10-14-08
AGENDA
Council/Manager Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Conference Room
October 14, 2008
6:30 p.m. or immediately following the HRA meeting
1. Golden Valley Envision Awards Program
2. Minneapolis - Joint Water Commission Water Task Force Final Report
3. 2009 Other Funds Proposed Budget
4. City of Minneapolis Resident Survey for Xerxes Avenue North Rehabilitation
5. Reset November 6 City Council Meeting Date
6. Set Date for Special Council/Manager Meeting to Review Draft Chapters of the
Comprehensive Plan
7. Brookview Task Force Recruitment Letter
8. Applewood Pointe Access on Douglas Drive
Council/Manager meetings have an informal, discussion-style format and are designed
for the Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and
provide general directions to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The
public is invited to attend Council/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public
participation is allowed by invitation of the City Council.
alley
e randum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8014/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
October 14, 2008
Agenda Item
1. Golden Valley Envision Awards Program
Prepared By
Jeanne Andre, Assistant City Manager
Summary
Last year the Council requested the Envision Connection Project Board of Directors to study
how to implement a community awards program. The Board has discussed this issue and
developed an overview and nomination form for such a program. Board Member Helene
Johnson will be at the Council/Manager Meeting to discuss.
Attachments
Golden Valley Envision Awards Program (draft dated 10-16-08) (1 page)
Golden Valley Envision Awards Program Nomination Form (1 page)
Golden Valley
Envision Awards Program
Do you know someone who has a vision for making Golden Valley a better place and
who is making that vision a reality? If so, nominate that person for a Golden Valley
Envision Award.
In 2004-2005, Envision Golden Valley encouraged the community to dream about how
to make Golden Valley a better place to live, work and play. As a follow-up, the City
Council created the Envision Connection Project. Its mission is to encourage all
members of the community to take ownership of their aspirations and implement civic
activities, programs, and day-to-day initiatives related to the six categories of Envision:
Development, Transportation, Community Engagement, Environment, Recreation, and
Government.
A major part of the Connection Project is the concept of Bridge Builders-folks who
through their own small sparks work with others to develop a sense of community and
make Golden Valley a better place. The Connection Project Board of Directors knows
these activities are going on all around us, and we want to acknowledge folks who
demonstrate this civic engagement so others in the community can recognize,
appreciate, and emulate them. Whether it be organizing neighborhood events,
developing an environmental challenge, or spearheading efforts for community trails-
folks come together and create an enthusiasm that makes things happen.
The nomination process is simple. If you know of a project or initiative that merits
recognition, send us information about who should be recognized, what was done, and
how their project benefited Golden Valley (see attached form, also available at
www.cLgolden-vallev-mn.us). The Connection Project Board of Directors will review all
nominations. Those initiatives that fit the intent of the award will be forwarded to the City
Council, which will present a certificate of appreciation at a Council Meeting and initiate
recognition in CityNews.
1
1 0-16-08
Golden Valley Envision Awards Program
To nominate someone, please fill out the form below. Once you submit the form, it will be added to our database.
Processing time is 2-4 weeks. If you have any questions, please contact Jeanne Andre at iandreta1ci.~olden-
vallev.mn.us or 763-593-8014.
Nominator information: required
First name:
Last name:
Address:
Apartment #:
City:
State:
Additional nominator information: optional
Nominator e-mail address:
ZIP Code:
Nominee information: required
Type of nominee:
C
Group:
Individual: Ii
First name:
Last name:
Address:
Apartment #:
City:
State:
Additional nominee information: optional
Nominee e-mail address:
Reason for nomination: required
Please add what was done and how their project benefited Golden Valley.
Accomplishments:
2
10-16-08
nlley
mora dum
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
October 14, 2008
Agenda Item
2. Minneapolis - Joint Water Commission Water Task Force Final Report
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Summary
The Joint Water Task Force was convened in late 2005 to address several goals outlined in
the 2003 Water Purchase Agreement between the City of Minneapolis and the Joint Water
Commission (JWC). The water policy goals of the Task Force were as follows:
. Compile and review existing technical planning information needed to make joint water
supply planning decisions;
. Consider a stronger governance role for the JWC;
. Evaluate an emergency backup water supply;
. Evaluate conjunctive use of JWC groundwater and Mississippi River water; and
. Develop policy on emergency interconnections.
Membership from the Task Force consisted of officials from the cities of Minneapolis, Crystal,
Golden Valley, and New Hope. Mayor Loomis, Council Member Shaffer, and City Manager
Tom Burt served on the Task Force as Golden Valley's representatives.
Scott Harder, who facilitated the work of the Task Force, will present a summary of the
accomplishments at the Council/Manager meeting.
Attached is a resolution which supports creating a Water Advisory Board. Staff asks that
Council review and comment on the resolution. If acceptable, it will be placed on a regular
Council meeting agenda for consideration.
Attachments
Resolution Designating the Creation of a Water Advisory Board and Adopting. its Vision
Statement for a Sustainable Regional Water Supply (3 pages)
Joint Water Task Force Final Report Executive Summary (6 page booklet)
Joint Water Task Force Presentation by Environmental Financial Group (12 pages)
Resolution 08-
Member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE CREATION OF A
WATER ADVISORY BOARD AND ADOPTING ITS VISION STATEMENT
FOR A SUSTAINABLE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY
WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley is a member of the Joint Water Commission
along with the cities of Crystal and New Hope; and
WHEREAS, the Joint Water Commission (JWC) has purchased treated, potable
water from the City of Minneapolis since 1963 and continues to do so under the terms of a
2004 Water Purchase Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the 2004 Water Purchase Agreement between the Joint Water
Commission and the City of Minneapolis stipulates that "the parties agree to participate in a
joint Minneapolis Water Works (MWW)/JWC water task force that will meet regularly over
the next four years to consider a stronger governance role for the JWC in the MWW water
system, emergency interconnections with neighbors of the JWC, conjunctive use of JWC
groundwater and MWW river water, development of an emergency backup water supply,
and the use of JWC groundwater to augment MWWs supplies"; and
WHEREAS, the work of the Joint Water Task Force recently concluded, following
the adoption of sustainable strategy guidelines and endorsement of the creation of a water
advisory board; and
WHEREAS, stewardship of Golden Valley's Mississippi River through this regional
water partnership water supply involves diligence in conservation, drought management
and response, climate-aware planning, and other matters requiring regular coordination
among our partners; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Golden
Valley:
1. That the City of Golden Valley supports the creation of a Water Advisory Board,
which purpose, membership, operations, finance, duties, and responsibilities are
outlined in Exhibit A and attached hereto.
2. That the City of Golden Valley adopts the Vision for a Sustainable Regional
Water Supply for the MWW/JWC Task Force, which goals, objectives, and
recommendations are outlined in Exhibit B and attached hereto.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Exhibit A
Proposed Water Supply Advisory Board
Minneapolis - Joint Water Commission Water Task Force
Purposes
The Water Supply Advisory Board shall communicate with and make
recommendations to the City of Minneapolis regarding matters relating
to its operation, maintenance, cost and cost apportionment, financing,
operating budget, and capital planning.
Strengthen the regional water partnership through enhanced advisory
governance with voting to be commensurate with the financial risks
borne by each member.
Advocate for the protection of the Mississippi River surface water
supply, gro\.lndwater sources, and provide for the management of
climate change impacts and water demand.
Membership
Minneapolis and wholesale customers shall be members. Members
shall serve staggered, three-year terms.
Voting
Minneapolis shall maintain a minimum 51 percent of voting
representation. Matters with the exception of approval of operating
budgets and capital projects shall require a simple majority. Financial
matters shall require a supermajority.
Operations
Advise on all matters pertaining to the quality and quantity of water
deliveries to wholesale customers.
Finance
Advise on matters pertaining to Minneapolis Water Works annual
operating budgets. capital improvement plans, and audits.
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBIUTIES
Identify criteria to be considered in prioritizing capital improvement projects. Develop and
recommend suggestions and recommendations to the proposed Capital Improvement Plan.
specific capital projects, and in the capital planning and financing process.
Review and comment on the Minneapolis Water Works Capital Improvement Plan. Make a
presentation to the Mayor of Minneapolis annually as part of the budgeting process.
Host an annual meeting to discuss the Capital Improvement Plan on a schedule sufficient to
allow wholesale customers participation in Minneapolis Water Works capital budget review
process.
Participate in review of the Minneapolis Water Works Operations and Maintenance budget.
Ensure wholesale customers effectively participate in annual budget deliberations.
Review efforts to develop and implement water conservation and drought response plans.
Make recommendations to the City of Minneapolis regarding demand management to ensure
consistency in water conservation efforts throughout the service area. Advocate for the
protection and prudent use of water resources.
Goal:
Objectives:
Exhibit 8
A Vision for a
Sustainable Regional Water Supply
Minneapolis - Joint Water Commission Water Task Force
Strengthen a 3D-year regional water partnership
Demonstrate a commitment to long-term water supply sustainability through
conservation, climate-aware water supply planning, proactive drought planning
and response, and preservation of future supplemental and emergency supplies
Celebrate stewardship of the Mississippi River
Position Minneapolis and its municipal partners to take advantage of emerging
state and regional funding opportunities through
=;. Economies of scale
~ "Best Practices" demand management policies and practices
~ Grantable projects offering substantial regional benefits
=;. Stronger drought management position with Federal government
Collectively enhance water system sustainability by
=-> Providing advisory governance for effective budgetary and capital
investment oversight
~ Reducing material, energy, and greenhouse gas emissions
=;. Leveraging financial investments in system capacity through additional
wholesale agreements
==> Establishing interconnections with surrounding communities
=;. Maintaining future ability to supplement Mississippi River water with
groundwater
~ Conserving and protecting Mississippi River supply
Recommendations:
Launch new Water Supply Advisory Board with budget and capital oversight
Commit to long-term water supply sustainability
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
t
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
~
.
.
.
.
Minneapolis - JWC Joint Water Task Force
Executive Summary with CD-ROM Appendices
MINNEAPOLIS - JOINT WATER COMMISSION
Joint Water Task Force
Final Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WITH ACCOMPANYING APPENDICES ON CD-ROM
August 2008
Prepared by:
ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.
EFG I Water
818 West 46" Street, Suite 204
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55419-4841
USA
Page 1 of 12
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ii
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
a
Minneapolis - JWC Joint Water Task Force
Executive Summary with CD-ROM Appendices
ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.
EFG I Water
818 West 46" Street, Suite 204
Minneapolis. Minnesota 55419-4841
+ 1 612-872-0510 voice
+ 1 612-824-4312 fax
22 August 2008
Councilmember Sandra Colvin Roy
City of Minneapolis
350 South Fifth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415-1330
Mayor Linda Loomis
Joint Water Commission
c/o City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427-4588
Re: Joint Water Task Force: Final Report
Dear CM Colvin Roy and Mayor Loomis:
Environmental Financial Group, Inc. (EFG) is pleased to provide to the City of Minneapolis and
the Joint Water Commission the attached report documenting the work of the Joint Water
Task Force that met between July 2005 and April 2008.
We are hopeful that the work of the task force will effectively set the course to strengthen a
successful 40-year water supply partnership.
Thank you.
Very Truly Yours,
~:~" FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.
Scott E. Harder, President
Cc: City of Minneapolis City Council
City of Golden Valley City Council
City of Crystal City Council
City of New Hope City Council
Joint Water Commission
Page 3 of 12
.,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
I,
I
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
t
t
t
t
t
.
.
.'
.
Minneapolis - JWC Joint Water Task Force
Executive Summary with CD-ROM Appendices
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE 0 F CO NTENTS ............................ ......... ..... ................ ........... .......................... ....... ......... .........5
1 I Goals, Objectives and Accomplishments ..................................................................................7
Goals...... .............................................................................................................................................. 7
Work Process..................................................................................................................................... 7
2 I Process............................................................................. .................................................................9
3 I Recommended Susta i na ble Strateg ies .................................................................................... 11
Goals................................................................................................................................................. 11
Objectives ............................... ......................................................................................................... 11
Recom mendations ......................................................................................................................... 11
4 I Recommended Water Advisory Boa rd Concept.................................................................... 13
Purposes. ......................................................................................................................................... 1 3
Membership.................................................................................................................................... 13
Voting ............... ........... ......... ............... ........... ................... .................... ..... ................... ........... ........ 13
Operations.................................................................................................................................. ..... 13
Finance ........ .......... ...... ..... .... ..... ....... ... ...... ..... ............ ....... ................ .... ........ ............. ............... ...... 13
Duties and Responsibilities ...........................................................................................................13
ACCOMPANYING CD-ROM
A I Joint Water Commission Planning: July 20, 2005...............................................................15
B I Organizational: November 16, 2005....................................................................................... 27
C I Kickoff: J anua ry 11, 2006.......................................................................................................... 61
D I Planning Information: March 22, 2006....................................................................................83
E I Interconnections: November 15, 2006..................................................................................113
F I Governance: March 21, 2007 .................................................................................................131
G I Co-Cha irs Committee: May 24, 2007....................................................................................155
H I Advisory Governance & Conservation: September 13, 2007 .........................................163
II Sustainable Strategies & Governance: September 13, 2007 ........................................... 185
Page 5 of 12
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
I:
.
.
.
.
.'
.
Minneapolis - JWC Joint Water Task Force
Executive Summary with CD-ROM Appendices
1 I Goals, Objectives and Accomplishments
The Joint Water Task Force (Task Force) came together in late 2005 to address several goals
outlined in the 2003 Water Purchase Agreement between the City of Minneapolis (City) and the
Joint Water Commission (JWC).
Goals
The water policy goals of the Task Force were as follows:
- Compile and review existing technical planning information needed to make joint water
supply planning decisions;
- Consider a stronger govemance role for the JWC;
- Evaluate an emergency backup water supply;
- Evaluate conjunctive use of JWC groundwater and Mississippi River water; and
= Develop policy on emergency interconnections.
Work Process
The Task Force began its work by addressing various organizational matters and establishing a
flow of work. Some of the ideas and issues that comprised these initial discussions included the
following:
- Choose chair, co-chair, other officers;
- Consider work plan, budget and schedule at next meeting;
- Set clear time, budget and schedule expectations/limits prior to proceeding;
- Confirm joint staff support;
=> Structure quarterly meetings around each goal: 1/3 technical presentations, 2/3
discussion;
=- Invite Metropolitan Council, Department of Natural Resources, and Minnesota Department
of Health to discuss roles and planning initiatives;
- Organize discussion in a manner to encourage identification of discrete, and "votable"
issues;
=- "All vote" supermajority to identify consensus and minority positions; and
= Ongoing documentation with meeting minutes, report sections (technical memoranda).
web portal.
Page 7 of 12
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
~
.
~
Minneapolis - JWC Joint Water Task Force
Executive Summary with CD-ROM Appendices
2 I Process
TABLE 11 Joint Water Task Force Members
R.T. Rybak Mayor Minneapolis
Sandra Colvin Roy, Co-Chair Council member Minneapolis
Barbara Johnson Council member Minneapolis
Linda Loomis, Co-Chair Mayor Golden Valley
Bob Schaffer Council member Golden Valley
Torn Burt, JWC Chair City manager Golden Valley
ReNae Bowman Mayor Crystal
Mark Hoffman Council member Crystal
Anne Norris City manager Crystal
Martin Opem Mayor New Hope
Kirk McDonald City manager New Hope
Mary Gwin-Lenth, 2005-6 Council member New Hope
JWC Planning July 20, 2005 A
Organizational November 16,2005 B
Kickoff and Chartering January 11, 2006 C
Planning Information March 22, 2006 D
Interconnections November 15,2006 E
Governance March 21, 2007 F
Co-Chairs Committee May 24,2007 G
Advisory Governance and Conservation September 13, 2007 H
Sustainable Strategies and Advisory Governance April 22, 2008
Page 9 of 12
..
It
It
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It
.
It
.
.
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
t
Minneapolis - JWC Joint Water Task Force
Executive Summary with CD-ROM Appendices
3 I Recommended Sustainable Strategies
Goals
~ Strengthen a 3D-year regional water partnership;
~ Demonstrate a commitment to long-term water supply sustainability through
conservation, climate-aware water supply planning, proactive drought planning
and response, and preservation of future supplemental and emergency supplies;
and
~ Celebrate stewardship of the Mississippi River.
Objectives
Position Minneapolis and its municipal partners to take advantage of emerging state and regional
funding opportunities through:
~ Economies of scale;
~ "Best Practices" demand management policies and practices;
~ Grant-eligible projects offering substantial regional benefits; and
~ Stronger drought-management position with Federal government.
Collectively enhance water system sustainability by:
~ Providing advisory governance for effective budgetary and capital investment
oversight;
~ Reducing material, energy, and greenhouse gas emissions;
~ Leveraging financial investments in system capacity through additional wholesale
agreements;
~ Establishing interconnections with surrounding communities;
~ Maintaining future ability to supplement Mississippi River water with groundwater;
and
~ Conserving and protecting Mississippi River supply.
Recommendations
~ Launch new Water Supply Advisory Board with budget and capital oversight; and
~ Commit to long-term water supply sustainability.
Page 11 of 12
PRESENTATION TO THE
Golden Valley
City Council
October 14, 2008
ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCIAL GROUR INC.
EFG I Water
The Joint Water Task Force (Task Force) came together in late 2005 to
address several goals outlined in the 2003 Water Purchase Agreement
between the City of Minneapolis (City) and the Joint Water Commission
(JWC) .
EFG I Water
Goals from Agreement
Compile and review existing technical water planning information
needed to make joint water supply planning decisions
Consider a stronger governance role for the JWC
Evaluate an emergency backup water supply
Evaluate conjunctive use of JWC groundwater and Mississippi
River water
Develop policy on emergency interconnections
EFG I Water
Work Process
Select chair and co-chair
Manage work plan, budget and schedule
Set clear time, budget and schedule expectations/limits
Confirm joint staff support
Structure quarterly meetings around each goal: 1/3 technical presentations,
2/3 discussion
Organize discussion in a manner to encourage identification of discrete, and
IIvotable"issues
IIAII vote" supermajority to identify consensus and minority positions
JointWaterTask Force Members
Name
Position
Representing
...
<1.1
....
Cl'l
3:
c:J
u.
w
Goals
Strengthen 3D-year regional water partnership
Celebrate stewardship of the Mississippi River.
Demonstrate a commitment to long-term water supply sustainability
through conservation, climate-aware water supply planning, proactive
drought planning and response, and preservation of future
supplemental and emergency supplies
EFG I Water
Take Advantage of Emerging Regional Water Focus
Economies of scale
Best Practices" demand management policies and practices
Grant-eligible projects offering regional benefits
Stronger drought-management position with Federal government
EFG I Water
Enhance Water Supply Sustainability
Provide advisory governance with budget and capital investment oversight
Reduce material, energy, and greenhouse gas emissions
Leverage financial investments in system capacity through additional
wholesale agreements
Establish interconnections with surrounding communities
Maintain future ability to supplement Mississippi River water with
groundwater
Conserve and protect Mississippi River supply
Recommendations
Launch new Water Supply Advisory Board with budget and capital oversight
Commit to long-term water supply sustainability
EFG I Water
"-
CD
10
:=
CJ
L&.
W
.0...
..c
(/) (/)
Q) l- e ...
(/) Q) .0 IV
....
0 ..Q 0> +-' Q) ::
0... E co 0
l- e l- e -
:J Q) +-' Q) co "
(1- ~ ~ 0... LL.
0 e w
LL
Hey
Me oran urn
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
October 14, 2008
Agenda Item
3. 2009 Other Funds Proposed Budget
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
At the Council/Manager meeting, the Council will be reviewing the following funds:
Conservation and Recycling, Storm Sewer, and Vehicle Maintenance. Appropriate staff will
be in attendance to discuss the proposed budgets for these divisions and answer questions
from the Council.
Please bring your 2009 Other Funds Proposed Budget book.
Attachments
2009 Other Funds Proposed Budget book (previously distributed)
I
alley
m
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
October 14, 2008
Agenda Item
4. City of Minneapolis Resident Survey for Xerxes Avenue Rehabilitation
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer
Ron Nims, Public Works Project Coordinator
Summary
Xerxes Avenue, between Plymouth Avenue and the north City limits, was originally scheduled
for a mill and overlay as part of the 2007 Pavement Management Project. Xerxes is a border
street with the City of Minneapolis; therefore, staff contacted the Minneapolis Public Works
Department to gauge their interest in pursuing a cooperative agreement to rehabilitate the
entire street at that time. The City of Minneapolis did not have the street budgeted so the
project was delayed until 2008 in order for them to fund their portion of the project.
During the design phase of the project, the City of Minneapolis held public participation
meetings to discuss the project. At those meetings, some Minneapolis residents commented
about safety issues including speeding. Because of the concerns of Minneapolis residents, a
representative of the Minneapolis City Council contacted Council Member Pentel and asked
that consideration be given to the use of traffic calming devices on the project. Minneapolis
staff reported that they have been asked to consider traffic calming measures including
speed bumps, speed tables, signing, striping along with other measures. The City of
Minneapolis' Traffic Division provided the following information from counts taken on Xerxes
Avenue between Golden Valley Road (GVR) and 21st Avenue, and also between 21st
Avenue and McNair Manor in Minneapolis:
Between GVR & 21 st
Jul 24,2008
359
28 m h
Between 21st & McNair
Jul 24, 2008
247
23 m h
Golden Valley and Minneapolis staffs have reported that they have no record of speed-
related accidents in the proposed project area.
At their August 8, 2008 Council/Manager meeting, the Council discussed sending a survey to
affected residents to gauge their interest in construction of such traffic calming measures. A
draft survey, provided by Minneapolis staff, has been attached for Council review and
discussion.
Staff provides the following information for discussion:
Minneapolis staff indicated in the survey that speed humps are shown to reduce speed
at the location of the hump approximately 10 percent, or 2 to 3 mph while staff's
research indicates the reduction may be up to 15 mph. However, they also have the
following drawbacks:
1. Can be painful to people with back injuries when traveling over them;
2. In some cases, the City may assume additional liability for accidents, injury or
vehicle damage due to speed humps;
3. Noise levels tend to increase at the humps;
4. Emergency fire, police and medical response is reduced;
5. Many times the traffic that normally uses the street will simply transfer to other
nearby streets without humps;
6. Efficiency of normal street maintenance activities, such as snow plowing, ice
control and sweeping, is also reduced thereby raising the cost to perform those
activities. This does not represent a large cost on Xerxes Avenue by itself;
however, if this strategy is then offered throughout the City it does certainly
become an issue for current forces to perform. In addition, staff has concerns
about their ability to clean streets with its current equipment to the same level
as in the past if speed humps are installed;
7. Currently, the City of Golden Valley maintains Xerxes during the winter even
though only the west 5 to 10 feet of the street lies within Golden Valley.
Consideration could be given to entering into a maintenance agreement, which
would require that Minneapolis Public Works provide winter plowing and ice
control on Xerxes Avenue.
8. Typically, speed humps are used for two lane residential traffic, posted at
30 mph and with an 85th percentile speed of 31 to 34 mph. When used in this
situation, speeds are typically reduced by approximately 7 mph. The 85th
percentile speed on Xerxes is 23 to 28 mph, which does not indicate a need for
speed reduction measures; and
9. Based on information from the City of Minneapolis' Traffic Division and Golden
Valley's consulting traffic engineer, traffic-calming improvements should be
limited to revisions to striping (memo attached).
Attachments
Location Map (2 pages)
Draft Xerxes Avenue Resident Survey (1 page)
Memorandum dated August 7,2008, to Jeannine Clancy from Mike Kotila, SEH (2 pages)
Proposed Golden Valley Revisions
City of Minneapolis Public Works Wants Your Input!
Several property owners have requested that Minneapolis Public Works consider
installing Traffic Calming Device on Xerxes Avenue North and McNair Avenue North in
the City of Minneapolis. Traffic Calming Installations, including speed humps, are
dependent on property owner support, the physical characteristics of the street, and
collected traffic speed and volume data.
The installation of traffic calming device on this segment of Xerxes Avenue North would
also require coordination with City of Golden Valley and City of Minneapolis.
Advantages of speed humps include lower speeds - on average 10%, which is roughly
a 2 to 3 mph reduction - and potentially less traffic volume.
Disadvantages of soeed humos include increased noise and vibration as vehicles travel
over the humps and the potential for more traffic volume on neighboring streets. Other
ootential disadvantaaes include a decrease in resoonse time for emeraencv vehicles.
and the ootential for increased traffic sD8eds between sD8ed humos. You should also
be aware that the Golden Vallev City Council will oursue lumina over maintenance
responsibility for Xerxes Avenue. includina snow and ice control. to the City of
Minneaoolis. should Minneaoolis decide to. install soeed. humos on this street.
This informal survey is a first step. If the neighborhood is supportive, the next step
would be to conduct an engineering study. Prior to final approval, a formal petition
showing the proposed speed hump locations would be circulated to all block property
owners. The full process typically takes one year to complete.
To help us determine the general level of support for speed humps on your block,
please indicate your opinion below:
I aUDDOrt amlntereated.-4R.-pursuing speed humps on my block.
Yes
No
Are you the property owner?
Yes
No
Address
Please mail the completed survey form to City Hall, 350 South Fifth Street - Room 233,
Minneapolis, MN 55415 (Attention: Tilahun Hailu), by October 15, 2008.
Thank you for your cooperation.
G:\Traffic Studies\XerxesAvenueSurvey.docx
~
SEH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
City of Golden Valley
FROM:
Mike Kotila, P.E.
DATE:
August 7, 2008
RE:
Xerxes A venue - Golden Valley Road to Glenwood Parkway
SEH No. AGOLDV9801.01
I have reviewed traffic volume and speed data provided by the City of Minneapolis for Xerxes Avenue
between Golden Valley Road and Glenwood Parkway. As I understand it, Minneapolis Public Works
staff has been asked by their residents to review conditions on Xerxes relative to the need for traffic
calming devices to be considered, specifically speed humps. I have also reviewed the City of Minneapolis
internal review memo summarizing their review of conditions at local street intersections for potential
stop sign control. This memorandum provides my interpretation of need for traffic calming and stop
signs based upon the data provided, technical merit, and past practices within the City of Golden Valley.
Volume data provided by the City of Minneapolis indicates that Xerxes Avenue serves approximately 380
vehicles per day (vpd) between Golden Valley Road and 21 st Avenue North and that 260 vpd use Xerxes
between 21st Avenue North and McNair Avenue. These daily volumes are typical of those expected on a
local residential street. Traffic patterns are not evident in the data, but based upon the number of homes
on this segment of Xerxes and its connectivity with other local residential streets in the immediate area it
is probable that most of this daily volume is generated locally. It is also possible that a small portion of
the daily traffic volume is cut through traffic between Golden Valley Road to the east and Theodore
Wirth Parkway to the northeast.
Speed data provided by Minneapolis indicates the 85th percentile speed on Xerxes Avenue between
Golden Valley Road and 21 st Avenue North to be 28 miles per hour (mph). The segment of Xerxes
between 21 st A venue North and McNair A venue is reported to be 23 mph. The statutory speed limit on
Xerxes is 30 mph.
I have also reviewed 2002 through 2007 crash data for Xerxes A venue from Golden Valley Road to
Glenwood Parkway. During this period, five intersection crashes were reported at the Golden Valley
Road and Xerxes A venue intersection but there were not any reported crashes along Xerxes A venue nor
at its intersections with 21 st A venue North, Glenwood Parkway or McNair Avenue.
The intersection of Glen wood Parkway and Xerxes Avenue operates as a "T" intersection with Xerxes
being the through street and Glenwood intended to operate as the stem of the T". Xerxes Avenue curves
to the northeast immediately to the north ofthe intersection. So, for traffic movements to and from the
northeast, drivers may have a tendency to behave as if it were a "Y" intersection. I have not witnessed this
behavior, although it occasionally occurs according to Minneapolis Public Works staff. Sight lines appear
to be clear for all approaches to the intersection. The City of Minneapolis's memo suggests that the
eastbound Glenwood approach to Xerxes A venue would qualify for a stop sign based upon their policy
for potential treatment of "T" intersections. This intersection leg however, lies within the City of Golden
Valley.
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 200, Minnetonka, MN 55343-9301
SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.comI952.912.2600 I 600.734.6757 I 952.912.2601 fax
Xerxes A venue - Golden Valley Road to Glenwood Parkway
August 7, 2008
Page 2
Summary of findings and recommendations
Based upon the data provided, I have not identified any compelling circumstances that would support
installation of traffic calming treatments, such as speed humps, on Xerxes Avenue. Recorded speeds are
within the legal limits. Volumes are within normal range for a local street. Cut through traffic, if
occurring, appears to be a relatively small part of the overall daily traffic demand being served. The crash
history does not suggest that speeding or driver behavior is creating an identifiable safety problem.
Therefore, I do not believe that speed humps or other traffic calming treatments are appropriate for
Xerxes Avenue. Installation of such devices in this circumstance would be likely to have a negative effect
on driver behavior such as excessive speeds in between devices, or displacement of trips to adjacent local
streets (Le. Washburn Avenue).
The intersection of Glenwood Parkway and Xerxes Avenue is configured as a "T", with potential for
drivers to drive it as a "Y" to and from the northeast. However, sight lines are clear and no crashes are
known to have occurred in the last five years. Golden Valley's stop sign policy/practice has historically
been to use stop signs to serve conditions that warrant their use based upon traffic volume, sight distance,
or other identifiable safety of capacity driven criteria. Based upon the information available to me, the
need for a stop sign has not been demonstrated even though it does satisfy the City of Minneapolis's
criteria as a qualifying intersection for stop control. Nonethe less, I do not recommend that a stop sign be
installed. Instead, if it is possible within the street rehabilitation project, we might consider a geometric
modification to strengthen/emphasize the intended intersection operation as a "T" intersection to make
turns to and from the Glenwood Parkway leg more deliberate further clarifying Xerxes A venue as the
through street.e
p:\fj\glgoldv\980100lxerxes\xerxes memo.doc
alley
M nd m
City Administration/Council
763-593-8014/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
October 14, 2008
Agenda Item
5. Reset November 6 City Council Meeting Date
Prepared By
Thomas Burt, City Manager
Summary
At a previous meeting the Council discussed changing the date of the November 6 City
Council Meeting. The Council meeting was changed to Thursday, November 6 due to the
General Election. Council should decide an alternate date.
Hey
M n urn
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
October 14, 2008
Agenda Item
6. Set Date for Special Council/Manager Meeting to Review Draft Chapters of the
Comprehensive Plan
Prepared By
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Summary
On Thursday, October 30,2008 a Special Council/Manager Meeting will be held to review
the various draft chapters of the updated Comprehensive Plan. Several draft chapters have
already been forwarded to the City Council and the remaining chapters will be sent to the
Council the week before the meeting. This will give the Council time to review the plans.
At the October 30 meeting, City staff and consultants who have worked on the chapters will
be available to answer questions. It is hoped that we can get through each of the chapters by
the end of the meeting on October 30. Staff is recommending that the meeting begin at 5:30
pm. Dinner will be served. An agenda will be sent out prior to the meeting. It is hoped that
the meeting will be done no later than 9 pm.
After this Council review of the Plan draft chapters, the draft chapters will be revised based
on Council comments. The draft chapters will then be sent to the Planning Commission to
begin the formal public hearing process. Also, these draft chapters will be sent to surrounding
communities in order for each of the communities to review and comment on our plan as
required by the Metropolitan Council and state law.
Hey
Memorand m
City Ad m i n istration/Cou nci I
763-593-8014/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
October 14, 2008
Agenda Item
7. Brookview Task Force Recruitment Letter
Prepared By
Thomas Burt, City Manager
Summary
At the September Council/Manager meeting, Council received information on possible
financing options for replacing the Brookview Community Center. They also received a memo
giving a brief history of the community center and possible next steps. The Council suggested
it would like to appoint a Task Force to work with an architect to define needs and costs.
They also requested staff draft a recruitment letter to send to potential Task Force members
for Council review, so the Council could then solicit and interview potential Task Force
members.
Attachments
Draft letter (2 pages)
October 1 , 2008
Name
Address
City, State Zip
Dear (Name):
This Envision Golden Valley quote summarizes the
community's shared vision for its future recreation needs
now is a good time to give it due consideration.
For 40 years, Brookview Community Center has
hub of activity for Golden Valley residents of a! .
to continue, the building requires some maj .
an independent firm identified necessary
totaling $1.2 million-projects that aren't
City's current Capital Improvement Program.
sheet details Brookview's buildin nd renovatl
opportunity to solve a
nity during Envision Golden
bring forth a
we are asking for your
ill be charged with formulating design
ce will also advise and participate in
staff will handle routine operations
ting su elated to technical decisions required.
in 2009 and bring a recommendation to the
I hope we can
Community Cent
Space and Recreatl
community, corporate
uggest names of potential members for the Brookview
We would like to have representatives from the Open
sion, residents at large, the senior community, the golf
nity, civic groups, and the Courage Center.
On behalf of the City Council, thank you for supporting your community.
Sincerely,
Linda R. Loomis
Mayor
Brookview Community Center Building History
Currently Brookview houses the City's Park and
Recreation Department offices and its Senior
Center, conference and community/banquet
rooms, a catering kitchen, and a deck and patio
for outdoor events. It also houses the Brookview
Golf Course operations offices, grill, locker rooms,
and pro shop. In 2009, the original portion of
Brookview Community Center will be 90 years old
(see box for timeline of improvements to date).
At its July 8,2008 Cou
Council received an
the $1.2 million n
as prioritized by En
(EPI). The Council su
approach ting
Brookv'
Replacing the community center was studied i
the early 1980s, but the project was tabled
challenging economic conditions.
alley
M mora dum
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
October 14, 2008
Agenda Item
8. Applewood Pointe Access
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer
Summary
The City Council recently discussed the proposed Applewood Pointe development at a
Council meeting. During this discussion, the proposed access points to the development
were reviewed and the Council directed staff to review providing a second access point onto
Douglas Drive.
The original submittal for Applewood Pointe included site access from Golden Valley Road
and Douglas Drive. Because Douglas Drive is under the jurisdiction of Hennepin County
(County State Aid Highway 102), the development was subject to review and comment by the
County Transportation Department. As outlined in the May 21,2008 letter from the County to
City staff, the proposed access point was rejected for a number of safety reasons. City staff
concurred with this opinion, and directed the developer to revise the plans to include a single
access point from Golden Valley Road.
The developer, as well as City and County staff, then had an ongoing discussion regarding
access to the Applewood Pointe site. Based upon modifications by the developer, County
staff provided additional comments regarding the desire to provide access from Douglas
Drive in a July 1, 2008 e-mail. This e-mail reiterated the safety concerns, and outlined the
need for a right turn lane into the site if access was provided from Douglas Drive. The
developer then revised the plans to eliminate access onto Douglas Drive. This revised plan
was submitted to the City Council for its consideration.
As requested by the Council, the Douglas Drive access issue was re-evaluated by Mike
Kotila from SEH, the City's consulting traffic engineer. In his October 7,2008 memorandum,
Mr. Kotila discusses the safety issues associated with a site access onto Douglas Drive. In
addition, the memo states that the proposed single access point from Golden Valley Road
functions adequately, with sufficient sight distances to provide the necessary safety. Finally,
the memo summarizes that if access were to be provided from Douglas Drive, a northbound
right turn lane would be needed. This turn lane would then result in the need for additional
right-of-way dedication from the developer. This need for additional right-of-way would affect
the proposed layout of the site, including building setbacks.
Attachments
Letter dated May 21,2008, to Mark Grimes from James Grube, Hennepin County Director of
Transportation and County Engineer (1 page)
E-mail dated July 1, 2008, from Bob Byers, Senior Transportation Engineer, Hennepin
County Transportation Department (2. pages)
Letter dated July 23,2008, to Mark Grimes from James Grube (1page)
Memorandum dated September 9,2008, to Jeannine Clancy from Mike Kotila, SEH (4 pages)
Memorandum dated October 7,2008, to Jeannine Clancy from Mike Kotila, SEH, (2 pages)
hLC-
Mr. Mark Grimes, City Planner
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, Mn 55447
May 21, 2008
Re:
Preliminary PI - Ap lewood .Point PUD
CSAH 102 (Doug as r. - rtheast quadrant with Golden Valley Road
Section 28/33, Township 118, Range 21
Hennepin County Plat No. 3139
Review and Recommendations
Dear Mr. Grimes:
Minnesota Statutes 505.02, 505.03, and 462.358, Plats and Surveys, allow up to 30 days for county review of
preliminary plats abutting county roads. We reviewed the above plat and offer the following comments:
· The developer should dedicate an additional 27 feet of right of way, for a total of 60 feet, from and along
the centerline of CSAH 102. This provision will help accommodate a future four lane divided roadway
incorporating a dedicated southbound left turn lane at Golden Valley Road, plus a trail as demonstrated
on the site plan (see attached typical section). If site setbacks are an issue due to the additional right of
way, an alternative arrangement could be a 50 foot right of way plus a trail easement for the outer 10 feet
(to obtain the 60 foot total).
· The county will not approve the proposed driveway onto CSAH 102. The driveway does not meet County
Access Spacing Guidelines of l/4-mile for full movement access or lI8-mile for partial access (such as
right-in / right-out). A driveway on CSAH 102 at this location would be a safety concern due to the close
proximity of the westbound to northbound free-right turn at Golden Valley Road. Right turning vehicles on
Golden Valley Road proceeding north on CSAH 102 would not have adequate driver reaction time to avoid
vehicles turning at the CSAH 102 driveway. The substantial site frontage on Golden Valley Road offers an
opportunity for a second site access.
· We could consider an emergency access on CSAH 102 to serve the site. There are sev~ral evolving
designs for these facilities including bollards, screened grass-crete surfacing, etc., that could provide a
surmountable-type entrance.
- -
· Please inform the developer that all proposed construction within county right of way requires an
approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to
driveway and street access, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping.
Appropriate forms can be obtained by contacting our Permits Section at (612) 596-0336.
Please direct any response to Dave Zetterstrom at (612) 596-0355.
Sincerely, . .1 tJ .,
C--=7~ 17, ~>-t--
James N. Grube, P.E.
Director of Transportation and County Engineer
DKZ/sew
Cc: Plat Review Committee - Byers / Lindgren / Holtz / Drager / Zetterstrom / Fackler / Lemke
Mark Larsen, Hennepin County Surveyor's Office
Jeff Oliver, Golden Valley City Engineer
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Recycled Paper
Oliver. Jeff
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Robert. Byers@co.hennepin.mn.us
Tuesday, July 01, 2008 3:54 PM
David Roedel
ahall@uproperties.com; Kevin Teppen; Hogeboom, Joe; Clancy, Jeannine; Oliver, Jeff
Re: Douglas Drive, County Road Improvements - Option A
pic24227.jpg
Dave:
I had our Plat Review Committee take a look at the two options this morning.
They noted a number of items that came up during the meeting with the city - 1) the problem
of the proximity of the westbound free-right on Golden Valley Road to any proposed access on
Douglas Drive, and 2) the need for a right turn lane if access was provided on Douglas Drive.
The more we examine the plan, the more it appears that orienting all access to Golden Valley
Road makes the most sense.
- Bob
Bob Byers, P.E.
Senior Transportation Engineer
Hennepin County Transportation Department Transportation Planning Division ~600 Prairie Drive
Medina, MN 55340-5421
612-596-0354 (Direct dial)
763-478-4000 (FAX)
"David Roedel" <droedel(@mfra.com>
06/27/2008 03:32 PM
To
<robert.bvers(@co.hennepin.mn.us>
cc
"Kevin Teppen"
<kteppen(@mfra.com>, <ahall(@uproperties.com>
Subject
Douglas Drive, County
Road Improvements - Option A
1
Robert) please find attached for your review the preferred site plan for the Applewood Point
project. The improvements also show the County Road improvements to Douglas Drive. The
improvements to Douglas Drive reflected in the drawing are as we discussed earlier in the
week. Note the existing condition constraints to the north required that the raised median
be tapered quickly to tie into the existing 4-lane undivided alignment.
Please review and call me to discuss.
I will be sending another option which shows a site plan option that is not our preferred
option) but reflects an additional option that for the right in) right out off Douglas Drive
into our site.
Please reply to let me know you received. The zipped file is large.
Thanks for your time
David A. Roedel) P.E. (MN) CA)
Project Manager
McCombs Frank Roos Associates (MFRA)
14800 28th Avenue North
Suite 140
Plymouth) MN 55447
Direct: 763-746-1644
Cell: 952-465-5769
Main: 763-476-6010
Fax: 763-476-8532
(Embedded image moved to file: pic24227.jpg) [attachment "Study-county road Option A-
062708.zip" deleted by Robert H. Byers/PW/Hennepin]Disclaimer: Information in this message or
an attachment may be government data and thereby subject to the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act) Minnesota Statutes) Chapter 13) may be subject to attorney-client or work
product privilege) may be confidential) privileged) proprietary) or otherwise protected) and
the unauthorized review) copying) retransmission) or other use or disclosure of the
information is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this message)
please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly delete this
message from your computer system.
2
Hennepin County Transportation Department
1600 Prairie Drive
Medina, MN 55340-5421
612-596-0300, Phone
763~78~OOO,FAX
763~78-4030, TOO
www.hennepin.us
July 23, 2008
Mr. Mark Grimes, Director of Planning
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, Mn 55447
Re: Preliminary Plat - Applewood Pointe
CSAH 102, Northeast Quadrant Golden Valley Road
Section 28/33, Township 118, Range 21
Hennepin County Plat No. 3139A
Review and Recommendations
Dear Mr. Grimes:
Minnesota Statutes 505.02, 505.03, and 462.358, Plats and Surveys, allow up to 30 days for county
review of preliminary plats abutting county roads. We reviewed the above plat revision and offer the
following comments:
. Hennepin County Transportation fmds the updated plat and site plan acceptable as
submitted. The City may need to more clearly identify the Golden Valley Road right of way
and address the minor sidewalk encroachment at the plat's southwest comer. We
acknowledge and appreciate the City's and developer's response to our prior comments
eliminating direct access to CSAH 102 and providing adequate right of way for future
roadway improvements.
. Please inform the developer that all proposed construction within county right of way
requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This
includes, but is not limited to driveway and street access, drainage and utility constnlCtion,
trail development, and landscaping. Appropriate forms can be obtained by contacting.o.ur
Permits Section at (612) 596~0336.
Please direct any response to Dave Zetterstrom at (612) 596-0355.
Sincerely,
~/1~
James N. Grube, P.E.
Director of Transportation & County Engineer
DKZ/sew
Cc: Plat Review Committee-Byers 1 Lindgren 1 Holtz 1 Drager 1 Zetterstrom 1 Fackler 1 Lemke
Mark Larsen, Hennepin County Surveyor's Office
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Recycled Paper
~
SEH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Jeannine Clancy
Golden Valley Director of Public Works
FROM:
Mike Kotila, PE
Senior Transportation Engineer
DATE:
September 9,2008
RE:
Applewood Point Assisted Living Facility - Traffic Review
SEHNo. A-GOLDV9801.01
This memorandum summarizes my review of traffic safety, access, pedestrian, and roadway capacity
issues for the proposed Applewood Point Assisted Living development.
Existing Conditions
The Applewood Point Assisted Living Facility and Senior Co-op Housing facilities will be located in the
north-east quadrant of the intersection of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road. Douglas Drive is a
four-lane A-Minor Arterial Reliever which serves approximately 10,000 vehicles per day. Golden Valley
Road is a Major Collector roadway that serves approximately 3,450 vehicles per day. The intersection of
Golden Valley Road and Douglas Drive operates under signalized control with channelized right turn
lanes for traffic turning from eastbound and westbound Golden Valley Road onto Douglas Drive.
Pedestrian crosswalks and pedestrian signal indications are provided across the south and west legs of the
intersection. No pedestrian accommodations are in place to serve crossings of the north and east legs.
Existing land uses on the proposed redevelopment site include several multi-family homes and a fourteen
unit apartment building. Three private driveways are in place to provide access to parcels fronting on
Golden Valley Road and three existing driveways are in place for those homes that have frontage on
Douglas Drive.
Golden Valley Road was reconstructed in 2007. Improvements were made to the road and sidewalk which
also included replacement of the Canadian Pacific Railroad Bridge over Golden Valley Road immediately
easterly of the proposed site. The Douglas Drive intersection with Golden Valley Road was not
reconstructed as part of the project, although concept studies for the intersection have been developed.
Replacement ofthe railroad bridge allowed the north abutment to be positioned further from the roadway
than the previous bridge which improved sight lines from the existing driveways on the north side of
Golden Valley Road west of the bridge. The crash history of this segment of Golden Valley Road was
reviewed to identify safety issues that may have existed for the driveways near the old bridge abutment.
During the 10 years reviewed, there were no reported crashes involving vehicles entering or exiting a
driveway at this location.
Proposed Conditions
Ingress and egress to/from the Applewood Point site will be provided by a single 26 foot wide driveway
to Golden Valley Road. The driveway, located near the east edge of the site, will need to serve residents,
employees, deliveries, and emergency vehicle access.
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.. 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 200, Minnetonka, MN 55343-9301
SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.comI952.912.2600 I 800.734.6757 I 952.912.2601 fax
Applewood Point Assisted Living Facility - Traffic Review
September 9, 2008
Page 2
Intersection Sight Distance (for the driveway)
We have evaluated sight distance at the proposed driveway intersection with Golden Valley Road. The
driveway is located near a low point along Golden Valley Road adjacent to the new Canadian Pacific
Railroad bridge. Of interest is the ability for drivers exiting the site to have adequate visibility to safely
turn right or left onto Golden Valley Road.
A southbound driver leaving the site will be controlled by a stop sign. The driver will be required to stop
prior to the crosswalk and yield to any conflicting sidewalk users or east-west vehicular traffic. When
stopped at the crosswalk, a driver taking a right turn would need to look to the east before pulling out onto
Golden Valley Road. The limiting sight line factor to the east is the new railroad bridge abutment. The
sight distance available (460 feet) exceeds design guidelines (440 feet is desirable). The sight line is
improved compared to the situation that existed prior to bridge replacement. It is typical in this situation
that drivers will tend to roll forward into the cross walk area to further improve their sight line before
deciding to complete their maneuver. As the driver rolls forward, the line of sight increases to over 800
feet. The high point in the roadway profile east of the railroad bridge will not inhibit safe decisions to be
made by drivers exiting from the Applewood Point driveway.
A driver taking a left turn from the driveway needs to choose a gap in traffic approaching from both
directions. As previously described, the view to the east is not inhibited. When looking to the west, the
high point in the roadway occurs approximately 330 feet from the driveway. A driver turning to the east
would be able to observe an eastbound vehicle on Golden Valley Road 425 feet or more away (slightly
less than the 440 feet desirable). The 440 foot desirable sight line, would allowthe entering vehicle to
accelerate up to operating speed without causing a driver approaching from behind (eastbound from
Douglas Drive intersection) to slow down. The sight distance available will provide adequate time for the
exiting driver to pull out into Golden Valley Road, but may occasionally require a conflicting the
eastbound driver to slow down. Given that there have been no reported crashes at this location in the last
ten years, this maneuver should continue to operate safely. We also acknowledge that older drivers may
desire a slightly longer gap in traffic.
Site Circulation and Truck Access
The site plan is currently configured to allow two-way traffic to circulate through the site which appears
to be well suited to serve site circulation needs. The question has been raised regarding the viability of
one-way flow within the site. The following issues should be considered or addressed if a one way
alternative is to be considered further:
. Wrong way movements should be discouraged or physically inhibited
. Parking stalls could be angled for ease of access
. Counter clockwise flow would eliminate left turn conflicts at the entry points
. One-way flow through the Co-op parking garage would compliment the pattern
. Raised curbs or island aligned for directional control at each two-way entrance to the
circulatory would reinforce the intended circulation pattern
. Any blockage of the circulatory road during snow removal or presence of a moving van,
contractor, fire truck, or delivery vehicle would force wrong way movements. If angled
parking or the other one way treatments are in place as described above - wrong way
movements would create safety issues.
Fire truck access to the facility will be through the driveway from Golden Valley Road. Based on the
AutoTurn drawing provided by MFRA, the largest fire truck in Golden Valley's fire department will have
sufficient space to maneuver through the parking lot.
Applewood Point Assisted Living Facility - Traffic Review
September 9, 2008
Page 3
Delivery truck access to the site will be provided by the driveway to/from Golden Valley Road. No
loading dock facilities are provided on site. Presuming that the assisted living building would need food
service deliveries, we contacted Sysco Food Service to identify the size and type of delivery vehicles that
they use. Delivery trucks have 36 foot semi-trailers and an overall tractor-trailer length of roughly 48 feet.
We performed a vehicle tracking analysis using AutoTurn software for a similar design vehicle. Results
indicated that the delivery vehicle would be able to maneuver through the surface parking lot as well as to
and from the public street. Since there are no loading docks planned, off loading the vehicle would need
to be performed in the circulatory drive aisle while blocking a portion of the drive aisle and blocking
several parking stalls.
Trip Generation and Distribution
The ITE Trip Generation Manual was used to estimate the number of trips that will be generated by the
proposed development. ITE rates were also used to estimate the number of trip generated by the existing
land uses. Existing uses included nine single family attached units (duplex or quad homes) and one 14
unit low-rise apartment building.
The proposed development is estimated to generate daily and peak hour trip volumes as follows:
Period
Daily Trips
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Existing Uses
178
13
17
Proposed
524
23
35
Net Increase
346
10
18
The planned development is expected to increase the daily number of trips by approximately 346 trips per
day compared to the existing uses that generate approximately 178 daily trips. Due to the nature of the
facility, these trips will be spread out through the day with a relatively small number of trips generated
during the AM and PM peak hours.
The trips entering and exiting the new facility can be separated into two groups. The first group is the
residents of the facility, while the second group is the employees and visitors. Each would group would
have unique travel characteristics.
Residents of the facility will generate traffic primarily on Golden Valley Road or Douglas Drive as they
travel to local retail establishments, restaurants and services. Local destinations for residents may
typically be favored such as the shopping center on Duluth Street near TH 100 or those in Downtown
Golden Valley. Resident trips will occur predominantly in non-peak daylight hours.
Employees and visitors trips are more likely to be longer trips using Douglas Drive and Duluth Streets to
gain access to/from regional arterials such as TH 100 and TH 55. Employee trips will occur in shifts that
may coincide with peak traffic periods. Visitor trips may occur at any time of day but be most prevalent
during evening hours and on weekends.
Impact on Local Roadway
The planned development will generate an increase of 346 daily trips on the roadway system. Only about
7% of these are expected to occur in the PM peak hour while 4% occur during the AM peak hour.
Intersection capacity at Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road will accommodate the added trips from
the development, without the need for capacity improvements. The City is currently engaged in a study of
the Douglas Drive Corridor which is expected to define a concept plan for the Golden Valley Road and
Applewood Point Assisted Living Facility - Traffic Review
September 9, 2008
Page 4
Douglas Drive intersection. The City and Hennepin County support the addition of left turn lanes at this
intersection when it is reconstructed. These types of improvements would benefit all users of the
intersection including Applewood residents.
Golden Valley's draft comprehensive transportation plan includes guidance on when a traffic impact
study is required for a development. This guidance suggests that developments that generate 1,000 or
more trips per day or 100 trips in the peak hour should be required to provide a traffic impact study. The
Applewood development is not expected to contribute traffic demands that exceed either ofthese
thresholds.
Non-motorized traffic
Connection to the City's sidewalk and trail system for walking, bicycling or access to public
transportation may be desired by residents of the Applewood Point development. The site design does
provide pedestrian walkways to the public sidewalk on Golden Valley Road as well as sidewalk
improvements along both frontages ofthe public street system. A new sidewalk is in place on Golden
Valley Road to the east. Pedestrian and bicycle destinations include local parks, Luce Line Trail,
shopping and other services in downtown Golden Valley. Sidewalk improvements are needed along
Douglas Drive to access the Luce Line Trail and will be acknowledged in the City's current study of the
Douglas Drive corridor.
There are three Metro Transit bus stops near Golden Valley Road and Douglas Drive intersection. The
bus stops are located on the north and south side of Golden Valley Road west of Douglas Drive, and on
the west side of Douglas Drive south of Golden Valley Road. Pedestrian routes from the Applewood
Point development to the transit stops requires crossing at the intersection of Douglas Drive and Golden
Valley Road. The intersection is signalized but crosswalks and pedestrian signals should be improved to
serve existing users and future Applewood Point residents.
Summary & Recommendations
Access to and from Golden Valley Road to the Applewood Pointe Assisted Living development can be
safely accommodated by a driveway on the southeast corner of the site. Traffic impacts on the public
street system will not require capacity improvements on Golden Valley Road or Douglas Drive.
On-site circulation and access to the parking garages and surface parking lots will be functional for
passenger vehicles which will comprise the majority of users. Large vehicles, such as delivery trucks or
fire trucks will block portions of the circular drive aisles or parking stalls when they are on site making
two-way operation preferable to one-way operation.
Improvements to off-site pedestrian facilities are recommended. These include trail and sidewalk
connections along Douglas Drive, crosswalk and pedestrian signal improvements at the Golden Valley
Road/ Douglas Drive intersection.
mwr
c: Jeff Oliver, City Engineer
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
p:lfj\glgoldv\980100lappJewood pointe assisted living faciJitylappJewood traffic review memo 090908.doc
~
SEH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Jeannine Clancy, Public Works Director
FROM:
Mike Kotila, PE
DATE:
October 7, 2008
RE:
Applewood Point Assisted Living Facility - Site Access Locations
SEH No. A-GOLDV9801.01
The current site development plan for the Applewood Point Assisted Living/Co-op community is
configured with an access (driveway) location on Golden Valley Road. This access location has been
reviewed for sight line safety, capacity, and truck accessibility. A single point of access has been shown
to function adequately (see SEH's Traffic Review Memorandum dated September 9, 2008)
Concerns have been expressed in favor of considering an additional access point on Douglas Drive to
relieve demands on Golden Valley Road and provide more convenient access and site circulation. This
memo outlines the jurisdictional, safety, and right-of-way issues associated with considering an additional
access point on Douglas Drive.
Jurisdiction and Functional Classification
Hennepin County has jurisdictional authority for Douglas Drive (County State Aid Highway 102). which
is classified as an A-Minor Arterial (Reliever) by the Met Council and Hennepin County. This functional
classification is also recognized within the City of Golden Valley's Comprehensive Plan. The operational
goal of Douglas Drive as minor arterial is to relieve parallel Principal Arterial (TH 100) demands by
serving medium length trips within the region. For safety and roadway capacity reasons, private driveway
access to minor arterials is discouraged when alternative access locations are available. To preserve long
term safety and mobility for local and regional roadway users, land use planning and transportation
planning efforts must be employed in a complimentary fashion to be effective.
Safety
If a potential access location to/from the site were to be considered on Douglas Drive several safety
implications need to be recognized. The long term plan for Douglas Drive is to reconstruct it as a four
lane divided roadway to serve approximately 13,000 vehicles per day in 2030. (Today's volume is
approximately 11,000 vehicles per day). The close proximity of the potential driveway location to the
intersection of Golden Valley Road and Douglas Drive poses several safety concerns.
· Conflicts with ''free right turn from Golden Valley Road - The primary concern involves westbound
traffic on Golden Valley Road that desires to turn right to northbound Douglas Drive. This movement
operates as a channelized "free right" turn controlled by a ''yield'' sign for drivers turning right.
Drivers making this turn should focus their attention on northbound traffic crossing their intended
path. The driveway, immediately downstream from the "free right" would create an unexpected point
of conflict for vehicles accelerating into the northbound through lane increasing the potential for a
rear end or right angle collision at or near the driveway.
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 200, Minnetonka. MN 55343-9301
SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com I 952.912.2600 I 800.734.6757 I 952.912.2601 fax
Applewood Point - Site Access Locations
October 7, 2008
Page 2
· Left Turn Restrictions - Prior to reconstruction of Douglas Drive as a divided roadway, a driveway
serving the Applewood site would create vehicular conflicts with traffic traveling to and from
Phoenix Street on the west side of Douglas Drive. Drivers making left turns in and out of the
Applewood driveway would need to select acceptable gaps to cross, or turn into the oncoming traffic
stream. Southbound traffic on Douglas Drive, waiting to turn into the facility, would have significant
exposure to a rear-end collision because they must wait to turn in the through traffic lane. Drivers
making left turns out of the facility will have to wait for traffic to clear in both directions before they
can turn. For these reasons, this driveway would need to be configured to serve only right-in and
right-out movements. Accomplishing this would require a channelization island within the driveway
to restrict the left turn maneuvers.
. Douglas Drive right turn lane - To safely facilitate a driveway from Douglas Drive to the Applewood
Point facility a right turn lane would be needed. The right turn lane would require additional right of
way to be dedicated. By creating a separate right turn lane, traffic turning into the site would have a
lower chance of being rear-ended by vehicles traveling northbound on Douglas Drive. While a right
turn lane would improve safety for some of the conflicts at a Douglas access point, it will not resolve
others.
Recommendation
Previous review of traffic demands generated by the site and circulation within the site has determined
that a single access point will safely serve the traffic demands of the proposed Applewood development.
The driveway on Golden Valley Road allows drivers to safely make turns to and from the site onto a
lower volume road. Drivers wishing to travel on Douglas Drive will use the signalized intersection at
Golden Valley Road and Douglas Drive.
A driveway access on Douglas Drive would unnecessarily increase the risk to drivers entering and exiting
the site because Douglas Drive serves both a higher volume and higher normal operating speeds than
Golden Valley Road. A right turn lane for the access point on Douglas Drive would require additional
right of way being to be dedicated. The planned driveway onto Golden Valley Road will be the safer
access point at which a lower number of traffic conflicts would be expected than would an access on
Douglas Drive.
mwr
~
c:
p:\fjlglgoldv\980JOOlapplewood pointe assisted living facilitylapplewood douglas dr access. doc