The URL can be used to link to this page

2007-01-18 Mpls W end Aternative Urban ReviewCitv Golden Valley Date: January 18, 2007 To: Environmental Commission Memorandum Public Works 763.593.8030 / 763.593.3988 (fax) From: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Subject: The Minneapolis West End Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Attached are documents and maps of the Minneapolis West End AUAR proposed development. If you would like more information, please go to the City of St. Louis Park's website at www.stiouispark.org. GAEnvironmental Commission\Corres\Memos\2007\MemoAUAR011807.doc iii To: From: Date: AUAR Distribution List Jer"In rl )' h e— MIAUGISAMM Thresher Square 700 Third Street South RECT' DEC C 2 G 2006 Minneapolis, MN 55415 l r Phone: (612) 370-0700 Fax: (612) 370-1378 Copy: Meg McMonigal, City of St. Louis Park David Bade, Duke Realty Jessica Laabs, URS Beth Kunkel, Kimley-Horn and Associates December 14, 2006 Subject: The West End Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) On behalf of the City of St. Louis Park, The West End AUAR is attached for your review and information. A proposed redevelopment is considered for a 48.6 -acre parcel of land at the southwest corner of I-394 and Trunk Highway 100 in St. Louis Park, MN, with portions in Golden Valley, MN. Four build scenarios are under consideration, proposing a mix of office, commercial and residential uses. A fifth scenario reflecting the current comprehensive plan is also under consideration. The comment period for the AUAR begin December 18, 2006 and will remain open until January 17, 2007. Comments on the AUAR should be submitted directly to: Meg McMonigal Planning and Zoning Supervisor City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 A neighborhood meeting will be held to discuss the project on Tuesday, January 9, 2007 at St. Louis Park City Council Chambers (5005 Minnetonka Boulevard), beginning at 7:00 PM. The document is also available for review at the St. Louis Park Library (3240 Library Lane), the Environmental Conservation Library and the Legislative Reference Library. The City of St. Louis Park will also be posting the AUAR on its website at www.stlouispark.org The West End Draft AUAR Alternative Urban Areawide Review December 2006 Prepared for: CITY J�/ PARK In Cooperation with 6 uwke ® REALTY CORPORATION Prepared by: [ij Kmley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................1 2.0 Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review.................................................................................. 5 2.1 Project Title........................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Proposer............................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 RGU.................................................................................................................................. 6 2.4 Reason for EAW Preparation................................................................................................ 6 2.5 Project Location.................................................................................................................... 6 2.6 Description............................................................................................................................ 7 2.7 Project Magnitude Data......................................................................................................11 3.6 2.8 Permits and Approvals Required........................................................................................12 3.7 2.9 Land Use............................................................................................................................13 3.8 2.10 Cover Types.......................................................................................................................15 3.9 2.11 Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources...........................................................15 2.12 Physical Impacts on Water Resources...............................................................................17 2.13 Water Use...........................................................................................................................17 2.14 Water -Related Land Use Management Districts.................................................................20 2.15 Water Surface Use.............................................................................................................. 21 2.16 Erosion and Sedimentation................................................................................................. 21 2.17 Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff.................................................................................. 22 2.18 Water Quality: Wastewater................................................................................................. 24 2.19 Geologic Hazards & Soil Conditions................................................................................... 28 2.20 Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, Storage Tanks.............................................................. 29 2.21 Traffic..................................................................................................................................32 2.22 Vehicle -Related Air Emissions............................................................................................ 42 2.23 Stationery Source Air Emissions......................................................................................... 43 2.24 Dust, Odors, or Noise......................................................................................................... 43 2.25 Nearby Resources (Cultural Resources, Farmlands, Parks, Scenic Views) ....................... 49 2.26 Visual Impacts.................................................................................................................... 50 2.27 Compatibility With Plans............................................................................................ ..... 51 2.28 Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services...................................................................... 52 2.29 Cumulative Impacts............................................................................................................ 54 2.30 Other Potential Environmental Impacts............................................................................... 55 2.31 Summary of Issues............................................................................................................. 55 3.0 Draft Mitigation Plan................................................................................................................... 57 3.1 Permits and Approvals Required........................................................................................ 58 3.2 Water Use........................................................................................................................... 59 3.3 Erosion and Sedimentation.................................................................................................60 3.4 Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff................................................................................ 61 3.5 Water Quality - Wastewaters............................................................................................. 62 3.6 Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes and Storage Tanks ........................................................ 62 3.7 Traffic..................................................................................................................................63 3.8 Compatibility With Plans..................................................................................................... 67 3.9 General Implementation Tools............................................................................................ 68 6 List of Figures (all figures are located in Appendix A) Figure 1 Project Location Figure 2 Conceptual Layout Used for Scenarios 1 — 5 Figure 3 Existing Land Use Figure 4 Existing Cover Types Figure 5 Conceptual Utility Plan Figure 6 Conceptual Storm Sewer Plan Figure 7 Regional Sanitary Sewer Figure 8 Soils Figure 9 Key Intersections Figure 10 Traffic Improvements for All Scenarios (West of TH 100) Figure 11 Traffic Improvements for All Scenarios (East of TH 100) Figure 12 Traffic Improvements for Scenarios 2 and 4 Figure 13 Noise Receptor Locations Figure 14 Zoning Map Figure 15 Comprehensive Plan Map Figure 16 Existing Transit Services List of Tables Table 1 Project Magnitude Data by Scenario...................................................................................11 Table 2 Permits and Approvals.....:..................................................................................................12 Table 3 Existing Buildings On-Site.............................:.....................................................................13 Table 4 Land Uses Directly Adjacent to AUAR Study Area.............................................................14 Table 5 Net Water Usage by Scenario............................................................................................19 Table 6 Water Capacity Summary by Scenario...............................................................................19 Table 7 Existing Runoff Rates......................................................................................................... 23 Table 8 Net Sanitary Sewer Peak Flow by Scenario....................................................................... 27 Table 9 Existing Capacity Analysis — Level of Service Results........................................................ 34 Table 10 Trip Generation Estimates by Scenario.............................................................................. 36 Table 11 Average Daily Traffic Volumes............................................................................................ 38 Table 12 Year 2010 Build Condition — Level of Service Results by Scenario .................................... 38 Table 13 State Noise Standards........................................................................................................46 Table 14 Modeled Daytime L10 Noise Levels.................................................................................... 48 Table 15 Modeled Daytime L50 Noise Levels.....................................:.............................................. 48 Table 16 Modeled Nighttime L10 Noise Levels.................................................................................. 48 Table 17 Modeled Nighttime L50 Noise Levels..................................................................................48 Table 18 Proposed Parking and City Parking Requirements for Scenarios 1-5 ................................. 52 List of Appendices Appendix A Figures Appendix B Agency Correspondence Appendix C Minneapolis West Redevelopment Traffic Analysis, Final Report, SRF Consulting Group, Inc., December 2006 M 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The West End Development Draft AUAR has been prepared for the City of St. Louis Park (City) in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410. The AUAR follows the format of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), but addresses specific requirements of an AUAR. Minnesota Rules state that, "the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) may specify more than one scenario of anticipated development provided that at least one scenario is consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. At least one scenario must be consistent with any known development plans of property owners within the area," (Mn Rules. Chapter 4410.3610 subp.3). This AUAR includes a review of five development scenarios. Scenario 1 Scenario 1 includes the construction of 1,000,000 square feet (SF) of office space (9 to 20 stories); 400,000 SF of retail space (1 to 5 stories); 250 condo units totaling 350,000 SF (4 to 6 stories); and associated parking structures and surface parking estimated at up to 7,375 parking spaces. Scenario 1 would total 1,850,000 SF of redevelopment. Scenario 2 — Maximum Build Scenario Scenario 2 includes the construction of 1,200,000 square feet (SF) of office space (9 to 20 stories); 500,000 SF of retail space (1 to 5 stories); 900 condo units totaling 1,260,000 SF (8 to 10 stories); a hotel containing 175 rooms at a total of 125,000 SF; and associated parking structures and surface parking estimated at up to 11,850 parking spaces. Scenario 2 would total 3,085,000 SF of redevelopment. Scenario 3 — Minimum Build Scenario Scenario 3 includes the construction of 900,000 square feet (SF) of office space (9 to 20 stories); 350,000 SF of retail space (1 to 5 stories); 200 condo units totaling 280,000 SF (3 to 5 stories); and associated parking structures and surface parking estimated at up to 5,650 parking spaces. Scenario 3 would total 1,530,000 SF of redevelopment. Scenario 4 Scenario 4 includes the construction of 1,000,000 square feet (SF) of office space (9 to 20 stories); 400,000 SF of retail space (1 to 5 stories); 125 condo units totaling 175,000 SF( 2 to 4 stories); 175,000 SF hotel with 125 rooms (up to 6 stories) and associated parking structures and surface parking estimated at up to 6,313 parking spaces. Scenario 4 would total 1,700,000 SF of redevelopment. Scenario 5 — Comprehensive Plan Scenario Scenario 5 includes the construction of 2,000,000 square feet (SF) of office space with associated parking structures and surface parking totaling 6,155 parking spaces (1 space required for every 325 SF of office space). Scenario 5 would total 2,000,000 SF of redevelopment. Development Phasing Development of the AUAR Study Area (under any of the proposed scenarios) is anticipated to occur mostly within the next four years, from Summer 2007 to Summer 2011. Retail construction is expected to begin in Summer 2007 with estimated completion in 18 to 20 months (Winter 2008-2009). Development of office, residential and hotel uses will be time and market dependent. Under favorable market conditions, construction of office buildings and also the hotel could start in Summer 2007 with estimated completion in 14 to 16 months (Fall 2008). Residential construction is anticipated to occur at earliest in 2008. Unfavorable market conditions could contribute to delays in the commencement or completion of office, hotel and condo construction. MAJOR ISSUES AND PROPOSED MITIGATION SUMMARY The potential impacts and major issues identified in the Draft AUAR are summarized in the following section. The major issues include water use, erosion and sedimentation, surface water runoff, water wastewaters, hazardous wastes, traffic, and compatibility with plans. The discussion of each issue also includes a discussion of the proposed mitigation measures that address the identified impacts and issues. A comprehensive summary of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation strategies are included in the Draft Mitigation Plan. The final Mitigation Plan will become a component of the action plan to ensure that significant environmental impacts from the redevelopment of the AUAR area are avoided, minimized, and/or mitigated. Water Use The City is currently operating at an estimated 86% of City's water capacity. Any development scenario, combined with existing development in the City of St. Louis Park, may result in combined water use of over 90% of the capacity of the existing water system. The City's goal is that development should not result in use of over 90 percent of the City's existing capacity, therefore the developer and the City will work together to establish an appropriate mix and quantity of proposed development. Water use will be monitored via meter readings after the first phase of development is complete (retail). If water use exceeds expectations, the developer may be required to install other methods to minimize peak water use in the office and residential land use areas such as low -flow toilets, showers and other fixtures, Specific mitigation measures will be designed and discussed with the City during site planning. There is an existing monitoring well on-site. The developer will coordinate with the MPCA to determine if replacement of the well is required, or if it can be sealed. If replacement is required, the location of the new well will be determined in coordination with the MPCA. Dewatering will most likely be required during project construction. All water pumped during construction dewatering activities will be discharged in compliance with the City, watershed and DNR requirements and the NPDES permit. No discharge water will be directed to surface waters without prior retention in temporary settling basin. Erosion and Sedimentation Grading and excavation will occur in the AUAR Study Area to accommodate construction of buildings, utility placement and relocation, and any required underground levels to the parking garages. Construction activities that involve moving soil and/or removing vegetative ground cover may cause erosion and sedimentation impacts, including potential sedimentation issues in downgradient receiving waters. Chemical pollutants could also travel with eroded sediment. A National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be obtained prior to commencing construction, and Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be utilized during project construction to control erosion and sedimentation. Watershed and City erosion control permits will also be required. Fill and organic soil conditions in the AUAR Study Area are not suitable for support of the proposed buildings on conventional spread footing foundations. Soil correction will be required. Surface Water Runoff The AUAR area lies entirely within the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), and is therefore regulated by MCWD and City rules for stormwater. The AUAR Study Area (with boundary as shown in Figures 1 through 6) is 48.6 acres in size, and approximately 40 acres, or 82.3 percent of the AUAR Study Area consists of impervious surface under existing conditions. Based on the conceptual development layout (Figure 2), and City and watershed requirements, development under any scenario is expected to reduce the amount of impervious surface within the AUAR Study Area. Water will be held in a series of underground storage areas on the AUAR Study Area prior to discharge. The storage system is designed to store water on-site from a 100 -year storm event and release it at a 10 - year event rate, consistent with City requirements. Permanent BMPs will be incorporated to reduce the pollutants being discharged from the site, as required by MCWD. BMPs may include sump catch basins and twice annual street sweeping. Vortex -type manholes will be utilized to provide additional treatment prior to water entering the storage areas. Underground storage will also provide phosphorous removal to meet MCWD requirements. All stormwater facilities will be designed and constructed in compliance with National Urban Runoff Program (NURP), MCWD and City standards. Wastewaters Sanitary sewer flow from the AUAR Study Area is directed via a city 30 -inch trunk sewer to an existing regional sanitary sewer interceptor located east of the AUAR Study Area, in the City of Golden Valley. The city 30 -inch trunk sewer currently runs along the St. Louis Park/Golden Valley municipal border, and would be relocated to Utica Avenue South under any of the proposed scenarios. According to coordination with Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES), the existing 30 -inch regional sanitary sewer interceptor runs adjacent to Kaltern Lane from flow meter M-120 to the Golden Valley connection point. MCES concluded that based on the proposed uses and the actual historic peak flow factors in the City, the regional system has adequate capacity to serve the proposed development under any of the scenarios. However, MCES will require that the City maintain its existing peak flow factor of 2.37. The City is in the process of monitoring existing sanitary flow downstream from the AUAR Study Area to establish a baseline for future monitoring. Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes and Storage Tanks Prior to construction of any of the proposed scenarios, five buildings including the Novartis Warehouse, tennis facility, and three office buildings (South Plaza, North Plaza, 5219 Building) must be demolished and removed. These buildings contain known asbestos -containing materials, lead based paint, and other solid wastes requiring standard cleanup procedures. Inspection, sampling, and removal of materials will take place prior to demolition, as required. All asbestos -containing materials or lead-based paint will be disposed of according to state and federal regulations, and will be disposed of in an MPCA-licensed demolition landfill. Any disturbance of lead-based paint will require compliance with the OSHA Lead in Construction Standard. A former State Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup Program (SCL) facility is located at 1551 Vernon Drive, located in the northwest corner of the AUAR Study Area in vicinity of the existing warehouse. According to the current MPCA VIC database, the status of the site is inactive. An inactive status indicates the MPCA is not involved in any action or activity with respect to the facility. Based on the inactive status and location of this SCL facility, and general flow of groundwater in vicinity of the AUAR Study Area, the potential for soil contamination to have an adverse impact on the groundwater beneath the AUAR Study Area is minimal. No further response actions are anticipated on the site. Sixteen leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) were listed within 0.5 mile of the AUAR Study Area. Fifteen of these were located in the down -gradient or cross -gradient groundwater flow direction from the AUAR Study Area, which means any potential migrating contaminants from the LUSTs would flow away from the Study Area. The 16th LUST site was closed in December 1992, which means that investigation of the LUST facility has been completed to the satisfaction of the MPGA. Based on the location and/or closed status of these 16 LUST facilities relative to the AUAR Study Area and the general groundwater flow direction within the surficial aquifer in vicinity of the AUAR Study Area, it appears unlikely that potential groundwater contamination association with these LUST facilities would have an adverse impact on the groundwater quality in the AUAR Study Area. Traffic Many key intersections within the AUAR Study Area will operate at an unacceptable level of service for future build conditions with existing roadway geometrics and signal timing. A number of improvements are recommended to bring AUAR Study Area intersections to acceptable LOS levels. These recommended improvements range from installing turning lanes, modifying signal phasing, widening entrance ramps, installing through lanes, and optimizing signal timing, among others. A complete and detailed list of these improvements is listed in the Draft Mitigation Plan in Section 3.0. There are currently 21 improvements to the surrounding roadways recommended for Scenarios 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Based on the trip generation estimates, Scenarios 2 and 4 are considered to be the most intensive redevelopment scenarios, generating the highest number of trips. With the previously recommended improvements, the intersection of Park Place Boulevard/West 16th Street will operate poorly during the evening peak hour due to vehicle queues from Park Place Boulevard/Wayzata Boulevard under Scenarios 2 and 4. Therefore two additional improvements, beyond those already noted, are proposed for this intersection under these scenarios. Compatibility with plans The City of St. Louis Park Comprehensive Plan (1998) designates the entire AUAR Study Area for office use. The inclusion of commercial and residential development as proposed under Scenarios 1, 2, 3 and 4 is inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan. Development of any of these scenarios would require an amendment to the current Comprehensive Plan to change proposed use in the AUAR Study Area from Office to Commercial. In addition, the existing City of St. Louis Park Official Zoning Map, last updated May 17, 2006 (Figure 11), designates the AUAR Study Area primarily as office (0), with the exception of the Novartis Warehouse area, which is zoned industrial park (IP). Start of construction in 2007 under Scenarios 1, 2, 3, or 4 would require a rezoning of the industrial park designation to C-2, General Commercial. Implementation of Scenario 5 would also require a rezoning of the industrial park (IP) to office (0). Appropriate parking must be provided in compliance with the City's Zoning Code. The proposer of the development will work with the City of St. Louis Park to create a site plan which addresses the required parking, transit, trails, non -vehicle transportation options and shared parking strategies to minimize the amount of parking required on-site while still providing adequate parking for development patrons. City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588 763-593-8000 763-593-8109 (fax) 763-593-3968 (TDD) Mayor and Council 763-593-8006 City Manager 763-593-8002 Public Safety Police: 763-593-8079 Fire: 763-593-8055 3-593-8098 (fax) Public Works 763-593-8030 M-593-3988 (fax) Ir►spections 763-593-8090 7637593-3997 (fax) Motor Vehicle Licensing 763-593-8101 Planning and Zoning 763-593-8095 Finance 7637593-8013 Assessing 763-593-8020 Park and Recreation 200 Brookview Parkway Golden Valley, MN 55426-1364 763-512-2345 763.512-2344 (fax) -3=593-3968 (TDD) Iley www. ct.goeam-volley. mn. us January 17, 2007 Meg McMonigal Planning and Zoning Supervisor City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Re: City of Golden Valley Comments on West End AUAR Dear Ms. McMonigal: The City of Golden Valley is a partner in the redevelopment of Duke Property at the southwest quadrant of 1-394 and TH 100. Golden Valley looks forward to approving an innovative and sustainable development plan that will serve residents of the surrounding neighborhoods and the entire metropolitan area. The West End Development Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) does provide St. Louis Park and Golden Valley with critical information that is needed in order for both cities to move forward in the review of a specific development proposal later this year. However, Golden Valley believes that additional information should be gathered and analyzed for inclusion in the final AUAR that will be brought to the St. Louis Park City Council for approval. These comments are as follows: 1. The City of Golden Valley believes that the assumption that only 5% of the trips will go east on the Wayzata Blvd. frontage road toward Minneapolis is low for a couple of reasons. First, the location of easy access points to the frontage road from the parking structure serving the four office buildings along TH 100 makes going to the east on the frontage road a very visible choice. Second, there is projected to be significant congestion on the regional highway system (1-394 and TH 100) during the peak hours. This congestion will make trips on local streets and frontage roads more likely. Although Golden Valley does understand that there is capacity on the frontage road east of TH 100 for up to twice the existing volume, there remains concerns that those living south of the frontage road in both Golden Valley and St. Louis Park will have a difficult time safely getting on to the frontage road during peak hours. There should be a discussion about improvements and traffic management measures that could be taken to mitigate this problem. This problem was raised at the January 9, 2007 hearing on the AUAR at St. Louis Park City Hall, City Council members, and by residents calling the City of Golden Valley staff. Attached is a memo from the City of Golden Valley's consulting traffic engineer Mike Kotila, PE dated January 3, 2007. This memo addresses some of the traffic concerns related to the AUAR scenarios. The City of Golden Valley does not believe the issues raised in this memo have been fully addressed in the draft AUAR. Page 2 2. The City of Golden Valley believes that information on the effect of the additional trips from the West End Development and projected growth along 1-394 in Golden Valley on the Louisiana Ave. interchange with 1-394 and other intersections along Xenia Ave. should be studied in greater detail. Additional information regarding traffic. projections that were done as part of the 1-394 Corridor Study should be considered. This study was done by the City of Golden Valley and prepared by URS, Inc. The Corridor study indicates that the long term land use goal is to provide mixed-use development opportunities along the 1-394 corridor. The City has had SEH, the City's traffic engineer, make these projections from development scenarios found in the 1-394 Corridor Study. These projections are attached in a memo from Mike Kotila, PE, dated January 3, 2007. 3. The City of Golden Valley would like additional information regarding the effect of this development and future development identified in the 1-394 Corridor study on the future waste water capacity of the Metropolitan Council interceptor I -GV -461. The AUAR does indicate that there appears to be adequate capacity in the interceptor for the proposed West End Development. However, the City of Golden Valley is concerned about the amount of capacity that would remain for the future development discussed in the 1-394 Corridor Study. It may be necessary to have further discussions with the Metropolitan Council regarding the need to upgrade or replace the interceptor to create more capacity. Mitigation measures may have to include restricting development until interceptor capacity is increased. Attached is a memo from the City of Golden Valley's consulting engineer Kirby Van Note dated January 3, 2007. This memo addresses waste water concerns related to the AUAR development scenarios. The City of Golden Valley does not believe that the issues raised in this memo have been fully addressed in the draft AUAR. 4. The City of Golden Valley is not in favor of on-site mitigation required to shave peak flows into the waste water system. Golden Valley thinks this is a bad practice and that other mitigation measures should be considered such as diverting some of the waste water flow to other sewer districts that have additional capacity. 5. The City of Golden Valley believes that the final project should be developed so as to maximize open space and sustainability. The plans that are made a part of the AUAR and the latest plans proposed by Duke for the West End Development should have more open space. This could partially be accomplished by providing ponding within the development rather than below ground. Environmentally friendly building construction and site design should also be encouraged. 6. There should be an emphasis on making this development as pedestrian, transit and bike friendly as possible in order to help reduce vehicle trips and make this a more desirable destination for those in the surrounding neighborhood or visiting on their lunch hour. Increasing the use of transit to and from the West End Development should be a goal in order to reduce auto trips and any plan should support reasonable operation of the existing park and ride lot. The City of Golden Valley understands that these are details that will be addressed as part o, the zoning approvals and requirements found in each City's 1-394 Overlay Zoning District. However, it is important for the developer to understand that these are key mitigation measures important to both Golden Valley and St. Louis Park. Page 3 Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please give me a call if you have any questions at 763-593-8095. Si" rely, C Mark W. Grimes Director of Planning and Development xel lo9Z'Zl8'8S8 I L9L9'b£1'oo8 I Oo9Z•Z16'Z96 I woo'ou!yes'MMM I imo!dwo Al!wl{aoddo !Qnba ue $1 H38 to£B-EVE99 Nw 'gNuMuu%'00Z al!"S'aa!Ja 810Jp pay 10601 `'aul uosMoliPuaH 1101113 W0149 p7l.jllu,ilb aq pjnoyS o10Z PU, y[)U'L tla'aMloq tjlMo.ic� at};Il?Ij puno-"Morg •p Upu,nb aq Plnoys 110Mlau 01.11 uloa_j panotllal sdpi oq.L '''AO4 3o uou,u,ldxa n, 11,01411m)l.10mlau Dulaslx0 ayl woJJ panowaa pull P'011,11100atom Will �ullslxi3 ot{I.r.n tjlmoA punoi2pi7q to ;tullsixa lnogaiM paPlnoid aq Plnoys ouruoos qa,a .1oj sain�l{ din ricaLudotOAQP MaN 'Pap1Awd Sim a.miy uolingltlsgl dua nu 'ianaM01-{ 11-101s,Cs UMpz?01 I L10l2aj Pur lraol aya co:J I'. PO 1sraa.lol lan,l [ l uolRa�l jlauno,) ur)![odoclaW atil 9utsn Palnqulslp inn sdut polraaua aus mau ayJ •PaP!no.id aq Plnoys ,an? aya ul satlawdOjanap mau .1ay10 Pull y1MO.G4 p1.1110.12)ja,q 'O!Jzlrjl �ul)slxa sapnloul lryl ouivaas 0 ()Z pl!nq-0N d • ula.n dsu,.ta glow,3.111 sluatuciolanap ,a.1., .!11.,10 pur. `y1Mo12 pu11O.IFjjt?q `)uQwdo[anap 'all �.o saa,dun al {,aa atjl It ya os papinotd aq Plnoys uoilru,ldxa;{o s{anal aaara.i$ pull sarngg l,uopippV 'h[[VA u0plo0 ul pup )In?d slno-t 'IS ul aals ay) �Ulnlas xlOmlau �CrMpr0., aq[ uo sa¢mjOA ot1�,o uor as sjoudwi tqj dtn palr.latlag awls Atoy ;{o Sttipu,Istapun raalaq, apino.td oa 1irlap �al,aa$ sas15b'-a lnj ,IJIrliodoi jL r 1zI uol ag 'liodaJ aq) ul p9241ru13 u,q1 JIS oray1 'aaa)ouoldC) tl�t stl loap✓aluOJjrnArin ils aya oss aa4plaaiw z,M Punoqra ao) .io -,)p!,., )s,a 941 uo sullraoj ss000i dL111 9unmd Pu,sPU1?wap o01Pro.lCl '(ala '001 vm,(M 'Mc-IJo of aau.11ua 3,11311d i.lr/waXay1,10Ctll!gr 1 11 anuan� rlua); 'a l) (allrA uaplOO yglloayl pull of sloidwl ,lo uot►raLllluapl 01 alrja.l suaaauOo tsa�.ml all •salu,d 111, 01 P1j2u1u,3tl.1 pur jn)asn salnsa.l aqa xim of uotl,w.toj.ut Papp, to ,Calm..jo 'uou,u,ldw .taa,at2 an.lasap l,yl s,a.t, Pui ,Ca[[rA uaP[O[) {o Xj!D aqa 1o3 lsa.lalul JO sluiod patipttaP! an,tj I Owaw SITu1 'Ol OZ 1ra�C Hyl ui sOlt,uaas auauldolanapa.l aAlj SC j[aM Sr )IaOMaaU �(rMPrO.[ $ullstxa ot[l;lo s.11lotl Avod and puts w', ayl tlloq I, po)lool Apnls oqj, •,aosauul{nI '401113A "P109 Pu, )IMd slno'1'1S ui aaafo.td luowdo[anapal asaM sRod,auulUV ayl {o sia,duli OJ},U aqt sassnoslp laodw ails '2I1�f1� luawdojanaQ pub asaM ayl d0 I' dMalnlac anlr ns 9002 aagalanol l paarp Ltoda21 sls.fl,ut� al{;[r..ls auawdolanapoN asaM s1lod,auull�t ayl p I I 0o'b I o0' 1086AQ'I07V 'ON H'tIS slsClruy 1!111?a.I. luatudojanapa2l 1saM sllod,auulw � L()()Z `i , "dull f :a,LVCI ,1i10}1 a)1t{AI :wox 1 xotpaA Lioplo0 Jo Alla s)lioM ollglld ,{o coloodICI d. ` CauriO auluu,al 0 L wnaNVMow3w H3S l Minneapolis West Redevelopment Traffic Analysis January 3, 2007 Page 2 • The report references the Golden Hills Traffic Study done in October, 2005. Subsequent to that, SRF prepared the Miner Site Redevelopment Traffic Demand Management Plan (TDMP) which documented the current set of development plans on the north side of I-394. The most recent Golden Valley development scenario (Miner Site Traffic Study) should have been analyzed. • The study area intersections do not include Xenia Avenue at Golden Hills.Drive, Laurel Avenue or Glenwood. The Miner Site traffic analysis included Duke Development land uses that appear to be consistent with Scenario I (Duke Master Plan). Impacts of the other more intense scenarios should be analyzed. Section IV - Future Traffic Operations Analysis: The FuturL Traffic Operations Analysis should include expanded tables and more clearly defined explanations. The report should provide delay and LOS by individual intersection movement as well as for the intersection as a whole. This would provide a better understanding of how the mitigation proposed for individual movements influences the most problematic moyements as well as overall intersection delay and LOS. It would also allow a better sense as to the reasonableness of trip distribution and traffic routing assumptions given operational issues that may occur along specific routes (i,e., if routes are likely to suffer from congestion - possibly downstream from the part of the network that has been analyzecl/mitigated - what alternatives might drivers choose to use?) Table 5 on page 16 and Table 6 on page 19 are difficult to interpret and understand. Analysis results show 2, 3 or 4 IAS values depending on the type of intersection control which can be only be concluded by studying the footnotes or searching elsewhere in the report. Table .5 also indicates an improved LOS at Quentin and Wayzata Boulevard after mitigation but nowhere in the report is it described what that mitigation was. Mitigation measures should include optimization and coordination of signals in the Park Plac"enia corridor. Section VI - Impacts to the Regional Roadway System Impacts to the regional system are of concern to the City of Golden Valley. Are I-394 and TH lU0 able to accept additional traffic demand'? If not, dri very will choose local routes as alternatives to the freeway. Not enough information is provided in the report to adequately understand build or no -build operating are raised here as examples of factors that are inadequately considered in conditions. General questions the analysis - there may be others to consider that would be more apparent from exhibits showing development trip distribution: • How much development traffic is destined For westbound 1-394? Eastbound I-394, Southbound TH 100, Northbound TH 100? Flow has it been routed on the local street network? • Only the northbound section of TH 100 at the exit to 26"' Street and the entrance from Cedar Lake Road on -Ramp are discussed. Why these? Is the issue related to weaving between ramps upstream and downstream from these ramps? How much volume would exit at 26`" or be added from Cedar Lake Road? flow is LOS for weaving segments defined? What weave length is provided? The 90 percent Scenario 2 volumes are referred to as the "worst case" - why? (Isn't 100% worse?). Minneapolis West Redevelopment Traffic Analysis January 3, 2007 Page 3 Mitigation measures defined for Scenatios 1-4 all include adding a lane to the eastbound entrance from the south Xenia/Park Place onto the 1-394 C -D road. There is a short weave section on the C -D road between the eastbound entrance ramp and dhe C -D road exit to southbound TH 100. Can the entrance lane be added without affecting the interchange design? If it cannot be added, what level of new development and increased traffic demand could be accommodated without it? If demands exceed capacity. will they choose other routes 0,e., Wayzata Boulevard to Penn Avenue?) Section VTI - Site Plan Review S access points for t The site plan (report Figure 12) shows a total oi' he office parking ramps along the east edge of the site. Two of the ramp entrance/exit points are on the west side of the parking structures (internal to the site) while three of the entrance/exits are on the east side with access to and from the frontage road near the Wayzata Boulevard underpass of TH 100. For eastbound destined vehicles, [he easiest route to and from the site, during off peak or peak periods, will be following Wayzata Boulevard to the east of TH 100. If there iu'e congestion problems at the I-394 ramps, this would seem to encourage vehicles to use the frontage road east of TIT 100 along 1-394. Currently, in the PM peak hour, there are an additional 248 vehicles projected to use the underpass in Scenario 2 (the most intense development) 156 of which would be on the I-394 south frontage road east of Tii t00 (91 eastbound and 65 west bound). By comparison, the south entrance ramp from Xenia to the I-394 CD road is projected to increase by 649 vehicles in the pm peak. If this cannot be sensed due to downstream congestion, the 91 added eastbound trips on the frontage road will become something much, much greater. (The development trip demands called out here are not readily apparent from the report document - highlighting the need for more transparent trip distribution exhibits suggested in the comments on report Section 3 in this memo.) gtj c; Mark Grimes, Planning Director Jeff Oliver, City Engineer p;\G1g4;ohH�1H0 I(MANmmapolu a,:nllminnuarydi> %-1 nnw'A"c SEW TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: Jeannine Clancy City of Golden Valley FROM: Kirby Van Note DATE: January 3, 2007 RE: West End Draft AUAR Review SEH No. A-GOLDV0605.00 14.00 We have reviewed the draft Nest End AUAR for the property referred to as the Duke development located in the southwest corner of 1-394 and Trunk Highway 100 located in St. Louis Park and into a portion of Golden Valley. This memorandum addresses the results of our review on the wastewater issues discussed in the AUAR I*eport and any future impacts to the capacity oi'tile existing Golden Valley sanitary sewer collection system. Based on the current flow monitoring completed in response to the MCES surcharge program for both Golden Valley (2005) and St. Louis Park (2006), the existing wastewater flow values used in the AUAR appear to be consistent with the flow monitoring data from the MCES and each city. Based on the calculations used in the report and the available capacity remaining in the 30 -inch interceptor and MCES interceptor, the additional 450,000 gallons per day generated by the redevelopment of this area would be acceptable under current design standards. There are two major problems with the assumptions used in the report, The available capacity for additional redevelopment would be limited if wastewater from any future development would need to utilize the MCES i -GV -461 interceptor. The area just north of MCES Flow Metering Station M120 is a concern to the MCES and the City,of Golden Valley. MCES already acknowledges this area has an area with wastewater capacity restriction greater than at the MCES Flow Meter Station M120. This condition will need to be addressed in future planning issues alongthe I-394 corridor. The report also assumes the current peak. factor for the City of St. Louis Park of 2.37 will be maintained after development of tile property. The peak factor used to determine the projected peak hour flow rates is 2.37. `]'his value is consistent with the current multiplier used by MCES but is much lower than other surrounding communities which use a factor between 2.7 to 2.8. 7"he report discusses use of mitigation measures such as underground storage to maintain tile. lower peak facto►• of 2.37 if necessary during development. This alternative measure would not be a prudent option that the City of Golden Valley would be in favor of to reduce peak hoar flow rates in the future. Other mitigation measures besides storage would be better perceived and more appropriate alternative. The second issue is the reduced capacity which is currently being used by Ill during significant rainfall events. Reducing the I/1 storage capacity in the interceptors may increase the pressure to remove Ill unless additional storage can be built into the system. Either way a greater potential will exist for problems with potential sewer system overflows. The attached hydrograph provided by the MCES identifies the issue. On October 4, 2005, a significant rainfall event occurred producing between 1.5 and 2.0 inches of rainfall over a one hour period in the St. I.,ouis Park and Golden Valley area. The peak hour flow rate at MCES Plow Meter Station M 120 was 6.2 mgd at approximately 9:00 pm, if you add the now from the Duke development, the peak rate would only increase to 6.7 mgd which would not be a problem Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3536 Vadnals center Drive, St. Paul, MN 65110-5196 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.seiiinc.com 1 651 490-2000 1 800.325.2055 1 651.490.2150 fax West End Draft AUAR Review January 3, 2007 Page 2 based on the capacity of the MCES interceptor. If the peak rainfall intensity had occurred during the morning hours instead of in the evening, the peak hour rate would have been approximately 7.1.5 mgd which is close to the capacity of tile MCES interceptor in the southern area of Golden Valley. The City of St. Louis Parlc is also concerned about the impact of the Duke redevelopment on their collection system and has proposed flow monitoring as a mitigation measure to review pre and post development activities. Golden Val Icy is also concerned about the remaining capacity in the MCES interceptor (1 -GV -461). Any future development in this area will need an assessment of the MCES interceptor capacity to accommodate any future development along the I-394 corridor and address the meed for infrastructure improvements. WDDD in �' WDODSTLL A�� G2P WDCID STOCKS AV, cwi r �� BE, ERLYj z > alCe/j CORING p' IO METRO AVE POPLAR p C z �C MEAN LA. v �' ti LA. Q J o o G Tqc aR a TREATMENT,, Z e w AVEC z �> > > 40 rN a A Y -'�� sf rDSITE 51. CIRCLE N 3 A S`� DIR 4 P ¢ 2nd AVE N. `'�' ca LE w N`�� z LILAC z 3 a R* RDA OKE �\ `� w w W Y � r`� w QAn�aKE RD. LA. CIR. z N CLfAE�QDD �R ¢ AVE. 411 x w 7 CHESTNUT C: 7'< w j LLJ � 40 N CTR. �T ¢ ¢ "' J v o ¢ rn �� ¢ w CDRTLA o < z = Z v H < 4i t,j 2pLYI • > > l a ¢ �/ o HA THp, O ¢ i7 cn 0.. CIR. � z Y z �z COLONIAL w ¢ w + sY 3 WE STWDD LA, GLEACREST RD, Li FLORIDA CT. w� LAUREL AVE. r ZZ J DR' w STRAWB RR JANALYN 3 3 r ? a , i i F q�� fpt` ¢ A. WE�DCIR, p% 14 Birch LAUREL Q y p m> Q Raj TUR,pI z a ((-4 M¢ Pond o o 61 � > o GOLDEN HIL.S I}R. CIRCLE A DQ 51. � c l�' MWCC IN RCEPTQR �o ¢ UJ N �e - -- ��' 2�� w { TR. I—GV--461 3U" RCP sa _ � �. T p y AT� � 394 �F1Y 2A o= " y'1 BLVD.>< co TrYROL CRkul rownie z TKOM 3 wO 17 ak �} �E i,, SAV SJS ¢ a TR.N z � VIES Dz I' C� N GAP vl� DTaTIGLA ALI R 63, CEDAR 64, CEDAR F 56. S. WILLOW LA, FLO E3 CEDAR Lys yip Q Cedar KL Lake 1FR S, �nC. Um 700 rnkd Street Soulh and ASSomateA01p. 41 CC1TY'c3> tAUneapolh, tviN 55415 T 3020IS 8120700700Tel PARK The West End AUAR St. Louis Park, Minnesota Regional San-ftary Sewer DRN 8Y: DATE: FIG. NO PROJECT NO. CHK'DBY: DATE: 31810118.02000 7 ui Q.141th ST.- w a a Q ¢ST .� a v ' \J. 16th ST, W, 16th sr a o o i SITE 3a Y w CY ST ¢ W 18 th < w S T. > mJ 16 C��9� NK LIN PVE G a PA?2(, Dn y U 4A TrYROL CRkul rownie z TKOM 3 wO 17 ak �} �E i,, SAV SJS ¢ a TR.N z � VIES Dz I' C� N GAP vl� DTaTIGLA ALI R 63, CEDAR 64, CEDAR F 56. S. WILLOW LA, FLO E3 CEDAR Lys yip Q Cedar KL Lake 1FR S, �nC. Um 700 rnkd Street Soulh and ASSomateA01p. 41 CC1TY'c3> tAUneapolh, tviN 55415 T 3020IS 8120700700Tel PARK The West End AUAR St. Louis Park, Minnesota Regional San-ftary Sewer DRN 8Y: DATE: FIG. NO PROJECT NO. CHK'DBY: DATE: 31810118.02000 7 r 4-- - -_-- ----- -- — --- zELIM-,.-- 9ZLIN—&— EZLW-��- ZZIW 2M OZGI,N i aur IeG 00:0000 00:00:00 0000:00 00:00:00 uo:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:06 SO -100 z t SO -100-0 L 90-100-90 90-100-90 SO -100-l0 90 -100 -EO SO-daS-09 90-daS-8Z 90-daS-9z ..;. .._. 000" SOOZ `Z [ aagolop - 9Z isgwoldaS ete® aalaUV RjanoH Magid sino-1 'IS 00'000`09 )00'000`09 l .0 *G D00 -000`00Z 000"000`osa 000,000`000 000"000'050 000"000'0017 0', Ilp-►�r� nor SM i m� r�� i► yJ.. r* rJ W.Y—ta Bi'd T W'Y—ta Rlvd W 14th St. Ow iv Com r'. IF 16th St h" w m, .l ffice p 'It to w4m* A F D' IM f F FIJ-lJFeet 0 200 Kimley-HornCrrY or Um Clan and Associates, Inc.Duke sr. Louis PARK r-4- ;,.a W 23.1,1,5t—W �23d The West End AUAR St Louis Park, Minnesota Existing Land Use Project No. 31810118.02000 Figure 3 URS Corporation N:\31810118\aerial—letter.mxd Date: 11/16/2006 9:42:22At a: estra CD ' ' - 71 .... .:'1 * 'Park Place Blvd + F?ark,Place.BlvdCD �,,, 7 ' CD .' o got 0 1 Or f r,� Ap CD m m xor 9�'—,. 3 ' O CD vv O 7 V)e y state ryK,y�'o0 k v_ m m N A.ronfa9e Rd EL cn ED 8 m n Z o 10 woB a ,. Qpeflt'n Z to A i C7 - __ 11 IF �o =A xZ oW " 0 0 � m m n� —sem � n � C Q N V g =q r� X� o T fJ1 O 2 A cl pv o � n D � m� D o A m �m Qffi o 6 Qf z WOOD C� p�'.P AVE. 55 Y. z Na' z ? ¢ ¢ a = O> W❑ODST�K w b m a wODD STDCK AV, w it t Z> D Syy BE ERLY-i w z ake ° t0 METRO w °` 3 VE. 2 c > N� ACGME4ND CORING LA G. P' A LA. q AVE.A � POPLAR A GLENW❑❑D AVE wow Q `+t��R Tq� TREATMENT AVE, r W w w �N > o w �o r0S pL T> z o w 3 z >>> 40 51. CIRCLE N 3 o A SJ C Q ¢ ¢ ¢ cn ¢ ¢ z g A a ¢ '- a 1�. 2nd AVE N. CL z¢ wqL w dN `�'� w °` Y o 100 LILAC a z a LEI�c,P� R0A OKE C�FN�� w w x¢ F v� a m Q w GCf - w OANOKE RD. LA. CIR. z CORr�q 40 N DDD ¢ AVE. 40 �� x m > CHEST U7 Vi U 0 CICORT A a ¢ z > = z Y W ¢ i,i vi D zpLY,� CIR. rn > d CIR. w ¢ ¢ Y z �Z COL❑NIAI o ¢ ¢ �9 a HA THO Lo a Y w a 3 WE STW❑0 LA. GLEnCREST RD Li FLORIDA CT. w LAUREL AVE. a J DR 2 /� ¢ Ui ¢ Py�� U STRAWB W�� YN q u j1 Birch LAUREL ¢ c N w w JpN A. IR. Q > �a w -i a GOLDEN HILLS �. �'d TUR�'PI`� Z 3 --i E Q Pond oz o a W� �f ¢ CIRCLE Dow, 51. d MWCC IN RCEPTOR a wA J J W sFr TR, I—GV-461 30�� RCP Y ZATq o= o ti'' B! VD x i) 394 12 3011 / \ SeRYRoL cRtsl � hz� Brownieryt , i THpMP� \,I 4 th S . G wN H y �� J A VDI, SJSS� Q a R$, L a k'-7 t a A Q¢ P W S �� Q z ¢ W. i6tn > ¢fie Rp �F. Z? R A� A�1 w W �R W, 16tF-r � T. w P E� ARv1E ST a ¢ aJ a = SITE > a Sj. DOUGLA Z) _j FP,� pL x 3CED 3 < u 1 w � 18 th ¢ ¢I R. 63. CEDAR LA Li ¢ J N L)w 3= 64. CEDAR LA h ST w S T > ¢ a z u¢ U 56. S WILLOW LA FLO J� a a - o Z CEDAR Ly 01 Q CF, Y a fF W Lei NK L Pvf, 16 Z!9� Q PAR�tifGy P ¢ Q N Cedar Lake IFR .ANK L 2 ? v_ < qPARKLArydf�'J R, S� �� 3 AV W A J� Q� a Li CIMPI IGRlley HornThresher Square Crry OF aW Associates. InC. 700 Third Street South YA . Louis 612.370.071 Te55415 Tel 1378 Fax The West End AUAR N�� St. Louis Park. Minnesota Duke Regional Sanitary Sewer N[urr covoew°" DRN BY. DATE: PROJECT NO. FIG. NO CHK'D BY DATE 3181011902000 7 OF ;s ( ;orporation N:\31810118\soils.mxd Date: 11/16/2006 9:56:25 AM estra Z41e D 0 CL ' Park Place Blvd' C rn - > `• > O z,,,.. Park Place Blvd A nZ (7 " O ° > m M n Z a mv -- cn mcn f4 1 J .W�' '} w CD W Sfate s70pfF moi iei ?h 131x°. „p,ar...r- J O C- 0 o N• O O 0 CD D N. Cn O �§ a cmi o Z ..y N N O ' F a Hk'Y OQ FIO ° o o m Qpe` a8e w o8 3� , Ry.G)] . _. oz To .,..p .. a. 0 c ' m 'T n k o x '" g �O v c�7 +' r+w no = A ❑ d1.. �. mv -- cn mcn f4 1 J .W�' '} w CD W Sfate s70pfF moi iei ?h 131x°. „p,ar...r- J O C- 0 o N• O O 0 CD D N. Cn O �§ a cmi o Z ..y N N O ' F a Hk'Y OQ FIO ° o o m Qpe` a8e w o8 3� , Ry.G)] . _. oz To .,..p .. a. 0 CD -n (D (D O 0 Q A m m CR -1 or C cn to 0) N ' m m m Q Q vz3 C N D 'mom co o2 O m B 0 N N Z O O m � � V n URS Corporation N:\31810118\signals.mxd Date: 11/16/2006 1:35:22 PM estra 0 00 91 r e Cn Cn m 'IF NLn.q a~' M M v>Iola - Park Place Bivd ir I F '1'��ia�rF,� ~.lay ` !►�' w a f now 4 r� State Hwy 16p'p vote s.. 3 0p Fr .•tiffs"."�,5r w .ti � ►��, _ � . Qoe^rtn � 11� 44 55t Avs r— 7 z � W r m m CR -1 or C cn to 0) N ' m m m Q Q vz3 C N D 'mom co o2 O m B 0 N N Z O O m � � V n URS Corporation N:\31810118\signals.mxd Date: 11/16/2006 1:35:22 PM estra 0 00 91 r e Cn Cn m 'IF NLn.q a~' M M v>Iola - Park Place Bivd ir I F '1'��ia�rF,� ~.lay ` !►�' w a f now 4 r� State Hwy 16p'p vote s.. 3 0p Fr .•tiffs"."�,5r w .ti � ►��, _ � . Qoe^rtn � 11� 44 55t Avs r— !11 a ,` i N Cri i (CD C: W 0) N (a (D Park Place Blvd/Xenia Ave -- - - I �z r i c r N O r IW ax CDPlace CD Blvd 0� P v CL r- - (D � N - ,, Nam I+ I I TJ + N --` ,iww C cn 1 I + V, O� K r i C (D / ICD oCD r (D r d W CDi i i 7. :3 0 'North CD 0 + :3 CaD c I., C) CL CD :3 CL CD (D CD D CD (D U) (D N) r n CD � r0 (n w also, TD T. Z P'T CD 3 0 CD 16 CD m CL Cc CD 0 m 80 m z2 80 To9iz, m z w also, I I I I �'CarkfPlace Blvd/Xenia Ave I I � I I Q I I � 1 I v I II II II II I I R 0) U) i r m 3 CD 10 I� 1 '� park place Blvd o I W B 0 �rD eco U � � Z 0 C { Xenia Ave " D D 3 a3 0 � o C. : N N CDm n �� j CD n o � mA 80 N =m C� 0 0-1 y CL S, fwd �° � oA T_ S M R m L� m Z-� N Z U _ 0 I I I I �'CarkfPlace Blvd/Xenia Ave I I � I I Q I I � 1 I v I II II II II I I R 0) U) i r m 3 CD 10 I� 1 '� park place Blvd o I W B 0 �. 4 Wayzata Blvd 4.... •rn Way t gmd W I � � sxA•'J�.' _ p -• a. 'a ..,.r.,,, ,�� - .� SJ%w!'1SIG�K.M•'i4,G-.w1tf1!'. A�R/^""N�T .........+. '. 'O ,n ..,}{� !... # '9Yt it r � - 4 w— y=a _ a • T. a�.l i lY � >•YZrfa Bf :.,•.. Wayzal Blvd s. mw x p wart; ei.d ._ - +.; ..,'�• .rj�...- a.. r r ' f W 14-1 IRV n a �� ► '3 "w., �{ - N �> � ►_� .Jdr e _ fN1 . r .'g�' r � war ara r 1 �' a /► ae F .1 er dg ss�F�r' f�A� Rd •�y x Sl ; w16tH— W 16th _ _16th St ........ y r 4 o N � _ W 18th Sl - - _ a• c •! > m 1 .p . .� � i ;i •{_ 9 ►.�.+ErL►�M m'Fi`i8"•� l 1 pr p m , r. a. M - y d r r ! r .rl 4 • - pw nrd Noise Receptor Location erLrLFeet The West End AUAR 0 200 St Louis Park, Minnesota S ❑ ❑ Duke Noise Receptor Locations � KimleyHorn SIT. and Associates, Inc. , ,,,, ,,,o,,,,•• PARK Proiect No. 31810118.02000 Figure 13 \� L Cl . \ / � co � � ƒ ƒ k \ § R � E «3 §§ »B U)/ �& m — e\\ /g g. $ A 2\— - / \2 _ mm / j§ 'z \0 eE$Q §§)A G\ff ®/}� � § #\ ; «2(« � %T-TIT�IT| . ». L N o 00 . .d . \ k \ folq = M a 2 2 / 2« k 2 0°� ( � ƒ ƒ k \ § R E I;Kzo A 70-n srD N� z oW mlm mA 00 wo 0-4 N z §P Q U) o C CL v a �m C a vCDc o � w A, J 0 S o n CL CD CD CD �• x' � C7 y C 7� " En :v 0 . CD N CD(Do- C ❑ L co Sy color to show its travel path. 4 Central Community Center "'Prtal Q' Kimley HornThresher Square 700 Third sweet SouthCITY OF "t Park Nicolle Genera j d= 612.370.0700 Tel o Lake Minnetonka Mills Rd 2n Fax Excelsior =�= - C�'shire pair4iel a„ ,Mills ■ u cj-= E-12 �_ g,,; 3' 'o m °Golden Jew, Wirth c P Laurel Bryn 6 St. Louis Park City Hall •e.nuu'Iffli Itlt rk au,re r. _ Service V Hills Dark Duke a ParkMaw .�� DRN BY: DATE: t•" ainstreet CHK'D BY: DATE: 31810118.02000 12tt� •` 9 • �'.�.4:. • 94 .0000. ° 8 Park Nicollet Medical Center -- ......... gpthSt 9 Excelsior & Grand co Rd 3 aklanI a e °^ Frontage Frontage Rd Kenwood ■ Rid dale o to w3 a rk Doural,; 0 ... Ce er ' ��e Lake 3 �e� -C O J Geda< Y u IL a Chat Laker 24th St Bus Routes 652, 671, 672, BuS Routes 9, 604, 643, rn649, 852, 663. 672. 675. St r 675, 677. 40,741,743, ° 755 758 25'F` 26th St Cedar Lake Ave ' Lake 771,774 3 o v Louis r* nu,,,,um of th e v j u les LParK •�. oon intvO Cedar Lake Rd Greenbrier ° netonka Blvd ern 60 Minnetonka „ •" a Lake ..--- �k , _� © N /Z0 a Go Rati � 494 ka eto o 0 : " park Glen tio cam Bus Rues.: 5., 12, 17, 2 1,Mnn 5 v , ° 1 23. 114,115,581 ' 36th O Walker °' �% ^2 • © e 0 c� �� J �LOk! 3Gt Jewish Family & Children Service Hopkins ? � 36th ° �'O,rP 3 Calhoun1 :- 38th St 38' 2 Knollwood •.a ( w 3 Lenox Community Center G2mbr a Methodist �fi`e5"o 39th color to show its travel path. 4 Central Community Center "'Prtal Q' Kimley HornThresher Square 700 Third sweet SouthCITY OF "t Park Nicolle 5 STEP 612.370.0700 Tel L L � N Lake Minnetonka Mills Rd 2n Fax Excelsior =�= - Medical Cee Jew, _ 6 St. Louis Park City Hall 0 0.83 Duke Excelsior Miles DRN BY: DATE: PROJECT NO, ainstreet CHK'D BY: DATE: 31810118.02000 7 SLP Rec Center J 100 8 Park Nicollet Medical Center gpthSt 9 Excelsior & Grand co Rd 3 10 Miracle Mile nth ,••� _ 4¢ to 50th St Effective September 2006 Note: Each route is marked a different Park &Ride lot Bicycle Locker color to show its travel path. Kimley HornThresher Square 700 Third sweet SouthCITY OF and Associates, Inc. Minneapolis, MN 55415 ST. LOUIS 612.370.0700 Tel PARK612-370.1378 Fax The West End AUAR Jew, St. Louis Park, Minnesota Transit System Map 0 0.83 Duke Miles DRN BY: DATE: PROJECT NO, FIG. NO. CHK'D BY: DATE: 31810118.02000 16 I f PZ -3 District 11 —. . --a —,. .9 A z Q m MH1321 r` MCES M114 >F' - z- Medicine Lake Rd S o W District fi Pz-s f cNo a\\e��8 fMH114MH26 t rn Duluth'.St �I 0 MH673 �o1ae� Distr[Ct 2 - ; DistrictJl ' MH452 District 3 MH682 ? District 7 ` District 9 1 District 10f: PZ -4 MH138 Schaper LS , - Hwy 55 LS^ MH577 _ MH3 • �a�. _ . , . —. 4e t 1VICES M117` _. ' ° f HNN 55~ - Qistrict State Hwy 55 Woodstock LS District 14 MH618 Glenwood AveQistrict iG Y� } i- �' __, J•� MH632�� MH2936 k , District 17 PZ -1 a L,i- 394 District � ,,. 'x'} r.Z'�"^:1 L'a 'LS (." '"r-7 c•1. '—'] r �-i c* !) F•'S MCES M120 :i a� Q c m a W Broadway Ave + Oison'Memoriali Hwy City of Golden Valle Legend A Pz-, Piezometer Location • MH3 Flow Meter Locations 0 Hwy 55 LS Lift Station Locations E mix MCES Flow Meter Location MCES Interceptor City Limits 0 2,000 t A J � Figure 2 N SEN , � 0 S LOWry Alfie iy PZ -5 0 O District 4 Robbinsdaie District 19 .s Cn District fi ; O MH486 r _: MH47A MH41 e m i MH350 i S o W District fi Pz-s f cNo a\\e��8 fMH114MH26 t rn Duluth'.St �I 0 MH673 �o1ae� Distr[Ct 2 - ; DistrictJl ' MH452 District 3 MH682 ? District 7 ` District 9 1 District 10f: PZ -4 MH138 Schaper LS , - Hwy 55 LS^ MH577 _ MH3 • �a�. _ . , . —. 4e t 1VICES M117` _. ' ° f HNN 55~ - Qistrict State Hwy 55 Woodstock LS District 14 MH618 Glenwood AveQistrict iG Y� } i- �' __, J•� MH632�� MH2936 k , District 17 PZ -1 a L,i- 394 District � ,,. 'x'} r.Z'�"^:1 L'a 'LS (." '"r-7 c•1. '—'] r �-i c* !) F•'S MCES M120 :i a� Q c m a W Broadway Ave + Oison'Memoriali Hwy City of Golden Valle Legend A Pz-, Piezometer Location • MH3 Flow Meter Locations 0 Hwy 55 LS Lift Station Locations E mix MCES Flow Meter Location MCES Interceptor City Limits 0 2,000 t A J � Figure 2 N SEN CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. , 2"° SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE TO REGULATE OUTDOOR LIGHTING, NON -CONFORMITIES AND LIGHT NUISANCE Amendment to Chapter 11, adding Section 11.73 (Outdoor Lighting) and 11.90 (Non -Conforming Uses), amending Section 11.55 (PUD), Subdivision 5(A), amending Section 11.70 (Off -Street Parking and Loading Regulations), Subdivision 5(A)(4), amending Section 4.60 Residential Property Maintenance Code, Subdivision 6(C), amending Section 6.39 Motor Vehicle Dealers, Subdivision 2 (G) and (J), amending Section 11.30 Commercial Zoning District, Subdivision 8, amending 11.36 Industrial Zoning District, Subdivision 5 The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. Chapter 11 of the City Code is hereby amended by adding the following new section: Section 11.73 Outdoor Lighting Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of these regulations is to create standards for outdoor lighting which will provide for nighttime safety, security and utility while reducing light pollution, light trespass, and conserving energy for residential and non- residential properties. Subdivision 2. Definitions. For the purpose of this Section the following terms shall have the meanings given. A. "Cutoff" The point at which all light rays emitted by a lamp, light source, or luminaire is completely eliminated (cutoff) at a specific angle above the ground. B. "Cutoff Angle" — The maximum angle formed by a line drawn in the direction of emitted light rays at the light source and a line perpendicular to the ground from the light source. C. "Flood Lighting" — Any light fixture or lamp that incorporates a reflector or a refractor to concentrate the light output into a directed beam in a particular direction with a wide or narrow beam. D. "Footcandle" — The American unit used to measure the total amount of light cast on a surface (illuminance). One (1) footcandle is equivalent to the illuminance produced by a source of one (1) candle at a distance of one (1) foot. E. "Full Cutoff -Type luminaire"— A luminaire constructed or shielded to direct all light at a cutoff angle of less than 90 degrees. F. "Fully Shielded" — The luminaire designed and installed where no 'IleM aqj uo sjunow jeg; aaleutwnl y-„,MoedlleM„ 'N -aueld lejuortloq aq1 anoge sAej jg6!l aulgs of se aauuew a Bons ut pa}oajlp st legl 6utlg6t-1 — „6u!Ig6!ldn„ 'O 'u6!sap 6u!lg6li aqj wo}!un ajow aqj ogle, ag} jamol agl '}uawainseaw alpueolool wnwtu!w eqj o} juawainseew alpueo}ool wnw!xew aq, jo ollei a se passajdxa s! Ai!wao}!un 'paig6ll aq of ease eqj ul seeie �Jep pue �qB,l 10 A;!sualul jo aai6ep aqj jo walked 6u!lg6!l ag110 ssauq}oows eqj jo uo!}duosep y — „o1leH Al!waoj!un„ 'd j4o-Ino llnj„ a pajaptsuoo osly 'aan;,x! eqj 10 saps agl wog} pa:P!wa sl Ig6ll ou pue 'ain}xg Ig6ll papla!gs e qj!m alglsin }0u st dwel eql — „(6ul)peplalgS„ 'O 'Janna!n a141 wojj dwel aq, 6ulleeouoo al!gm aa!jjeq aqj g6noagl ssed of jg6tl awos smolle jeq} dwel aq} punoie pla!gs let;ted a swjoj jegj jatajeq juaonlsueal a sa}elodmoul ai!eu!wnl eqj ajegm uolllpuoo aql — „papla!gs Allel:Ped„ 'N „'aaqxg„ a se of paijejai Aluowwoo si aileulwi y 'Ig6!l aq} alnq!jls!p of pau6tsap sited eqj ql!m aaq!abol sdwel 10 dwel a 10 6ulls!suoo }!un 6u1lg6l1 a}ald'Woo b — „ajteulwn-l„ 'W 'aolnos jg6ll a woj} paP!we jg6!l jo junowe aqj 6utjnseew I!un anljej!juenb y — „uawn-l„ '-i 'paleool si I! golgm uo 4adoid agj jo sauepunoq aqj puoAeq aiiewwnl a Aq paonpold jg6!l jo 6u!u!gs aql — „ssedsajl -A(s aqj olut pue eiteutwnl eq} 10 !g6lag aqj anoge aiteu!wnl a Aq peonpoid jq&I }0 bututgs aql — ,uoilnllOd '„glnq„ aqj se o} paijejaa fxluowwoo st dwel aql '(aj!eutwnl eqj) Algwasse alogm 9141 woal pags!nbu!ls!p aq of 'aoanos Ig6il le1041,je ue lo, weal ouaua6 aql — „dwe-,, '1 '6utlg611 u! p9nl0nut Alleuo!sseloid slaglo pue 'satuedwoo 6uun}oelnuew woil asogj bu!pnloul 'siaGUIBua bu!lg6!i;o Ajatoos leua!ssa#oid aql — „((VNSEII 10 S30 eal.tawy gPaN 10 /qa!ooS 6uPeui6ua but}eutwnill) VNS3I„ 'H 'sseupu!lq �jejuawow 'seseo awaa>rxe ut '10 'eas of Al!ltge s,Janna!n a ul uo!lonpaa a 'an6tjej aAe '>volwoostp lensin esneo of g6noua leai6 /4!sua}ut glw+ aateutwni a wojl papwe 1461110ai!p 'aiteulwnl age ua}u!od Isamol aql g6nolgl 6utuuni aueld leluortjoq a anoge jo ae pall!wa s! ;tg6tl n Subdivision 3. Applicability. A. Except as otherwise provided, the lighting standards of this Section shall be applicable to all residential and non-residential uses. B. The regulations in this Section do not apply to the following: Lighting required by the f=ederal Aviation Administration or other federal or state agency. 2. Public street or alley lighting located within the public right of way that is authorized by the City of Golden Valley. 3. Temporary lighting for City authorized special events, theatrical productions, outdoor television production sets, and performance areas. 4. Temporary lighting used for the construction or repair of roadways, utilities, and other public infrastructure. 5. Vehicular lights and all temporary emergency lighting needed by the police department and fire protection district, or other emergency services. 6. Lighting of public and existing outdoor recreational facilities, such as but not limited to ball fields, tennis courts, soccer fields, hockey or skating rinks, golf courses, golf -ball driving ranges, and special events or play areas. Lighting for these outdoor recreational uses shall be shielded to minimize light from spilling over onto adjacent residential properties. Public recreational facility lighting is prohibited after 10:30 pm, unless a later completion time is approved by the City Manager, or his/her designee. Code. 7. Lighting within swimming pools. 8. Sign lighting which is governed by Section 4.20 of City 9. Decorative seasonal lighting. Subdivision 4. Prohibited Lights. A. The following lights are prohibited. 1. Mercury vapor lamps. 2. Low pressure sodium lamps are prohibited unless the City Manager or his/her designee finds that the color distortion effect of low pressure sodium lighting will not create a hindrance to crime prevention and investigation. uegj jajeai6 ou sjulod 6ulpeaa Apualul qj!m aoinos jg611 yoga jo A4isuajul snoulwnl pue (wnlpos ainssaid g61q `ua6oleq `}uaosapueoul se gons) adA} aql '8 ain}xg Ig61i goea }o 9peJ6 anoge Ig6laq pue uol}eool eq I V :6ulmollol aqj apnloul Reqs weld ola}awo;ogd y •uolloaS slgj 10 swia;< eq} qj!m }uaIslsuoo 6ulaq se Allo eqj Aq panoidde uaaq seg ueid olalawol;ogd aqj I!Iun juawdolanap pies 101 panssl aq Reqs s}lwjad 6ulpllnq ON 'eaie alts jo 6ulpllnq aqj 10 %0Z uegj ajow jo uolsuedxe Aue pue juawdolanap Z-�l JO 6-d uou Mau Aue ao} uoljeolldde l.lwjad 6ulpllnq aq; qj!m uol}ounfuoo ui pa:glwgns aq llegs ueid (oplawologd) 6upon aoopino uv -s;uawa.+lnbaa ueid 6uf1461-1 'L uolslnlpgnS 'uolJoas slgj 10 uoljeloln 6ulnulluoo a aq of pawaap aq Reqs paajoo o} ajnllej gons `poped Aep O£ gons ulgjtnn uoljeulwnlll jo [anal aq} joaJJoo o} slle; aoueslnu eql< 6ululeluoo AlJadoid eql jo ialdn000 ao aaumo aql jI 'aau6lsap jaq/s[q jo jabeuelN A}lo aqj Wojj aol}ou u914lJM a 6ulnlaoaa 10 sAep OE uigl!m sa[pueolool S'0 ueq} ssal 01 jop sip 6uluoz lellueplsai eq} ul uolleulwnlll jo [anal aq} aonpaj of pajalle aq Ilegs sajnjx4 gong -aouesinu ollgnd a s[ 11 }eqj uolldwnsaid a sajeajo Aliadoid alenlad aagjo ayl< uo salpueol.00J 9'0 uegl.191M6 ao of lenba aaleulwnl aqj Aq pasneo uolleulwnlll jo [anal a 1e 10taIslp 6uluoz lelIuaplsal a ul paleool A:padoid @Ienlad JagjO o} alel6 sloallp aileulwnl 6ulwioI.uoouou a jegll a3u9pin3 .9 Z 'pgns '06' b uoRoaS jo swial aqj Aq papinoid juajxa aq; of 6ulwjo}uoo-uou Alle691 paiapisuoo aq Reqs joaaaq sluawailnbai eq} gllM Aldwoo lou saop 1egj aoueulpio slgl< 10 a}ep anl1oa}4a aqj ajo}aq aoual,slxa ul 6ullg6l- uollosS sly} }o sjuawaimbai ay} ql!m Aldwoo Reqs aoueulpio slq o 918 anl1oa:}a aqj aa}}e pelle}sul 6uwlg6li joopino mau AuV .d •aouesinN pue sal}lwJOIuoouoN •g uoisinipgnS -uolleulwnlil leppie jo s;lulod Iseal pue Isaleai6 aq le uaNel aq llinn ails a of lew91ul slanal 6uljg6ll wnwlxew pue wnwlulw all oulwalap of sluawainseaw }g6il Auy 'o •;ueuleidwoo eqj jo kpadoid aq; uo uoljeool iaq}o Aue }e jo jueuleldwoo eqj 10 AAiadoid aqj sulofpe jegj Aeon-jo-jg6la jaaa}s ollgnd eqj jo Aiepunoq eqj le apew aq Aew sjuawainseaw Ianai Jg611 `leoijoeid jo alglssod jou sl A:pedoid a#enlad uo }uawainseew 11 -gull Apadoid pies jo uol}eulwn[li }o julod IseleaA eqj le painseaw aq llegs gull 49old eq; }e ua�le} juawaanseew 1011 Auy .8 -larval punoj6 le Ageluozuoq jalaw aqj 6wuoipsod Aq pamseaw aq l[egs sluawainseaw Aud -jeeA aqj ulgl!m paleaglleo uaaq seq ;<eq, jajaw Ig6y a ql!m uaXej aq llegs sjuawainseaVI uoiloejjoo aoloo 'aulsoo ql!m jajaw ly6ll a pm ua� e} eq Reqs sjuawaanseaw jg6ll Aub/ .b -juawainseeW }o pogIGW •5 uolslnfpgnS 30 feet apart. C. The type of fixture (such as floodlight, full -cutoff, lantern, coach light). D. Estimates for site illumination resulting from the lighting, as measured in foot-candles, should include minimum, maximum and average illumination. Comparable examples already in the community that demonstrate technique, specification, and/or light level should be provided if available to expedite the review process. E. Hours of illumination. F. Certification by the property owner or agent and the preparer of the plan in writing that the exterior lighting depicted on the plan complies with the requirements of this Section. Once the plan is approved, the exterior lighting of the property shall conform to the plan. G. Other information deemed necessary may also be required by the City Manager or his/her designee to document compliance with the provisions of this Section. H. If deemed necessary, the City may require the applicant's outdoor lighting plan to be reviewed by a lighting consultant at the applicant's expense. Subdivision 8. Requirements for Residential (R1 and R2) Zoning Districts. The provisions in this Subdivision apply to the R1 and R2 Zoning Districts. A. Lighting Levels. The maximum power of any luminaire shall be 150 watts. B. Light Trespass. All outdoor lighting shall be designed and located such that the maximum illumination shall not exceed 0.3 footcandles at the property line. C. Security Lights. Motion -activated security lights and unshielded floodlights or spotlights are permitted. However they must meet the light trespass requirements of Section 8B. Subdivision 9. General Requirements for other zoning districts (Non R-1 and R-2 Properties). The following provisions apply in all areas except for R1 and R2 zoning districts. A. Lighting Fixtures. All exterior Ii ghting shall use full cut-off luminaires with the light source downcast and fully shielded, with the following exceptions: 1. Luminaires that have a maximum output of four hundred (400) lumens per fixture, regardless of number of lamps (equal to one forty [40] waft incandescent light), may be left unshielded provided the luminaire has an opaque top and is under an opaque structure. 2. Luminaires that have a maximum output of one thousand (1,000) lumens per fixture, regardless of number of lamps (equal to one sixty [60] watt incandescent light) may be partially shielded provided the lamp is not visible, and the luminaire has an opaque top or is under an opaque structure. 3. The City Manager or his/her designee may permit alternatives to full -cut off fixtures if there is a City approved area lighting plan. In order for the area lighting plan to be approved, it must be demonstrated that undesirable off- site impacts stemming from the luminaires are reduced by the fixture design or location. 4. Uplighting/Accent Lighting described in Subdivision 13A. B. Light Tres pass. Outdoor lighting shall be designed and located such that the maximum illumination shall not exceed 0.5 footcandles at the property line. C. Mounting Height. Luminaire height includes base and pole height. Free-standing luminaires are permitted to be a maximum of thirty (30) feet in height, except for the following 1. When a luminaire is located within five hundred (500) feet of an R1 or R2 residential property the maximum permitted luminaire height shall be twenty-five (25) feet. 2. The top exterior deck of parking garages shall be treated as normal pole mounted lighting rather than as lights mounted to buildings. The maximum height for light poles in these locations shall be twenty (20) feet. 3. Free-standing luminaires used for walkways, plazas and other pedestrian areas are permitted to be a maximum of eighteen (18) feet. D. Timer, Dimmers, and Sensors. Lighting installation shall include timers, dimmers, and/or sensors to reduce overall energy consumption and eliminate unneeded lighting. E. Curfew. Lighting systems described in Subdivisions 10, 11, and 12 below shall be extinguished or reduced in lighting by at least fifty (50) percent beginning one hour after close of business and continuing until dawn or start of business, whichever is sooner. The reduction shall be determined as an overall average for the site. This provision does not require parking lot lighting levels to be reduced to less than 0.2 footcandles. Subdivision 10. Specific Requirements for Parking Lot Lighting. The following specific lighting level requirements apply only to parking lot lighting. A. Open-air parking lot lighting standards. The table below establishes open-air parking lot lighting standards. For multilevel parking facilities, the roof level shall be considered an open-air parking lot. *When requested by the property owner, the City Manager or his/her designee may increase from Basic to Enhanced Security lighting levels when personal security is an issue, such as where vandalism or crime levels are greater than the average. The City Manager or his/her designee may consider specific site characteristics, level of vehicle and pedestrian conflict, special security needs, and history or likelihood of crimes in making the determination. Subdivision 11. Specific Requirements for Service Stations. The following specific requirements apply only to service stations: A. Canopy Lighting. 1. Lighting fixtures mounted under canopies used for vehicle shelter shall be aimed downward and installed such that the bottom of the light fixture or its lens, whichever is lower, is recessed or mounted flush with the bottom surface of the canopy. A full cutoff light fixture may project below the underside of a canopy. All light emitted by an under -canopy fixture shall be substantially confined to the ground surface directly beneath the perimeter of the canopy. 2. Lights shall not be mounted on the top or sides (fascias) of the canopy, and the sides (fascias) of the canopy shall not be internally illuminated, 3. Light levels shall not exceed twelve (12) footcandles average maintained at the perimeter of the canopy and measured at ground level. B. Th e illumination 20 feet beyond the perimeter of the canopy shall be a minimum of two (2) footcandles and a maximum of five (5) footcandles. C. Exceptions to lighting level standards. At the discretion of the City Manager or his/her designee, increased lighting levels may be permitted for enhanced security purposes only. Basic Level Enhanced Security Level* Minimum footcandles on 0.2 fc 0.5 fc pavement Maximum footcandles on 4.0 fc 7.5 fc pavement Uniformity Ratio 20:1 15:1 Maximum: minimum *When requested by the property owner, the City Manager or his/her designee may increase from Basic to Enhanced Security lighting levels when personal security is an issue, such as where vandalism or crime levels are greater than the average. The City Manager or his/her designee may consider specific site characteristics, level of vehicle and pedestrian conflict, special security needs, and history or likelihood of crimes in making the determination. Subdivision 11. Specific Requirements for Service Stations. The following specific requirements apply only to service stations: A. Canopy Lighting. 1. Lighting fixtures mounted under canopies used for vehicle shelter shall be aimed downward and installed such that the bottom of the light fixture or its lens, whichever is lower, is recessed or mounted flush with the bottom surface of the canopy. A full cutoff light fixture may project below the underside of a canopy. All light emitted by an under -canopy fixture shall be substantially confined to the ground surface directly beneath the perimeter of the canopy. 2. Lights shall not be mounted on the top or sides (fascias) of the canopy, and the sides (fascias) of the canopy shall not be internally illuminated, 3. Light levels shall not exceed twelve (12) footcandles average maintained at the perimeter of the canopy and measured at ground level. B. Th e illumination 20 feet beyond the perimeter of the canopy shall be a minimum of two (2) footcandles and a maximum of five (5) footcandles. C. Exceptions to lighting level standards. At the discretion of the City Manager or his/her designee, increased lighting levels may be permitted for enhanced security purposes only. Subdivision 12. Specific Requirements for Auto Sales Areas. The following specific requirements apply only to auto sales areas: A. Lighting Levels. Lighting levels shall not exceed a maximum of twenty (20) footcandles within an auto sales area. B. Light Uniformity. The maximum uniformity ratio (maximum illumination to minimum illumination) throughout an auto sales area shall not exceed 30:1. Subdivision 13. Requirements for Uplighting and Accent Lighting. A. Architectural features may be illuminated by uplighting, provided no glare or light trespass is produced. Floodlights or other lighting attached to poles to illuminate buildings is prohibited. B. For statues, public art, or other objects of interest that cannot be illuminated with downlighting, upward lighting may only be used that is confined to the illumination to the object of interest. C. Uplighting of flags is permitted with a limit of three (3) luminaires per flag pole with a maximum of one hundred and fifty (150) watts from each luminaire. The fixtures must be shielded such that the light source is not visible outside of a fifteen (15) foot radius. Subdivision 14. Temporary Lighting. A. Lighting used t o illuminate temporary uses shall be reviewed, and if necessary conditioned, through the Temporary Use Permitting process. B. Th e City Manager or his/her designee may impose specific conditions for the lighting of temporary uses consistent with the purposes of this section. Section 2. Section 11.90, subd. 2, is changed to read as follows: Subdivision 2. Non -Conforming Uses. A. Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion, unless: 1. The nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year; or 2. Any nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged. In this case, the City may impose reasonable conditions upon a building permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property. B. Any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a conforming use or occupancy. C. Notwithstanding subparagraph A, above, the City shall regulate the repair, replacement, maintenance, improvement, or expansion of nonconforming uses and structures in floodplain areas to the extent necessary to maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program and not increase flood damage potential or increase the degree of obstruction to flood flows in the floodway. Section 3. Section 11.55 PUD, subdivision 5(A)(1), is changed to read as follows: 1. Preliminary PUD Plan. A Preliminary PUD Plan of the proposed development illustrating the nature and type of proposed development, shall identify all land uses and proposed square footage, the location of buildings, existing and proposed roadways and accesses, pedestrian ways and sidewalks, proposed parking areas, preliminary traffic volume projections, areas to be preserved, public and common areas, preliminary building elevations including height and materials, preliminary utilities plan, the location of the parcel's boundaries, the net and gross density of the development, the total area occupied by the development, lot coverage, a lighting plan (subject to the requirements in Section 11.73 Outdoor Lighting) and the amenities to be provided and a development schedule. Section 4. Section 11.70 Off -Street Parking and Loading Regulations subdivision 5(A)(4), is changed to read as follows: 4. Lighting. Lighting for parking areas shall be subject to the requirements in Section 11.73 Outdoor Lighting. Section 5. Section 4.60 Residential Property Maintenance Code subdivision 6(C), is changed to read as follows: C. Exterior lighting. All circulation and parking areas of any structure shall be subject to the requirements in Section 11.73 Outdoor Lighting. Section 6. Section 6.39 Motor Vehicle Dealers subdivision 2(G) is changed to read as follows: G. No motor vehicle dealer shall permit sounds from loudspeakers on the business premises to be heard to the reasonable disturbance of other persons on adjacent properties. Section 7. Section 6.39 Motor Vehicle Dealers add subdivision (J) to read as follows: J. Lighting for motor vehicle dealer parking lots shall be subject to the requirements in Section 11.73 Outdoor Lighting. Section 8. Section 11.30 Commercial Zoning District subdivision 8 is changed to read as follows: Subdivision 8. Height Restrictions. No building or structure, other than water tanks, water towers, essential service communication structures as provided for in Section 11.71 of this Code, shall be erected to exceed a height of three (3) stories in the Commercial Zoning District. All necessary mechanical equipment and elevator penthouses will not be included in computation of building height. The City Council may grant a Conditional Use Permit for a taller building. Section 9. Section 11.36 Industrial Zoning District subdivision 5 is changed to read as follows: Subdivision 5. Building Height. No building or structure, other than water tanks, water towers, essential service communication structures as provided for in Section 11.71 of this Code, shall be erected to exceed a height of forty-five (45) feet in the Industrial Zoning District. All necessary mechanical equipment and elevator penthouses will not be included in computation of building height. Section 10. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation," Section 11.03 entitled "Definitions" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 11. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this day of , 2007. Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: