and class rates
that changed in 2001 on commercial and industrial properties, the burdens for having this type
of property in a city are not adequately managed through current fiscal disparities cost sharing
statutes.
Response
"Ihe City of Golden Valley supports a comprehensive study of the fiscal disparities program to
examine its initial purpose, the extent to which this purpose is currently served or should be
amended, and changes in the tax structure that have impacted the program.
With. the benefit of this information, Golden Valley would support adjustments to the fiscal
disparities program that would create a more equitable tax policy for the twin cities metropolitan
area.
See Appendix 1-A: Metro Cities (AMM) Legislative Policy I -G
91tv of Golden Vallev to islative Policies
2. Metropolitan Council Inflow/Infiltration Surcharge
Issue
To reduce the volume of inflow and infiltration (clear water) entering its sanitary sewer system
and wastewater treatment system, the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES)
has instituted a program that places a surcharge on cities with excess peak flows. Golden Val-
ley's inflow and infiltration (I/I) surcharge for peak flow violations is $388,100 annually, or
$1,900,500 for five years. This is based on one peak flow violation in 2005. Historically, the City
has had three or more violations per year. Golden Valley must spend more than $388,000 each
year in activities to reduce its inflow and infiltration, or the MCES will hold the money until the
City spends it. After 2011, the surcharge becomes a demand charge if cities do not meet MCES
established goals.
Golden Valley has been one of the most proactive communities in addressing public and private
property sources of I/1 in the last year. However, the City has found that during its point of sale
inspection program, approximately 22 percent of the properties were non-compliant and the
sewer services were in need of rehabilitation. The average cost of rehabilitation is $3,600, but
costs range from $500 to approximately $10,000.
Response
The City of Golden Valley supports the following positions:
• the surcharge program should be set at a fixed rate each year and not subject to change based
on violations
• demand charges to cities should be deferred until 2018
• funding should be established to assist private property owners in replacing or rehabilitating
their private services
• funding should be established to assist cities with public improvements that reduce 1/I
See Appendix 24: Metro Cities (AMM) Legislative Policy IV -K
20 Ci[ of old n Valle to isiative_Fol[c[e Mo_.,
3. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Transportation Funding
and Management
Issue
The City of Golden Valley has the following transportation -related concerns:
• The City has had to delay street improvements due to inadequate funding for Municipal State
Aid projects. Some of these roads are in severely deteriorated condition.
• The City does not receive adequate Municipal. State Aid funding to install pedestrian and bike
facilities on its MSA system or county roads.
• Current Municipal State Aid rules do not permit the use of MSA funds for relocating or bury-
ing private utilities.
• The Legislature has failed to provide appropriate funding to MnDOT so that it can maintain
its rights-of-way, fences, and vacant properties in the metropolitan area.
• MnDOT has been unable to convey rights-of-way and excess properties from past projects to
local governments so they can be evaluated for development potential.
• MnDOT has indicated it cannot agree to long-term maintenance of water quality improve-
ments that protect water bodies adjacent to the highway system.
Response
The City of Golden Valley supports:
• legislation that allows local government to implement a street utility fee
• additional highway bonding
• an increase in the motor vehicle sales tax
• restoration of license tab fees
• additional funding from the general fund so MnDOT can meet the state's maintenance and
transportation needs
• use of public right-of-ways, including County and Municipal State Aid roadways, for all
forms of transportation
See Appendix 34 Metro Cities (AMM) Legislative Policy V-A
See Appendix 3-11: League of Minnesota Cities Legislative Policy -LE -30
See Appendix 3-C: Metro Cities (AMM) Legislative Policy V -E
See Appendix 3-0: Metro Cities (AMM) Legislative Policy V -J
See Appendix 3+ Metro Cities (AMM) Legislative Policy V -O
See Appendix 34: League of Minnesota Cities Legislative Policy -LE -32
See Appendix 34 League of Minnesota Cities Legislative Policy -LE -15
111. 2809____ City of Golden Valley euis aliveo ides j
4. Utility Relocation Under Design -Build Road Construction
Issue
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has promoted legislation relating
to the design -build construction process that would require private and public utilities to be
responsible for utility relocation necessitated by road constriction. The policy, if enacted, would
create unanticipated costs for utilities owned and operated by cities. Municipally -owned utilities
would be unreasonably held to the same standards as privately -owned utilities that exist in the
public right-of-way.
Response
The City supports use of the design -build procedure; however, municipal utilities that exist in
the public right-of-way should not be penalized under this process. Municipal utilities legiti-
mately exist in the public right-of-way. When a MnDOT construction project requires the relo-
cation of utilities, the cost of relocating municipal utilities should be shared equitably between
the department and affected municipal utilities.
See Appendix 4.A: League of Minnesota Cities Legislative Policy -SD -6
"009 RV of Golden Valleylegislative
5. Funding for the Clean Water Legacy Act
Issue
The 1972 Clean Water Act requires all states to develop a list of impaired waters that do not
meet state water quality standards (even after measures to address point sources of pollution have
been implemented), prioritize them, determine sources of non -point pollution, and formulate a
plan for improving the quality of each water body.
The following water bodies located in Golden Valley are on the impaired waters list:
• Sweeney Lake
• Wirth Lake
• Bassett Creek Main Stem (two impairments)
Golden Valley is tributary to the following impaired waters:
• Medicine Lake
• Lake Hiawatha
• Lake Pepin
Other water bodies may be added to this list.
Although a list of impaired waters has been required since 1972, very few states have complied
with the Clean Water Act. Recent lawsuits filed against the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) seek development of these lists as required by law. Based on rulings on these lawsuits, the
EPA and the states are under court orders to establish the impaired waters lists. Furthermore, the
Clean Water Act restricts additional pollutants from entering listed impaired waters until plans
are in place to clean up the waters. As a result, growth, development, redevelopment, and expan-
sion within cities throughout Minnesota would likely be limited or prohibited in the future.
Response
The City will work actively with the administration, the Legislature, and other stakeholders in
the design and implementation of Minnesota's impaired waters program to accomplish the fol-
lowing objectives.
• Ensure equitable funding solutions are found, such as the state general fund or bonding, that
broadly collect revenue to address this statewide problem.
• Support legislative passage of revenue streams dedicated to providing at least $80 million per
year to these programs. These funds should supplement traditional sources of funding for
these purposes and not cover budget cuts, backfill past program reductions, or to otherwise
supplant normal state spending on water programs.
• Direct the majority of funds collected by the state for impaired waters into programs that
fund municipal wastewater and storm water projects. Funds are also needed for state programs
(Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund, Wastewater Infrastructure Fund, Phosphorus Reduction
Grant Program, TMDL Grants Program, Small Community Wastewater Treatment Grant
UAIRNIMM 009 City of Golden Vallev le islatiue Policies'
and Loan Program) that provide technical support for municipal wastewater and storm water
permitting and for other state programs that provide financial resources for city wastewater
treatment facilities, septic tank replacement, storm water management projects, and other city
water quality improvement and protection projects.
• Adequately cover the current five-year wastewater infrastructure funding need projection of
more than $2.1 billion.
• Recognize and address the costs of new regulatory mandates and load reduction requirements
on municipal storm water management infrastructure and operation.
• Allow flexibility in achieving pollutant load reductions and limitations through offsets or trad-
ing of pollutant load reduction credits for both point and nonpoint load reduction.
• Recognize and credit the work under way and already completed by local units of government
to limit point and nonpoint source water pollutant discharges.
• Recognize the diversity of efforts and needs that exists across the state.
• Ensure the best science available is used to accurately determine the sources of pollutant load
to maximize positive environmental outcomes and minimize unnecessary regulatory and
financial burdens for cities.
• Ensure the state requires that the MPCA retain control of the TMDL development process
and that all scientific research related to TMDLs is conducted by the MPCA or qualified,
objective parties pursuant to state contracting and procurement.
• Clarify state water quality mandates so cities know specifically what they are required to do
and what methods of achieving those outcomes are acceptable to state and federal regulators.
See Appendix 5-A: Metro Cities (AMM) Legislative Policy III -Q
See Appendix 5-13: League of Minnesota Cities Legislative Policy -SD -42
X2009 City of Golden Valley Legislative
6. Education Funding
Issue
Adequately funded K-12 schools, early education, and after-school programs are critical to a
healthy community and productive society. The City of Golden Valley has the following con-
cerns:
• School districts in Minnesota increasingly must rely on passing surplus referendums to fund
basic operating expenses.
• Studies show that quality child care and early education programs can cut crime and violence,
yet Head Start is so under -funded that it could serve only about six of 10 eligible three- and
four -year-olds in Minnesota in 2000. The Child Care and Development Block Grant, to help
low-income parents pay for child care, could serve only 6 percent of eligible Minnesota chil-
dren in 1999. Minnesota remains far from meeting the needs of low- and moderate -income
working families for quality child care.*
• Average child care center tuition for two children can exceed $17,800—more than a full-time,
minimum -wage earner makes in a year.
• Low wages for child care center teachers in Minnesota too often result in high staff turnover,
inadequately -trained staff, and low -quality care.
• Quality after-school programs can transform hours of soaring crime, drug use, and car crashes
into hours of constructive, supervised activities that can build the values and skills children
need for school success and job productivity. However, state and federal budget cuts have
eliminated programs or reduced eligibility in programs, placing an increasing number of vul-
nerable children in unsupervised and risky situations.
Response
The City of Golden Valley supports:
• adequate, fair, and stable funding for K-12 schools so school districts never have to levy for
core operating services
• increased statewide funding for high-quality early education programs
• state investment to ensure that all school -aged children and teens have access to after-school
youth development programs
*Source: Fight Crime: Invest in Kids - 1212 New York Ave. NW, Suite 300 - Wiashington, DC 2005.
See Appendix 6-A: Robbinsdale Area Schools Legislative Action Coalition: 2009 Session
Priorities
See Appendix 6-11: Hopkins Public Schools Legislative Action Coalition: 2009 Platform
itv_of Golden _Yallevlegislative Policies_
7. Group Residential Facilities In The Single -Family [R-11 Zoning
District
issue
Numerous citizens have informed the Golden Valley City Council about a concentration of
group homes within a Golden Valley neighborhood. In one case, two group homes are located
next to each other and two others are located within a block or two. Golden Valley is a city with
many small neighborhoods isolated by arterial streets, parks, or other large facilities. Concentra-
tion of group homes in such a neighborhood could dramatically change its character.
In the mid-1980s, the state decentralized the care of various groups of persons by eliminating
larger institutions. The goal was to create smaller, residential treatment homes within neighbor-
hoods. The Legislature established a human service licensing law (Minnesota Statutes Section
245A.1 1, Subd. 3) that requires cities to permit state -licensed group homes (defined as residen-
tial facilities in the Golden Valley zoning code) serving six or fewer persons in single family zon-
ing districts. It also allows cities to require conditional use permits for state licensed group homes
if they serve seven to 25 persons in R-1, R-2, and Multiple Family Zoning Districts. The Golden
Valley Zoning Code is consistent with state law.
Response
To constrain over -concentration of licensed group homes in Golden Valley and other suburbs,
the Golden Valley City Council will work with Hennepin County to assure a best practices ap-
proach is followed for appropriate separation of group residential facitilites.
See Appendix 7-A: Metro Cities (AMM) Legislative Policy II -H
See Appendix 7-11: League of Minnesota Cities Legislative Policy -10
,,2099 Cit v of Colden Vallev teaislative Po' ictev, a ; ;
MM�" � 2009 Cityof Golden Valley le islative Policies
14. Fiscal Disparities Attachment
Metro Cities (AMMI Legislative Policy I -G: Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution
Metro Cities opposes the use of fiscal disparities to fund social or physical metropolitan pro-
grams since it results in a metropolitan -wide property tax increase hidden from the public.
Metro Cities supports the continuation of the fiscal disparities program until such time as an ap-
propriate replacement is developed.. Metro Cities supports a state conducted analysis of the Fiscal
Disparities Program to determine whether the program is meeting its original goals and objec-
tives, and whether changes to the program should be considered to better meet those objectives.
T�00� itv o4 Golden allev legislative
24. Metropolitan Council Inflow/Infiltration Surcharge Attachment
Metro Cities [AMMI Legislative Policy IV -K: Inflow and Infiltration [I/II
The Metropolitan Council's Water Resources .Management plan established an I/1 surcharge in
2007 on cities that are determined to be contributing unacceptable amounts of storm water to
the MCES wastewater treatment system. Currently 46 cities have been identified as excessive 1/I
contributors. This number is subject to change, depending on rain events, and any city in the
metropolitan area could be affected.
While Metro Cities recognizes the importance of controlling 1/1 because it affects the size, and
therefore the cost, of wastewater treatment systems and because excessive I/1 in one city can af-
fect development capacity of another city that lies down pipe, we are concerned about the poten-
tial for cities to incur increasingly exorbitant costs, and decreasing benefits, in their on-going ef-
forts to mitigate excessive 1/1. Metro Cities opposes the `demand' charge that is set to occur once
the surcharge program expires. Instead, Metro Cities would encourage the Metropolitan Council
to work with cities to establish a process for reaching agreed upon benchmarks to reduce inflow
and infiltration. The benchmarks should be determined using a data -supported definition of
excessive I/1, and adequate and verifiable flow data that is updated regularly
Metro Cities continues to monitor the surcharge program, and encourages the Metropolitan
Council to support state financial assistance for Metro Area I/I mitigation through future Clean
Water Legacy Act appropriations or similar legislation.
Further, Metro Cities supports state capital assistance to provide grants to metro area cities for
the purpose of mitigating inflow and infiltration problems into municipal wastewater collection
systems.
ifu of Golden Yallev tegisiafiue Policies,
IW -g E,, Appendix 3-A
34. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Transportation
Funding Attachment
Metro Cities (AMMI Legislative Policy V-A: Transportation and Transit Funding
Metro Cities supported the 2008 Transportation Finance bill. This legislation allows for neces-
sary resources for MnDOT, the county road system and the MSA road system, and will help
make up for the lack of state resources over the last twenty years. Metro Cities was proud to be
part of the effort to secure this base level funding.
However, the resources contained in the transportation finance bill represent only half of the
need in our counties, cities and state. Metro Cities recognizes the need for additional transporta-
tion funding statewide, and will continue to advocate for additional resources to maintain our
transportation infrastructure. In addition, cities still lack the authority to use additional tools for
city street improvements; such resources continue to be restricted to property taxes and special
assessments. It is imperative that alternative authority be granted to municipalities for this pur-
pose to relieve the burden on the property tax system.
c , 2009 City of Golden Vallevlenislauve Polto�es
L
3-B. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Transportation
Funding Attachment
League of Minnesota Cities ILMCI Legislative Policy LE -30: Adequate Funding
For Transportation
Issue: The League recognizes that all Minnesota residents and businesses benefit from a sound
transportation system that offers diverse modes of travel. In spite of the significant funding
increase for transportation enacted in 2008, current funding for roads, bridges, and transit
systems across all government levels in the state remains inadequate, and Minnesota's transporta-
tion system is failing to meet needs pertaining to public safety, population growth and economic
development.
Due to funding challenges, the state has delayed regionally significant road construction and
reconstruction projects. Urban areas are experiencing growing congestion and are lagging behind
other regions in making transit investments. Rural roads are not being upgraded to meet modern
safety standards, and are not serving the needs of industries that depend on the ability to trans-
port heavy loads.
Local roads, bridges, sidewalks, and trails are critical components of Minnesota's transportation
infrastructure. Cities, like the state, have inadequate resources to preserve and reconstruct aging
transportation infrastructure, and to build transportation infrastructure to serve new develop-
ment. Existing funding mechanisms, such as municipal state aid (MSA), special assessments and
bonding, have limited applications, making it difficult for cities to address growing needs.
Further, as the state funding shortfall has grown, the trunk highway project cost participation
requirements imposed on local units of government have increased dramatically. This burden has
been exacerbated by the state's use of trunk highway bonds as a funding source, because under
Minnesota's constitution, trunk highway bond dollars cannot be spent on local components of
trunk highway projects, and the bond dollars are not distributed through the Highway User Tax
Distribution Fund formula. Cost participation requirements put added pressure on local bud-
gets, contribute to property tax increases and divert local resources from the over 39,000 lane
miles in Minnesota under municipal jurisdiction.
Response. More resources must be dedicated to all components of the state's transportation
system, and local units of government must have access to resources and funding tools to meet
growing needs. The League supports:
• MVST distribution of 60 percent for roads and bridges, and 40 percent for transit.
• A permanent increase in the gas tax.
• Indexing of the gas tax, provided there is a limit on how much the tax can be increased for
inflation in a given amount of time.
• Increases in vehicle registration taxes (tab fees).
• Trunk highway bonding, provided the Legislature implements reasonable restrictions on the
amount of debt service the state will incur, and provided the Legislature appropriates funding
to assist with local costs related to projects funded with trunk highway bonds.
• General obligation bonding for local roads and bridges, particularly for routes of regional
significance.
ity of Golden Yav to islatine Policies
• A sales tax increase to fund transportation needs.
• .Funding to assist cities burdened by cost participation responsibilities imposed by improve-
ment projects on the state's principal arterial system and on the county state aid highway
(CSAR) system.
• Funding for transportation components of economic development and redevelopment proj-
ects of regional significance.
• Full funding for all components of state highway projects, including related stormwater man-
agement systems, through state sources.
• Funding to build roads to standards that can accommodate the year-round transport of heavy
loads.
• A sales tax exemption for materials purchased for state and local road, bridge, sidewalk, trail
and transit construction projects.
• Authority for cities to impose development impact fees.
• Local funding options that would allow cities to raise revenues for roads, bridges, sidewalks,
trails, and transit.
20 9' Cit of Golden Valley to islative PolEe
3-0. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Transportation
Management Attachment
Metro Cities [AMMI Legislative Policv WE: Highwav Turnbacks & Funding
Metro Cities supports jurisdictional reassignment or turnback of roads on a phased basis using
functional classifications and other appropriate criteria subject to a corresponding mechanism
for adequate funding of roadway improvements and continued maintenance. Metro Cities does
not support the wholesale turnback of county roads without the total cost being reimbursed to
the city in a timely manner.
Cities do not have the financial capacity, other than significant property tax increases, to absorb
the additional roadway responsibilities without new funding sources. The existing municipal
turnback fundis not adequate based on contemplated turnbacks. The 2008 Transportation
Finance legislation will add approximately $6 million to the Metro Turnback Fund, bringing the
fund up to $20 million, which falls short of the $100 million needed.
Metro Cities supports additional funding for municipalities that are assuming the role of main-
tenance and upkeep on city streets that maintain a level of traffic consistent with state highways.
Cities should be compensated for providing a service that traditionally has been borne by the
state. The state has abrogated its responsibility for maintaining major roads throughout the state
by requiring, through omission, that cities bear the burden of maintenance on major state roads.
.N°=
ilv of Golden Vallev le islatiue Policies
3-0. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Transportation
Management Attachment
Metro Cities (AMM) Legislative Policy V-1: State Aid Highway (CSAN) Distribution
Formula
Even with the additional resources provided by the Legislature through the transportation fi-
nance bill, significant needs remain in the metro area CSAR system. The additional revenue for
the CSAH system will result in more projects being completed faster, however, greater pressure
is being placed on municipalities to participate in cost sharing activities, encumbering an already
over -burdened local funding system. When the alternative is not building or maintaining roads,
cities bear not only the costs of their local systems but also pay upward of fifty percent of county
road projects. Metro Cities supports special or additional funding for cities that have burdens of
additional cost participation in county road projects.
Although only 10% of the CSAH roads are in the metro area, they account for nearly 50% of
the vehicle miles traveled. The new CSAH formula passed by the Legislature will better account
for needs in the Metropolitan Area, and the new formula is a first step in providing additional
resources for the Metropolitan Area.
1tv of Golden Vallev to Islative Polto
3-E. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Transportation
Management Attachment
Metro Cities [AMMI Legislative Policy V-0: MnBOT Maintenance Budget
With the passage of the transportation finance legislation, much of MnDOT's maintenance
budget has been restored. However, it is likely that local units of government will continue to be
asked to maintain state-owned infrastructure. Metro Cities' supports MnDOT alleviating cities
of the State's responsibility through the additional resources provided to MnDOT in the Trans-
portation Finance legislation. We also support funding that allows the State to maintain its own
infrastructure.
2009 itv of Golden Vallev Legislative Palicies_
3-E Minnesota Department of Transportation, Transportation
Management Attachment
League of Minnesota Cities ILMCI Legislative Policy LE -32: Rights -of -Way
Maintenance
Issue: Maintenance of property, including government property and facilities, is important to
public safety and to the image of Minnesota cities. Cities are acutely aware of the responsibility
they have for enforcing property maintenance codes pertaining to grass mowing, noxious weed
abatement, the placement of trash in yards and fence maintenance.
Minnesota has many miles of highways that run through cities. In recent years, the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has cut a substantial percentage of its rights-of-way
management staff. The cuts have resulted in reduced maintenance along some corridors and on
parcels acquired by MnDOT for transportation purposes. Specifically, MnDOT has reduced the
frequency of mowing, litter collection, noxious weed abatement and repair of fences and guard
rails. This maintenance reduction has created public safety concerns and has undermined efforts
to keep corridors attractive.
Response: The League requests that MnDOT be required to maintain state rights-of-way and
parcels acquired by MnDOT for transportation purposes located within city limits in a manner
consistent with local ordinances governing the upkeep of private property when requested by
the city. Alternatively, MnDOT should reimburse Minnesota cities for the labor, supplies, and
equipment necessary to maintain state rights-of-way to meet city standards and/or minimize
public safety hazards. The Legislature must provide MnDOT with adequate funds to maintain
state rights-of-way.
",&=Cilv of Golden Vallev Le islative Folto�e _ �,�
34 Minnesota Department of Transportation, Transportation
Management Attachment
League of Minnesota Cities ILMCI Legislative Policy LE -15: Bight-of-Wav
Management
Issue: Cities have fundamental responsibility for managing the safe and convenient use of public
rights-of-way and hold local rights-of-way in trust for the public as an increasingly scarce and
valuable asset. As demand increases for use of rights-of-way for underground and overhead
wireless facilities and sites for wireless communications towers, cities must continue to have the
necessary authority to allocate and coordinate the use of this resource among competing uses.
Local management responsibilities vary and are site specific, underscoring the necessity for main-
taining local authority.
Response. State and federal policymakers and regulators must:
• Uphold local authority to manage and protect public rights-of-way, including reasonable zon-
ing and subdivision regulation and the exercise of local police powers.
• Recognize cities have a paramount role in developing, locating, siting, and enforcing utility
construction and safety standards.
• Support local. authority to require full recovery of actual costs of managing use of public
rights-of-way.
• Maintain city authority to franchise gas, electric, cable services, and open video systems, and
to collect franchise fees and alternative revenue streams.
• Maintain the courts as the primary forum for resolving disputes over the exercise of such au-
thority, and
• Maintain existing city authority to review and approve or deny plans for installation of ad-
ditional wires or cables on in-place utility poles. In the alternative, cities should have broader
authority to require the underground placement of new and/or existing services at the cost of
the utility or telecommunications entity.
z •.• .11009 Clivof Golden Valley Legislative Policies
4-A. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Transportation
Management Attachment
League of Minnesota Cities [LMC) Legislative Policy SD -6: Utility Relocation
Under Design -Build Road Construction
Issue. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has promoted legislation relat-
ing to the design -build construction process that would require private and public utilities to be
responsible for utility relocation necessitated by road construction. The policy, if enacted, would
create unanticipated costs for utilities owned and operated by cities. Municipally -owned utilities
would be unreasonably held to the same standards as privately -owned utilities that exist in the
public right-of-way.
Response. The League supports use of the design -build procedure; however, municipal utilities
that exist in the public right-of-way should not be penalized under this process. Municipal utili-
ties legitimately exist in the public right-of-way. When a MnDOT construction project requires
the relocation of utilities, the cost of relocating municipal utilities should be shared equitably
between the department and affected municipal utilities.
2 09 it of Golden ValleLe illative Ro tele..Page
5-A. Funding for the Clean Water Legacy Act Attachment
Metro Cities [AMMI Legislative Policy 111-Q: Impaired Waters
Metro Cities supports continued development of the metropolitan area in a manner that is
responsive to the market, but is cognizant of the need to protect the water resources of the state
and metro area. Metro Cities supports the goals of the Clean Water Act and efforts at both the
federal and state level to implement it. However, insufficient resources for impaired water as-
sessments, total maximum daily load (TMDL) analysis, and capital projects threaten both our
environment and the metro area's ability to respond to market demands for development and
redevelopment. Consequently, Metro Cities supports continued funding for clean water, includ-
ing dedicated funding for:
• Surface water impairment assessments
• TMDL development
• Storm water construction grants
• Wastewater construction grants
RIM= E111, itv of Golden vallev Legislative Policies _
5-11. Funding for the Clean Water Legacy Act Attachment
League of Minnesota Cities ILMCI Legislative Policy SO -42: Impaired Waters
Issue: Despite the billions of dollars that Minnesota municipalities have invested and continue
to invest in wastewater and storm water management systems and best management practices
to protect, preserve, and restore the quality of Minnesota's surface waters, the quality of some of
Minnesota's surface waters does not meet federal water quality requirements. The federal Clean
Water Act requires that further efforts be made by the state to reduce human impacts on surface
waters that are determined to be impaired due to high pollutant loads of nutrients, bacteria,
sediment, mercury, and other contaminants. Scientific studies of these waters must be conducted
to determine how much pollution they can handle (Total Maximum Daily Loads, or TMDLs).
The pollutant load reduction requirements will affect municipal, industrial, and agricultural
practices and operations along any river, stream or lake determined to be impaired. While the
source of 86 percent of the pollutants affecting Minnesota waters are non -point sources, there
will also be new costs and requirements for point -source dischargers, like municipal wastewater
treatment facilities. Municipal storm water systems will also face increased protective require-
ments and regulation as part of the state's impaired waters program.
Response: The League will work actively with the administration, the Legislature, and other
stakeholders in the design and implementation of Minnesota's impaired waters program to:
• Ensure equitable funding solutions are found, such as the state general fund or bonding, that
broadly collect revenue to address this statewide problem.
• Support legislative passage of revenue streams dedicated to providing at least $80 million per
year to these programs. These funds should supplement traditional sources of funding for
these purposes, not be used to cover budget cuts, backfill past program reductions, or to oth-
erwise supplant normal state spending on water programs.
• Direct the majority of funds collected by the state for impaired waters into programs that
fund municipal wastewater and storm water projects, and for state programs needed for
municipal wastewater and storm water permitting and technical support, including the Clean
Water Revolving Loan Fund, Wastewater Infrastructure Fund, Phosphorus Reduction Grant
Program, TMDL Grants Program, Small Community Wastewater Treatment Grant and Loan
Program, and other state programs that provide financial resources for city wastewater treat-
ment facilities, septic tank replacement, storm water management projects, and other city
water quality improvement and protection projects.
• More adequately cover the current five-year wastewater infrastructure funding need projection
of more than $2.1 billion.
• Recognize and address the upcoming costs of storm water management infrastructure and
operation on municipalities from new regulatory mandates and load reduction requirements.
• Allow flexibility in achieving pollutant load reductions and limitations through offsets or trad-
ing of pollutant load. reduction credits for both point and non -point load reduction require-
ments within watersheds.
• Recognize and credit the work both underway and already completed by local units of govern-
ment to limit point and non -point source water pollutant discharges.
2009 RV of Golden Valley Le islative Ro tete a. x".
• Recognize the diversity of efforts and needs that exists across the state.
• Ensure the best science available is used to accurately determine the sources of pollutant load
in order to maximize positive environmental outcomes and minimize unnecessary regulatory
and financial burdens for cities.
• Ensure the state requires that the MPCA retain control of the TMDL development process
and that all scientific research related to TMDLs is conducted by the MPCA or qualified,
objective parties pursuant to state contracting, procurement and
• Clarify state water quality mandates so cities know specifically what they are required to do
and what methods of achieving those outcomes are acceptable to state and federal regulators.
2 it of Golden Valle le islative Policies'T\
6-A. Education Funding Attachment
Robbinsdale Area Schools legislative Action Coalition: 2009 Session Priorities
Robbinsdale Area Schools
R----E 1
R099E Legislative Action Coalition
U11 .1 -h
2009 Legislative Platform
The Legislative Platform expresses what we believe is needed for all students to succeed.
If we are unable to achieve these policies and funding levels, we foresee consequences for
student learning that will negatively impact students' school success, and life/career choices.
Simultaneously, we understand that the state of Minnesota faces a large deficit and is
working to reform all systems, including education. We will actively seek to engage in
this discussion and find creative solutions that will benefit our students and community.
The current priorities within the 2009 Legislative Platform are:
FUNDING
Recognizing that education is an essential service, we strongly support the adoption of the
framework known as the New Minnesota Miracle.
• Sets the basic per pupil funding high enough to cover basic instructional needs
• Fully funds the State's portion of the Special Education cross -subsidy
• Increases transportation funding to offset general fund's cross subsidy
• Provides additional resources for ELL students
• Provides additional resources for children qualifying for free or reduced lunch
• Recognizes the higher cost of labor in the metropolitan area
EARLY EDUCATION
We strongly support greater investment in early childhood education to increase access,
quality, and accountability.
• Appropriate new funding dedicated to young children at risk attending a school-based,
intensive, early education program
M 0 B I L I T Y
We strongly support legislation that addresses the issue of student mobility and its impact on
education outcomes through a multi -district approach.
6MI Illy of Golden Valley to islative Polteles,.,M
6-11. Education Funding Attachment
NoPkins Public Schools Legislative Action Coalition: 2008 Platform
Hopkins Public Schools Legislative Platform
Beliefs
Whereas, the state is constitutionally mandated to provide public education, Hopkins Public
Schools' Legislative Action Coalition (LAC) believes that:
• high quality public education, committed to all learners, is the cornerstone of a strong com-
munity;
• stable and adequate funding sources are essential for providing quality programs;
• effective and efficient use of resources is an essential element of accountability;
• local control is most effective in meeting community needs;
• diversity strengthens our school district;
• partnerships among families, educators, and an involved community are essential to our
students' success;
• curriculum, instruction, and assessment methods that support the unique ways individual
students learn are essential components of high quality public education,
be it resolved that Hopkins Public Schools' Legislative Action Coalition will advocate for policies
that will enhance the quality of public education in keeping with the above stated beliefs.
2009 Priorities
As it makes decisions, the state Legislature must focus on the educational development of all
children, E-12.
Funding
Formula Restructuring
Even though the state faces a historic budget deficit, the state should still enact the new Minne-
sota Miracle proposal, restructuring its general education formula with sustainable and predict-
able funding resources to provide all students with a high quality education through a thorough
and efficient public school system, and providing for the equitable distribution of resources to all
Minnesota public schools. The new funding system may need to be phased in over time. Priori-
ties that need to be addressed immediately include:
• full funding of special education costs;
• funding of early childhood programs;
• recognition of the unique cost and price pressures affecting public schools (implicit price
deflator);
• provide adequate funding to address declining enrollment.
Further, the state should enact legislation that:
• facilitates attracting and retaining quality teachers to enhance student achievement;
• raises or removes the referendum cap, providing equalization revenue where appropriate.
Local Control/Mandates
As laws are enacted regarding educational policies and funding, the Legislature should:
• fully fund all existing and future state mandates; e.g., special education;
• ensure that the state testing required by the No Child Left Behind Act provides timely in-
structional and student growth information;
• modify existing legislation to allow for reasonable implementation of the new Graduation
Required Assessment for Diploma (GRAD) standards.
2009 1111V of Golden Vallev to islatiue Policies
7-A. Group Residential Facilities In The Single -Family I11-11 Zoning
District Attachment
Metro Cities (AMM) Legislative Policy 11-11: Residential Care Facilities
Sufficient funding and oversight is needed to ensure that residents living in residential care facili-
ties have appropriate care and supervision, and that neighborhoods are not disproportionately
impacted by high concentrations of residential care facilities. Under current law, operators of
certain residential care facilities are not required to notify cities when they intend to purchase
single-family housing for this purpose. Cities do not have the authority to regulate the loca-
tions of group homes and residential care facilities. Cities have reasonable concerns about high
concentrations of these facilities in residential neighborhoods, and additional traffic and service
deliveries surrounding these facilities when they are grouped closely together. Municipalities
recognize and support the services residential care facilities provide. However, cities also have an
interest in preserving balance between group homes and other uses in residential neighborhoods.
Cities should have statutory authority to require licensed agencies and licensed providers that
operate residential care facilities to notify the city of properties being operated as residential care
facilities. The Legislature should also require the establishment of non -concentration standards
for residential care facilities to prevent clustering and require the appropriate county agencies to
enforce these rules.
20 9'Cltv of Golden-Vallev to Islative`Pot"e" ;i,,
7-6. Group Residential Facilities In The Single -Family IB -1I Zoning
District Attachment
League of Minnesota Cities ILMCI Legislative Policy 10: Residential Care
Facilities [group homes]
Issue: Sufficient funding and oversight is needed to ensure that residents living in residential care
facilities have appropriate care and supervision, and that neighborhoods are not disproportion-
ately impacted by high concentrations of residential care facilities. Under current law, operators
of certain residential care facilities are not required to notify cities when they intend to purchase
single-family housing for this purpose. And cities do not have authority to regulate the locations
of group homes and residential care facilities. Cities have reasonable concerns about the safety of
group home residents, particularly in case of public safety emergencies. Cities also have an inter-
est in preserving a balance in residential neighborhoods between group homes and other uses.
Response. Cities should have statutory authority to require agencies and licensed and registered
roviders that operate residential care facilities to notify the city before properties are being oper-
ated as residential care facilities. The Legislature should also require establishment of non -con-
centration standards for residential care facilities to prevent clustering. Finally, licensing authori-
ties must be responsible for removing any residents incapable of living in such an environment,
particularly if they become a danger to themselves or others.
i itv of Golden vallev Legislative Policies T1
a
ol�den Valley
Agenda Item
8. Council Workshop
Memorandum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8014 / 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
January 12, 2010
Prepared By
Jeanne Andre, Assistant City Manager
Summary
Staff has solicited ideas from the Council regarding a Council Workshop in 2010. The issues
are the timing for a workshop as well as the topics and format. The best date for the
Workshop is the morning of Saturday, February 6. In terms of topics, the Council has varying
ideas, which should be discussed. Attached is a draft agenda, which the Council can discuss
and revise. Setting the agenda will give staff direction on any background information and
research that should be prepared for the session.
Council suggestions for agenda included:
• Redevelopment: how to position the City so that it receives attention first when
developers are starting up their building machines again.
• Redevelopment: potential development and how can we promote.
• Budget discussions are ok; but everyone knows that we need to reduce so discussing
options at a workshop does not seem too productive without more staff input about
what we are facing.
• Discuss budget at workshop, discuss Douglas Drive and other redevelopment at HRA.
• Redevelopment proposals, Comprehensive Plan Amendment at Highway 55 and
Winnetka, Budget.
• Redevelopment of Robbinsdale School District properties in Golden Valley.
• Dealing with Interchange of Highway 55 and Douglas Drive - safe access for
pedestrians and bikes, opportunity created by relocation of Truestone.
Attachments
Draft Council Workshop Agenda (1 page)
Discussion Issues
Confirm date time and place. Suggested: Saturday, February 6, at 9 am, at the Brookview
Grill.
Confirm agenda - see attached draft.
AGENDA
2010 Council Workshop
Brookview Community Center
200 Brookview Parkway
February 6, 2010
Brookview Golf Grill - Lower Level
9 am
1. Vision for 2015
• City Buildings, Property and Infrastructure
• Community Redevelopment
• City Organization and Service Levels
2. Benefits and Impediments to Reaching Vision
3. Budget and Capital Improvement Plan 2011 - 2015