Loading...
09-08-09 CM Agenda Packet AGENDA Council/Manager Meeting Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room September 8, 2009 6:30 pm 1. 2010-2011 Proposed Budget - Other Funds Storm Sewer Brookview Golf Course Human Services Foundation Recycling Motor Vehicle Licensing 2. Transit for Livable Communities Funding Opportunity - Douglas Drive 3. 2010 Pavement Management Program - Project Issues 4. Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element - Functional Classification Designations 5. Residential Zoning District (R-1) Accessory Structures Setback Requirements 6. Building Board of Review 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. This document is available in alternate formats upon a uest Please call 763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968) to make a request Ex les of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. Hey u Finance 763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting September 8, 2009 Agenda Item 1. 2010-2011 Proposed Budget - Other Funds Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary At the Council/Manager meeting, the Council will be reviewing the following funds: Storm Sewer, Brookview Golf Course, Human Services Foundation, Recycling and Motor Vehicle Licensing. Appropriate staff will be in attendance to discuss the proposed budgets for these divisions and answer questions from the Council. Please bring your 2010-2011 Proposed Budget - Other Funds book. Attachment 2010-2011 Proposed Budget - Other Funds (3 ring notebook, previously distributed) alley M 0 Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting September 8, 2009 Agenda Item 2. Transit for Livable Communities Funding Opportunity - Douglas Drive Prepared By Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Summary Transit for Livable Communities (TLC), a non-profit transportation advocacy group, has authorized $1,050,000 in funding for improvements to the Douglas Drive corridor. The funds have been allocated from the federal Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program. This program has also funded part of the Douglas Drive Corridor Study. The City initially requested that funding be obtained for the construction of a sidewalk along the east side of Douglas Drive, between Duluth Street and the Luce Line Regional Trail, but TLC has expanded the scope of the project. In the coming weeks, representatives from Transit for Livable Communities would like to officially negotiate the terms of the funding contract. Although a contract has not yet been established, Transit for Livable Communities' Board of Directors has indicated that all funding will be contingent upon the City's agreement to adhere to the following: Inclusion of Complete Streets Concept The conversion of Douglas Drive north of Golden Valley Road into a "complete street" is required. A complete street is defined as having adequate accommodations for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. In this case, Transit for Livable Communities has indicated it would require a reduction in traffic lanes along Douglas Drive between Golden Valley Road and Medicine Lake Road. Specifically, this concept would include one through lane of traffic in each direction, a center turn lane, a bicycle lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street. TLC has suggested that the road could be restriped to this configuration, but staff recommends a mill and overlay, along with intersection improvements, be implemented. Reduction in Speed Transit for Livable Communities has indicated its desire to see the speed limit along Douglas Drive reduced to 30 miles per hour north of Golden Valley Road. The organization has indicated that it will require the City to seek a reduction in speed to 30 miles per hour, but would accept a reduction in speed to 35 miles per hour. Douglas Drive is a County Road, but speed limits on roads are set by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Staff held a preliminary meeting with Hennepin County to discuss this issue. Jim Grube, Hennepin County Director of Transportation talked to MnDOT about the process to evaluate the speed limit on Douglas Drive. MnDOT has recommended that a speed study be undertaken after the road has been reconfigured to determine the appropriate speed. TLC has asked the City Council to set the speed based on a recent law allowing jurisdictions to set speed limits as low as 25 mph when on-street bike lanes are present. County staff has expressed concerns about the application of this law to Douglas Drive given that the proposed bike facilities will not connect to an existing bike facility north of Medicine Lake Road. Implementation/Completion Deadline Transit for Livable Communities requires that this project be completed, or be significantly underway, by August 1, 2010. This would require that construction begin as early as possible in 2010. This accelerated timeline requires all of the design and approvals to occur over a very short time period. Payback of Federal Funds Staff understands that if Federal funds are utilized for a project, the project must remain in place for at least ten years. Removal of improvements undertaken with Federal funds in less than ten years requires a pro rata reimbursement of funds expended. Council Discussion Staff is faced with many issues when evaluating the TLC requirements and the City's response. Staff would like to discuss the following issues with the Council in order to obtain guidance on the next steps of the project and to establish the best approach to negotiation with TLC. Funding Budgets provided to TLC did not provide for completion of all of the components that TLC has now requested to be included in this project. To proceed with this grant would require the Council to identify a local funding source to complement the grant funds. Does the Council want to proceed if local funds are required? Deadline The ability to design and implement the project in the defined time period would be very difficult. Does the Council want staff to focus on meeting this time schedule, or seek a longer time horizon? A time extension may jeopardize TLC funding. Speed limit Does the Council want the staff to proceed with detailed discussions on the speed limit? Should the discussions focus on 1) the 30 mph desired by TLC; 2) its minimum request of 35 mph; 3) retaining the 40 mph; or 4) doing a speed study in the future. Although the third and fourth options may jeopardize TLC funding, MnDOT and County staff have recommended doing a speed study. Complete Street Does the Council agree with the request for a complete street with three vehicle lanes, two bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks? Would the Council like to forward other approaches to meet all of the transportation needs such as a separate off-street bike trail, as provided in the Hennepin County Transportation Plan? Funding may depend on the TLC definition of a complete street, which has not been definitively articulated. East Sidewalk Does the Council wish to pursue a permanent sidewalk for the east side of Douglas or a temporary sidewalk until the whole street can be reconstructed? If a temporary sidewalk is constructed and used for less than ten years, pro rata reimbursement would be required. To build a permanent sidewalk, the road design to a 30 percent design level is required, including concepts for the intersections. The Council would need to identify funds for the design work and potentially funds to undertake some related work as noted below: . Private Utilities Overhead utilities interfere with the proposed sidewalk. These utilities either must be placed underground at significant expense, or moved out of the right- of-way, which would require easements. Securing easements would also take time and money. Does the Council prefer to go forward with undergrounding or relocating the utilities? . Railroad Crossings. Sidewalk crossings must be negotiated with the railroad. These negotiations generally take time and could be funded through the normal MnDOT process if the City is not on the tight TLC timeline. Should the project include permanent railroad crossings if the City would need to cover the cost? . Crossing at Bassett Creek The culvert at Bassett Creek needs to be extended to accommodate a sidewalk. This project would require approval from the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission. Funding from the Commission is not available, but the costs were built into the grant submission. . Curbs If the ultimate sidewalk is installed, new curbs may need to be installed. This cost is not included in the project at this time and may require additional local funds. If the Council prefers a permanent sidewalk, additional funds for new curbs may be needed. Does the Council want to install new curbs with a permanent sidewalk? Other Options Staff is pursuing reconstruction of Douglas Drive from Medicine Lake Road to Highway 55 with the Hennepin County Transportation Director Jim Grube. He has indicated that improvements to Douglas Drive cannot be included in its Capital Improvement Plan before 2015, but has encouraged staff to submit proposed improvements for consideration in the CIP for years 2015 and after. I alley M nd Public Works 763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting September 8,2009 Agenda Item 3. 2010 Pavement Management Program: Project Issues Prepared By Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Summary Public Works staff and the consulting engineering firm of SEH, Inc., are in the process of preparing a feasibility report for the 2010 Pavement Management Program (PMP). The proposed project is located south of Trunk Highway 55, north and east of Glenwood Avenue and west of the Canadian Pacific Railroad. A location map for the project is attached for your reference. Several issues have arisen during the preliminary design and public participation process of the project. These issues, which will be discussed within the text of the feasibility report, are as follows: . Proposed elimination of a portion of Meander Lane near Paisley Lane and Cutacross Road and creation of an enhanced green space (see attachment). . Resident concerns relating to traffic volumes, vehicle speeds and cut-through traffic on Westchester Circle, Georgia Avenue and Edgewood Avenue. . Resident request and petition to install sidewalks on Westchester Circle, Georgia Avenue and Edgewood Avenue. . Watermain replacement in the Paisley Lane and Meander Road area of the project. . Surmountable curb in the Paisley Lane and Meander Road portion of the neighborhood. . Reconstruction of the existing concrete streets on Idaho Avenue North, Kingston Circle and Harold Avenue. Staff will be prepared to discuss these issues at the September 8, 2009 Council/Manager meeting. The proposed project schedule is as follows: Public Hearing Special Assessment Hearing Award Contract Begin Construction Complete Construction November 17, 2009 November 17, 2009 February/March 2010 April/May 2010 Fall 2010 Attachments Location Map (1 page) Paisley/Meander Open Space Concept (1 page) " I , I II ~:~ ri3NN~ ~. G<. ~~-r 1>0 ~O' >'!'~;:,'" , >;;:,"'\ ,);...~. 4~:-:.... '", ,\ - "7.~' ; .' ... ~.. ." .... -to....'t. . :i'..~~ ,'~~' ~""~~:::~"., ,.,;~. ~ _,..'",_,' :1':'''"'1 -'-, - '.f _:'_'~~'_' _-~ _ _ _ '- ',' V -' .' .. . ", r I I ~O, <(-0 o~<. '1>~ ~e Concept Design Narrative: A Burst of Natural Color Features Include: No mow fescue turf grass that frames the perimeter of a well-contained naturalized landscape; the land- scape celebrates the use of native grasses and pe- rennials that reveals a seasonal cast of colorful char- acters. The la.ndscape is experienced by strolling a no-mow internal and perimeter path; this landscape also brings nature and music to the area by creating a healthy habitat for songbirds and butterflies. Once established, the naturalized garden becomes a minimum maintance landscape and an ecological classroom for the neighborhood. alley M 0 du Public Works 763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting September 8, 2009 Agenda Item 4. Discussion regarding Transportation Element of Comprehensive Plan: Functional Classification Designations Prepared By Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Summary Public Works staff, and the City's traffic engineering consultant, is in the process of reviewing comments from the Metropolitan Council regarding the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, staff is reviewing the Saint Louis Park Comprehensive Plan and will prepare a letter to Saint Louis Park conveying Golden Valley's comments about the Saint Louis Park plan. Several areas require Council discussion: The following is a summary of roadways that will be discussed with the City Council: TABLE 1 Current SLP Suggested Roadway Limits Functional Functional GV Plan Class Glass Park Place/Xenia 1-394 to Cedar Major Collector A-Minor Arterial Major Collector Lake Road Reliever Louisiana Avenue Excelsior B-Minor Arterial A-Minor Arterial Minor Collector Boulevard to 1-394 Reliever TABLE 2 SLP Current GV Current Roadway Limits Functional Class Functional Class Wayzata Boulevard TH 169 to Park Place A-Minor Arterial Reliever A-Minor Arterial Reliever Wayzata Boulevard Park Place to Existing Major Collector - Minor Collector GV City Limits Proposed A-Minor Reliever TABLE 3 Roadway Limits Metropolitan Council GV Proposed Current Functional Class Functional Class Plymouth Avenue Winnetka to Douqlas Minor Collector Local The City's consulting traffic engineer, Mike Kotila, will be in attendance to review the definitions of each classification, the opportunities associated with modifying a functional classification, and the process required by the Metropolitan Council to change a functional classification. Attachments City of Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan: Figure 7.2 - Existing and Future Functional Classifications (1 page) Saint Louis Park Comprehensive Plan, Figure 8 - Future Functional Classifications (1 page) 7-14 Chapter 7: Transportation Figure 7.2: Existing and Future Functional Classifications >.IIlO ~ ~ o 1.- 1_ f. N A (l.L':'~R\:.i::I.ll.....-...._t...._~.. ,~.. , i , 'I ,_._1 · i-.... . , . '.-.... I f 1.'.'" ~((~ , I ~ ....ci IO~ I?-Z ~- ,-= (~ '~'fo~-)" .- r ! . I 1 . ; ....o.,~ 1'." ..~ or ! 5.,nt ; ~<1".~''': i Lu..... ! " : " . ~ .. ~ i '- ~:.:~~i \.. ? i\ t ~ .. ! ~ i ";...n.4 "~ i~ · ~.,,~ "~:t '\"ro;u,~ { ! i i..'~! ~ (4)0~ ~~ ._~ "' ~ t~'lo <; 0: ~ , . i . '-. .."" '~" I . . ! I ! I ,_; "" -.-.... -i . ~ s, -... . rJ:i ~i I ~ _~nr~ ~~ Ii.................. ;.."t........l ~""''''' I .~, ..., ~.;..~+ -......-....."" -..'''' '.... i ;\.\... ~"m" ':::,A" ~ ;lM.UTH IT i ""110.., j i ~~o)..~. ~ L - I i ," r'," -~ .J~"-r ~:,u.rM< ~"e"..u-~ 't f..l ~ or '""I: i ..; ~ 7! i it; : 2 ___'0 ! ~ ;J , i !~_.. ! fIr , . , " ~T__ ,; ......-..~ . I r-'....,." .... '1::~ i i I) .. I ~ , ~~ r'urtt<1 t ~'>. ..~..l,... , _...~ ! ; .. ...1.) ; ; . _.~ I . J - ~ ~ I I - ~CITY OF ROBBINS DALE .-;~.i--,\\- \. , " .. \ ;p~ _", ..; . \:~ "l>",.. \~.,. """", ~ ; .r<.. "':0. . \ /' 'i- .:...,:...1. """,,,. \ , ~.." ) \", " .. ~!; ."*1....<\'\' l <-IO.""<I! ~! " 8 ! I 'i ! ' I ' CITY OF NEW HOT" CITY OF CRYSTAl. fll \ \ \ \ "'"" '0, ; s..................DI -" ..., ~~:""."'..f..' .~,' , ,':;-- ! It , Jm.ow"." I I ~ ~ I ,"",,~<".t ; 5 .~.. I , t !t'<<><. .~ i ..~. ~, ! ! I ,~.,J," t.-n~A'~ ! ; I f''' i r i i I j I l , " ~ " o ~ (; > ~ u \ I I ~ / .-' ~~,-" r , ~ ':: .\ ~. .0-:"'-1' ..+< i ' ! . \ r"""'o"~.... ~ ~ 16 ~~ \. \ .-~i ! l'~-'" ; I:; ::~.::. i i~ , J i Ii ~'''''' ....."0"... ,0 coO;.. ~. Is ; . ~ "A~U........, ;~/ \ '!.;:' -.-..--- .- CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588 783-593~095 www.ci.golden-valley.mn.us --~ \ ";;""'. ~ 1-'""!- !,.,,+ ~ ; J,...........,~ . J:. IDOIoJ<;Uo. .ve~ ...} 1-""-41 9~":T~'~'=";:\~ - - __I Existing Functional Class A Minor Augmenter A Minor Reliever Proposed Functional Class . . . . Proposed Major Collector ....'. Proposed Minor Collector Community Park - B Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Water Principal Arterial Local Street Creek City Limits Private Date: May 21, 2008 Sources: SEH for proposed functional classification, Met Council for existing functional classification, MnDOT for neighboring city streets, City of Golden Valley for all other layers City of Golden Valley -r Comprehensive Plan 2008-2018 ltlghVV~1<; ~t1J S1Ye,e-t<; Figure 8 - Future Functional Classification I I I , I I! 'II , ca' i I I ,I ~!..,. ~ j I Pi I III c::: t I .~ I I , ~ ~ ',/ , I ~ I I rkll !: I \ ~WII)I c::: ~"MinnetonkaBlvd~ '_:frIr.~.'D aLl' r: T I ,. "III . 'IT";- " ,,'" i ~ I' ; I ~ I ~ I J I I I 1 t ~ I ~rJ ~'II,III " . . .. 1 l I I I I (r CD, I J , ',_ I , I , .- ' ! ,., I j I] I , I 1. ] t( : 'd I ' I ~i , 1)--, "'" J ' , ; 1+, 1 I i:iop.mil~ ,J , " I, I'! <,' . '! ) , I I ! 11 II i' ill' , I! I' i /. ',' I I I I I ri I I, I I I L I !. I i-) i '1'1' '/' .!.I., I, " j I'll i'l I" ' I I ' .. I \'1 , , \- , I I , " I, 1 I, J I i r ! , '11nl' T"] _J I' I / -' I 1. I,' \ ~. '\ \ I . ~\. i 'I I Ii II Ii \'I! il Iii II iI"! IT',lif I' It 11 ! ,:.. 'II: , I: ! II i" i'l r I 'I III 111 ! I I I' III [I: I -I r~' ~.... I , ,J , ~, - Principal Arterial - A Minor Reliever - A Minor Augmentor - A Minor Connector - Major Collector Minor Collector Changes from Existing . Functional Classification III St. Louis Park III M INN E SOT A alley ra City Administration/Council 763-593-8003/763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting September 8,2009 Agenda Item 5. Residential Zoning District (R-1) Accessory Structures Setback Requirements Prepared By Thomas Burt, City Manager Summary Council Member Pentel asked that this item be placed on the agenda. Attachment City Code Section 11.21, Subdivision 12. Accessory Structures (2 pages) 9 11.21 *Subdivision 12. Accessory Structures Subject to the modifications in Subdivision 12, below, accessory structures, shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Location and Setback Requirements. The following location regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in the R-1 zoning district: 1. Location. A Detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the front setback as the principal structure. If an addition is built on to an existing principal structure that would create a situation where an existing garage or accessory structure would not be completely to the rear of the addition to the principal structure, the addition to the principal structure may be built and the existing garage or accessory structure may remain and be considered conforming as long as there is at least ten (10) feet of separation between the existing principal structure with the addition and the existing garage or accessory structure. Additions may be made to the existing garage or accessory structure as long as the ten (10) feet of separation can be met. 2. Front Setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than thirty- five (35) feet from the front property line along a street right-of-way line. 3. Side and Rear Setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no less than five (5) feet from a side or rear yard property line. 4. Separation between structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less than ten (10) feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory structure. 5. Alleys. Accessory structures shall be located no less than five (5) feet from an alley. B. Height Limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning District to exceed a height of one (1) story, which is ten (10) feet from the floor to the top horizontal member of a frame building to which the rafters are fastened, known as the top plate. C. Provision for garage. No building permit shall be issued for a single family dwelling not having a two (2) stall garage unless the registered survey submitted at the time of the application for the building permit reflects the necessary area and setback requirements for a future two (2) stall (minimum) garage. D. Cornices and Eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than thirty (30) inches into a required setback. Source: Ordinance No. 292, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-12-04 Golden Valley City Code 9 11.21 E. Each property is limited to a total of one thousand (1,000) square feet of the following accessory structures: detached and attached garages, detached sheds, greenhouses, and gazebos. Swimming pools are not included in this requirement. No one (1) detached accessory structure may be larger than eight hundred (800) square feet in area and any accessory structure over one hundred twenty (120) square feet in area requires a building permit. Source: Ordinance No. 382, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-28-08 F. Size of Accessory Structures. No accessory structure shall be larger in size than the principal structure. (See Subdivision 4.A(1)). G. Swimming pools. Swimming pools shall meet the same setback and location requirements for accessory structures. Setbacks shall be measured from the property line to the pool's edge. Decks surrounding above ground pools shall meet setback requirements. H. Decks. Free standing decks or decks attached to accessory buildings shall meet the same setback requirements for accessory buildings. (See Subdivision 14.) 1. Central Air Conditioning Units. Central air conditioning units shall not be allowed in the front yard of a single family home. Source: Ordinance No. 292, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-12-04 J. Roof. Gambrel and Mansard roofs are not permitted on any accessory building with a footprint of more than one hundred twenty (120) square feet. Source: Ordinance No. 382, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-28-08 Golden Valley City Code ~ Valley m du City Administration/Council 763-593-8003 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting September 8, 2009 Agenda Item 6. Building Board of Review Prepared By Thomas Burt, City Manager Summary Council Member Shaffer asked that this item be placed on the agenda.