10-07-08 agenda packet (entire)
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
of the
City Council
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chamber
October 7, 2008
6:30 p.m.
The Council may consider item numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7
prior to the public hearings scheduled at 7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Roll Call
B. Board/Commission Oath of Office and Presentation of Certificate of Appointment
C. National Fire Prevention Week - October 5-11,2008
2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be
routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no
discussion of these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests in which
event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its
normal sequence on the agenda.
A. Approval of Minutes - City Council Meeting - August 19, 2008
B. Approval of Check Registers:
1. City
2. Housing and Redevelopment Authority
C. Licenses:
1. Gambling License Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo - Ladies Auxiliary to
the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post#7051
2. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - St. John's
Catholic School
D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1. Planning Commission - August 11, 2008
2. Board of Zoning Appeals - August 26, 2008
3. Environmental Commission - July 28, 2008
4. Open Space and Recreation Commission - July 28, 2008
5. Envision Connection Project Board of Directors - August 21,2008
E. Bids and Quotes
1. Duluth Street Countdown Pedestrian Signal Modifications - Quotes
F. Letters and/or Petitions:
1. Letter from AI Halloran Regarding PUD #106, Applewood Pointe
G. Approval of Appointment of Election Judges for State General Election 08-40
H. Call for Administrative Hearing - Appeal of Repeat Nuisance Service Call Fee-
2417 Parkview Boulevard - 10/14/08
I. Call for Administrative Hearing - Appeal of Administrative Citation - Residential
Property Maintenance Code - 1617 Xerxes Avenue North - 10/21/08
J. Proclamation for Minnesota Manufacturer's Week
K. Authorization to Sign Agreement with North Suburban Towing for Vehicle Impound
3. CONSENT AGENDA - CONTINUED
L. Response to Open Forum Comments from William Anderl Regarding Asphalt
Driveway Patch
M. Waiver of Public Hearing and Certification of Special Assessments:
1. 2007 Pavement Management Program Sanitary Sewer Repairs 08-41
2. 2008 Pavement Management Program Sanitary Sewer Repairs 08-42
3. 2008 Pavement Management Program Driveways 08-43
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 PM
A. Public Hearing - Special Assessments - Delinquent Utility Bills 08-44
B. Public Hearing - Special Assessments - Miscellaneous Charges 08-45
5. OLD BUSINESS
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Announcements of Meetings
B. Mayor and Council Communications
7. ADJOURNMENT
alley
M rand
Fire Department
763-593-8079 I 763-593-8098 (fax)
Executive Summary for Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2008
Agenda Item
1. C. National Fire Prevention Week - October 5-11,2008
Prepared By
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections
Summary
National Fire Prevention Week is October 5-11, 2008. This year the fire prevention theme is
Prevent Home Fires! In Minnesota the State Fire Marshal has declared October to be Fire
Prevention Month. During October Golden Valley Fire Department staff will be providing
public education programs at local schools, child care facilities and businesses, fire station
tours and school fire drills. This year's fire prevention theme will be part of the local education
programs, including the top three causes of residential fires in Minnesota; Cooking (46%),
Heating (11%) and Open Flame (10%).
alley
Moran urn
Finance
763-593-8013 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2008
Agenda Item
3. B. 1. Approval of City Check Register
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Approval of check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley.
Attachments
Loose in agenda packet.
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted.
alley
n u
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2008
Agenda Item
3. B. 2. Approval of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Check Register
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Approval of check register for various vendor claims against the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority.
Attachments
Loose in agenda packet.
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted.
Hey
M m randum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8006/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2008
Agenda Item
3. C. 1. Gambling License Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo - ladies Auxiliary to the
Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #7051
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.
Attachments
Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo (2 pages)
letter from ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars #7051 requesting waiver of30
day waiting period (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the gambling license application to conduct excluded bingo for the ladies
Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #7051.
Minnesota Lawful Gambling
LG240B Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo
6/08
Page 1 of 2
No fee
Organization name
1-(:1. ell es ~ 10 t/ere ~ ()?-
Type of nonprofit organization. Check ('J) one.
D Fraternal D Religious [XI Veterans
Previous gambling permit number
X 8 .. a'3 QS6 "'07 ... 00 I
D Other nonprofit organization
Mailing address ."
7 7 7 S"' /VI ~ tI, ""h e
* Do not attach a sales tax exempt status or federal 10 employer number 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, S1. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 651-296-2803
___ Internal Revenue Service -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.
_Internal Revenue Service - Affiliate of national, statewide, or international parent nonprofit organization (charter)
If your organization falls under a parent organization, attach copies of QQ1b. 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.
llnternal Revenue Service - proof previously submitted to Gamblng Control Board
If you previously submitted proof of nonprofit status from the Internal Revenue Service, no attachment is required.
1. l.No _Yes Has your organization held a bingo event in the current calendar year?
If yes, list the dates when bingo was conducted _____________
2. The proposed bingo event for which we are applying will be:
K- one of four or fewer bingo events held this year. Dates ____ -11- /-/ ~ () Ii _ ___
OR
__conducted up to 12 consecutive days in connection with a:
_county fair.
_civic celebration.
Dates
Dates ________
_Minnesota state fair. Dates _________
3. Person in charge of bingo event bJJ1. rlr-- W.e II e r Daytime phone :1.I 8 - t. 9)1. -;1,? ~
4. Name of premises where bingo will be conducted __~ I /e-2i-1L~1 ~lI_Lj;:, f!!~__
5. Premises street address _L 7 7>' -1J!J_e tI, C ~__/...ctL~--&~,-d _______
6. City F~?t I&t lie CLlf township, name of township____County .1i.e2L41 epj~
Bingo hard cards and bingo number selection devices may be borrowed from another organization
authorized to conduct bingo. Otherwise, bingo hard cards, bingo paper, and bingo number selection
devices must be purchased from a distributor licensed by the Gambling Control Board. To find a licensed
distributor, go to www.gcb.state.mn.us and click on List of Licensed Distributors. Or call 651-639-4076.
Be sure to complete page 2
LG240B Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo
Page 2 of2
6/08
If the gambling premises is within city limits, the city must sign this application.
On behalf ofthe city, I approve this application for 't f'~oldef\ V a Il~
excluded bingo activity at the premises located within CI y name.-1tL:-__________7__________
the city's jurisdiction.
If the gambling premises is located in a township, both the county and township must sign this application.
For the township: On behalf of the township,
I acknowledge that the organization is applying for
excluded bingo activity within the township limits.
A township has no statutory authority to approve or
deny an application (Minn. Stat. 349.213, Subd. 2).
For the county: On behalf of the county, I approve
this application for excluded bingo activity at the
premises located within the county's jurisdiction.
Print township name _____________________
Signature of township official acknowledging application
Title_______________________ Date__I__I__
Print county name _____________________
Signature of county personnel receiving application
Title______________________ Date__I---I_
Send the application and proof of nonprofit
status to:
Gambling Control Board
Suite 300 South
1711 W. County Rd. B
Roseville, MN 55113
You will receive a document from the Gambling Control Board with
your permit number for the gambling activity. Your organization must
keep its bingo records for 3-1/2 years.
Questions? Contact the Gambling Control Board at 651-639-4000.
Or, you may fax it to 651-639-4032.
This form will be made available in alternative format (Le. large print-,
Braille) upon request.
Data Privacy Notice: The information requested on this form
(and any attachments) will be used by the Gambling Control Board
(Board) to determine your qualifications to be involved in lawful
gambling activities in Minnesota. You have the right to refuse to
supply the information requested; however, if you refuse to supply
this information, the Board may not be able to determine your
qualifications and, as a consequence, may refuse to issue you
an authorization. If you supply the information requested, the
Board will be able to process your application.
Your name and your organization's name and address will be
public information when received by the Board. All the other
information will be private data until the Board issues your
authorization and the information then becomes public. If the
Board does not issue you an authorization, all information provided
remains private, with the exception of your name and your
organization's name and address which will remain public.
Private data about you is available to: Board members, Board staff
whose work requires access to the information; Minnesota's
Department of Public Safety, Attorney General; Commissioners of
Administration, Finance, and Revenue; Legislative Auditor, national
and international gambling regulatory agencies; anyone pursuant to
court order; other individuals and agericies that are specifically
authorized by state or federal law to have access to the information;
individuals and agencies for which law or legal order authorizes a
new use or sharing of information after this Notice was given; and
anyone with your consent.
Ladies Auxiliary to the
Veterans of Foreign Wars
Golden Valley #7051
7775 Medicine Lake Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
September 12,2008
Golden Valley City Offices
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Re: Turkey Bingo November 21, 2008
Attention: Mayor and City Council
In reference to our LG240B application to Cpnduct Excluded Bingo, Ladies Auxiliary to
Veterans of Foreign Wars requests that you waive the usual 30 days waiting period.
'fhank yoq for ypur consideration.
Sincerely,
/f~#/~.
Dorothy Weller, Chairman
36007 Co. Rd. 3
Crosslake, MN 55442
218-692-2806
alley
M rand m
City Administration/Council
763-593-8006/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2008
Agenda Item
3. C. 2. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - St. John's Catholic
School
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 St. John's Catholic School 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 St. John's Catholic School.
Minnesota Lawful Gambling
LG220 Application for Exempt Permit
An exempt permit may be issued to a nonprofit organization that:
- conducts lawful gambling on five or fewer days, and
- awards less than $50,000 in prizes during a calendar year.
Page 1 of 2 9/08
Fee is $50 for each event
For Board Use Only
Check #
$
Organi~ation name
'S-t-. "To V1 lIl(S CCtti1 ol,'c s,c V1 00 I
Type of nonprofit organization. Check one.
I C I Fraternal Religious I C I Veterans
Mailing address City
lP TV\+ev \OC~ Vl '.Road \io t (1t1 ~
Name of chief executive officer (CEO)
Previous gambling permit number
I n I Other nonprofit organization
State Zip Code
rvtl\l ~C?~4 ~
Daytime phone number
County
USI4
fa-tliu. vqfM L-i.( kltllA ~
Of 0 ff - q ?C; -C;c; ~~
Do not attach a sales tax exempt status or federal ID employer numbers as they are not proof of nonprofit status.
I n I Nonprofit Articles of Incorporation OR a current Certificate of Good Standing.
Don't have a copy? This certificate must be obtained each year from:
Secretary of State, Business Services Div., 180 State Office Building, S1. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 651-296-2803
r\;tf1IRS 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.
I CIIRS - 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.
[EJ
IRS - proof previously submitted to Gambling Control Board
If you previously submitted proof of nonprofit status from the IRS, no attachment is required.
GAMBLING PREMISES INFORMA liON
Name of premises where gambling activity will be conducted (for raffles, list the site where the drawing will take place)
ol&JVl Vall€ Cou.vrty Club
Ad~S;(~oinot~~r&;~ Road C~t~V\ Vel/If ZiP~~L/P;ountYH-eVl
Date(s) of activity (for raffles, indicate the d te of the drawing)
to Nb\ie V\I\ b.e V llo ( ~ 00 ~ (d YO \A; j"V1 j)
pM
heck the box or bo es t at indicate the type of gambling activity your organization will conduct:
Ii Bingo* Raffies I Paddlewheels* C Pull-Tabs* r Tipboards*
* Gambling equipment for pull-tabs, bingo paper, tipboards, and
paddlewheels must be obtained from a distributor licensed by the
Gambling Control Board. EXCEPTION: Bingo hard cards and bingo
number selection devices may be borrowed from another organization
authorized to conduct bingo.
To find a licensed distributor, go to www.gcb.state.mn.us and dick on List
of Licensed Distributors, or call 651-639-4076.
Also complete
Page 2 of this form.
LG220 Application for Exempt Permit
If the gambling premises is within city limits,
a city official must check (X) the action that the
city is taking on this application and sign the
application.
~e application is acknowledged with no waiting period.
_The application is acknowledged with a 30 day waiting
period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30
days (60 days for a 1 st class city).
_The application is denied.
Print city name OJ () / d -en Vall ~
On behalf of the city, I acknowledge this application.
~ateL 17 , ore
Page 2 of2
9/08
If the gambling premises is located in a township, a
county official must check (X) the action that the county
is taking on this application and sign the application. A
township official must also sign the application.
_The application is acknowledged with no waiting period.
_The application is acknowledged with a 30 day waiting
period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30
days.
_The application is denied.
Print county name
On behalf of the county, I acknowledge this application.
Signature of county official receiving application
Date-l-l_
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.:213, subd. 2)]
Print township name
Title
Signature of township official acknowledging application
Title
Date-l_'_
The information provided in this application is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I acknowledge that the
financial report will be completed and returned to the Board within 30 days of the date of our gambling activity. .
Chief executive officer's signature iJ~- q ~ ;z::1L Date q 117/08
Complete a separate application for each gambing activity:
. one day of gambling activity
. two or more consecutive days of gambling activity
. each day a raffle drawing is held
Send application with:
a copy of your proof of nonprofit status, and
$50 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
Data privacy. This form will be made available in
alternative format (i.e. large print, Braille) upon
request. The information requested on this
form (and any attachments) will be used by the
Gambling Control Board (Board) to determine
your qualifications to be involved in lawful
gambling activities in Minnesota. You have
the right to refuse to supply the information
requested; however, if you refuse to supply
this information, the Board may not be able
to determine your qualifications and, as a
consequence, may refuse to issue you a
permit. If you supply the information
requested,
Financial report and recordkeeping
required
A financial report form and instructions will be
sent with your permit. Within 30 days of the
activity date, complete and return the financial
report form to the Gambling Control Board.
Questions?
Call the Licensing Section of the Gambling
Control Board at 651-639-4076.
the Board will be able to process your
application. Your name and and your
organization's name and address will be public
information when received by the Board. All
the other information you provide will be private
data until the Board issues your permit. When
the Board issues your permit, all of the
information provided to the Board will become
public. If the Board does not issue a permit, all
information provided remains private, with the
exception of your name and your organization's
name and address which will remain public.
Private data are available to: Board
members,
Board staff whose work requires access to the
information; Minnesota's Department of Public
Safety; Attorney General; Commissioners of
Administration, Finance, and Revenue;
Legislative Auditor, national and international
gambling regulatory agencies; anyone
pursuant to court order; other individuals and
ttgdnuespecifically authorized by state or
federal law to have access to the information;
individuals and agencies for which law or legal
order authorizes a new use or sharing of
information after this Notice was given; and
anyone with your consent.
THE CHURCH OF
ST JOHN
THE EVANGELIST
..
1 . d
Oct. 1, 2008
Ms. Judy Nally
Administrative Assistant
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Rd.
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Dear Judy,
Our parish elementary school, 8t John's Catholic School, will be holding
its annual Bright Beginnings Brunch at Golden Valley Country Club on
Nov. 16th, 2008. We respectfully request that the City Council waive the
customary 30-day waiting period for the exemption for lawful gambling
permit required for this type of event . We will be holding a raffle at this
event.
roo Ivan
Business Administrator
6INTERLA.CHENHOAD, HOPKINS,MN 55343 (952) 935~5536
i1Zl.Z-8E:S-ZSS
di1S:S0 80 10 +00
a '>j....n B.L
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 11, 2008
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday,
August 11, 2008. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchka, McCarty,
Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark
Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.
1. Approval of Minutes
June 23, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the June
23, 2008 minutes as submitted.
2. Informal Public Hearing - Property Rezoning - Z012-16
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Address: Northeast Corner of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road
Purpose: To make the zoning designation consistent with the General Land
Use Plan map designation
Grimes referred to a location map .and explained that this is a proposal to rezone 5.6
acres on the northeast corner of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road to the R-4 High
Density Residential zoning district in order to make it consistent with the current General
Land Use Plan map. He stated that the properties are currently zoned R-1 Single Family
Residential and R-3 Medium Density Residential.
Grimes explained that in 1999 the City adopted the current General Land Use Plan
which designated these properties high density. Since that time staff has not
recommended rezoning the properties even though state statute requires that zoning
maps and general land use plan maps be consistent. He explained that staff is now
recommending these properties be rezoned because there has been a request to
construct 175 units of housing which is approximately 30 units per acre. He stated that
staff is recommending approval of this rezoning because it is consistent with the General
Land Use Plan map dating back to 1999.
Kluchka asked why the City is proposing this rezoning now. Grimes stated that the City is
proposing this rezoning now because United Properties is proposing to build 175 units of
senior housing and the City's General Land Use Plan map and Zoning map have to
match. He stated that this rezoning probably should have been done sooner.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 11, 2008
Page 2
Schmidgall asked if it would be an option to make the General Land Use Plan map
match the Zoning map instead of the other way around. Grimes stated that the City
Council has the right to change the General Land Use Plan map how they want. The
current policy of the City as shown on the General Land Use Plan map is high density
residential. Within the past year, the Planning Commission has suggested as part of the
Comprehensive Plan update that these properties remain designated high density
because this is a logical location for higher density development in Golden Valley.
Keysser opened the public hearing.
Eleanore Kolar, 6186 Golden Valley Road, said she is appalled and angry that she is
even at this meeting. She said she is amazed that the Planning Commission hasn't
heard of global warming because removing the trees from these properties amounts to
deforestation. She said this shows the ignorance of governing bodies and asked what
the sense is in using this property for someone's monetary gain.
Jamie Fitzgerald, 1400 Florida Avenue North, said the notification process for this
meeting was very lax and the only way she found out about it was from a neighbor who
said this proposal was already a done deal. She referred to the housing stock in the area
and said "the GV Ghetto" is at the top of the hill and the rest of the area is small starter
family homes with the majority being long time, highly-educated residents. She
expressed concern over the size of the proposed buildings because four-story buildings
will tower over the neighborhood. She said her other concerns include ambulances
constantly driving by and the loss of green space and trees located on these properties.
She said she is worried that this area will change too much and the City needs to
consider the impact on the neighborhood because she is afraid it won't be community
friendly. She said she would like the proposal to include a park or an area open to the
public. She questioned the impacts to the creek and questioned what type of residents
the proposed senior housing would have including violent people or people with
dementia. She said she would be happy if a smaller assisted living home were built but
the City needs to consider the impact to the smaller single family homes in the area.
Dale Bates, 6140 Golden Valley Road, said he is concerned that a four-story building will
be aesthetically displeasing. He is also concerned about what the building will look like
and how higher density will affect the traffic. He said this proposal will cause a lot of
change and it may be difficult getting on and off Golden Valley Road during the
construction.
Patty Burrets, 6414 Golden Valley Road, said she did not receive a hearing notice for
this meeting or for the meeting held by the applicant last Wednesday. She said at the
applicant's meeting they were told that the Comprehensive Plan is calling for high
density on these properties and that is what the City wants. She said she doesn't see
how the City can pre-approve things without getting citizen input. She said she was also
told by the applicant that they will not make any money from the 74-unit co-op building.
She said that the proposed buildings will be too dense and questioned how many acres
the project includes. Keysser stated that the project will be on 4.7 acres. Burrets
expressed concern about how many people would be allowed to live on an acre.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 11, 2008
Page 3
Grimes explained that the R-4 zoning district allows housing in buildings up to 8 stories
or 96 feet in height before requiring a Conditional Use Permit. He said in terms of density
generally 30 to 35 units per acre is considered to be pretty high density. He referred to
the Calvary apartments and co-op property and stated that that has approximately 35 to
40 units per acre and is 10 or 11 stories in height and is the tallest development in
Golden Valley.
Burrets questioned why the applicant wouldn't just build a little bit bigger assisted living
building and forget about the co-op building if they are not going to make any money
from it anyway. She stated people are very unhappy and this is disturbilJg their lives. She
added that it isn't that people don't want this type of use it's the size, scope, height and
design that are the issues. She said the City should be looking for something other than
assisted living buildings. They should be providing affordable housing for young people
to move into this neighborhood.
Stacy Hoschka, 6400 Golden Valley Road, said she agreed that there is a problem with
the notification process and she spent hours distributing literature up and down Golden
Valley Road. She said she doesn't object to the proposed use and she would prefer
assisted living or senior housing versus another apartment building. She said this is
going to be the highest density area in Golden Valley and questioned how the City
wanted the area to look. She said it sounds to her like the Planning Commissioners don't
even agree on the amount of density that should be in this area. She stated that the City
has made promises with the Envision study, adopting the "Kyoto Protocol" and the new
Douglas Drive Corridor Study and she is going to hold the City to these promises. She
said she is nervous that this property will become low income housing 10 years from now
if this project doesn't succeed. She questioned if other senior housing properties are at
capacity and stated that the design of the proposed new buildings looks very institutional
and they will tower over the neighborhood. She asked that the applicant work with the
neighborhood regarding landscaping and open space and said there are a lot of
opportunities to be creative and unique. She said residential properties have a big impact
on the environment and she is concerned about storm water issues and landscape
maintenance and fertilizers being used so close to the creek. She said she is also
concerned about the traffic and hearing loud ambulance sirens all day long. She urged
the City to listen to both sides.
Roxanne Sienko, 5800 Golden Valley Road, said she is opposed to rezoning this area.
She stated that 14 years ago Covenant Manor approached her because they wanted to
expand. She said they were not interested in her family, they only wanted money. She
suggested building nice single family homes and stated that the proposed project will
change the neighborhood and the tall buildings won't fit in with the rest of the area.
Janice Laulainen, 6040 Golden Valley Road, said she loves this area and what the City
is doing is uncalled for. She said the gorgeous trees will be gone and she can't
understand with all of the senior housing in the area why they need more. She asked
why this project isn't being built where the Douglas Drive Apartments or the Copacabana
Apartments are located because there is a lot of crime in those areas. She said she's
been told that the older people who would be living in the proposed new buildings won't
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 11, 2008
Page 4
drive and that is "baloney". She said the City is really asking for problems and referred to
all the buildings that are for currently for lease. She said the proposed buildings are too
high and will block the sun and wreck the view. She asked why this corner and why this
is a "cut and dry" deal. She added that if the Planning Commission wants to beautify
Golden Valley they should do it with something else.
Jeanne Nyatz, 1350 Douglas Drive, said she lives in the condominium building to the
north and will look directly at the proposed buildings. She said she thinks the project is
well planned and will be meticulously maintained and beautifully landscaped. She stated
that she has never had a problem getting in and out her driveway on Douglas Drive and
she doesn't think that the density of the proposed new buildings will be a problem.
Fredric Lager, 6306 Golden Valley Road, suggested that people in the neighborhood sit
through another presentation by United Properties because everyone that has spoken at
this meeting has been misinformed and is misrepresenting the proposal. He stated that
United Properties is a local company which has been around for 89 years and this is
their sixth or seventh similar proposal. They are not coming from out of town and
pillaging Golden Valley. He said they will be a good neighbor and a good addition to the
area and he is in support of this proposal if they follow all of the City's guidelines. He
questioned if rezoning these properties is just fixing a technicality on the zoning map.
Keysser explained that the City's General Land Use Plan map has been designated high
density for at least the last nine years. In order to make the Zoning map consistent with
the existing General Land Use Plan map these properties need to be rezoned to the
High Density Residential R-4 zoning district.
Lager asked about the current Comprehensive Plan update. Grimes explained that the
Planning Commission has recommended, as part of the Comprehensive Plan update
process, keeping these properties designated high density.
Jamie Fitzgerald, 1400 Florida Avenue North, said she wants to reiterate that she is not
against the proposal and suggested that a mass mailing be done to a 10-block radius
and that the Planning Commission consider tabling this proposal.
Patty Burrets, 6414 Golden Valley Road, referred to Mr. Lager's comment that there has
been a lot of misunderstanding regarding this proposal and said she wants to know what
has been misunderstood or misrepresented.
Fredric Lager, 6306 Golden Valley Road, stated that he assumes the notification process
followed all of the requirements. Grimes explained that the City of Golden Valley mails
hearing notices to all property owners within 500 feet. He added that the state statute
requires hearing notices be mailed to property owners within 250 feet.
Eleanore Kolar, 6186 Golden Valley Road, said she doesn't believe there has been any
misrepresentation; people are just expressing their opinions.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 11, 2008
Page 5
Mary Carson, 1601 Kelly Drive, said she drives by this area constantly and if something
is going to be done it should be done tastefully because it impacts a lot of people in
Golden Valley. She said from what she has heard this project is not well planned. They
are going to come in, build, then leave because it is business to them. She said she is
concerned about the loss of trees and added that there has to be a way to fit the
architecture into the land.
Dale Bates, 6140 Golden Valley Road suggested the developers build green roofs in
order to release oxygen and save money on heating costs.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing.
Keysser clarified that this proposed project is not a "done deal" until the City Council
makes their decision. He also clarified that the City is not the developer of this proposed
project so it is not up to the City to tell the developer to build single family homes versus
the proposed senior housing.
Kluchka stated that the zoning map says the property is zoned R-3, but Grimes' memo
says R-4 and asked for clarification. Grimes stated that the properties are currently
zoned R-1 and R-3, and the proposal is to rezone them to R-4.
Kluchka said he is concerned about going from R-3 to R-4. Grimes explained that the
R-3 zoning district allows for townhomes and multi-family buildings if they are 12 units or
less per acre. The R-4 zoning district is for multi-family buildings with 12 or more units
per acre. He stated that the City needed to create a zoning district to match the density
requirements on the General Land Use Plan map because the two maps were not
consistent.
Keysser asked if the property is rezoned to R-4 High Density Residential and the
proposed project doesn't happen if the property would remain R-4. Grimes reiterated that
the General Land Use Plan map shows these properties should be high density housing.
He explained that if the Planning Commission and the City Council believe that the
properties should not be used for high density then the General Land Use Plan map
needs to be changed because the High Density designation is the current policy of the
City.
Waldhauser asked about the density of the condominiums to the north. Grimes said
there are approximately 50 units in the condominium which is approximately 25 to 30
units per acre in density.
Schmidgall stated that the City wasn't thinking when it designated these properties high
density on the General Land Use Plan map because he can't imagine a 96-foot tall
building in this location. He said he thinks medium density would be better in this location
particularly because the zoning to the west is R-1 Single Family. He said it looks like this
proposal is being squeezed on to these properties and he thinks the General Land Use
Plan map needs to be corrected not the Zoning map.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 11, 2008
Page 6
McCarty said he is concerned that if this property is rezoned to R-4 and this project
doesn't go through then someone could build a 96-foot tall building. He suggested
reconsidering the General Land Use Plan map designation.
Eck said the issue to consider is if R-4 is appropriate in this location because if the land
use is changed to R-3 it would shoot this project down.
Kluchkaquestioned if rezoning the properties to R-3 would make the apartments "not
developable" .
Eck stated that if the property is rezoned to R-4 it doesn't necessarily mean that a much
taller or higher density project would be approved. Keysser questioned how a project
could be denied if it were to meet all the zoning code requirements. Grimes explained
that a PUD Permit requires a developer to stick to an approved plan.
Cera asked if the PUD stays with the land. Grimes said yes and explained that if a
developer in the future wanted to change an approved PUD Permit the City would have
to rescind or amend the existing PUD Permit. Keysser asked for clarification that if
someone in the future wanted to build something higher or something different they
would have to amend the PUD. Grimes said yes.
Schmidgall noted that the properties north of the creek are in the same situation. Grimes
agreed and stated that the properties north of the creek are considered non-conforming
and if the apartments to the north are re-developed they will more than likely be higher
density because of the facts of the economy.
Cera asked if the City could approve the rezoning request, but deny the PUD request.
Grimes reiterated that the City Council has designated this area high density. If the
Planning Commission doesn't agree that this area should be high density they could
table the rezoning request and ask the City Council to reconsider the comprehensive
plan designation. He stated that Golden Valley is currently 70% single family homes. The
City has looked far and wide in Golden Valley for areas that could be designated higher
density because the Planning Commission and City Council felt there needed to be
areas designated for higher density uses and it was felt that this was a good area for
higher density development.
Waldhauser said they need to look at the City and see if there is a better location for this
type of development and she doesn't think there is.
Keysser said he is comfortable with rezoning the property knowing the City has the PUD
process for protection.
McCarty said he is curious as to what the Douglas Drive Corridor study will find because
this project will set the tone for the rest of the corridor if this project goes forward.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 11, 2008
Page 7
Keysser stated that the Douglas Drive Corridor study committee has looked at maps to
see if change was wanted or not. Hogeboom added that the consensus of the Douglas
Drive Corridor study committee was to change these properties to high density.
Kluchka said this is one of the better places the City has to do this type of development
and he is inclined to support the rezoning. However, he is concerned about traffic
because nobody yields at the corner of Golden Valley Road and Douglas Drive, which
needs to be thought about as a part of the Douglas Drive Corridor study. He said they
also need to address traffic and impacts to the area.
Cera said he agrees that there is a need for higher density housing.
Eck said this is a NIMBY issue and it is fair to say that higher density housing like this is
never desirable for the neighbors living in the area. He said he wants to be sensitive to
the neighbor's feelings but if the City was totally sensitive there would never be any
change.
Waldhauser said she supports the rezoning request with some reservations. She said
Golden Valley needs more senior housing opportunities and this project is an attractive
option for seniors.
McCarty said he understands that Golden Valley needs higher density but he is
concerned that if these properties were rezoned, someone could propose at 96-foot tall
building and if it meets all of the zoning code requirements they wouldn't need a PUD.
Kluchka asked if there is any way to place some type of overlay or control on future
development. Grimes said he doesn't think so. He explained that if the concern is the
height of the structures then the Planning Commission could consider changing the
Zoning Code requirements. He added that if the City holds off on the rezoning of the
properties until the Final PUD procedure it would hold the zoning of the land in the state
it is in currently. Kluchka said he doesn't want to playa procedural game he would like
something more like an overlay.
Schmidgall said he would like to rezone the properties to R-3 Medium Density
Residential, not R-4 High Density Residential. He said he would rather have a developer
beg the City to be allowed to build taller than have the City beg a developer to build
something shorter.
McCarty asked if the rezoning and PUD are approved and the developer decides not to
build this project what the limitations are to the next developer. Grimes stated that the
City Council can eliminate or rescind a PUD and go back to what the property is zoned
and a future developer would probably have to replat the properties or a PUD can be
amended to allow for something else. He reiterated that the PUD takes the plans
submitted and holds the developer to them. He stated that from a staff perspective this
proposal is consistent with what the City is calling for. He referred to the City's housing
plan and noted that it also calls for providing an alternate form of housing. He stated that
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 11,2008
Page 8
other cities have built this type of product and have proved that this type of housing
causes turnover and frees up single family homes for younger families to purchase.
Waldhauser said the thinks the City should be looking at all the properties at the same
time and needs to be thinking about the whole area. Grimes reiterated that state law
requires that General Land Use Plan maps and Zoning maps are consistent with each
other.
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried 6 to 1 to recommend
rezoning the following properties from their current zoning designation to the R-4 High
Density Residential Zoning District. Commissioner Schmidgall voted no.
. 1100, 1170, 1200 and 1300 Douglas Drive North from R-1 Single Family Zoning
District to R-4 High Density Residential Zoning District
. 6200 and 6212 Golden Valley Road from R-3 Medium Density Residential Zoning
District to R-4 High Density Residential Zoning District.
3. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Plan Review - Planned Unit
Development - Applewood Pointe - PUD 106
Applicant: United Properties
Address: Northeast Corner of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a 4-story, 74-unit senior cooperative
building and 4-story, 1 05-unit assisted living building.
Grimes referred to a location map and stated that the properties involved in this request
are located at the northeast corner of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road and are
the same properties involved in the previous rezoning request. He stated that United
Properties is proposing to build two buildings on these properties and create one lot for
each building. One will be a 74-unit senior cooperative housing building and the other will
be a 1 05-unit assisted living building. The proposed buildings will be three and four
stories in height. He stated that the City Engineer and Hennepin County have reviewed
this proposal extensively and Hennepin County has said they do not want access to the
site from Douglas Drive. Therefore there will only be one access located on Golden
Valley Road. He said he feels comfortable with only one access because of the
population of the buildings. He stated that both buildings will have underground and
surface parking and that the amount of parking provided exceeds the City's parking
requirements.
He stated that one of staffs concerns was the additional 17 feet of right-of-way along
Douglas Drive that the County is requesting to accommodate future road changes, turn
lanes or sidewalks. He stated that United Properties is providing additional sidewalks
and is improving sidewalk connections as a part of their proposal. He referred to the
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 11, 2008
Page 9
issue of height and explained that the City measures height from grade to the mid-point
of the highest gable so the proposed buildings will be from 46 feet to 56 feet in height.
He stated that previous speakers brought up the issue of "green" development and
suggested the developer discuss their plans. However, regarding storm water
management they have gone above and beyond the City's requirements. He stated that
the City will be requiring maintenance agreements for the ponds and for the pervious
pavers they are proposing. The applicant will also be required to do a tree preservation
plan. He referred to the site plan and discussed a small triangular area to the north of
their property. He explained that United Properties is in negotiations with the
condominium property to north to obtain that triangular property. Without obtaining that
piece of property the proposal will not be allowed to go forward with their final PUD
approval. He stated that staff is recommending approval of this proposal with the
comments from the City Engineer, the Deputy Fire Marshall and the applicant obtaining
the small triangular property to the north.
McCarty noted that the setback along Douglas Drive is 18 feet and questioned if that
would require a variance. Grimes stated that variances are not issued as a part of the
PUD process and that the plans that are submitted and approved is what gets built.
Grimes added that the County is also asking for a 10-foot easement for trails. Kluchka
asked if the easement would affect the setback. Grimes said no. The setback is
determined from the official right-of-way for the street.
Schmidgall asked if the buildings are actually five stories in height with the parking
underneath. Grimes said the parking is below grade and reiterated that the height of the
buildings is approximately 56 feet.
Alex Hall, United Properties, Applicant, talked about the background and history of
United Properties. He stated that they got into the senior housing market approximately
six years ago and they have built five co-ops throughout the metro area. He said he
understands the neighbor's concerns and added that he has had a neighborhood
meeting and has invited the neighborhood to go to another one of their sites and see the
landscaping and talk to the people who live there.
Hall said it is his intent to follow the City's Comprehensive Plan which calls for higher
density residential and based on that, they acquired the properties because they feel
their plan will work well on this corner. He referred to the 3-story condominium building to
the north and stated that their proposed new buildings will be less than 10 feet taller than
that so these new buildings will not tower above the other buildings in the area. He
referred to the comment that was made about not needing the co-op building and
clarified that they do need the density of both buildings to make the project work,
however the assisted living building will probably be more profitable. He referred to a site
plan and stated that there will be one enclosed parking space per unit for the co-op
building and the co-op building is "for sale" housing, not rentals.
Hall referred to the concern expressed regarding traffic and stated that the use they are
proposing is one of the lower traffic generating uses that can be found. He stated that
they have done traffic studies in other cities where they have similar projects.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 11, 2008
Page 10
Hall showed a rendering of what the proposed buildings will look like and explained that
the colors shown are not the final color choices. He stated that their buildings use a
variety of materials such as stucco, Hardie Board siding and stone. He said they
welcome the neighbors input on colors and materials. Keysser asked about the roof
materials. Hall stated that the roofs will be a dark color, asphalt shingle.
Keysser asked about the co-op prices. Hall said the co-op units will sell for approximately
$185 per square foot. Keysser asked why they are proposing co-ops instead of
condominiums. Hall stated that there is a financial advantage for a co-op buyer because
a co-op has a master mortgage, not individual mortgages like a condominium. He
explained that co-op documents are set up to give residents a say in how the property is
run. He stated that they don't just construct the buildings and leave; they manage their
own properties with an on-site housing manager and they also have several boards and
committees which are not often found in condominiums.
Hall referred to the City's Comprehensive Plan and discussed the housing forecasts
which show that the 65+ age group is the fastest growing age group so they are building
a product that is needed now and in the future. He added that by people moving into
these types of communities it frees up single-family houses for younger families.
Hall again referred to the City's Comprehensive Plan regarding blighted properties and
stated that they have had a blight analysis done and 3 out of the 5 properties in this
proposal meet the standard for blighted properties in the tax increment financing
standards. He said what they are proposing will be an improvement to the City and
reiterated that their proposal meets the objectives in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Kluchka asked Hall about the size of their Bloomington location. Hall said the
Bloomington site has 95 units on approximately 3 acres. Keysser asked how the
Bloomington units sold. Hall said all of the units were sold before they were done with
construction and there is now a waiting list. Kluchka asked how the neighborhood
concerns were mitigated in Bloomington. Hall said he wasn't involved in the Bloomington
project but he has been involved in the Roseville project where they created a buffer of
"machine moved" pine trees between their project and neighboring single-family homes.
Kevin Teppen, MFRA, Engineer for the project, stated that they want to be as "green" as
they possibly can and save as many trees as possible. He referred to a site plan and
discussed which trees will remain, which trees will be transplanted and which trees will
be removed. He stated that there will be permeable pavers in the courtyard and rock
infiltration basins in addition to the heavy landscaping being proposed.
Keysser asked if there will be a LEED designation on this project. Hall said no because it
is very difficult to get LEED certification on residential property. He stated that they will
have a central boiler to increase efficiency in the assisted living building and that these
proposed units will be more energy efficient than a single-family home.
Kluchka asked if there are plans to install bike racks. Hall stated that all of their buildings
have several bike racks in the garage level.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 11, 2008
Page 11
Keysser asked about the location of the nearest bus stop. Grimes said there is a bus
stop located across the street.
Eck asked if the residents would be able to purchase an additional parking space if they
would like. Hall said not in the co-op building because there will be one parking space
per unit but there could possibly be spaces available to rent in the assisted living
building.
Keysser asked about the percentage of single people versus couples. Hall said
approximately 50% will be couples.
Kluchka asked Hall to address the approachability of the entrances. Hall referred to the
site plan and stated that the main entrances are on the interior of the courtyard. He said
there will be rear entrances in the back of the assisted living building and that all
entrances will have card access or key fob access. He added that they will also be
installing benches near the creek.
Kluchka explained that in previous proposals the Planning Commission has discussed
buildings that don't look approachable. He said he wants to have an entrance or face in
the neighborhood. Teppen stated that there will be a pedestrian gateway along Douglas
Drive with a central courtyard to welcome people in. Keysser stated that the previous
discussions the Planning Commission had were in regard to office space. He said he
feels this proposal is different because it is residential and therefore more private.
Kluchka said he understands that, but he doesn't want the buildings to have a "faux
Craftsman look" or a large flat wall that looks like an institution because this is a gateway
intersection and he's afraid it doesn't say "Golden Valley" and it won't be appealing. He
asked if there is a way to make it look more approachable to people driving by. Hall
showed an elevation drawing of the buildings and discussed the stone and entrance
focal point. Kluchka stated that this is a significant mass of a building and he is trying to
look for ways the building can be kind to the environment and feel approachable and
give an impression that this is somewhere someone would want to live. Keysser said he
thinks the trees will help with the massing feel. Hall stated that they turned the east end
of the assisted living building to help not have such a long expanse of wall along Golden
Valley Road. McCarty said he agrees that there is a lot of building along Golden Valley
Road.
Waldhauser suggested that instead of having so much open space with parking in the
center they consider moving the parking to the outside of the building and camouflaging
it, then the building wouldn't be so close to the street. Hall stated that with that
configuration they would lose density and they would have to have a T-shaped building.
He said that they did consider turning the buildings and that this project as gone through
several versions before the one being proposed. Keysser stated that the Douglas Drive
side of the buildings looks good to him and questioned if anything could be done along
the Golden Valley Road side to help break-up the fac;ade along the street. Hall stated
that could have bump-outs in the fac;ade along Golden Valley Road.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
Aug ust 11, 2008
Page 12
Fariborz Afsharjavan, JSSH Architects, Architect for the project, stated that some of the
issues with the buildings have to do with the setback requirements, the density and the
parking requirements. He said the buildings are broken up as much as possible and the
site doesn't allow them to do anything differently. He said they are breaking up the
fa<;ade with the materials they are using. He added that the end user is going to drive the
look of this project because people living in these units don't want to look at cars on
Douglas Drive or Golden Valley Road. He referred to the entrance and discussed how it
will be a visible focal point.
Keysser opened the public hearing.
John Paulson, 320 Edgewood Avenue North, asked if the City is subsidizing or deferring
taxes to aid this project in any way.
Grimes stated that the applicant has requested Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Hall
added that they have had preliminary discussions with the City regarding TIF but nothing
has been finalized. Paulson said he not opposed to the development if they pay for it
themselves. He said he doesn't want to pay taxes to assist someone in constructing
another building and taxpayers shouldn't have to support this project. Grimes said that
the issue of TIF is an HRA and City Council issue. The detailsof that are separate from
the land use issues they are discussing at this meeting.
Kluchka asked how TIF is being used. Grimes stated it will be used to write down the
cost of the land.
Kluchka asked about the TIF process. Grimes said there will be a development plan for
the area and he believes the Planning Commission will review it. Keysser clarified that
TIF is paid by the property owner, not by taxpayers. Paulson said he doesn't believe in
subsidies because it is not the American way to do business.
Roxanne Sienko, 5800 Golden Valley Road, asked how tall the buildings are from the
bottom of the building to the top. Hall said the buildings are approximately 57 to 58 feet
in height. Sienko said she thinks a 60-foot high building would be considered a six story
building. She said she wants to know if these buildings are four or six story buildings.
Grimes explained that the City measures height from grade to the middle of the highest
gable. Sienko stated that the existing apartment building is a three story building. Grimes
stated that story heights are greater today than when the apartments were built and
there is also more space between the floors. Sienko asked if she will only see one more
story on the proposed new buildings compared to the apartments that are there now.
Kluchka stated that these new buildings have a slightly steeper gable so essentially it will
look like another story visually. Hall added that the proposed new buildings will be
approximately 10 feet higher than the condominium building to the north.
Sienko asked how many feet there will be from the curb to the edge of the building.
Grimes said there will be 43 feet from the curb to the building. Sienko asked if between
the building and the curb there will be trees, sidewalk and grass. Grimes said yes.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 11, 2008
Page 13
Sienko asked why they are proposing so much parking if all the spots are not needed.
She suggested they put in more green space instead. Kluchka said it is a matter of use
versus capacity. Hall stated that visitors won't have access to the underground garage
spaces. He explained that they could probably get rid of half of the underground parking
under the assisted living building but it is not cost effective to dig out only half of the
underground area. He said he does feel that they will need all of the surface parking.
Sienko said her concern is the increased traffic on Golden Valley Road. She said she
has concerns about people passing each other on Golden Valley Road when they have
to slow down for their driveways. She stated that Golden Valley Road was just replaced
last year and now it will look like it did before it was replaced. She said she also thinks
that a 59-foot tall building is a big building.
Stacy Hoschka, 6400 Golden Valley Road, said she agrees with the comment made
about having a "faux Craftsman" look along Golden Valley Road and that even the
architect said he is not a fan of the massive look. She asked if the City wants the
buildings to look like they are proposing just to meet the applicant's needs. She said the
aesthetics are her biggest concern and the four story portions of the buildings will largely
overshadow the three story portions. She said traffic is also a major concern and she is
concerned about what could be built at this location if this plan doesn't go through. She
asked if a PUD includes just the building plans or if it includes the trees too. Grimes
stated that the PUD plans include a landscaping plan that is typically in effect for two
growing seasons. Hoschka asked if trees die would they have to be replaced. Grimes
said the applicant will be required to have a tree preservation plan.
Hoschka asked if the applicant has considered using geothermal heating and cooling.
Hall said no.
Hoschka asked if a maintenance agreement will be required for the pervious pavers they
are proposing. Grimes said yes.
Hoschka asked if the proposed ponding was considered pervious or impervious. Kluchka
said the ponds are considered pervious. Hoschka said ponds are impervious.
Patty Burrets, 6414 Golden Valley Road, expressed concern that there is only one
entrance and exit for the number of cars coming in and out. She asked where deliveries
will be made and said she hopes it's not on Golden Valley Road. Keysser reiterated that
the County will not allow access on Douglas Drive. Burrets said the driveway on Golden
Valley Road is going to be dangerous and asked how far away the entrance is from the
bridge. Kluchka said the bridge is about 20 feet away from the entrance. Teppen, stated
that the distance from the entrance to the driveway was an issue discussed with the City
Engineer and the Deputy Fire Marshal, also with the County. Burrets stated that Hall had
said they were considering moving the entrance further to the west. Hall said they are
still considering that. Burrets stated that people on Golden Valley Road go 35 to 40 miles
per hour and there is not enough space for a person to stop. She said a project this size
is not appropriate with one entrance and it is something that needs to be thought about.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 11, 2008
Page 14
Burrets asked how the property is going to be lit. Hall said they would follow the City's
lighting ordinance requirements.
Burrets said she is surprised this property is as expensive as it is considering the blight.
She asked how the taxes are figured on co-ops versus condos and how it compares to
her house. Keysser stated that the co-op building pays the taxes versus the individuals.
Grimes added that the City has no say in a building becoming a condo or a co-op. Hall
stated that cities assess co-ops similar to apartment buildings. Burrets said she thinks
this project is huge for the size of property it is on and it will be overbuilt.
Janice Laulainen, 6040 Golden Valley Road, asked if Golden Valley Road is torn up who
pays to fix it, the developer or the people who live on Golden Valley Road. Grimes
explained that the City policy is if a street is less than 5 years old the developer has to
make it new again. He said the City has the same concern because it does not want its
new streets torn up and not fixed. Laulainen said this project is more work and trouble for
everyone. Grimes stated that the City can't stop development for 5 years because a
street is new.
Hoschka stated she is not opposed to the project she just wants to be involved in the
aesthetics of it.
Hall stated that he strongly believes based on past traffic studies that the traffic
generated from the proposed four stories of senior housing will be less than the numbers
for a less dense, non-senior project. Grimes said the City does know that senior
developments produce less peak-hour trips.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing.
Schmidgall said he would very much like to see this project built but he thinks it is too big
for this site.
Keysser said he supports this project because there is clearly a need for it. Cera said he
supports the proposal as well especially since it opens up single family homes for new
buyers and it is close to a bus line.
Kluchka said he wants to see the design better suit the site and he wants to see better
traffic safety at that intersection. He said he is concerned about the safety of the
entrance and the yield sign and crosswalk at that intersection. He said he wants
conditions of approval that require the building along Golden Valley Road to articulate
and because of the lack of articulation he is going to vote no.
Grimes said he can get more traffic and safety information from the City's consulting
traffic engineer. He said the City also has concerns about the safety of that intersection
and it will also a part of the Douglas Drive Corridor Study.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 11, 2008
Page 15
McCarty said he agrees that Golden Valley needs this type of project but he is also
concerned about the traffic and long stretch of building along Golden Valley Road so he
is not inclined to support this proposal.
Keysser suggested they add a condition to their approval that the building fac;ade along
Golden Valley Road must articulate. Kluchka said his preference would be to table the
req uest.
McCarty said he would rather see one building be taller and set back further from Golden
Valley Road than have the long fac;ade right along Golden Valley Road.
Eck said his initial reaction was that this is a lot of building for this site but there are
groups of apartment buildings all over Golden Valley that seem to manage traffic coming
in and out of them. He said he is inclined to support the project.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried 4 to 3 to recommend
approval of a PUD at the Northeast Corner of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road to
allow for the construction of a 4-story, 74-unit senior cooperative building and 4-story,
1 05-unit assisted living building with the following conditions. Kluchka, McCarty and
Schmidgall voted no.
1. The "Preliminary Site Development Plans for Applewood Pointe" prepared by MFRA
Associates and dated 7/25/08 shall become a part of this approval. These plans
consist of Sheets C-1.01, 2.01, 3.01, 3.02,4.01,4.02,4.03, 5.01, 5.02, 5.03, 6.01,
8.01,9.01,9.02, and 10.01.
2. The preliminary architectural plans for Applewood Pointe of Golden Valley prepared
by JSSH Architects and dated 5/09/08 shall become a part of this approval. These
plans consist of Cooperative Sheets CSt A1.1, A2.0, A2.2, A2.3, A2.4, A2.5, A2.6,
A2.7, A3.1, A3.2, A3.3, A3.4, A4.1, A4.2, A4.3, A4.4, Assisted Living Sheets A2.1,
A2.2, A4.1 , and A4.2.
3. The recommendations and findings made by City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, found in
the memo to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and dated July 30,
2008 shall become a part of this approval.
4. The recommendations and findings made by Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson found
in the memo to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and dated July 21, 2008 shall
become a part of this approval.
5. Prior to approval of the final plan of development by the City Council, title to the
triangular piece of property now owned by the condominium association north of
Bassett Creek shall be in the ownership of Applewood Pointe.
6. The applicant shall show some alternate designs regarding the fac;ade of the assisted
living building along Golden Valley Road.
7. The City's consulting traffic engineer shall address the issues related to the traffic
concerns before the proposal goes to the City Council.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 11,2008
Page 16
4. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - Teacher Federal Credit
Union - 601 Boone Avenue North - CU-123
Applicant Teacher Federal Credit Union
Address: 601 Boone Avenue North
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a 7,700 square foot credit union
building with 4 drive-through lanes in the Commercial Zoning
District. The Conditional Use Permit is required for the drive-through
lanes.
Grimes stated that the applicant, Teacher Federal Credit Union would like to move from
their existing location in Golden Valley to this new location at 601 Boone Avenue North.
He explained that the applicant would like to tear down the existing gas station building
and construct a new 7,700 square foot credit union building with four drive-through lanes.
A Conditional Use Permit is required in this case because of the drive-through lanes.
Keysser asked what the applicant is planning to do with the building they are currently in.
Grimes said he didn't know.
Dan Lieberthal, Vice President Real Estate, Teacher Federal Credit Union, said they
have been in Golden Valley for a very long time and their current facilities no longer meet
their needs. He referred to a site plan and stated that they are planning to build a very
nice credit union and they are also working on re-branding their image. He stated that
they will have to construct the building on pilings because of the flood plain and they will
work with FEMA and the City regarding the flood plain issues.
Keysser asked if there are any environment concerns due to the fuel tanks. Lieberthal
said there are some minor issues but the current owner will be required to remove the
tanks before they buy the property.
Kluchka stated that this location is highly visible and asked the applicant if the credit
union will lease out space for commercial use. Lieberthal said they won't lease out any
space because credit unions are not allowed to own investment properties because they
are taxed differently.
Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Keysser closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit at 601 Boone Avenue North to allow
for the construction of a 7,700 square foot credit union building with 4 drive-through
lanes in the Commercial Zoning District with the following conditions:
1. The site plan for the TFCU new branch facility at 601 Boone Ave. N. prepared by
HTG Architects and dated 7/14/08 shall become a part of this approval.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 11, 2008
Page 17
2. The recommendations and findings of City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, found in a memo
to Planning Director Mark Grimes and dated July 31, 2008 shall become a part of this
recommendation.
3. The recommendations and findings of Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson found in a
memo to Planning Director Mark Grimes and dated July 30, 2008 shall become a part
of this recommendation.
4. A sidewalk connection between the sidewalk along Boone Ave. N. to the sidewalk in
front of the proposed credit union building shall be constructed along with other site
improvements.
5. The Building Board of Review shall review and approve the final landscape plan for
this site.
6. Any failure to comply with one or more of the conditions of approval shall be grounds
for revocation of the conditional use permit.
---Short Recess---
5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
No reports were given.
6. Other Business
No other business was discussed.
7. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 11: 15 pm.
Lester Eck, Secretary
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
August 26,2008
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday,
August 26, 2008 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair
Sell called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Members Kisch, Nelson, Segelbaum, Sell, and Planning Commission
Representative McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom and
Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.
I. Approval of Minutes - July 22, 2008
MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve the
July 22 minutes as submitted.
II. The Petitions are:
1400 Rhode Island Ave. N. (08-08-11)
Frank A. Manaro, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12(A)(2) Front Yard Setback
Requirements
. 14.8 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 20.2 ft. at its closest
point to the front yard (south) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new garage.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12(A)(3) Rear Yard Setback
Requirements
. 2 ft. off the required 5 ft. to a distance of 3 ft. at its closest point to
the rear yard (east) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new garage.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12(E) Accessory Structure Size
Requirements
. 75 sq. ft. more than the allowed 800 sq. ft. for anyone accessory
structure for a total area of 875 sq. ft.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new garage.
Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and explained that the applicant is
proposing to tear down his existing garage in order to build a new garage. He stated that
the proposed new garage needs variances from front and side yard setback requirements
and also from accessory structure size requirements. He added that in 1997 five variances
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
August26,2008
Page 2
were granted to bring the existing home and garage into conformance and to allow for the
construction of a 3-season porch.
Segelbaum referred to the application and asked if there was three feet taken from this
property when the streets were reconstructed as the applicant stated. Hogeboom said he
didn't know and suggested they ask the applicant.
Kisch asked if the existing garage fell under the pre-1982 regulations of the Zoning Code.
Joe stated that the existing garage did receive variances to be located where it is.
Frank Manaro, Applicant, stated that he is looking for more room to park cars and the
existing garage needs to be torn down because it is bad shape. He stated that when the
City reconstructed his street he lost three feet from the length of his driveway so now the
driveway is too short to park cars on.
Sell noted that the proposed newgarage is 25 feet deep and 35 feet wide.
Kisch asked about the rationale for the 35-foot width of the proposed new garage. Manaro
said he wants a third garage stall to be able to park two cars and have room for storage.
Sell stated that variances have been granted in the past for the location of the existing
garage so really the only new item is the size of the proposed new garage. He added that
it seerns strange to him to look differently at the location of the garage now.
McCarty said he is ok with the location of the proposed new garage but he is
uncomfortable granting a variance for an additional 75 square feet. He stated that if the
garage is going to be rebuilt he would like to see it meet the 5-foot rear yard setback
requirement. Manaro explained that it would be difficult to meet the 5-foot rear yard
setback requirement because the curb cut is already in place and the neighbor has a nice
fence along that property line so it would look bad to move the new garage over.
Kisch suggested making the garage 24 feet deep and 32 feet wide in order to reduce the
square footage of the garage. Segelbaum agreed and said he is guessing that the rest of
the Board is most hesitant about the size of the proposed new garage. Manaro said he
doesn't want to build something and then be disgusted with it. Segelbaum asked the
applicant if he had to reduce the size of the new garage if he would rather reduce the
width or the depth. Manaro said he'd rather reduce the depth but if the new garage is too
small it is not worth it to him to build it.
McCarty stated that technically right now the applicant has a two-car garage so there isn't
really a hardship in this case. He said that if the new garage was 25 feet deep and 32 feet
wide he would be happy and the new garage would still be bigger than the existing garage.
Sell agreed that 25 feet by 32 feet would be adequate.
Kisch said he would be comfortable approving the first two variance requests and denying
the third.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
August26,2008
Page 3
Segelbaum suggested the Board require the new garage to meet the 5-foot rear yard
setback, but he would be comfortable approving the first variance request regarding the
front yard setback.
Kisch said that requiring the new garage to meet the 5-foot rear yard setback would have
a bigger impact on the property to the east because there is already a fence and
landscaping in place.
Sell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Sell
closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Nelson, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the
following variance requests:
. 14.8 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 20.2 ft. at its closest point to the front
yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a new garage.
. 2 ft. off the required 5 ft. to a distance of 3 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (east)
property line to allow for the construction of a new garage.
And to deny the following variance request:
. 75 sq. ft. more than the allowed 800 sq. ft. for anyone accessory structure for a total
area of 875 sq. ft.
6925 Medicine Lake Road (08-08-12)
Ronald and Vicki Rath. Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback
Requirements
. 7.75 ft. off the required 22.75 ft. to a distance of 15 ft. at its closest
point to the side yard (east) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (B) Height Requirements
. 2.5 ft. higher than the allowed 28 ft. in height to a height of30.5 ft.
(south front elevation)
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(d) Articulation
Requirements
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
August 26,2008
Page 4
. To allow the front wall (along Medicine Lake Rd.) with no
articulation
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback
Requirements
. 4 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 31 ft. at its closest point
to the front yard (south) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck on a new home.
Hogeboom stated that the applicants are proposing to build a new home on a vacant lot at
the corner of Medicine Lake Road and Sandburg Lane. He explained that this lot was part
of a subdivision done a few years ago and that the house the applicants are planning to
build met all of the zoning code requirements at that time. The applicants discovered that
the zoning code requirements had significantly changed when they applied for a building
permit. Hogeboom stated that if these current variance requests are granted it would
basically allow the applicants to build their house using previous zoning code requirements
before the "infill ordinance" was adopted. He added that one of the significant hardships in
this case is the triangular shaped lot with essentially three front yards.
McCarty referred to the variance regarding the height of the proposed new home and
questioned if the previous zoning code allowed for 30 feet of height. Hogeboom said yes
and stated that the requested variance is .5 feet higher than the previously allowed 30
feet.
McCarty noted that the articulation requirements would not have been met under the
previous zoning code requirements either because the previous code required walls to
articulate when they reached 40 feet in length. Hogeboom reiterated that the shape of the
lot is the hardship in this case.
Segelbaum asked if the house would have had to have been built before the code
changed to be considered legally non-conforming. Hogeboom said yes and stated that the
applicant was following the regulations of the zoning code at the time.
McCarty asked when the property was subdivided. Hogeboom said he wasn't sure.
Nelson asked when the zoning code requirements changed. Hogeboom said the "infill
ordinance" was adopted in March 2008.
Ronald Rath, Applicant, stated that the property was subdivided in the fall of 2004. He
explained that at that time he showed the City Council preliminary drawings showing a 2-
story house with no articulation in the front. He stated that at that time the only part of his
proposed new house that would not have met the zoning code requirements was the deck
along Sandburg Lane. He said he would be willing to build that deck differently in order to
meet the current setback requirements. He stated that if he doesn't receive a variance
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
August 26, 2008
Page 5
from the side yard setback requirements the lot becomes virtually unbuildable because he
would only be able to build a 900 square foot house which wouldn't be worth the money
they paid for the lot.
Nelson asked about the square footage of the proposed new home. Rath said there will be
1,400 square feet on the main floor, 900 square feet in the master suite above and 900
square feet below. He reiterated that the area he is proposing to build the house on is the
only buildable part of the lot and that he did not pay $80,000 for the lot to build a rambler.
He explained that the height of the proposed new house would be 28-30 feet if he didn't
have to give up 5 feet required for the grading of the lot. He added that the new zoning
code requirements just about destroy this property.
Hogeboom noted that this property is bordered by light industrial properties so there won't
be any homes to the rear of this proposed new house.
Sell talked about the many ideas that have been proposed in the past for this corner. He
commended the applicant for trying to build a house on this lot.
Nelson said she understands the intent of the recently adopted zoning changes but this is
certainly a unique lot and the proposed house is not enormous or oversized for this lot.
McCarty asked that applicant why he didn't build this house three years ago when the
property was subdivided. Rath explained that the mortgage company folded and the
amount of construction money available is down to three lenders in the state.
McCarty said he feels ambivalent about this proposal. He said he is fine with the side yard
setback variance request because the intent of the new zoning requirements was to avoid
a "canyon" affect between houses and he doesn't see that as being an issue in this case.
He added however that he doesn't believe that the house plans met the previous zoning
code requirements either.
Rath stated that every jog in a wall costs more to build, insure and heat and cool. He
asked if the proposed deck along Sandburg Lane can be built to within 30 feet of the
property because it is considered a front yard. Segelbaum said he thinks this lot has one
front setback when considering an open front porch. He explained that the zoning code
allows open front porches, not decks, to be located 30 feet from the front yard property
line.
Sell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Sell
closed the public hearing.
Segelbaum said that he feels sympathetic for the applicant because he was caught in the
middle of the zoning code changes. He said the house plans look nice but the City Council
voted to change the zoning code requirements and he feels that granting these variance
requests would go against the City Council's wishes. He said he would like the Council to
review this proposal to see if this was their intent.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
August 26,2008
Page 6
Kisch said he feels fine granting the side yard variance request because this is such a
unique lot and he needs the side yard variance to make this a buildable lot. He said he is
also ok with the variance regarding articulation because the front porch breaks up the
fa9ade of the front of the house and it is in line with the intent of the zoning code. He said
that the height of the proposed new home is an issue for him and he thinks the height
could be brought down a little bit. He added that the proposed house will fit in with the
character of the neighborhood and noted that the next two homes on the same street are
also 2-story walk-out style homes. McCarty said the Board can't look at the other homes in
area because they were built before the new zoning requirements were adopted.
Nelson stated that there are unique circumstances with this property. The proposal is
keeping within the spirit of the zoning code and the proposed house won't substantially
change the character of the neighborhood. She added that these are the things the Board
is supposed to consider when granting variances.
Sell stated that if this proposed house were being built between two existing houses he
could see that there would be some concern but this lot is unique because of its shape
and what is located around it. He said due to the many unique circumstances in this case
he is in favor of granting the requested variances. He said he would also like these
minutes and issues brought to the City Council's attention because maybe the new zoning
code requirements need further review.
Segelbaum asked Hogeboom which variances requested are needed as a result of the
zoning code changes. Hogeboom said all of the requests except the one for the deck
along Sandburg Lane are required as a result of the new zoning code changes.
Nelson said she thinks it is important to be consistent when granting variances but this is
such a unique circumstance that she doesn't think it will establish any type of precedent.
Segelbaum agreed that granting the requested variances wouldn't set a precedent but he
reiterated that he is not comfortable going against the zoning code requirements that were
just recently adopted by the City Council. He said he would oppose the first three variance
requests but he would be in favor of granting the fourth request. He said he thinks the City
Council needs to see this request and make the decision.
Sell said that the City Council doesn't tend to overrule the Board of Zoning Appeals or go
against the Board's decisions. He said he thinks a split vote would be better than a denial
in this case. Hogeboom offered to write a report to the City Council regarding the issues in
this case.
McCarty said he would like to vote on the variance requests individually. The Board
ag reed.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Kisch and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the request
for 7.75 ft. off the required 22.75 ft. to a distance of 15 ft. at its closest point to the side
yard (east) property line to allow for the construction of a new home. Segelbaum voted no.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
August 26, 2008
Page 7
MOVED by Nelson to approve the request for 2.5 ft. higher than the allowed 28 ft. in
height to a height of 30.5 ft. (south front elevation) to allow for the construction of a new
home, the motion died due to the lack of a second.
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Kisch and motion carried 3 to 2 to deny the request
for 2.5 ft. higher than the allowed 28 ft. in height to a height of 30.5 ft. (south front
elevation) to allow for the construction of a new home. Nelson and Sell voted no.
MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Nelson and motion carried 3 to 2 to approve the request
to allow the front wall (along Medicine Lake Rd.) with no articulation to allow for the
construction of a new home. McCarty and Segelbaum voted no.
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve
the request for 4 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 31 ft. at its closest point to the
front yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a deck on a new home.
Rath stated that he has a very unique lot. He stated that is the job of the Board to make
these types of decisions, not to pass them on to the City Council to review them. He said
with the decisions the Board just made they've basically said that he can't build his house
this year. He reiterated that he has to start measuring his lot five feet underground
because the Code says elevations have to be taken on both street sides.
117 Meadow Lane South (08-08-13)
Wooden Dreams. Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd.11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback
Requirements
. 9.16 ft. off the required 15.5 ft. to a distance of 6.34 ft. at its
closest point to the side yard (north) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of garage/home addition.
Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and stated that the applicant is proposing
to enlarge the existing one-stall garage into a two-stall garage with living space above. He
stated that the hardship noted by the applicant is the one-stall garage. He referred to the
recent changes to the zoning code requirements and stated that the side yard setback
requirement in this case is 15.5 feet. The applicant is proposing to build the addition to
within 6.34 feet of the side yard (north) property line.
McCarty asked what the height of the addition would be if measured to the fascia.
Hogeboom said he didn't know and explained that if the proposed height were fifteen feet
or less in height the side yard setback requirement would be 12.5 feet for this property.
Sell asked how big the proposed new garage will be. Kisch noted that the proposed new
garage will be 25 feet wide and 26 feet deep.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
August 26,2008
Page 8
Howard Theis, Wooden Dreams, Contractor for the project, explained that there are stairs
going into the garage and that is part of the reason they have to build further toward the
front of the lot.
Segelbaum asked the applicant if he has considered reducing the width of the proposed
garage. Theis said no because the need room to get two cars and the stairs in the garage.
Sell noted that the garage depth in effect would be 22 feet deep when considering the
stairs. Theis agreed and added that there is also a grade change and a retaining wall on
the right side of the garage.
McCarty asked if the zoning code hadn't recently changed if the variance request would be
for 6.16 feet off of the required 12.5 feet. Hogeboom said that is correct. Theis added that
a typical two-stall garage is 24 feet wide.
Kisch noted that the other homes/garages in the neighborhood seem to be approximately
14 feet away from the side yard property lines so this proposal is quite a bit closer to the
property line than others in the area. Segelbaum agreed that 6 feet away from the property
line is fairly close and that is why he was wondering if the width of the proposed addition
could be made smaller.
McCarty asked the applicant if he would agree to build a 24-foot wide addition instead of
the proposed 25-foot wide addition. Theis stated that he thought a 24-foot wide garage
would still be functional.
Kisch stated that given the location of the existing house he thinks this proposal is
respectful of the neighboring properties. He noted that the stairwell is causing the addition
to jog and to have two garage doors therefore requiring slightly more width.
Dennis Dahlman, Homeowner, stated that he spoke with the neighbor to the north who
would be the most impacted by this addition and she is ok with it.
Nelson stated that in this neighborhood a 2-car garage is appropriate and will improve the
value of the property.
MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve a
variance for 8.16 ft. off the required 15.5 ft. to a distance of 7.34 ft. at its closest point to
the side yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of garage/home addition.
III. Other Business
No other business was discussed.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm
Mike Sell, Chair
Joe Hogeboom, Staff Liaison
GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Minutes
July 28, 2008
Present: Commissioners Baker, Chandlee, Hill, Pawluk and Stremel. Also present were
Jeannine Clancy, Public Works Director; AI Lundstrom, Environmental
Coordinator; and Lisa Nesbitt, Administrative Assistant.
Absent: Commissioners Anderson and St. Clair
1. Call to Order
Pawluk called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.
Introduction of New Commissioner Jim Stremel
Pawluk introduced new Commission member Jim Stremel. He has been a resident of
Golden Valley for three and a half years. He lives on St. Croix Ave with his wife. He is a.
Civil Engineer for a small consulting firm. He handles mostly development work.
2. Approval of Joint Meeting Minutes - June 23. 2008
MOVED by Hill, seconded by Chandlee, and the motion carried unanimously to approve
the minutes of the June 23, 2008 joint meeting.
3. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes - June 23. 2008
MOVED by Chand lee, seconded by Hill, and the motion carried unanimously to approve
the minutes of the June 23, 2008 regular meeting.
4. Mavor's Climate Protection Agreement
Four goals were identified as a means of addressing the MCPA which will
1. Measurement - Staff will provide base numbers for fuel usage, Kwh usage in public
buildings and Btu's for heating.
2. Education articles - Chand lee will draft the first article for CityNews. Staff will
provide deadlines for publications.
3. Develop materials for developers regarding environmentally friendly development -
Baker will research. Staff will give him copies of current materials.
4. Education Forum - Pawluk
5. Program/Proiect Updates
TMDL - Lundstrom reported that this has been a better year for data collection. SEH
has materials on their website regarding Sweeney Lake.
III - Clancy reviewed latest III report. There is a high participation rate in the PMP
areas. Point of Sale is busy. There are a total of 1,125 compliant properties.
Private Development Updates - Applewood Point is going to the Planning
Commission soon with a proposal for a Senior Housing and Assisted Living
complex.
Minutes of the Environmental Commission
July 28, 2008
Page 2 of 2
Teachers Federal Credit Union has submitted a purchase agreement on the Amstar
gas station on the corner of Hwy. 55 and Boone.
7. Commission Member Council Reports
None.
8. Other Business
None
9. Adiourn
MOVED by Baker, seconded by Chandlee, and the motion carried to adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:34 pm. The next scheduled meeting will be on August 25,
2008 at 7:00 pm.
alley
OPEN SPACE & RECREATION COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Brookview Community Center
Monday, July 28, 2008
5:45 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER
Sandler called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Roger Bergman, Ken Graves, Jim Johnson, Kelly Kuebelbeck, Jerry
Sandler, Jim Vaughan, Rick Jacobson, Director of Parks and Recreation; Bert Tracy,
Public Works Maintenance Manager; and Sheila Van Sloun, Parks and Recreation
Administrative Assistant.
Absent:
Bob Mattison and Anne Saffert.
III. AGENDA CHANGES OR ADDITIONS
None made.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 23, 2008
MOTION: Moved by Kuebelbeck and seconded by Bergman to approve the June
23rd meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
V. PARK AND OPEN SPACE TOUR
The Open Space and Recreation Commission visited the following parks and open
space areas: General Mills Nature Preserve, Golden Oaks Park, Lakeview Park,
Golden Ridge Nature Area, General Mills Research Nature Area, Medley Park,
Wesley Park, Hampshire Park, Wildwood Park/Olson School, Pennsylvania Woods,
Honeywell Little League Area, Sandburg Ball fields, St. Croix Park/Bassett Creek
Trail, Scheid Park, Adeline Lane Nature Area, Schaper Park, Natchez Park, Davis
Community Center, Lions Park, Western Avenue Marsh and Brookview Park.
VI. Request for winter maintenance of trails at General Mills Nature Preserve
and James Ford Bell Technical Center
The Commission was briefed on the request from the Council for the Commission to
consider the request from General Mills for winter maintenance of trails at the
General Mills Nature Preserve and the James Ford BellTechnical Center. Tracy
Minutes of the Golden Valley Open Space and Recreation Commission
July 28, 2008
Page 2
reviewed with the Commission the current winter sidewalk/trail maintenance
priorities. After Commission discussion, the following motion was introduced.
MOTION: In the spirit of Fit City and to encourage trail use, the Commission feels
that outdoor activities are a high priority. However, they also realize the city has
limited resources and therefore cannot honor all requests for additional
maintenance, and to communicate with General Mills regarding winter trail
maintenance. Moved by Johnson and seconded by Kuebelbeck. Motion carried
unanimously.
VII. BROOKVIEW COMMUNITY CENTER STUDY
Jacobson gave details on the possible renovations to Brookview Community Center.
He also explained that a committee may be formed to review options for the
potential community center. Bergman volunteered to participate on the committee.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Moved by Bergman and seconded by Vaughan to adjourn at 8:00 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
Envision Connection Project
Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
August 21,2008
Present: Sharon Glover, Jim Heidelberg, Helene Johnson, Linda Loomis, Philip Lund,
Dean Penk, Marshall Tanick, and Blair Tremere
Absent: Luke Weisberg (GVCEF Representative)
Staff: Jeanne Andre
The meeting began at 7: 15 pm in the Council Conference Room.
Approval of Minutes
Tremere/Penk moved to approve the minutes of July 17, 2008, as presented. Motion
carried.
Golden Valley Connects Outreach.
Ice Cream Social - Blair Tremere and Marshall Tanick solicited $625 in donations,
which exceeds the expenditures for the 2008 event and will be carried over to 2009.
Contributors include WSB, Best & Flanagan, Mansfield, Tanick and Cohen, Lupient and
individual Connection Project Board Members. Attendance was higher and more ice
cream was eaten. Tweaks to the 2007 arrangements improved the process this year.
The group supports continuing the Ice Cream Social in 2009 and did a wrap up
evaluation to guide future planning.
Speaker in a Box - It was agreed that this working group will build on the power point
prepared for the League of Minnesota Cities Conference and will resume work in the
fall.
Bridge Building Activities
Quarterlv Meetings - The Summer Quarterly Meeting at Eloise Butler Wildflower
Garden went well, though most of the Bridge Builders attending were Board Members.
Guests in attendance might be future Bridge Builders. It was suggested that more
Bridge Builders could be recruited at the Lilac Planting Event and the group should
consider organizing another Bridge Builder training.
Marshall Tanick has been working with the Viking Council Boy Scout Headquarters to
host the Fall Quarterly Meeting. The Boy Scouts prefer an evening session but may be
willing to open on a Saturday to host the group. Marshall will continue discussions with
a proposed event in late October or early November. Back up locations discussed
include PRISM and the Humane Society. Arrangements will be finalized at the next
meeting.
Lilac Planting - This project is well underway. It is estimated that 40-45 people have
volunteered at this time. Work groups are planning training for team leaders, doing
publicity, and planning a registration center to welcome and direct volunteers. Donations
are being solicited for a celebration for participants when the planting is done. Blair
Tremere is working on food donations and noted that General Mills has been very
receptive and may be able to provide food and encourage its employees to volunteer.
The group determined that it should staff a table to provide information to volunteers
about Bridge Building and encourage other initiatives. KARE 11 has expressed an
interest in covering this event. One volunteer photographer is on board and others are
being solicited.
Envision Connection Project
Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
August 21,2008 - Page 2
Olympia Street Gathering - Philip Lund reported that he and Sharon Glover attended
a neighborhood meeting at a home on Olympia that was attended by about 60 other
people from the neighborhood. The event was hosted by residents of a group home for
recovering drug users who want to interact with the neighbors and quell concerns about
their presence. He thought it was a very positive neighborhood-building event.
Joint Fundraising with GVCEF - Dean Penk reported that GVCEF would like to
pursue a memorandum of understanding and partnership agreement with the
Connection Project Board to collaborate on the 501 (c)3 Board of Directors and joint
funding under its auspices to raise funds for the Festival and Connection Project
Activities. Dean reported that Luke Weisberg suggested that the Connection Project
Executive Board should identify in advance the type of projects they would like to fund.
Some events activities (Ice Cream Social, Buckthorn Bust and Paint-A- Thon were
identified at the start of discussions, but capital projects such as the performance
center, a community billboard or a dog park could be added. It was determined that the
subgroup working on this issue would prepare documents in advance of the September
18 meeting for further discussion.
Sharon Glover shared information about fundraising and explained the difference
between being a fiscal agent for a community group versus that group operating as a
program under the auspices of the parent organization. Since the rights and
responsibilities under each approach are different, she recommended that the Board
seek clarity on these issues from the onset. She also explained that the Downtown Main
Library can assist groups by doing Com Searches to identify pertinent foundations and
grant opportunities that fund specified projects or programs. Dean noted that he
anticipates that the current GVCEF Board would be significantly expanded under the
proposed model, and both the Festival and Bridge Builders would be programs under
the broader umbrella. These issues will be discussed at the next meeting.
The issue of the proposed performance venue was discussed. Various groups are
suggesting different approaches ranging from a citizens group providing education and
leadership for a community referendum to a separate capital campaign or a community-
based in-kind design-build project.
Community Awards
The group would like to move forward with discussion of a community award, while still
searching for a catchy title. Helene Johnson agreed to present the draft proposal to the
Council. The group tentatively decided to talk to the Council at its October 13
Council/Manager Meeting.
Future Meetings
The next meeting is September 18.
The meeting ended at 8:45 pm.
Jeanne Andre
Assistant City Manager
hlley
Moran m
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2008
Agenda Item
3. E. 1. Award Contract for the Five (5) Signal Systems Revisions (Pedestrian Signal/Push
Button Modification) Project 08-20
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Ron Nims, Public Works Project Coordinator
Summary
Bids for the Five (5) Signal Systems Revisions (Pedestrian Signal/Push Button Modification),
Project No. 08-20, were opened on September 29,2008. The following bids were received:
Engineer's Estimate
$29,525.00
$33,047.00
$38,850.50
$35,450.00
Electrical Installation & Maintenance, Inc.
Killmer Electric, Inc.
Eagan Company
The project provides for modifying the existing traffic signals to install countdown pedestrian
indications at the following locations:
. Duluth Street (CSAH 66) at TH 100 West Frontage Road
. Duluth Street (CSAH 66) at TH 100 West ExiUEntrance Ramps
. Duluth Street (CSAH 66) at TH 100 East ExiUEntrance Ramps
. Duluth Street (CSAH 66) at Noble Avenue
. Duluth Street (CSAH 66) at Hidden Lakes Parkway
The City's 2008-2012 Capital Improvement Program, page 103, includes $45,000 for this
project.
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to award a contract for modification of the Five (5) Signal Systems Revisions
(Pedestrian Signal/Push Button Modifications) Project 08-20 to the lowest responsible bidder,
Electrical Installation and Maintenance, Inc. in the amount of $29,525.00.
lSk
L 1/1 1
ill I
-Ii.-
=(
~
'":1
-J:!.
iil.-
~~
- h- r--
----J, I I-
~/ ~
17 /
I ~
NErflKr~
A
FF:-~ /~
~. .~
I
1
~~. ~l ~~~ ~ I I I _ =r- r:= ~.'
r;: )..'-S. /"'0..... Nil: . -.C L ~
r '\. ).. "- '<:. ~ -r- ~ 1.a:l V Q!:,...-.
~~ ~ Yi;~ ~ ~Rl f ~-~ ~- -~
~j~;f- ~~
~B~", C) ~ 0 r" jlJr..HO ~ ~ -'--I'
mIl \ - - J..--- ~" - ----1
(jE>~ ~ ; =~ ~= := · I ~~1l~~ ~ \~
;~ \_-~. I ~~~~~ =I~
1~ ~~ N~I\./~ ~ ~ =~NJ ~
-J-~~~~uA~I1~~l t; -( -~-;..~ -=S~ r--~~) I I~-~LB<<< ~
'-~\- ~ c.;r ~ -J "\ - t~ )j tl-- -
I-- ~- I--- ~ !II- - ~;---'" f--
- ~ I--- s- Q -~- ii j ...l~ j[j
- l-- Ii ~ C '1----0. ~ "11 Y "....,L.~ I .",
.m ~~ f--. .~ l;~= = ~J ;Z I' U rP ~EfiP',4; '. C')
>: r.~?-...... l:o.~ ~ i-r-"1 0 (t<~--
&:: "1:1F 0........ j r L ---r i :i -~, I '<;
b~r=~~. t '-~ "'f,~JF;~_;'~ ;:~:!~ Q~
~,l1f- . \. ~ !;.f' -........ I I I I... ~ i":'"" _~.I,j -......._~ -
r:..~ ~~\'l~ ""'I - ~'J J H--= ~:- ',--""" - oJ t--_ "-..: ~ \-
=1- \ w'" "ORE~TLA-E"T -1 ,,<<' ---l~~ ROO/(j -I- Y;::- ~ -
:::--tr I~" -~. '\ IRT If II
li~.. " \.'. ~L =( 0~fllE----~ .y:: = tc
~ (1' ~ ~~~ .w-~1, ' r- ~ \\
R \ f(\ 4-J~:-- jO~ ~
U ~ .' 6Jj~~ ~, ~~~t: ~ l'~; Q.~
I ~~. ,.' ~ ;&~~: y=~ T~ -J~.)_j!' ~
" "". ':.j II' ... I 1.. .J /' ~ -_Q:yf /
~ r-;...TII' 'T c::~ ~ I---i~~~
~ == ="1 JLvl _R ~$!.~~~
; I ,V-- ~~ ~ ~V ... ~ ~~~~IiD.s ift~.'\=:~,~
I -OJ (""""\ ~. Q ~ , L .' ~
1 '1< -j~ll \ z '~J. ~ U ~ t==.:
~"~~I=~ ~ J \\ \ \l"" ,~ ~ ~~
:= ~= -]= ~ ~ fi#ffrIift
~~m"~'-" .' / I: I ~
~l---~ ;j P! ) / \ I I
?i--l' ~ .' I ,. . J
Five (5) Signal Systems Revisions Print Date: 10/01/08 N
Sources: A
(Pedestrian Signal/ Hennepin County Surveyors Office for
Property Lines (2008).
Push Button Modification) City of Golden Vaffey for aff other layers.
Project 08.20 Not to Scale
-
-
-
-
Rl) "NE'
I+-~~
"-<tiE(CO~ -
r i-- m-,
[f- l>
~_ m
~t
t~-
I~J:..
",.,.---..
~ !
. .
1/1
li"tlJ,
I~'
~~lley
I
II
SEp
3, 9 2008
September 22, 2008
Mayor Linda Loomis
Golden valley City Hall
7800 Golden valley Rd
Golden valley, MN. 55427
Dear Mayor Loomis,
I know what I say may fall on deaf ears but I want to
express my opinion. I was unable to attend the City council
public hearin9 on approval for united properties to build
"Applewood POlnte", because of a medical problem. I did,
however, watch the whole procedure on T.V.
I object to many features of this development. It was
obvious to me and many I have talked with that the meeting
was held to merely comply with the requirement for an open
meetin9. It was not held to review and evaluate the facts.
Your mlnds were already made up. councilman shaffer
protests too loudly that it is not a "done deal" when he
fully knows it is. united properties are not stupid. They
aren't going to buy up 6ptions on all of this property
unless they are sure of getting approval. I also disapprove
of their getting tax increment financing.
Some council members seem to have a distorted vision of what
is good for Golden valley and what the people want.
Mark Grimes gave a long dissertation on how the corner of
Golden valley Rd. and Douglas Dr. should have been rezoned
from a R-2 & R-3 to a R-4 in 1999 but by some error it
wasn't. So now you conveniently change it to a R-4 to
accommodate Applewood's 4 Yz story 54 ft. buildings. He can
quote records to account for this but how do we know his
justification is accurate.
I am sure United properties may build well designed, nice
appearing buildings but their beauty will be on the inside
of the compound. We will be looking at the outside complex
wall supposedly set 40 ft. from the curb. It is too big for
a 4.7 acre site.
My biggest objection is increased traffic and only one
access/exit off of Golden valley Rd. Mark Grimes states
that the county objects to an access on Douglas Drive but I
doubt this. There are. plenty of other exits on Douglas
including the villa. Applewood pointe's access will be next
to .. the rai 1 road bri dge whi ch does have an i mpai red vi ew
because of the bridge supports. Feasibly this could cause
accidents. .
The city's traffic expert estimates this will only increase
the number of cars by 365 a day. when you consider a 74
unit senior High Rise building and also 95 Assisted Living
units, you are talking about a large number of employees,
delivery and repair trucks entering and leaving. The
seniors have cars to drive daily and considering visitors
for so many patients in Assisted Living, as well as
emergency ambulance vehicles, I believe the expert is
greatly underestimating the increase in traffic. This is
further compounded with only a Golden valley Rd. access/exit
receiving all this traffic. Can you imagine the backup
congestion of cars in that whole area? In addition, semi
trucks heavily use this road. There is room for a Douglas
Dr. access between the two buildings so it could have
another outlet.
The Fire and Police Depts. state that safety is not an
issue. It would be sad if a fire started and emergency
vehicles could not maneuver because of the 90 space parking
lot being full. Because of the determination of the Councll
to approve, staff people are hesitant to object.
why is the council so determined to have that corner
developed making an impact on what is basically a single
family neighborhood? There are many other possible sltes.
There is a large area of deserted commercial buildings near
Laurel and Turners Crossroad. There is the site where
Homestead Restaurant was on Douglas and Highway 55 and there
is the site at the SE corner of Highway 55 and winnetka.
The latter was once seriously consldered about six years
ago. It would have been appropriate because people could
walk to shopping and restaurants. For some unknown reason,
this was shot down probably by more influential opponents.
Mark Grimes paints an appraisal that the Golden valley baby
boomers are aging, want to sell their houses and move into
senior Living unlts in Golden valley. This is a pipe dream
and he has no statistics to back up this theory.
other senior High Rises such as calvary, Country villa,
sunrise, The Heathers and Covenant village are all having
problems with vacancies. We get frequent invitations to
dinners and luncheons they are having to promote selling
their units.
One of the speakers, Jane shannon, a board member from
calvary, gave an impassioned plea not to build Applewood
because they are having serious problems selling their
units. when an individual or estate needs to sell a unit,
they have to continue to pay the maintenance fee which is
expensive. It really hurts them when they can't sell their
units.
In view of all of these obvious issues, why is the council
so set on the "Applewood" development? What do you have to
gain? only two council members, Mike Freiberg and De De
Scanlon, even ask appropriate questions and understand the
community's objections. Naturally, united properties wants
to build. This is their business but it's not yours. There
is such an excess of closely adjacent senior, Assisted
Living and Nursing Homes available, why pursue a vision that
is so nebulous? why change an area of Single Family Living
when there are other areas which would have less impact?
why not keep Golden valley a great place for Family Living?
The corner may need revitalization but at best the space can
only accommodate one building.
Sincerely,
~~~
Alden v. Halloran
5735 Golden valley Rd
Golden valley, MN. 55422
alley
Me urn
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-3969 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2008
Agenda Item
3. G. Approval of Appointment of Election Judges for State General Election
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Edie Ernst, Accounts Receivable/Elections Assistant
Summary
As required in State Statute 2048.21, the Council needs to approve the appointment of the
Election Judges for the upcoming General Election. Attached is the list of judges and the
precincts they will be working at on election day.
Attachments
Resolution Approving the Appointment of Election Judges for the State General Election to
be Held on November 4,2008 (4 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt the Resolution Approving the Appointment of Election Judges for the State
General Election to be Held on November 4,2008.
Resolution 08-40
October 7, 2008
Member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF ELECTION JUDGES
FOR THE STATE PRIMARY ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 4,2008
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, that the persons
herein named are appointed judges and alternates for the State Primary Election to be held
on November 4,2008. The judges appointed, precinct and voting places wherein they shall
serve and the hours are as follows: Polls shall be open from 7:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m.
Election judges shall work from 6:00 a.m. until votes are counted.
2008 STATE GENERAL ELECTION JUDGES
Precinct #1 - N. E. Fire Station - 3700 Golden Vallev Road
Marie Tiffin, Captain
Andra Barnard
Roger Bergman
Janet Berkseth
Karen Haan
Donovan Juliar
Janet Olfe
Janet Pagenhopf
Barbara Schultz
Jacquelyn Smith
Precinct #2 - Valley Presbyterian Church - 3100 North Lilac Drive
Janice Johnson, Captain
Karen Boehne
Sheila Coy
Betty Hill
Lloyd Fortman
Christy Lueck
Sally Netzinger
Frank Neubecker
Peter Palmquist
Theodore Rausch
Yvonne Rausch
Lois Richter
Janet Schmidt
Patricia Tomko
Ruby Van Horn
Jacqueline Wells
Resolution 08-40 ., Continued
October 7, 2008
Precinct #3 - Meadowbrook School - 5430 Glenwood Avenue
Cynthia Hasselbusch, Captain
Mary Anderson
Gary Cohen
James Dommel
Dale Gerdin
Marilyn Kilner
Pat Magnuson
Shirley Obern
Linda Romeo
Marie Rossman
Penny Tesarek
Betty Vaughn
Precinct #4 - LOGIS - 5750 Duluth Street
Barbra Juliar, Captain
JoAn Burkholder
John Burkholder
Rusty Cowan
Arlene Dietz
Teresa George
Barbara Held
Lucille Keltgen
Tom Moore
Kay Myers
Margaret Nelson
Gerald Savage
Linda Smith
Precinct #5 - S.E. Fire Station - 400 Turners Crossroad South
Elizabeth Kamman, Captain
Eleanor Blatt
LouAnn Bongard
John Livingston
Joan Monson
James Murphy
Artice Silverman
Dean Smith
Sylvia Thompson
Resolution 08-40 - Continued
October 7, 2008
Precinct #6 - Golden Valley City Hall - 7800 Golden Valley Road
Pat Moore, Captain
Ann Cole
Barbara Courey
Therese Fox
Lauren Freiberg
MaryAnn Gavigan
Nancy Ipsen
Dwayne King
Carol McKillips
Bruce Osvold
Donna Robinson
Delphine Sunderland
Precinct #7 - Christian Life Center - 8025 Medicine Lake Road
Gwendolyn Jorgens, Captain
Tracy Anderson
Jack Cole
Don Coy
Daniel Decker
Roger Hackbart
Constance Hietala
Mary Hill
Maria Johnson
James Kempfert
Dianne Osvold
Lois Palmquist
Janet Plager
Glennys Sell
Marjorie Stresemann
Barbara Tollefson
Barbara Van Heel
Precinct #8 - Brookview Community Center - 200 Brookview Parkway
Shirley Jones, Captain
Robert Brevig
Mary Gaffney
Pierre Girard
Suzanne Herberg
Sally Manzano
Jerome Monson
Marcie Schlaeger
Mike Sell
Phillip Tenenbaum
Inez Weist
Resolution 08-40 - Continued
October 7,2008
Alternates
Barbara Hanovich
MaryAnn Christenson
Mary Abbey
Paula Longendyke
Milton Goldstein
Louis Christenson
Cheryl Dando
Delores Oehler
David Johnson
Jean Crump
Maxine Heinitz
John Burkholder
Cindy Moy
Byron Undlin
Diane Hoffstedt
Gordon Sandbaken
Randall Lundell
Harold Whitfield
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Hey
Me ra u
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2008
Agenda Item
3. H. Call for Administrative Hearing - Repeat Nuisance Service Call Fee - 2417 Parkview
Boulevard - 10/14108
Prepared By
Susan Virnig, Finance Director/City Clerk
Stacy Altonen, Police Chief
Summary
At their meeting of October 7 the City Council should call for an administrative hearing for the
appeal of a repeat nuisance service call fee at 2417 Parkview Boulevard for October 14,
2008 at 6 pm. City Code Section 10.85, Subdivision 6, outlines the procedure for appeal of
the service call fee.
The property owner has requested an administrative hearing and a letter has been sent to the
property owner regarding the hearing.
Attachments
Letter to property owner for the Administrative Hearing on October 14 at 6 pm (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to call for an Administrative Hearing on an appeal of the Repeat Nuisance Service
Call Fee for 2417 Parkview Boulevard on October 14,2008 at 6 pm.
_Wd.go/~_vJl~ Y
September 17, 2008
Ms. Suzanne Pierson
2417 Parkview Boulevard
Golden Valley, MN 55422
Dear Ms. Pierson:
As outlined in City Code Section 10.85, Subdivision 6, Right to Appeal
Repeat Nuisance Service Call Fee, you have requested a hearing
before the City Council regarding a nuisance violation at 2417
Parkview Boulevard.
The administrative hearing date has been scheduled for Tuesday,
October 14, 2008 at 6 pm. The meeting will be held in the Council
Chambers at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road. You are invited to.
attend and present your witnesses and evidence to the Council at this
time.
For your information I have enclosed a copy of City Code Section
10.85 for your reference.
Sincerely,
Sue Virnig
City Clerk
Enclosure
I
alley
Me randu
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2008
Agenda Item
3. I. Call for Administrative Hearing - Appeal of Administrative Citation - Residential Property
Maintenance Code - 1617 Xerxes Avenue North - 10/21/08
Prepared By
Susan Virnig, Finance Director/City Clerk
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections Services
Summary
At their meeting of October 7 the City Council should call for an administrative hearing for the
appeal of a administrative citation of the Residential Property Maintenance Code at 1617
Xerxes Avenue North for October 21,2008 at 6 pm. City Code Section 4.60, Subdivision 12,
outlines the procedure for appeal of the Residential Property Maintenance Code.
The property owner has requested an administrative hearing and a letter has been sent to the
property owner regarding the hearing.
Attachments
Letter to property owner for the Administrative Hearing on October 21 at 6 pm (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to call for an Administrative Hearing on an appeal of the Residential Property
Maintenance Code for 1617 Xerxes Avenue North on October 21,2008 at 6 pm.
_w'cigOM'n_vJl~ Y
September 17, 2008
Ms. Minnie Steele
1617 Xerxes Avenue North
Golden Valley, MN 55411
Dear Ms. Steele:
As outlined in City Code Section 4.60, Subdivision 12, Right to Appeal
the Administrative Citation, you have requested a hearing before the
City Council regarding a compliance order at 1617 Xerxes Avenue
North.
The administrative hearing date has been scheduled for Tuesday,
October 21,2008 at 6 pm. The meeting will be held in the Council
Chambers at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road. You are invited to
attend and present your witnesses and evidence to the Council at this
time.
For your information I have enclosed a copy of City Code Section 4.60
for your reference.
Sincerely,
Sue Virnig
City Clerk
Enclosure
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PROCLAMATION FOR
MINNESOTA MANUFACTURER'S WEEK
October 20 - October 24, 2008
WHEREAS, the manufacturing industry is a dynamic part of Minnesota's
economy, and promotion of this sector's strength, success and high quality of life
is an integral part of Minnesota's economic development strategy; and
WHEREAS, manufacturing provides high skill, high wage jobs which
significantly contribute to Minnesota's high standard of living and economic
vitality; and
WHEREAS, manufacturing has the largest total payroll of any business
sector in Minnesota, providing 17.9 billion in 2007 wages; and
WHEREAS, manufacturing produces $33.9 billion for the state economy
and is the largest share, 13.3 percent of our gross domestic product; and
WHEREAS, manufactured exports brought over $16.2 billion into the
Minnesota economy in 2007.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Linda R. Loomis, Mayor of Golden Valley,
Minnesota, do hereby proclaim that, the week of October 20 - October 24,2008
shall be observed as MINNESOTA MANUFACTURER'S WEEK in the City of
Golden Valley, Minnesota.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the
great seal of the City of Golden Valley to be affixed this 7th day of October, 2008.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
Public JI~y
Mem ra du
Police Department
763-593-8079 I 763-593-8098 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2008
Agenda Item
3. K. Authorization to Sign Agreement with North Suburban Towing for Vehicle Impound
Prepared By
Mike Meehan, Operations Commander
Summary
The Police Department requests that the City Council authorize an extension of the vehicle
impound contract with North Suburban Towing. The current contract is a three year extension
of an agreement that was originally negotiated as the result of competitive bidding, and
signed on November 15, 1985. The City Attorney rendered an opinion on September 12,
1988, that indicated that state law does not mandate that this particular service be bid
competitively. This company has provided very timely customer service to our patrol division
by clearing the roadways in the city of vehicles involved in traffic crashes and arrests, to
make them safer for the driving public.
The rates as quoted in the contract are the same for the previous three year extension; there
is no rate increase. The rates listed are the same as in agreements with the Cities of
Brooklyn Center, Crystal, New Hope, Robbinsdale, and with the Minnesota State Patrol. Staff
recommends the Council authorize renewal of the contract.
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the agreement with North Suburban
Towing, Inc., for car impound services from November 15, 2008 to November 15, 20011.
alley
emoran
Public Works
763.-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2008
Agenda Item
3. L. Receive and File Statement Regarding Asphalt Driveway Patch Installations from
William Anderl, 4911 33rd Avenue North, at the September 16, 2008 Council Meeting
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer
Summary
During the Open Forum portion of the September 16, 2008 City Council meeting, Mr. William
Anderl, 4911 33rd Avenue North, made comments relating to the asphalt driveway patches
installed as part of the City's Pavement Management projects. Staff has prepared a response
to Mr. Anderl's comments.
Attachments
Statement from William Anderl from September 16,2008 Council meeting (2 pages)
Memorandum dated October 2, 2008, from Jeff Oliver, City Engineer, to Mayor Loomis and
City Council and City Manager (10 pages)
Photos (18 pages, loose in agenda packet)
Recommended Action
Motion to receive and file summary of William Anderl's comments from the Open Forum at
the September 16, 2008 City Council meeting and direct staff to mail the Public Works
Department response to Mr. Ander!.
..
Statement Made to Golden Valley City Council on Sept. 16.
2008 Regarding Staff Policies/Procedures on Asphalt
"Driveway Patch" Installations
.
A 5 ft. section of asphalt was installed in my all concrete driveway,
despite my objection and without adequate inspection.
Six major deficiencies of this wor~ were identified to you in my letter
of August 27th. I requested that this inadequate "patch" be removed
and reinstalled following the Asphalt Institute's Model Specifications
for Small Paving Jobs, CL-2.
1- Subgrade was not properly graded and compacted before the
installation of the asphalt mixture.
2 - Full-depth asphalt pavements for residential driveways should be a
minimum of 4-inches compacted thickness on a properly prepared
subgrade. The driveway patch does not average 2-inches in
compacted thickness.
3 - Compaction of the subgrade was not done with a roller and no
testing was done prior to the placement of the asphalt concrete.
4 - Hand placement of the asphalt mixture should include the
placement of forms at the edge of the driveway. No such forms were
used.
5 - Inspection of the driveway patch job was inadequate. At the
completion of the installation, one inspector walked to west side of
the patch and placed the sole of his boot on the asphalt. A few days
later two inspectors drove up and one measured the width of the
patch.
6 - The surface of the asphalt concrete driveway patch appears to
have excessive course material exposed, indicating a mix that does
not meet the specification for asphalt content.
..
.
After being invited to attend last week's Council/Managers meeting
and learning that the public would not be able to participate in the
meeting, I elected to decline the invitation and speak to you at Open
Forum tonight. I have talked to several neighbors who are also
dissatisfied with the asphalt work that was performed on their
driveways. I have also walked along streets that have "driveway
patches" that were installed within the past few years and have
observed significant failures due in part to the city's failure to insure
good design specifications, proper constriJction and field inspection
during the construction.
List of Failed Driveway "Patches" Observed due to visible cracks or
settling)
House no. on Orchard Ave. No.
2946 2913
2945 2912
2941 3240
2940 3260
2936
2925
Council Action Requested:
House no. on Lowry Terrace
4965
4720
House no. on Noble Ave. No.
2945
3115
3125
1) Conduct follow-up interviews with residents regarding these
driveway failures and determine what actions are needed to correct
them. Insure resolution of all problems reported.
2) Ongoing deficiencies in the pavement program should be
eliminated by using the Asphalt Industries model specifications and
improvements in the city's inspection procedures.
3) Revise and effectively communicate all aspects of the driveway
"patch" pOlicy/procedure in writing before the driveway materials are
replaced.
William H. Anderl, P.E.
4911-33rd Ave. No.
alley
M morandu
Public Works
763.593.8030 I 763.593.3988 (fax)
Date: October 2,2008
To: Mayor Loomis and City Council
Tom Burt, City Manager
From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Enginee~
Through: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Subject: Response to William Anderl, 4911 33rd Avenue North
September 16,2008 City Council Open Forum
As requested by the City Council, staff has prepared a response to the comments made
by Mr. William Anderl, 4911 33rd Avenue North, during the Open Forum at the
September 16, 2008 City Council Meeting. Mr. Anderl's comments were directed at the
asphalt patch specifications for driveways in the City's Pavement Management Projects.
Many of Mr. Anderl's comments were addressed in a September 4, 2008 memorandum
prepared by the Public Works Department, a copy of which is attached for reference. In
addition, Mr. Anderl identified 15 driveway patches from the 1998 PMP project on
portions of Orchard Avenue, Lowry Terrace and the Noble Avenue Frontage Road, all
located near the current 2008 PMP project.
Staff has inspected all 15 of the driveways that Mr. Anderl has identified as failed
driveway patches. All of the patches on the driveways identified exhibit distresses
consistent with a 10-year old asphalt pavement. (Photocopies of the subject driveways
are loose in the agenda packet for reference.) Several of the driveways have transverse
cracking, caused by temperature fluctuations, which are expected in all asphalt
pavements. However, several of the driveways did not have any transverse cracking
present.
Minor settlements are also present on several of the driveways. In general, the
settlements were immediately adjacent to the driveway aprons, or within a well-defined
wheel path into to the driveway. However, the settlements observed were within the
expectations for a flexible asphalt pavement that is 10 years old.
Cracks from tree roots were observed in several of the subject driveways.
G:\PROJECTS\2008 PMP (08-1)\Corres 2008-09 PMP Project No. 08-1\AnderJ Comment Response 091608.doc
One driveway exhibited moderate edge cracking. However, there was similar edge
cracking along the same driveway edge on the pavement that was present prior to
reconstruction. Based upon the cracking patterns, and the absence of cracking on. the
rest of the driveway patch, it appears that the edge cracking may be a result of
groundwater weakening the driveway subgrade.
One of the driveways has transverse cracking present, along with an isolated area of
alligator cracking, along the north driveway edge. Based upon the location ofthe
alligator cracking, including the presence of significant load related alligator cracking on
the pavement existing prior to reconstruction, it appears thatthis cracking is load.
related. It should also be noted that this driveway is within a portion of the 1998 PMP
where a pond was filled at the time of the development approximately 70 years ago, and
significant groundwater issues are present. It should also be noted that the overall
driveway patch is in fair condition, and is in substantially better condition thatthe rest of
the driveway.
Overall, the driveway patches identified as "failed" by Mr. Anderl are in good condition,
and exhibit pavement defects that are well within the expectations of a 10-year old
asphalt pavement. In a significant number of these cases, the driveway patch installed
by the City is in much better condition than the pavement present at the time of
reconstruction. Finally, many of these driveway patches should have maintenance such
as sealing performed in order to extend the life of the asphalt pavement. This routine
maintenance is the responsibility of the property owner.
Based upon the inspection of these driveways, it is the opinion of the Public Works
Department that there would be no significant benefit to the City of Golden Valley in
modifying its construction standards to include a 4-inch thick asphalt driveway
pavement. The 3-inch thick asphalt patch that is currently being used, and has been
used for at least the last 20 years, is performing as expected.
nlley
Memorandum
Public Works
763.593.8030 I 763.593.3988 (fax)
Date: September 4, 2008
To: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Jeff Oliver, City Engineer
From: Ron Nims, Public Works Project Coordinator
Brian Dahlberg, Engineering Technician
Subject: Driveway Restoration at 4911 33rd Avenue North
In all City projects, staff observes all facets of the construction for compliance with the
project specifications. The base specifications which govern the work are the Standard
Specifications for Construction prepared by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT), 2005 edition. These specifications are supplemented by the
City's Special Provisions for specific requirements that are modified by the City, under
the direction of the City Engineer or the consulting engineer, to improve the quality of
the work. Although the Asphalt Institute procedures and suggestions, as quoted by Mr.
Anderl,are used in the development of project requirements, they are not the
specifications or contract documents under which the project is governed. It should also
be noted that the City's requirement/policy for replacements is to restore the existing
facilities to an "equal or better" condition as present before the project. The attached
photos represent the before and after condition of Mr. Anderl's driveway patch.
In response to specific comments from Mr. Anderl's letter to the Golden Valley City
Council dated August 27, 2008, staff has the following comments:
1. Subgrade was not properly graded and compacted before the installation of the
asphalt mixture.
Staff and City representatives were present during the compaction of the
aggregate base placed under the current asphalt patch. Driveways are
compacted in accordance with MnDOT's "Quality Compaction Method" which
states that the soil must be compacted until there is no evidence of further
consolidation. This was the case with Mr. Anderl's driveway patch. The grade
was established between the existing concrete placed by Mr. Anderl's
contractor and the apron placed by the City's contractor, a space of
approximately 5 feet to 6 feet wide. There is a +/-0.05 foot (approximately
G:\PROJECTS\2008 PMP (08-1)\Corres 2008-09 PMP Project No. 08-1\Anderl Memo 9-4-08_revised.docx
5/8 inch) tolerance on a gravel surface being prepared for placement of an
asphalt course. The requirement was met by the contractor.
2. Full-depth asphalt pavements for residential driveways should be a minimum of 4-
inches compacted thickness on a properly preparedsubgrade. The driveway patch
does not average 2-inches in compacted thickness.
Pavement thickness is designed using the strength of the subgrade, traffic
volumes and the design load on the pavement. The local streets in
Mr. Anderl's neighborhood were designed for 7-ton loads over silty sand/silty
clay soils with traffic volumes between 400. to 1,000 Average Daily Traffic
(ADT). These same streets have a total of 4.5 inches of asphalt.
The City's current standard (and has been for at least 20 years) is to replace
asphalt driveway pavements with a minimum of 3 inches compacted
thickness (tolerance = +/- % inch). Where existing pavements are thicker than
3 inches, the City replaces the asphalt to the thicker section. This standard
has shown very good results and is typically thicker than what is provided by
most private contractors on residential driveways.
Three inches of asphalt is more than adequate to handle the use as a
residential driveway pavement and more than meets the "equal to or better"
requirement. Again, staff was present to review the placement of the asphalt
and the thickness was within the requirements.
3. Compaction of the subgrade was not done with a roller and no testing was done prior
to the placement of the asphalt concrete.
It is true that a roller was not used to compact the aggregate below the
asphalt patch. Placing a roller on the new concrete that was placed previously
could damage/chip the concrete edge. It is not feasible to use a roller on the
small, confined space (approximately 5 feet to 6 feet) between the new
concrete slabs that were placed previously. Instead, the appropriate tool for
consolidating the soil was a walk behind plate tamper, which was used on
Mr. Anderl's patch. Although this method typically achieves the desired
compaction, should the driveway settle, the City warrants the work for a
period of one year. Typically, any deficiencies will manifest themselves during
the warranty period and the City will to have the contractor make
replacements as necessary.
4. Hand placement of the asphalt mixture should include the placement offorms at the
edge of the driveway. No such forms were used.
The Asphalt Institute's literature provided with Mr. Anderl'sletter, does state
that forms should be used in the construction of residential driveway
pavements. However, it is hardly the industry standard. Staff cannot recollect
G:\PROJECTS\2008 PMP (08-1)\Corres 2008-09 PMP Project No. 08-1\Anderl Memo 9-4-08_revised.docx
one incident where forms were used on any private or public asphalt driveway
construction in 20 years. Again, the City has had no adverse effects on
driveway pavements where forms were not used. Also, use of forms was not
required under the specifications, therefore none were used.
5. Inspection of the driveway patch job was inadequate. Inspector was not on-site until
after the pavement was rolled
Staff does not observe the rolling of every driveway patch as there are
typically a multitude of activities that are on-going at any given time during a
project like this one. Staff does monitor the rolling of some of the asphalt
patches for compliance with the specifications. However, in the case of
Mr. Anderl's driveway, staff was present for the rolling operation and the
contract requirements were met. In fact, concerns were expressed by staff to
the contractor that he should not be rolling over the asphalt pavement onto
Mr. Anderl's concrete slab to prevent any damage.
6. The surface of the asphalt concrete driveway patch appears to have excessive course
material exposed, indicating a mix that does not meet the specification for asphalt
content.
The asphalt mixture that is used on driveways is the same mixture used in the
wearing course for the street work. It does sometimes have a more "open"
surface texture than mixes commonly referred to as "sand mixes." The
asphalt is from a certified plant, the design meets MnDOT requirements, and
is spot checked by MnDOT personnel at the plant. Since the asphalt is used
in streets as well as driveway construction, it is designed to give stability to
the pavement more than to achieve a very closed surface texture for
aesthetics. This asphalt mixture has been used for years with little negative
comment from residents. Staff has received the same comment from a very
few residents in the past. However, once given the reasoning they have been
very satisfied.
In summary, the driveway patch completed on Mr. Anderl's driveway meets the project
requirements/policies set forth. The patch exceeds the obligation of the City to restore
the pavement with an "equal to or better" condition.
Attachments:
Bill Anderlletter dated August 27,2008
Before and After photos of the driveway at 4911 33rd Avenue North
G:\PROJECTS\2008 PMP (08-1)\Corres 2008-09 PMP Project No. 08-1\Anderl Memo 9-4-08_revised.docx
; t l~Oa
'Nli'
BILL ANDERL
l 4911-33td Avenue No.
J Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
~
Ii 763-529-5008
August 27, 2008
City of Golden Valley
Attn: City Council
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Subject: Asphalt Driveway Patch Deficiencies
Dear City Council:
Now that the city's contractor has installed a 4 ft. patch of asphalt in
my driveway, I am writing this letter to inform you of the major
deficiencies of this work and ask that it be removed and reinstalled
following the Asphalt Institute's Model Specifications for Smarr Paving
Jobs, CL-2.
Major deficiencies that are noted on my driveway patch are:
1- Subgrade was not properly graded and compacted before the
installation of the asphalt mixture.
2 - Full-depth asphalt pavements for residential driveways should be a
minimum of 4-Inches compacted thickness on a properly prepared
subgrade. The driveway patch does not average 2-inches in
compacted thickness.
3 - Compaction of the subgrade was not done with a roller and no
,testing was dpne prior to the placement of the asphalt concrete.
4 - Hand placement of the asphalt mixture should include the
placement of forms at the edge. of the driveway. No such forms were
used.
5 - Inspection of the driveway patch Job was inadequate. Inspector
was not on-slte until after the patCh was rolled.
'.,.,.
6 - The surface of the asphalt concrete driveway patch appears to
have excessive course material exposed, Indicating a mix that does
not meet the specification for asphalt content.
I will not accept this quality of pavement for my driveway. I expect the
patch to be removed and replaced with a properly installed driveway
pavement, as was promised by the city. Other driveway patches on
33rd Ave. No. were also constructed with the same technique and
materials. I would expect that all of them fail to meet some of the
model specifications I have cited above. '.
Sincerely,
0~l-f.~
William H. Andert, P .E.
Attachment - Asphalt Institute Construction Leaflet No. 11
,.,~
'- }
C!l
:z
t3
it
a:
::>
rJJ
~
C!l
:z
>
it
-0
C\I
II
~IJe GENERAL INFORMATION
~ In ~rder to be a good investment. a residential driveway must be properly constructed. The informa-
~ i tion contained in this leaflet is designed as a general guide to the proper design and construction of
.! i asphalt pavements for private driveways, and to assist the homeowner in obtaining a driveway that will
l- be sound, economically constructed, attractive and durable. .
A driveway that is correctly designed and constructed by the Full~Depth asphalt method will give
t' ,.,) many' years of service with little or no maintenance. Suoh a driveway is simple and economical to
\,' .J build. and in practically every area there are reputable contra.crtors who will furnish and properly use
the materials, equipment, and labor needed to build a completely acceptable pavement.
\
, I
'-J
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED
Asphalt: A dark brown to black cementitious material in which the predominating constituents are
bitumens which occur in nature or are obtained in petroleum processing. In varying proportions,
aspl;1alt is a constituent of most cmde petroleums.
FuJ1-Depth Asphalt Pavement: Pavement. in which asphalt ntixtures are used for all courses above the
sub grade or improved subgrade.
Asphalt Concrete: A high-quality, thoroughly-controlled hot mixture of asphalt cement and well-
graded, high-quaJity mineral aggregate.
Subgrade: The soil prepared to support a structure or a pavement system. It is the foundation for the
pavemeJ;1t structure. The subgrade soil sometimes is called "basement soil" or "foundation soil."
Asphalt Base Course: A foundation course consisting of mineral aggregate, bO':1Ild together with as-
. phaltic material.
Asphalt Surface Course: The top course of an asphalt pavement, sometimes called asphalt wearing
course.
,.\,
--/
~5
ii
~
all""
fill
I\)
0-
~
<::
%
Ci)
f!O
~
~
~
9
~
DRAINAGE
Good drainage is iinportant for pavement durability. It is desirable to blend the surface of the pave-
ment to the contaur of the existing ground so that the surface water runs over it or away from it in
its natural course. In flat areas.. the driveway should be sloped or crowned not less than J/4 in./ft
(2 cm/m) so all surface water will 'drain off. Roof drainage from downspouts should, if feasible, be
piped well away from the edge ,of the driveway. In some cases, pipe cross drains may be needed to
take the water under the driveway. Water should not be allowed to stand at the edges.
Generally, an underorain system is not required when the pavement is constructed by the Full-Depth
asphalt method, even over poor soil or in certain other undesirable drainage conditions. However, an
underdrain system may be required if the driveway pavement is constructed by another method in-
voMnS the use of an untreated gravel or crushed rock base. .
PAVEMENT WIDTH
Prima:ry consideration should be given to building a driveway of proper' width. It should be no less
than 8 ft (24 m), but 10ft (3 m) is a more practical minimum width. If the driveway will be used
for both pedestrians and automobiles a 12 ft (3.7 ~) width should be considered.
It usually is desirable to preserve aesthetic objects such as trees and rocks. Also, to avoid unsightly
cuts in hilly areas, driveways should conform to the terrain. Therefore, where the property will ac-
commodate it. a curving driveway will be more attractive. A curved driveway needs to be btcreased
in width on sharp curves.
PAVEMENT THICKNESS
Full-Depth asphalt pavements for residential driveways should be a minimum of 4 in. (10 em) com-
pacted thickness on a propepy prepared subgrade (see SUBGRADE PREPARATION, below). This
minimum is sufficient for many years of serv.ice (autoJ,Ilobiles and an occasional truck) if the driveway
is properly constructed. However, if there is concern about foundation conditions, such as soft sub-
grade or an exceptional number of heavy vehicles using the pavement, it may be desirable to increase
the thickneS$ to 5 in. (13 em) or,' under extreme conditions, 6 in. (1 5 em). Thickness design is further
diScussed in The Asphalt Institute's publication, Fun":Depth Asphalt Pavements For Parking Lots,
Sen1ce Stations and Driveways, Information Series No. 91 (IS-91).
.;
SUBQR..ApE PREPARATION
Before construction begins, buried utility lines in the vicinity of the proposed driveway should be
loca.ted. If they are likely to be damaged during constmction, they should be relocated or protect~d.
The subgrade soil must serve as a working platfonn to support constrUction equipment and it also
must serve as the foundation for the pavement structure. Because it must be capable of carrying ilie '.
loads transmitted to it from the pavement structure, it is most important that the subgrade be~
~rly grad~d and ~~uatelv t'nm p\cted. J
After grading, and comDactine: with a roller. the subgrade should be tested to determine if it will
support the constrUction equipment. This is done by driving a heavily-laden truck over it and noting
the deflections. If a subgrade area shows pronounced deflection, this indicates that the soil has not
been su.fficl.ently rolled or that the soil-moisture content of the subgrade is 'too high. If additional
rolling fails to correct the unstable condition, the soft areas should be removed and replaoed with 2 or
3 in. (5 - 8 em) arhat-mix asphalt concrete. In some cases of extremely poor subgrade, it may be
necessary to remove the upper portion of the subgrade and replace it with select material. ( i
\. _~l
Whe~ it is possible that weeds may grow in the subgrade soil, prior to paving the subgrade should be
treated with a non-toxic commercial sterllant.
-2-
COMPOSITION OF PA VlNG MIXTURE
rj
, .'
It is recommended that the asphalt paving mixture to be used be of a type locally and readily available.
Typically this would be a State Highway Department mix used for residential streets. Because they are
used extensively, these mixes are 1lSU8lly the lean expensive. If such locaJly specified. mixes are not
available, it is advisable to use the American Society for Testing and Materials' Standard Specification
D3SIS, Hot-Mixed, HDt-Laid Asphalt Pa'VingMixtures. Mix Designations and Nominal Maximum Size
of Aggregate, 1/2 in. (12.5 rom) or 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) are recommended.
SPREADING 'IHE MIXTURE
The thick lift technique [placing in lifts of 4 or more in. (10 or more cm)} is in most instances
satisfactory. However, if subgrade conditions or traffic loads necessitate thicknesses greater than 4 in.
(lO em), it is suggested that the asphalt be placed in two layers. . In some cases it may also be necessary
to place the miX in more than one layer to achieve desired smoothness. .Three in. (8 em) of base and
2 in. (S em) of surface mix or 4 in. (10 em) of base and 2 in. (5 cm).ofsurface are suggested thickness
combinations for 5 and 6 in. (13 and 1 S em) total thicknesses.
Small payers are available but most asphalt paving machines in use today place widths ranging from 8
to 12 ft (2.4 to 3.7 m). Relatively sophisticated self-propelled pavers as wen as sinip1er towed equip-
ment have been successtUJly used for residential driveway construction.
'YJ1enever possible, hand 1M f the mixture shOuld be avoided. However, whe~ access to the
drlveway site is limited, hand placement may be e roasi e construction methOd. When the
asphalt mixture is placed by hand it is essential th!t forms be set at the.:edee m the dr1vewlY. These
will. ensure a neat edge and wm mi:tdt1li%e surface iinperfections when used as a reference for a strike-
off board. When used as forms for this ~, redwood boards may be left in place to provide a
. separation between driveway and lawn.
...\
/.
.'
\ )
\.,:~-
WEAI1IER CONDMONS
Weather conditions affect asphalt construction. To obtain the best results asphalt paving should be
done in oQler than wet or extremely cold weather.
COMPACTION
-Regardless of the thickness of the cpurse being placed, compaction of asphalt pavement mixtures is
one of the most important construction operations contributing to the proper pelformance of the.
co~pleted pavement. That. is why it is so important to have a J21'Operly J)l'epared subarade aaatnst
which to compact the QVe1'lying pavement. A steel-wheeled tandem roDer is generaJly used Tor this ,.
type of work. Howeva.r, many other types of roDer, including small self-propelled vibratina roners,
can be used to attain tJte required compaction.
MAINTENANCE
()
It is not necessary to seal the surface of a newly-constructed asphalt concrete driveway. When the
pavement is properly constrUcted, the driveway should afford many years of service before a tbin ap-
plication of driveway sealer containing mineralgdt (avaiIable at hardware stores) becomes desirable to
. improVe the surface texture and seal smaH cracks. But, if the pavement is not properly compacted
during construction a SUrface sealer may be needed within two to four years.
-3-
alley
M randum
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2008
Agenda Item
3. M. 1. Waiver of Public Hearing and Certification of Special Assessments - 2007 Sanitary
Sewer Repairs
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Agreements have been signed with the property owners regarding total costs and waiving the
public hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031. By adopting the resolutions it allows
the property owner to pay for their sanitary sewer repairs over time with their property taxes.
Attachments
List of remainder of 2007 Sanitary Sewer Repairs Assessed in 2008 (1 page)
Resolution Waiving the Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031 and Ordering
Certification of Special Assessments on Sanitary Sewer Repairs that Involve 2007 City Street
Improvements (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Waiving the Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
429.031 and Ordering Certification of Special Assessments on Sanitary Sewer Repairs that
Involve 2007 City Street Improvements.
PID
07 -029-24-43-007 4
18-029-24-13-0055
07 -028-24-43-0019
Add ress
4620 Hampton Rd
2120 Spruce Trail
2815 Kyle Ave
2007 Sanitary Sewer
Repairs
Assessment
3,908.75
3,908.75
3,908.75
11,726.25
Resolution 08-41
October 7, 2008
Member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION WAIVING THE PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA
STATUTES 429.031 AND ORDERING CERTIFICATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
ON SANITARY SEWER REPAIR THAT INVOLVE 2007 CITY STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Project Years Interest Rate First Year Levy Total Assessed
2007 Sanitary 10 7% 2009 $11,726.25
Sewer Repairs
1. Each individual address (lots) will be assessed the full value of the signed contract
with the homeowner for the various driveway improvement(s).
2. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper
assessments for each of said property respectively together with interest at the rate of
seven (7) percent per annum accruing on the full amount thereof unpaid, shall be a lien
concurrent with general taxes upon parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such
assessment not prepaid shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending
over a period of 10 years, as indicated in each case.
3. The first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment for the
period of January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009, will be payable with general taxes
for the year of 2008, collectible in 2009, and one of each of the remaining installments,
together with one year's interest on that and all other unpaid installments, will be paid with
general taxes for each consecutive year thereafter unless the entire assessment is paid in
full by November 19, 2008.
4. The owner may payoff the assessment in full after November 19, 2008 with interest
accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must
be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the
succeeding year.
5. The City Clerk shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor
a certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each
unpaid assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the
County and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessment in the manner
provided by law.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Hey
Memo ndu
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2008
Agenda Item
3. M. 2. Waiver of Public Hearing and Certification of Special Assessments - 2008 Sanitary
Sewer Repairs
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Agreements have been signed with the property owners regarding total costs and waiving the
public hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031. By adopting the resolutions it allows
the property owner to pay for their sanitary sewer repairs over time with their property taxes.
Attachments
List of Sanitary Projects Assessed in 2008 (3 pages)
Resolution Waiving the Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031 and Ordering
Certification of Special Assessments on Sanitary Repairs that Involve 2008 City Street
Improvements (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Waiving the Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
429.031 and Ordering Certification of Special Assessments on Sanitary Sewer Repairs that
Involve 2008 City Street Improvements.
Total
PID Address Resident Total Fee Assessment
07 -029-24-23-0003 3328 Scott Ave. N. Mike Janssen 4,313.65 30.00 4,343.65
07-029-24-23-0004 3336Scott Ave. N. John Johnston 2,624.76 30.00 2,654.76
07 -029- 24-23-0006 3352 Scott Ave. N. Darle Blade 2,951.35 30.00 2,981.35
07-029-24-23-0009 3376 Scott Ave. N. Charles Christianson 2,689.77 30.00 2,719.77
07-029-24-23-0015 3365 Scott Ave. N. Benjamin Schulz 3,961.75 30.00 3,991.75
07-029-24-23-0017 3385 Scott Ave. N. Demetria Hawes 3,306.75 30.00 3,336.75
07-029-24-23-0023 3240 Scott Ave. N. Debra Wachman 2,961.00 30.00 2,991.00
07-029-24-23-0024 3244 Scott Ave. N. Craig Ching 2,594.43 30.00 2,624.43
07-029-24-23-0025 3245 Scott Ave. N. Joan Carlson 3,069.05 30.00 3,099.05
07-029-24-23-0031 5300 33rd Avenue No. Paul Bukoskey 2,685.43 30.00 2,715.43
07-029-24-23-0033 3301 Scott Ave. N. Herb Purdy 2,704.74 30.00 2,734.74
07-029-24-23-0034 5240 33rd Avenue No. Kevin Boedigheimer 2,611.76 30.00 2,641. 76
07-029-24-23-0036 5301-3 33rd Avenue N. Jeannette Aaserud 2,607.43 30.00 2,637.43
07-029-24-23-0039 3249 Regent Ave. N. Daniel Lord 2,585.76 30.00 2,615.76
07-029-24-23-0043 5340 Lowry Terrace Peter HautmanjMary Logue 2,646.43 30.00 2,676.43
07-029-24-23-0046 3211 Regent Ave. N. Xavier G. Haro 2,622.40 30.00 2,652.40
07-029-24-23-0052 5240 Lowry Terrace Steven Finical 2,646.43 30.00 2,676.43
07-029-24-23-0058 3231 Regent Ave. N. Dan Cragg 2,585.76 30.00 2,615.76
07-029-24-23-0059 3231 Scott Ave. N. Martin Coughlin 2,585.76 30.00 2,615.76
07-029-24-23-0072 3241 Scott Ave. N. Tim Van Tassel 2,788.06 30.00 2,818.06
07-029-24-24-0075 3281 Quail Ave. N. Patrick O'Rourke 6,955.00 30.00 6,985.00
07-029-24-24-0088 3315 Quail Ave. N. Glenda M Haug 2,666.72 30.00 2,696.72
07-029-24-24-0098 3244 Regent Ave. N. Jim Lien 3,891.43 30.00 3,921.43
07-029-24-24-0099 3248 Regent Ave. N. John Houk 2,555.43 30.00 2,585.43
07-029-24-31-0101 3120 Regent Ave. N. Thai XiongjPa Yang 3,541.09 30.00 3,571.09
07-029-24-31-0111 3138 Regent Ave. N. Serban D. Simian 2,621.41 30.00 2,651.41
07-029-24-32-0011 3000 Regent Ave. N. Mark Roczniak 2,581.43 30.00 2,611.43
07-029-24-32-0015 3055 Scott Ave. N. Ron Stover 2,663.77 30.00 2,693.77
07-029-24-32-0016 3005 Scott Ave. N. Duane & Janice Johnson 2,618.68 30.00 2,648.68
07-029-24-32-0017 3030 Glenden Terrace Grace Belsaas 2,594.43 30.00 2,624.43
07-029-24-32-0020 3065 Glenden Terrace Terry MacDonald 2,685.43 30.00 2,715.43
07-029-24-32-0021 3055 Glenden Terrace Peter Taffe 2,633.43 30.00 2,663.43
07-029-24-32-0022 3035 Gfenden Terrace Michael Allen 2,616.10 30.00 2,646.10
07-029-24-32-0023 3025 Glenden Terrace Paul Hilla 3,141.63 30.00 3,171.63
07-029-24-32-0024 3015 Glenden Terrace Lonnie Johnson 2,572.76 30.00 2,602.76
07-029-24-32-0025 2905 Scott Ave. N. Philip Smith 4,029.71 30.00 4,059.71
07-029-24-32-0033 5385 Triton Drive Kari Zakariasen 3,874.10 30.00 3,904.10
07-029-24-32-0035 5315 Lowry Terrace Mary Lutz 2,616.10 30.00 2,646.10
07-029-24-32-0036 5325 Lowry Terrace Garfield Anderson 2,642.10 30.00 2,672.10
07-029-24-32-0039 2955 Regent Ave. N. Richard Martens 4,712.79 30.00 4,742.79
Total
PID Address Resident Total Fee Assessment
07-029-24-32-0040 3005 Regent Ave. N. David Peters 2,672.43 30.00 2,702.43
07-029-24-32-0041 5205 Triton Drive Jim Husnick 2,859.36 30.00 2,889.36
07-029-24-32-0045 3050 Scott Ave. N. Michael Anderson 2,633.43 30.00 2,663.43
07-029-24-32-0046 3030 Scott Ave. N. Donald Anderson 2,594.43 30.00 2,624.43
07-029-24-32-0055 2936 Regent Ave. N. Stephen Wallace 2,655.10 30.00 2,685.10
07-029-24-32-0056 3020 Scott Ave. N. Ronald Schmidt 2,533.76 30.00 2,563.76
07-029-24-32-0057 2945 Regent Ave. N. Ronald Schmidt 2,611. 76 30.00 2,641.76
07-029- 24- 33-004 7 5305 Culver Road Craig Franz 3,930.43 30.00 3,960.43
07-029-24-33-0058 2820 Scott Ave. N. Dick Conrad 2,564.09 30.00 2,594.09
07-029-24-24-0042 4850 Drake Road William Kranz 2,628.23 30.00 2,658.23
07-029-24-24-0049 4812 33rd Avenue No. Carolyn Rask 2,683.07 30.00 2,713.07
07-029-24-24-0052 4750 33rd Avenue No. Schuyler Woodall 2,924.36 30.00 2,954.36
07-029-24-24-0064 4845 33rd Avenue No. Mary Fontana 2,643.08 30.00 2,673.08
07-029-24-24-0067 4807 33rd Avenue No. Kevin Monogue 2,634.41 30.00 2,664.41
07-029-24-24-0074 3261 Quail Ave. N. Sharon Brown 2,838.68 30.00 2,868.68
07 -029-24-24-0084 3320 Quail Ave. N. David Duffy 3,023.64 30.00 3,053.64
07-029-24-24-0087 3301 Quail Ave. N. Tara Kriedermacher 2,555.43 30.00 2,585.43
07-029-24-31-0019 2900 Orchard Ave. N. Patrick Chung 2,655.10 30.00 2,685.10
07-029-24-31-0037 2901 Orchard Ave. N. John Worre 2,620.43 30.00 2,650.43
07-029-24-31-0041 2936 Perry Ave. N. Tammi Hall 2,738.42 30.00 2,768.42
07-029-24-31-0043 2942 Perry Ave. N. Michael Hermanson 2,826.07 30.00 2,856.07
07-029-24-31-0045 3000 Perry Ave. N. Robert Gullick 2,791.41 30.00 2,821.41
07-029-24-31-0048 2945 Perry Ave. N. Andrew Jones 2,689.77 30.00 2,719.77
07-029-24-31-0050 2925 Perry Ave. N. Ellen Foley 2,809.72 30.00 2,839.72
07-029-24-31-0054 2912 Cherokee Ave. N. Martin Cooney 2,642.10 30.00 2,672.10
07-029-24-31-0055 2924 Cherokee Ave. N. Gene Berglund 2,672.43 30.00 2,702.43
07-029-24-31-0061 2913 Cherokee Ave. N. Paul Hansen 2,895.01 30.00 2,925.01
07-029-24-31-0062 2901 Cherokee Ave. N. Kathy Schmitt 2,622.40 30.00 2,652.40
07-029-24-31-0072 4901 Triton Drive Janise Holter 2,607.43 30.00 2,637.43
07-029-24-31-0073 4900 Normandy Place Eric Conzemius 2,616.10 30.00 2,646.10
07-029-24-31-0074 4920 Normandy Place Peter Lenagh 2,629.10 30.00 2,659.10
07-029-24-31~0096 3139 Quail Ave. N. Bruce Kittilson 2,676.77 30.00 2,706.77
07-029-24-31-0110 3125 Quail Ave. N. Robert Shaffer 2,765.40 30.00 2,795.40
07-029-24-31-0114 4930 Normandy Place Jane Gibson/Sara Savage 5,125.30 30.00 5,155.30
07-029-24-31-0116 3138 Quail Ave. N. Andrew Tirpak 2,607.43 30.00 2,637.43
07-029-24-31-0117 3142 Quail Ave. N. Raymond Anderson 3,448.37 30;00 3,478.37
07-029-24-31-0118 3146 Quail Ave. N. Fred Reiter 2,685.43 30.00 2,715.43
07-029-24-32-0005 5038 Culver Road Kevin Courtney 2,672.43 30.00 2,702.43
07-029-24-33-0044 5047 Culver Road Bret Erickson 2,637.76 30.00 2,667.76
07-029-24-33-0045 5037 Culver Road Michael Scanlan 2,611.76 30.00 2,641. 76
PID
07-029-24-33-0046
07-029-24-34-0003
07-029-24-34-0092
07-029-24-34-0093
07-029-24- 34-0094
Address
5027 Culver Road
4801 Culver Road
4947 Culver Road
4937 Culver Road
4927 Culver Road
Resident
Duane Coleman
Carol Pendzimas (Brose)
Clark Meyer
John Woolever
Brian Kron
LEVY 17186
Total
2,785.12
2,624.76
2,782.74
2,663.77
2,656.08
Fee
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
Total
Assessment
2,815.12
2,654.76
2,812.74
2,693.77
2,686.08
249,850.31
Resolution 08-42
October 7, 2008
Member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION WAIVING THE PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA
STATUTES 429.031 AND ORDERING CERTIFICATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
ON SANITARY SEWER REPAIR THAT INVOLVE 2008 CITY STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Project Years I nterest Rate First Year Levv Total Assessed
2008 Sanitary 10 7% 2009 $249,850.31
Sewer Repairs
1. Each individual address (lots) will be assessed the full value of the signed contract
with the homeowner for the various driveway improvement(s).
2. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper
assessments for each of said property respectively together with interest at the rate of
seven (7) percent per annum accruing on the full amount thereof unpaid, shall be a lien
concurrent with general taxes upon parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such
assessment not prepaid shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending
over a period of 10 years, as indicated in each case.
3. The first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment for the
period of January 1 through December 31, 2009, will be payable with general taxes for the
year of 2008, collectible in 2009, and one of each of the remaining installments, together
with one year's interest on that and all other unpaid installments, will be paid with general
taxes for each consecutive year thereafter unless the entire assessment is paid in full by
November 19, 2008.
4. The owner may payoff the assessment in full after November 19, 2008 with interest
accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must
be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the
succeeding year.
5. The City Clerk shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor
a certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each
unpaid assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the
County and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessment in the manner
provided by law.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Bey
Moran
Finance
763~593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2008
Agenda Item
3. M. 3. Waiver Of Public Hearing and Certification of Special Assessments - 2008 Driveways
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Agreements have been signed with the property owners regarding total costs and waiving the
public hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031. By adopting the resolutions it allows
the property owner to pay for their driveway improvement over time with their property taxes.
Attachments
List of Driveways Assessed in 2008 (1 page)
Resolution Waiving the Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031 and Ordering
Certification of Special Assessments on Driveways that Involve 2008 City Street
Improvements (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Waiving the Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
429.031 and Ordering Certification of Special Assessments on Driveways that Involve 2008
City Street Improvements.
r PW Address
, ,-,--~~---------~
: 4920 33rd Ave N
4790 Drake Road
4950 Drake Road
3035 Glenden Terrace
---'-----~--------I
3055 Glenden Terrace .
3260 Quail Ave N
>-- ..._-_._------_._--------~--_..__._..- --- ------..-----..--.'----
c _33~1_qu,!i~ ~,,~~__ ___
I 3300 Quail Ave N .
r--.~.-.._~---~---'--._.-.-,.-..-------..--------------;
]350_qll~i1 A,,~~___~~------,
2925 Regent Ave N
~~._-_._-
2935 Regent Ave N
-------'-"--
2936 Regent Ave N
----..-'----,-.-------
_ }~!~_~~~~_~~_A~~_~_________________~
~--:~i~-:~~;~~-~~;~ u____ -----~ ---J
I 3231 Regent Ave N ________ _ ~ ~
i 3055 Scott Ave N
I- '------ ,,--,---- --,-,---- '---'-----'-'-------'--'---,
~ i320_S~~t A"-~_____________ _ ___ ~
i 3249 Regent Ave N ;
!--.-._---_._._.__.._--_._.__._------_.._--_._-~
3030 Scott Ave N
W' __ "_ ______ _ _. ._._.._.__...__..._______..________________________---<
i 3050 Scott Ave N
1------. -'--,-'.'-.-.--.-.-,-.----.--- -....-..--,.---...----.--.....--.,.-. .,..-..-----------..-------..-----'
I
I 3321 Scott Ave N
t 474033!~ AV;~. --=-~-====~==J
r 2912 Cherokee Place .
~---------- ------- ----,-,----- ,-- ---------
r 5051 Lowry Terrace
-------j
2944 Perry Ave. N. ~
I 3125 Euail Ave._~~__________ _ _
L 3139 Quail Ave. N.
~]~~~l.Iail Ave._N.
L 3201 Quail Ave. N.
, ---.~- -~-~.- . --_._-_..._-_._~_.._--,
l!~50 Quail~~e_. _I!:_ ______ _____.. .
--------J
~
" -----..-....j
,
- ------------1
,
I 3251 Quail Ave. N.
~- - - --....-.--....-- -...- ..
~ 3307Euail Ave. N.
I 3315 Quail Ave. N.
L-~_---,----------
I
--~
,
--~-----------'
2008 PMP - Private Drivewavs
Total Assessment
--j
,
201.69
553.12
213.78
5,939.49
5,259.02
336.92
365.98
398.07
337.93
4,138.22
4,039.93
1,125.10
6,026.50
1,707.82
3,122.20
992.54
203.37
239.82
5,257.02
2,876.73
3,929.62
7,538.99
652.26
138.19
8,161.03
90.64
3,392.41
4,852.20
3,475.19
4,457.99
1,404.44
1,962.10
2,367.32
5,074.58
-i
90,832.21
Resolution 08-43
October 7, 2008
Member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION WAIVING THE PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA
STATUTES 429.031 AND ORDERING CERTIFICATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
ON PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS THAT INVOLVE 2008 CITY STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Project Years I nterest Rate First Year Levy Total Assessed
2008 City 10 7% 2009 $90,832.21
Driveways
1. Each individual address (lots) will be assessed the full value of the signed contract
with the homeowner for the various driveway improvement(s).
2. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper
assessments for each of said property respectively together with interest at the rate of
seven (7) percent per annum accruing on the full amount thereof unpaid, shall be a lien
concurrent with general taxes upon parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such
assessment not prepaid shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending
over a period of 10 years, as indicated in each case.
3. The first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment for the
period of January 1 through December 31, 2009, will be payable with general taxes for the
year of 2008, collectible in 2009, and one of each of the remaining installments, together
with one year's interest on that and all other unpaid installments, will be paid with general
taxes for each consecutive year thereafter unless the entire assessment is paid in full by
November 19,2008.
4. The owner may payoff the assessment in full after November 19, 2008 with interest
accrued to December 31 ofthe year in which such payment is made. Such payment must
be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the
succeeding year.
5. The City Clerk shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor
a certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each
unpaid assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the
County and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessment in the manner
provided by law.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Hey
Me orandum
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2008
Agenda Item
4. A. Public Hearing - Special Assessments - Delinquent Utility Bills
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
The following resolution needs to be approved for the certification of special assessments for
delinquent utility bills.
Attachments
Resolution Adopting and Confirming Assessments For Delinquent Utility Billing (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Adopting and Confirming Assessments For Delinquent Utility
Billing.
Resolution 08-44
October 7, 2008
Member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS
FOR DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLING
1. The amount proper and necessary to be specially assessed at this time for various public
improvements:
Project Years Interest Rate First Year Levv Total Assessed
2008 Delinquent
Utility Billing 1 6% 2009 $264,667.08
against every assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land affected thereby has been duly calculated
upon the basis of benefits, without regard to cash valuation, in accordance with the provisions of
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and notice has been duly published, as required by law that this
Council would meet to hear, consider and pass upon all objections, if any, and said proposed
assessment has at all time since its filing been open for public inspection and an opportunity has
been given to all interested persons to present their objections if any, to such proposed
assessments.
2. This Council, having heard and considered all objections so presented, finds that each of
the lots, pieces and parcels of land enumerated in the proposed assessment was and is specially
benefited by the construction of said improvement in not less than the amount of the assessment
set opposite the description of each such lot, piece and parcel of land respectively, and such
amount so set out is hereby levied against each of the respective lots, pieces and parcels of land
therein described.
3. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper
assessments for each of said lots, pieces and parcels of land respectively, and the assessment
against each parcel, together with interest at the rate of six (6) percent per annum accruing on the
full amount thereof unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general taxes upon parcel and all thereof.
The total amount of each such assessment not prepaid shall be payable in equal annual principal
installments extending over a period of years, as indicated in each case. The first of said
installments, together with interest on the entire assessment for the period of January 1, 2009
through December 31,2009, will be payable with general taxes for the year of 2008, collectible in
2009.
4. Prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, the owner of any lot, piece
or parcel of land assessed hereby may at any time pay the whole such assessment, with interest
to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, but no interest shall be charged if such payment is
made by November 19, 2008.
5. The City Clerk shall, as soon as may be,prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a
certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each unpaid
assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the County and the
County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessment in the manner provided by law.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and her
signature attested by the City Clerk.
alley
emo ndu
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2008
Agenda Item
4. B. Public Hearing - Special Assessments - Miscellaneous Charges
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
The following resolution needs to be approved for the certification of special assessments for
miscellaneous charges.
Attachments
List of Projects Assessed (1 page)
Resolution Adopting and Confirming Assessments For Miscellaneous Charges (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Adopting and Confirming Assessments For Miscellaneous
Charges.
Assessment
109.99
1,891.25
360.00
360.00
360.00
880.00
360.00
1,758.41
499.26
109.99
387.50
380.00
442.50
130.00
360.00
130.00
360.00
380.00
380.00
880.00
470.00
1,541.63
1,380.00
177.70
130.00
280.00
380.00
360.00
360.00
380.00
380.00
944.00
130.00
780.00
1,506.85
280.00
690.00
380.00
136.90
360.00
243.80
189.98
130.00
280.00
512.30
4,254.94
164.18
360.00
130.00
130.00
380.00
360.00
880.00
2,692.50
415.00
349.95
243.80
360.00
349.95
130.00
130.00
530.00
34,782.38
PID
28-118-21-31-0017
28-118-21-22-0098
28-118-21-22-0099
28-118-21-22-0100
28-118-21-22-0097
32-118-21-22-0022
07-029-24-42-0075
32-118-21-34-0022
30-118-21-32-0013
31-118-21-14-0048
19-029-24-42-0042
30-118-21-44-0027
30-029-24-22-0064
30-118-21-23-0127
29-118-21~33-0064
32-118-21-41-0018
32-118-21-31-0035
28-118-21-21.0032
31-118-21-31-0013
18-029-24-23-0032
29-118-21-23-0003
07-029-24-24-0028
18-029-24-23-0031
30-118-21-32-0018
06-117-21-11-0016
28-118-21-21-0074
33-118-21-31-0067
33-118-21-31.0067
17-029-24-21-0014
05-117-21-23-0029
29-118-21-11-0003
19-029-24-41-0048
30-118-21-24-0032
07-029-24-34-0057
17-029-24-21-0070
30-029-24-12-0089
30-118-21-32-0056
30-118-21-32-0056
31-118-21-32-0002
30-029-24-23-0040
33-118-21-23-0004
04-117-21-23-0005
30-118-21-11-0026
30-118-21-23-0127
33-118-21-34-0019
30-029-24-14-0045
28-118-21-34-0010
30-118-21-33-0116
18-029-24-33-0050
30-029-24-14-0044
17-029-24-21-0082
30-118-21-12-0020
28-118-21-23-0001
28-118-21-23-0001
28-118-21-23-0001
31-118-21-113-0002
31-118-21-41-0003
29-118-21-33-0050
31-118-21-24-0008
29-118-21-31-0030
17-029-24-31-0044
29-118-21-32-0013
Property Address
5669 DULUTH ST-FALSE ALARM
2550 DOUGLAS-MOWING & LEGAL FEES
2540 DOUGLAS-MOWING
2530 DOUGLAS-MOWING
2560 DOUGlAS-MOWING
1105 RHODE ISLAND-CITATIONS
2924 MAJOR AVE N-MOWING
7340 RIDGEWAY RD-TREE REMOVAL
1700 MENDELSSOHN AVE-MOWING
669 WINNETKA AVE N-FALSE ALARM
328 BURNTSIDE DR-MOWING
1336 VALDERS AVE-CITATIONS
208 TURNPIKE RD-MOWING
1901 FLAG AVE-CITATION
7601 WINSDALE ST-MOWING
6438 WESTCHESTER CIR-CITATION
531 KELLY DR-MOWING
2560 BROOKRIDGE AVE-CITATIONS
432 DECATUR-CITATIONS
1931 TOLEDO-CITATIONS
2120 WINNETKA-MOWING
3210 ORCHARD AVE-TREE REMOVAL
5305 GREENVIEW LN-CITATIONS
1800 MENDELSSOHN AVE-MAl NT
300 WINNETKA AVE-CITATION
2260 WINFIELD-NOISE VIOLATION
5530 WOODSTOCK AVE-CITATIONS
5530 WOODSTOCK AVE-MOWING
2534 ZENITH AVE N-MOWING
815 WINNETKA AVE S-CITATIONS
6601 MEDICINE LK RD-CITATIONS
500 INDIANA AVE N-BOARD UP
8805 ELGIN PL-CITATION
4801 DONA LN-ClTATlONS
2405 ZENITH AVE N-TREE REMOVAL
4511 STRAWBERRY LN-CITATION
1636 GETTYSBURG-MOWING
1636 GETTYSBURG AVE-CITATIONS
9400 GOLDEN VALLEY RD-FALSE ALARM
5230 CIRCLE DOWN-MOWING
5900 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY-ALARMS
6250 WAYZATA BLVD-FALSE ALARM
2445 WISCONSIN AVE N-CITATION
1901 FLAG AVE-CITATION
5600 LORING LN-CURB REPAIR
4102 WAYZATA BLVD-TREE REMOVAL
5540 GOLDEN VALLEY RD-MA/NT
1316 GETTYSBURG-MOWING
1420 LILAC DR N-CITATION
4112 WAYZATA BLVD-CITATION
3425 TERRACE LN-CITATIONS
8445 MEDICINE LAKE RD-MOWING
2230 DOUGLAS DR-CITATIONS
2230 DOUGLAS DR-REMOVE DEBRIS
2230 DOUGLAS DR-MOWING
830 BOONE AVE N-FALSE ALARMS
515 WINNETKA-FALSE ALARMS
7800 KNOLLST-MOWING
905 DECATUR AVE N-FALSE ALARMS
7125 GREEN VALLEY RD-CITATION
1617 XERXES AVE N-CITATION
1700 WINNETKA AVE N-CITATION
Resolution 08-45 October 7, 2008
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS
FOR MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES
(WEEDS, FALSE ALARMS, ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS, ETC.)
1. The amount proper and necessary to be specially assessed at this time for
various public improvements:
Project Years Interest Rate First Year Levv Total Assessed
2008
Miscellaneous 1 6% 2009 $34,782.38
Charqes
against every assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land affected thereby has been duly
calculated upon the basis of benefits, without regard to cash valuation, in accordance with
the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and notice has been duly published, as
required by law that this Council would meet to hear, consider and pass upon all
objections, if any, and said proposed assessment has at all time since its filing been open
for public inspection and an opportunity has been given to all interested persons to present
their objections if any, to such proposed assessments.
2. This Council, having heard and considered all objections so presented, finds that
each of the lots, pieces and parcels of land enumerated in the proposed assessment was
and is specially benefited by the construction of said improvement in not less than the
amount of the assessment set opposite the description of each such lot, piece and parcel
of land respectively, and such amount so set out is hereby levied against each of the
respective lots, pieces and parcels of land therein described.
3. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper
assessments for each of said lots, pieces and parcels of land respectively, and the
assessment against each parcel, together with interest at the rate of six (6) percent per
annum accruing on the full amount thereof unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general
taxes upon parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such assessment not prepaid
shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period of years, as
indicated in each case. The first of said installments, together with interest on the entire
assessment for the period of January 1,2009 through December 31, 2009, will be payable
with general taxes for the year of 2008, collectible in 2009.
4. Prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, the owner of any
lot, piece or parcel of land assessed hereby may at any time pay the whole such
assessment, with interest to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, but no interest
shall be charged if such payment is made by November 19, 2008.
Resolution 08-45 - Continued
October 7, 2008
5. The City Clerk shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County
Auditor a certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on
each unpaid assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of
the County and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessment in the manner
provided by law.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.