07-06-10 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
of the
City Council
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chamber
July 6, 2010
6:30 pm
The Council may consider item numbers 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6
prior to the public hearings scheduled at 7 pm
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Roll Call
B. Board/Commission Oath of Office and Presentation of Certificate of Appointment
2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be
routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no
discussion of these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests in which
event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its
normal sequence on the agenda.
A. Approval of Minutes - City Council Meeting - June 15, 2010
B. Approval of Check Registers:
1. City
2. Housing and Redevelopment Authority
C. Licenses:
1. Solicitor's License - Integrity Plus Home Exteriors Inc.
2. Solicitor's License - Domestic Business Promotions, Inc.
3. Solicitor's License - Ladwalk Inc.
4. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - TwinWest
Chamber of Commerce Foundation
D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1. Planning Commission - April 26, 2010
2. Board of Zoning Appeals - May 25, 2010
3. Environmental Commission - May 24, 2010
4. Envision Connection Project Board of Directors - May 13, 2010
5. Bassett Creel Watershed Management Commission - May 20, 2010
E. Bids and Quotes:
1. Asphalt Overlay - Bids
2. Station 2 Emergency Generator - Quotes
F. Approval of Requests for Beer and/or Wine at Brookview Park
G. Receipt of May General Fund Budget Report
H. Appointment of Election Judges for State Primary Election 10-36
I. Receipt of Safe & Sober Grant 10-37
J. Authorizing Application to Minnesota Department of Transportation Community
Roadside Landscaping Partnership Program for Highway 55 Lilac Planting 10-38
3. CONSENT AGENDA - CONTINUED
K. Authorization to Sign Agreement with Hennepin County for Assessing Services
L. Call for Administrative Hearing - Failure to Renew Rental License - 2551 and 2553
Douglas Drive North - 7/13/10
M. Second Consideration - Ordinance #441 - Adding a New Section 10.54: Regulating
Use of Coal Tar-Based Sealer Products and Approval of Summary Publication
N. Approval of One Year Extension for Filing of Plat for Lots 11 and 12, Block 3, Glen
Urban 2nd Addition (Janalyn Circle and Glencrest Road)
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7 PM
A. Public Hearing - Establishment of Douglas Drive Redevelopment Plan 10-39
5. OLD BUSINESS
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. On-Sale and Sunday Sale Liquor License Renewal - Webb Golden Valley LLC d/b/a
Good Day Cafe
B. Announcements of Meetings
C. Mayor and Council Communications
7. ADJOURNMENT
l
alley
Memorandum
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 6, 2010
Agenda Item
3. B. 1. Approval of City Check Register
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Approval of check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley.
Attachments
Loose in agenda packet.
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted.
Memorandum
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 6, 2010
Agenda Item
3. B. 2. Approval of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Check Register
Prepared By
Sue Virnig I Finance Director
Summary
Approval of check register for various vendor claims against the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority.
Attachments
Loose in agenda packet.
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted.
hlley
M morandum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8002 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 6, 2010
Agenda Item
3. C. 1. Solicitor's License - Integrity Plus Home Exteriors Inc.
Prepared By
Christine Columbus, Administrative Assistant
Summary
As per City Code, any individual or group intending to go door-to-door within the City selling
products, taking orders or soliciting for business or donations must be licensed by the City to
do so.
Attachments
Peddler/Solicitor License Application (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the solicitor's license for Integrity Plus Home Exteriors Inc.
Application and fee must be submitted to the City Manager's Office the Wednesday prior to
the City Council Meeting. Council Meetings are normally held the first and third Tuesday of
each month.
TO: Golden Valley City Council
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
PEDDLER/SOLICITOR LICENSE APPLICATION
.o.J;J-
Fee Paid: $ 3S-.
Number of Persons:
Type of License: Peddler
(circle one
r-e;v
Enclose the sum of $ 3..:>""- for .:;r- (number) peddlers/solicitors as required by
City Code of the City of Golden Valley and have complied with all the requirements of said
Code necessary for obtaining this license.
Define Business
(Corporation, Proprietorship, Part ership, Non-Profit, State of Incorporation or Individual)
L)~ skt d ~ (~;~ ~ -#S()&
(Address) . D (;) '. .~~w,
PI ~ /Y1 ""eft L?:Jy S<3Y 'I /
City, State and Zip Code)
bid- 70 9-- 0637
(Telephone Number, including Area Code)
NOW, THEREFORE, I f e GeR.~ 0 ,.....J hereby makes application for
,/ (Applicant Name)
period of 7/61(0 through 6/30/-11-. subject to the conditions and provisions of said
City Code. .
_-Zft-~~
(Sign~ of Appn nt/Principal Officer)
Description of goods or services for sale (include prices) or indicate if soliciting donations.
If more space is needed, attach additional sheets (be specific):
NOTE: If the products for sale are changed or modified, you must give the City complete
information regarding such change or modification.
List the names and addresses of EACH person who will be peddling or soliciting on behalf
of said organization in the City, or, in the alternative, the name, address and telephone
number or numbers where a responsible person of said organization will maintain a list of
names and addresses of all persons engaged in peddling or soliciting in the City:
!\) Pv I "cJ L,-J; J Ii .->CL f-.
1&~~D5"N
(If more space is needed, attach additional sheets)
STATE OF rnJ1vrvt~
) ss.
COUNTY OF JtW'rJfW}rJj
I, ~ Ge{(~D5~~
(Officer/Individual)
of J-".t~#'MIV)5 ~ojli.' ~fA.'.k i I\.(
(am f Organization)
being first duly sworn, depose and say that all the foregoing information is true to his/her
own knowledge except as to matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to
such matters, he/she believes them to be true.
Signatur
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
d~,LjL ,2010
(Signature)
D
JUDITH A. NALLY I
NOTARY PUBUC.MNESOTA
.., CoIIIIIIIan....... 31.1015
J!
alley
Memorandum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8002/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 6,2010
Agenda Item
3. C. 2. Solicitor's License - Domestic Business Promotions, Inc.
Prepared By
Christine Columbus, Administrative Assistant
Summary
As per City Code, any individual or group intending to go door-to-door within the City selling
products, taking orders or soliciting for business or donations must be licensed by the City to
do so.
Attachments
Peddler/Solicitor License Application (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the solicitor's license for Domestic Business Promotions, Inc.
Application and fee must be submitted to the City Manager's Office the Wednesday prior to
the City Council Meeting. Council Meetings are normally held the first and third Tuesday of
each month.
PEDDLER/SOLICITOR LICENSE APPLICATION
TO: Golden Valley City Council Fee Paid: $ c::;o Cfl--.
7800 Golden Valley Road Number of Persons: ~
Golden Valley, MN 55427 Type of License: <Eed.~_~r Solicitor
(circle one)
Enclose the sum of $ S' 0 ~ for 6 (number) peddlers/solicitors as required by
City Code of the City of Golden Valley and have complied with all the requirements of said
Code necessary for obtaining this license.
Df7J/)16!..9 T;C 1314 <DIU es:5 ~().d67i Oft' s 2#(1,
(Business or Individual Name or Organization to be Liqensed) I
Ifj-/r8CflJ/7
(MN Business 10 or FEIN (FederaIID) for Business Licenses)
C () f( prY fC.4 /1 dt1l
(Corporation, Proprietorship, Partnership, Non-Profit, State of Incorporation or Individual)
Define Business
s) 3 Chl1 ~t 4 i}/ ST lVe:.sT
(Address)
sri /1 w~ 1&1. J1j All ,SS08'2- t; 6/ t lf~1 tj 3 J L/.
City, State and Zip Code)'
ftJ!-~qC;-Lf3I'f
(Telephone Number, including Area Code)
NOW, THEREFORE, t?Cc. ( pA fht.; Uflf'(J/\' hereby makes application for
~ (Applicant-Name)
period of -.-, 10 through 6/30/-1-, subject to the conditions and provisions of saig
City Code.
Description of goods or services for sale (include prices) or indicate if soliciting donations.
If more space is needed, attach additional sheets (be specific):
C fll<t 'PJ (/ ~ C-A- R J) S ;:"1) ;r
JJ rJ I de: )/,kILe y ;; f(~ <1"-)1( to S e/('vJ(:'OZ
NOTE: If the products for sale are changed or modified, you must give the City complete
information regarding such change or modification.
List the names and addresses of EACH person who will be peddling or soliciting on behalf
of said organization in the City, or, in the alternative, the name, address and telephone
number or numbers where a responsible person of said organization will maintain a list of
names and addresses of all persons engaged in peddling or soliciting in the City:
tfi / ( 12-,;+/ f h ()1 ~4l? J s j;!>/-fi~,() olf)
(,5/ G'-IL/_Lj3/j
(If more space is needed, attach additional sheets)
STATE OF M/tJN~SD1A )
JJ .1 ' ) ss.
COUNTY OFf' erpel"tV)
I, 12A-J~ h IlA':::Lft/~.)}CJN
, (Officer/Individual)
ofUtJPlesrje- BC1 s/.ue~'J7/fo.tlf,;7[#P5/'Pte
(Name of Organization)
being first duly sworn, depose and say that all the foregoing information is true to his/her
own knowledge except as to matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to
such matters, he/she believes them to be true.
.
JUDITH A. NALLY I
NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA
My CaMIeIIOIIIIpha..... 81. 201.
M
alley
Memorandum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8002/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 6,2010
Agenda Item
3. C. 3. Solicitor's License - Ladwalk Inc.
Prepared By
Christine Columbus, Administrative Assistant
Summary
As per City Code, any individual or group intending to go door-to-door within the City selling
products, taking orders or soliciting for business or donations must be licensed by the City to
do so.
Attachments
Peddler/Solicitor License Application (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the solicitor's license for Ladwalk Inc.
Application and:1ee- must-be. submitted to tba~ Manager's.J)ffice tba Wednesday
prior to the City Type of License Requested:
Council Meeting. Council Meetings are normally held the first and third Tuesday of each
month.
TO: Golden Valley City Council
7800 Gotden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
PEDDLER/SOLICITOR LICENSE APPLICATION
.-.~
Fee Paid: $ ~(J
Number of Persons:
Type of License: (l5eddlei) Solicitor
, (circle one)
Enclose the sum of $ .5GJ for 1&/ (number) peddlerslsoficitors as required by
City Code of the City of Golden Valley and have complied with all the requirements of said
Code necessary for obtaining this license-.
L~dfA)411< Lc:.
(Business or Individual Name or Organization to be Licensed)
<iIJ-IO '1'1 Y 10 - !l7XJ 77 g
(MN Business 10 or FEIN (FederaFID) for Business Licenses)
Define BusineJ's
(01'()Ol'at1bYl {f(lr1 j
(Corpofation, Proprietorship, artnership, Non..;Profit, State of Incorporation or IndiVidual)
f /7 AJ' [J.,..tUU-lt> :5/
(Address)
iA {(e ~rI-\/,1/)Y/ -50071/
City, State and Zip Code)
C-5-/ - '1"90 '-S7C;O office ,'5C57-3?t'- /cP30 .eel!
(Telephone Number, including Area Code)
~uTHEREFQREr:- &/0/1 K- tJalJ:::;t.J hereby,makes.application for
_ L J (Applicaf'1t Name)
period ofc;,;30//(J through 6/30/..LL, subjectto'the conditions and provisions of said
City Code.
L 1:; t()ALk
(Signature of Applicant/Principal Officer)
Description of goods or services for sale (include prices) or indicate-if soliciting donations.
If more space is needed, attach additional sheets (be specific):
De-R"of;YlJ ,$dJ#1J J Gv(fe:;-<;;, 4.)/J1e{oer.JJ. f>r~SSN' tJcsllP{J~
/'(( I I / I'
NOTE: If the products for sale are changed or modified, you must give th~ City complete
information regarding such change or modification. .
p~
\,,~
List the names and addresses of EACH person who will be peddling or soliciting on behalf
of said organization in the City, or, in the alternative, the name, address and telephone
number or numbers where a responsible person of said organization will maintain a list of
names and addresses of all persons enga ed in -'peddling or soliciting in the City:
. .~ ~ rJ (F'2.At ,S'.', SO'l:> - \~$O
DAVCD R-( LA0:.Jlb (o(oS1(Q t~bJ1:f f\\J~ G;~ ~~,~r (E-S-() U~- L034
M.Atf M~L '134~ ~ I \O'1'c-f '~n-, ~ ~ MW. ,g1)t.j((CaS))k\- ~
~(S r~~ l~\&.1- f.,J) (!Ot f2@. 2.4 v.>~f1i;~ U~.. ~S05b4---l$l2.-
~ ~_ 3'22..\ l8 n\ br, E I 1Nv<a.. (9Q.b1J~ \it;jb~ ~ @"r)~-s~~
p S. Mt~GEtu(j 1D2 tYl~~ Sr-d)fVL. \fU.tJ~/oi~~( ) 3a<6-'1dtT
:tt:bB MtbPi l4l~ ~, CJ5 r..D 2.-+ ~J\<bf$EfA-- 1v\(J. (G'S\ ) <l\5-''3b-=t3
l(A'1'f~ ~ \4~ tJ. C6 lflJi)f '24 w~ttA kN I ~S( ) <6(~ - 3b~+
~n::(" Or ~J I'Rl2.. l65l\t ~~ NU -l;:\" ~ ~~~ {t#t9) b~
(If more space is needed, attach additional sheets) (lb3 ) Lf. 1'1- <1 t..{S4--'
STATE OF (hJJV fVtso1it )
. ) ss.
COUNTY OF -tfennepi^-- )
I, L~r"AVt Ie., UIRF/
( Officerlfndivfdual)
of
l/(l"bIJa/ 1:: T~
(Name orOrganfzation)
being first duly sworn, depose and say that all the foregoing information is true to his/her
own knowledge except as to matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to
such matters, he/she believes them to be true.
ignature of ApplicantlPrincipal Officer)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
2o;Y~yo ,20/0
tl ~(J
.
JUDITH A. NALLY I
NOTAA\' PU8UC-MIHNESOTA
1Ir~__.... 31.2016
.,
alley
Memorandum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8006 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 6, 2010
Agenda Item
3. C. 4. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - TwinWest
Chamber of Commerce Foundation
Prepared By
Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant
Summary
As per State Statute organizations that conduct gambling within the City limits have to submit
an application for a lawful gambling permit to the State after the permit has been approved or
denied by the City. Depending upon the timing of the permit the applicants may request the
City to waive the 30-day waiting period.
Attachments
Application for Exempt Permit (2 pages)
Letter from TwinWest Chamber of Commerce Foundation requesting waiver of 30 day waiting
period (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to receive and file the gambling license exemption and approve the waiver of notice
requirement for TwinWest Chamber of Commerce Foundation.
Minnesota Lawful Gambling
L
G220 Application for Exempt Permit Application fee for each event
If aoolication nostmarked or received:
An exempt permit may be issued to a nonprofit organization that: less than 30 days more than 30 days
- conducts lawful gambling on five or fewer days, and before the event before the event
- awards less than $50,000 in prizes during a calendar year. $100 $50
ORGANIZATION INFORMATION Check # $
Organization name Previous gambling pennit number
TwinWest Chamber of Commerce Foundation X-04697 -07 -001
Type of nonprofit organization. Check one.
D Fraternal D Religious DVeterans I X I Other nonprofit organization
Mailing address City State Zip Code County
10700 Old County Road 15 Plymout MN 55441 Hennepin
Name of chief executive officer (CEO) Daytime phone number Email address
Bruce Hustad 763-450-2222 bruce@tWinwest.com
Attach a copy of ONE of the following for proof of nonprofit status. Check one.
Do not attach a sales tax exempt status or federallD employer numbers as they are not proof of nonprofit status.
D Nonprofit Articles of Incorporation OR a current Certificate of Good Standing.
Don't have a copy? This certificate must be obtained each year from:
Secretary of State, Business Services Div., 180 State Office Building, S1. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 651-296-2803
D IRS income tax exemption [501(c)) letter in your organization's name.
Don't have a copy? To obtain a copy of your federal income tax exempt letter, have an organization officer
contact the IRS at 877-829-5500.
D IRS - Affiliate of national, statewide, or international parent nonprofit organization (charter)
If your organization falls under a parent organization, attach copies of both of the following:
a. IRS letter showing your parent organization is a nonprofit 501(c) organization with a group ruling, and
b. the charter or letter from your parent organization recognizing your organization as a subordinate.
~ IRS - proof previously submitted to Gambling Control Board
If you previously submitted proof of nonprofit status from the IRS, no attachment is required.
GAMBLING PREMISES INFORMATION
Name of premises where gambling activity will be conducted (for raffles, list the site where the drawing will take place)
Golden Valley Golf & Country Club
Address (do not use PO box) City Zip Code County
7001 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley 55427 Hennepin
Date(s) of activity (for raffles, indicate the date of the drawing)
Monday, August 9, 2010
Check the box or boxes that indicate the type of gambling activity your organization will conduct:
o Bingo* ~ Raffles o Paddlewheels* o Pull- Tabs* DTipboards*
* Gambling equipment for pull-tabs, bingo paper, tipboards, and ~ Also complete .1
paddlewheels must be obtained from a distributor licensed by the
Gambling Control Board. EXCEPTION: Bingo hard cards and bingo Page 2 of this form.
number selection devices may be borrowed from another organization
authorized to conduct bingo. I PrintF(}rrn I
To find a licensed distributor, go to www.gcb.state.mn.us and dick on List I Resetf9trp I
of Licensed Distributors, or call 651-639-4076.
Page 1 of2 2/10
LG220 Application for Exempt Permit
LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT
If the gambling premises is within city limits,
a city official must check the action that the city is
taking on this application and sign the application.
~e application is acknowledged with no waiting period.
_The application is acknowledged with a 30 day waiting
period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30
days (60 days for a 1st class city).
_The application is denied.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S SIGNATURE
Page 2 of 2
1/10
If the gambling premises is located in a township, a
county official must check the action that the county is taking
on this application and sign the application.
A township official is not required to sign the application.
_The application is acknowledged with no waiting period.
_The application is acknowledged with a 30 day waiting
period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30
days.
_The application is denied.
Print county name
On behalf of the county, I acknowledge this application.
Signature of county official receiving application
Title
Date---1---1_
(Optional) TOWNSHIP: On behalf of the township, I
acknowledge that the organization is applying for exempted gambling
activity within township limits. [A township has no statutory authority
to approve or deny an application [Minnesota Statute 349.166)]
Print township name
Signature of township official acknowledging application
Title
Date
e and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I acknowledge that the
d within 30 days of the date of our gamblin~ct~"vi y.
~ /fj "lPIO
Date
The information provided in this application is co
financial report will be completed and retuma
Chief executive officer's signature
Complete a separate application for each gambing activity:
- one day of gambling activity,
- two or more consecutive days of gambling activity,
- each day a raffle drawing is held
Send application with:
- a copy of your proof of nonprofit status, and
- application fee for each event.
Make check payable to "State of Minnesota."
To: Gambling Control Board
1711 West County Road B, Suite 300 South
Roseville, MN 55113
Financial report and recordkeeping required
A financial report form and instructions will be sent with
your permit, or use the online fill-in form available at
www.gcb.state.mn.us. Within 30 days of the activity date,
complete and return the financial report form to the
Gambling Control Board.
Questions?
Call the Licensing Section of the Gambling Control
Board at 651-639-4076.
Print form I
Reset Form
This form will be made available in alternative the Board wiA be able to process your
.. organization's application. Your organization's
fonnat (I.e. large pnnt, Bra.iRe) upo~ request. name and address wiD be public infonnation
Data.prlvacy notlce:The Infonnation ~uested when received by the Board. All other
on thIS form ~and any attachments) Win be used infonnation provided wiD be private data until
by the Gambling Con~ ~~rd (Board).to the Board issues the permit. When the Board
det~ine y~ur orgamzatio~ s qu~~~ns to issues the permit, aU infonnation provided win
b~ Involved In lawful ga~b1~ng activities.'n become public. If the Board does not issue a
Minnesota. Your OI1!anJZation has the ngh~ to permit, aU infonnation provided remains private,
refuse to ~uppIy the In~n requested, with the exception of your organization's name
h~er. if ~our organization refuses to supply and address which wiD remain public. Private
thiS In~rmation, the ~~ ",'BY no! be ~ to data are available to: Board members, Board
detenmne your organIZation s qualifica~ons staff whose worK requires access to the
and, as a consequence, may refuse to ISSUe a
permit. If you supply the information requested,
information; Minnesota's Department of
Public Safety; Attorney General;
Commissioners of Administration, Minnesota
Management & Budget, and Revenue;
Legislative Auditor, national and international
gambling regulatory agencies; anyone pursuant
to court order; other individuals and agencies
specificaAy authorized by state or federal law to
have access to the infonnation; individuals and
agencies for which law or legal order authorizes
a new use or sharing of information after this
Notice was given; and anyone with your written
consent.
TM
TwinWest
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
June 16,2010
Ms. Judy Nally
Administrative Assistant
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Dear Judy,
The TwinWest Chamber of Commerce and the TwinWest Foundation will host its
Annual Golf Classic Tournament on August 9 at the Golden Valley Golf and Country
Club. We respectfully request that the City Council waive the customary 30-day waiting
period of the exemption for the lawful gambling permit required for this type of event.
Sincerely,
'\ r. J ,~-' ~^-Q<L~y
\J VVc~ 0
Victoria Marley
Signature Event Planner Representative
Twin West Chamber of Commerce
763-450-2227
10700 Old County Road 15, Suite 170. Plymouth, MN 55441
Phone: (763) 450-2220. Fax: (763) 450-2221 . www.twinwest.com
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 26, 2010
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, April
26,2010. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Eck, Keysser, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall
and Waldhauser. Also present was City Planner Joe Hogeboom, Planning Intern Kevin
Knase and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Cera was absent.
1. Approval of Minutes
March 22, 2010 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Eck referred to the second paragraph on page 3 and stated that the word "to" should be
added in the last sentence.
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve
the March 22, 2010 minutes with the above noted correction.
2. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - 5530 Golden Valley Road -
CU-128
Applicant: Peaceful Valley Montessori Academy - Katie Doyle, Applicant
Address: 5530 Golden Valley Road
Purpose: To allow the operation of a Childcare Facility in the Commercial Zoning
District
Knase referred to a location map and pointed out the subject property. He explained that
Peaceful Valley Montessori Academy is going to be leasing the upper half of the building
located at 5530 Golden Valley Road. They are requesting a Conditional Use Permit in
order to operate a Montessori/childcare facility for up to 25 children in the Commercial
zoning district. He discussed the applicant's request and noted that the property currently
has 6 parking spaces which would be sufficient for their customers; however they will
need 3 additional spaces in order to provide parking for their 3 employees. The applicants
have indicated that they will be leasing 3 permanent parking spaces from the property
across the street at 1415 Lilac Drive North.
Keysser said he noticed that there is construction occurring on the site. He expressed
concern about construction starting before a Conditional Use Permit is issued. Schmidgall
asked if the applicants have a building permit for the current construction. Hogeboom said
yes, the applicants have the necessary permits for the work that is taking place and
explained that staff feels comfortable with them starting the construction process while
they are going through the Conditional Use Permit process.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 26, 2010
Page 2
Keysser asked about the use of the first floor in the building. Summer Picha, Applicant,
stated that the first floor is currently vacant but it has been used as a residential property
in the past.
Keysser asked who owns the property. Knase said the owner is Stevens Group LLC in
Minneapolis.
Eck referred to the site plans and asked about the walls shown on the plan. Knase said
he believes they are separation walls and they are not necessarily permanent.
Waldhauser noted that there is not a kitchen area shown on the plans and asked about
food service.
Picha stated that she has been involved in Montessori for nine years and she has always
wanted to own her own school. She explained that their school will have smaller class
sizes, and the kids will have fewer transitions than in a typical school. She added that she
likes the size of the building for their use and they are hoping it will become a community
school.
Keysser asked about the type of license a Montessori requires. Katie Doyle, Applicant,
explained that they will receive a child care facility license through the State. Picha added
that technically they are a daycare, not a school, because of the age of the children. She
referred to the question regarding food service and explained that there will be a small
food preparation area but the kids bring lunch from home and the snacks are all pre-
packaged so there won't be any cooking.
Kluchka asked how many children they intend to have at the school. Picha said according
to their State License they can have 24 children.
Kluchka asked what improvements they are planning for the exterior of the building. Doyle
stated that they are going to install two play structures, a chain link fence for a play area
and they are going to trim tree branches. Picha added that there will also be a picnic area
and raised beds for gardening because teaching the kids to take care of the environment
is part of their program.
Eck asked about the differences between Montessori and daycare. Doyle explained that
Montessori is a philosophy developed by Maria Montessori who was a doctor and
scientist who developed her philosophy with scientifically tested materials. Picha added
that it is a holistic philosophy that starts with the concrete and moves to the abstract.
Eck asked about the number of staff people. Doyle said they will have three staff people
and that their student to teacher ratio is 1 to 10.
Keysser asked about the length of the lease. Doyle said they have signed a three year
lease.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 26, 2010
Page 3
Waldhauser asked if the main entrance would be the one on the front corner of the
building. Picha said yes and added that the back door would be used to access to the
outdoor play area.
Waldhauser expressed concern about having only six parking spaces. Doyle stated that
they had an open house recently and there were 6 or 7 cars parked in the parking lot
without a problem. Keysser asked if the parking lot will be striped. Picha said yes and
added that the drop off times will be staggered so that should help alleviate any parking
issues.
Schmidga1\ asked the applicants if they have any plans to use the lower level in the future.
Doyle said no and explained that if they used the lower level they would have to bring the
entire building into conformance with the building code.
Schmidga1\ asked about the construction currently being done. Doyle explained that they
are currently doing demolition and they have pulled the proper demolition permits.
Keysser opened the public hearing.
Michelle Lemke, 1530 Welcome Avenue North, said she is concerned about the proposed
chain link fence because she won't have much privacy with 24 kids right in her back yard.
She said she thinks a privacy fence would be better and added that she doesn't have
enough room on her side of the property line to put up her own privacy fence.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing.
Keysser asked the applicants to explain what type of fence they are proposing to use.
Doyle said they are planning to install chain link fencing right away and in the future they
would like to install a privacy fence. Picha stated that they would be willing to install a
privacy fence along the west side of the property closest to Ms. Lemke and the other
three sides of the fence could be chain link. Waldhauser discussed the location of the
fence and noted that there are other materials that could be used for screening such as
shrubs or trees. Doyle added that the only time a1\ of the kids would be outside would be
for an hour during the middle of the day. Otherwise there will only be small groups of kids
outside for short periods of time throughout the day.
Eck asked the applicants when they plan to open their facility. Doyle said they plan to
open on June 1.
Kluchka suggested adding a condition of approval that the west side of the proposed
fence would be required to have some sort of privacy feature. He also suggested that the
applicants and staff work with MnDOT regarding installing signage that warns drivers of
children playing.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 26, 2010
Page 4
McCarty referred to the condition of approval regarding the hours of operation and
suggested allowing them to stay open until 7 pm rather than 6 pm in order to give them
some flexibility.
Keysser asked the applicants if they envision having any weekend events. Picha said
they may have events up to 4 times per year. Keysser said he thinks language regarding
events should be added to the Conditional Use Permit. The Commissioners discussed the
various ways to address the normal business hours versus special event hours and
weekend hours. Kluchka suggested allowing one weekend and one evening per month.
Kluchka asked about bicycle racks. Picha stated they did not have bicycle racks on the
property. The Commissioners encouraged the applicants to provide them.
MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval for the operation of a Childcare Facility at 5530 Golden Valley Road
subject to the following conditions:
1. All signage shall meet the requirements of the City's sign code.
2. The site plan shall become a part of this approval.
3. The Montessori school/childcare facility shall be limited to 25 clients, or the amount
specified by the State of Minnesota.
4. The hours of normal operation shall be Monday through Friday from 6:30 am to 6:30 pm
with limited monthly evening and weekend operations of 1 evening and 1 weekend per
month.
5. All improvements to the building shall meet the City's Building Code requirements.
6. All necessary licenses shall be obtained by the Minnesota Department of State and/or
the Minnesota Department of Education before schooling and childcare operations may
commence. Proof of such licensing shall be presented to the Director of Planning and
Development.
7. Documentation regarding the use of oft-street parking spaces from a property zoned
Business and Professional Offices within 500 feet of 5530 Golden Valley Road shall be
submitted to the City prior to City Council approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
8. The west portion of the proposed fence shall have some sort of privacy feature
screening the play area from the neighbors to the west.
9. All other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met at all times.
10. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall be grounds for revocation.
--Short Recess--
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 26, 2010
Page 5
4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Hogeboom gave an update on the Bottineau Light Rail Transit proposal and the
restriping and repaving of Douglas Drive.
5. Other Business
No other business was discussed.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 pm.
Lester Eck, Secretary
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 25, 2010
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday,
May 23, 2010 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair
Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Members Kisch, Nelson, Segelbaum, Sell and Planning Commission
Representative McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative
Assistant Lisa Wittman.
I. Approval of Minutes - October 27,2009
MOVED by Sell, seconded by Kisch and motion carried to approve the minutes from
October 27,2009. McCarty abstained from voting.
II. The Petitions are:
2461 Dresden Lane (10-05-01)
Jeff and Emilv Piper, Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback
Requirements
. 5 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 10ft. at its closest point
to the side yard (south) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the replacement of the railing and surface boards on the
existing deck.
Hogeboom referred to the property on a location map and explained that the applicants are
requesting a side yard variance in order to bring their existing deck into conformance with
zoning code requirements. He explained that the applicants came to the City to obtain a
building permit in order to replace the railings and surface boards on their deck. It was during
the building permit process that the applicants were made aware that the existing deck is not
in conformance with setback requirements. He stated that staff is recommending approval of
this variance request due to the topography of the lot and the fact that the deck was
constructed by the previous homeowner, not by the applicants. He added that the
neighboring property owners are also supportive of this variance request.
Nelson asked if a variance would be required if stairs were located in the setback area
instead of the deck. Hogeboom stated that stairs are allowed to be located in setback areas.
Kisch questioned granting variances for structures that are built without obtaining a building
permit. He said he doesn't feel that asking for a variance because a structure was originally
built without a permit constitutes a hardship. Hogeboom stated that staff would feel
differently if a nonconforming structure was built by the current homeowner, but in this case
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 25,2010
Page 2
the deck was there when the applicants purchased the home so in order to bring the deck
into conformance
with zoning and building code requirements staff asked the applicants to bring their proposal
to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Sell stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals has in the past felt that it isn't fair to blame
current homeowners for nonconforming structures that were built by previous homeowners.
He said he supports this variance request because the deck has existed for a long time,
most people probably don't even know it exists and this homeowner is trying to fix the
problems and bring it into conformance.
Segelbaum asked Hogeboom if he knows how long the existing deck has been located
where it is. Hogeboom said he didn't know and suggested asking the applicants.
Emily Piper, Applicant, reiterated that when they applied for a building permit to repair their
deck they were told they needed to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance from
the side yard setback requirements. She referred to Segelbaum's question regarding how
long the deck has been in its current location and stated that the neighbor to the south said
she thought it was built in the early 1990s.
Sell questioned if the existing deck is structurally sound. Hogeboom stated that the
Inspections Department will address that issue when they do their inspections on the new
work being proposed.
Nelson noted that if this deck had been built with a permit it would have been grandfathered
in. She said she feels there are hardships with this property due to the grade and because
there is a side door that has access on to the deck. Kisch agreed and added the current
noncompliance is more of a risk and it would be worse if the applicants aren't allowed to
bring the deck into conformance with the building code and zoning code.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Segelbaum closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Sell, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the
variance request for 5 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 10ft. at its closest point
to the side yard (south) property line to bring the existing deck into conformance with
the zoning code and to allow for the replacement of the railing and surface boards on
the existing deck.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 25, 2010
Page 3
608 Turnpike Road (10-05-02)
Dana Swindler and Greg Walsh, Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback
Requirements
. 8.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 4 ft. at its closest
point to the side yard (north) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback
Requirements
. 3 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 32 ft. at its closest point
to the front yard (east) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition.
Hogeboom referred to the property on a location map and explained the applicant's
proposal to construct a garage addition. He noted that the applicant's stated hardship is
that the existing garage doesn't provide enough space. He referred to photos of the
property and showed a paved parking area next to the existing garage where the
proposed garage addition would be constructed. He also noted the location of an
existing retaining wall which would act as the north wall of the proposed new garage.
He referred to the front yard variance request and stated that the proposed new garage
addition would line up with the front plane of the house but because of the angle of the
lot it will be closer to the front yard property line than the required 35 feet. He stated
that staff is recommending approval of these variance requests due to the placement of
the home on the lot, the fact the new garage addition will go no further toward the side
yard property line than the existing retaining wall already does and because of the
corner lot restrictions. He added that the proposed new addition would also add some
articulation to the north side of the house which is also a requirement of the zoning
code.
Kisch referred to the survey and noted that if the proposed garage addition goes all the
way to the existing retaining wall then the garage would be 2.5 feet away from north
side yard property line not 4 feet as stated on the agenda. Hogeboom suggested the
applicant explain the exact dimensions of the proposed garage addition.
McCarty questioned how the front of the house was originally built 32.2 feet away from
the front property line instead of the required 35 feet. Sell stated that in the past the
zoning code considered the longer side of the property line to be the front and the
shorter property to be the side. Hogeboom added that the front yard setback
requirement for structures built prior to 1982 is 25 feet so the existing house is
considered to be in conformance.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 25,2010
Page 4
McCarty questioned the structural integrity of the existing retaining if it is going to be
used as the new garage wall. Hogeboom stated that the structural integrity of the
retaining wall will have to be verified before a building permit is issued.
Paula Merrigan, representing the applicant, stated that they intend to have a structural
engineer inspect the retaining wall. She stated that it is logical to use the existing
retaining wall as the new garage wall because they don't want to have a space between
a new garage wall and the existing retaining wall and they don't want to undermine the
integrity of the existing retaining wall when constructing a new garage wall.
McCarty asked what the total width of the garage would be after the proposed addition
is built. Merrigan stated that the garage would be 28.75 feet wide.
Segelbaum asked about the width of the proposed addition. Kisch stated that it appears
that the proposed garage addition is approximately 15 feet in width. Merrigan reiterated
that the logical place for them to construct the new garage is where the retaining wall is
located. She explained that the house does not have a basement; it has limited storage
space and a small amount of side and rear yard space to construct any other type of
accessory structure.
Kisch asked if the existing retaining wall has footings. Merrigan stated yes.
Nelson asked about the height of the proposed garage addition and if the top of the
existing garage is a deck. Merrigian said the garage addition will match the height of the
existing garage and it will have the same parapet across the front. Dana Swindler,
Applicant, added that the top of the existing garage is just a rubber membrane roof and
not usable deck space. Nelson asked how the proposed new garage will visually impact
the neighboring property. Merrigan reiterated that the front of the garage addition will
look the same as the existing garage and the side of the garage facing the neighboring
property will be railing so it won't read as a solid wall on the side facing the neighbors.
Kisch referred to the survey and asked why the rear wall of the proposed garage wall
isn't being constructed all the way back to the existing retaining wall. Swindler stated
that he would like to add more green space in that area. Merrigan added that the back
wall of the proposed garage addition ends where the back wall of the existing garage
ends. She stated that they could build the proposed garage addition all the way back to
the retaining wall on the side and toward the rear but the homeowner wants to add
more green space.
Kisch stated that this variance request is extreme and asked the applicant if the full
variance isn't granted if he would go forward with a garage addition project. He said he
understands the need for a larger garage and the need for more storage but he is
uncomfortable granting this large of a variance. Merrigan reiterated that the garage
addition was logically driven and they want to use the existing retaining wall because of
all that it is holding back. Kisch stated he thinks repairs to the retaining wall will have to
be made and portions of it are going to have to be torn down anyway.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
May 25,2010
Page 5
Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Segelbaum closed the public hearing.
Kisch stated he understands the thinking behind the design of the garage addition but it
seems like too large a variance and too close to the side yard property line. He
suggested the Board grant a variance for 6 feet off the required 12.5 feet to a distance
of 6.5 feet to the side yard property line instead. He added that he would feel
comfortable approving the front yard variance as requested.
Segelbaum asked for clarification regarding the interior and exterior dimensions of the
overall garage. Kisch stated that the interior would be approximately 25 feet in width
and the exterior would be approximately 27 feet in width. Segelbaum asked about the
space that would then be left between the new garage wall and the existing retaining
wall. Kisch suggested that the new garage wall be used as a retaining wall and the
existing retaining wall be removed.
Nelson expressed concern about an addition being constructed above the garage at
some point in the future. Segelbaum stated that this variance request is only for this
proposal and if an addition was proposed in the future the homeowner would have to
come back to the Board of Zoning Appeals with another variance request.
Kisch noted that the proposed new garage can only be 32 feet in length before it has to
articulate. Merrigan said she doesn't this the proposed garage will be more than 32 feet
in length.
MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to approve the
following variance requests: 6 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 6.5 ft. at its
closest point to the side yard (north) property line and 3 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a
distance of 32 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line to allow for the
construction of a garage addition.
III. Other Business
Election of Officers
MOVED by Sell, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously re-elect Segelbaum
as Chair and Kisch as Vice Chair.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:03 pm.
Chuck Segelbaum, Chair
Joe Hogeboom, Staff Liaison
GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Minutes
May 24, 2010
Present: Commissioners, Baker, Gitelis, Hill, Pawluk and Stremel; Joe Hogeboom, City
Planner, AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator, Assistant City Attorney Kim
Donat; Dave Cera, Planning Commissioner
Absent: Commissioner Anderson
1. Call to Order
Baker called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm.
2. Approval of Reaular Meetina Minutes - April 26. 2010
MOVED by Gitelis, seconded by Stremel, and the motion carried unanimously to approve
the minutes of the April 26, 2010 meeting.
3. Residential Solid Waste and Recvclina Study
Kim Donat, Assistant City Attorney outlined the statutory requirements and the legal
process if a recommendation is made to move to organized hauling. Additional discussions
included the potential staffing impact and review of RFPs from other cities.
The commission has been ask"ed to attend the July Council/Manager workshop to discuss
their recommendation. The June commission meeting will be dedicated to the process of
making a recommendation.
4. Ordinance Review
Commissioners reviewed a new wind energy conversion system ordinance as well as
amendments to existing rainwater collection, solar panels and outdoor boiler ordinances.
Comments included concern regarding the lack of language to the rainwater collection
ordinance, regarding mosquito screening. Additionally, it was requested that language be
included to the solar panel ordinance regarding reflections from the panels.
5. Proaram/Proiect Updates
A. TMDL - Wirth Lake high phosphorus level was determined to be from high
creek water. An outlet structure may be constructed to prevent the back flow
from happening.
B. 1/1 - Point of Sale is still busy
C. Private Development Update - no updates
D. Emerald Ash Borer - The tree inventory is nearing completion. It appears that
the City will be responsible for managing approximately 3,000 public Ash
trees. Recommendation to Council will be to remove 200 trees each year for
the next 15 years in addition to developing a planting program to replace
them.
E. MPCA Progress Repor t - no updates
6. Commission Member Council Reports
None
Minutes of the Environmental Commission
May 24, 2010
Page 2 of 2
7. Other Business
None
8. Adiourn
MOVED by Stremel, seconded by Hill, and the motion carried to adjourn.
The meeting adjourned at 9: 15 pm. The next scheduled meeting will be June 28, 2010 at
7:00 pm.
Envision Connection Project
Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
May 13,2010
Present: Jim Heidelberg, Helene Johnson, Philip Lund, Dean Penk, and Marshall Tanick,
Absent: Sharon Glover, Linda Loomis, Blair Tremere and Luke Weisberg (GVCEF
Representative)
Staff: Jeanne Andre
The meeting began at 8:05 pm in the Council Conference Room.
Approval of Minutes
TanicklJohnson moved to approve the minutes of April 15, 2010, as presented. Motion
carried.
Proposed Community Foundation/Non-Profit
Dean Penk reported that the transitions group has not met since its first meeting. He had
difficulty finding suitable meeting times, but will try Meeting Wizard.
Bridge Builders
Lilac Project - The committee met this week and is still working with National Camera on
the use of its old building site (currently vacant) to install a gate in the MnDOT fence and
serve as the welcome center. Todd Carroll of MnDOT has developed a landscape plan,
which will be reviewed with adjacent land owners. Staff is working on some mailings that
will be used to attract churches, clubs and businesses to send groups to the planting.
Ice Cream Social- Sebastian Joe's is on board for 2010 and Marshall Tanick will follow
up on his requests to sponsors.
Dog Park - Jeanne Andre encouraged members to attend a May 18 Meeting of the
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Wirth Beach Citizen's Advisory Committee, to be
held at the Wirth Park Picnic Pavillion. The dog park is still under consideration, but some
do not think this use is appropriate for a regional park. Improvements are to be made with
regional funds. Members will stress the advantage of regular visitors to the park fostered
with this use.
Buckthorn Busting - Blair Tremere is working on his request to the Bassett Creek
Watershed Management Commission to fund an educational seminar on buckthorn
removal.
Volunteers in the Valley - Dean Penk has been unable to establish a suitable meeting
time for this group.
Natural History Museum in Wirth Park - Philip Lund has agreed to coach a resident
who has extensive plans for improvements and design enhancements that would educate
the public on natural features at Wirth Park. Jeanne Andre circulated educational
materials on kiosks, a minne-henge and park table games that are examples, along with
tree identification and other science-type displays on topics such a skipping stones and
building sandcastles. The Bridge Builder, Diane Thottungal, worked on the Quaking Bog
project in Wirth Park. Members may promote this initiative at the Wirth Park Beach
Advisory Committee.
Bridge Builder Quarterly Meeting
Blair Tremere reported that he has been unable to secure the new Byerly's Community
Room for the meeting. PRISM was offered as an alternative and Jeanne Andre agreed to
call and request PRISM to host the meeting. Marshall Tanick will promote the meeting..
Envision Connection Project
Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
May 13, 2010 - Page 2
Valley Days
Members discussed the focus of the Connection Project/Bridge Builder activities at the
festival and signed up for shifts to work. Philip Lund reported that the VFW may have a
booth and Jeanne Andre reported that Blair Tremere is working on having an educational
display developed by the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission.
125 Year Anniversary
Members discussed what focus an anniversary celebration could take. Marshall Tanick
suggested that it would be good to have a series of events for the Anniversary,
culminated at a Summit Meeting as occurred for the 100th Anniversary. Members agreed
that people should be recruited to start working on a plan for the celebration.
The next meeting will be June 26 at 9 am. The meeting ended at 8:40 pm.
Jeanne Andre, Assistant City Manager
1.
The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) was called to order at 11:30 a.m.,
Thursday, May 20, 2010, at Golden Valley City Hall by Chair Loomis. Ms. Herbert conducted roll call.
Roll Call
Crystal
Commissioner Pauline Langsdorf,
Secretary
Commissioner Linda Loomis, Chair
Not represented
Not represented
Not represented
Not represented
Commissioner Ginny Black, Vice Chair
Commissioner Wayne Sicora
Commissioner Jim deLambert
Administrator
Geoff Nash
Golden Valley
Medicine Lake
Minneapolis
Minnetonka
New Hope
Plymouth
Robbinsdale
St. Louis Park
Counsel
Engineer
Recorder
Charlie LeFevere
Karen Chandler
Amy Herbert
Arrived after roll call:
Alternate Medicine Lake Commissioner Ted Hoshal; Minneapolis Commissioner
Michael Welch, Treasurer; New Hope Commissioner John Elder
Derek Asche, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Plymouth
Jack Frost, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services
Karl Geurts, Golden Valley Resident
Dave Hanson, Alternate Commissioner, City of Golden Valley
Tom Mathisen, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Crystal
Richard McCoy, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Robbinsdale
Jeff Oliver, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Golden Valley
Stu Stockhaus, Alternate Commissioner, City of Crystal
Liz Stout, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Minnetonka
Jim Vaughn, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of St. Louis Park
Also present:
2. Approval of Agen
Commissioner Black moved to approve the Consent Agenda, which included the presentation of the April
15, 2010, minutes, the May 2010 fmancial report, and the communications from the BCWMC's Counsel.
Commissioner Sicora seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimouslv with five votes in favor
rCities of Medicine Lake. Minneapolis. Minnetonka. and New Hope absent from vote 1.
Chair Loomis requested the addition to the Agenda of item Cvil - an invoice from MMKR for audit
services. Commissioner Black moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Langsdorf
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimouslv with five votes in favor rCities of Medicine Lake.
Minneapolis. Minnetonka. and New Hope absent from vote1.
3. Citizen Input on No
No citizen input on non-agenda items.
dministra
A. Presentation of the April 15, 2010, BCWMC meeting minutes. Approved under the Consent
Agenda.
B. Presentation of the Financial Statement. Approved under the Consent Agenda.
The general and construction account balances as reported in the May 2010 Financial Report:
CheckinK Account Balance
TOTAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE
665,521.17
665,521.17
Construction Account Cash Balance
Investment due 10/18/2010
Investment due 1/21/2015
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT BALANCE
-Less: Reserved for CIP projects
Construction cash/ investments available for projects
2,066,786.35
533,957.50
500,000.00
3,100,743.85
2,764,883.52
335,860.33
C. Presentation of Invoices for Payment Approval.
Invoices:
i. Kennedy & Graven - Legal Services through March 31, 2010 - invoice for the
amount of $2,781.04.
ii. Barr Engineering Company - Engineering Services through April 30, 2010 .
invoice for the amount of $34,958.25.
iii. Watershed Consulting, LLC - Administrator Services April 15 - April 30, 2010
- invoice for the amount of $1,831.69.
iv. Amy Herbert - April Administrative Services. invoice for the amount of
$4,263.26.
v. D'amico Catering - April 2010 meeting catering - invoice for the amount of
$393.91.
vi. Hamline University - 2010 participation with Metro WaterShed Partners -
invoice for the amount of $5,000.00.
vii. MMKR - Audit Services - Third progress billing - invoice for the amount of
$2,500.
[Alternate Commissioner Hoshal arrived.]
Commissioner Black moved to approve all invoices including the added invoice vii - MMKR -
Audit Services. Commissioner Langsdorf seconded the motion. Bv call of roll. the motion carried
unanimouslv with five votes in favor. rCitv of Medicine Lake abstained from the vote: Cities of
Minneapolis. Minnetonka. and New Hope absent from votel.
[Commissioner Elder arrived].
2
BCWMC May 20,2010 Meeting Minutes
A. 2010 Plymouth Street Reconstruction Project: Plymouth. Ms. Chandler explained that the project
is in front of the Commission because the project consists of street reconstruction that will disturb
more than five acres and she reminded the Commission that street reconstruction projects of less
than five acres do not come in front of the Commission. She stated that the project is located near
Parkers Lake and involves 3.4 miles of residential street reconstruction. Ms. Chandler said that 18
acres of the watershed will be disturbed and that the project will decrease the impervious surface
area by 0.33 acres because some roads and intersections will be narrowed.
Ms. Chandler reported that the Commission Engineer recommends adding one more sump
manhole than was proposed and that the Commission Engineer recommends approval of the
permit with the recommendations a- f that are listed in the Engineer's May 13,2010, memo
describing the permit review.
Commissioner Black moved to approve the permit contingent on the recommendations of the
Commission Engineer. Commissioner Elder seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimouslv with seven votes in favor rCities of Minneapolis and Minnetonka absent from votel.
B. South Shore Drive Emergency Utility Repair: Plymouth. Ms. Chandler explained that the location
of the needed repair is south of Medicine Lake. She said that south of South Shore drive there is a
Metropolitan Council sanitary sewer line that is failing. She explained that this is an emergency
project to replace a sagged PVC pipe and a fractured reinforced concrete pipe and that since it is
an emergency repair, the project could proceed without the Commission's review but the timing of
the repair and the Commission's meeting provide the Commission with an opportunity to provide
feedback on the proposed repair. Ms. Chandler said the approach proposed for repairing the pipe
includes replacing the fractured pipe with ductile iron pipe, which will be supported in order to
compensate for movement, which was the cause of the sagging and fracture in the pipe.
Ms. Chandler said the Commission Engineer has not seen the design plan so the Commission
Engineer recommends that the Commission make a conditional approval based on the Engineer's
review and approval of the final plans, including the diversion and dewatering plans, prior to the
repair.
Alternate Commissioner Hoshal moved to approve the repair project contingent on the Engineer's
review and approval of the plans. Commissioner Sicora seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimouslv with seven votes in favor rCities of Minneapolis and Minnetonka absent from votel.
C. South Shore Drive Bridge: Plymouth. Ms. Chandler reminded the Commission that it discussed
this project in February 2010 and the Commission conditionally approved the project and sent a
letter to the City of Plymouth requesting that the low chord of the bridge be raised to be at or
above the l00-year flood level and requesting that other conditions be met as detailed in the
Engineer's May 13, 2010, memo. Ms. Chandler reported that the Commission Engineer has
received a response from the City of Plymouth stating that the City does not want to raise the
bridge due to various concerns. Ms. Chandler said the Commission Engineer is waiting for the
receipt of information from the City's consulting engineer regarding what, if any, impact the
proposed bridge would have on the flood level. She said the project is coming back in front of the
Commission since the City did not meet the Commission's request regarding raising the bridge
above the 100-year flood level and so the Commission needs to address the issue again. Ms.
Chandler said the Commission could table the discussion until it receives the technical data due
from the City's consultant, or the Commission could conditionally approve the design contingent
on final review and approval of the Commission Engineer and the Engineer's satisfaction that
there will not be impacts on the flood level upstream, or the Commission could request that the
City of Plymouth revise the bridge design so that the low chord is above the 100-year flood level.
3
#249600 vI
BCWMC May 20, 2010 Meeting Minutes
[Commissioner Welch arrived.]
Commissioner Black said that her concern is regarding the residents on either side of the bridge,
whose homes are lower than the current bridge elevation. She commented that her concern is
whether an elevation change to the bridge would cause runoff into those properties and homes.
Commissioner Black stated that City staff want to keep the bridge at the elevation it is at in the
MnlDOT -approved plan and she added that if that elevation changes, then MnlDOT would likely
have to review the plan again and reapprove it.
Mr. Mathisen asked if MnlDOT was okay with the plan the way its drawn and with the low chord
level being below the loo-year flood level. Commissioner Black responded that MnlDOT approved
the plan. Ms. Chandler added that in the approved plan there is an error in the listed 100-year
flood level. She said the plan lists the 100-year flood level as 889.4 feet, which is incorrect for the
upstream side of the bridge. Ms. Chandler said the correct elevation is 890.3 feet. Mr. Mathisen
asked if MnlDOT has seen that correction and Ms. Chandler replied that she did not know and
that perhaps the City's consultant for the project would know.
Mr. Oliver asked Mr. Asche if the cross sectional area would be increasing or decreasing for flow.
Mr. Asche replied that the City received verbal information from Bonestroo, the City's consultant
on the project, that the existing cross-sectional opening is 81 square feet and the proposed opening
is 93 square feet, which would be a little more area for water to pass under. Ms. Chandler
commented that the existing structure's low chord is above the 100-year flood level, which means
it is a free flow, but the Commission Engineer does not yet know if there would be pressure
underneath the bridge that could cause the water to back up. Mr. Asche stated that Bonestroo has
verbally communicated to the City that the new bridge could handle 1,000 or higher cubic feet per
second and that the 100-year flow would be 192 cubic feet per second. Mr. Asche said that the
delay in getting information to the watershed is because Bonestroo needs to rerun a model, which
it has started. Mr. Asche said the City staff prefers the Commission to make a conditional
approval based upon providing data to the Commission Engineer that satisfies the watershed that
the flow under the bridge would not be a problem.
Ms. Chandler said the Commission Engineer has not seen enough information to recommend
approving the permit but would be comfortable with a conditional approval that would be based
upon the Engineer's review of the data when it arrives and the satisfaction of the Engineer from
the review that the water would not flood any higher. She said if the Commission Engineer was
not satisfied after the review of the technical data then the Engineer would bring the issue back to
the Commission. Ms. Black moved to approve the permit contingent on the Commission
Engineer's approval. Commissioner Sicora seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously
with seven votes in favor rCitv of Minneapolis abstained from the vote. Citv of Minnetonka was
absent from the vote 1.
D. Request from Medicine Lake to review its Local Water Management Plan (LWMP). Ms. Chandler
explained that last week the Commission received the L WMP from Medicine Lake for the
Commission's review and comment. Ms. Chandler added that if Barr is authorized to review the
plan, the review could likely be completed in time for discussion at the June Commission meeting.
Commissioner Welch moved to authorize staff to review the Medicine Lake Local Water
Management Plan for conformance to the Commission's Watershed Management Plan and to
bring recommendations and comments back to the Commission at its June meeting.
Commissioner Elder seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimouslv with eie:ht votes in
favor rCitv of Minnetonka absent from the vote 1.
6. Old Business
4
#249600 vI
BCWMC May 20, 2010 Meeting Minutes
A. Weir on Sweeney Lake. Ms. Chandler reminded the Commission that at its last meeting the
Commission directed the Commission Engineer to look into modifications made at the Sweeney
Lake outlet. Ms. Chandler pointed out features of the Sweeney Lake outlet structure photos in the
May 13,2010, Engineer's Memo. She said that the modification was put in at about two-tenths of
a foot higher than the original structure, which may have been installed because erosion on the
south side of the weir has lowered the lake outlet elevation approximately six inches. Ms. Chandler
said the Commission Engineer's recommendation is that the original structure should be replaced
with one that is tied into the earth on either side to eliminate erosion. She said that in the
meantime the Commission should consider directing the removal of the modification and directing
the replacement of the original control structure while ensuring that the original outlet elevation is
maintained. Ms. Chandler said the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) did not
have any record of a permit for either of the structures and indicated that the newer, masonry
wall could be removed without a permit and that if there is temporary shoring up of the original
structure that needs to occur then it could be done without a permit. She said that the DNR stated
that replacing the outlet structure would require a permit. Ms. Chandler said that as far as the
Commission Engineer could find out, no one owns the outlet.
Commissioner Welch commented that work in public waters requires a permit. He said he thinks
the Commission should find the official mapped elevation of the lake because theoretically there
are FEMA and floodplain issues associated with the work. Commissioner Welch also thought the
Commission should get a ballpark cost estimate of the project broken down by component.
Mr. Oliver commented that the City of Golden Valley would like to see a more detailed study on
options for the next step. He said the City would be willing to do the removal of the masonry wall
and short-term wing wall expansion although the City would ask for funding participation on the
maintenance given the fact that this is a major flood storage area for the watershed. He requested
that the Commission authorize additional investigation in order to determine what is practical and
the cost scope.
Commissioner Black said the Commission needs to find out the official elevation of the outlet.
Chair Loomis said the City has that information. Commissioner Black said she assumes that any
new structure that goes in would need to be at that official elevation. Commissioner Black moved
to have the City of Golden Valley make any minor modifications that they deem helpful and to
explore options for what should go in there as well as what are some of the funding options
available. Mr. Oliver requested that the Commission Engineer would generate the report on the
options. Ms. Black amended her motion to state that the City make any minor modifications to the
structure that the City deems necessary at this time and for the Commission Engineer to evaluate
options for replacement and to include cost estimates and to identify potential partners.
Commissioner deLambert seconded the motion but asked what the City of Golden Valley would
do for a short-term stabilization. Mr. Oliver remarked that if this motion is approved, the City
would like to meet with the Commission Engineer to talk about what would be an effective interim
measure to stop the flow around the weir and then to implement that measure.
Commissioner Welch commented that the Commission can't direct the City to take action about
repairing the weir. Commissioner Welch requested a friendly amendment to the motion to ask the
Commission Engineer to work with the City to develop options and the range of cost for short,
medium, and long-term solutions and to address the permitting and ownership issues and any
other legal information the DNR may have and for the Commission Engineer to report back at the
June meeting. Commissioner Black stated that she approved the friendly amendment.
Commissioner Welch asked if there is a certain budget line to which to allocate the work described
in the motion. Ms. Chandler suggested that the cost could be allocated to the surveys and studies
budget. Administrator Nash asked if the Commission wanted him to do anything with this item.
Chair Loomis commented that he could work it out with the Commission Engineer. Commissioner
#249600 vI
BCWMC May 20, 2010 Meeting Minutes
5
Welch asked Ms. Chandler to carbon copy Administrator Nash on communications. The motion
carried with eieht votes in favor rCitv of Minnetonka absentl.
B. Order Feasibility Reports for Main Stem and North Branch Projects Listed in Major Plan
Amendment. Chair Loomis said that the reach of the Main Stem listed in the Engineer's memo is
incorrect and that the project actually is from Duluth Street to Westbrook Road. She reminded
the Commission that the Main Stem and the North Branch channel restoration projects were in
the Commission's CIP for 2012 but because of the grant awards, the Commission decided to move
the two projects to 2011, which is why the Commission needs the feasibility reports prepared. Mr.
Mathisen reported that the City of Crystal's City Council had a work session this week on the
North Branch project and he asked if the funds for the project will be collected in 2011. Mr.
LeFevere said if the project is certified to the County to be levied this year, the BCWMC would
receive the funds from the County in July and in December of 2011. Ms. Herbert commented that
the Commission had previously discussed that its goal is to have its major plan amendment for
these two projects approved this year in time for the two projects to be included in the
Commission's certification of the levy that is due to the County by October 1st. Commissioner
Welch commented that he had volunteered to follow up on the plan amendment with Brad
Wozney of BWSR and will do so and will also convey to him the Commission's schedule.
Commissioner Welch moved to approve staff to complete the two feasibility reports at a cost of
$29,970.00. Alternate Commissioner Hoshal seconded the motion. Commissioner Black stated that
she is uncomfortable with the Commission not going out for a bid on this work. She said she
knows that in this case creating a request for proposals and going out for a bid would delay the
process and the Commission does not have time for a delay but she would like the Commission in
the future for these kinds of things that are outside of development review to go through an RFP
process. Alternate Commissioner Hoshal asked if the Commission has a stated policy on going out
for bidding. Commissioner Black said no. Alternate Commissioner Hoshal commented that
perhaps the Commission should have such a policy. Commissioner Sicora added that moving
forward he would like to see the Commission use an RFP process but that the Commission should
also reserve the right to direct staff to conduct the studies. The motion carried unanimouslv with
eieht votes in favor rCitv of Minnetonka absent from votel.
Commissioner Welch moved to establish a Commission policy of issuing electronic requests for
bids for all feasibility studies. Commissioner Black seconded the motion. Commissioner Welch
modified his motion to direct staff to create a policy regarding the Commission submitting RFPs
for feasibility studies. Commissioner Black approved the friendly motion. Mr. Mathisen suggested
that the Commission consider establishing a pool of consultants to which the Commission would
send the RFPs in order to ensure the bids come in from consultants that have the areas of
technical expertise that the Commission wants and to also reduce the number of RFPs that the
Commission would need to evaluate for each bid. Commissioner Welch commented that staff can
structure the process in that way. Mr. Oliver remarked that he understands the Commission's
concept but stated that the RFP process can be very expensive and recommended that the
Commission forward the issue to the T ACto discuss and make recommendations on the process
and potential consultant pool. Administrator Nash commented that he thought that the TAC's
opinion on this issue would be important. Commissioners Welch and Black agreed with the
friendly amendment to ask the TAC to review the issue and develop recommendations for the
Commission. The motion carried with eieht votes in favor rCitv of Minnetonka absent from votel.
C. TAC Recommendations.
i. CIP Work Group. Mr. Oliver reported that the T A C recommends that at least two if not
three TAC members participate in the group. He said that the TAC members from
Plymouth and Golden Valley are the representatives. Commissioner Welch commented
that it would be nice to have a third representative and requested that the TAC name a
#249600 vI
BCWMC May 20, 2010 Meeting Minutes
6
third representative. Chair Loomis directed Administrator Nash to organize a meeting of
the CIP Work Group.
ii. Medicine Lake TMDL. Mr. Asche reported that the TAC reviewed the draft Medicine
Lake TMDL and added that the review was outside of the 30-day comment period and the
MPCA afforded the Commission the review opportunity. He explained that the May 11,
2010, memo to the Commission from the TAC states the TAC recommended changes to
the text of the TMDL. He said that in summary the comments highlight questions to the
MPCA about internal loading details, monitoring details such as how the monitoring
should take place, and implementation plan details. Commissioner Black asked about the
TAC's questions regarding internal loading. Mr. Asche replied that the TMDL discusses
three major forms of internal loading and the T AC's concern is that with the current
language in the TMDL even though the MPCA doesn't have regulatory oversight of the
internal load, the TMDL as written will affect the MS4s abilities to meet the goals of the
TMDL.
Commissioner Welch asked Ms. Chandler if the Commission Engineer agrees that the
comments listed in the TAC memo are the right comments to send to the MPCA to address
the Commission's concerns. Ms. Chandler responded that staff is comfortable with
submitting these comments. Commissioner Black stated that she feels that the comments
are irritating to the MPCA and that is doesn't seem like a good idea to irritate the MPCA
keeping in mind that the Commission submits funding requests to the MPCA. Mr. Oliver
replied that the TAC's goal was not to aggravate the MPCA but to ask the MPCA for
clarification in the TMDL in order to provide long-term assurances that will protect the
MS4s and the Commission. Mr. Asche suggested that the Commission present official
comments to the MPCA in a way that is more workable to the MPCA. Commissioner
Welch agreed with the idea of addressing the matter of the tone of the Commission's
comments. Administrator Nash reported that he spoke on the phone with Ms. Asleson of
the MPCA this morning and that he sensed that she is frustrated and that she commented
that the internal load issues will not be modified in the TMDL because they are beyond the
MPCA's leeway. Administrator Nash remarked that if the Commission officially sends in
the comments that it shouldn't be surprised if they result in no changes to the TMDL. Ms.
Chandler added that Ms. Asleson communicated to Mr. Kremer of Barr Engineering that
"the MPCA doesn't mean that the MS4s will be required to reduce the internal load." Ms.
Chandler explained that the TAC wants that assurance captured in the TMDL.
Commissioner Black moved to approve submitting Commission comments to the MPCA
by modifying the comments in the TAC memo as follows: Eliminating section 4.1,
eliminating section 4.3, revising the first comment of section 5 to state that "the
Commission will coordinate the sampling and collection of data," eliminate in the
implementation plan section 1.5 and the final comment of section 2.3. Commissioner
Welch made a friendly amendment to Commissioner Black's motion to authorize
Administrator Nash to work with the Commission Engineer to modify the Commission's
comments and to draft a cover letter that emphasizes that the Commission's paramount
goal is to continue working with the MPCA to improve the water quality of Medicine Lake
and that the Commission recognizes that internal loading is a difficult issue that needs to
be addressed by all parties. Alternate Commissioner Hoshal seconded the motion. The
motion carried unanimouslv with eieht votes in favor rCitv of Minnetonka absent from
vote 1.
D. TMDL Updates:
i. Sweeney Lake TMDL. Ms. Chandler introduced the table prepared by Ron Leaf of SEH
that addressed the Commission's comments and the comments from the TAC, the City of
7
#249600 vI
BCWMC May 20, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Golden Valley, Commissioner Welch, and Alternate Commissioner Hanson. She pointed
out that the TAC's comments to the MPCA include the Commission's comment that the
TMDL change the proposed external load reduction back to the originally stated 99
pounds from the MPCA's recommended increase to 150 pounds. Commissioner Welch
remarked that the Commission requested that table that lists load allocations on page 29
be removed and asked again that it be removed. He also stated that comment S4 on page 1
should not state that the "BCWMC has determined to choose the categorical allocation
option with full understanding of the role" but instead should state that "the Commission
is proceeding in good faith to coordinate among all parties on how to implement the
TMDL."
Commissioner Welch moved for the Commission Engineer to deliver the Commission's
changes to the comments to Ron Leaf of SEH for revision of the TMDL and submittal of
the revised TMDL to the MPCA and for all communications to be carbon copied to
Administrator Nash. Commissioner Black seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimouslv with eil!ht votes in favor rCitv of Minnetonka absent from vote 1.
ii. Wirth Lake TMDL. Ms. Chandler reported that the Commission received the draft
Wirth Lake TMDL last week after the meeting packet had been sent out but that the
electronic copy was part of the online meeting packet for Commission review. She stated
that comments are due back to the MPCA by May 28th and that a public meeting is
planned for early June unless a stakeholder quickly takes the action to ask the MPCA for a
longer comment period, in which case the public meeting could be delayed. The
Commission indicated that it did not feel the need to request any delay.
E. Discuss and Approve BCWMC 2009 Annual Report. Commissioner Black recommended two
changes to the Executive Summary. Commissioner Welch remarked that a footnote to the pie
chart explaining the categories would be nice if it fit. Commissioner Welch moved to approve the
BCWMC's 2009 annual report with the changes noted by Commissioner Black and for staff to
submit the report to BWSR. Commissioner Black seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimouslv with eil!ht votes in favor rCitv of Minnetonka absent from vote 1.
F. Request from the Mississippi WMO to review draft revised Watershed Management Plan.
Ms. Chandler reported that the Commission received notice that the plan will be sent to the
Commission. She said the Commission Engineer recommends that the Commission spend less than
$1,000 for the Commission Engineer to make a cursory review of the plan. Commissioner Welch
said he would be interested in hearing highlights from the plan. Commissioner Elder moved to
approve that the Commission Engineer conduct the review and provide comments to the
Commission with a cost limit of $1,000. Commissioner Black seconded the motion. The motion
carried unanimouslv with eil!ht votes in favor rCitv of Minnetonka absent from vote 1.
G. BCWMC's Draft 2011 Budget. Commissioner Welch asked Ms. Chandler about the $18,000
budget for line item 8: 2011 Commission and TAC meetings. Ms. Chandler explained that the
budget assumes that the TAC will meet monthly in 2011 but if the TAC reverts to its every-other-
month meeting schedule then the budget figure could be reduce to $13,000 and line item 6: 2011
Technical Services be reduced to $110,000 based on the same TAC meeting reduction. The
Commission decided to make those two changes. Commissioner Sicora recommended that line
item 36: TMDL Studies be reduced to 0 and the Commission agreed to make that change.
Commissioner Langsdorf recommended reducing line item 28: Watershed Education Partnerships
to $14,500 in anticipation of working through the West Metro Watershed Alliance to contribute to
NEMO. The Commission agreed to make the change. Ms. Chandler reported that the Commission
has been notified by the Three Rivers Park District (TRPD) that it will not be able to provide
sampling work or water quality analysis in 2011 and that for the Commission to use someone else
#249600 vI
BCWMC May 20, 2010 Meeting Minutes
8
to collect samples and to use a commercial lab to analyze the samples would require a $4,000
increase in line 10: Water Qualityl monitoring. The Commission agreed to increase line 10 to
$34,000 and directed Ms. Chandler to inquire with the TRPD about its unavailability to do the
work in 2011 and to investigate the costs of having the Metropolitan Council Environmental
Services do the work.
[Commissioners Sicora and Welch depart the meeting.]
H. Approval of BWSR Grant Agreement. Commissioner Black moved to approve the signing of
the agreement. Commissioner Elder seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with
six votes in favor [Cities of Minneapolis, Minnetonka, and Robbinsdale absent from vote].
I. Update on 2010 Clean Water Fund Grant for Plymouth Creek and Bassett Main Stem
Restoration Projects. Ms. Chandler reported that the Commission Engineer submitted the work
plan into BWSR's eLINK system but BWSR has requested additional information. The
Commission Engineer will revise the work plan and will resubmit it after obtaining the additional
information that was requested.
J. Education Committee. Deferred to Committee Communications.
K. Update on Cultural Resource Review Protocol. Earlier in the agenda Commissioner Welch
remarked that he would like to be involved in finalizing the cultural resource protocols. The
Commission consented.
7. Communications
A. Chair:
i. Chair Loomis reported that the BCWMC received a late invitation to participate in this
Saturday's Golden Valley Days.
ii. Chair Loomis reported that she received an e-mail inquiry from a resident regarding removal
of goose droppings from private property, buckthorn removal, and the potential for a second
monitoring site in Sweeney Lake for the 2010 CAMP program.
iii. Chair Loomis stated that the BCWMC's draft financial audit is ready for Commission review.
Commissioner Black moved to approve that Administrator Nash work with Commissioner
Welch to review the audit, to communicate any changes to the Deputy Treasurer and to
finalize the report so the Deputy Treasurer can submit it to the necessary bodies. Alternate
Commissioner Hoshal seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimouslv with six votes in
favor rCities of Minneapolis. Minnetonka. and Robbinsdale absent from votel.
iv. Chair Loomis reported that the Commission received after the May meeting packet mailing a
letter from the City of Medicine Lake requesting a hydraulic and hydrologic evaluation of the
dam at the headwaters of Bassett Creek! the Medicine Lake Outlet and that the request will be
part of the June meeting agenda.
B. Administrator:
i. Administrator Nash discussed the draft policy manual format and the table of contents and
the sample policy included in the meeting packet.
ii. Administrator Nash addressed the draft work plan for the Administrator and reported that
the Administrative Services Committee needs to meet again to complete the work plan.
#249600 vI
BCWMC May 20, 2010 Meeting Minutes
9
ill. Administrator Nash reported that he attended a meeting with Joel Settles of Hennepin County
regarding the process of developing a ground water protection plan.
iv. Administrator Nash delivered to each attendee a copy of the history book of the Nine Mile
Creek Watershed District as an example of a communication piece.
v. Administrator Nash announced the Minnesota Association of Watershed District's Summer
Tour and noted that the announcement was forwarded to the Commission via e-mail and that
historically Commission members have paid their own way to attend such events.
vi. Administrator Nash reported that he received notice about a $75,000 grant from the
Department of Natural Resources.
C. Commissioners: No commissioner communications.
D. Committees:
i. Education Committee: Commissioner Langsdorf reported that the Commission's seed packets
have all been handed out or allocated and asked if anyone knows of additional education
activities at which they want to hand out seed packets because the Education Committee
would have to order more seeds.
ii. Administrative Services Committee: The Commission directed staff to set up an
Administrative Services Committee meeting.
E. Counsel: No communications
F. Engineer: Ms. Chandler reported that the Twin Lake sediment cores were collected on May 19,
2010.
9. Adjournment
Chair Loomis adjourned the meeting at 2:55 p.m.
Linda Loomis, Chair
Date
Amy Herbert, Recorder
Date
Pauline Langsdorf, Secretary
Date
10
#249600 vI
BCWMC May 20, 2010 Meeting Minutes
alley
Memorandum
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 6, 2010
Agenda Item
3. E. 1. Award Contract for the 2010 Asphalt Overlay Project, City Improvement Project No.
10-2
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Ron Nims, Public Works Project Coordinator
Summary
The 2010 Asphalt Overlay Project includes milling and overlaying the following sections of
roadway:
1. Schaper Road from TH 55 to Ottawa Avenue
2. North frontage road of TH 55 from Schaper Road to approximately 600 feet west
3. St. Croix Avenue from Douglas Drive to Lilac Drive
4. Olympia Street from Winnetka Avenue to Douglas Drive
Bids for the 2010 Asphalt Overlay Project, City Improvement Project NO.1 0-2 were opened
on June 21,2010. The following bids were received:
Northwest Asphalt, Inc.
C.S. McCrossan, Inc.
North Valley, Inc.
Bituminous Roadways, Inc.
Midwest Asphalt Corp.
Hardrives, Inc.
GMH Asphalt Corp.
Omann Brothers Paving, Inc.
$349,961.70
$354,340.20
$362,379.01
$367,259.70
$374,230.10
$378,332.09
$380,535.44
$436,202.93
Funding for the 2010 Asphalt Overlay Project is included in the 2010-2014 Capital
Improvement Program (S-013, page 77).
Attachments
Location map (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to award a contract for the 2010 Asphalt Overlay Project to the lowest responsible
bidder, Northwest Asphalt, Inc., in the amount of $349,961.70.
q j f I 1 rt:
! --}' /1 1Jt j j
.II
I' I 1 1 1 f r 1 "-
!I I
!I '~~~ve~ Jp 1 i I .
1,\' J r I
I 't!
~~~~~~F't)dJ r~~t""~"" :~t~~..~'~n~"'~~"Ln_t(",-u.:-"tf ~ Ii ~ , I i I. I'll
L.'ll I~ ~ ~: ,[ j} J j J \ I ,"cJ I ~: t
.I 123rdl .!l. ~ 0 s~,..!~urg Rd ". I _ 1 [ / I I ~II\
11- I v~[~Trt! ~; ~ ~Ii 11 j ;' - ~},I['I 1\,"1 Q I))] 11
I t .l j. ~ I ~ I ~ D,I J 1 ,
I -1~ 'I ! i I 1,y~ r~r .'~I~ t ;,
I I ~l. : ~
~ I Sf. Croix Ave 'i 1\
I .. , "," I
i::' "i
I :I~ I ~ \ II
~ P 1 ~; I
I II
I
I "t>
~ II I
~ IIJad~~, SJ!,~ : '
~ '~f '-' , ,
~: 'II \\, ' TH55
~_ ~\lL\ 0 ~ Fr
~::::l .=--:__ _~~, I~_y, _ _
Olson Me nwyl i I'I (7-
l)'ontage ~d Z '1\
~ CJ I ~}~\\ I
Ee I ,\1
t ~ ~ \ ~ l~.
\ I
\ 0
ill
9
~
.i
.ve'
I
I ,I
Z' 0
I I
CIJ
>,
...
1 '"
I
I
I
-T~ I
1 1 I 1
I r CIJ r"Cf
I 'tl I::
o III CIJ
11~,.c;I'iii>
!:t:jl-l IiIl
Country Club Dr
O~II Cl
1111
III
.....,
S1
0'
~
Z
CIJ
~
S6 III 'fj'
JI .!l:: I
, ..
CIJI
1::1
~J~
. - --.
tI2,
o
J
Harold Ave
L
WflS/-ern Aye
>-/Z
CIJ CIJ
~I>
~~~
((06,
I
,
I
~, I I J
tg I ~
'If1L i~\l9:i :Ave L.;J_
~
Proposed Overlays
~<:J
.. .\' \
2010 Proposed Asphalt
Overlay Location Map
N
A
Print Date: 3126/10
Not to Scale
alley
Memorandum
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 6,2010
Agenda Item
3. E. 2. Award Contract for the Fire Station # 2: 2010 Emergency Generator Project No.
10-20
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator
Summary
The City has received the following bids for installation of an emergency backup generator for
Fire Station #2 located at 400 Turners Crossroad South:
Vinco, Inc.
Gopher Electric, Inc.
Allied Generators
$41,000
$47,540
$53,170
The 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Plan includes $65,000 (8-012, page 50) in 2010 to
provide emergency backup power for complete operation of Fire Station #2 (400 Turners
Crossroad South). As part of that budget, the City awarded a contract with Environmental
Process, Inc. for the development of plan, specifications and project management in the
amount of $10,800 for this project.
The existing generator is undersized and does not provide emergency electricity for all
essential services. In addition, the existing generator is greater than 30 years old and has
significant safety issues related to its operational procedures.
Attachments
Environmental Process, Inc. recommendation letter for award, dated June 23,2010 (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize a contract for the Fire Station #2: 2010 Emergency Generator Project to
the lowest bidder, Vinco, Inc., in the amount of $41 ,000.
Environmental Process, Inc. e. . p . .r) In';''''
715 Florida Avenue South, Suite 111, Golden Valley, MN 55426-1700
Phone: 763-398-3040 · Fax: 763-398-0121 · email: epimpls@rconnect.com . www.go-epi.com
June 23, 2010
Mr. AI Lundstrom
Environmental Coordinator
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427
Re: City of Golden Valley
Fire Station #2 - 201 0 Emergency Generator
City Project No.: 10-20
EPI Project No.: 2010-152
Dear Mr. Lundstrom:
Environmental Process, Inc. (BPI) reviewed the City of Golden Fire Station #2 - 2010
Emergency Generator project work scope with Mr. John Hagen of Vinco, Inc. and there were no
questions. John Hagen indicated that they fully understand the scope of work and that they will
be ready to start work as in the tentative schedule. The work schedule will be discussed in the
preconstruction meeting. Vinco, Inc. will complete most of the work themselves with the
exception of the concrete and mechanical work will be subcontracted. Vinco, Inc. based their bid
on a Kohler Generator per the specifications.
Vinco, Inc. is based in Forest Lake, Minnesota. EPI has worked with Vinco, Inc. in the past.
Vinco, Inc. successfully completed City of Golden Valley City Hall - 2009 Emergency Generator
Project in 2009. Based on the review of project work scope with Vinco, Inc. and the fact that
they are the low bidder we recommend awarding the project to them.
EPI recommends that the base bid cost of $41,000.00 for the Fire Station #2 - 2010 Emergency
Generator project be accepted from Vinco, Inc.
Please call (763) 398-3040 with any questions, comments.
Sincerely,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS, INC.
U"~F )! 4,,'"
Denny Langer, PE
Project Manager
Copy File 10-152
alley
Memorand m
City Administration/Council
763-593-8006/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 6, 2010
Agenda Item
3. F. Approval of Requests for Beer and/or Wine at Brookview Park
Prepared By
Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant
Summary
As per City Code Section 10.83, Subd. 2 I. "No person shall possess, display, consume or
use alcoholic beverages on any City park property, unless permission is granted by the
Council." As part of the application process for a Facilities Use Permit to use the large and
small picnic shelters at Brookview Park the applicant has the option to pay an additional $20
to be able to serve beer and/or wine. Attached is a list of the individuals and/or organizations
who have requested that option.
Attachment
Beer and/or Wine Request List (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the requests for beer and/or wine at Brookview Park as recommended by
staff.
BEER AND/OR WINE REQUEST LIST
NUMBER CC
IN DATE
INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION DATE TIME GROUP SHELTER BEER OR WINE APPROVED
Teresa Gray 07-10 5 pm - dusk 15 large beer & wine 07-06-10
Optum Health 07 -16 11 am - 4 pm 30 small beer & wine 07-06-10
Optum Health 07-22 11 am - 4 pm 50 small beer & wine 07-06-10
Milestone Systems 07 -27 5 pm - dusk 50 small beer & wine 07-06-10
General Mills - ISU 08-04 5 pm - dusk 20 small beer & wine 07-06-10
Jeff Wagner 08-07 11 am - 4 pm 50 small beer & wine 07-06-10
East View Information Systems 08-1 0 11 am - dusk 80 large beer & wine 07-06-10
Honeywell 08-11 11 am - 4 pm 50 large beer & wine 07-06-10
TCF Financial Corp. 08-14 5 pm - dusk 150 large beer & wine 07-06-10
Allianz 08-18 11 am - 4 pm 50 large beer & wine 07-06-10
Grant Thornton 08-19 11 am - dusk 100 large beer & wine 07-06-10
Marty Mangold 09-11 11 am - 4 pm 75 small beer & wine 07-06-10
alley
Memorandum
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 6, 2010
Agenda Item
3. G. Receipt of May 2010 General Fund Budget Report
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
The monthly General Fund Budget Report provides a progress report on the General Fund
operations for 2010. The revenues and expenditures show current month actual and year-to-
date actual compared to the 2010 approved budget.
The 2010 unallotment from the State is estimated at $369,240. The receipt of Market Value
Homestead Credit (MVHC) will not take place in October and December.
As of May 2010 the City is using $4,253,283 of fund balance to balance the budget.
Attachments
May 2010 General Fund Budget Report - unaudited (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to receive and file the May 2010 General Fund Budget Report.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report - General Fund
May, 2010 (unaudited)
Percentage Of Year Completed 42.00%
Revenue:
Over %
2010 May YTD (Under) of Budget
Type Budget Actual Actual Budget Received
Ad Valorem Taxes $11,552,050 0 $8,689 ($11,543,361 ) 0.08% (1)
Licenses 151,865 32,806 141,1 09 ($10,756) 92.92%
Permits 703,000 53,240 224,198 ($478,802) 31.89%
Federal Grants 0 4,000 6,517 $6,517
State Aid 10,500 0 6,377 ($4,123) 60.73% (4)
Hennepin County Aid 0 0 1,266 $1,266 (5)
Charges For Services:
General Government 37,710 665 10,102 ($27,608) 26.79%
Public Safety 197,395 13,692 53,874 ($143,521 ) 27.29%
Public Works 114,000 9,279 55,637 ($58,363) 48.80%
Park & Rec 392,500 44,298 205,793 ($186,707) 52.43%
Other Funds 981,500 5,637 23,010 ($958,490) 2.34%
Fines & Forfeitures 250,000 24,091 97,785 ($152,215) 39.11 % (2)
Interest On Investments 200,000 0 0 ($200,000) 0.00% (3)
Miscellaneous Revenue 216,675 1,563 10,124 ($206,551 ) 4.67%
Transfers In 175,000 0 0 ($175,000) 0.00%
TOTAL Revenue $14,982,195 $189,271 $844,481 ($14,137,714) 5.64%
Notes:
(1) The first half taxes will not be received until July.
(2) Fines and Forfeitures is through April.
(3) Investments will be booked at year end.
(4) State Training will not be received until August.
(5) Includes Active Living Grant from Hennepin County.
Percentage Of Year Completed ! 42%
(unaudited)
Expenditures:
Over %
2010 May YTD (Under) Of Budget
Division Budget Actual Actual Budget Expend.
Council $307,455 23,279 105,184 ($202,271 ) 34.21%
City Manager 802,390 55,987 299,463 (502,927) 37.32%
Admin. Services 1,571,070 110,656 496,375 (1,074,695) 31.59%
Legal 115,000 8,721 39,458 (75,542) 34.31% (1)
General Gov't. Bldgs. 599,500 26,677 177,592 (421,908) 29.62%
Planning 333,550 22,565 111,977 (221,573) 33.57%
Police 4,562,995 341,604 1,758,938 (2,804,057) 38.55%
Fire and Inspections 1,539,820 111,930 557,177 (982,643) 36.18%
Public Works Admin. 309,730 27,155 124,340 (185,390) 40.14%
Engineering 651,640 31,825 152,444 (499,196) 23.39%
Streets 1,371,495 76,373 428,105 (943,390) 31.21%
Community Center 74,605 3,466 20,882 (53,723) 27.99%
Park & Rec. Admin. 639,845 49,065 242,065 (397,780) 37.83%
Park Maintenance 968,270 85,551 338,371 (629,899) 34.95%
Recreation Programs 427,910 26,650 86,189 (341,721) 20.14%
Risk Management 266,950 0 159,204 (107,746) 59.64% (2)
Transfers Out 439,970 0 0 (439,970) 0.00% (3)
TOTAL Expenditures $14,982,195 $1,001,504 $5,097,764 ($9,884,431 ) 34.03%
(1) This includes April YTD legal bill.
(2) Dividend is received in December. Two quarterly payments have been made.
(3) This expenditure was lowered due to the unallotment.
alley
Memorandum
Finance
763-593-8013 I 763-593-3969 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 6, 2010
Agenda Item
3. H. Appointment of Election Judges for State Primary Election
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Edie Ernst, Accounts Receivable/Elections Assistant
Summary
As required in State Statute 2048.21, the Council needs to approve the appointment of the
Election Judges for the upcoming Primary Election. Attached is the list of judges and the
precincts they will be working at on Election Day.
Attachments
Resolution Approving the Appointment of Election Judges for the State Primary Election to be
Held on August 10, 2010 (3 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt the Resolution Approving the Appointment of Election Judges for the State
Primary Election to be Held on August 10, 2010.
Resolution 10-36
July 6, 2010
Member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF ELECTION JUDGES
FOR THE STATE PRIMARY ELECTION TO BE HELD ON AUGUST 10, 2010
WHEREAS, Minnesota Election Law 204B.21 requires that persons serving as
election judges be appointed by the Council at least 25 days before the election.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Golden Valley City Council that the individuals named on
Exhibit A, and on file in the office of the City Clerk be appointed as the City of Golden
Valley Election Judges for the August 10, 2010 Primary Election; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is with this, authorized to make any
substitutions or additions as deemed necessary.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Resolution 10-36 - Continued
July 6,2010
Exhibit A
Precinct #1 - N. E. Fire Station - 3700 Golden Valley Road
Marie Tiffin, Captain
Roger Bergman
Karen Haan
Janet Olfe
Jane Pagenkopf
Precinct #2 - Valley Presbyterian Church - 3100 North Lilac Drive
Janice Johnson, Captain
Christy Lueck
Sally Netzinger
Peter Palmquist
Theodore Rausch
Yvonne Rausch
Patricia Tomko
Ruby Van Horn
Precinct #3 - Meadowbrook School - 5430 Glenwood Avenue
Mary Anderson, Captain
Marilyn Kilner
Shirley Obern
Linda Romeo
Marie Rossman
Betty Vaughn
Precinct #4 - LOGIS - 5750 Duluth Street
Barbra Juliar, Co-Captain
Gerald Savage, Co-Captain
Rusty Cowan
Arlene Dietz
James Hera
Kay Myers
Precinct #5 - S.E. Fire Station - 400 Turners Crossroad South
Elizabeth Kamman, Captain
Eleanor Blatt
Jacqueline Dietz
Joan Monson
James Murphy
Sylvia Thompson
Resolution 10-36 - Continued
July 6, 2010
Precinct #6 - Golden Valley City Hall - 7800 Golden Valley Road
Pat Moore, Captain
Lois Bergquist
Ann Cole
Barbara Courey
MaryAnn Gavigan
Delphine Sunderland
Precinct #7 - Christian Life Center - 8025 Medicine Lake Road
Gwendolyn Jorgens, Captain
Tracy Anderson
Jack Cole
Constance Hietala
Maria Johnson
Lois Palmquist
Precinct #8 - Brookview Community Center - 200 Brookview Parkway
Shirley Jones, Captain
Suzanne Herberg
Jerome Monson
Marcie Schlaeger
Phillip Tenebaum
Inez Weist
Alternates
Andra Barnard
LouAnn Bongard
Lloyd Fortman
Mary Gaffney
Milton Goldstein
Pat Magnuson
Margaret Nelson
Glennys Sell
Mike Sell
David Spragg
Jacqueline Wells
Public ~U~Y
Mem randum
Police Department
763-593-8079 I 763-593-8098 (fax)
Executive Summary for Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 6, 2010
Agenda Item
3. I. Receipt of Safe & Sober Grant
Prepared By
Stacy Altonen, Chief of Police
Summary
In partnership with the New Hope, Crystal and Robbinsdale Police Departments, the Golden
Valley Police Department applied for a multi-city traffic enforcement grant from the Office of
Traffic Safety (OTS), State of Minnesota. The Golden Valley Police Department agreed to be
the lead agency for administering the grant. The OTS has judged this application and
awarded a $47,000 grant to further the goals of increased traffic safety including impaired
driving enforcement, seat belt enforcement and other hazardous moving violations
enforcement. The Golden Valley Police Department has been the recipient of five previous
grants/awards from the OTS.
Attachments
Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of a Traffic Safety Grant (1 page)
Recommendation
Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of a Traffic Safety Grant.
Resolution 10-37
July 6, 2010
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF A TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT
WHEREAS, the Golden Valley Police Department desired to protect the health of its
citizens by improving traffic safety and participating in the Safe & Sober program; and
WHEREAS, under the provision of the Highway Safety Act the Minnesota
Department of Public Safety has funding to promote traffic safety; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety has judged the Golden
Valley Police Department's efforts to decrease impaired driving and increase seat belt use
to be exceptional, and notes that the Golden Valley, New Hope, Crystal and Robbinsdale
Police Departments wish to work together to achieve these goals; and the Minnesota
Department of Public Safety wishes to reward those effort by providing additional funding
for the Golden Valley, New Hope, Crystal and Robbinsdale departments;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Golden Valley Police Department
enter into an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic
Safety for the period from October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chief of Police of the City of Golden Valley is
hereby authorized to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project
on behalf of the Golden Valley Police Department.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief of Police of the City of Golden Valley is
hereby authorized to be the fiscal agent and administer the grant on behalf of the Golden
Valley Police Department.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
alley
emorandum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8014 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary for Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 6, 2010
Agenda Item
3. J. Authorizing 2010 Application to Minnesota Department of Transportation Community
Roadside Landscaping Partnership Program for Highway 55 Lilac Planting
Prepared By
Jeanne Andre, Assistant City Manager
Summary
In 2008 and 2009 the City of Golden Valley collaborated with the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) to support the Bridge Builder Lilac Project initiated by Dwight
Townes. Mr. Townes has asked for a third year of support and is working with MnDOT staff
on a landscape plan for the north side of Highway 55 from Boone Avenue to Highway 169. If
the Council supports collaborating on the proposed 2010 Lilac Project, the Council should
adopt the attached resolution of support.
If approved by the City and State, the Lilac Project has proposed an October 2 planting date.
The Lilac Project is also seeking volunteers who will help to maintain plantings from previous
years.
Attachment
Resolution Authorizing 2010 Application to Minnesota Department of Transportation
Community Roadside Landscaping Partnership Program for Highway 55 Lilac Planting
(1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing 2010 Application to Minnesota Department of
Transportation Community Roadside Landscaping Partnership Program for Highway 55 Lilac
Planting.
Resolution 10-38
July 6, 2010
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZI NG 201 0 APPLICATION TO
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COMMUNITY ROADSIDE
LANDSCAPING PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FOR HIGHWAY 55 LILAC PLANTING
WHEREAS, Bridge Builder Dwight Townes, in cooperation with the Golden Valley
Connection Project and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Landscape
Partnership Program, has initiated a project to landscape the Trunk Highway 55 right-of-
way from Wirth Parkway to Trunk Highway 169 in Golden Valley; and
WHEREAS, the third phase of this project proposes to invite volunteers to landscape
the north side of TH 55 right-of-way from Boone Avenue to TH 169 under the MnDOT
Community Roadside Landscaping Partnership Program application period ending July 31,
2010; and
WHEREAS, the support of the Golden Valley City Council and City staff is necessary
to apply for MnDOT funding and successfully implement this project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Golden Valley will act as
sponsoring unit for the project identified as Highway 55 Lilac Planting, on state Trunk
Highway 55, to be conducted during the period of August through November, 2010.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that local neighborhoods, churches, civic groups and
businesses are hereby invited to send teams to help with the planting.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Manager Tom Burt is hereby authorized to
apply to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for funding for this project on behalf of
the City of Golden Valley and enter into a Cooperative Agreement with the Minnesota
Department of Transportation to undertake this project, if funded.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Hey
Memorandum
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-3969 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 6, 2010
Agenda Item
3. K. Authorization to Sign Agreement with Hennepin County for Assessing Services
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
The County has been providing assessing services to the City for over the last 35 years.
They have consistently performed these services in a professional and efficient manner and
at a cost that has been significantly lower than what the City would have paid to operate its
own assessing department. Staff is recommending entering into an agreement A 101049 with
Hennepin County to provide assessing services for 2011 through 2014.
Attachments
Agreement A 101049 with Hennepin County for Assessing Services (11 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign Agreement A 101049 with Hennepin
County for Assessing Services for 2011 through 2014.
Contract No. A 101049
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as
the "COUNTY", and the CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, a political subdivision of the State
of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "CITY";
WHEREAS, said CITY lies wholly within the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN and
constitutes a separate assessment district; and
WHEREAS, under such circumstances, the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 273.072 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 permit the County Assessor
to provide for the assessment of property; and
WHEREAS, said CITY desires the COUNTY to perform certain assessments
on behalf of said CITY; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY is willing to cooperate with said CITY by completing
the assessment in a proper manner;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained
herein, it is agreed as follows:
1. The COUNTY shall perform the 2011,2012,2013, and 2014 property
assessment for the CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY in accordance with property
assessment procedures and practices established and observed by the COUNTY, the
validity and reasonableness of which are hereby acknowledged and approved by the
CITY. Any such practices and procedures may be changed from time to time, by the
COUNTY in its sole judgment, when good and efficient assessment procedures so
require. The property assessment by the COUNTY shall be composed of those
assessment services which are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part
hereof by this reference, provided that the time frames set forth therein shall be
considered to be approximate only.
2. All information, records, data, reports, etc. necessary to allow the
COUNTY to carry out its herein responsibilities shall be furnished to the COUNTY
without charge by the CITY, and the CITY agrees to cooperate in good faith with the
COUNTY in carrying out the work under this Agreement.
3. The CITY agrees to furnish, without charge, office space needed by the
COUNTY at appropriate places in the CITY's offices. The keys thereto shall be
provided to the COUNTY. The CITY assures that such areas shall not be unattended,
during or after work of any kind by or on behalf of the CITY, in any area occupied by the
COUNTY as provided herein, or if unattended, the CITY shall make certain that such
areas are locked and secured. Such office space shall be sufficient in size to
accommodate reasonably three (3) appraisers and any furniture placed therein. The
office space shall be available for the COUNTY's use at any and all times during the
CITY's business hours, and during all such hours the COUNTY shall be provided with
levels of heat, air conditioning and ventilation as are appropriate for the seasons.
4. The CITY also agrees to provide appropriate desk and office furniture as
necessary, clerical and secretarial support necessary and reasonable for the carrying
out of the work herein, necessary office supplies and equipment, copying machines and
fax machines and their respective supplies, and telephone service to the COUNTY, all
without charge to the COUNTY.
(2)
5. It shall be the responsibility of the CITY to have available at the CITY's
offices each CITY working day a person who has the knowledge and skill to be able to
answer routine questions pertaining to homesteads and property assessment matters
and to receive, evaluate and organize homestead applications. It shall also be the
responsibility of the CITY to promptly refer any homestead application which needs
investigation to the COUNTY.
6. In accordance with Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the
County Commissioners' policies against discrimination, no person shall be excluded
from full employment rights or participation in or the benefits of any program, service or
activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status,
sexual orientation, public assistance status, ex-offender status or national origin; and no
person who is protected by applicable Federal or State laws, rules and regulations
against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination.
7. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be
construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of joint venturers or
co-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting the CITY as the agent,
representative or employee of the COUNTY for any purpose or in any manner
whatsoever. Any and all personnel of CITY or other persons, while engaged in the
performance of any activity under this Agreement, shall have no contractual relationship
with the COUNTY and shall not be considered employees of the COUNTY and any and
all claims that mayor might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of
Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and
all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of
(3)
employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of
discrimination against the CITY, its officers, agents, CITY or employees shall in no way
be the responsibility of the COUNTY, and CITY shall defend, indemnify and hold the
COUNTY, its officials, officers, agents, employees and duly authorized volunteers
harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent
tribunal, agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall
not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind
whatsoever from the COUNTY, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and
hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Re-employment
Compensation, disability, severance pay and retirement benefits.
8. CITY agrees that it will defend, indemnify and hold the COUNTY, its
elected officials, officers, agents, employees and duly authorized volunteers harmless
from any and all liability (statutory or otherwise) claims, suits, damages, judgments,
interest, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees, witness fees and
disbursements incurred in the defense thereof) resulting form or caused by any act or
omission of the CITY, its officers, agents, contractors, employees or duly authorized
volunteers in the performance of the responsibilities provided by this Agreement.
9. The COUNTY shall endeavor to perform all services called for herein in
an efficient manner. The sole and exclusive remedy for any breach of this Agreement
by the COUNTY and for COUNTY's liability of any kind whatsoever, including but not
limited to liability arising out of, resulting from or in any manner related to contract, tort,
warranty, statute or otherwise, shall be limited to correcting diligently any deficiency in
said services as is reasonably possible under the pertinent circumstances.
(4)
10. Neither party hereto shall be deemed to be in default of any provision of
this Agreement, or for delay or failure in performance, resulting from causes beyond the
reasonable control of such party, which causes shall include, but are not limited to, acts
of God, labor disputes, acts of civil or military authority, fire, civil disturbance, changes
in laws, ordinances or regulations which materially affect the provisions hereof, or any
other causes beyond the parties' reasonable control.
11. This Agreement shall commence on August 1, 2010, and shall terminate
on July 31, 2014. Either party may initiate an extension of this Agreement for a term of
four (4) years by giving the other written notice of its intent to so extend no less
than 150 days prior to the termination of this Agreement. If the party who receives said
notice of intent to extend gives written notice to the other party of its desire not to
extend within 110 days prior to termination of this Agreement, this Agreement shall
terminate on July 31, 2014.
Nothing herein shall preclude the parties, prior to the end of this Agreement, from
agreeing to extend this contract for a term of four (4) years. Any extended term hereof shall
be on the same terms and conditions set forth herein and shall commence on August 1,2014.
Either party may terminate this Agreement for "just cause" as determined by the
Commissioner of Revenue after hearing for such a determination is held by the Commissioner
of Revenue and which has been attended by representatives of COUNTY and CITY or which
said representatives had a reasonable opportunity to attend, provided that after such
determination, any party desiring to cancel this Agreement may do so by giving the other party
no less than 120 days' written notice. If the CITY should cancel this Agreement, as above
provided, before the completion of the then current property assessment by the COUNTY, the
(5)
CITY agrees to defend and hold the COUNTY, its officials, officers, agents, employees and
duly authorized volunteers harmless from any liability that might ensue as a result of the non-
completion of a property tax assessment.
For the purpose of this Agreement, the term "just cause" shall mean the failure of
any party hereto reasonably to perform a material responsibility arising hereunder.
12.A. In consideration of said assessment services, the CITY agrees to pay the
COUNTY the sum of One Hundred Ninety-five Thousand Dollars ($195,000) for each
assessment, provided that any payment for the current year's assessment may be
increased or decreased by that amount which exceeds or is less than the COUNTY's
estimated cost of appraising new construction and new parcels for the current year's
assessment. The amount of any increase or decrease shall be specified in the billing
for the current year's assessment.
Any bill from the COUNTY for the current year's assessment which is received
by the CITY before August 18 of the current year shall be due on September 7 of said
year, provided that the CITY may elect to pay said bill before said date. Any said bill
received by the CITY after August 18 shall be due no later than twenty-one (21) days
after the CITY's receipt thereof.
12.8. Regarding each assessment, in addition to being subject to adjustment in
the above manner, said assessment cost of $195,000.00 may also be increased by the
COUNTY if:
(1) The COUNTY determines that any cost to the COUNTY in carrying
out any aspect of this Agreement has increased, including but not
limited to the following types of costs: new construction and new
parcel appraisals, gasoline, postage, supplies, labor (including
fringe benefits) and other types of costs, whether similar or
dissimilar; and/or
(6)
2) The COUNTY reasonably determines that other costs should be
included in the costs of assessment work.
If the COUNTY desires to increase the assessment cost pursuant to this
paragraph 12(8), it shall give written notice thereof by June 15 of any year and such
increase shall apply to the assessment for the calendar year next following the current
calendar year. Any such notification shall specifically set forth the amount of any new
construction and new parcel appraisal charges. Notwithstanding any provisions herein to the
contrary, jf any such increase, exclusive of any charge for the estimated costs of new
construction and new parcel appraisals, exceeds ten (10%) percent of the amount charged
for the assessment for the then current calendar year, exclusive of any charge for the
estimated costs of new construction and new parcel appraisals, the CITY may cancel this
Agreement by giving to the COUNTY written notice thereof, provided that said cancellation
notice must be received by the COUNTY not later than July 24 of the then current calendar
year and said cancellation shall be effective no earlier than five (5) days after the receipt of
said notice by the COUNTY and not later than July 31 of said current calendar year.
Supportive records of the cost increase will be open to inspection by the CITY at such times
as are mutually agreed upon by the COUNTY and CITY.
Failure of the COUNTY to give the CITY a price-change notice by June 15
shall not preclude the COUNTY from giving CITY such notice after said date but prior to
September 1 of any year, provided that if such price increase exceeds said ten (10%)-
all as above set forth - the CITY may cancel this Agreement if the COUNTY receives
notice thereof not later than thirty-nine (39) days from the date of receipt by the CITY of
any said late price-change notice, provided further that any such cancellation shall be
effective not earlier than five (5) days after COUNTY's receipt of said cancellation
(7)
notice and not later than forty-six (46) days after the CITY's receipt of any said price-
increase notice.
Payment by the CITY shall be due no later than twenty-one (21) days after
receipt by the CITY of billing from the COUNTY for the herein assessment services,
provided that said payment shall be due no earlier than September 7 of each year.
13. Any notice or demand, which mayor must be given or made by a party
hereto, under the terms of this Agreement or any statute or ordinance, shall be in
writing and shall be sent registered or certified mail to the other party addressed as
follows:
Mayor, City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Hennepin County Administrator
2300A Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487
County Assessor
Hennepin County
2103A Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487
Assistant County Assessor
Hennepin County
2103A Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487
Any party may designate a different addressee or address at any time by giving
TO CITY:
TO COUNTY:
copies to:
written notice thereof as above provided. Any notice, if mailed, properly addressed,
postage prepaid, registered or certified mail, shall be deemed dispatched on the
registered date or that stamped on the certified mail receipt and shall be deemed
received within the second business day thereafter or when it is actually received,
whichever is sooner. Any notice delivered by hand shall be deemed received upon
actual delivery.
(8)
14. It is expressly understood that the obligations of the CITY under
Paragraphs 7,8, 11, and 12 hereof and the obligations of the CITY which, by their
sense and context, are intended to survive the performance thereof by the CITY, shall
so survive the completion of performance, termination or cancellation of this
Agreement.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.]
(9)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be
executed by its duly authorized officers and delivered on its behalf, this
day of
,2010.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Reviewed by the County:
Attorney's Office
By:
Chair of the County Board
And:
Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator
Assistant County Attorney
Date:
ATTEST:
Deputy/Clerk of the County Board
Date: July 7,2010
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
By:
Its Mayor
And:
Its City Manager
City organized under:
Statutory
Option A
x
Option B
Charter
(10)
Contract No. A 101049
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
During the contract term, the County shall:
1. Physically inspect and revalue 20% of the real property, as required by
law.
2. Physically inspect and value all new construction, additions and
renovation.
3. Conduct valuation reviews prior to Board of Review - approximate dates:
March through May 15.
4. Attend Board of Review. Per Board request, make all necessary review
appraisals. Approximate dates: April 1 - May 31 .
5. Keep updated property record files - current values, homestead and
classification data.
6. Print, mail and post valuation notices and homestead cards.
7. Respond to taxpayers regarding assessment or appraisal problems or
inquiries periodically.
8. Make divisions and combinations periodically.
9. Administer the abatement process pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 375.192 (2000).
10. Make appraisals, defend and/or negotiate all Tax Court cases.
11. Adjust estimated market values on those properties not physically
inspected as needed as per sales analysis.
(11 )
Hey
Memorandum
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 6, 2010
Agenda Item
3. L. Call for Administrative Hearing - Failure to Renew Rental License - 2551 and 2553
Douglas Drive North - 7/13/10
Prepared By
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections
Josh Kunde, Fire/Property Maintenance Inspector
Sue Virnig, Finance Director/City Clerk
Summary
At its meeting of July 6, 2010 the City Council should call for an administrative hearing for
failure to renew a rental license. Mark Pietig, 2551 and 2553 Douglas Drive North property
owner, is contesting the fee for failure to renew rental license of both parcels.
A letter has been sent to the property owner regarding the administrative hearing.
Attachments
Letter to Mark Pietig dated June 21,2010 (1 page)
Section 4.60: Subdivision 9. Licensing of Rental Dwellings (5 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to call for an Administrative Hearing on appeal of Administrative Citation for failure to
renew a rental license for 2551 and 2553 Douglas Drive North for July 13, 2010 at 6 pm.
55427-4588
aIle
www.ci.gokkn-vulley.mHJLC Y
June21,2010
Mark Pietig
Pieteg Bros, Inc
2425 Mendelssohn Ln
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Dear Mark Pietig:
The administrative hearing date for the appeal of the failure to renew
rental license of both parcels at 2551 and 2553 Douglas Drive N has
been scheduled for Tuesday, July 13, 2010 at 6 pm. You are invited to
attend and present your witnesses and evidence to the Council at this
time.
The City Code provides the following in Section 4.60 Subd 9 Licensing
of Rental Dwellings and has been attached for your reference
Sincerely,
~y~
City Clerk
~ 4.60
1. All common areas shall be adequately lit at all times. Adequate lighting
may include a combination of natural and electric light provided at an
intensity of not less than one foot candle at floor level to all parts thereof.
2. Every habitable room shall be provided with at least one operable floor or
wall-type electric convenience outlet for each sixty (60) square feet or
fraction thereof of total floor area, and in no case less than two such
electric outlets. Any electric outlet within five (5) feet of a water source or
outlet shall include an operable ground fault circuit interrupter. Every
water closet compartment shall be provided with at least one operable
wall-type outlet with a ground fault circuit interrupter.
E. Elevators. In buildings equipped with passenger elevators, at least one
elevator shall be maintained in operation at all times when the building is
occupied. This provision shall not preclude the occasional service or testing of
the elevators, except that no building with elevator service shall be without
such service for a period exceeding eight (8) hours.
F. Smoke Detectors. All smoke detectors shall be located and maintained in
operable condition in accordance with Section 10.22 of the City Code.
~
Source: Ordinance No. 319, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 2-11-05
Subdivision 9. Licensing of Rental Dwellings
A. No person shall operate, let or cause to be let, a rental dwelling without first
having obtained a license to do so from the City as herein provided. Upon
receipt of a properly executed application for licensing, or at any other time,
the City Manager or his/her designee may cause an inspection to be made of
the premises to determine whether the property is in compliance with the
City Code, the standards contained in this Section and the laws of the State
of Minnesota. Each such operating license shall be issued annually and shall
expire on the last day of February of the following year. License renewals
shall be filed at least thirty (30) days prior to license expiration date. Every
rental dwelling may be re-inspected after a renewal application is filed to
determine if the premises still conforms to all applicable ordinances and
codes.
Source: Ordinance No. 386, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 12-14-07
B. No operating license shall be issued or renewed unless the rental property
covered by this Section conforms to the provisions of this Section, the City
Code and the laws and regulations of the State of Minnesota.
Source: Ordinance No. 339, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 12-16-05
Golden Valley City Code
Page 10 of 18
94.60
C. The annual license fee shall be as provided by ordinance of the City. The City
shall establish licensing fees which will include a specific amount for each
dwelling building or address and an additional amount for each rental unit
contained therein. In addition to the annual license fees, the City may charge
for additional re-inspections necessary to determine whether violations have
been corrected or to restore a license for a rental dwelling which has had its
license revoked or suspended. In addition, the City may require a fee for
transfer of a license under the provisions of this Section.
Source: Ordinance No. 386, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 12-14-07
D. License application or renewal shall be made by the owner of the rental
property or a legally constituted agent or operator. Application forms may be
acquired from the Inspections Department and subsequently filed with the
Inspections Department. The applicant shall supply the following:
Source: Ordinance No. 349, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 9-15-06
1. Name, address, and telephone number of the dwelling owner; partners of
a partnership; corporate officers of a corporation. The City must be
notified in writing within five (5) days of any change of information
provided.
Source: Ordinance No. 386, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 12-14-07
2. Name, address, and telephone number of designated agent or operator.
The City must be notified in writing within five (5) days of any change of
information provided.
3. Name, address, and telephone number of vendee if dwelling is being
purchased through a contract for deed or mortgage (name of lender or
financial institution holding mortgage).
4. Legal description and address of dwelling.
5. Number of units in each rental dwelling and the type of units (one (1)
bedroom, two (2) bedroom, etc.) within each of such dwellings.
Source: Ordinance No. 386, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 12-14-07
6. The number of paved off-street parking spaces available (e.g. enclosed
parking spaces, exterior parking spaces, and handicap parking spaces).
7. Description of procedure through which tenant inquiries and complaints
are to be processed.
Source: Ordinance No. 339, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 12-16-05
Golden Valley City Code
Page 11 of 18
~ 4.60
E. No operating license shall be issued or renewed for a nonresident owner of
rental dwelling unit(s) unless such owner designates in writing to the City
Manager or his/her designee the name of his/her resident agent or operator
who is responsible for maintenance and upkeep and who is legally
constituted and empowered to institute emergency repairs of the rental
dwelling property. The City Manager or his/her designee shall be notified in
writing of any change of resident agent.
F. The City Manager or his/her designee shall set up a schedule of periodic
inspections to ensure citywide compliance with this Chapter. The City
Manager or his/her designee shall provide reasonable notice to the owner or
operator of the date and time of the inspection. Every occupant of a rental
dwelling unit shall give the owner or operator thereof, or his/her agent or
employee, access to any part of such dwelling unit, or its premises, at
reasonable times for the purpose of effecting inspection, maintenance,
repairs, or alterations as are necessary to comply with the provisions of this
Ordinance. If any owner, operator, occupant, or other person in charge of a
rental dwelling fails or refuses to permit free access and entry to the
structure or premises under his/her control for an inspection pursuant to this
Ordinance, the City Manager or his/her designee may seek a court order
authorizing such inspection and the City may charge the owner or property
with the costs thereof.
*G. No operating license shall be transferable to another person or to another
rental dwelling without written approval of the City Manager or his/her
designee. A license issued hereunder is transferable providing that the new
owner, partners, or corporate officers submit to the City Manager or his/her
designee within five (5) business days after legally acquiring ownership of
the licensed rental dwelling(s), a License Transfer Form (supplied by the
City), along with the required transfer fee. Failure to submit the license
transfer form and the transfer fee shall result in the termination of the rental
license.
Source: Ordinance No. 386, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 12-14-07
H. License Suspension or Revocation.
1. Notification. Prior to suspension or revocation, the licensee (or his/her
designated agent) and all occupants of units potentially subject to
suspension or revocation, shall be notified in writing thereof by personal
service or first class mail at least twenty (20) days prior to a hearing on
the matter.
2. Hearing. A hearing shall be held before the Councilor a hearing examiner
appointed by the Council. The hearing shall be conducted to meet the
licensee and occupant's due process rights, including:
Golden Valley City Code
Page 12 of 18
S 4.60
a. Allowing interested parties the right of legal representation, the right
to present evidence, witnesses, and to cross-examine all adverse
witnesses, and
b. Making a complete record of all proceedings, including findings of fact
and conclusions of law.
Source: Ordinance No. 339, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 12-16-05
3. Suspension or Revocation. Every operating license issued under the
provisions of this ordinance is subject to suspension or revocation for the
entire rental dwelling or for individual rental dwelling units, by the City
Council, should the licensee fail to operate or maintain the licensed rental
dwelling(s) and dwelling units therein consistent with the provisions of this
Chapter, the City Code, and the laws and regulations of the State of
Minnesota.
Source: Ordinance No. 386, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 12-14-07
An operating license may also be suspended or revoked for any of the following
reasons:
a. The license was procured by misrepresentation of material facts, by
fraud, by deceit, or by bad faith.
b. The applicant or one acting in his/her behalf made oral or written
misstatements or misrepresentations or material facts in or
accompanying the application.
c. The licensee or applicant has failed to comply with any condition set
forth in any other permits granted by the City of Golden Valley.
d. The activities of the licensee in the licensed activity create or have
created a serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare.
e. The licensed business, or the way in which said business is operated,
maintains or permits conditions that injure, annoy, or endanger the
safety, health, morals, comfort, or repose of any member of the
public.
Source: Ordinance No. 339, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 12-16-05
I. Whenever any dwelling unit has been denied a license, has had its operating
license suspended or revoked or is unfit for human habitation, it shall be
posted with a placard by the City Manager or his/her designee to prevent
Golden Valley City Code
Page 13 of 18
~ 4.60
further occupancy. No person, other than the City Manager or his/her
designee, shall remove or tamper with any placard used for posting. The City
Manager or his/her designee will post on the placard the date that the
vacancy shall become effective. On or after the placard vacancy date, no
person shall reside in, occupy, or cause to be occupied any dwelling unit
which has been posted to prevent occupancy.
J. If it is determined that a rental dwelling unit is being operated without a valid
license, an immediate inspection shall be conducted. It shall be unlawful for
an owner, designated agent or operator, after notice sent first class mail, to
continue operation of a rental dwelling unit without submitting an application
for a license under this Chapter, along with the necessary license fee. Once
an application has been made, it shall be unlawful for the owner, or his/her
duly authorized agent, to permit any new occupancies of vacant, or
thereafter vacated rental units until such time as the license is issued.
K. If the rental dwelling is in compliance with all applicable ordinances of the
City and the laws and regulations of the State of Minnesota, a license shall be
issued to the present owner or his/her designated agent. If the City finds
that the circumstances of the occupancy following the issuance of the license
involve possible Code violations, substandard maintenance, or abnormal
wear and tear, the City may re-inspect the premises during the licensing
period.
Source: Ordinance No. 386, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 12-14-07
*Relettering Sources:
Ordinance No.339, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 9-15-06
Subdivision 10. Enforcement
A. The City Manager or his/her designee shall enforce all provisions of the RPMC
for all residential properties.
Source: Ordinance No. 349, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 9-15-06
B. Whenever a property, structure, or dwelling unit is out of compliance with
one of more of the provisions of the RPMC, the City Manager or his/her
designee shall issue a compliance order setting forth the violations and
ordering the owner, occupant, operator, or agent to address such violations
by either correcting them or proving them to be nonexistent to the
satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee. This compliance order
shall :
Source: Ordinance No. 386, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 12-14-07
Golden Valley City Code
Page 14 of 18
alley
emorandum
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley Council Meeting
July 6, 2010
Agenda Item
3. M. Second Consideration - Ordinance No. 441 - Prohibiting Coal Tar-Based Sealer
Products and Approve Summary Publication
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator
Summary
Sealcoat products come in two basic varieties: coal tar-based and asphalt-based. Both have
been shown to contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and contribute to serious
health problems for fish and aquatic animals, and in some cases, humans. A study in Texas
determined that coal tar products contain up to 1,000 times more PAHs than asphalt-based
sealcoats. Although both products contain levels of PAHs, asphalt-based products are less
concentrated and less hazardous to stormwater.
Over the last few years, the City has experienced an increase in pond maintenance costs due
to the presence of PAHs in the sediments removed. Under certain conditions, sediments are
required to be treated as hazardous waste. For example, when the City excavated the pond
at the Hidden Lakes development, the sediments were tested and determined to be Level 3
materials. These materials are required to be placed in a lined landfilled. The increased cost
due to testing and removal of these soils was $5,650. It should be noted that the Hidden
Lakes project was quite small. This year, the City is scheduled to remove sediments from a
pond located on the Golden Valley Country Club where City storm sewer contributes
stormwater. Samples taken from the sediments have revealed that the material will need to
be treated as hazardous waste.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has identified the adoption of an ordinance that
prohibits the use of coal tar-based sealer products in Minnesota communities as a best
management practice. Further, by having an ordinance in place, the City will may be eligible
for grant funding to assist communities with pond dredging where high levels of PAH have
been found in the sediments.
The City Council approved the ordinance on its first consideration on June 15, 2010. If the
Council adopts the ordinance on its second consideration, it will be effective upon publication.
In order to save publishing costs staff is requesting the Council approve publication of the
Summary Ordinance. This action requires a 4/5 vote.
Attachments
Ordinance No. 441, Adding a New Section 10.54: Regulating the Use of Coal Tar-Based
Sealer Products (2 pages)
Summary of Ordinance No. 441, Adding a New Section 10.54: Regulating the Use of Coal
Tar-Based Sealer Products (1 page)
Recommendation
Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 441, Adding a New Section 10.54: Regulating the Use of Coal
Tar-Based Sealer Products on its second consideration.
Motion to approve publication of the Summary Ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO. 441, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Adding a New Section 10.54: Regulating the Use of Coal Tar-Based Sealer Products
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. City Code, Chapter 2 is hereby amended by adding a new Section
10.54, entitled "Regulating the Use of Coal Tar-Based Sealer Products", reading as
follows:
Section 10.54: Regulating the Use of Coal Tar-
Based Sealer Products
Subdivision 1. Purpose
The City understands that lakes, rivers, streams and other bodies of water are natural
assets which enhance the environmental, recreational, cultural and economic resources
and contribute to the general health and welfare of the community.
The use of sealers on asphalt driveways is a common practice. However, scientific
studies on the use of driveway sealers have demonstrated a relationship between
stormwater runoff and certain health and environmental concerns.
The purpose of this ordinance is to regulate the use of sealer products within the City
of Golden Valley, in order to protect, restore, and preserve the quality of its waters.
Subdivision 2. Definitions
Except as may otherwise be provided or clearly implied by context, all terms shall be
given their commonly accepted definitions. For the purpose of this ordinance, the
following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a
different meaning:
A. Asphalt-Based Sealer: A petroleum-based sealer material that is commonly
used on driveways, parking lots, and other surfaces and which does not contain
coal tar.
B. Coal Tar: A byproduct of the process used to refine coal.
C. Undiluted Coal Tar-Based Sealer: A sealer material containing coal tar that
has not been mixed with asphalt and which is commonly used on driveways,
parking lots and other surfaces.
D. MPCA: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
E. PAHs: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. A group of organic chemicals formed
during the incomplete burning of coal, oil, gas, or other organic substances,
present in coal tar and believed harmful to humans, fish, and other aquatic life.
Subdivision 3. Prohibitions
A. No person shall apply any undiluted coal tar-based sealer to any driveway,
parking lot, or other surface within the City.
B. No person shall contract with any commercial sealer product applicator,
residential or commercial developer, or any other person for the application of
any undiluted coal tar-based sealer to any driveway, parking lot, or other
surface within the City.
C. No commercial sealer product applicator, residential or commercial developer, or
other similar individual or organization shall direct any employee, independent
contractor, volunteer, or other person to apply any undiluted coal tar-based
sealer to any driveway, parking lot, or other surface within the City.
Subdivision 4. Exemption
Upon the express written approval from both the City and the MPCA, a person
conducting bona fide research on the effects of undiluted coal tar-based sealer
products or PAHs on the environment shall be exempt from the prohibitions provided in
subdivision 3 of this section.
Subdivision 5. Asphalt-based seal coat products
The provisions of this ordinance shall only apply to the use of undiluted coal tar-based
sealer in the City and shall not affect the use of asphalt-based sealer products within
the City.
Section 2. Severability. Every section, provision or part of this ordinance is
declared separate from every section, provision or part of this ordinance. If any
section, provision, or part of this ordinance is adjudged to be invalid by a court of
competent jurisdiction, such judgment shall not invalidate any other section, provision,
or part of this ordinance.
Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 10.99
entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference,
as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect after its publication as required by
law.
Adopted by the City Council this 7th day of July, 2010.
Is/Linda R. Loomis
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Is/Susan M. Virnig
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
SUMMARY OF
ORDINANCE NO. 441, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Adding a New Section 10.54: Regulating the Use of Coal Tar-Based Sealer Products
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. City Code, Chapter 2 is hereby amended by adding a new Section
10.54, entitled "Regulating the Use of Coal Tar-Based Sealer Products", reading as
follows:
Section 10.54: Regulating the Use of Coal
Tar- Based Sealer Products
Subdivision 1. Purpose
An ordinance to regulate the use of sealer products within the City of Golden
Valley, in order to protect, restore, and preserve the quality of its waters.
Includes Definitions for Asphalt-Based Sealer, Coal Tar, Coal Tar-Based
Sealer, MPCA, and PAHs.
Prohibits any person from applying undiluted coal tar-based sealer in the City
or hiring or directing another person or company to do so, unless to conduct
research with written approval of the City and the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
The ordinance shall not affect the use of asphalt-based sealer products within
the City.
Section 2. Severability. Every section, provision or part of this ordinance is
declared separate from every section, provision or part of this ordinance. If any
section, provision, or part of this ordinance is adjudged to be invalid by a court of
competent jurisdiction, such judgment shall not invalidate any other section,
provision, or part of this ordinance.
Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 10.99
entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by
reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect after its publication as required by
law.
Adopted by the City Council this 6th day of July, 2010.
Is/Linda R. Loomis
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Is/Susan M. Virnig
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
alley
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 6,2010
Agenda Item
3. N. Approval of One Year Extension for Filing of Plat for Lots 11 and 12, Block 3, Glen
Urban 2nd Addition (Janalyn Circle and Glencrest Road)
Prepared By
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Summary
Rocky DiGiacomo, applicant, has requested a third extension for final plat approval for the
minor subdivision of the Lots 11 & 12, Block 3, Glenurban 2nd Addition to July 13, 2011. The
parties involved still intend to subdivide the property however market conditions have affected
the sale of the properties.
On July 15, 2008, the City Council approved the preliminary plat to allow splitting Lots 11 and
12, Block 3, Glenurban 2nd Addition into 3 new lots. On December 16, 2008, the City Council
approved an extension for the final plat approval to July 14, 2009. The City Council approved
a second one-year extension on July 7,2009. Per City Code, the final plat must be approved
within 180 days of preliminary plat approval. An extension to this timeframe would allow the
applicant and property owners to move forward with this project.
Attachment
Location Map (1 page)
Letter from Rocky DiGiacomo, dated July 2, 2010 (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve an extension until July 13, 2011 to submit the final plat for Lots 11 and 12,
Block 3, Glenurban 2nd Addition.
4535
'--. --I--
460Il 4520
:5
24 ! 13
g
Q
0(
f--- :E
104
I~
~I
-
---
1
, u1l.
\ :zo
....---- \ 8
4270
I IS
~ 4300
I ~
E
0(
15
4409
4333
4313 .._ 4301 4263
4S05
100
115
165
~ \m
228
125
2:40
.
-------
I~ -r
.'~
O' 2:Il
120
Subject Properties
I 210
3llO
213
411
------
;/;
hj..
%
i@.3Ql,
~~h,. 4316
/~~, 430ll
~'
'---
--------
401 ---------
_____ 4301
50S ---------
..~
1Il 308
4S4O 4520 4510 IS 309
450ll Q
-F ! 401 400
WESTWOOD'LN_
w
~
4541 4521 4511 4ilO 409 408
4520
4510
508
I-X:-~LN
IT 4521-
I~/
:MJt:l(:".;;~,...d01A."C~MS
,r~<?"~
~t1
511
416
soo
S04
617
512
~\
641
Park
4240
15
4260
4250
GLENWOOD AVE
42S3
4115 III
4243
1"---
224
208
204
100
216
212
L---'--------
----~
~
225
213 208 20S
221 211
208
--
310
4300 4224
4212 4116 4108
4100
GLENcREST RD
422:3 4211 4201 4115 4101
515 523 S29 535 541 )
. ......- 1ANALV"'CI~ '
516 520
528 532 536 600 6iJ~
) \
TYROl rRL III
r \ 709
709
I I 100
.
700
108
Wittman, Lisa
Subject:
FW: Plat Extension
Hi Lisa,
Please submit to the council my wishes to extend the Janalyn Cr. plat request for another 12 Mo.
Thank you.
Rocky
Rocky DiGiacomo
DiGiacomo Homes and Renovation
612.710.7900
www.dahomesandrenovation.com
2007 & 2008 Coty award winner
2008 National FSC award winner
2008 luxury Home Tour participant
1
alley
Memorandum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8014/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary for Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 6, 2010
Agenda Item
4. A. Public Hearing - Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Plan
Prepared By
Jeanne Andre, Assistant City Manager
Summary
The City Council initiated a study of the Douglas Drive Corridor that took place in 2008 and
2009. Following that study the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) took the
initiative to develop a Redevelopment Plan for a segment of the corridor. The purpose of the
redevelopment plan is to make the public and developers aware of the City's desire to renew
the corridor and to provide tools to fund redevelopment such as Hennepin County grants and
tax-increment financing. The Redevelopment Area as put forward by the HRA does not
include the whole corridor, but focuses on the area most in need of public improvements. The
Plan before the Council is modified on page 6 because the Corridor Study has been
completed.
The HRA adopted the plan April 14, 2009, and sent it to the Planning Commission, which
determined that the plan is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Council
decided to wait to formally consider the plan while discussions with Hennepin County and
Transit for Livable Communities took place regarding immediate and longer-term work on the
corridor, as Douglas Drive is a County Road. Interim work on the corridor has been
scheduled and staff is now bringing the proposed Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment
Plan for consideration.
The area included in the plan includes all of the current right-of-way between the Luce Line
Trail and Duluth Street as well as the parcels on the east side of the road (including the
railroad corridor) adjacent to the right-of-way. If a property is included in the redevelopment
area, it is not necessarily targeted for redevelopment, but it is likely to be impacted by public
improvements in the area. Over time the redevelopment area could be expanded, but the
HRA chose to focus on an area of immediate interest. A public hearing is required prior to
consideration of the redevelopment plan.
Attachment
Resolution Approving the Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Plan (11 pages)
(adopted by HRA on April 14, 2009)
Recommended Action
Hold Public Hearing on Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Plan.
Motion to adopt Resolution Approving the Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Plan.
Resolution 10-39
July 6, 2010
Member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE DOUGLAS DRIVE CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA AND APPROVING THE PLAN THEREFOR
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota (the
"City"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Golden Valley,
Minnesota (the "Authority"), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047,
as amended, has prepared and presented to the City for approval, a redevelopment plan,
as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.002, subdivision 16, designated as the
Project Plan (the "Project Plan") for the Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Project
Area (the "Redevelopment Project Area").
1.02. The Project Plan has been transmitted to the planning agency of the City,
which has determined that the Project Plan conforms to the general plan for the
development of the City. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.028, the approval of
the Project Plan is for the consideration of this Council. On July 6, 2010, this Council
conducted a public hearing on the desirability of approving the Project Plan. Notice of the
public hearing was duly published as required by law in the official newspaper of the City
on June 24, 2010.
Section 2. Approval of Proiect Plan. On the basis of the proposed Project Plan
adopted by the Authority and the information elicited from consultation with the planning
agency and at the public hearing referenced above:
2.01. The Project Plan proposes that the Authority undertake certain redevelopment
activities for the purpose of encouraging redevelopment of properties in the Redevelopment
Project Area. The Council hereby finds that the proposed Project Plan would improve the
Redevelopment Project Area by retarding blight and encouraging private redevelopment of
property therein, thereby increasing employment and housing opportunities and the tax
base of the City and overlapping taxing jurisdictions.
2.02. This Council hereby finds that the land in the Redevelopment Project Area
would not be made available without the financial aid sought since private developers could
not economically develop the Redevelopment Project Area without the proposed
redevelopment activities.
2.03. This Council hereby finds that the Project Plan will afford maximum
opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of
the Redevelopment Project Area by private enterprise.
Resolution 10-39 - Continued
July 6, 2010
2.04. This Council hereby finds that the Project Plan conforms to the general plan
for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole and is compatible with the
City's zoning ordinances and other related regulations and encourages efficient use of
existing infrastructure as set forth in the City's Land Use Plan. It is in the best interests of
the City to approve the Project Plan.
2.05. Upon review of the Project Plan, the information elicited from the planning
agency and at the public hearing, and on the basis of the findings made in Sections 2.01 to
2.04 hereof, this Council hereby approves the Project Plan.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Exhibit A
Redevelopment Plan for Douglas Drive Corridor
Redevelopment Project Area
Consideration by Housing and Redevelopment Authority:
Resolution 09-03, adopted April 14, 2009, and forwarded for consideration
by Planning Commission and City Council
Consideration by Planning Commission:
Resolution 09-02, adopted April 27, 2009
Consideration by City Council:
Redevelopment Plan for Douglas Drive Corridor
Redevelopment Project Area
Section 1. Introduction
As part of a goal-setting session in 2006 the City Council identified Douglas Drive
(CSAH 102) as a primary area of concern for the future of the City. As part of the 2008
update of the Comprehensive Plan, the City again identified the Douglas Drive Corridor
from Medicine Lake Road (CSAH 70) to Minnesota Trunk Highway (TH) 55 as a priority
for further study. There is significant through traffic from communities to the north and
the mixture of land uses along the corridor in Golden Valley adds even more traffic. The
volume of traffic combined with limited public right-of-way available for expansion will
present challenges to improving this corridor and its public infrastructure. Traffic is
heavy along the corridor due to its designation by Hennepin County as a minor arterial
corridor. Its mixture of land uses including single-family, multi-family, offices, retail,
schools, churches and industrial uses, some of which are blighted, could through
redevelopment, become a more vibrant, integrated community.
The initial focus of redevelopment will be the east side of Douglas Drive between Duluth
Street (CR 66) and the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The City desires to look at
this area in a comprehensive manner. The existing land use is a mixture of low-and-high
density housing, some relatively new and some blighted, as well as office, commercial
and industrial uses.
Section 2. Statement of Need and Public Purpose, Statutory
Authorization
The Authority finds that there is a need for development within the City and the Project
Area in order to provide employment and housing opportunities, to improve the local tax
base, and to improve the general economy of the City and the State. The economic
security of the people in the City depends upon proper development of property that
meets anyone of a number of conditions, including properties whose values are too low
to pay for the public services required or rendered and properties whose lack of use or
improper use has resulted in stagnant or unproductive land that could otherwise
contribute to the public health, safety, and welfare.
The Authority finds that in many cases such property cannot be developed without
public participation and assistance in various forms including property acquisition and/or
write-down, proper planning, the financing of development costs associated with
clearance, grading and soil correction, and the making of various other public and
private improvements necessary for development. In cases where the development of
property cannot be done by private enterprise alone, the Authority believes it to be in
the public interest to consider the exercise of its powers, to advance and spend public
money, and to provide the means and impetus for such development.
The Authority finds that in certain cases property within the Project Area would or may
not be available for development without the specific financial aid to be sought, that the
Redevelopment Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the
City as a whole, for the development of the Project Area by private enterprise, and that
1
this Redevelopment Plan conforms to the general plan for the development of the City
as a whole.
It is the intention of the Governing Body, notwithstanding the enumeration of specific
goals and objectives in the Redevelopment Plan, that the Authority shall have and enjoy
with respect to the Project Area the full range of powers and duties conferred upon the
Authority pursuant to the HRA Act, the TIF Act, municipal housing and redevelopment
authority laws, and such other legal authority as the Authority may have or enjoy from
time to time.
The HRA Act authorizes the Authority to exercise all the powers relating to a housing
and redevelopment authority granted under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to
469.047, or other law.
Section 3. Background
When Douglas Drive was initially constructed, the surrounding land uses were more
rural in nature. Now a number of major employers including Honeywell, United Health
Care and Tennant Company have a significant presence in the corridor and the average
daily traffic on various sections of the corridor in Golden Valley range from 10,000 to
14,000 vehicle trips per day. The presence of numerous schools (Sandburg School,
King of Grace Lutheran School and Perpich School of Performing Arts) and recreational
facilities (Sandburg fields, Honeywell Little League field, Seeman and Hampshire Parks,
and the Three Rivers Luce Line Trail) in the corridor increase the need for improved
safety for non-motorized transportation.
The Three Rivers Park District has constructed a portion of the Luce Line Trail through
Golden Valley that will connect French Park in Plymouth with Wirth Park in Minneapolis.
At the present time there are not safe north-south connections to this trail for bikers and
pedestrians. In order to improve these connections Golden Valley received funding
through the Non-Motorized Transportation Act to study this corridor and plan for future
improvements to pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections in this corridor. The
Principles for this study are outlined below.
Section 4. Principles
1. Improve connectivity and functionality for all transportation modes. Douglas
Drive, which is classified as a county state-aid highway in the Hennepin County
Transportation Plan and minor arterial road in the City's Comprehensive Plan, has
historically focused on motorized vehicles. Traffic volume has increased significantly
over the years as has the need for better, safer pedestrian and non-motorized
transportation and transit options. Intersection improvements at Highway 55 I
Douglas Drive and other key major and minor intersections within the corridor are
critical to safer and improved movement for pedestrians, non-motorized and
vehicular traffic in the corridor.
2. Enable the corridor to maintain a diverse mix of land uses, including
residential, commercial and industrial. A mix of activities, uses and densities will
help to sustain the corridor through changing economic cycles, consumer
2
preferences and housing trends. Clustered and mixed uses can create synergies,
increase transit use and enhance the level of pedestrian activity.
3. Maximize integration rather than separation of land uses, where appropriate.
Many land uses can benefit from increased integration with one another, including
neighborhood-serving retail, multi-family and senior housing, offices, and low-impact
services. Non-residential corridor uses should be buffered from adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
4. Maintain the corridor as an employment center. Jobs within the corridor help
maintain Golden Valley's jobs-housing balance while sustaining commercial
enterprises. Retaining 'living wage' jobs should be a priority.
5. Improve the visual coherence and attractiveness of the corridor. Improvements
in streetscapes, landscaped areas, open spaces, building aesthetics and
parking/service areas all contribute to a more unified and visually appealing
environment, with an increased sense of identity. Buildings and other private
improvements should make positive contributions to the corridor and the broader
public realm, while public improvements should set the standard for private
investment.
6. Foster neighborhood-serving retail and services. Multimodallinks to commercial
development should be enhanced.
7. Foster sustainable development and work to establish a balance between
urban and natural systems. Encourage the application of green building and
infrastructure techniques. Examples include low-impact development that maintains
the natural functions of the land, encourages reduced stormwater runoff and fosters
resource conservation and the use of renewable systems in new construction.
Section 4. Goals and Objectives
The current hodge-podge of land uses, minimal right-of-way (63 to 100 feet), sometimes
minimal building setbacks from a high-traffic road, and the desirability of buffering
residential uses from the high volume of traffic make the corridor an ideal candidate for
broader redevelopment. Some goals of the redevelopment would be to provide for
additional right-of-way, consolidate corridor land uses and the number of access points
onto Douglas Drive. There are existing impediments in the right-of-way (electrical poles,
fire hydrants, utility boxes, railroad crossings, etc.) that complicate the infrastructure
needs for the area and impede pedestrian and bike access which could also be
addressed through redevelopment.
To achieve its mission of structured redevelopment, this Plan has identified six goals
with related objectives to encourage cohesive planning and structured redevelopment
within the corridor. It then outlines policies that will help to achieve the goals and
objectives.
Goal 1 - Improve vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian transportation.
Objectives
· Improved roadway with added pedestrian and non-motorized transportation facilities
3
· Complete streets that meet vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian needs
· Reduced impediments in the sidewalks
· Undergrounded utilities
· Consolidated access points onto Douglas Drive
Goal 2 - Redevelop obsolete properties.
Objectives
· Blighted, functionally obsolete, and/or economically unsustainable buildings
removed
· New uses compatible with existing uses
Goal 3 - Create jobs and life-cycle housing.
Objectives
· Increased high-paying jobs
· Housing stock that is maintained or improved
· Higher density housing
· Housing for seniors and young families
· Affordable housing
· Commercial uses that serve the community
Goal 4- Require design that is sustainable and aesthetically pleasing.
Objectives
· Enhanced community identity through features which reflect Golden Valley
· Visually attractive development that complements its surroundings
· Buildings constructed with environmentally sustainable 'green building' practices
(Development that meets environmental criteria set forth by Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED) and the United States Department of Energy).
· Active living criteria included in design
Goal 5 - Protect the environment.
Objectives
· Wetlands that are protected and enhanced
· Land free of soil and wetland contamination
· Arborous environments
· Natural features retained and native vegetation (re)established
· Co-located uses that reduce the amount of auto travel and corresponding air
pollution
· Best shoreline management practices implemented along Bassett Creek
Goal 6 - Maintain a regional framework.
Objectives
· Growth compatible with the Metropolitan Council development framework
· Public infrastructure designed in cooperation with Hennepin County, Three Rivers
Park District, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation
· Participation in grant programs available through Hennepin County, the Metropolitan
Council and other agencies
· A positive relationship with surrounding communities and governmental agencies
· Continued participation in cooperative traffic management strategies
· Improved transit options
4
Section 5. Policies
Land Use
The City will study planned land uses to determine the need or desirability of individual
parcel or area-wide comprehensive plan or zoning amendments to accommodate
desired land uses.
The City and HRA will assure that its review processes, zoning, and building regulations
will promote desired development projects.
The City will assure that new uses in the redevelopment area are compatible with
existing development and the City's land use plan.
The City and HRA will review existing corridor properties to consider their long term
viability and/or options for alternative uses.
Land use plans will promote mixed use developments and increased density where
appropriate, in keeping with the Metropolitan Council's regional growth strategy.
Financing
The City and HRA will identify criteria to target redevelopment funds such as tax
increment financing, tax abatements, Livable Communities, Community Development
Block Grants and other funding made available by the legislature or other agencies or
governmental units.
The City and HRA will consider providing public assistance to redevelopment projects
that serve a substantial public purpose, remove blight, or mitigate contamination.
The City and HRA will consider using land write-downs to subsidize redevelopment
projects.
Redevelopment funding will be paired with other funding options such as assessments,
based on the Golden Valley Special Assessment Policy.
The City will consider franchise fees and utility surcharges to underwrite the cost of
utility and infrastructure upgrades.
Design and Environmental Standards
The City will promote best practices to meet the highest environmental standards.
The City and HRA will identify approaches and/or incentives to promote a corridor
beautification program. This program will include both public and private components.
The City will monitor ongoing research on sustainable development initiatives to guide
redevelopment and future updates of this plan.
Transportation
The City will work with Metropolitan Transit to monitor transportation needs of area
residents and workers and identify ways to improve transportation services including
5
improving transit routes, and working with area businesses to develop transportation
management plans.
The City will work with Hennepin County, the State of Minnesota and other agencies to
design and seek funding for an improved roadway with added pedestrian and non-
motorized transportation facilities that meet city, county and state needs.
Section 6. Redevelopment Area Defined
In 2008-09 the City is studyffigied the full length of Douglas Drive from Medicine Lake
Road on the north to Trunk Highway 55 on the south. Until that study is completod tIhe
Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area wiU include~ the Douglas Drive street right-of-way
and parcels on the east side of the street from Duluth St. to the Union Pacific railroad
right-of-way to the south. This is an area with no pedestrian infrastructure and is
centered on a significant area of multifamily housing, makina it a focal point for
redevelopment.
The full Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area is identified on Map A. The area is divided
into three subsections, based on land use.
Area A-1
Area A-1 extends from Duluth Street south to the Canadian Pacific Railroad and is
guided Commercial and Office. It has three parcels, with the following land uses: two
gas stations and a multi-tenant office.
Area A-2
Area A-2 extends from the Canadian Pacific Railroad south to Golden Valley Road. It is
guided High Density Residential and Railroad Right-of-Way. Existing land uses range
from single family, duplex, and triplex units to three- to five- story rental apartment and
condominium buildings and railroad facilities. The Metropolitan Council has identified
this rail corridor for a regional, mixed-use trail on its 2030 Regional Parks System Map.
Area A-3
Area A-3 extends from Golden Valley Road south to the Union Pacific Railroad/Luce
Line Trail. It has only one parcel which is guided Industrial. A CenterPoint Energy
peaking plant and maintenance center currently occupies this site.
Common features for all of the areas include inadequate or no sidewalk and electrical
poles and overhead lines that would impede the development of sidewalks. There is
pedestrian access on intersecting east-west roads including sidewalks on Duluth Steet
and Golden Valley Road and the new Luce Line Trail along the Union Pacific right-of-
way.
Common features for all of the areas include inadequate or no sidewalk and electrical
poles and overhead lines that would impede the development of sidewalks. There is
pedestrian access on intersecting east-west roads including sidewalks on Duluth Steet
and Golden Valley Road and the new Luce Line Trail along the Union Pacific right-of-
way.
6
Section 7. Redevelopment Opportunities
Infrastructure
A main objective of redevelopment is the provision of public infrastructure, including:
road improvements that accommodate existing and future development along the
corridor while limiting direct access to the road; sidewalk, trail and bicycle facilities in
conjunction with the roadway or in the CP Rail corridor that bisects and runs adjacent to
the Redevelopment Area; ponding and storm sewer facilities that meet current
environmental standards; and water and sanitary sewer upgrades to meet current and
future needs.
Area A-1
Proposed land uses for Area A-1 include commercial and office development consistent
with its location near the key intersection of Douglas Drive and Duluth Steet. The goal of
redevelopment would be to provide high-quality uses and reduce the number of access
points on both Douglas Drive and Duluth Steet.
Area A-2
The focus of Area A-2 would remain residential, but in keeping with the 2009
Comprehensive Plan, higher density housing could replace existing single-family,
duplex and triplex housing. The goal of replacement housing would be to provide high-
quality life-cycle housing that provides a greater range of housing options for Golden
Valley residents and to reduce the number of access points on Douglas Drive.
Area A-3
In Area A-3 the objective would be to maximize CenterPoint's use of the site while
keeping access points on Douglas Drive to a minimum. Expanded CenterPoint facilities,
such as a customer call center, would complement its existing peaking facilities at this
site and would increase the intensity of land usage, enhance the tax base and bring
additional employees to the corridor.
7
, ,
rtrrnrcrBffitJ:
][[I]~:DIIJ~
-" . WINSDAI,.E ST N-.:. .. - .... ..
mEB I, Area A~2 1 .
~_.. _. - -- -. KNOU.ST1~-' - -- - : r ~.
. I 0 8
T ; 3 ,. :
- - - Pi.YMOUntAVEtIm""N -- -- .... ~ {~
;' ~ J_
, 0 HOI!NJX ST."
, ~-m
'[ )0
~ ,,;;1
~ 12
~ll A:
,,~., ,
Area A-3
,,0 ,
00 ..
00
C>O
~(:.;'U1:l.d"'.::Ihc:l\It1. CWr',PiCt i..O""".-s?S~
Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area
Memorandum
Police Department
763-593-8079 I 763-593-8098 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 6, 2010
Agenda Item
6. A. On-Sale and Sunday Sale Liquor License Renewal- Webb Golden Valley LLC d/b/a
Good Day Cafe
Prepared By
Stacy A. Altonen, Chief of Police
Jim Roberts, Sergeant
Summary
The following establishment has applied for renewal of their liquor licenses for the 2010-2011
license term.
On Sale and Sunday Sale
Webb Golden Valley LLC d/b/a Good Day Cafe
Webb Golden Valley LLC has a delinquent utility bill and Staff has given them until noon on
Tuesday, July 6 to pay the bill in full. If payment has not been received, this item will be
pulled from the consent agenda and the license renewal will not be considered.
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the renewal of the On-Sale and Sunday Sale for Webb Golden Valley LLC
d/b/a Good Day Cafe for the 2010-2011 license term.