The URL can be used to link to this page

03-15-11 CC Agenda PacketAGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber March 15, 2011 6:30 pm The Council may consider item numbers 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 prior to the public hearings scheduled at 7 pm CALL TO ORDER PAGES A. Roll Call B. Presentation Regarding Farmer's Market 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 - Council /Manager Minutes -February 8, 2011 2 -3 B. Approval of Check Register 4 C. Licenses: 1. General Business Licenses 5 -7 2. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Sabes 8 -11 Jewish Community Center D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. Minneapolis Water Advisory Board - November 4, 2010 12 -15 2. Environmental Commission - January 3, 2011 16 -17 3. Connection Project Board of Directors - January 13, 2011 18 -21 4. Open Space and Recreation Commission - January 24, 2011 22 -23 5. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission - January 20, 2011 24 -34 E. Bids and Quotes: 1. Dewatering Pump - Quotes 35 -36 F. Email, Letters and /or Petitions: 1. Email from Carmen Dougherty -Heim Regarding Botteneau Light Rail Line 37 2. Emails from Paul Flower, Ross House, Frank Tenczar, Christine Tenczar and 38 -42 George Abide Regarding Dog Licensing G. Authorization to Sign Contract with Prairie Restorations, Inc. for Restoration and 43 -52 Maintenance of Native Plant Communities H. Support for Complete Streets and Continued Use of Plans and Policies Supporting 53 -56 Transportation Systems 11 -8 I. Approval of Plat - Fretham Eleventh Addition 11 -9 57 -65 J. Call for Public Hearing - Special Assessments - 4/19/11 66 K. Receipt of February 2011 Financial Reports 67 -74 L. Authorizing Transfers from General Fund 11 -10 75 -76 M. Acceptance of Donations for 125th Anniversary 11 -11 77 -78 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7 PM A. Public Hearing - Second Consideration - Ordinance #456 - Amending Electric 79 -82 Franchise Fee Ordinance #447 with Northern States Power d /b /a Xcel Energy B. Public Hearing - Ordinance #457 - Rezoning from Commercial Zoning District to 83 -112 Business and Professional Offices Zoning District 5075 Wayzata Boulevard and 1400, 1500 Highway 100 South 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Announcements of Meetings B. Mayor and Council Communications 7. ADJOURNMENT Czx f Memorandum /a P City. Administration /Council O �+ v 763- 593 -8003 / 763- 593 -8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 15, 2011 Agenda Item 1. B. Presentation Regarding Farmer's Market Prepared By Thomas Burt, City Manager Summary Kristine Frey will be at the meeting to review her proposal to set up a farmer's market on Sunday mornings in the parking lot under the water tower. The farmer's market is a non - profit organization and the proceeds will be reinvested back into the market. Recommended Action Motion to authorize the City Manager to negotiate a contract with Kristine Frey and bring it back to the Council for approval. Council /Manager Meeting Minutes February 8, 2011 Present: Mayor Loomis and Council Members Freiberg, Pentel, Scanlon and Shaffer, City Manager Tom Burt, Police Chief Stacy Altonen, Finance Director Sue Virnig, City Planner Joe Hogeboom, Planning Intern Carrie Noble, Planning Intern Michael Simmons and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. The meeting began at 6:33 pm in the Council Conference Room. Dog License Survey Results Stacy Altonen reviewed the dog license fees and requirements from several communities as directed by the Council at their last Council meeting. She explained that most dog parks require proof of rabies vaccination but they do not necessarily require proof of a license in order to use their parks. She stated that staff is still recommending eliminating the dog license requirement because of the lack of compliance and because micro - chipping is more effective. The Council discussed rabies vaccination requirements and the procedures, expense and amount of staff time involved in picking up stray dogs. Council Member Shaffer expressed concern about eliminating dog licenses because it takes away a certain sense of security. The Council came to the consensus that they would like to keep licensing dogs. However, they would like to have a license be valid for three years and change the fees to $15 per year (spayed /neutered) and $30 per year (unaltered). Staff will recommend how to approach the recommended fee changes and the ordinance previously under discussion. Livable Communities Act — Housing Action Plan Joe Hogeboom explained that as part of continued participation in the Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account Program the Metropolitan Council has asked the City to create a Housing Action Plan. He referred to the draft Housing Action Plan which is based on the language in the Housing chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Council reviewed the draft Housing Action Plan. Council Member Pentel suggested adding the Livable Communities Principles at the beginning of the plan. The Council discussed the City's current affordable housing supply and questioned if this proposed plan is contrary to what the City has already done or intends to do in regard to affordability, housing quality, variety and sustainability. Tom Burt explained that this proposed plan will address the broad philosophical goals of the Metropolitan Council and that the City's Comprehensive Plan would prevail. Hogeboom added that having this plan in place could help the City obtain grants in the future. Mayor Loomis suggested that the plan be made clearer that it is dealing with larger sized multiple dwelling developments. Tom Burt said staff will review the issues discussed and that this item will come back to a future Council /Manager meeting for further discussion. Fence Regulations Council /Manager Meeting Minutes February 8, 2011 — Page 2 Joe Hogeboom reminded the Council that at their December 14 Council /Manager meeting, there was discussion regarding establishing a permit process and fee for installing fences. He explained that since that time staff from various departments met and identified several issues regarding fences that would not be addressed in a potential fence permit process. Some of the issues include the cost burden to residents for permits and surveys, the difficulties of enforcement and inspections and the issues surrounding right -of -way and identification of easements. He stated that staff is now recommending that in lieu of establishing a permitting process, the City create a communication and education plan regarding proper fence installation. The Council discussed what other cities require for the installation of fences and complications there could be with right -of -way permits and inspections before and after a fence is installed. After discussion, the Council agreed that they would rather have staff create a communications plan than establish a fence permit process. Innovation and Redesign Guide Sue Virnig stated that in 2010, a Council on Local Results and Innovations was created by the Minnesota Legislature to establish performance outcome measures for Minnesota cities and counties as a way to quantify service levels. She noted that cities or counties submitting performance measure results could receive up to $25,000 from the State. However, according to the state statute she distributed the eligible reimbursement would be closer to $2,600. After discussing the various ways to obtain resident feedback and the expense and staff time involved, the Council consensus was to wait for the final report from the State Legislature and review it again later this year. Mayor Loomis distributed a letter from the League of Minnesota Cities regarding an application process to identify host cities for community conversations defining the services residents expect and how those services can be delivered. She stated that she will be filling out an application to be submitted later this month. Metropolitan Council Direction Mayor Loomis referred to a letter she received from the City of Minneapolis regarding a resolution they adopted supporting a strong, effective Metropolitan Council and suggesting that Golden Valley have a similar resolution of support. No one on the Council expressed an interest in pursuing support of this type of resolution. The meeting adjourned at 7:41 pm. Lisa Wittman Administrative Assistant 'Golden galley Memorandum Finance 763- 593 -8013 / 763 -593 -8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 15, 2011 Agenda Item 3. B. 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. Golden galley Memorandum Inspections 763- 593 -8090 / 763 - 593 -3997 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 15, 2011 Agenda Item 3. C. 1. General Business Licenses Prepared By Christine Columbus, Kathy Pepin and Jill Lund, Administrative Assistants Summary As per City Code, some businesses are required to be licensed by the City. Listed below are the License Number, Applicant, License Type and Fee of those who have submitted an application for approval. #4582 Speedway /SuperAmerica #4497 6955 Market Street #4583 Speedway /SuperAmerica #4443 1930 Douglas Drive North #4580 Brookview Golf Course 200 Brookview Parkway #4579 Davanni's Pizza & Hot Hoagies 663 Winnetka Avenue North #4581 Holiday Inn Express 6020 Wayzata Boulevard #4578 Theodore Wirth Par 3 1339 Theodore Wirth Parkway #4611 Feist Automotive Group 1875 Lilac Drive North #4604 Holiday Station Store 7925 Wayzata Boulevard #4605 Lupient Oldsmobile 7100 Wayzata Boulevard Off Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor Beverages $150.00 Off Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor Beverages $150.00 On Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor Beverages No Fee On Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor Beverages $500.00 On Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor Beverages $500.00 On Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor Beverages $500.00 Gas Station 10 Nozzles $300.00 Gas Station 26 Nozzles $700.00 Gas Station 1 Nozzle $75.00 #4607 Golden Valley B.P. Gas Station 12 Nozzles $350.00 600 Boone Avenue North #4575 Twin Cities Gas, Inc. 9405 Medicine Lake Road #4606 Mobile Radio Engineering 745 Boone Avenue North #4608 General Mills Auto Service 1 General Mills Boulevard #4620 Morrie's European Car Sales 7400 Wayzata Boulevard #4623 Regency Hospital of Mpls, LLC 1300 Hidden Lakes Parkway #4621 Theodore Wirth Golf Maintenance 1313 Theodore Wirth Parkway #4614 Speedway /SuperAmerica #4497 6955 Market Street #4613 Speedway /SuperAmerica #4443 1930 Douglas Drive North #4616 Golden Valley Country Club 7001 Golden Valley Road #4622 MTI Bus Garage 835 Decatur Avenue North #4655 Greg & Jim's Service 1900 Douglas Drive North #4663 Lubrication Technologies 900 Mendelssohn Avenue North #4596 Baldy Sanitation 5906 Henry Street #4584 Waste Management - Burnsville 1901 Ames Drive Gas Station 23 Nozzles Gas Station 1 Nozzle Gas Station 36 Nozzles Gas Station 1 Nozzle Gas Station 1 Nozzle Gas Station 2 Nozzles Gas Station 18 Nozzles Gas Station 10 Nozzles Gas Station 2 Nozzles Gas Station 4 Nozzles Gas Station 8 Nozzles Bulk Oil Storage Plant 1 Refuse Vehicle 8 Recycling Vehicles $625.00 $75.00 $580.00 $75.00 $75.00 $100.00 $500.00 $300.00 $100.00 $150.00 $250.00 $25.00 $50.00 $400.00 #4660 Mendota Valley Amusement 3 Amusement Machines $45.00 220 Hardman Avenue South At 1 location $15.00 Location: 8040 Olson Memorial Highway Recommended Action Motion to authorize the issuance of licenses as recommended by staff. City Valley Memorandum City Administration /Council 763- 593 -8006 / 763- 593 -8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 15, 2011 Agenda Item 3. C. 2. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Sabes Jewish Community Center 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 Sabes Jewish Community Center 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 Sabes Jewish Community Center. Minnesota Lawful Gambling Page 1 of 2 1/11 _G220 Application for Exempt Permit Application fee for each event Ifapplication oos tmarkedorreceived: less than 30 days before the event more than 30 days before the event An exempt permit may be issued to a nonprofit organization that - conducts lawful gambling on five or fewer days, and $100 $50 - awards less than $50,000 in prizes during a calendar year. ORGANIZATION INFORMATION Check# $'` Organization name Previous gambling permit number Type of nonprofit organization. Check one. Fraternal Religious 1:1 Veterans Y1 Other nonprofit organization Mailing address City State Zip Aode County )-1330 �e6 ke- R.D �fi �Uu�s t)a&, m. Hen, Name of chief executive officer (CEO) Daytime phone number Email address SlUOAt Oad-6 9 � 2 - 3 S -c) SO)a - e v�s �L sabfs Attach a'copy of ONE of the following for proof of nonprofit status. Check one. Do not attach a sales tax exempt status or federal ID employer numbers as they are not proof of nonprofit status. Nonprofit Articles of Incorporation OR a current Certificate of Good Standing. Don't have a copy? This certificate must be obtained each year from: Secretary of State, Business Services Div., 180 State Office Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 651- 296 -2803 C9 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. ❑ 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. GAMBLING PREMISES INFORMATION Name of premises where gambling activity will be conducted (for raffles, list the site where the drawing will take place) -Thc 1a /1 a,yy� Address (do not use PO ox) City Zip Code County 5 4 � 17-1 �,) at t 9sn irt \U1 r9oaah_�()Wsjl� MCI, r_4 ` Date(s) of activity (for ra e . icate the date of the drawing) // Check the box or Wxes that in to the type of gambling activity your organization will conduct: ❑ Bingo* Raffles E] Paddlewheels* o Pull -Tabs* E:]Tipboards* * Gambling equipment for pull -tabs, bingo paper, tipboards, and Also complete paddlewheels must be obtained from a distributor licensed by the Page 2 of this form. Gambling Control Board. EXCEPTION: Bingo hard cards and bingo number selection devices may be borrowed from another organization authorized to conduct bingo. I Print Form To find a licensed distributor, go to www.gcb.state.mn.us and click on List Reset Form of Licensed Distributors, or call 651 - 639 -4000. epl� Kc.(I 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. 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 (60 days for a 1 st class city). _The application is denied. Print city name L0,01,11Cn w1 le', On behalf of the city, I acknowledge thi application. Signature of citv officiaJ receivin application t`. F VVV P / Ti ole I Date— !Z/� Page 2 of 2 1/11 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, l acknowledge this application. Signature of county official receiving application Title Date (Optional) TOWNSHIP: On behalf of the township, I acknowledge that the organization is applying for exempted gambling activity within township limits. [A township has no statutory authority to approve or deny an application [Minnesota Statute 349.166)] Print township name Signature of township official acknowledging application Title Date ! ! CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S` SIGNATURE The information provided in this application is complete to the best of my knowle knowledge that the financial report will be completed and returned t o within 30 ays of th our gambling activity. Chief executive officer's signature Date a b t Complete a separate application for 20e6gambing 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 This form will be made available in alternative format (i.e. large print, Braille) upon request. Data privacy notice:The information requested on this forth (and any attachments) will be used by the Gambling Control Board (Board) to determine your organization's qualifications to be involved in lawful gambling activities in Minnesota. Your organization has the right to refuse to supply the information requested; however, if your organization refuses to supply this information, the Board may not be able to determine your organization's qualifications and, as a consequence, may refuse to issue a permit. If you supply the information requested, 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. the Board will be able to process your organization's application. Your organization's name and address will be public information when received by the Board. All other information provided will be private data until the Board issues the permit. When the Board issues the permit, all information provided will become public. If the Board does not issue a permit, all information provided remains private, with the exception of your organization's name and address which will remain public. Private data are available to: Board members, Board staff whose work requires access to the information; Minnesota's Department of Public Safety; Attorney General; Commissioners of Administration, Minnesota Management & Budget, and Revenue; Legislative Auditor, national and international gambling regulatory agencies; anyone pursuant to court order; other individuals and agencies specifically authorized by state or federal law to have access to the information; individuals and agencies for which law or legal order authorizes a new use or sharing of information after this Notice was given; and anyone with your written consent. 2010 -11 BOARD OF DIRECTORS March 2, 2011 OFFICERS Judy Nall President— Howie Milstein Y Y Vice President— Howard Wilensky City of Golden Valley Treasurer — David Levi 7800 Golden Valley Rd Secretary/Govemance — Larry Chester Immediate Past President— Golden Valley, MN 55427 Robin Neidorf CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Dear Judy, Stuart Wachs BOARD MEMBERS The Sabes Jewish Community Center Will host our annual Benefit Etta Barry fundraiser at the Metropolitan Ballroom and Clubroom on Thursday May 5, James Bechtmold 2011. We are requesting permission to hold a raffle at this event and Karen an Hillary Feder respectfully request that the City Council waive the customary 30-day Linda Fiterman waiting period for the exemption for lawful gambling permit required for Doreen Frankel this type of event. Shep Harris Wendy Khabie Brad Lehrman Thank you for your consideration. Kris MacDonald Steve Machov Steve Orloff Sincerely, Bill Pentelovitch Eliot Searls Joel Silverman Mort Silverman Michael Siskin Josh Weiser Kay Goldste PAST PRESIDENTS Special Events Coordinator Floyd Adelman Jeffrey Baill Allen Blumenthal Sholly Blustin Howard Brin * Josiah E. Brill Tim Broms Mahryam Daniels Sam Finkelstein Sigmund Hams* Jerome Ingber Mitchel I. Kirshbaum Marshall Levin Todd Leonard Sidney Lorber Jack Mayeron Michael Mintz Robin Neidorf Edward L. Segal Chuck Selcer Susie Selcer Jerel Shapiro Nina Stillman *Deceased MINNEAPOLIS JEWISH CC (ViAiNTS DS FEDERATION we build community association Minneapolis Water Advisory Board Meeting No. 8 Minutes November 4, 2010 — 4:00 pm In Attendance Sandra Colvin Roy, Council Member and Co- Chair, City of Minneapolis Linda Loomis, Mayor and Co- Chair, City of Golden Valley Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works, City of Golden Valley Steve Kotke, Director of Public Works, City of Minneapolis Bernie Bullert, Interim Director of Water Treatment & Distribution, Minneapolis Water Works Chris Catlin, Superintendent of Water Plant Operations, Minneapolis Water Works Brette Hjelle, Interagency Coordinator, City of Minneapolis Anne Norris, City Manager, City of Crystal Bob Cockriel, Utilities Superintendent, City of Bloomington Kathi Hemken, Mayor, City of New Hope Kirk McDonald, City Manager, City of New Hope Allen Dye, Metropolitan Airports Commission Others in Attendance Jean Coleman, University of Minnesota Call to Order Co -Chair Colvin Roy called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Approval of Minutes MOVED by McDonald, seconded by Norris, and motion carried unanimously approving the minutes of August 19, 2010. Water Sustainability Framework (Coleman) Jean Coleman, Project Coordinator, attended today's meeting on behalf of Project Leader, Deborah Swackhamer, to present the Water Sustainability Framework project to the Water Advisory Board (WAB). The framework project started about two years ago and is funded by the Clean Water Legacy Fund. The purpose of the project is to develop a comprehensive framework for water activities and expenditures, identify best management practices, think "big," and cover everything without allowing costs to drive the outcome. The group has worked about 17 months on the project and state agencies, local government, watershed districts, soil and water conservation districts, water management organizations, and nonprofit groups have been involved in some capacity. The Met Council was involved in some of the committees and provided background data on the drinking water and wastewater infrastructure in the metro area. The project was committed to a statewide perspective and public outreach extended statewide. The project team organized technical work teams around water uses (ecological services, domestic use, manufacturing and energy use, agricultural, recreational /cultural/ spiritual, valuation, education, and policy). G:WWC%WA61MINUTESIWAB Meeting Eight Minutes.doc 1 The project website ( wrc. umn. edu /watersustainabilityframeworm includes white papers on key issues written by the various technical work teams. The website also includes three basic level background documents compiled for water use, water supply, and water quality. The Synthesis Team sifted through the work done by the project teams, developed solutions, and produced a draft framework. The final draft will be presented to the State Legislature in January 2011. Ms. Coleman recommended members talk to Chris Elvrum, of the Metropolitan Council, who served on the Synthesis Team about any questions or concerns before the final report is published in January 2011. The framework was organized around 10 specific needs and strategies within the framework of ecological, social, and environmental pillars of sustainability. The 10 issues identified are: 1. Sustainable water supply 2. Cultural eutrophication and other conventional impairments (for example, mercury is the most common impairment) 3. Contaminants of emerging concern 4. Land -water connection 5. Ecological and hydrological integrity 6. Water energy "nexus" 7. Water pricing and how water is valued (see the Water Valuation white paper found on the website) 8. Public water infrastructure 9. Citizen engagement 10.Organization and institutions Each issue is organized by a problem statement, desired future condition, strategies, what needs to be done to get there, how and who should do it, and benchmarks to move the process along. Pricing information and valuation is included in the background technical report prepared by the Valuation Technical Team. The WAB noted a concern that pricing was not taken into consideration when developing the issues and the strategies to solve the problems identified. The Framework teams were directed to not consider cost as a barrier when making recommendations. Ms. Coleman encouraged the WAB to browse the Framework's website, review the Technical Work Team's paper for domestic use and the Water Valuation's paper, sign up for the notification of the final report, and submit questions to Ms. Coleman. Ms. Coleman is willing to come back to the WAB once the final report is submitted to the State Legislature in January. Colvin Roy encouraged WAB members to comment on the report when it is published. From the surface water users' standpoint, no sustainable differences were pointed out between groundwater and surface water users. The WAB will discuss the report at the meeting in February and decide if it would be beneficial to invite someone from the Water Sustainability Framework back to discuss the final report. G:\JWC\WABIMINUTEStWAB Meeting Eight Minutes.doc Mayor Hemkin expressed concern about expectations that could be placed on cities for funding of the recommendations and who will implement the recommendations. The WAB would like to have opportunity to take part in those discussions. Mayor Loomis participates on the Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee, which met last week. Chris Elvrum attended the meeting and gave a report on the Framework study. His report did not include details regarding the process, but basically stated that the group is working on the final report and that it will be presented to the State Legislature in January 2011. A number of state agencies (such as Department of Agriculture, MPCA, DNR, BWSR, Department of Health, etc.) are meeting to form a unified approach toward water management. In the meantime, the Met Council has developed a metropolitan model to perform groundwater mapping that has not made much headway because it continually needs more data. Mayor Loomis pointed out that there may too many groups with individual vested interests that could complicate the sustainability report from moving forward. Capital Improvement Plan (Bullert) The Priority Improvements Plan is completed and an executive summary was provided for members to review. The full report can be obtained through Bullert's office. Much of the effort in preparing the plan has been based on input from the WAB (such as taste and odor and groundwater studies). The projects are prioritized over a 10 -year implementation plan. The order of priorities may change if finances or emergency situations dictate differently. Larger projects that require bonding are on a 3- to 5 -year bonding cycle. Those projects are the Fridley and Columbia Heights plant rehabilitation, taste and odor, Hiawatha plant, meter replacement, and backup groundwater supply. A number of project studies will be done next year resulting in a list of projects that will need bonding and will be built into the 2012 pro forma. Bullert would like to see cleaning and lining projects added back into the budget next year. The goal is to do some structural and cement lining to repair Minneapolis' system. In 2010, Minneapolis and Golden Valley worked on lining projects and invited other communities to be participants. Minneapolis and Golden Valley coordinated the timing of the bidding. Staff believes that this resulted in favorable bids. Since the Priority Improvements Plan was just completed, none of the priority projects are included in the 2011 budget. Looking to 2012, the City has prepared its capital budget requests to be submitted to the Capital Long -Range Improvement Committee (CLIC) sometime in March 2011. Comments on the 2011 projects should be submitted as soon as possible and comments on the 2012 projects should be submitted within the next month. 2011 Meeting Calendar (Hjelle) Hjelle recapped the meeting process since the WAB started meeting in December 2009. A draft meeting schedule for 2011 was distributed for the WAB to consider. The February G:UWCIWABIMINUTES \WAB Meeting Eight Mnutes.doc 2011 meeting will take place just prior to the CLIC meeting when the CLIC will be discussing the 2012 budget. The meeting schedule is reduced to three meetings per year to take advantage of key milestones in the budget process and the legislative session. By third quarter 2011, results of the current projects underway should be available for discussion. The draft 2011 calendar was accepted as presented. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:55 pm. Respectfully submitted: JGt P S chutrop A ministrative Assistant, City of Golden Valley G:WWC\WAB\MINUTES \WAB Meeting Eight Minutes.doc GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes January 3, 2011 Present: Commissioners, Anderson, Baker, Gitelis, Pawluk, Stremel, Jeannine Clancy, Public Works Director, Al Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator, Joe Hogeboom, City Planner and Lisa Nesbitt, Administrative Assistant Absent: Commissioner Hill 1. Call to Order Baker called the meeting to order at 6:58 pm. 2. Approval of Regular Meeting. Minutes — November 22, 2010 and December 13, 2010 MOVED by Stremel, seconded by Anderson, and the motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the November 22, 2010 and December 13, 2010 meetings. 3. Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study Staff sent out the current recycling contract for peer review. Comments were received by Hennepin County Environmental Services and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. A summary of the comments from both agencies are on file. Public Works staff from Golden Valley, Plymouth and Minnetonka met to discuss their recycling contracts with Waste Management. All three contracts expire on 12/31/11. Plymouth will be soliciting proposals and Minnetonka plans to utilize their option to extend their contract. Staff asked the Commission for feedback on the existing contract which will be discussed with the City Council on January 11, 2011. The Commission recommended that a recycling contract amendment, or a new recycling contract include: • 100% revenue sharing • A selection of wheel containers (weekly pick -up must remain in place) Added materials as recommended by MPCA. The commission also recommended that an article be included in the CityNews about places to recycle textiles. Baker will present the recommendations, along with staff, at the January 11tH Council /Manager meeting. Based on a Star Tribune article, Lundstrom reported that Hennepin County is opening up discussions with cities about organics recycling. The county may be looking for groups to provide input; the Commission expressed an interest in being a part of those discussions. Minutes of the Environmental Commission January 3, 2011 Page 2of2 4. Proaram /Project Updates A. TMDL — The TMDL process for Sweeney Lake has been submitted to the EPA, staff is waiting for a response. Staff is putting together a list of capital projects for the Bassett Creek Water Commission to consider with the TMDL. B. 1/1 — Another letter will be sent to residents in the 2011 PMP area inviting them get an inspection. C. Private Development Update — a. Menards is going for the final PUD approval at the Jan. 4th Council meeting b. Changes in the Golden Valley Commons include MGM Liquor moving to the old Hollywood Video site. A restaurant will be moving into the current MGM site. c. Walgreen's is in the process of relocating businesses where their new site will be on Winnetka. Construction will start in the spring. d. The City's HRA is working with MnDOT to facilitate the sale of the land near 394 and Xenia, to Global One for development of a hotel and apartment building. e. Central Bank is interested in opening up another branch in the old Art Holdings building, along 394. f. Culvers has contacted the City about opening a store along 394 near Majors. 5. Commission Member Council Reports None 6. Other Business The January 24 Ih meeting will be cancelled. Gitelis will be attending a meeting about Golden Valley's 125th anniversary celebration. 7. Adjourn MOVED by Gitelis, seconded by Pawluk, and the motion carried to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:55pm. The next scheduled meeting will be February 28, 2011 at 7:00 pm. January 13, 2011 Directors Present: Directors Absent: Staff: 1. Call to Order Minutes Envision Connection Project Executive Board 7 pm, Brookview Community Center, Conference Room Linda Loomis, Chair, Sharon Glover, Philip Lund, Dean Penk, Marshall Tanick, Blair Tremere Lynn Gitelis, Jim Heidelberg, Cindy Inselmann, Helene Johnson, Luke Weisberg. Sandy Werts. The meeting was called to order at 7:20 pm by Mayor Loomis. 2. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as presented 3. Approval of the Minutes of December 16, 2010 The following changes were made to the minutes: Item 4: Pgh 5. Add to the end of the sentence — "to help clarify the relationship for the transition team ". Pgh 6. Second word, change to "suggested ". Delete "said" and replace with "explained that" in second sentence. Add to end of sentence "but has chosen to use the Human Service foundation to distribute the money ". Pgh 9. Strike. Motion: It was moved by Tanick and seconded by Penk to approve the minutes as amended. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Proposed Community Foundation /Non- Profit a. Transitional Board — Penk reported that the Transition board has not met since December, but will meet before the end of January and should be ready for a city council workshop on the second Tuesday, March 8. Tanick asked when the Foundation would be launched. It said it would be nice to have it ready by mid -May for Valley Day and to have a booth there. He went on to suggest that someone should be found to look at the legal aspects of the Foundation. They should be contacted in advance so they are ready for a review when the paperwork is completed. Loomis will check with city attorney Allen Barnard. She suggested that the city could pay for the review and the Golden Valley Community Events Foundation pay the city back. 5. Bridge Building Activities a. Bridge Builders Quarterly Meeting — winter - Loomis has not received a response about the use of Theodore Wirth Chalet. She also asked if someone would be able to give a tour and talk about the history of the chalet. Werts will contact someone she knows at the Park Board. Other suggestions of locations to hold the meeting include - Allianz, General Mills, Metropolitan Events Center, Honeywell, Highway Patrol, Calvary Church, Library, Churches, Fire Station, Breck, and Post Office. It was suggested that if Theodore Wirth does not work, to look into Calvary Church b. Lilac Planting — January 31 meeting - Werts reported that the first meeting for the Lilac Planting Project will be on January 31. Tanick said that Bachman's celebrated their 125th anniversary last year. It would be nice to get them to be a sponsor for the planting. Loomis and Tremere will not be at the meeting. c. Valley Volunteer Day - Penk said he has not talked to Jennifer Lara lately and has nothing to add. d. Neighbors Helping Neighbors — Werts reported that a "Blitz" is planned for April 30. The agencies involved are trying to get people to use the service. According to Werts, Don and Mary Anderson will be featured in a story in the Golden Valley CityNews encouraging people to use the service. e. Envision Award (Gloria Johnson ?) — Werts sent a memo asking if Hilmer Erickson could submit an application for Gloria Johnson to receive an Envision Award, under the criteria for government service. It was suggested that he submit an application and build a position. The application review would determine if she receives an award. Penk volunteered to work on an article for the paper encouraging nominations for this award. One of the projects of the 125th Anniversary Planning team is developing criteria for a "Golden. Valley Hall of Fame ". Tremere volunteered to join Tanick and Sharon Soike on this committee. Werts will ask Erickson if he wishes to join them in working on this project. Memorial Day Parade — No additional information. Tanick said he will get back to the organizer about the 125th Anniversary. g. Chimney Swift Towers — No additional information — Loomis said she saw something in the Sun Post about the towers. h. Ice Cream Social — Tanick reported that Allen Ackerman of Lupient Olds wants to be more involved. They talked about him providing fans, and Tanick will see if he will print something about the 125th Anniversary activities on the back Tanick is hoping the concert will present music that spans 125 years. i. Buckthorn Busting — No report at this time j. Garden Club /Community Gardens — Loomis received a call from someone interested in starting a Farmers Market in Golden Valley. She will ask her to join Bridge Builders. 6. 125 Anniversary Planning a. Logo Contest — Werts presented the winning logo entries. Nine entries were received for the logo contest. They were judged on January 10. The winning adult and student entries will be featured in the January/February issue of the CityNews. b. Commission Representatives — Werts sent memo's to all the members of city boards and commissions asking them to join the 125th anniversary effort. The Board of Zoning Appeals and the Human Services Foundation are sending representatives. c. Other Information — Tanick made a presentation to the Rotary Board. The League of Women Voters is asking each organization in the city to write an article for the Sun Post and Patch.com. Tanick said he is trying to line up Old Time Baseball and Old Time golf. d. Next Meeting — January 27 — 6:30 pm at Brookview Grill 7. Valley Days — Nothing New to Report. 8. New Business Faith Community Meeting — Loomis is setting up a meeting of the Faith Community. There will be a presentation from Heading Home Hennepin. 9. Communications • Calvary Church — Million Meal Pack -out — A few members of the board joined Loomis at Calvary Church. Their table packed 24 boxes of food. Each box contained 36 bags of the food mixture. 10. Local Business Initiative — No Report 11. Recruitment of Members to Executive Board 12. Next Meeting — Thursday, February 17, at 7 pm at Brookview Community Center. 13.Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by Mayor Loomis at 8:40 pm. GOLDEN VALLEY OPEN SPACE & RECREATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes January 24, 2011 1. Call to Order Sandler called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call Present: Brad Kadue, Kelly Kuebelbeck, Emily Piper, Anne Saffert, Jerry Sandler, Dan Steinberg, Rick Jacobson, Director of Parks and Recreation; and Brian Erickson, Recreation Supervisor, and Sheila Van Sloun, Administrative Assistant. Absent: Roger Bergman and Bob Mattison. 3. Agenda Changes or Additions None made. 4. Approval of Minutes — October 25, 2010 MOTION: MOVED by Saffert and seconded by Steinberg to approve the October 25 meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Recreation Report — Brian Erickson Erickson distributed a list of summer program totals. He said Flag Football was a very popular program with almost double the registration from last year. Due to popularity, he added a second Ultimate Frisbee Camp. Both were very well attended. Three Field Trips were offered with a good increase in registration from last year. He also hired a new Drama Club instructor who is working out very well. He then discussed changes and answered questions from Commissioners. Erickson has been in contact with the Golden Valley Library to look at the possibility of offering a Book Club at the parks next summer. Erickson said the 2010 Fall Soccer programs were well attended. He had eight teams for his junior (K -1St grade) program and twelve youth (2nd -5th grade) teams. He also had sixteen adult teams that played on Friday nights and Sunday afternoons. Erickson said skating rink numbers are good. Rinks were closed around New Year's Eve due to the rain, which prevented the New Year's Eve Family Event from taking place at Scheid Park. He said he has three teams from Golden Valley participating in the Rink Rat program, which is run in cooperation with St. Louis Park, Robbinsdale, New Hope, Plymouth, Hopkins /Minnetonka and Crystal. He also has five Adult Broomball teams this season with games running through February 8th. Kuebelbeck asked if the rinks could be opened earlier than 12:00 PM during winter break. Jacobson said due to budgets and maintenance, that's not an option at this time. Minutes of the Golden Valley Open Space and Recreation Commission January 24, 2011 Page 2 Erickson informed the Commission that the Winter White -Out Dance for youth in grades 5 -7 is being held on Friday, January 28 from 7 -9:30 PM at Crystal Community Center. The program is run in cooperation with New Hope and Robbinsdale. 6. Honeywell Little League Area Jacobson said city staff and Little League will meet to discuss the project. The proposed plans will then be sent to the Bassett Creek Watershed District for approval. Bids are tentatively scheduled to be opened on March 22 with awarding on April 5. Construction will begin in the spring and be completed in 2012. 7. Golden Valley's 125th Anniversary Jacobson said the 125 Anniversary logo contest winners were chosen. Winning the adult category is Bill Collins of Golden Valley. Winning the student category is Oriana Freeman, a Golden Valley resident and student at Robbinsdale Middle School. Nine entries were received from adults and students living, working or going to school in Golden Valley. The logos will be used on written and electronic materials and to brand events that will have a 125th Anniversary component to them. The Golden Valley Historical Society and Hennepin County Library in Golden Valley will be using the logo on upcoming events. Jacobson reminded the Commissioners that the 125th Anniversary Committee is looking for volunteers to help with the events. 8. Valley Days Jacobson announced that Valley Days will be held one day this year on Saturday, May 21 at Brookview Park. The annual art and music festival will include artists exhibiting their works, musicians, children's games, fireworks, a parade, and food. 9. Adjournment MOVED by Kadue and seconded by Steinberg to adjourn at 7:45 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Bassett -Creek Watershed Management Commission Minutes of the Meeting of January 20, 2011 1. Call to Order The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) was called to order at 11:35 a.m., on Thursday, January 20, 2011, at Golden Valley City Hall by Chair Loomis. Ms. Herbert conducted roll call. Roll Call Crystal Commissioner Pauline Langsdorf, Secretary Administrator Geoff Nash Golden Valley Commissioner Linda Loomis, Chair Counsel Charlie LeFevere Medicine Lake Commissioner Ted Hoshal Engineer Len Kremer Minneapolis Alternate Commissioner Lisa Goddard Recorder Amy Herbert Minnetonka Commissioner Bonnie Harper -Lore New Hope Alternate Commissioner Al Sarvi Plymouth Commissioner Ginny Black, Vice Chair Robbinsdale Absent St. Louis Park Commissioner Jim deLambert Note: Commissioner Sicora of Robbinsdale and Commissioner Welch of Minneapolis arrived after roll call Also present: Derek Asche, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Plymouth Bill Bleckwenn, McGhie & Betts Environmental Services, Inc. Pat Byrne, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Minneapolis Lois Eberhart, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Minneapolis Jack Frost, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Lisa Goddard, Alternate Commissioner, City of Minneapolis Lee Gustafson, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Minnetonka Dave Hanson, Alternate Commissioner, City of Golden Valley Justin Klabo, SEH, Inc. Tom Mathisen, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Crystal Jeff Oliver, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Golden Valley John O'Toole, Alternate Commissioner, City of Medicine Lake Justin Riss, Alternate Commissioner, City of St. Louis Park Wayne Sicora, Alternate Commissioner, City of Robbinsdale Liz Stout, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Minnetonka Liz Thornton, Alternate Commissioner, City of Plymouth Larry Wacker, SWB, Inc. 2. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda Chair Loomis removed the financial report from the Consent Agenda and added an invoice to Agenda Item 4C — presentation of Invoices for Payment Approval. She said the invoice being added was an invoice from Kennedy & Graven for its December services. Commissioner Black moved to approve the Agenda and the Consent Agenda as amended. Alternate Commissioner Goddard seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with eight votes in favor [City of Robbinsdale absent from vote]. 3. Citizen Input on Non - Agenda Items No citizen input on non - agenda items. 4. Administration A. Presentation of the December 16, 2010, BCWMC meeting minutes. The December 16, 2010, meeting minutes were approved under the Consent Agenda. B. Presentation of the Financial Statement. Chair Loomis requested that the Commission delay its discussion of the financial report until after the Commission's Treasurer, Commissioner Welch, arrived for the meeting. The Commission agreed. The general and construction account balances reported in the January 2011 Financial Report are as follows: Checking Account Balance 471,134.90 TOTAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE 458,429.92 Construction Account Cash Balance 3,186,922.07 Investment due 5/13/2015 508,918.39 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT BALANCE 3,695,840.46 -Less: Reserved for CIP projects 3,815,469.11 Construction cash/ investments available for projects (119,628.65) C. Presentation of Invoices for Payment Approval. Invoices• i. Kennedy & Graven —Legal Services through November 30, 2010 -invoice for the amount of $1,189.20. ii. Barr Engineering Company — Engineering Services through December 31, 2010 - invoice for the amount of $40,367.08. iii. Watershed Consulting, LLC — Geoff Nash Administrator Services through December 31, 2010 — invoice for the amount of $3,000.00. iv. Amy Herbert — December Recording Administrator Services - invoice for the amount of $3,921.27. v. D'amico Catering — January Meeting Catering - invoice for the amount of $448.41. vi. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services — 2010 CAMP Participation - invoice for the amount of $4,150.00. vii. JASS — BCWMC Portion of WMWA Administrative Costs for 2010 — invoice for the amount of $2,018.56. viii. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board — 2010 WOMP Costs — invoice for the amount of $1,931.00. ix. Hennepin County Environmental Services — 2010 River Watch — invoice for the amount of $2,000. x. Rice Creek Watershed — 2010 Blue Thumb Membership — invoice for the amount of $1,000. #249923 v1 2 BCWMC January 20, 2011 Meeting Minutes xi. Prairie Moon Nursery — Education and Outreach — Native Seed Packets - $269.33. xii. JASS - Education and Outreach — Printed Labels for Seed Packets — invoice for the amount of $22.50. xiii. State Register — Public Communications — Request for Letters of Interest — invoice for the amount of $69.40. xiv. CNA Surety — Annual Bond/ Policy — invoice for the amount of $100. xv. City of Golden Valley — 2010 Financial Services Fee — invoice for the amount of $3,000. xvi. Kennedy & Graven —Legal Services through December 31, 2010 —invoice for the amount of $908.29. Commissioner Black moved to approve payment of all 16 invoices. Alternate Commissioner Goddard seconded the motion. By call of roll the motion carried unanimously with eight votes in favor [City of Robbinsdale absent from vote]. D. Resolution 11 -01 to Appoint the BCWMC's Official Depositories. Chair Loomis stated that Resolution 11 -01 appoints the BCWMC's Official Depositories as RBC Dain Rauscher, Wells Fargo, and the 4M Fund. Commissioner deLambert moved approval of Resolution 11 -01. Commissioner Black seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with eight votes in favor [City of Robbinsdale absent from vote]. E. Resolution 11 -02 to Reimburse the BCWMC 2.5% of the 2010 tax levy for the BCWMC's 2010 administrative expenses associated with CIP projects and to approve transfer of the funds from the CIP Account to the Administrative Account. Commissioner Black asked if staff tracks how closely this reimbursement correlates to the actual CIP project administrative expenses. Chair Loomis said that she would need to check with Deputy Treasurer Sue Virnig. Commission Black requested that the Commission discuss at a future meeting the actual amount that the BCWMC spent on CIP administrative expenses in fiscal year 2010 and how it correlates with the 2.5% reimbursement of tax levy funds. Chair Loomis directed Administrator Nash to work with Sue Virnig to determine the amount and to bring it to the Commission at a future meeting. Commissioner Black moved to approve Resolution I1 -02. Alternate Commissioner Goddard seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with eight votes in favor [City of Robbinsdale absent from vote]. [Commissioner Sicora arrives] F. 2011 Blue Thumb Partners' Agreement. Commissioner Langsdorf provided a summary of the Blue Thumb program. Commissioner Black moved to approve the Commission's participation in the 2011 Blue Thumb program, to fund the Commission's participation at the level budgeted for in the Commission's 2011 budget, to accept and sign the Partner's Agreement, and for the Education Committee to discuss the agreement further and to bring any concerns back to the Commission at a future meeting. Alternate Commissioner Goddard seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with nine votes in favor. G. Approval of Contract with MMKR — Certified Public Accountants — for Annual Audit. Commissioner Black commented that the proposed cost seemed high and she asked if the Commission has gone out for bids to see if the Commission could get better prices. Chair Loomis said that the Commission has not gone out for bids. She added that MMKR is the firm that conducts the audit for the City of Golden Valley and so the bid is a combined bid for the audit of the Commission and the audit of the #249923 v1 3 BCWMC January 20, 2011 Meeting Minutes City of Golden Valley, which makes the price cheaper. Commissioner Goddard asked if the Commission is happy with MMKR's performance. Chair Loomis said that the City of Golden Valley is happy with MMKR's services. Commissioner Black moved for the Commission to accept the contract with MMKR for the audit. Commissioner Harper -Lore seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with nine votes in favor. H. Education & Outreach Committee: Request to Participate in 2011 WMWA Costs for Seminars and Consideration of WMWA invoice for 2011 seminars. Discussion of this item was delayed to later in the agenda after Commissioner Welch arrived. 5. New Business A. Letters of Interest for Legal and Engineering and Technical Services. Commissioner Black moved to direct the BCWMC's Administrative Services Committee to review the nine proposals with input from the Technical Advisory Committee on the technical aspects of the proposals. Alternate Commissioner Goddard seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with nine votes in favor. B. Wirth Lake 2010 Improvements. Mr. Kremer stated that there were several people in attendance from the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board's consultant team for the project. Larry Wacker of SWB, Inc., the project manager, introduced himself as did Mr. Bill Bleckwenn, wetland consultant from McGhie and Betts Environmental Services, Inc., and Mr. Justin Klabo of SEH's Water Resources Division. Mr. Kremer described the improvements that are being proposed by the Wirth Lake Site Improvement Master Plan. He explained that the proposed improvements to be constructed in 2011, as detailed in the January 12th Engineer's memo from Barr Engineering, include: • Beach parking lot reconstruction • Bituminous and concrete paths • Boardwalks on helical piers • Bituminous access drive and ADA parking at the existing pavilion • Addition of sand within the Wirth Beach swim area • Wetland replacement west of the existing beach parking lot • Bio- retention basin for treatment of stormwater runoff upstream of the wetland; and, • Wet pond for treatment of Highway 55 runoff. He noted that other improvements would be constructed in 2012 and 2013. Mr. Kremer reported that the improvements proposed for construction in 2011 would result in an increase in impervious surface of 0.98 acres and the total proposed project construction would add 4.23 acres of impervious surface. He explained that a variety of BMPs (best management practices) are proposed to mitigate for the proposed increase in impervious surface. He said the proposed BMPs for the entire master plan include two bioretention basins, a wet pond, and pervious pavers and that one of the bioretention basins would be constructed in a subsequent phase. Mr. Kremer said that there is a current total phosphorus load to the watershed in this site of 12.3 pounds and the increase in phosphorus load due to the construction of the entire project would raise that amount to 14.9 pounds. He stated that all of the proposed BMPS with this project would remove over 20 pounds of phosphorus, which is a significant increase over the required removal amount. Mr. Kremer reminded the Commission that one of the ponds being proposed in this project was proposed to be constructed by the Commission about four years ago. He explained that although the project was approved by the Commission, the various parties involved couldn't work out a maintenance agreement and so the project was never constructed. #249923 v1 4 BCWMC January 20, 2011 Meeting Minutes Mr. Kremer noted that the Commission Engineer included a number of conditions in the memo for the meeting packet about the Wirth Lake 2010 Improvements. He explained that subsequent to the creation of the memo the project team had met all of the conditions except the one regarding preparing a maintenance agreement with the City of Golden Valley for the wet pond, bioretention basin and pervious pavers. Mr. Kremer said that the Commission Engineer recommends approval of the project with the condition that a maintenance agreement be developed and the final plans are submitted to the Commission for final review. Mr. Oliver added that the City of Golden Valley is drafting a maintenance agreement and will be meeting with the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board to discuss it. Commissioner Harper - Lore asked about Mn/DOT's role. Mr. Kremer said that when the Commission was considering constructing the wet pond four or so years ago and had asked for Mn/DOT's participation Mn/DOT had offered a recommendation that the Commission apply to its grant program. He said that the Commission did apply but did not receive the grant. Mr. Kremer said that Mn/DOT's issue over maintenance is that Mn/DOT doesn't want to leave its property and the pond wasn't going to be constructed on its property. Mr. Oliver remarked that the cost to obtain permanent easements is too high. Commissioner Black moved to approve the project on the condition of the development of a maintenance agreement. Commissioner Harper -Lore seconded the motion. Chair Loomis mentioned that in a phone call with Commission Engineer Jim Herbert he had mentioned a concern about a potential impact on the floodplain that should be reviewed by the City. Mr. Kremer replied that the Commission doesn't regulate the floodplain in the area of the phase I of the project but there is a chance that the parts of the project proposed to be constructed in 2012 and 2013 may require floodplain mitigation. Mr. Kremer asked Mr. Bleckwenn if the design for those parts of the project is developed enough yet to determine potential impact on the floodplain. Mr. Bleckwenn responded that they are still looking at design options but that they would try to avoid a design that would require fill in the floodplain. Mr. Kremer remarked that the other condition the Commission Engineer recommends besides the development of a maintenance agreement is that the final plans be submitted to the Commission. Commissioner Black made a friendly amendment to her motion to add that the final project plans be submitted to the Commission. Commissioner Harper -Lore approved the friendly amendment. The motion carried unanimously with nine votes in favor. 6 Old Business A. TAC Recommendations i. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP ) Project Modification Recommendations. Administrator Nash reported that the TAC reviewed the Commission's CIP table that was revised December 30, 2010, and reviewed the projects that the cities requested be added to the Commission's CIP. He summarized the four projects that the TAC recommends that the Commission add to its CIP for 2012 and the one project that the TAC recommends the Commission add for 2013. Administrator Nash stated that the estimated project costs for the four 2012 projects total $835,000. He reported that the estimated cost for the 2013 project is $196,000. Administrator Nash described the recommended projects, including: • 2012 - The Wirth Lake outlet structure with a project cost of $250,000 minus the $75,000 Clean Water Legacy Grant for the project by BWSR, for a total Commission cost of $175,000. • 2012 - The Main Stem Channel Restoration project with a project cost of $600,000. #249923 v1 BCWMC January 20, 2011 Meeting Minutes 2012 - The Sweeney Lake outlet project in Golden Valley. The feasibility study would be conducted in 2012 at a cost of $10,000 and the entire cost of the project would be approximately $250,000. 2012 - The Schaper Pond project feasibility study at a cost of approximately $50,000. The full scope or project cost estimate of the project have not been determined. 2013 — The Lakeview Pond project in Golden Valley, with a project cost of $196,000. Administrator Nash said that the TAC also recommended that the Commission develop and adopt a process for incorporating projects identified in the TMDL studies into the CIP. He said that the TAC will continue this discussion at the February meeting. Administrator Nash said that Chair Loomis directed him to work with Barr Engineering to identify which of the proposed 2012 - 2013 CIP projects would most likely qualify for BWSR grants and to bring that information in front of the Commission. Mr. Gustafson mentioned that the TAC did not have time to discuss the CIP beyond 2013. He said that the TAC needs to discuss and reach an agreement about the definition of the trunk system to help the TAC make decisions about future CIP projects. ii. Recommendation for BCWMC Representative on MPCA's Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Chloride Project. Administrator Nash announced that the TAC nominated Derek Asche to be the Commission's representative to the MPCA's group and is asking for the Commission's approval of that nomination. iii. Status of Hydrologic and Water Quality Monitoring from Barr. Administrator Nash said that the TAC did not have time to discuss the two memos prepared for the TAC by Barr regarding cost estimates for hydrologic and water quality models and they will be discussed at the next TAC meeting. iv. Administrator Nash stated that the February 3 d TAC meeting will be rescheduled due to a conflict on that date for several TAC members. Chair Loomis added that the Commission needs a volunteer liaison for the TAC's February meeting. Commissioner Black said that she would like to attend if she can and to update her on the meeting date. [Commissioner Welch arrived] Commissioner Black moved to approve the four projects recommended by the TAC. Commissioner Harper -Lore seconded the motion. Commissioner Black amended her motion to approve the five projects recommended by the TAC. Commissioner Harper -Lore approved the friendly amendment. Commissioner Black asked for staff to comment or to prepare for a Commission discussion on the idea of using reserve construction funds for the two feasibility studies instead of levying for the costs of the studies. Mr. Kremer said that typically feasibility studies use construction funds that the Commission raises through the ad valorem tax request to the County. Commissioner Black asked staff to prepare information for a discussion of using reserve construction funds for the feasibility studies instead of being reimbursed for those costs and for staff to bring the information in front of the Commission the next time the projects are on the Commission's agenda. The motion carried unanimously with nine votes in favor. [Commissioner Welch took over as Acting Commissioner for the City of Minneapolis] Commissioner Black moved to approve Derek Asche as the BCWMC's representative to the MPCA's Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Chloride Project. Commissioner deLambert seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with nine votes in favor. #249923 v1 BCWMC January 20, 2011 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Welch moved for staff to assess the need for a major or minor plan amendment and to initiate the processes for the five projects the Commission has added to its CIP. Commissioner Black seconded the motion. Mr. Kremer requested the Commission's approval for the Commission Engineer to discuss with Counsel whether the Sweeney Lake Outlet structure project would require a plan amendment because it is a flood control maintenance project and could be paid for out of Long -Term Maintenance Fund. Mr. Kremer said that the TAC's intention regarding the recommendation to the Commission to move forward with the Sweeney Lake Outlet Structure project was to fund the project through the Long -Term Maintenance Fund. Commissioner Welch said that staff will come back to the Commission next month with an analysis of what plan amendments will be needed. The motion carries unanimously with nine votes in favor. 4. Administration (Continued) B. Presentation of the Financial Statement. Chair Loomis announced that the Commission had received information from the Commission Engineer regarding the status of the 2010 Engineering Budget. She said the Commission Engineer is requesting the Commission's approval to exceed the 2010 Engineering Budget so it can complete any necessary January work and prepare for the next TAC meeting. Mr. Kremer went through a list of items that were directed to the Commission Engineer that had not been anticipated at the time of setting the 2010 budget. The Commission discussed the status of the fiscal year 2010 budget. Chair Loomis mentioned that the Commission carries a fund balance with a year or a half year's worth of operating costs. Commissioner Black commented that the Commission will want to discuss its practices on tracking its budget and perhaps it would be part of the policy manual discussion. Mr. Kremer stated that there may be some accounting details that need to be identified and worked out with Sue Virnig so that the Commission Engineer's work on CIP projects and the Twins Stadium project are charged and allocated correctly and are reflected correctly in the financial report. Commissioner Sicora moved for the staff to adjust the financial report to properly reflect the Twins Stadium and CIP project work and for the Commission to just adjust the budget as needed to in order to accurately reflect the costs expended in fiscal year 2010. Commissioner Welch seconded the motion and added that he thinks the Administrator needs to coordinate things as efficiently as possible to be very clear about what the Commission needs to do and any possible effects on the 2011 budget. Commissioner Welch said that Barr Engineering had proposed to delay its billing for work conducted in January until February. Mr. Kremer said that the proposal may not be acceptable to the auditors and added that he thinks that if the Twins Stadium and the CIP project work is reviewed and allocated correctly in the financial report then the Engineering budget will come in very close to the budget set by the Commission. Mr. LeFevere commented that the Commission's budget is a working document and that all of the line items will likely be either under or over the budget for those items. He said that the Commission often makes decisions about which budget line to take funds from and the Commission may not be making clear footnotes about those decisions. Mr. LeFevere commented that the Commission's budget philosophy lately has been to eliminate contingency budget lines and instead to use the reserve fund for unanticipated expenses. He said that if the Commission uses reserve funds then the Commission would have a decision to make on whether it would replenish the reserve fund. Commissioner Sicora said that the exercise that the Commission should take is for it to do an adjustment at the end of the year so that it has an accurate picture of its fiscal year 2010 #249923 vl 7 BCWMC January 20, 2011 Meeting Minutes expenditures. Commissioner deLambert asked for the motion to be repeated. Ms. Herbert recapped the Commission's discussion and added that the Commission hasn't made a clear decision on how to amend Commissioner Sicora's motion. Commissioner Sicora withdrew his motion. Commissioner Welch moved to authorize the Commission Engineer to complete the work that needs to be completed in the month of January and to delay any work that can be delayed until after January. Commissioner Black seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with nine votes in favor. Commissioner Black moved to receive and file the financial report. Commissioner Welch seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with nine votes in favor. [Commissioner Harper -Lore departed the meeting.] H. Education and Outreach Committee Request to Participate in 2011 West Metro Watershed Alliance Seminars. Commissioner Langsdorf remarked that in 2010 the Commission paid for both the 2009 and the 2010 costs for participating in River Watch, so the Commission paid $2,000 more than it had budgeted for its Watershed Education Partnerships. Commissioner Langsdorf also noted that the Commission extended its contract with Meadowbrook Elementary for the education grant until May 2011 and it will be responsible for paying that grant out of the Commission's 2011 budget. Commissioner Langsdorf summarized the seminars being proposed by the West Metro Watershed Alliance (WMWA). She stated that the BCWMC's portion of the costs to participate in the workshops would amount to approximately $2,969.50. Commissioner Langsdorf explained that the $2,969.50 cost was not included in the Commission's 2011 Education budget and that the Education Committee is requesting that the Commission decide whether it will participate in the seminars at the cost of $2,969.50. She said that the Education Committee did not use all of the 2010 Education budget and that the Committee would like the Commission to use those leftover 2010 Education funds to fund the WMWA seminar costs. Chair Loomis said that the unused education budget from 2010 would go into the Commission's reserve and the WMWA costs could be paid from the reserve and the Commission wouldn't need to adjust the budget and instead would just authorize the Deputy Treasurer to pay it. The Commission discussed the invoice submitted by WMWA for the seminars and whether the Commission would want to pay it now before the work on the seminars is done or if the Commission would want to be invoiced after the services have been rendered. Commissioner Langsdorf said what she needs is authorization by the Commission to pay for its portion of the costs of the seminars. Commissioner Welch said he thinks the Commission needs an amendment to its contract with WMWA. Commissioner Black responded that she didn't see that an amendment is necessary. She moved for the Commission to approve its commitment to the WMWA workshops in the amount of $2,969.50 and to pay for the services as they are performed. Alternate Commissioner Sarvi seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with eight votes in favor [City of Minnetonka absent from vote]. Chair Loomis mentioned that she had been asked to bring an idea to the Commission for its consideration for its 2012 budget, which is the idea of using BCWMC Education funds to fund commissioner education. 6. Old Business (Continued) B. BCWMC Comments on Mn/DOT's Environmental Assessment/ EA Worksheet for its #249923 vl 8 BCWMC January 20, 2011 Meeting Minutes Interstate 494 Expansion Project in Minnetonka, Plymouth, & Maple Grove. Mr. Kremer summarized the project and explained that it would result in an increase of 13.9 acres of impervious surface in the Bassett Creek Watershed. He explained that the Commission's policy for corridors of this type is pretty similar to what Mn/DOT is proposing. Mr. Kremer said that the Commission's policy says that the Commission realizes how difficult it is to integrate BMPs along transportation corridors because of the need for right -of -ways. He said that the Commission's policy states that the Commission will work with the entity proposing the corridor to address the water quality issues to the maximum extent possible. Mr. Kremer reported that the draft Medicine Lake TMDL states that Mn/DOT's phosphorus reduction in the watershed will be 26 pounds out of the total reduction of 1,287 pounds. Mr. Kremer reminded the Commission that when it had asked Mn/DOT for participation in water quality measures Mn/DOT responded that it can only participate when it is building a highway. He recommended that the Commission send comments back to Mn/DOT asking that in light of the TMDL that Mn/DOT work to achieve as much of that 26 pounds reduction of phosphorus that it can as part of this corridor project. Commissioner Sicora commented that he attended the public meeting on this project and that he was disappointed that the Mn/DOT water resources engineer wasn't there. He added that the information from Barr Engineering included in the packet is consistent with Shingle Creek Watershed' comments. He said Shingle Creek's comments on the EA/ EAW also include comments on chloride. Commissioner Welch asked for a clarification of the Commission Engineer's recommended comments. Mr. Kremer said the Commission Engineer's recommendation is that the Commission's comments request that Mn/DOT work to achieve the 26 pound reduction of phosphorus in addition to no load from the 13.9 acres of increased impervious surface. Chair Loomis added that Commissioner Sicora requested that the Commission address chloride in its comments as well. Commissioner Black asked that the Commission's comments also address volume. She also said that it may make sense to coordinate comments with the cities of Plymouth and Minnetonka as well as with the other watersheds involved. Commissioner Welch said that he would like to see the comments beefed up on the topics of infiltration, run off, and volume and that for expediency sake he would like the Commission to cc the cities and the other watersheds involved. Commissioner Welch moved to direct staff to draft a letter of comments to Mn/DOT as amended in this discussion and to add comments regarding volume control, additional phosphorus loading in the Medicine Lake subwatershed, and chloride, and to carbon copy the other watershed cities. Commissioner Black seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with eight votes in favor [City of Minnetonka absent from vote]. C. Wirth Lake Outlet Modification Clean Water Legacy Grant Update. Administrator Nash reported that the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) asked for a clean water story. He said that story was a summary of the Wirth Lake Outlet Structure project, which he submitted to BWSR along with photographs of the structure and that will be posted online. He said it is a public relations tool so that the public knows where its money is being spent. Administrator Nash said he will let the Commission know when the information is available online and where. He said that the project's work plan is due on March 31s' and that he is wondering who should write the plan. He said he would like to do it. Commissioner Welch moved to direct Administrator Nash to prepare the work plan for submittal to BWSR. Commissioner Black seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with eight votes in favor [City of Minnetonka absent from vote]. The Commission directed staff to put the draft work plan on the February meeting agenda for #249923 v1 9 BCWMC January 20, 2011 Meeting Minutes Commission review. Administrator Nash reported that he anticipates exceeding his $3,000 budget for his January work. The Commission did not object. D. Next Generation Planning Process. Chair Loomis recommended postponing the discussion until the Commission's March or April meeting but added that if any commissioner has input he or she should forward that input on to Administrator Nash. E. Education Committee: BCWMC's Web Site. Commissioner Langsdorf stated that the Education Committee made recommendations for updates to the BCWMC's education portion of the Web site and has passed them onto Ms. Herbert to make the changes online. Commissioner Langsdorf said that the Committee recommends that if the Commission wants changes beyond the Education Committee's recommendations then the Commission should set up a Web site Committee. Chair Loomis noted that committee members don't need to be Committee members and perhaps the Commission could request public participation in a Web site task force. Commissioner Welch commented that he thinks that the Web site serves his needs and asked about what shortcomings others may see about the Web site. Commissioner Hoshal said he could put together a memo about it for the February meeting. 7. Communications A. Chair: i. Chair Loomis reported that Administrator Nash asked if the Commission should be e- mailed the TAC meeting agendas and she told him that it would be helpful for the entire Commission to receive the TAC agenda and meeting materials. ii. Chair Loomis announced that next month's meeting is the organizational meeting and the Commission will select its officers. She asked Commissioners to consider whether they would be interested in volunteering for one of the officer roles. B. Administrator: i. Administrator Nash announced that BWSR wants a Clean Water Grant Fund logo displayed on all of its grant projects so that taxpayers know where their money is being spent. He said that the cities of Plymouth and Golden Valley have been provided with the logo. ii. Administrator Nash reported that the BCWMC's policy manual will be reviewed at the Administrative Services Committee meeting immediately following this Commission meeting. iii. Administrator Nash said he will straighten out the date for the February TAC meeting. iv. Administrator Nash said that Alternate Commissioner Dave Hanson has co- authored or will co- author an article with David Austin of CH2MHil1 on Whole Lake Aeration in the periodical "Land and Reservoir Management ". v. Administrator Nash stated that he has provided the Commission with the full River Watch report and that the Bassett Creek sites received a "C" grade. C. Commissioners: i. Commissioner Welch reminded the Commission that it shouldn't copy a -mails across the Commission because of the Open Meeting Law. ii. Commissioner Black discussed the Lost Lake Vegetative Management Plan and said that there are two places in the plan where the Commission may want to make comments. She said that #249923 vl 10 BCWMC January 20, 2011 Meeting Minutes she would do a first draft of comments and will submit them to Barr Engineering for the Commission Engineer's review and additional comments. She requested that the item be added to the February meeting agenda. The Commission agreed with that direction. iii. Commissioner Black introduced Resolution 11 -03, "A Resolution of Appreciation for the Services of Elizabeth Thornton to the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission." Commissioner Black moved to adopt the motion. Commissioner Langsdorf seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with eight votes in favor [City of Minnetonka absent from vote]. iv. Commissioner Sicora commented that he will forward to Ms. Herbert to e-mail out to the Commission two items: 1. The American Society of Civil Engineers draft Web publication directed to practitioners in the use of sustainability; and, 2. News on a new law signed by the President on January 4th requiring Federal facilities to pay local storm water management fees. D. Committees: Education Committee: i. Commissioner Langsdorf announced that the draft Education and Outreach Plan is nearing completion. ii. Commissioner Langsdorf reported that the seed packets have arrived. iii. Commissioner Langsdorf said that an article written by the Education Committee came out in the Sun Sailor Newspaper and that the Committee had approved Administrator Nash putting his name on it and sending it to the paper for publication. iv. Commissioner Langsdorf said that the next Education and Outreach Committee meeting is January 26th and the next WMWA meeting is the second Tuesday in February. E. Counsel: No Communications. F. Engineer: Mr. Kremer reported that Hennepin County is considering asking the Legislature for Clean Water Legacy money for stream restoration and lake improvement. He commented that it might be worth the Commission's while to make a phone call to a County Commissioner in support of that legislative agenda item. 8 Adjournment Commissioner Welch moved to adjourn the meeting at 2:25 p.m. Commissioner Black seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with eight votes in favor [City of Minnetonka absent from vote]. Linda Loomis, Chair Date Amy Herbert, Recorder Date Pauline Langsdorf, Secretary Date #249923 v1 BCWMC January 20, 2011 Meeting Minutes 11 `Golden Valley Public Works 763- 593 -8030 1763-593-3988 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 15, 2011 Agenda Item 3. E. 1. Purchase Used 6 -Inch Dewatering Pump Prepared By Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Dave Lemke, Utilities Maintenance Supervisor Summary The 2011 -2015 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Water and Sewer budget includes $20,000 for the purchase of one dewatering pump (W &S -050, page 114). The hydraulic dewatering pump scheduled for replacement meets criteria set forth in the City's vehicle replacement policy and Vehicle Condition Index (VCI). The VCI index is a tool utilized to assess all vehicles and equipment scheduled for replacement. Any vehicle /equipment scoring 23 to 27 points meets the category of "qualifies for replacement." A score of 28 points and above meets the category of "needs immediate consideration." The dewatering pump VCI score is 42 points. The pump will be utilized for dewatering flood conditions and for bypassing sanitary sewer flows in emergency situations. The recommended purchase of a used dewatering pump is $10,993 more than anticipated during budget process. However, the portable welder purchased for the Utilities Division from the 2011 -2015 CIP Water and Sanitary Sewer budget was $12,663 less than anticipated. Therefore, staff is recommending utilizing the difference from the welder purchase to offset the increased cost for the used dewatering pump. Staff has received the following bids for new and used Godwin Model CD150M 6 -inch dewatering pumps: New Pump - Ziegler Caterpillar $33,530.69 New Pump - American Tractor & Equipment Co. $35,258.06 Used Pump - Ziegler Caterpillar (2010 Model) $30,993.75 Recommended Action Motion to approve the purchase of one used 2010 Godwin Model CID 150M 6 -inch dewatering pump with approximately 70 logged operational hours, including Minnesota sales tax, in the amount of $30,993.75 from Ziegler Caterpillar, for a savings of $2,536.94 over the cost of a new pump. From: carmen[SMTP:MN1HEIM(a)-AOL.COMj Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 9:08:52 AM To: Shaffer, Bob Cc: k.schaaf .comcast.net; donandcaroland�D-msn.com; wtsteacker@netscape.net; Julie .Sullivan(cpreferredone.com; juliesulli _„comcast.net; m- webinq(cD-mtn.org; gayle(a-swarts.com; Linda. CharlestonCa7ParkNicollet.com; Robin Price(a--)hopkins.k12.mn.us Subject: position on the botteneau light rail line Auto forwarded by a Rule Good morning Bob. As you know we have lived in our wonderful home on what is our sanctuary on Bassett Creek (drive) in Golden Valley for 25 years. Due to the wet lands along the railroad behind St. Margaret Mary's Church, multiple species of owls, hawks, eagles, ducks, geese, turkeys, deer, fox, cranes, birds and turtles and recently a bald eagle make the area their home which we hold in high regard and feel an obligation to defend and protect. Our neighborhood has had meetings concerning this issue and I agreed to bring our position to your attention in hope of your support on this devastating development for us. I have cc'd this em to them should they choose to add comments to you. Ery and I are taken back by what we just happen to hear about: there is a Plan A (most economical) to have light rail invade this wet land, and possibly fill it in and disturbing the environment. I think the council may know about the changes that would happen there certainly more than I do. There seemed to be little information in the news letter regarding this huge issue. Our area already went through having meetings and putting yellow ribbons on the tree's years ago and we thought the point was made. I am stating and requesting to vote no to this plan to support and protect the wet land area in a residential area. I am also asking to vote yes to Plan B, which I understand would put the light rail along Broadway Ave and give the area the advantage of increased development and provide an economic advantage where it is needed as well as a boost to the economy where business development already exists. Please forward this to all council members Carmen Doug herty- Heim,CRC, QRC, M.S. Rehabilitation Consultant Galvin Rehabilitation Services Ph: 612- 281 -0523 fax:763- 521 -2988 This em may contain confidential information for the use of the above designated individuals. Any unauthorized use is prohibited. If you are not the intended individual please reply to sender and delete information. From: Paul Flower [paulflowerlaw @msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:43 AM To: Loomis, Linda; Freiberg, Mike; Pentel, Paula; Scanlon, DeDe; bob .schaffer @ci.golden - valley.mn.us Subject: Dog Licensing Dear Mayor and Council Members, I am a long -time resident of Golden Valley(25 years). I read with interest in today's StarTribune about the successful lobbying of two residents who have influenced the City Council to grant preliminary approval to continuing the dog licensing requirement and to have the fee increased. The article stated that these two gentlemen were the only residents who had weighed in on the issue, and that prior to hearing their view the licensing ordinance would have likely been rescinded. Since the final decision on this matter has not yet been made, I would like to offer my voice to the debate in hopes that you will reconsider this decision before the final approval is given. Personally, I do not see the need for the dog licensing requirement. As the newspaper article stated, many dogs are microchipped and most are vaccinated for rabies. If a dog is picked up by animal control, a microchip will lead authorities to its owner. Likewise, owners can provide evidence of vaccinations if that is an issue. For the amount of time and expense required to process licensing for a small percentage of dogs in the city, it does not seem worthwhile to use the city's staff and resources to administer licensing. What is the number of licenses that are issued annually by the city? If it is a small number, and the city does not enforce the requirement of licensing, what purpose is being served by the ordinance? Are there really any major problems that the city has had that are so troublesome that we need to require licensing? The impression I got from the newspaper article is that the two residents who advocated for the ordinance primarily want it because they might have to pay for non - resident licenses when they use dog parks in surrounding cities. My impression is that Golden Valley is considering retaining its licensing requirement in response to the interests of two people, rather than acting on what the are the city's best interests. Why make the reach of government bigger than it needs to be? Please vote no on this issue when the final decision is made in March. Yours sincerely, Paul W. Flower Attorney at Law Flower & Schutz, PLC 3300 County Road 10, Suite 200 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 763- 560 -2506 www.flowerschutzlaw.com NOTICE: This E -mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.2510 -2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any From: Ross House [agsector @gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 3:23 PM To: Loomis, Linda Cc: Shaffer, Bob; Pentel, Paula; Scanlon, DeDe; mike. freiberg @ci.golden- valley.mn.usl Subject: Dog Licenses I read the article in the West Extra edition of the Star Tribune today about the decision to increase the license fee for dogs in Golden Valley. The lead headline in the business section the same day is "Get ready to swallow price hikes" and details how food costs are going to go up. Stories on the news the past day or two indicate that we may be paying $4 to $5 per gallon for gasoline shortly. I am retired and fully understand the meaning of a fixed income. It seems as though the thinking locally is that another little bite won't be felt. An increase of 150% for a dog license based upon the persuading email from 2 individuals is quite troubling. Perhaps I am the lone voice in the wilderness, but at least want to express that an increase of this magnitude will be felt by my wife and I. $6 is manageable while an increase to $15 is hard to comprehend. I fail to see what this increase will do for me or my dogs. I would.ask that the Council remember that there are residents of Golden Valley on a fixed income and at the very least leave the license fee at $6 per dog. Ross House 1413 Gettysburg Ave N From: Frank Tenczar [frank.tenczar @comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 3:51 PM To: Frank Tenczar Cc: Loomis, Linda; Freiberg, Mike; Pentel, Paula; Scanlon, DeDe; Shaffer, Bob Subject: Re: Dog Licenses It's been almost a week and I have not heard from a single council member. This is more than a little irritating and another reason that after 30+ years in Golden Valley, I am ready to move on. I have never found the city government to be too responsive. I still feel strongly that you should not be in this business. This is an example of big government that adds no value. I know many dog owners who thought this was going away. I will be ure to remind them at the next election. Frank On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:47 AM, Frank Tenczar wrote: > I recently read an article in the GV Post that stated you will be retaining dog licenses and suggested that the fees for these licenses need to be increased to cover costs incurred in handling the licensing process. > This is a far cry from the articles I read several months ago. These articles suggested the primary value created by the licensing process was the ability to locate the owner of a stray dog and that this value had been eclipsed by the increased and widespread usage of microchips. At that time, eliminating the licenses was under consideration. > While I greatly appreciate much of the work of our city government (an example of something really good and well thought out is the pavement management plan), I would suggest that the city get out of the business of licensing animals, especially if they have to increase fees to support this activity. This is a form of 'big government' that is really unnecessary. Instead of increasing fees, consider eliminating them. > Frank Tenczar > 218 - 232 -3427 From: Christi Tenczar [ctenczar @comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 6:26 PM To: Loomis, Linda; freiberg @gmail.com; Scanlon, DeDe; Shaffer, Bob Subject: Dog licensing in Golden Valley I recently read that Golden Valley city council is reconsidering dog licenses and raising the rate to $15. I encourage you to vote NO to dog licenses for Golden Valley. Most responsible dog owners not only keep their dog's immunizations up to date, but microchip their dogs as well. Processing of dog licenses is a waste of taxpayer money and the resident's as well. The fact that you will have to increase the dog license fee to support this activity is very disheartening to responsible citizens and dog owners like myself. Christine Tenczar From: abideidea @gmail.com [abideidea @gmail.com] On Behalf Of George Abide [george @abide- idea.com] Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 10:33 AM To: Loomis, Linda; Freiberg, Mike; Pentel, Paula; Scanlon, DeDe; Shaffer, Bob Subject: Dog License Fee Increase Dear Mayor and City Council, After reading in the Star Tribune that only two people contacted you regarding the recent decision about dog tag fees, I decided to write and let you know my opinion. The reason I didn't write earlier is that, after reading the article in the Sun Post, I was under the impression that dog tag permits were going to be dropped in Golden Valley. I oppose the dog tag fee increase for several reasons. First, our police chief stated that it was not needed and that it consumed considerable staff time. I tend to trust the opinion of someone who works with this problem as part of her daily job. In this environment of budget shortfalls I don't think it is prudent to increase fees to hire more staff to work on an issue that does not seem to be the most pressing need our city has to deal with. Secondly, requiring the tags to reduce the risk of rabies is not an argument understand. Currently dogs are required to be vaccinated, and I have been led to believe that this won't change regardless of the city's position on dog licenses. The current law seems to be working since, although a low percentage of dogs in Golden Valley are licensed, there seems to be no rabies epidemic sweeping our city. Council member Shaffer's quote that "I think its more the feeling of security" doesn't really change the issue. Finally, I believe this amounts to a significant tax increase on dog owners with very little services provided in return. I have no interest in the city spending money to build a dog park, and if one is built I think it should be funded with user fees. I take my dog for walks on a leash, and I responsibly pick up her waste. If the city plans to provide more services to me as a dog owner through these taxes it would only appeal to me if I wanted those services. If some dog owners want those services then we should let them pay for them. For city government to bemoan the difficulties of our economy and how everyone is forced to economize, increasing taxes on dog owners in order to fund more city workers to enforce the law is somewhat hypocritical. I respectfully ask that you reconsider your current position, and follow the police chiefs recommendation to do away with dog licensing in Golden Valley. Sincerely, George Abide 2155 Kelly Drive Golde'n'Vallv� PIT Public Works 763- 593 -8030 / 763- 593 -3988 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 15, 2011 Agenda Item 3. G. Authorize Contract for Professional Services with Prairie Restorations, Inc. for Restoration and Maintenance of Native Plant Communities Prepared By Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Al Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator Summary Staff has requested a proposal from Prairie Restorations, Inc. for professional services related to Restoration and Maintenance of Native Plant Communities adjacent to Golden Valley's designated water quality ponds, wetlands, and creek buffers. There are 22 buffers that are maintained under this contract. The Prairie Restorations, Inc. proposal includes performing controlled burning, integrated pest management, and dormant mowing. The company visits each site monthly during the growing season and performs the native plant maintenance on an as- needed basis. The City has been working with Prairie Restoration, Inc. on the majority of its managed native buffer areas since the spring of 2000. Staff has budgeted $27,000 for this project in the 2011 -12 Adopted Biennial Budget, Storm Sewer Utility's Environmental Control budget (7303.6340, page 98). Attachments Contract for the 2011 Golden Valley Restoration and Maintenance of Native Plant Communities Project No. 11 -13 (10 pages) Recommended Action Motion to authorize the Contract for Professional Services with Prairie Restoration, Inc. for the 2011 Restoration and Maintenance of Native Plant Communities in the amount of $25,350. CONTRACT FOR THE 2011 GOLDEN VALLEY RESTORATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES PROJECT NO. 11 -13 THIS AGREEMENT, entered into the 15th day of March 2011 between the City of Golden Valley, a municipal corporation, existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the City, party of the First Part, and Prairie Restoration, Inc., a C- Corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota hereinafter, called the Consultant, party of the Second Part. ARTICLE 1. The Consultant, for and in consideration of one dollar and other good and valuable consideration received including the payment, or payments herein specified, and by the City to be made, hereby covenants and agrees to furnish all materials, all necessary tools and equipment, and to do and perform all the work and labor necessary for the 2011 Golden Valley Restoration and Maintenance of Native Plant Communities in accordance with the proposal included in Exhibit A. A schedule of work is found in Exhibit B. Should additional work be necessary, the City and Prairie Restoration agree to the rates found in Exhibit C. The Proposal of the Consultant, together with this Contract, shall together constitute the Contract Documents, and herein are referred to as the Contract Documents. ARTICLE 2. The Consultant agrees to commence said work and conclude the same in accordance with the Proposal heretofore filed with the City and in accordance with the time schedule for commencement and completion of the work set forth in the Contract Documents, time being of the essence of this agreement, and to complete said work in every respect to the satisfaction and approval of the City. ARTICLE 3. In consideration of the covenants and agreements stated above, the City agrees to pay the Consultant the sum stated in the Proposal of said Consultant. Installment payments, if any, on account of work done and materials furnished by said Consultant under this Contract and actually in place shall be due and payable on or before ten (10) days after receipt by the Council of the City of: (a) a certificate by the Environmental Coordinator /City Forester that the work has been fully completed and this Contract fully performed by the Consultant and (b) an opinion of the City's attorney that the City is then obligated to pay the sum contracted for herein. ARTICLE 4. The Consultant agrees to hold harmless, indemnify and defend the City, their elected officials, officers, agents, and employees against any and all claims, losses, or damages, including attorneys' fees, arising from, allegedly arising from, or related to, the provision of services under this agreement by the Consultant, its employees, agents or officers. GAPROJECTS \Buffer Maintenance\2011 Contract Info\Prairie Resto 2011 Contract.doc CONTRACT FOR THE 2011 GOLDEN VALLEY RESTORATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES PROJECT NO. 11 -13 ARTICLE 5. The Consultant further agrees to make and maintain insurance coverage for the duration of the project in accordance with the following requirements: Workers Compensation Insurance: A. Statutory Compensation Coverage B. Coverage B — Employers Liability with limits of not less than: $100,000 Bodily Injury per Disease per Employee $500,000 Bodily Injury per Disease Aggregate $100,000 Bodily Injury by Accident Automobile Liability Insurance A. Minimum Limits of Liability: $1,500,000 — Per Occurrence — Bodily Injury and Property Damage Combined Single Limit B. Coverages: X Owned Automobile, if any X Non -Owned Automobile X Hired Automobile X City of Golden Valley named as Additional Insured General Liability Insurance A. Minimum Limits of Liability: $1,500,000 — Per Occurrence $2,000,000 — Annual Aggregate B. Coverages: X Bodily Injury X Property Damage X Personal Injury X_ Blanket Contractual The Consultant further agrees to furnish certificates of the above insurance to the City naming City as an additional insured, not later than ten (10) days after execution of this Contract, and will provide City with written notice ten (10) days prior to cancellation of the policy or any material change in the coverage provided, or in lieu thereof, the Consultant shall keep such policies in full force and effect throughout the term of the Contract. ARTICLE 6. It is understood and agreed by the Consultant that the City, through its authorized agents shall be the sole and final judge of the fitness of the work and its acceptability, and no payment shall be made to the Consultant hereunder until the work shall have been found acceptable by the City through its authorized agents. GAPROJECTS \Buffer Maintenance\2011 Contract Info \Prairie Resto 2011 Contract.doc CONTRACT FOR THE 2011 GOLDEN VALLEY RESTORATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES PROJECT NO. 11 -13 ARTICLE 7. It is understood and agreed by the Consultant that, with respect to all work, the Consultant will keep as complete, exact and accurate an account of the labor and materials used as is possible, and in submitting the final statement will itemize and allocate the costs of said work. ARTICLE 8. All payments to the Consultant shall be made payable to the order of Prairie Restoration, Inc. and the City does not assume and shall not have any responsibility for the allocation of payments or obligations of the Consultant to third parties. ARTICLE 9. The City reserves the right to cancel the award of any contract at any time before the execution of the contract by all parties without any liability against the City. ARTICLE 11. The City may by written notice terminate the Contract or any portion thereof when it is deemed in the City's best interest to do so or the City is unable to adequately fund payment for the Contract because of changes in state fiscal policy, regulations or law; or after finding that for reasons beyond the Consultant's control the Consultant is prevented from proceeding with or completing the Contract work within a reasonable period of time. Termination of the Contract or any portion thereof shall not relieve the Consultant of responsibility for the completed work, nor shall it relieve the Consultant's Sureties of their obligations for and concerning any just claims arising out of the work performed. IN WITNESS HEREOF, both parties hereto have caused this Contract to be signed by their duly authorized officers. THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY Jn Thomas D. Burt, City Manager PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS, INC. ITS GAPROJECT&Buffer Maintenance\2011 Contract Info \Prairie Resto 2011 Contract.doc Exhibit A Prairie Restoration Management Strategies Native landscape management techniques can be divided into five different categories; monitoring, controlled burning, dormant mows, Integrated Plant Management (IPM), and woody vegetation control. Each of these techniques plays a key role in the development and success of a native landscape. Below is a description of each tool and the reasons they are used. Effective management of a restored area is achieved through a variety of management practices. A complete understanding of the various plants' life cycles and growth characteristics is necessary for the proper management decisions to be made. Prairie Restoration's land managers use their experience and knowledge to make these decisions for the betterment and health of the landscapes they care for. Monitoring Monitoring is checking the progress of the planting regularly. The goal is to see what weeds may be coming in that need to be addressed, but also to see how the native plants are growing. Monitoring is perhaps the most important technique land managers use. It allows the manager to make the determination of what other techniques will best benefit the planting. Native plantings change, not only from year to year, but from week to week and month to month. Therefore, it is important to make regular trips through the planting. It is also important to monitor the entire planting, as microenvironments found throughout will grow different species of native plants and weeds. Monitoring is something that can, and should, be done by the City, as well as by the land manager. Prairie Restoration will provide information in the form of a basic field guide, if needed. Controlled Burns Prairies are fire- dependent communities, making controlled burning a very important management tool. Historically, prairie fires would burn periodically. Today, Prairie Restorations, Inc.'s experienced burn crews seek to replicate the process using proper tools and techniques. Burning is typically done every three to four years, beginning once adequate fuel is present. Each site is unique, and the land manager will discuss with you when and why a burn would be a good option. Timing and intensity of burns are very important for controlling various weedy species and promoting the native ones. Spring burns tend to favor the grass species, while fall burns may enhance the flower component. The majority of burns are conducted in the spring, usually during the months of April and May, though some may occur later, depending on the needs of the site. Benefits of GAPROJECTS \Buffer Maintenance\2011 Contract Info\Prairie Scope Exibit A.doc A -1 spring burns include: the alleviation of the accumulation of biomass, a reduction in exotic cool season species, control of woody plants, and the stimulation of earlier growth of native warm season species. Fall burns are also very effective in accomplishing many of these goals. They normally occur in October and November. One negative to fall burning is the loss of winter cover for wildlife species. Fall burns may also be harder to schedule due to wet Minnesota fall weather conditions. Burns should only be conducted by trained crews. Many of the controlled burns conducted today are on a much smaller scale, and in a suburban setting. This creates many challenges for the crews. Smoke is typically the biggest concern. Burns must be conducted with proper wind conditions so smoke does not blow onto busy roadways, or towards buildings. The presence of trees and shrubs in or near the planting must also be taken into account. Before conducting a controlled burn, proper permits must be obtained from the Department of Natural Resources and local authorities. Neighboring residents and businesses will also be notified. Dormant Mows Dormant mows are an alternative to fire, and are frequently done in years when a controlled burn is not scheduled. Dormant mows are conducted when the prairie plants are dormant (not actively growing), as the name suggests. They occur in early spring or late fall, and benefit the prairie by dispersing grass and flower seed and speeding up the breakdown of biomass. Dormant mows also give the prairie a clean look to start or end the season. One consideration when scheduling a dormant mow is soil moisture. Any soil disturbance will promote the growth of weeds, so mows should only be done when the ground is firm enough for the equipment being used. Larger sites are mowed with a tractor and flail mower. Smaller sites may be mowed using weed - whips. Integrated Plant Management (IPM) Integrated Plant Management (IPM) is a combination of many hands -on management techniques used during the growing season. The goal of IPM is to remove unwanted species from the prairie. The method of control used varies by species and density of the weeds. If desired, Prairie Restorations' trained land management crews will visit the site periodically during the growing season to conduct various IPM tasks, as needed on a site -by -site basis. GAPROJECTS \Buffer Maintenance\2011 Contract Info\Prairie Scope Exibit A.doc A-2 Chemical Control • Spot Spraying For perennial weedy species, spot spraying is the primary method of control. Selective spot spraying targets individual plants using backpack sprayers. Because of the accuracy, it is possible to kill weeds intermixed with prairie plants without harming the native forbs and grasses. Chemicals used for spot spraying are "species specific," meaning different chemicals are used for the control of different weedy species. In order to minimize negative impact on a site, the minimum effective rate of the chemicals is used. Weather conditions are always taken into account before applying chemicals to a site. It is not only rain that causes concern. Heat may cause some chemicals to become less effective as the plants shut down to preserve energy. Prairie Restorations Inc.'s crew members are certified pesticide applicators and have been taught the proper techniques for handling and applying the chemicals used. It is not recommended that the homeowner apply chemicals to the site. • Wicking Wicking is another way to apply chemical. Using sponge -like devices, crew members are able to wipe chemicals onto individual or small colonies of weeds. This may be done using small hand - wicks, or larger "hockey- stick - wicks." Wicking is very precise, but may take more time than spot spraying. • Timed Oversprays Timed oversprays are necessary when a large area of the planting contains unwanted perennial plants. The timing is critical. Typically, oversprays are conducted in the early spring or late fall, when native, warm - season plants are dormant. Luckily, many weedy species, such as reed canary grass, are cool - season plants. This means they become active earlier in the spring and remain active later in the fall. Most often, the timed oversprays are conducted using a truck or a tractor with a mounted boom sprayer. If the area is small enough, or there is not adequate vehicle access, it may be done with backpack sprayers. Glyphosate is the preferred chemical, as it is non - selective and good at controlling most broadleaf and grass species. In the spring following an overspray, areas that were sprayed become obvious until the native species start filling them in. Mechanical Control Spot Mowing Spot mowing is typically done with weed - whips. Crew members cut down individual plants, or smaller colonies. While chemicals will kill annual and biennial GAPROJECTS \Buffer Maintenance\2011 Contract InfoTrairie Scope Exibit A.doc A-3 weeds, spot mowing is often the preferred tool. Unlike perennial weeds, in which each plant will grow and flower year after year, annuals and biennials only have a one or two year growing cycle. They flower, produce seed, and die. The weeds persist by producing large amounts of seed that germinate and flower quickly, thereby producing more seed. Due to this growth pattern, mowing at, or just prior to, the flowering stage is an effective method of control by stopping the seed production. Spot mowing may also be used to stop perennials from spreading seed. However, spot mowing is not enough to kill perennial weedy species. It will delay the spread, but eventually another control method, such as spot spraying or controlled burning, will be required. • Complete Site Mows Complete site mows are most often done on newly seeded projects. In the first growing season, three to four complete mows may be necessary. The main purpose of a complete site mowing is to prevent weeds from producing a closed canopy and blocking out the light from the native seedlings. Plants are usually allowed to grow to 12 -18" in height before being mowed. Flail mowers are used because they can be easily adjusted to different mowing heights. Typically, a height of 6 -8" is desired. If the vegetation is cut too short, it exposes the young prairie plants to extreme heat and drying conditions and may inhibit growth. • Hand weeding and chopping Hand weeding and chopping will be completed by Prairie Restoration when needed. GAPROJECTS\Buffer Maintenance\2011 Contract Info \Prairie Scope Exibit A.doc A-4 EXHIBIT B Golden Valley Native Plant Buffer Maintenance 2011 Park / Nature Area Spring Burn Spring Dormant Mow IPM Total (plus tax Adeline Nature Area 910 Adeline Lane $350.00 $350.00 Bassett Creek Park Pond 2130 Zane Avenue N $650.00 $650.00 Boone Ave Pond 710 Boone Avenue $750.00 1 $800.00 $1,550.00 Brookview Park Ponds 3 200 Brookview Parkway) $600.00 $2,500.00 $3,100.00 General Mills Nature Preserve (SW Comer of HWY 169 & 55 ) $1,150.00 $3,000.00 $4,150.00 Golden Meadows Pond 7900 Valders Court $400.00 $400.00 Golden Ridge Pond 1700 Gettysburg Court $400.00 $400.00 Hampshire Park Pond 1610 Louisiana Avenue N $350.00 $650.00 $1,000.00 Golden Hills Pond 6000 Golden Hills Drive [No $400.00 $750.00 $1,150.00 Medley Park Pond 2331 Ensign Avenue N cost $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Minna ua Pond 2120 Toledo Avenue N $175.00 $300.00 $475.00 Minna ua Nature Area 5222 Minna ua Drive $350.00 $1,250.00 $1,600.00 2120 Regent Ave. and 4981 Westbend Rd. Buffers $1,500 $1,500 Sandbur Pond 7100 Sandbur Road $775.00 $750.00 $1,525.00 Scott Ave. Pond 2605 Scott Avenue N $750 $750 Schaper Park Pond 631 Ottowa Avenue N $1,050.00 $850.00 $1,900.00 S. Tyrol Hills Pond 1345 Tyrol Trail $250.00 $550.00 $800.00 Sweeny Branch Stabilization 225 King Creek Road $750.00 $950.00 $1,700.00 Xenia Pond NW Corner of Xenia Ave. S. and Laurel Ave. $550.00 $1,100.00 $1,650.00 Total $25,350.00 GAPROJECTSBuffer Maintenance\2011 Contract Info\E )dbit B & C.doc EXHIBIT C 2011 PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT BILLING RATES Prices Subject to change in 2012 Labor Costs: $64 1hr. (including pro -rated travel time) Travel Mileane: (Travel mileage one way only) $0.48 /mile - light duty trucks $0.75 /mile - trucks/trailer /w /equip. Equipment Costs: $15 /hr. - Small power equipment use $40 /hr. Large tractor /mower use $40 /hr. ATV use Material Costs: Herbicides: Garlon 3A8 - $1.10 /oz Garlon 40 - $1.25/oz Rodeo® - $0.55/oz Roundup® - $0.55/oz Transline@ - $3.50 /oz Vanquish® - $1.05 /oz GAPROJECTMuffer Maintenanoe\2011 Contract Info\Exibit B & C.doc "Golden Public Works 763 - 593 -8030 / 763 - 593 -3988 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 15, 2011 Agenda Item 3. H. Resolution Supporting Complete Streets and Directing Staff to Continue to use Established Plans and Policies Supporting Transportation Systems for all Users Prepared By Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Mark Ray, EIT Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Summary Golden Valley has a long tradition of providing a safe and efficient transportation system for all users. This philosophy is demonstrated through considerations for all users from project planning and development through construction and maintenance. Examples of planning and development activities include the Envision Golden Valley initiative, City Sidewalk Plan, and most recent Comprehensive plan. Construction efforts include the construction of sidewalks and trails as part of street reconstruction projects, regional trail connections in the City, and pedestrian crossing improvements at a regional transit facility. Once facilities have been built, Golden Valley demonstrates its continued effort to support multi -modal transportation through ongoing maintenance efforts such as sidewalk repairs in the summer and snow removal from both streets and sidewalks during the winter. Other communities and agencies in Minnesota have adopted Complete Streets policies, resolutions, or plans. Statewide, at least 16 communities and agencies have addressed Complete Streets. By adopting this resolution supporting Complete Streets, Golden Valley would be joining with communities in formally acknowledging the Complete Streets concept that Golden Valley has been practicing in existing plans, procedures, and projects for years. Attachments Letter from Gail Dorfman, Chair of Hennepin County Health and Human Services Committee, Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, dated January 19, 2011 (1 page) Resolution Supporting Complete Streets and Directing Staff to Continue to Use Established Plans and Policies Supporting Transportation Systems for all Users (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Supporting Complete Streets and Directing Staff to Continue to Use Established Plans and Policies Supporting Transportation Systems for all Users. FAX: 612- 348 -8701 TDD: 612- 348 -7708 BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A -240U GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487 -0240 January 19, 2011 Dear Mayor Loomis and Golden Valley City Council Members: As Hennepin County commissioners, and chairs of the County Board's Health and Human Services Committee /Active Living Hennepin County, and Budget and Capital Investment Committee, we are pleased to write this letter in support of the City of Golden Valley's adoption of a Complete Streets policy. Golden Valley has been an integral member of our Active Living Hennepin County (ALHC) partnership since 2006, and adopting a Complete Streets policy would reinforce the vision, mission and guiding principles of this partnership. Hennepin was the first county in Minnesota to enact a Complete Streets policy. Complete Streets supports active living policies by providing a safe, efficient, balanced and environmentally sound transportation system. We also foresee many local community benefits in the adoption and long- term success of a municipal Complete Streets policy and its implementation. As the City of Golden Valley develops its Complete Streets policy, we thought it would be helpful to share key elements the city might consider: • A focus on connectivity and creating an integrated network for all modes of transportation. • The project exemption process is clearly outlined within the policy. F=ew reasons for exemptions are allowed and require high -level approval and documentation. • Requirements that the design of new or reconstructed facilities anticipate future demand for walking, bicycling, and transit. This especially applies to projects with long life spans, such as bridges. • Clear performance standards and implementation strategies are laid out. • Clear strategies for interagency cooperation to ensure that Complete Streets designs are considered for all transportation projects within a community. Thank you for your continued support and involvement in the Active Living Hennepin County partnership. We look forward to welcoming the City of Golden Valley into the growing ranks of Complete Streets communities. Sincerely, Gait Dorfman Chair, Hennepin County Health and Human Services Committee C"�hair, Active Living Hennepin County / ( , _ Mark Stengle, Vice - m m Chair, Budget and Capital Investment Committee Resolution 11 -8 March 15, 2011 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING COMPLETE STREETS AND DIRECTING STAFF TO CONTINUE TO USE ESTABLISHED PLANS AND POLICIES SUPPORTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS FOR ALL USERS WHEREAS, the "Complete Streets" concept promotes streets that are safe and convenient for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motor vehicle drivers of all ages and abilities; and WHEREAS, the National Complete Streets Coalition recognizes that complete streets policies include the following elements: 1. Includes a vision for how and why the community wants to complete its streets; 2. Specifies that `all users' includes pedestrians, bicyclists and transit passengers of all ages and abilities, as well as trucks, buses and automobiles; 3. Encourages street connectivity and aims to create a comprehensive, integrated, connected network for all modes; 4. Is adoptable by all agencies to cover all roads; 5. Applies to both new and retrofit projects, including design, planning, maintenance, and operations, for the entire right of way; 6. Makes any exceptions specific and sets a clear procedure that requires high -level approval of exceptions; 7. Directs the use of the latest and best design criteria and guidelines while recognizing the need for flexibility in balancing user needs; 8. Directs that complete streets solutions will complement the context of the community; 9. Establishes performance standards with measurable outcomes; 10. Includes specific next steps for implementation of the policy; and WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley recognizes the importance of supporting safe and efficient transportation networks for all users as demonstrated by the following adopted plans and policies: 1. Envision Golden Valley; 2. City of Golden Valley Sidewalk Plan; 3. City of Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan; 4. City of Golden Valley Pavement Management Policy; 5. City of Golden Valley Trail and Sidewalk Policy which references the Americans with Disabilities Act; 6. City of Golden Valley Trail and Sidewalk Maintenance Policy; 7. City of Golden Valley Public Participation program for Pavement Management Projects; 8. State of Minnesota Department of Transportation Municipal State Aid Standards; 9. City of Golden Valley Capital Improvement Plan; 10. City of Golden Valley Biennial Budget; Resolution 11 -8 - Continued March 15, 2011 11. Features included in City street construction projects, including features to provide a transportation system that meets the needs of disabled users consistent with state and federal requirements; and WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley has partnered extensively with Hennepin County and the Three Rivers Park District on both local and regional sidewalk and trail planning and construction projects; and WHEREAS, neighboring communities, Hennepin County, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation have adopted Complete Streets policies or resolutions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Golden Valley encourages the continued effort to create a balanced transportation system, through appropriate planning, that integrates multiple transportation modes, where appropriate, for transportation users of all types, ages, and abilities. 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. Golden Valley Memorandum Planning 763- 593 -8095 / 763- 593 -8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 15, 2011 "60 Days" Deadline: April 6, 2011 Agenda Item 3. I. Approval of Plat - Fretham Eleventh Addition Prepared By Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Summary At the February 15, 2011 City Council meeting, the Council held a public hearing on the preliminary plat for the minor subdivision of Fretham Eleventh Addition (240 Jersey Avenue North). After the hearing, the Council approved the preliminary plat. The final plat of Fretham Eleventh Addition has now been prepared by Lakewest Maki, LLC. City staff has reviewed the final plat and finds it consistent with the approved preliminary plat and the requirements of City Code. In review, Curt Fretham, Lakewest Maki, LLC., has proposed to divide one lot into two lots for the construction of two new homes. The existing home and garage on the site have been removed. Attachment Subdivision Development Agreement - Fretham Eleventh Addition (6 pages) Final Plat of Fretham Eleventh Addition (1 page) Resolution for Approval of Plat - Fretham Eleventh Addition (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution for Approval of Plat - Fretham Eleventh Addition. Motion to approve the Subdivision Development Agreement and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City. SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Fretham Eleventh Addition AGREEMENT dated this day of , 2011, by and between the City of Golden Valley, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City "), and Lakewest Maki, LLC. (the "Developer "). Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve the subdivision of land and a plat of land to be known as Fretham Eleventh Addition, which land is legally described on Attachment One, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof (hereinafter referred to as the "subject property "). 2. Conditions of Plat Approval. The City has approved the subdivision and the plat on the following conditions: a. Conformance to, and inclusion of, all provisions of the Preliminary Plans for Fretham Eleventh Addition, dated February 15, 2011, prepared by Pellinen Land Surveying, Inc. together with the Grading and Utility Plan for Fretham Eleventh Addition as revised. b. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer concerning design and installation of public infrastructure including grading, drainage, erosion control, streets and utilities as outlined in his February 15, 2011 memorandum. c. Execution of this Subdivision Development Agreement. d. Payment of all applicable fees including a $1,400 Park Dedication fee and other fees identified in the current fee schedule. e. Incorporation of any easements necessary to accommodate drainage, ponding, trails, underpasses, conservation areas, streets and utilities. f. Marketable title in the Developer, if the City attorney determines a title review is necessary before final plat approval. g. It is the present intention of the City Council not to grant to the Developer any variances for the subdivision unless the circumstances warrant it. 3. Effect of Subdivision Approval. For two (2) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications of the approved plat unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement. 4. Development Plans. The subject property shall be developed in accordance with the following plans, original copies of which are on file with the City Department of Public Works. The plans may be prepared, subject to City approval, after entering this Agreement, but before commencement of any work on the Subject Property. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Agreement, the written terms shall control. The Plans are: Plan A — Plat Plan B — Fretham Eleventh Addition Preliminary Grading /Utility Plan dated January 3, 2011 5. Installation by Developer. The Developer shall install or cause to be installed and pay for the following, hereinafter referred to as the "Developer Improvements ". The grading, erosion control and landscaping shall all be made in accordance with City approved plans. a. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments b. Surveying and staking of work required to be performed by the Developer. c. Gas, electric, telephone, and cable lines prior to building occupancy d. One set of sewer and water services prior to building occupancy e. Installation of driveway aprons f. The demolition of the existing home and detached garage building g. Other items as necessary to complete the development as stipulated herein or in other agreements 6. Gradinq, Drainage /Site Grading Control and Clean up. Site grading for each lot shall be completed by the Developer at its cost in accordance with the Stormwater Management Permit for each lot issued and approved by the City at the time of home construction. If required, such activities shall also be approved by the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission and be in accordance with an NPDES permit. The Developer or its assigns shall comply with the terms of the Stormwater Management Permit issued for each home and the relocation of the garage. 7. Permit. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a permit to enter the Subject Property to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City during the installation of Public Infrastructure Improvements and site development including home construction. 8. Ownership of Improvements. According to City Code, the City may install services in the public rights -of -way and ownership and maintenance shall be the responsibility of the Developer or its assigns. 9. Assessment for Public Works Costs. a. The Developer shall install sewer and water services to said Lots 1 and 2 and driveway aprons for said Lots 1 and 2. The Developer is required to obtain necessary Right of Way (ROW) permits and utility permits. b. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat or subdivision approval and development of the Subject Property. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees fro all costs, damages or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorney's fees. c. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Agreement within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt development work and construction including, but not limited to, the issuance of building permits for lots which the Developer may or may not have sold, until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of nine percent (9 %) per year. 10. Park Dedication. The Developer agrees to pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $1,400 at the time of execution of any plat by the City. 11. Property Fees, Charges and Assessments. The Developer understands that builders will be required to pay for the Subject Property fees, charges and assessments in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. The rates for each of these items will be set according to the current rate structure at the time the building permit is received. 12. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by its hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given notice of the work in default, not less than 48 hours in advance. This Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, levy the cost in whole or in part as a special assessment against the Subject Property. Developer waives its rights to notice of hearing and hearing on such assessments and its right to appeal such assessments pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.081. 13. Miscellaneous. a. The Developer represents to the City that the development of the Subject Property, the subdivision and the plat comply with all city, county, metropolitan, state and federal laws and regulations including, but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances and environmental regulations. The existing sanitary sewer service must be compliant with the City's Inflow and Infiltration Ordinance prior to occupancy of the home. If the City determines that the subdivision, or the plat, or the development of the Subject Property does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow construction or development work on the Subject Property until the Developer does comply. Upon the City's demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance. b. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement. c. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties. d. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect 3 the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. e. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. The Developer agrees to provide the execution of amendments to this Agreement, as are necessary to effect the recording hereof. After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Contract, at the Developer's request, the City will execute and deliver to the Developer a release. g. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to the City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so exciting may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. h. The Developer may not assign this Agreement without the written permission of the City Council. i. It is the present intention of the Council not to grant to the developer variances for this subdivision. 14. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered mail at the following address: Curt Fretham Lakewest Maki, LLC. 15400 Highway 7 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed to the City by registered mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: City Manager City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY Linda R. Loomis, Mayor Thomas D. Burt, City Manager DEVELOPER Its STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNE'P'IN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this — day of , 2011, by Linda R. Loomis, Mayor, and Thomas D. Burt, City Manager, of the City of Golden Valley, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 , by Curt Fretham, , on behalf of the said Lakewest Maki, LLC. Notary Public 5 ATTACHMENT Lot 2, Block 1, Mills Jersey Avenue Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. A bat {ORS .50BDIVI-5,10AI N(:). J4.22 JERSEY AVENUE NORTH NOI 'A–P 17* 165.00 r-'—"------------- 7 F ------ 8 11-J tn�- _.._._.__.. -- - - - - - - , 6 -------- 50I*2rl7"E IMOO ------ 7 lot fit z in LP Cc) ST: oA L.r iF 92 - > nW �po°gy 9 ,. I a >R . I - &jig 6M Z 8-0 if Vol SF 71 10 ur zr go, %� I -* � S. !t gr�o� k deg "� X g 3 9 F, p 2 s-2 m .' o 9-IN: 84 g f sa k0 r a . T % W '-W'z ra b— we R, Resolution 11 -9 March 15, 2011 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT - FRETHAM ELEVENTH ADDITION WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Golden Valley, pursuant to due notice, has heretofore conducted a public hearing on the proposed plat to be known as Frethem Eleventh Addition covering the following described tracts of land: Lot 2, Block 1, Mills Jersey Avenue Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, all persons present were given the opportunity to be heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Golden Valley, that said proposed plat be, and the same hereby is, accepted and approved, and the proper officers of the City are hereby authorized and instructed to sign the original of said plat and to do all other things necessary and proper in the premises. 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. wGolden galley Finance 763- 593 -8013 / 763 - 593 -8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 15, 2011 Agenda Item 3. J. Call for Public Hearing - Special Assessments Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary At this meeting the City Council should call for a public hearing for April 19, 2011 at 7 pm to consider certifying the following special assessments: 2011 Pavement Management Program - Includes various improvements for streets in the following locations: • Colonial Drive: Lawn Terrace to cul -de -sac • Lawn Terrace: Turnpike Road to Glenwood Avenue • Radisson Road: Turners Crossroad South to Turnpike Road • Turnpike Road: Turners Crossroad South to Radisson Road and Turnpike Road (loop street) Recommended Action Motion to call a public hearing for special assessments for April 19, 2011 at 7 pm. `Golden galley Memorandum Finance 763- 593 -8013 / 763- 593 -8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 15, 2011 Agenda Item 3. K. Receipt of February 2011 Financial Reports Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary The monthly financial report provides a progress report on the following funds: General Fund Operations Conservation /Recycling Fund (Enterprise Fund) Water and Sewer Utility Fund (Enterprise Fund) Brookview Golf Course (Enterprise Fund) Motor Vehicle Licensing Fund (Enterprise Fund) Storm Utility Fund (Enterprise Fund) The revenues and expenditures show current month actual and year -to -date actual compared to the 2011 approved budget. General Fund Operations: The 2011 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 February 2011, the City is using $1,667,724 of fund balance to balance the General Fund budget. Attachments February 2011 February 2011 (1 page) February 2011 (1 page) February 2011 (1 page) February 2011 (1 page) February 2011 General Fund Financial Report - unaudited (2 pages) Conservation /Recycling Fund Financial Report (Enterprise Fund) - unaudited Water and Sewer Utility Fund Financial Report (Enterprise Fund) - unaudited Brookview Golf Course Financial Report (Enterprise Fund) - unaudited Motor Vehicle Licensing Fund Financial Report (Enterprise Fund) - unaudited Storm Utility Fund Financial Report (Enterprise Fund) - unaudited (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to receive and file the February 2011 Financial Reports. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - General Fund Revenues February, 2011 (unaudited) Percentage Of Year Completed 16.66% Over % 2011 February YTD (Under) of Budget Type Budget Actual Actual Budget Received Ad Valorem Taxes $11,702,050 0 $0 ($11,702,050) 0.00% (1) Licenses 166,865 28,478 29,328 ($137,537) 17.58% Permits 576,400 30,685 84,175 ($492,225) 14.60% Federal Grants 0 0 0 $0 State Aid 10,500 6,198 6,198 ($4,302) 59.03% (4) Hennepin County Aid 0 0 0 $0 Charges For Services: General Government 37,725 84 257 ($37,468) 0.68% Public Safety 190,115 11,665 36,056 ($154,059) 18.97% Public Works 124,000 10,100 10,945 ($113,055) 8.83% Park & Rec 392,200 39,128 70,202 ($321,998) 17.90% Other Funds 981,500 300 3,044 ($978,456) 0.31% Fines & Forfeitures 250,000 26,468 26,468 ($223,532) 10.59% (2) Interest On Investments 100,000 0 0 ($100,000) 0.00% (3) Miscellaneous Revenue 214,140 3,838 6,939 ($207,201) 3.24% Transfers In 175,000 0 0 ($175,000) 0.00% TOTAL Revenue $14,920,495 $156,944 $273,612 ($14,646,883) 1.83% Notes: (1) The first half taxes will be received in July. (2) Fines and Forfeitures are through January. (3) Investments will be booked at year end. (4) State Training will be received in August. This includes a HEAT training for Police. February, 2011 (unaudited (1) Legal is paid through January, 2011. Over % 2011 February YTD (Under) Of Budget Division Budget Actual Actual Budget Expend. Council $287,970 21,681 43,031 ($244,939) 14.94% City Manager 747,095 55,245 110,412 (636,683) 14.78% Admin. Services 1,524,180 113,884 190,112 (1,334,068) 12.47% Legal 120,000 14,030 14,030 (105,970) 11.69% (1) General Gov't. Bldgs. 570,680 48,212 55,630 (515,050) 9.75% Planning 322,315 24,434 48,920 (273,395) 15.18% Police 4,695,320 309,389 633,768 (4,061,552) 13.50% Fire and Inspections 1,516,730 114,069 227,827 (1,288,903) 15.02% Public Works Admin. 319,830 23,542 43,953 (275,877) 13.74% Engineering 613,515 43,962 64,693 (548,822) 10.54% Streets 1,333,375 114,509 233,107 (1,100,268) 17.48% Community Center 71,400 3,929 7,774 (63,626) 10.89% Park & Rec. Admin. 672,460 55,996 102,000 (570,460) 15.17% Park Maintenance 996,485 57,381 125,520 (870,965) 12.60% Recreation Programs 409,170 18,620 36,841 (372,329) 9.00% Risk Management 280,000 3,718 3,718 (276,282) 1.33% Transfers Out 439,970 0 0 (439,970) 0.00% TOTAL Expenditures $14,920,495 $1,022,601 $1,941,336 ($12,979,152L__13,01 0% (1) Legal is paid through January, 2011. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Conservation /Recycling Enterprise Fund February, 2011 (unaudited) Revenue Hennepin County Recycling Grant Recycling Charges Interest on Investments Total Revenue Expenses: Recycling Total Expenses Over 2011 February YTD (Under) Budget Actual Actual Budget Current 51,425 0 0 (51,425) 0.00% 275,975 18,932 18,932 (257,043) 6.86% (3) 10,000 0 0 (10,000) 0.00% (1) 337,400 18,932 18,932 (318,468) 5.61% 418,360 10,504 10,504 (407,856) 2.51% (2) 418,360 10,504 10,504 (407,856) 2.51% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year -end. (2) This is through January, 2011 curbside services. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Water and Sewer Utility Enterprise Fund February, 2011 (unaudited) Over 2011 February YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Water Charges 4,304,300 253,929 327,263 (3,977,037) 7.60% Sewer Charges 3,210,000 266,816 336,416 (2,873,584) 10.48% Meter Sales 5,000 430 430 (4,570) 8.60% MCES Grant Program 0 0 0 0 Penalties 100,000 14,097 19,067 (80,933) 19.07% Charges for Other Services 190,000 2,693 3,271 (186,729) 1.72% State Water Testing Fee Pass Through 43,000 3,655 4,134 (38,866) 9.61% Certificate of Compliance 45,000 5,750 13,300 (31,700) 29.56% Interest Earnings 85,000 0 0 (85,000) 0.00% Total Revenue 8.82% 7,982,300 547,370 703,881 (7,278,419) Expenses: Utility Administration 2,769,610 12,015 32,844 (2,736,766) 1.19% Sewer Maintenance 2,248,140 162,809 459,805 (1,788,335) 20.45% Water Maintenance 3,873,915 272,692 317,767 (3,556,148) 8.20% Total Expenses 9.11% 8,891,665 447,516 810,416 (8,081,249) Revenue Expenses: City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Brookview Golf Course Enterprise Fund (3) February, 2011 (unaudited) Over 2010 February YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Fees and Lessons 981,155 20,126 0 (981,155) 0.00% Driving Range Fees 112,600 32,169 0 (683,274) 8.02% Par 3 Fees 194,240 0 0 (103,083) 5.91% Pro Shop Sales 80,000 0 254 (79,746) 0.32% Pro Shop Rentals 243,050 75 75 (242,975) 0.03% Concession Sales 216,000 140 190 (215,810) 0.09% Other Revenue 109,325 6,169 6,170 (103,155) 5.64% Interest Earnings 15,000 0 0 (15,000) 0.00% (1) Less: Credit Card Charges /Sales Tax (150,000) (55) (55) 149,945 0.04% Total Revenue 1,801,370 6,329 6,634 (1,794,736) 0.37% Golf Operations 666,450 20,126 39,916 (626,534) 5.99% (2) Course Maintenance 742,820 32,169 59,546 (683,274) 8.02% Pro Shop 109,560 0 6,477 (103,083) 5.91% Grill 185,185 164 196 (184,989) 0.11% Driving Range 45,615 42 42 (45,573) 0.09% Par 3 Course 30,525 12 12 (30,513) 0.04% Total Expenses 1,780,155 (1,673,966) 5.97% 52,513 106,189 (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year -end. (2) Depreciation is allocated at year -end. (3) Course has not opened yet. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Motor Vehicle Licensing Enterprise Fund February, 2011 (unaudited) Revenue Interest Earnings Charges for Services Total Revenue Expenses: Motor Vehicle Licensing Total Expenses (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year -end. (2) Activity is posted in through January. Over 2011 February YTD (Under) % Budget Actual Actual Budget Current 9,000 0 531,000 43,103 0 (9,000) 43,103 (487,897) 540,000 43,103 43,103 (496,897) 0.00% (1) 8.12% (2) 7,98% 529,135 27,705 52,927 (476,208) 10.00% 529,135 27,705 52,927 (476,208) 10.00% City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Storm Utility Enterprise Fund February, 2011 (unaudited) Over 2011 February YTD (Under) Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Interest Earnings 50,000 0 0 (50,000) 0.00% (1) Storm Sewer Charges 2,212,150 192,254 321,933 (1,890,217) 14.55% Bassett Creek Watershed 715,000 0 0 (715,000) 0.00% Total Revenue 2,977,150 10.81% 192,254 321,933 (2,655,217) Expenses: Storm Utility 2,018,810 135,056 223,805 (1,795,005) 11.09% (2) Street Cleaning 117,460 0 0 (117,460) 0.00% Environmental Control 276,985 7,786 15,893 (261,092) 5.74% Debt Service Payments 437,300 368,099 368,299 (69,001) 84.22% Total Expenses 2,850,555 21.33% 510,941 607,997 (1,795,005) (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year -end. (2) Depreciation is allocated at year -end and 2010 PMP is not complete. Golden Valley Memorandum Finance 763- 593 -8013 / 763 - 593 -8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley Council Meeting March 15, 2011 Agenda Item 3. L. Authorizing Transfers from General Fund Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary At the March Council /Manager meeting, the Council discussed the transfer of 2010 general funds (unaudited) to the Equipment Replacement Fund to help fund future equipment purchases such as fire pumpers and dump trucks and a transfer to the Employee Benefits fund to help defray such costs as military pay, PERA and healthcare increases. Staff is recommending transferring $600,000 to the Equipment Replacement Fund and $300,000 to the Employee Benefits Fund from the General Fund. Attachments Resolution Authorizing the Transfer of $900,000 from the General Fund to the Equipment Replacement Fund ($600,000) and Employee Benefits Fund ($300,000) (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing the Transfer of $900,000 from the General Fund to the Equipment Replacement Fund ($600,000) and Employee Benefits Fund ($300,000). Resolution 11 -10 March 15, 2011 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF $900,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND ($600,000) AND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND ($300,000) WHEREAS, the transfer of $600,000 to the Equipment Replacement Fund would finance major purchases such as fire pumpers and dump Trucks as outlined in the City's Capital Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, the transfer of $300,000 to the Employee Benefits Fund would pay for military pay, increases to the employer side to fund PERA and increases for healthcare coverage, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley to authorize the transfer of $900,000 from the General Fund to the Equipment Replacement Fund ($600,000) and Employee Benefits Fund ($300,000). 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. Golden Vall,� PIT Memorandum Finance 763 - 593 -8013 / 763- 593 -8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 15, 2011 Agenda Item 3. M. Acceptance of Donations for 125th Anniversary Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Staff is requesting the Council accept donations for the 125th Anniversary until the Golden Valley Community Foundation has been incorporated. The attached resolution allows the City Council to accept donations and forward them to the new Foundation when it has been incorporated. Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Accepting Donations For Golden Valley, 125th Anniversary. Resolution 11 -11 March 15, 2011 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATIONS FOR GOLDEN VALLEY 125th ANNIVERSARY WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 04 -20 on March 16, 2004 which established a policy for the receipt of gifts; and WHEREAS, the Resolution states gifts will be accepted by City council resolution, with a two - thirds majority approval for gifts of real property and a simple majority for cash donations; and WHEREAS, Golden Valley will be 125 years old in 2011, and the community is planning a series of events during the year to commemorate the anniversary, which stems from the City's incorporation as village December 16, 1886; and WHEREAS, donations for activities associated with the 125th anniversary are expected and will be submitted to the Golden Valley Community Foundation when the Foundation is incorporated; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council will accept and individually acknowledge donations to support the Golden Valley 125th Anniversary and forward said donations to the Golden Valley Community Foundation when it is incorporated. 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. jGolden Memorandum Public Works 763- 593 -8030 / 763- 593 -3988 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley Council Meeting March 15, 2011 Agenda Item 4. A. Public Hearing - Second Consideration - Ordinance No. 456 - Amending Electric Franchise Fee Ordinance No. 447 With Xcel Energy Prepared By Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Summary On October 5, 2010, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing a franchise fee with Xcel Energy. Xcel objected to the terms of the ordinance. In order to avoid litigation on the matter, staff recommended that the ordinance be amended to include the following: 1. An amendment that allows Xcel to be protected from the loss of a customer to a competitor or an energy supplier whose customers do not pay a franchise fee; and, 2. An amendment that allows the City Council to adjust the franchise fee should the City need additional fee for the Douglas Drive project. In no case can the fee exceed five percent of the gross revenue received by Xcel from the sale of electricity. 3. Requires a 60 -day, rather than 30 -day, notification by the City that it intends to charge both a franchise fee and a right -of -way permit fee. 4. Makes some minimal language changes to Exhibit A. The Council adopted the ordinance amendment on March 1, 2011. The following are the remaining steps to approve and implement the ordinance: Ordinance Amendment presented at a Council March 15, 2011 meeting for the second consideration and adoption Ordinance publication in the official City publication March 24, 2011 Xcel has 60 days to formally accept the franchise fee May 24, 2011 After considering public testimony, staff requests that the Council adopt the ordinance on its second consideration. Attachments Ordinance No. 456, Amending Electric Franchise Fee Ordinance No. 447, City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 456, Amending Electric Franchise Fee Ordinance No. 447, City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota on its second consideration. ORDINANCE NO, 456, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amending Electric Franchise Fee Ordinance No. 447 City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. The City Code in Chapter 25, Ordinance No. 447, Second Series, is hereby amended by changing Section 1, subd. 2, to read as follows: Subd. 2. Franchise Fee Statement. This ordinance sets forth the terms and conditions under which Xcel shall collect an electric franchise fee from customers located within the City. The Company has agreed to collect and pay the franchise fee, set forth in Subd. 3, provided however that the fee will not be the cause of a customer to cease or substantially reduce its electric energy purchases from the Company by modifying equipment, or installing new equipment ( "New Equipment ") due to the fee surcharge, to use a form of energy (including electricity not purchased from Company) subject to a lesser or no fee payable by the energy supplier to City. It is agreed by City that Company, at its reasonable discretion and upon 30 days prior written notice to City, may agree with any customer that has clearly demonstrated its intention and ability to install New Equipment and switch to another energy supplier, to eliminate or reduce the franchise fee Company would otherwise collect to the amount, if any, of the fee imposed by City on the supplier of the energy the customer would use if New Equipment were used, but only to the extent the customer agrees to use electricity purchased from Company in lieu of such other energy available to the customer which is not subject to a City fee or which is subject to a lesser City fee. The proposed reduction or elimination of the fee may become effective 30 days after the date of the above- referenced notice, unless the City Manager delivers to Company, prior to such 30th day, a written statement objecting to the Company's proposed reduction or elimination of the fee. In the event the City Manager objects to such proposed reduction or elimination of the fee, the Company may notify City in writing of its intent to resolve such dispute pursuant to Section 2.5 of the Franchise Agreement. No Company reduction or waiver of the fee shall otherwise affect its obligation to collect fees from other customers pursuant to this Ordinance. If the fee is waived or reduced for a customer, the City may annually request a review of the customer reduction or waiver for continued justification. All disputes over continued fee waiver reduction shall be resolved pursuant to Section 2.5 of City Ordinance No. 394, 2nd Series. Section 2. The City Code in Chapter 25, Ordinance No. 447, Second Series, is hereby amended by adding subd. 4, set out below and renumbering the remaining subdivisions 4 - 9, inclusive as 5 -10, inclusive. Subd. 4. Periodic Fee Adjustment. City has estimated that the franchise fee will provide the City with approximately $630,000.00 in annual revenue for the Project costs ( "Estimate "). If actual revenue collected fails to meet or exceeds this Estimate for any reason, or if the City reasonably determines that the Estimate will not meet Project costs as defined in Subdivision 10, upon notice to the Company, the City may increase or decrease the fee from time to time to achieve the revenue necessary to cover Project costs; provided, however, that any such change shall maintain the same flat fee proportion among customer classifications and shall not exceed five percent (5 %) of the gross revenue received by Company from the sale of electricity to retail customers within the corporate limits of the City. The fee may not be changed more often than annually. This right of Periodic Fee Adjustment relates to revenues sufficient to meet Project costs and does not relate to any additional franchise fee greater than the Project costs or fee for another public purpose as allowed by law that the City may seek to impose. In that event, the City and Company shall employ Section 9 of City Ordinance No. 394, 2nd Series to establish such fee pursuant to a separate ordinance. Section 3. The City Code in Chapter 25, Ordinance No. 447, Second Series, is hereby amended by changing "thirty (30) days" to "sixty (60) days" in Section 1, subd. 6. Section 4. The City Code in Chapter 25, Ordinance No. 447, Second Series is hereby amended by deleting the word "Franchise" in the first sentence of Exhibit A attached thereto and replacing it with the words "Subject to Subdivisions 2 and 4 of this Ordinance, franchise ". Section 5. This Ordinance is effective upon its passage and publication. Adopted by the City Council this 15th day of March, 2011. Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk (This ordinance will be uncodified and referenced in Chapter 25 of the City Code). Golden Vail, y Memorandum Planning 763 - 593 -8095 / 763- 593 -8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting March 15, 2011 Agenda Item 4. B. Public Hearing - Ordinance #457 - Rezoning 5075 Wayzata Boulevard, 1400 Highway 100 South and 1500 Highway 100 South from Commercial Zoning District to Business and Professional Offices Zoning District Prepared By Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Summary In May of 2010, the Metropolitan Council approved the City's Comprehensive Plan. State Statute requires that the City's zoning designations correspond with the General Land Use Plan Map, which is a component of the Comprehensive Plan. To be in compliance with this requirement, several areas in the City must be rezoned. One of the areas that must be rezoned is the area in the southwest corner of Interstate 394 and Highway 100. This area, which includes the properties at 5075 Wayzata Boulevard and 1400 and 1500 Highway 100 South, is currently zoned "Commercial." The properties are proposed to be rezoned as "Business and Professional Offices." By designating this area as "Office" on the General Land Use Plan Map, the City has implied that it envisions long -term office- related use on this site. Duke Realty, owner of the affected properties, opposes this proposal. However, the City Attorney has recommended staff move forward with the petition as proposed. The Planning Commission had a tied vote (three -to- three) for this item. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Letter from Patrick Mascia to Mayor and City Council dated March 3, 2011 (2 pages) Planning Commission Minutes dated February 14, 2011 (3 pages) Planning Commission Minutes dated January 10, 2011 (2 pages) Memo to the Planning Commission dated January 28, 2011 (2 pages) Memo to the Planning Commission dated January 5, 2011 (2 pages) Memorandum from Kim Donat dated January 28, 2011 (2 pages) City Code, Section 11.30: Commercial Zoning District (7 pages) City Code, Section 11.45: Business and Professional Offices Zoning District (5 pages) Ordinance No. 457, Rezoning 5075 Wayzata Boulevard, 1400 Highway 100 South, and 1500 Highway 100 South from Commercial Zoning District to Business and Professional Offices Zoning District (1 page) General Land Use Plan Map (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 457, Rezoning 5075 Wayzata Boulevard, 1400 Highway 100 South, and 1500 Highway 100 South from Commercial Zoning District to Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. sf�+ti!! -fftu �.: �cu�vxl a_iltici +A u��.gt. �� sry15'��tii �)7� '` to w Duke 1600 Utica Avenue South Suite 250 REALTY Minneapolis, MN 55416 952.543.2900 www.dukerealty.com March 3, 2011 Mayor Linda Loomis and City Council Members Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 -4588 Re: West End Rezoning Dear Mayor Loomis and City Council Members: On February 14, 2011, the Planning Commission considered for our West End property in Golden Valley a proposed rezoning to Business and Professional Offices Zoning District (replacing the current Commercial Zoning District). The proposed rezoning was initiated by your Planning staff to achieve consistency with the most recent Comprehensive Plan use designation for our property. The Planning Commission split 3 -3 on whether to recommend the rezoning. As the property owner, Duke Realty wishes to explain our viewpoint on the proposal. There are significant differences between the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the current Commercial District versus those allowed in the Business and Professional Offices District proposed for The Towers at West End. Both allow offices, but the Commercial District has a much longer list of allowed commercial uses including, for example, hotels. Most importantly in the context of the West End Master Plan, the current Commercial District allows a "Public Garage" as a permitted use, and allows as a conditional use "off- street parking for adjacent commercial or industrial uses." The proposed Business and Professional Offices District allows neither of such uses, either as permitted or conditional. In March, 2009, the City approved the Preliminary Design Plan for The Towers at West End, PUD No. 107. It depicts a 4400 space parking structure. Market conditions have prevented Duke Realty from proceeding with a Final PUD Plan, but a parking structure remains Duke's intended use for the Golden Valley portion of The Towers at West End site. The Preliminary Design Plan approval was extended for six months by the City Council on February 14, 2011. As noted in the second paragraph of this letter, office uses are permitted uses in the current Commercial District. For that reason, there is no need to rezone our property to achieve consistency with office designation in the Comprehensive Plan. Accordingly, we request that you not rezone our property. Mayor Linda Loomis and City Council Members March 3, 2011 Page Two If for some necessity not apparent to us you determine to rezone our property, then as an alternative we request that the proposed Business and Professional Offices District rezoning for our property be revised to add a permitted use in Section 11.45 Subdivision 8 "C. Off - street parking facilAy for adjacent office or commercial uses." Such a use is an essential component of multi -story office uses, and is therefore consistent with Comprehensive Plan designation for office use. With either action requested by us, the underlying zoning district is both consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and much better accommodates our intended future use of the property. Duke is committed to a major office /commercial presence at this signature location in the metropolitan region. The preferred zoning foundation to accomplish that is to leave the zoning as -is. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Senior Vice President - Minneapolis /Saint Paul Operations pat.mascia@dukerealty.com Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 14, 2011 A regular meeting of the Plann g Commission was held the Golden Valley City Hall, CdbQQI Chambers, 7800 Golddp Valley Road, Gold alley, Minnesota, on Monday, Janua 2011. Chair Waldh user called the ; ting to order at 7 pm. Those present we tanning C mmi hers Cera, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall, Segelbaum and Waldh er. AI esent was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes and AdministriftffAssistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Eck was absent. 1. Approval of JanuagOPrO, 2011 Regula Planning Commission M y Cera, seconded by S gelbaum and motion carried to approve the y 10, 2011 minutes as submitted. McCarty abstained from voting. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezonings — 5075 Wayzata Blvd and 1400, 1500 Highway 100 South from Commercial to Business and Professional Offices Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: 5075 Wayzata Blvd and 1400, 1500 Highway 100 South Purpose: To bring the properties into conformance with the recently updated Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Grimes explained that these properties are proposed to be rezoned in order to bring them into conformance with the General Land Use Plan Map that was adopted by the City Council as apart of the Comprehensive Plan Update in 2008. Grimes reminded the Commission that this hearing was tabled at their January 10, 2011 meeting because Duke Realty had some concerns about rezoning the properties. Since the January 10 Planning Commission meeting, staff has reviewed Duke's concerns about the future use of the properties with the City Attorney and is still recommending that the properties be rezoned to Business and Professional Offices. He explained that when the General Land Use Plan Map was adopted, the City was aware of Duke's plans for the area and that Duke currently has Preliminary PUD approval to construct a parking structure connected to office buildings (The office buildings are located on an adjacent parcel located in St. Louis Park) on these properties. He stated that the Planning Commissioners responsibility is to bring the Zoning Map into conformance with the General Land Use Plan Map. It is clear that the General Land Use Plan Map calls for this area to be designated for office use and the only zoning district consistent with that is the Business and Professional Offices zoning district. He stated that Duke's concerns would be best addressed by the City Council because they have given direction through the Comprehensive Plan as to Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 14, 2011 Page 2 what they see is the best use for this property and what Duke is proposing is consistent with the Business and Professional Offices zoning district. Segelbaum asked if the impact to Duke's plans was contemplated when these properties were designated Business and Professional Offices in the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 2008. Grimes explained that office space is a permitted use in the Commercial zoning district so Duke's PUD plans were allowed to go forward. He noted that these properties and several other properties in the area have historically been used as office building space. He added that rezoning the properties to Business and Professional Offices is consistent with previous uses on the site and is still consistent with Duke's current proposed use for the properties. McCarty said even though designating the General Land Use Plan Map for office use was consistent at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted it seems like the City is limiting itself if the property is rezoned to Business and Professional Offices. Grimes said he agrees that the Business and Professional Offices zoning district is more restrictive. However, the direction of the Council was to guide these properties for office use due in part to the traffic concerns in the area and how retail versus office space would affect the properties. Schmidgall said it is his understanding that rezoning these properties to Business and Professional Offices would be unbeneficial to Duke because that zoning district won't allow a free - standing parking ramp but the Commercial zoning district will. Grimes agreed that is one of Duke's concerns. Cera asked if an office building with a restaurant or cafe would be allowed in the Business and Professional Offices zoning district. Grimes said yes and added that as part of a PUD they could also build restaurants or shops. Kluchka asked Grimes to address the uses allowed without a PUD. Grimes explained that the Business and Professional Offices zoning district allows limited retail services in a professional office building with a Conditional Use Permit. He added that these properties would be very difficult to develop without a PUD. Schmidgall said rezoning these properties to Business and Professional Offices feels restrictive. Waldhauser stated that there was a reason behind guiding these properties for office use when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2008. She said she thinks the reasons are the concern about traffic issues and wanting to somewhat constrain retail use. She reiterated that the Planning Commission's job at this point is to bring the zoning into conformance with the Land Use plan, not to go back and revisit the Land Use Plan because the Comprehensive Plan has already been adopted. McCarty noted that the office market economy has changed since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted and he still feels like the City is restricting itself by rezoning these properties to Business and Professional Offices. Cera asked if these properties were rezoned to Business and Professional Offices if another developer could put a parking ramp there if Duke's PUD plans happen to fall through. Grimes said the only way a parking ramp could be built in the Business and Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 14, 2011 Page 3 Professional Offices zoning district without a PUD is if it is accessory to a building on the same lot. Segelbaum questioned if by rezoning these properties the City will create a disadvantage for Duke. Pat Mascia, Senior Vice President of Minneapolis /St. Paul Operations for Duke, said in general they are not opposed to rezoning the properties and it is consistent with what they have proposed. He said in terms of potential future uses there is concern about the limited uses allowed in the Business and Professional Offices zoning district. He noted that in their preliminary entitlements there was a specific allowance for parking structures on these properties because the properties are zoned Commercial. He said he understands that procedurally he needs to discuss his concerns about the proposed rezoning with the City Council but he feels that in 2008 their plans were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He questioned if the Commercial zoning district is still consistent with their plans or if the Business and Professional Offices zoning district is more consistent. He added that they would like as much flexibility as possible, but at the same time he doesn't disagree that the Business and Professional Offices zoning district will be much more restrictive or have a negative impact on the their existing Preliminary PUD plan for the site. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Segelbaum said it is curious to him that the City is addressing this rezoning and a PUD approval at the same time. He suggested letting the PUD process play out then readdress the rezoning. Waldhauser said she doesn't think they have to option to wait. She added that she would not be in favor of waiting because leaving the property designated Commercial opens up the potential for several options that maybe weren't anticipated for this site. Cera said he is bothered by rezoning these properties because the City has a willing developer ready to build something here. He referred to the City Attorney's memo and asked if amending the Comprehensive Plan instead of rezoning the properties could be an option. Kluchka stated that the Council would have to direct the Planning Commission to review the Comprehensive Plan. He reiterated that it is the Planning Commission's responsibility to change the Zoning Map to match the Comprehensive Plan. McCarty agreed that the Planning Commission's role is not to vote on what the properties should be zoned, it is to make the Zoning Map compatible with the General Land Use Plan Map. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by McCarty and vote split three to three to recommend approval of rezoning the properties at 5075 Wayzata Blvd and 1400, 1500 Highway 100 South from Commercial to Business and Professional Offices Commissioners Kluchka, McCarty and Waldhauser voted yes. Commissioners Cera, Schmidgall and Segelbaum voted no. - -Short Recess- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 10, 2011 Page 4 3. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezonings — 8805, 8905, 9191 and 9393 Wayzata Blvd from Industrial to Commercial and 5075 Wayzata Blvd and 1400, 1500 Highway 100 South from Commercial to Business and Professional Offices Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: 8805, 8905, 9191, 9393 and 5075 Wayzata Blvd and 1400, 1500 Highway 100 South Purpose: To bring the properties into conformance with the recently updated Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Hogeboom reminded the Commissioners that the Metropolitan Council recently approved the City's Comprehensive Plan update. As part of the update process, state statute requires that the Zoning Map match the Comprehensive Plan's General Land Use Plan Map. He explained that the City Council has decided they would like to proceed with the rezoning process starting with areas that don't involve residential properties. Hogeboom referred to the General Land Use Plan Map and pointed out the area at the southeast intersection of 1 -394 and TH -169 (8805, 8905, 9191 and 9393 Wayzata Blvd). He explained that these properties are currently zoned Industrial and consist of auto dealerships and auto related uses. In order to match the General Land Use Plan Map the City is proposing to rezone these properties to Commercial. Rezoning these properties will not make the uses become non - conforming because both the Industrial zoning district and the Commercial zoning district require a Conditional Use Permit for auto uses. Hogeboom noted that the other area being discussed at this meeting is the area west of Highway 100, south of 1 -394 (5075 Wayzata Blvd and 1400, 1500 Highway 100 South). This is the area that will be used for the parking ramp for the West End office development proposed by Duke Realty. The property is currently zoned Commercial and the City is proposing to rezone it to Business and Professional Offices (BPO) to better match Duke's proposed office use and the General Land Use Plan map. He stated that Duke has expressed concern about the proposed rezoning because the Commercial zoning district allows for a stand -alone parking structure whereas the BPO district requires that a parking ramp be an accessory use to a business or office located on the same parcel. He stated that staff is recommending that the public hearing regarding the rezoning of this area be tabled to a future Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the City Attorney and staff more time for further study. Cera asked how St. Louis Park has the West End office property zoned. Hogeboom said the office tower is part of the West End PUD but the underlying zoning is office. He added that traffic analysis has shown that an office use would work better than a commercial use in this area. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 10, 2011 Page 5 Segelbaum referred to the BPO zoning district and asked if a building and parking structure have to be physically connected. Hogeboom said a building and parking structure need to be on the same lot, but they don't have to be connected. Grimes said the City is looking at potential future developments for this area when considering the zoning. He explained that if something changes with Duke's plans to develop'the area as an office use and the area is zoned Commercial, then anything allowed in the Commercial zoning district could be built. Segelbaum said rezoning the properties to BPO could limit Duke and questioned if the City wants this land to sit vacant for several years. Schmidgall said that the Commercial zoning district seems more flexible. Waldhauser said they also need to look at what is most advantageous for the City. Grimes noted that offices are also allowed in the Commercial zoning district but at this point the City feels rezoning the properties to BPO is best, with the understanding that the properties could be rezoned and the General Land Use Plan Map could be re- guided in the future. Waldhauser suggested separating the two areas when making a motion. Waldhauser opened the public hearing, seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to table the proposed rezoning for the properties located at 5075 Wayzata Blvd and 1400, 1500 Highway 100 South from Commercial to Business and Professional Offices. Waldhauser referred to the other properties on the agenda (8805, 8905, 9191, 9393 and 5075 Wayzata Blvd) and asked if they remained Industrial if they would have to be rezoned if the auto dealers sold their properties in the future. Hogeboom explained that another auto dealer could apply for a Conditional Use Permit if the properties remained Industrial, but leaving the properties zoned Industrial is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan designation for that area. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Schmidgall and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of rezoning the properties located at 8805, 8905, 9191, 9393 and 5075 Wayzata Blvd from Industrial to Commercial. - -Short Recess -- 5. Reports on Mee ti gs of the Housin nd Redevelopment Authority, City il, Board o Zoning Ap and other Meetings Waldhauser said she ed the January 4, 2011 City Council where the Menards PUD amendme s ap ro She stated that the issues of snow storage and requirin nards to sub it a par Ian were discussed. city 0 Planning d n 763- 593 -8095 / 763- 593 -8109 (fax) Date: January 28, 2011 To: Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: Continued Item - Rezoning 5075 Wayzata Boulevard, 1400 Highway 100 South and 1500 Highway 100 South from "Commercial" to "Business and Professional Office" The City of Golden Valley has identified several areas within the City that have a zoning designation that is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. One of these areas is the property that contains the proposed Towers at West End development, located at 5075 Wayzata Boulevard and 1400 -1500 Highway 100 South. The properties are currently zoned "Commercial" and are guided as "Office" on the Comprehensive Plan. To be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning designations for the properties must be re- designated to "Business and Professional Offices." An informal public hearing was held with the Planning Commission on Monday, January 10, to request the rezoning of the properties. Duke Realty, the owner of the property, had objected to this action, expressing concern that the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District does not permit standalone parking structures. Due to this concern, the Planning Commission voted to table the request. Planning Department staff met with the City Attorney's office to discuss Duke Realty's concerns about the rezoning of the proposed Towers at West End properties. After consideration, the City Attorney and staff determined to move forward with the rezoning of the property to "Business and Professional Offices," which is consistent with the direction given by the City Council when the properties were re- guided to "Office" on the Comprehensive Plan in 2008. A memo explaining this position from Assistant City Attorney Kim Donat is attached. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval for the rezoning of the properties at 5075 Wayzata Boulevard and 1400 and 1500 Highway 100 South from "Commercial" to "Business and Professional Offices," to bring the properties into compliance with provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Memo from Assistant City Attorney Kim Donat dated January 28, 2011 (2 pages) Section 11.30 Commercial Zoning District (7 pages) Section 11.45 Business and Professional Offices Zoning District (5 pages) General Land Use Plan Map (1 oversized page) 2 Date: January 5, 2011 To: Planning Commission Planning 763- 593 -80951 763- 593 -8109 (fax) From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: Rezoning 5075 Wayzata Boulevard, 1400 Highway 100 South and 1500 Highway 100 South from "Commercial" to "Business and Professional Office" Background In May of 2010, the Metropolitan Council approved the City of Golden Valley's Comprehensive Plan. State Statute requires that the City's zoning designations correspond with the General Land Use Plan Map, which is a component of the Comprehensive Plan. By law, zoning designations must correspond with the General Land Use Plan map within one calendar year of its approval by the Metropolitan Council. Based upon the land use designations on the General Land Use Plan Map, there are eight areas within the City that must be rezoned in order to comply with the General Land Use Plan Map. Six of the areas involve residential areas, while two of the areas are involve non - residential properties on or near the 1 -394 highway corridor. The City Council has directed staff to pursue rezoning the non - residential areas at this time. The Council will continue to study the implications of rezoning residential areas, and pursue that action at a later time. Proposal One of the two non - residential areas that must be rezoned to comply with the General Land Use Plan Map is the area in the southwest corner of Interstate 394 and State Highway 100. This area, which includes the properties at 5075 Wayzata Boulevard and 1400 and 1500 Highway 100 South, is currently zoned "Commercial." The properties are proposed to be rezoned to "Business and Professional Offices." The properties are currently under the ownership of Duke Realty, Inc., and are intended to be used for the development of office buildings as part of the West End mixed -use development area. Duke's Preliminary PUD plans have been approved by the City that reflects this development plan. Duke has stated that the market for office space in the Twin Cities has slowed, and development of this site will occur later than originally anticipated. Traffic analyses completed by Duke at the time of Preliminary PUD approval indicated that this site would be most appropriately used for office development. Commercial /retail development on the site (as currently allowed by zoning) would create a negative impact in traffic in the area. Rezoning the property to "Business and Professional Office" will reflect the plans by Duke and the City. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval for the rezoning of the properties at 5075 Wayzata Boulevard and 1400 and 1500 Highway 100 South from "Commercial" to "Business and Professional Offices." Attachments Location Map (1 page) General Land Use Plan Map (1 page) 2 Kim JoDene Donat Attorney oiREcT 612.341.9721 kdonat @bestiaw.com Memorandum DATE: January 28, 2011 TO: Joe Hogeboom cc: Allen Barnard FROM: Kim Donat REGARDING: Rezoning of Towers at West End FILE NUMBER: 90- 480568 Under state law, the zoning map must harmonize with and not contradict the comprehensive plan. Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2006); Minn. Stat. § 773.858, subd. 1. It is my understanding that the comprehensive plan for 5075 Wayzata Blvd and 1400 -1500 Highway 100 South was modified in 2008 and that the property should be rezoned from "commercial" to "business and professional offices" so as to avoid any contradiction with the comprehensive plan. While there is some overlap between the "commercial" and "business and professional offices" permitted uses, the current "commercial" zoning district designation would allow retail use, which is not contemplated by the comprehensive plan. The permitted uses in the "business and professional offices" district do not allow retail and more closely align with the current comprehensive plan (as compared to "commercial "). If the zoning district is not modified, retail and other uses under the current zoning district designation, might conflict with the comprehensive plan. The Planned Unit Development Ordinance states: "Once a Final PUD plan is approved, the use or uses are limited to those approved by the specific approved PUD ordinance for the site and by the conditions, if any imposed by the City in the approval process." Golden Valley City Code § 11.55, subd. 2(B) (emphasis added). Leaving aside Duke's rights for a moment, if any, to satisfy the conditions of the preliminary PUD approval and move to Final PUD approval, it is clear that they do not have a right to a "long list of uses" (as described in Mr. Mascia's email) that are allowed in commercial zoning districts that: (1) are not already contemplated in the preliminary PUD approval, and (2) which are based on a zoning category that may contradict the comprehensive plan. There is an open legal question about whether a future commission or council might rely on the narrower uses allowed in the business and professional zoning district to deny Final PUD approval and whether Duke has any legal arguments that the parking ramp use allowed in the preliminary 7 Memorandum Page 2 PUD approval must be allowed regardless of the zoning district. However, these questions do not need to be answered at this time. Under Minnesota law the zoning map must not contradict the comprehensive plan and nothing about the preliminary PUD approval impacts that obligation. It is, however, my understanding that the staff is recommending a new condition, before it will grant an extension of the preliminary PUD approval, requiring the developer's cooperation regarding sewage easements and other matters required by the Metropolitan Council, unrelated to the zoning change. If the zoning change is used to justify the revocation of the preliminary PUD approval or deny final approval, Duke may have a legal argument that their current preliminary PUD approval protects their interest in building a parking garage. But, the commission and council - at this point - are not contemplating the revocation of the preliminary PUD approval or any decision on the final PUD, based on the recommended change in the zoning district, and they are obligated by Minnesota law to insure that the zoning district does not contradict the comprehensive plan. Additionally, it is my understanding Duke will be requesting another 180 -day renewal of the preliminary PUD. approval in February. If the commission or council wished to revoke the preliminary PUD approval they would not need to attempt to rely on the zoning change, but could wait until the renewal date and simply fail to support another extension. 0000901480568/12719621 § 11.30 Section 11.30: Commercial Zoning District Subdivision 1. Purpose The purpose of the Commercial Zoning District is to provide for the establishment of commercial and service activities which draw from and serve customers from the community and are located in areas which are well served by collector and arterial street facilities. Subdivision 2. District Established Properties shall be established within the Commercial Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter, and when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.30, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross - reference to this Section 11.30 and which shall become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as fully as if set forth herein. In addition the Commercial Zoning Districts thus established, and /or any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and established in a similar manner; shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as provided in Section 11.11 of this Chapter. Subdivision 3. Permitted Uses The following uses are permitted in the Commercial Zoning District: A. Bakeries B. Barbershop and/or beauty parlor C. Catering establishments D. Comfort stations E. Delicatessen F. Dressmaking and tailoring establishments, including retail sales of clothing G. Clothing, shoes and /or accessories sales (retail) H. Electric repair shops I. Electronic equipment sales J. Financial institutions K. Floral shops (not to include nurseries) L. Furniture sales and repair Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 7 § 11.30 M. Hardware, paint, and decorating stores N. Hotels and motels O. Lodge halls P. Messenger and telegraph services Q. Offices, including medical and dental R. Pharmacies S. Photograph supplies and /or galleries T. Plumbing shops U. Post office V. Printing shops W. Public garage X. Recreation buildings and structures (public and private), including gymnasium, racquetball, etc Y. Class i restaurants Z. Shoe repair shops AA. Skating rinks (ice or roller) privately owned and operated for profit BB. Shopping centers (general retail - convenience shopping) CC. Theaters DD. Trade or industrial training schools, both public and private EE. General retail services and /or sales not otherwise listed as a Conditional Use in Subdivision 4, below Source: Ordinance No. 569 Effective Date: 7 -16 -82 FF. Massage parlors, saunas, rap parlors, conversation parlors, escort services, model services, dancing services, hostess services, adult encounter group services, adult sensitivity group services and other similar adult oriented services that require City licensing pursuant to other provisions of the City Code Source: Ordinance No. 603 Effective Date: 8 -26 -83 Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 7 GG. Tanning parlors HH. Essential Services - Class I II. Seasonal Farm Produce Sales Subdivision 4. Conditional Uses § 11.30 Source: Ordinance No. 609 Effective Date: 11 -11 -83 Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11 -28 -91 Source: Ordinance No. 127, 2nd Series Effective Date: 4 -27 -95 A. Animal hospitals, veterinary clinics, and /or pet grooming facilities B. Auto repair shops, including tire and auto accessory repair and installation C. Car wash D. Convenience food stores E. Drive -in retail establishments, such as banks, cleaning, photo shops, etc F. Gasoline service stations G. Mortuaries H. Off - street parking for adjacent commercial or industrial uses I. Outdoor sales, including car lots, auto and equipment rentals J. Outside storage and /or sales of horticultural nursery sites, temporary farmers market, and itinerant sales K. Pool halls Source: Ordinance No. 609 Effective Date: 11 -11 -83 L. Class III restaurants, bars, night clubs, etc. M. Sales, or show rooms (auto, machinery, boats, etc.) N. Unattended business operations, such as vending machines, coin or token operated machines and equipment, and other similar uses O. Video game arcades Golden Valley City Code Source: Ordinance No. 615 Effective Date: 5 -25 -84 Page 3 of 7 P. Heliports, as herein defined § 11.30 Source: Ordinance No. 643 Effective Date: 11 -16 -84 Q. Child Care Facilities, as defined in this Chapter R. Marine Engine Repair S Adult Day Care Center Source: Ordinance No. 712 Effective Date: 6 -23 -88 Source: Ordinance No. 4, 2nd Series Effective Date: 8 -25 -88 Source: Ordinance No. 264, 2nd Series Effective Date: 12 -13 -01 T. Essential Services - Class III, except for peaking stations and substations Source: Ordinance No. 271, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11 -15 -02 Subdivision S. Restricted Uses No premises shall be used wholly or in part for the storage of any material whatsoever except where such materials are stored in a building and where the character of such building conforms with the general development of a Commercial District and no building or premises in the Commercial District shall be used for any kind of manufacture, repairing, alteration, converting or finishing which uses mechanical power aggregating more than five (5) horsepower per two thousand (2,000) feet of ground area. Ground area means the total area of the lot or parcel of land on which a building using mechanical power is located and not just the area of the part of the lot or parcel of land actually covered by the building. Deleted Loading & Parking Requirements Source: Ordinance No. 569 Effective Date: 7 -16 -82 Source: Ordinance 346, 2nd Series Effective Date: 7 -1 -06 *Subdivision 6. Yard Requirements Front yard, side and rear yards shall be provided for all buildings within the Commercial Zoning District as follows: A. In the case of premises abutting a public street, front yard setbacks shall be at least thirty -five (35) feet from the right -of -way line of said street. All front yard setbacks shall be maintained as landscaped green areas. All portions of a lot, or parcel, abutting a public street shall be deemed to be front yards. Golden Valley City Code Page 4 of 7 § 11.30 B. Side and rear yard setbacks shall be provided as follows: Source: Ordinance No. 569 Effective Date: 7 -16 -82 1. In the case of premises adjoining a Residential or R -2 Residential'Zoning District, side and rear yards shall be not less than fifty (50) in depth and width. Source: Ordinance No. 271, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11 -15 -02 2. In the case of premises adjoining a Multiple Dwelling, Business and Professional Office, or Institutional Zoning District, required side and rear yards shall not be less than thirty (30) feet in width and depth. Source: Ordinance No. 569 Effective Date: 7 -16 -82 3. In the case of premises adjoining a Commercial, Light Industrial, Industrial, or Railroad Zoning District, required side and rear yards shall not be less than twenty (20) feet in depth or width. Source: Ordinance No. 271, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11 -15 -02 4. One -half (1/2) of the required side and rear yards, as measured from the lot line, shall be landscaped, planted and maintained as a buffer zone. Source: Ordinance No. 569 Effective Date: 7 -16 -82 *Subdivision 7. Lot Coverage No building or structure, or group thereof, shall occupy more than fifty percent (50 %) of the total land area of any lot or parcel in a Commercial Zoning District. Source: Ordinance No. 609 Effective Date: 11 -11 -83 *Subdivision S. Height Restrictions No building or structure, other than water tanks, water towers, essential service communication structures as provided for in Section 11.71 of this Code, shall be erected to exceed a height of three (3) stories in the Commercial Zoning District. All necessary mechanical equipment and elevator penthouses will not be included in computation of building height. The City Council may grant a Conditional Use Permit for a taller building. Source: Ordinance No. 365, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3 -23 -07 Golden Valley City Code Page 5 of 7 § 11.30 *Subdivision 9. Accessory Uses A. Essential Services - Class I. B. Accessory Structures. The following regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in this Zoning District: 1. Location, A Detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the front setback as the principal structure. If an addition is built on to an existing principal structure that would create a situation where an existing garage or accessory structure would not be completely to the rear of the addition to the principal structure, the addition to the principal structure may be built and the existing garage or accessory structure may remain and be considered conforming as long as there is at least ten (10) feet of separation between the existing principal structure with the addition and the existing garage or accessory structure. Additions may be made to the existing garage or accessory structure as long as the ten (10) feet of separation can be met. 2. Front setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than the required setback for this Zoning District from the front property line along a street right -of -way line. 3. Side and rear setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no less than the required setback for principal structures in this Zoning District from a side or rear yard property line. 4. Separation between structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less than ten (10) feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory structure. 5. Alley setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than ten (10) feet from an alley. 6. Height limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in this Zoning District to exceed a height of one (1) story. One (1) story may not exceed ten (10) feet from the floor to the top plate. Attic space in accessory structures shall be used only for storage and /or utility space. 7. Cornices and eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than thirty (30) inches into a required setback. 8. Number and Size of accessory structures. Only one (1) accessory structure shall be allowed on each property and no accessory structure shall be larger in size than the principal structure. In no case shall an Golden Valley City Code Page 6 of 7 § 11.30 accessory structure be greater than one thousand (1000) square feet or less than one hundred twenty (120) square feet in area. Accessory structures include storage buildings, detached sheds, greenhouses, gazebos and other shelters. Accessory structures not used solely for storage and related activities shall have open sides from floor to ceiling, except that they may have railings and temporary screening (used only on two (2) sides at a time), all constructed in accordance with the building code. 9. Design. All accessory structures constructed after the construction of the principal structure must be designed and constructed of similar materials as determined by the City Manager or his designee. 10. Building Permits. All accessory structures located in this Zoning District require a building permit. 11. Parking structures and garages. In this Zoning District, parking structures and garages shall not be considered accessory structures if they are used to meet the required number of parking spaces. Source: Ordinance No. 344, 2nd Series Effective Date: 05 -25 -06 *Renumbering. Source (Subd. 6 -9): Ordinance 346, 2nd Series Effective Date: 7 -1 -06 Golden Valley City Code Page 7 of 7 § 11.45 Section 11.45: Business and Professional offices Zoning. District Subdivision 1. Purpose The purpose of the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District is to provide areas wherein there may be erected, maintained and used, offices for persons engaged in business pursuits not involving the sale of or handling of goods, wares, merchandise or commodities, as for example, accountants, insurance brokers, realtors, fiscal agents and the like; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be interpreted to prohibit in such districts the sale of goods, wares, merchandise or commodities by sample, as for example, by manufacturer's representatives. Subdivision 2. District Established Properties shall be established within the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter, and when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.45, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross - reference to this Section 11.45 and which shall become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as fully as if set forth herein. In addition the Business and Professional Offices Zoning Districts thus established, and /or any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and established in a similar manner, shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as provided in Section 11.11 of this Chapter. Source: Ordinance No. 541 Effective Date: 5 -8 -81 *Subdivision 3. Building Height No building in this zoning district shall exceed three (3) stories in height at the front or street grade level, unless a Conditional Use Permit has been granted allowing such building or structure to exceed three (3) stories in height. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11 -28 -91 *Subdivision 4. Yard Restrictions A. Front Yard Setbacks. Front yards shall be provided for all buildings as follows: 1. No building or other structure in the Business and Professional Offices District shall be located closer than thirty-five (35) feet from the property line along any abutting street. The thirty -five (35) foot front setback as described above shall all be landscaped. 2. In the case of a building over three (3) stories, the front setback shall be increased five (5) feet for each additional story over three (3) stories or each additional ten (10) feet above the height of thirty (30) feet. Golden Valley City Code Page X of 5 § 11.45 B. Side and Rear Yard Setbacks. Side yards and rear yards shall be provided for all buildings as follows: Source: Ordinance No. 541 Effective Date: 5 -8 -81 1. In the case of premises abutting a Residential or R -2 Residential Zoning District, side and rear yards of such premises shall be not less than fifty (50) feet in depth or width, of which at least twenty -five (25) feet adjacent to the lot line or property line shall be planted, landscaped and maintained as a buffer zone. Source: Ordinance No. 271, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11 -15 -02 2. In the case of premises abutting on a Multiple Dwelling Zoning District or an Institutional Zoning District, side and rear yards shall be not less than thirty (30) feet in depth or width, of which at least the fifteen (15) feet adjacent to the lot line shall be planted, landscaped and maintained as a buffer zone. 3. In the case of premises abutting on another Business and Professional Offices Zoning District, side and rear yards shall be not less than twenty (20) feet in depth or width for each building, tract, lot or premises of which at least one -half (1/2) the setback as measured from the lot line shall be landscaped and planted. 4. In the case of premises abutting on a Commercial or Industrial Zoning District, side yards and rear yards shall be not less than twenty (20) feet in depth and width of which at least one -half (1/2) the setback as measured from the lot line shall be landscaped and planted. 5. In the case of a building over three (3) stories, the side and rear setbacks shall be increased five (5) feet for each additional story over three (3) stories or each additional ten (10) feet above the height of thirty (30) feet. *Subdivision S. Area Restrictions No building or other structure in this zoning district shall occupy more than forty percent (40 %) of the tract of land on which it is located. An additional twenty percent (20 %) of the tract of land shall be allowed for the construction of a parking structure. *Subdivision 6. Lot Area No building or other structure located in this zoning district shall be located on a parcel of land that is less than one (1) acre in area or less than one hundred (100) feet in width. Source: Ordinance No. 541 Effective Date: 5 -8 -81 Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 5 § 11.45 *Subdivision 7. Conditional Uses A. Conditions. In addition to those uses specifically classified and permitted within this district, there are certain uses which may be allowed in a Business and Professional Offices District because of their unusual characteristics or the service they provide to the public. These conditional uses require particular considerations as to their proper location in relation to adjacent established or intended uses, or to the planned development of the City. The conditions controlling the location and operation of such conditional uses are established under Section 11.80 of this Chapter. Source: Ordinance No. 396, 2nd Effective Date: 3 -28 -08 B. Authority. The Council shall have the authority, after having received.the recommendations of the Planning Commission, to permit the following types of the conditional uses of land or structures, or both, within a Business and Professional Offices District, if the Council finds that the proposed location and establishment of any such use will be desirable or necessary to the public convenience or welfare and will be harmonious and compatible with other uses adjacent to and in the vicinity of the selected site. Source: Ordinance No. 541 Effective Date: 5 -8 -81 Buildings exceeding three (3) stories in height, subject to the provisions of Subdivision 5, Subparagraph A, Item 2, and Subparagraph B. above, and all other applicable provisions of this Chapter. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11 -28 -91 2. Recreational facilities such as ball fields, swimming pools and playgrounds. 3. Daytime activity centers and /or other facilities providing school and /or training for retarded or handicapped people. 4. Financial institutions, including drive -in facilities. 5. Limited retail services within a professional office building. Source: Ordinance No. 541 Effective Date: 5 -8 -81 6. Heliports, as herein defined. Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 5 § 11.45 7. Other uses which, in the opinion of the Council, are compatible with the uses specifically described above. Source: Ordinance No. 643 Effective Date: 11 -16 -84 8. Adult Day Care Center. Source: Ordinance No. 264, 2nd Series Effective Date: 12 -13 -02 9. Child Care Facilities. Source: Ordinance No. 396, 2nd Effective Date: 3 -28 -08 *Subdivision 8. Permitted Uses The following uses are permitted in the Business and Professional Office District: A. Offices B. Essential Services - Class I Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11 -28 -91 *Subdivision 9. Accessory Uses The following are permitted accessory uses in this Zoning District: A. Essential Services - Class I B. Accessory Structures. The following regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in this Zoning District: 1. Location. A detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the front setback as the principal structure. If an addition is built on to an existing principal structure that would create a situation where an existing garage or accessory structure would not be completely to the rear of the addition to the principal structure, the addition to the principal structure may be built and the existing garage or accessory structure may remain and be considered conforming as long as there is at least ten (10) feet of separation between the existing principal structure with the addition and the existing garage or accessory structure. Additions may be made to the existing garage or accessory structure as long as the ten (10) feet of separation. can be met. 2. Front setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than the required setback for this Zoning District from the front property line along a street right -of -way line. Golden Valley City Code Page 4 of 5 § 11.45 3. Side and rear setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no less than the required setback for principal structures in this Zoning District from. a side or rear yard property line. 4. Separation between structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less than ten (10) feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory structure. 5. Alley setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than ten (10) feet from an alley. 6. Height limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in this Zoning District to exceed a height of one (1) story. One (1) story may not exceed ten (10) feet from the floor to the top plate. Attic space in accessory structures shall be used only for storage and /or utility space. 7. Cornices and eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than thirty (30) inches into a required setback. 8. Number and Size of accessory structures. Only one (1) accessory structure shall be allowed on each property and no accessory structure shall be larger in size than the principal structure. In no case shall an accessory structure be greater than one thousand (1000) square feet or less than one hundred - twenty (120) square feet in area. Accessory structures include storage buildings, detached sheds, greenhouses, gazebos and other shelters. Accessory structures not used solely for storage and related activities shall have open sides from floor to ceiling, except that they may have railings and temporary screening (used only on two (2) sides at a time), all constructed in accordance with the building code. 9. Design. All accessory structures constructed after the construction of the principal structure must be designed and constructed of similar materials as determined by the City Manager or his designee. 10. Building Permits. All accessory structures located in this Zoning District require a building permit. 11. Parking structures and garages. In this Zoning District, parking structures and garages shall not be considered accessory structures if they are used to meet the required number of parking spaces. Source: Ordinance No. 344, 2nd Series Effective Date: 05 -25 -06 *Renumbering Source (Subd. 3 -9): Ordinance 346, 2nd Series Effective Date: 7 -1 -06 Golden Valley City Code Page 5 of 5 ORDINANCE NO. 457, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Rezoning 5075 Wayzata Boulevard and 1400 and 1500 Highway 100 South from Commercial Zoning District to Business and Professional Offices Zoning District City of Golden Valley, Applicant The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. City Code chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" is amended in Section 11. 10, Subd. 2, by changing the zoning designation of certain tracts of land from Commercial Zoning District to Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. Section 2. The tracts of land affected by this ordinance are legally described as: 5075 Wayzata Boulevard That part of NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 lying N of a line running E at R /AS from a point in E line of tract B RLS No 864 Distance 509 13/100 feet S from NE corner thereof and lying W of Hwy N 100 Ex Hwy 1400 Highway 100 South That part of N 753 61/100 feet of NE 114 of SW 1/4 lying S of a line running E at R /AS from a point in E line of tract B Reg Land Survey No 864 Distance 509 13/100 Feet S from NE corner thereof and lying W of State Hwy No 100 also that part of Block 4 Kavlis Cedardale lying No of a line running E at R /AS from a point in the SLY extension of the E line of tract B RLS No 864 Distance 773 23/100 feet S from NE Corner thereof including adjacent vacated street and alley 1500 Highway 100 South That part of Block 4 lying S of a line running E at R /AS from a point in the Southerly Extension of the E line of Tract B RLS No 864 Distance 773 23/100 feet S from NE corner thereof including adjacent vacated street and alley except Highway Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 15th day of March, 2011. /s /Linda R. Loomis Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: /s /Susan M. Virnig Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk F� -oQ Q CITY OF CII'v m o mv�a ST. LOUIS PARK I'.]'M1IUI,' "I'II Ip j n� N , � Jp H N e - > \, _ ti C� I 8 eI� P n - p \ P� T E IT C q ,. _ r. \\ \ \� o qu a I I I MIMI Iffiffla" An K \ E��00+� i - \� u ;1 .I 3 N t , .' a sF ri ME { g 3 AA RRRjjjJJJ � � �. s e _ s W a I 3 i tl o \C � CITY OF MINNFAPOLIS v = I ia ail e I� I: I .IIiI �!. IE, i �'In I)I AIIVnr- u��nls CITY OF CRYSTAL - CITY O1: `— ROBBINSDALF B «^ �0 NEEE10. Z mz4 n�a 3 d I v O m cn cn O 3 m 5 a? cu O n ? o 4 `o a CL m <;" 7 o m v _- a a 71 m � C v n >y' m 3 3(D r 0 °m v (D a� � Q� -n CD In �� ac C'D a C( (z x Ip' I 0) N (D U) u) R &I w " O O O 31 o i1 - m