11-23-09 PC Agenda
AGENDA
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
Monday, November23,2009
7 pm
1. Approval of Minutes
a. November 9, 2009 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
2. Presentation of Capital Improvement Program 2010-2014 - Sue Virnig,
City Finance Director
3. Continued Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment -
Regarding the Number of Street Curb Cut Access Points
a. Applicant: City of Golden Valley
b. Purpose: To limit the number of street curb cut access points to one per
parcel in the Single Family Zoning District (R-1)
4. Informal Public Hearing - General land Use Comprehensive Plan
Amendment - adopting the Douglas Drive Corridor Study
a. Applicant: City of Golden Valley
b. Purpose: To recommend the adoption of the Douglas Drive Corridor
study as a part of the Special Planning Districts chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan
5. Short Recess
6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority,
City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
7. Other Business
8. Adjournment
This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call
763-593-8006 (ffi: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats
may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 9,2009
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday,
November 9, 2009. Vice Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Kluchka, McCariy,....$chmidgall
and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Developm MafkGrimes,
City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittma hair K ser was
absent.
1. Approval of Minutes
September 29,2009 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Eck referred to the first sentence in the last paragr~ph<:>npage.~..and asked that it be
clarified.
McCarty referred to the second paragraph<:ln~~getwo and.8oted that a comma was
missing in the first sentence. He also noted thatthe minLltesstated that Waldhauser
chaired the meeting. She didn't, Keysserwas in attendance and he chaired the meeting.
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Ce~aand motion carried unanimously to approve the
September 29, 2009 minutes vyithtl;l~ al;>ove noted corrections.
2.
Informal Public H
Board of Review
ng ~Zorii~g Code Amendment - Regarding the Building
lIey
d Section 11.35, Subd. 7(A) and Section 11.36, Subd. 7(A)
Industrial Chapters of the Zoning Code) to remove language
Ing Board of Review
Gri t staff is recommending that the Building Board of Review be
disc . ued ause they rarely meet and their duties regarding city ordinances can be
done b stated that there are a couple of places in the Zoning Code and the
Sign Code ere the Building Board of Review is mentioned in regard to reviewing
landscape plans. It is now being suggested that the review of landscape plans is
something that can be reviewed by staff or City Manager designee.
Waldhauser asked if the Building Board of Review was established originally because
some of the reviews were considered more subjective and not straight forward. Grimes
said back in 1988 when the Board was originally established there might have been more
concerns about the aesthetics of buildings, but having aesthetic requirements is difficult if
a building meets the requirements of the building code.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 9, 2009
Page 2
Waldhauser said when there has been discussion in the past about the pros and cons of
having a design review process it has often come back to the fact that the City does have
the Building Board of Review that looks at projects apart from the Planning Commission
and that the Building Board of Review would have some say over the appearance of a
development. She added that she is getting the sense from the information in the Zoning
Code that the Board just reviews landscaping and not other structures. Grimes explained
that the City has a landscaping standards policy in place that is enforced by City staff
which is the same policy currently enforced by the Building Board of Review. He
explained that the Building Board of Review is advisory to the Building OfficiaI~nd it is
not a design review board.
McCarty asked if a design review board could be appointed on a
basis. Grimes said a design board ordinance process would h
that. He explained that many of the design issues involved in
addressed through the PUD process and the other review pro
stated that staff feels there should be standards and reCl~ifem
applicants are required to meet rather than having to.gq tht6ug
Cera asked about the possibility of referring the design revievv process to the Planning
Commission. Grimes reiterated that the Pla~~jRg Q8mmissi~~, in effect, already does
review the design of many of the project$jnthe~itytPf8~g~>the Planned Unit
Development and Conditional Use Permit procE?~ses. Cera asked when in the process a
project goes to the Building Board 0 ..~rimesE?xplained that it is a discretionary
process by the Building Official a e roject goes to the Building Board of
Review or not. He stated that sta th beef up" the standards in the City Code
and have those standards enforce city staff.
Kluchka said he is havingtt;8.~bl~>lJ\fith this issue because he doesn't see a clear
understanding of thE? urpose.qfthe Building Board of Review and how its purpose is
translated into new s, n olicies or specific staff process that would
accommodate at t 0 Building Board of Review is supposed to be. He said
he has seen pe ti ecisions being made by the City that weren't necessarily in
everybod' . ter her a city staffer making a decision, so he is concerned about
a lack eption.
ere is something warranting review she agrees that it seems odd
Id be left to staff to make the decision whether or not the application
ard. She said it would make more sense for direction to come from the
Isslon.
Grimes clarified that the City Council is considering the decision to discontinue the
Building Board of Review therefore the language in the City Code referring to the Building
Board of Review has to be removed. He also clarified that the Planning Commission isn't
deciding whether or not to discontinue the Building Board of Review; that is done by City
Council resolution. The Planning Commission is only charged with reviewing the Zoning
Code language.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 9, 2009
Page 3
Cera stated that it sounds like there is the desire by the Planning Commission to further
discuss design review standards either through the Commission or some other entity.
Grimes said staff would bring the Planning Commission the language and standards
other communities use in their design review process.
McCarty asked if the City Council is abolishing the Building Board of Review but looking
at how other cities handle design review what the likelihood is of putting a board back in
place. He said it seems premature to him to eliminate the Building Board of Review if the
City is going to have some sort of design review board replacing it. Grim id.he thinks
the design review process can be well addressed through the ordinan ocess\similar
to the language in the Mixed Use zoning district which requires certain standards
and review processes.
Eck asked if the City Council has already decided to eliminatethell3L1iIding Board of
Review because the staff report states that it is being recommendecfthat theBuilding
Board of review be eliminated. Grimes explained that th~langua e in theZoning Code
needs to come out at the same time the City Counci.L9.~.cidest inate the Building
Board of Review.
Kluchka said that from an oversight perspec ive h n enough information that
designates what the process is today or the be, which in his role,
seems like he would not be doing his jo h' inc I say no to this
recommendation. McCarty said he ommissioner Kluchka if the
Building Board of Review was mo and had specific powers, but he doesn't
think the City would lose any con eliminating the Building Board of Review. He said
he would like to revisit how the C c get a design review process established but he is
not convinced the Building Board of . w is the answer because it seemed too
arbitrary. Kluchka said he ther have a plan than a hope that something will
replace the Building oard ew.
Grimes suggested th
review guidelines/iClt SOfP
Commission review specific policies and design
the future.
MOVEObyeera,s~8~~ded by Schmidgall and motion carried 5 to 1 to recommend
approval t~~m~Rd Section 11.35, Subd. 7(A) and Section 11.36, Subd. 7(A)
(Ligrt IndustriClI al0l9 Industrial Chapters of the Zoning Code) to remove language regarding
theB~ilding rd/Clf Review. Commissioner Kluchka voted no.
--Short Recess--
3. Other Business
a. Planning Commission Meeting Schedule
Grimes explained that over the past several years many Planning Commission meetings
have been cancelled due to the lack of agenda items. He asked the Commission if they
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 9,2009
Page 4
would like to switch the schedule to have only one meeting per month and if so, which
Monday of the month they would prefer.
McCarty said he'd like to meet the fourth Monday of the month if possible. Waldhauser said
she would like to meet the second Monday of the month. Eck said he would like to keep
the schedule the way it is and cancel meetings as necessary so that applicant's schedules
wouldn't be affected.
Grimes said he would keep the meeting schedule the same and make an effort to put items
on one agenda per month if it can be helped. The Commissioners
4. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:32 pm.
Lester Eck, Secretary
Proposed
2010-2014 Capital Improvement Program
November 23, 2009
Planning Commission Review
Changes have been made to the document since the meeting with Council.
Please take out pages 60-64. These pages were duplicates.
Please replace pages
13
15
17
18
66
67
80
82
85
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
2010.2014 CIP
MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET (MSA) FUND (FUND 5100)
EXHIBIT VII
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Cash Balance @ 1/1 $2,570,338 $2,785,054 $3,018,843 $3,090,895 $1,663,668
Revenue:
Annual Construction Allotment From State 412,971 412,971 412,971 412,971 412,971
Annual Maintenance Allotment From State 155,373 155,373 155,373 155,373 155,373
Special Assessments - State-Aid Bonds;
Golden Valley Rd. - Douglas Dr. to T.H. 100 12,520 12,520 12,520 12,520 12,520
MN Department of Transportation 180,000 180,000
City of Crystal 25,000
Interest Earnings (% of Beg. Ba!.) 12,852 13,925 30,188 30,909 16,637
Total Available 3,369,054 3,559,843 3,629,895 3,702,668 2,261,169
Expenditures:
Maintenance of State-Aid Streets (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000)
Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Winnetka Ave (50,000) (250,000) (250,000) (250,000)
Railroad Crossing Signals (200,000) (200,000)
TH 100 Pedestrian Bridge Improvements (95,000)
Duluth Street Reconstruction (1,500,000)
Debt Service on State-Aid Bonds ends 2028 (189,000) (191,000) (189,000) (189,000) (189,000)
Total Expenditures (584,000) (541,000) (539,000) (2,039,000) (539,000)
Estimated Net Assets @ 12/31 $2,785,054 $3,018,843 $3,090,895 $1,663,668 $1,722,169
Page 13
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
2010 - 2014 CIP
STORM SEWER UTILITY FUND (FUND 7300)
EXHIBIT IX
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Cash Balance @ 1/1 $2,376,908 $2,035,363 $1,714,688 $1,313,813 $1,136,441
Revenue:
Storm Sewer Charges 2,212,150 2,212,150 2,212,150 2,362,150 2,512,150
Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission 580,000 550,000
Union Pacific Railroad 185,000
Interest Earnings 50,000 50,000 51,441 39,414 34,093
Total Available 5,219,058 4,482,513 4,528,279 3,715,377 3,682,685
Expenditures:
Operating Expenditures:
Storm Sewer Maintenance (305,340) (310,820) (320,145) (329,749) (339,641)
Street Cleaning (117,530) (119,725) (123,317) (127,016) (130,827)
Environmental Services (277,020) (279,980) (288,379) (297,031) (305,942)
Debt Service - Revenue Bonds (2019; 2021) (433,805) (437,300) (433,125) (435,140) (431,510)
Sub-Total of Operations (1,133,695) (1,147,825) (1,164,966) (1,188,936) (1,207,920)
Capital Outlay:
2010 (2,050,000)
2011 (1,620,000)
2012 (2,049,500)
2013 (1,390,000)
2014 (1,730,000)
Sub-Total of Capital Expenditures (2,050,000) (1,620,000) (2,049,500) (1,390,000) (1,730,000)
Total Expenditures (3,183,695) (2,767,825) (3,214,466) (2,578,936) (2,937,920)
Estimated Net Assets @ 12/31 $2,035,363 $1,714,688 $1,313,813 $1,136,441 $744,765
Page 15
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
2010-2014 CIP
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY BY YEAR
EXHIBIT XI
Category 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total %
Vehicles & Equipment $774,000 $814,000 $1,390,000 $1,026,000 $855,000 $4,859,000 8.0%
Buildings 425,000 415,000 435,000 645,000 275,000 2,195,000 3.6%
Parks 295,000 282,425 308,900 302,100 431,000 1,619,425 2.7%
Golf Course 222,350 81 ,240 58,200 63,200 161,500 586,490 1.0%
Streets 9,728,000 4,676,000 4,314,000 8,748,900 5,920,900 33,387,800 55.3%
Storm Sewers 2,050,500 1,620,000 2,049,500 1,390,000 1,730,000 8,840,000 14.6%
Water & Sewer Systems 3,342,000 1,795,000 1,420,000 1,115,000 1,250,000 8,922,000 14.8%
Totals $16,836,850 $9,683,665 $9,975,600 $13,290,200 $10,623,400 $60,409,715 100.0%
Page 17
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
2010-2014 CIP
FINANCING SUMMARY BY SOURCE BY YEAR
EXHIBIT XII
Source 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total %
External Sources:
Bassett Creek Water Mgmt Comm 580,000 0 550,000 0 0 1,130,000 1.9%
Federal Highway Administration 0 0 0 808,800 0 808,800 1.3%
Union Pacific Railroad 0 185,000 0 0 0 185,000 0.3%
MN DOT 180,000 180,000 0 0 0 360,000 0.6%
Transit Livable Communities (TLC) 1,050,000 0 0 0 0 1,050,000 1.7%
City of Crystal 25,000 0 0 0 0 25,000 0.0%
Total External Sources 1,835,000 365,000 550,000 808,800 0 3,558,800 5.9%
Internal Sources:
Vehicle Maintenance Fund 0 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 0.1%
Equipment Replacement Fund 774,000 814,000 1,340,000 1,026,000 855,000 4,809,000 8.0%
Brookview Golf Course Fund 222,350 81,240 58,200 63,200 161,500 586,490 1.0%
Water & Sewer Utility Fund 3,342,000 1,795,000 1,420,000 1,115,000 1,250,000 8,922,000 14.8%
Building Fund 425,000 415,000 435,000 645,000 275,000 2,195,000 3.6%
Park Improvement Fund 295,000 282,425 308,900 302,100 431,000 1,619,425 2.7%
Capital Improvement Fund 50,000 155,000 95,000 555,500 0 855,500 1.4%
Municipal State-Aid (MSA) Fund 379,000 361,000 539,000 2,039,000 539,000 3,857,000 6.4%
Storm Sewer Utility Fund 1,470,500 1,435,000 1,499,500 1,390,000 1,730,000 7,525,000 12.5%
Special Assessment Bonds 8,044,000 3,980,000 3,680,000 5,345,600 5,381,900 26,431,500 43.8%
Total Internal Sources 15,001,850 9,318,665 9,425,600 12,481,400 10,623,400 56,850,915 94.1%
Totals All Sources $16,836,850 $9,683,665 $9,975,600 $13,290,200 $10,623,400 $60,409,715 100.0%
Page 18
Golden Valley
Parks Activity Areas
Cl
C
C !!2 t Cl :2
'" "e :J C .<:: 'S ~
~ Q) "0 0
0:: E Qi 0 "0 "0 t ~ .x. 0 m .l!l
CIl t::: Qi :J C C ~
:J Q) a. u:: Qi .x. :J C Qi
'" u:: 0 en OC
0" 0 'S >. Iii u:: 0 I CIl 0 .<:: Qi Iii
en .<:: .0 -J ~ en
~ '" 0" CIl Iii ~ Iii >. .<:: .0
'" Q) Q) Q) w ~ .0 Q) Iii '" CD Q) Cl Q) ~ 0 en >.
~ .<:: E ~ >. Q) .x. .0 '2 .x. c 0 ,!g '2 .!!!
~ '" '" <a:: 0 c c 0 :2 c 0 c
0 0 CIl 0 CIl CIl CIl 0 0 ~ Q) 0 CIl 8 Q) 0 :J "0
Parks/F acilitv <( ~ <:> :r: a:: m m en en <:> :r: Ci'j 0 ~ 0:: en >
Brookview Park 33 . . . L . 1 2/4L . 2 .
Brookview Golf Course 144 . .
Geartv Park 4.7 L . . . 1 1L L L .
Glenview Terrace Park 5 . . . 2L
Golden Oaks Park 2 L . . 1
Hampshire Park 14 L . L . 2 L L .
Honeywell Little Leallue Field 11 1L
Lakeview Park 5 L . L . 1 L . .
Lions Park 19 L . L . 4 1/1F 2 L L . .
Medley Park 13 L . L . 2 3L L L .
Perpich Center for Arts Field 1.5 1
Natchez Park 6 L . L . 1
North Tvrol Park 9.4 . . . 1 .
Sandburll Ballfields 20 2 3
St Croix Park 1.4 . .
Schaper Park 11 . . 2L .
Scheid Park 9.8 . . L 1 . 1 1F 2L L L . .
Seeman Park 4.6 L . . 1 . 2
South Tvrol Park 3.6 L . . . 1 L
Stockman Park 1.5 L . . 1
Sweeney Lake Park 0.5 .
Weslev Park 20 L . L . 3 111F 3L L L . .
Wildwood Park 4.2 . . . . 2 2
Wirth Park IMpls Park Board) 517 . . . . . 2 . . . . . .
Yosemite Park 1.4 L . . . 1 L
Nature Areas
Adeline Nature Area 1.2 .
Bassett Creek Nature Area 7.6 .
Briarwood Bird Sanctuarv 19 .
General Mills Nature Preserve 27 .
General Mills Research Nature 57 .
Golden Ridlle Nature Area 1.6 .
Laurel Avenue Greenbelt 33 .
Marv Hills Nature Area 14 .
Pennsvlvania Woods 23 .
Rice Lake Nature Area 9 .
Tree Farm 1.5 .
Western Avenue Marsh 22 .
F=Fall Use
L=Lighted
* Recreation building restrooms are open seasonally during program hours
G,b
updated 11-09
g ~
N
I
~. ~ \\ H""~.r" 1 \
_ :."" '. -f. , 7 _ "'...... :t...-
,_ .. _ _.' 1 '" ~",,_.l '....-,.. .- · · · ...l
.;u.. ... . ..: .. :~ N J^VvNVI..IIN!' B-1 C' I / I ""~_.-- ·
I ;r 1~1.-~ ~ ~ ~'l.'- "InN::" (.-. \'''''>o.lIWOoiii, \ ~l N:JM",,-:l- .$r.J. fr-:'w/ J l:liN;~,:I
! ",. ff I N J^yll"" " !,:.J... 0""1,", 01< .....'_! j J' j. '1'/''''J\.^''ll\j~''I.I. '. ~~. t~ r-....-uJ. ·
.u i</f t of it -'- · ," " .. '.. ' ~ ~." "' ·
..-. .I ~ I oli ,(~.. _ <'l OKJ """.IV ' J ~., 10. ""1'"
.J o'~"""11 ,~",....' "T' "". ·
." - 1 r)"-i'T' ~ 'J. I 1 ~""to" ) '... ....'J 1 ~ 1 ...", "'"NA"NY' ):i ~i",^Vj"~
~ J ..'.1 ~ l' ~J Sj ~I ~I _ , ~ \ ," ,\, - . - {T f"<l'xW;i"'" 0'\ .~;~ ~ ·
J ~ to..l IX.:' u _.'_ ~ ..", .~ ,- ..1 - .] l' I ,<: f
., " '" ' " "'._~ ' ' ' .. "... I ' ?i f ·
~i.~ ~~. ~1"1~'" ".,;~, ~,^,,""I'''I~':'V~:';N'"~~ I. '\ \-""'[-'''lV'H> ~ J-QO..:,' 1',S'^VlJ,nlv.. r (.ogJ.f.~ ~ .
. ;.J ,1. ~ I:. .,p.. .,rirJ - (\04.... l-/ '<\VlIV!" I 1 -,-...-i \...,.:.1 :'I
., 1 ~I "Jffl ~~ ...'lI, ~~;;:t1~j;i'h' J l' ", ..... ;" - ..,,,~...,,. ii,' . )\
1/1, F......' ".~ '\~' 1'"'i'" ii. ,~~ "'i \.- '\ II .; , ...~:fS" t, l~r~~'1 i
,.'_1" J' J, I . ~ .. L u""~~v:". 'C.I I N J^VI>_~'IOI..' _~.II )/J 1 ,~ ~ ~~' ~ J ' I If I' .. · ~
,,,,, _ _ ,~_... ,,-""" ' 1 - '
_ _~. I'" ~.:.---.____ -- .,_" =' ~__' ::," ,<v,,,,,,, '.' "j f Q. utI
, . . _ ". _I '. ",' ."."', '.' ..
o . ,'''..''"' ,~.- .....-,'" .. ~.,,,: ..'~- "'"', i' '" ;,
Q) :Il . Q~;- \ '!lp'1 1. i' ~I' "',,a i.v II I '- I-l ~,'O
ilj!.! .' ;'?!ir=1 J [""." I' ~I;i :~~"I,...' I ""IJHil;I''',''~'9flot<i4)\:''~J 'O>."HIH'~';J t
8'. II e . ....,..' If !,w::;.,.' e i ,,' '\ . ~-.;~ '1
N a. ~.J' ~.. -. JJ . (...-i =1 ' = & ,., I ; ~'I
Q) 3 ~ .~ 8 E g, N',^V~lVo;., j. ""';G~,!Vl C'" . ~I ~-- ~~ ~ I
III ~ill'::O ... ~.,. .::'.' ~ vv ON; ,-' ~ ._--=_.--- "li' 1"".
::> ,,!' ," . ~.._., ' -,--- ..." ~,' -
... ,,." ." ,^".~,___-,'--'"-'1-- I ,',u , ' ,"
'8 ~~! j i ~j ~ I{ :/~ '; 'I'~ "!, .k,-'H~, rclJ ,'I
"") ~ ~ 0 oOJ I ij'''' ,! C %..1 1---" f - -- . , J '.
1!ual '/" J N~"'<:;V"011Ot1
IA ,~. loll . ~,l ' .., "
t>9 ~ =';; J." Q )/1 I~l :ll^~~"~r" ~:\ N ,^,'IOtw, ,,ii, U d .t/
~ ~i ,'01 ~ -I ~ . ,~
i~ ~ ~ ~I~g~ \. __' ~ !l~
Ul . . ~I l~ ' I ~. " ~ ",^VI'IlY"J', NoW . '/';'1
ro ~ I ~ r-c>"::? II ~ ~i- I ~ ",,,n J N ,^V 0"'" S ,. '"'HSd"fJ
~ -< . I NIW...."*'tl'i)' rL H
~!i ; ',', ~' ';,. ..~,J" ' , .I i\ · ,. ..'....I... .^VAl1l1.~. nI1..
~ z~~JlIUi_!L Il.::_'v~'IV,'~l:~,,/:'fJ' !:;;:':~"~<I: ' !:.,.::1 ~ .!,~'.;'~I~i il \t:lf>
_ . _,., . . .\ ;j.<1iT"'I) 01- 'l-~- s~ .}:,^,~_VOV;:, ~,. 11.
~ .' ... .". :z: ' " ,^VVI".^,,'::NNo; 1 f: -1\ p- -
o . ;:j!~!!j~~ r"'~.:i if .,,,,_~:.1;:':'I: 1: '~~' I \ i.. A~.Ji B~~N06JOO ~i .~
~ J" "-~T. '::, !1 .. [" iV'llln"st ~l 1. I d J ,. 1 ~I'
.. ~ l ",,,\0<1','''" ~ __ -" E "' . l~
~ ,;' ~. I f~ 1? lAVSIl.IIV 1 J--- -'jT 'r-' '..' I.. 1 5 ,-.1'."".10."''''''''.
": 0 ..".' , ." '. ,,, ,__,,~,.ilo
_ f -!! ~ ii' 1 I :;r"ov;;.i:;,~, I 3' ~~ Ol"\~"" r' l~' '-. 1../J ( i '" ~/S." "v"';'7(1".
_ ... E.: .. ilt ..;:l I ~I I w I ~~l '. ,!, r ~.;,; J ) ~f "'Ln".,,~.....
~ .. E Q. ~ / Q ~,~ << S '- ~ J" - if .. ~ s"J}
Cl:S l e ~ ~ c3 i ~ "^VNO]" ~J · 1 · ;'" r- / .', I ~ ", ',I .. :^'. "
> ~ ~ i H il i H J 8 1. J' ,^f.,,~.,..v L l/ I I U I ..r~r s1 ') f _2~11._".w~4<tO',\".iM~!. I ...-i '1 ^""d f,' '.", d: """" ·
::"1< Ill!; \ j I.' i' -''''1 "," M
= ..",...." It ".-.... I' 1 'I,'
~ .l!' .... It ._;'--: "., .~-.. J, ,-'-' 1 "~I '\
"C ro ~j~. j; ~Ii^~"" ji'. < 1 I' if "'-;....''\.i~. j:'-:1I1. Al
a... ~te.t >oNf:-"- ; h' ~""Ii' \ ",^v.",,,;\.)i~ ~I~' ....... t.
_ I """..,S' ." ,," '" I' t ," "' ."
o ..."...."1 '" ,I . ..,.'" -- ", \ .. ,.',
C-' -'NM..';";,",,,,' .~-' It 1. 'T' ~.I =l ~ ~,Il 11] t, i' II
Clt.-.... r . . ~ f' ;F- <fI- ... . "1 ')0 . !
_" _ ~ jl'8 !!,.. NZ", J \ ,\ 8~'\' .~~. .. ~"
1=. ..... _. _.... ft .,.JII; "'""\v riNtlN!.H(~ I -. ..~!!, ~
y~, "rol "."",,,,, _ ".... ~1~1ol;;.1<C;J[..I~" ~ r~ _.... ...,,'. -" " , .. , .JI "1\,
"~"'''I... -. ,. ..... IJ ~
l ..... .'i,. "';"W""'"" . :] ~ .l..,L,"
, .., ~ \4,"'1'"):. \,,.,.,..,"" -n .L
.. · -'t',~ .1.1
o
'"
S
~'
,
(
~,
~~r~,l-
I \\
: \,
"
z-< 0
~
N
e
~
...
~
~
rLl
~
~
Cl:S
=..
rLl
>
....
City of Golden Valley, Minnesota
Capital Improvement Plan
2010 thru 2014
PROJECTS & FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENT
Department Project# Priority 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total
lStreets -- ,
Pavement Management Program S-001 n/a 5,544,000 3,480,000 3,180,000 4,845,600 4,881,900 21,931,500
Overlay Program S-013 n/a 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,500,000
TH 100 Pedestrian Bridge Walk Maintenance S-014 n/a 95,000 95,000
Count Down Pedestrian Signals S-016 n/a 45,000 45,000 90,000
Municipal State Aid (MSA) Street Maintenance S-017 n/a 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 SOO,OOO
City Hall Campus Sidewalk Renovation S-018 n/a 60,000 60,000
MSA Debt Service S-019 n/a 189,000 191,000 189,000 189,000 189,000 947,000
Duluth Street Reconstruction S-022 n/a 1,500,000 1,500,000
Reconstruct New Railroad Crossings S-023 n/a 200,000 200,000 400,000
Replacement of Street Signs S-024 n/a 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 200,000
Evaluation! Rehabilitate Winnetka Ave Streetscape S-025 n/a 50,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 800,000
Douglas Drive Sidewalk (west side) Reconstruction S-027 n/a 1,314,300 1,314,300
Douglas Drive Improvements S-028 n/a 3,050,000 3,050,000
Streets Total 9,728,000 4,676,000 4,314,000 8,748,900 5,920,900 33,387,800
Grand Total
9,728,000 4,676,000 4,314,000 8,748,900 5,920,900
33,387,800
80
l Department Streets
Contact
Type Unassigned
Useful Life
Category Street Construction
Project # 8-013
Project Name Overlay Program
I ~e~c~ti~- ........ .. ...... . .~.~ ... . __ . m_ Priority
Includes mill and overlays of local and State Aid streets that are constructed to City standards to maintain streets to their projected life-spans. The
projects include localized replacement of curb and gutter as needed.
2010: St Croix Avenue: Douglas Drive to Lilac Drive
Olympia Street: Winnetka To Pennsylvania
Schaper Drive
2011: Sandburg Road: Douglas to Nevada Ave
Nevada Ave: Sandburg Road to Medicine Lake Road
Madison Avenue: Louisiana Ave to Nevada Ave
Louisiana Avenue: Sandburg Road to Madison Avenue
2012: To be determined
2013: To be determined
2014: To be determined
I Justifi~~~i~~~~_- .~-~J
~~~vides high quality street-system at lowest lo;gt~~-cost. ---
--'--'--"-'---'-~---'-_'_________"'__'______'_ _..___ ...._m_ ________
-----
-- -- --
2012 2013 2014 Total
500,000 500,000 500,000 2,500,000
SOO,OOO SOO,OOO SOO,OOO 2,500,000
2012 2013 2014 Total
500,000 500,000 500,000 2,500,000
500,000 500,000 SOO,OOO 2,500,000
Expenditures 2010 2011
Construction/Maintenance 500,000 500,000
Total 500,000 SOO,OOO
Funding Sources 2010 2011
Street Reconstruction Bonds 500,000 500,000
Total 500,000 SOO,OOO
~2.
--- Department Streets
Contact
Type Unassigned
Useful Life
Category Unassigned
Priority
Project #
S-019
Project Name MSA Debt Service
[D~~cription ...... ...-==:]
~~e.~ice payme~t~1l Municip;iS~1:~AidB~~d~~J1~ing in 2028.--~
L!1!.stificaii~~ .__-_---1
~~essary fundi~&!()r State Aidr~adst~-~ons~lll~ projects n~~d~dfo-" safety.
Expenditures 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Other 189,000 191,000 189,000 189,000 189,000
Total 189,000 191,000 189,000 189,000 189,000
Funding Sources 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Municipal State Aid (MSA - 51 189,000 191,000 189,000 189,000 189,000
Total 189,000 191,000 189,000 189,000 189,000
~
. ..---------=.J
Total
947,000
947,000
Total
947,000
947,000
Department Streets
Contact
Type Improvement
Useful Life
Category Street Construction
~~ripti~~=~_n......__J Priority
[~econstruct Dul~th Stree~~~~-:AquilaAv~nue and Win~~tk~Avf~nue in conjunction with-2013Pa."~ment Ma~~g~ll1ent Program.
IJ~st~~~a~ion - ___.. ... . l
l{Jpg;~_de d~fi~ient road;;; to M~lliciJlal State Aid fl'vlSA) standards... .____
--- -~
Project #
S-022
Project Name Duluth Street Reconstruction
Expenditures
Construction/Maintenance
2010
2011
2012
Total
2013
1,500,000
1,500,000
2014
___J
---~==~~------]
Total
1,500,000
1,500,000
2010
Funding Sources
Municipal State Aid (MSA - 51
Total
2011
2012
2013
1,500,000
1,500,000
2014
s;-
Total
1,500,000
1,500,000
City of Golden Valley, Minnesota
Capital Improvement Plan
2010 thru 2014
PROJECTS & FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENT
Department Project# Priority 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total
[Storm Sewers --------..- .. _u_____.
Residential Storm Sewer Improvements SS-1 n/a 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 5,800,000
Lakeview Park Wetland Creation SS-lO n/a 150,000 150,000
Storm Water Improvement and Wetland Restoration SS-11 n/a 20,000 280,000 300,000
Brookview Golf Course - Buffer Zone Study SS-12 n/a 30,000 250,000 280,000
Western Ave Marsh Buffer Area SS-13 n/a 55,000 55,000
Vacumn Street Sweeper SS-16 n/a 230,000 230,000
Twin Lake Storm Water Pond Improvements SS-2 n/a 379,000 379,000
Bassett Creek Stream Bank Stabilization SS-20 n/a 471,500 588,500 1,060,000
Pickup Truck (Storm Water Utility) SS-22 n/a 26,000 26,000
Storm Water Pond Dredging SS-23 n/a 100,000 105,000 170,000 375,000
10th Avenue North Culvert Repairs SS-24 n/a 185,000 185,000
Storm Sewers Total 2,050,500 1,620,000 2,049,500 1,390,000 1,730,000 8,840,000
Grand Total
2,050,500 1,620,000 2,049,500 1,390,000 1,730,000
8,840,000
'10
I: --- ----
Project # 88-1
Project ~ame _ Res~dential 8torm 8e_,!_e! Impro"ements__
-
Department Storm Sewers
Contact
Type Improvement
Useful Life
Category Storm Sewer
[pescripti~Jl-m_~ Priority
~~:s:!~~~o:and/or repair of sto:~~:~~system,w~~~may include ~a: QU:lity PO~d~~inC~:jUnction with Pavement M::g~rne~tP~~g~~_J
l_~~s~iti~~tioJl__...~__......_.._~
I~~~~~~~ ~:o;~:i:e ~:f~n:f;:~:=:ti"~the City co:~:el1t:ith~treet ~onstructio~~herebY minimizing the disruptionofth~-;rea" Improve_ j
Expenditures 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total
Infrastructure Improvements 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 5,800,000
Total 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 5,800,000
Funding Sources 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total
Storm Sewer Utility Fund (7300 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 5,800,000
Total 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 5,800,000
Department Storm Sewers
Contact
Type Improvement
Useful Life
Category Storm Sewer
Project #
88-10
Project Name Lakeview Park Wetland Creation
l Description-- --~ Priority
::~~~~e~r~~~f~h~f2~x;~t~~~::;:S~~g~::::~~o~:~"~:i:~~oj~~~::~~~:~~~;::;:d v:;:t~~~;:f~~~:~r:~~:~~~r:~tl~~n~~~:~e::n~edicine I
Lake TMDL study"__ ____ ___ --.J
r Justif!c~i~n_=--I ___ ___
IWater ~lI11lity impro"emt:Il~"--__________ - -------- __ __
- --------- -----
Expenditures 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total
Infrastructure Improvements 150,000 150,000
Total 150,000 150,000
Funding Sources 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total
Storm Sewer Utility Fund (7300 150,000 150,000
Total 150,000 150,000
qt
~- ----- ---- -- -- -
Project # 88-11
Project Name 8torm Water Improvement and Wetland Restoration
--- --- - -----
------------
Department Storm Sewers
Contact
Type Improvement
Useful Life
Category Storm Sewer
[Descripti()n--_____ HI.. ...... m Priority
~. esto;e degr..a.de. d\Vetlan...ds -andi~pr~~e storm water c. o. n.v..e..y.ance system...i~ and near General.. M... i.I...IS JFB Research Center co..n.c..urrent with
1~0! 3/20 14 Pa~ement ~anagement Program. In 2013, the plll.ll will Ee re'l~ewed. In 20 14, c.<>nstru~on will take place. _m .
[!llStific~ti~~- ........... I
~~p~~ved wat~rquality b~~efits and restoration of degraded \V~tlands~-.-
~-'---~--------"'-----'-""-'---- ..__...._.~.._--..._--_.__..
Expenditures
Infrastructure Improvements
2010
2011
2012
2013 2014 Total
20,000 280,000 300,000
20,000 280,000 300,000
2013 2014 Total
20,000 280,000 300,000
20,000 280,000 300,000
Total
Funding Sources
Storm Sewer Utility Fund (7300
Total
2010
2011
2012
~ ----- ---
- -
Project # 88-12
!,roject~am~rookvie~ Golf Cour~~ - Buffer ~one ~!~dy n___
Department Storm Sewers
Contact
Type Improvement
Useful Life
Category Storm Sewer
I De;~~P!i~Jl_: ----- J_ _ _______ _ Priority
2012 complete study to identifY potential locations for minimum landscape management and native buffer zone locations.
Implellle_n_tation/Installation of b_llfl'ers in 2014._______
~tifi~atio~_______,~.:-----=-=]
~rov~:;ater qualitX per citl~Surface W~t~~~anagement-~lana.tl~INIpES Ph~e IIrequi~~;~!1ts. __
Expenditures
Infrastructure Improvements
2010
2011
2012
30,000
30,000
2013
2014 Total
250,000 280,000
250,000 280,000
2014 Total
250,000 280,000
250,000 280,000
Total
Funding Sources
Storm Sewer Utility Fund (7300
Total
2010
2011
2012
30,000
30,000
2013
GJZ
~.._.-
___...______.______.'....._...__n..... ..__.__._......_.,_._.._____.__.____..,_~____
Project # SS-13
Project Name Western Ave Marsh Buffer Area
------,.-.--.____________., ....._n___ ________._._____._',_"_._._____
.-
Department Storm Sewers
Contact
Type Improvement
Useful Life
Category Storm Sewer
IDesc~l'~~- ... J ...... ..... ... Priority
IRe:esta~li.s~ r~rtio~; .<>ftheW estern Ave marsh natural area\Vith nati,,~t;lIffer~~ound th~nro_nds ~~_~etlan~~;r~as_adla(:ent to Winnetka Ave S. .._ ]
[ Justifi~~ti~- .....-1
[!!igJIlyvisible sit~~a:~~ significant arIl()lI11!()!.~()_)(i~~~npl;;;rt~~quire seasonal!11Cl\Vingsiu_()1"der to comply with cityo!diI1.~ce. _____
Expenditures
Infrastructure Improvements
2010
2011
2012
55,000
55,000
2013
2014
Total
55,000
55,000
Total
Funding Sources
Storm Sewer Utility Fund (7300
Total
2010
2011
2012
55,000
55,000
2013
2014
Total
55,000
55,000
~----_.
Project #
- Pruj~ct N.m.
SS-16
Department Storm Sewers
Contact
Type Equipment
Useful Life
Category Storm Sewer
~~ripti~;-- . l Priority
rp~~cha.se O.fllll- ~dditi()Ilal st~~~t;;;~;~;.-Addin~~yacllrn~st~eet sweeper~t~~xisting~~~t~-=_ __ . .. - -~
[.fu~tifi~llti~_ -. ..n. _n ___-J
Iv acumn sweeper~ remove more fine sediment from the city ;t~eets tha~-t~~diti~n~l. ;t~~~t ;weepers. The addition of a vacumn-~t;~et. s~~eper will
[help the cit}' meet NP])ES Phase II golli.s..__ _ n _ _ __ ____
Vacumn Street Sweeper
Expenditures 2010 2011
Infrastructure Improvements 230,000
Total 230,000
Funding Sources 2010 2011
Storm Sewer Utility Fund (7300 230,000
Total 230,000
2012
2013
2014
Total
230,000
230,000
2012
2013
2014
Total
230,000
230,000
q~
SS-2
j;:j~~t ~
~ect N~me Twi~~ake S~~~m Water Pond Improvements_
-~
Department Storm Sewers
Contact
Type Improvement
Useful Life
Category Storm Sewer
[I?escripti~it_____~ .____ . ______ .______~~~!~.
Construction of a storm water pond and adjacent buffer strip. Also includes possible easement acquisition. This project is identified in the Bassett
Creek Watershed Management Commission's second generation capital improvement plan. In 2005, approximately $35,000 was spent on the
enginee!ill&design for this project. ___ .___ ____
I Justi!i:~llti~ . . __...... I
[This pon~\\,illprovid~w~ter quality treatment to the.~ub..\\,at~~~he~ente!lrtg~tth~h el1do~T\Vill La\(~._ . -
Expenditures
Infrastructure Improvements
Total
2010
379,000
379,000
2011
2012
2013
2014
-I
Total
379,000
379,000
Funding Sources
Bassett Creek Watershed Mg
Storm Sewer Utility Fund (7300
Total
2010
140,000
239,000
379,000
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
140,000
239,000
379,000
Project #
SS-20
Project Name Bassett Creek Stream Bank Stabilization
Department Storm Sewers
Contact
Type Improvement
Useful Life
Category Storm Sewer
~~~ription_~---- I Priority
~tabiliZ;ion of bank conditions along various sections of Ba-;sett Creek were inventoried in 2001:-The p;:;;ject ~reas are outlin~dby year belOW:-~
201O-Briarwood Area
2012-puluth Street (Between Duluth Street and Westbrook_Road) ____ ________
Q!s1:i1icllti~~. -..... ... ... .__J_______. ....______... .____________
lIZedu(;e stream bank erosiol1al1d protect or.irnpro",e the water_l.]uality ofBas~ett<::reek and area lakes. ---]
Expenditures
Infrastructure Improvements
Total
2010
471,500
471,500
2011
2012
588,500
588,500
2013
2014
Total
1,060,000
1,060,000
Funding Sources
Bassett Creek Watershed Mg
Storm Sewer Utility Fund (7300
Total
2010
440,000
31,500
471,500
2011
2012
550,000
38,500
588,500
2013
2014
Total
990,000
70,000
1,060,000
q&1
r :--:--
Project #
Project Name
SS-22
Pickup Truck (Storm Water Utility)
--=~~
Department Storm Sewers
Contact
Type Equipment
Useful Life
Category Vehicles
[pescriEti~n . -- ... .] .. .... . .... . .. . . .. '.. ... .. ... . Priority ._._.
~~halfton l'ickup truck for the Pu~!i(;\\,()~k~ E~~~tal Co()rdin~tor t()replace Unit #5oUi~0~Forlij-150).____~___. ..... ----]
[J~stificatio~--'I
li~creased;~i~ir and'IIlaintenan~;~~p~~dit~~~~~~~i, w~icl~_will b~t~;I~~~ld.'
._._.=:J
Expenditures
EquipNehicles/Furnishings
Total
2010
2011
2012
26,000
26,000
2013
2014
Total
26,000
26,000
Funding Sources
Storm Sewer Utility Fund (7300
Total
2010
2011
2012
26,000
26,000
2013
2014
Total
26,000
26,000
r :::;;::~, ::: wate:pond D~dging--
Department Storm Sewers
Contact
Type Maintenance
Useful Life
Category Unassigned
Il)e~~IiI>ti~I1 ~_. .... _~ _~ ____ ___ Priority
Dredging Public Water Quality Ponds per NPDES Phase II requirements. City completed a sedimentation pond survey and analysis in 2008.
201O-Plymouth and Jersey (Golden Valley Country Club Joint Project)
2011-2012 General Mills
2013-Hidden Lakes Pond #3
~stific~tioI1------ . I
r;;::- "'~~"""""_'~~""'.....~----.
[f~derli!..NPDESPhase l!pel111it requiremeIl!~
-]
Expenditures
Other
2010
100,000
100,000
2011
105,000
105,000
2012
2013
170,000
170,000
2014
Total
375,000
375,000
Total
Funding Sources
Storm Sewer Utility Fund (7300
Total
2010
100,000
100,000
2011
105,000
105,000
2012
2013
170,000
170,000
2014
Total
375,000
375,000
q6
~rojec~ #
Project Name 10th Avenue North Culvert Repairs
- -- ~ ~---------
_m~
Department Storm Sewers
Contact
Type Unassigned
Useful Life
88-24
Category Storm Sewer
@~~cri~~ ___---1 Priority
IRepaii~lllverts thll!convey Bas~~ttCr~~~~~d~r 10th Aven~~~orthand the Union Pacific Railroad.
l!us!ifi~~tion ---________-~_ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __
5h~S_ e___culverts a~_.e.. tech~~;lIy .c...I.a.s. s..ified as a bridge by th..-..e...-..M. innes~.ta.. Depart~ ent. .0.. f Transportation and are inspected regularly. The last inspect.l....o.n..
identified high level corrosion of the culverts at the north base flow level. Although not a high risk for collapse, the corrosion needs to be
addressed soon. These cul~t:I1:s art: owne~ by the railroad._____n _______ _ . ..
Expenditures 2010 2011
Construction/Maintenance 185,000
Total 185,000
Funding Sources 2010 2011
Union Pacific Railroad 185,000
Total 185,000
2012
2013
2014
Total
185,000
185,000
2012
2013
2014
Total
185,000
185,000
q(p
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
November 18, 2009
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Subject:
Proposed Ordinance Restricting Driveways and Street Access in the Single
Family (R-1) Zoning District
At the September 29 meeting of the Planning Commission, staff requested the Commission
to recommend approval to amend Section 11.21, Subdivision 19 of City Code thereby
restricting street curb cut access in the Residential Zoning District. Staff feels this change is
necessary to ensure safety and consistency, as well as to ensure quality street
reconstruction programs.
The Planning Commission requested that a representative from the Public Works
Department explain the impacts of the proposed amendment as well as discuss examples in
the City that illustrate the need for the amendment. Public Works Director Jeannine Clancy
will be on hand to address any questions or concerns.
Recommended Action
Staff requests that the Planning Commission recommend approval to amend the Section
11.21, Subdivision 19 of City Code to include the proposed language regarding street curb
cuts.
Attachment
Section 11.21, Subdivision 19 of City Code showing proposed language (1 page)
Minutes from the September 29,2009 Planning Commission Meeting (2 pages)
9 11.21
*Subdivision 19. Paved Area, Drivewavs and Street Access Requirements
Paved areas in the Single Family (R-1) Zoning District, include those constructed of
concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers, and are governed by the following
provisions:
A. Driveways built or reconstructed on or after January 1, 2005, shall be paved.
B. Setbacks. Paved areas shall be setback three (3) feet from a side yard
property line, except for shared driveways used by multiple property owners
pursuant to a private easement.
Source: Ordinance No. 415, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 02-13-09
C. Coverage. No more than forty percent (40%) of the front yard may be
covered with concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers.
Source: Ordinance No. 382, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 3-28-08
*Renumbering Source
Ordinance No. 382, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 3-28-08
D. Street Access. Each lot may have only one (1) street curb cut access. Lots
with the following situations may have up to two (2) street curb cut accesses
(cost for the additional street curb cut access point shall be assessed to the
property owner):
1. A lot that contains two (2) legally constructed garages.
2. A physical disability of a person residing on the property requires
additional driveway access.
3. A lot that contains an existing horseshoe driveway.
Go/den Valley City Code
Page 1 of 1
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 29, 2009
Page 3
cCarty, s conded b otion carried 5 to 2 to recommend
endment to allow decks to be located within 30 feet of the
front yard [ In In Family Zoning District (R-1) with the language
roposed by staff. Commisslo eR.ka and Waldhauser voted no.
3. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Regarding the Number
of Street Curb Cut Access Points
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Purpose: To limit the number of street curb cut access points to one per parcel in
the Single Family Zoning District (R-1)
Hogeboom stated that during the City's Pavement Management Project there have been
several situations where people want to have more than one curb cut. He stated that it
has been city policy to only allow one curb cut. He explained that approving the proposed
ordinance would add language to the Zoning Code which would only allow one curb cut
with certain exceptions such as a having two legally constructed garages, a physical
disability which requires additional driveway access or a lot with an existing horseshoe
driveway.
Kluchka said he would rather "grandfather in" all existing driveway conditions and not just
allow for existing horseshoe driveways. He said not allowing a homeowner to keep
something they already have seems like a taking to him. Hogeboom noted that driveway
aprons are on City property, not private property. Kluchka said he would still like to allow
existing conditions to stay.
Cera asked if it is a cost issue. Hogeboom explained that there are some secondary curb
cuts that the City would like removed. Grimes added that it is a traffic issue, safety issue
and a cost issue. The City would like the homeowner to pay the additional costs
associated with second curb cuts. Waldhauser said she doesn't think it is an issue of cost
or aesthetics, she thinks the City just wants fewer cuts into the street. Cera questioned if
an underlying reason in allowing only one curb cut is impervious surface issues.
McCarty asked how this issue has been handled in the past. Hogeboom stated that the
policy has been not to allow second curb cuts but it is not officially in the City Code.
McCarty questioned if it makes sense to put this language in the City Code this far along
in the Pavement Management Program process.
Waldhauser questioned if the City wants to put these requirements in the Zoning Code
because people would then be allowed to ask for a variance. Hogeboom said another
option would be to place the requirements in a different section of the City Code where
variances aren't allowed. Cera questioned what kind of hardship would apply in
requesting a second curb cut.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 29,2009
Page 4
Keysser asked if a person building a new home could construct a horseshoe driveway.
Hogeboom said city policy no longer allows horseshoe driveways at all.
Grimes stated that the Planning Commission could choose to table this discussion to
allow someone from Public Works to come to a meeting and talk about this issue.
McCarty said he thinks there are two separate issues. One is if it is a Public Works issue
or a Planning issue and the other is why the City limits property owners to one curb cut.
Kluchka said he doesn't think this ordinance change is a good idea. He said he doesn't
see a good reason to prevent a home owner from having more than one curb cut.
McCarty added that he is having difficulty understanding why this issue is being
addressed now when there is only a little bit of the project left.
Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Keysser closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to table this item
in order to obtain further clarification from the Public Works Department. Waldhauser
added that it would be helpful to see some pictures.
--Short Recess--
5. Reports on Meetings of the ousing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning A eals and other Meetings
6.
ning Department projects. He discussed the
update and stated that the Metropolitan Council
as asked the City to make several adjustments
I forecast throughout the plan, providing
additional housing de . informaf n, ating a section of the plan wherein the City's
implementing regu ons are defin d, pro . ing more detailed data concerning future
land uses, provo g more detailed ata con ning the City's designated
areas and extendi g traffic fore sting data.
Hogebo discussed the Dougla Drive Corridor dy. He stated that the study is in its
final ase and is expected to b ompleted by the e of 2009. He talked about an
n house that was held in Au st to allow property 0 ers a chance to view
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
November 18, 2009
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Subject:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to include the Douglas Drive Corridor Study
Report
In July of 2008, the City officially began the Douglas Drive Corridor Study. The study, which
was partially funded through a federal non-motorized transportation grant, focused on land
use issues, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, roadway design, and transit options along the
Douglas Drive corridor. The Douglas Drive Advisory Committee, which was comprised of city
staff, council members, and planning commissioners, was formed to guide the study.
After a 15 month process, which included various interactions with stakeholders and property
owners, the Douglas Drive Corridor Study process has ended. As a result of the study, a 41-
page report has been produced. The report provides a framework for long-term land use and
roadway design for the Douglas Drive Corridor.
Staff proposes to amend the Comprehensive Plan by incorporating the Douglas Drive
Corridor Study Report into the chapter of the Plan entitled, "Special Planning Districts."
However, staff currently proposes no changes to the General Land Use Map. Allowing the
study report to be included in the Comprehensive Plan as a standalone document enables it
to help guide long term land use evolution in the corridor without impacting current land use
configuration. Michael Schroeder, Douglas Drive Corridor Study Project Manager, will give a
brief presentation of the study report and address questions and concerns.
Recommended Action
Staff requests that the Planning Commission recommend approval to amend the
Comprehensive Plan to include the Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report in 'Chapter 4 -
Special Planning Districts.'
Attachment
Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report and Appendices (78 pages)
----------
study
Draft: 9 November 2009
~ Douglas Drive Corridor
Study Report
....,.............................- ..,.,.- ,.,.~ ............. ...."'.... ~......... .......... ..._" ,. . ,. "",., ...~ .....~~....................."'.~.... ~~............._.............. ...,..... ..........-........ ...............,...........
Credits
~lley
..
WSB
& Associates. Inc.
Douglas Drive Advisory Committee
Mike Freiberg, City Council representative
De De Scanlon, City Council representative
Bob Shaffer, City Council representative
John Kluchka, Planning Commission representative
Cathy Waldhauser, Planning Commission representative
Don Keysser, Planning Commission representative
LHB, Inc.
250 Third Avenue North, Suite 450
Minneapolis, MN 55401
612.338.2029
612.338.2088 (fax)
www.LHBcorp.com
WSB, Inc
701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
763.541-4800
763.541.1700 (fax)
888.541-4800 (toll free)
info@wsbeng.com
Contents
The Concept Plan .................................................................. ii
Introduction ....... ..................... ................ ..................... .......... 1
1. Process ............................................................................. 2
2. Goals ................................................................................ 6
3. Corridor Context ............................................................. 8
Figure 3-1: Community Context & Area of Influence.. 9
Table 3-1: Uses in the Corridor........................................ 10
Figure 3-2: Current Land Use Plan............................... 11
Figure 3-3: Current Zoning Plan................................... 11
Figure 3-4: Existing Pedestrian and Transit Routes..... 12
Figure 3-5: Character Zones........................................... 16
Table 3-2: Character Zones............................................ 17
Figure 3-6: Susceptibility to Change......................... 18
Table 3-3: Considerations for Stability........................ 19
4. Corridor Concept Plan ................................................. 20
Figure 4-1: TH55 Campus.............................................. 21
Figure 4-2: Douglas Drive Residential, South................ 22
Figure 4-3: Douglas Drive Residential, North............... 23
Figure 4-4: Mixed Use Node.......................................... 24
Figure 4-5: Mixed Use Village.......................................... 25
Figure 4-6: Potential Land Use Patterns......................... 27
Table 4-1: Land Use Type and Character...................... 29
Figure 4-T Daily Traffic................................................ 31
Figure 4-8: Street Sections............................................. 32
5. Implementation ............................................................ 36
Appendices......... ....... .... ......................................... ............... 42
City of Golden Valley""" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
-
JtrdJ II
ii The Concept Plan
',-
IIW A'01
-----~ ...,
tI,
II \
------... DDR 3 -. -
, -28.5 AC -, '
COMMUNITY J I r j I "j"-:
CENTER I PARK -., Ii DDR 4 /.
-29.8 AC _ 'i-14.4)C
, I,
- I..
'- - - _I i l
, \
: .,
,.
... __I
,---~
tMIXED-U_S_~1
CAMPUS A tNODE NORTHj
-87.9 AC 1-8.5 AC ' .I
" -- ...
'~;E~'
,NODE CENT~R
-;6.6 AC I
HONEYWELL ~~4I~
.. ,POND PARK M \ U ','
,,'" IXED- SE',
-4.9 AC ,NOD" SOUTH~
" \-3.71AC c~.
~ ~ .
I'.' "
(I~
l,~"t C:~
l';!f'~'
"., .DDR2
. DR11 ,-3.V.c
[4.0A~ -.c_
1 _,_~ I
~
......,
", I
I I~~
I II ~
It CAMPUS B I~ ~
CAMPUS G 138 , 1I
I . AC '. ~
-7.0 AC I~'"
rl ,~l
r '~'-,- J: X":r: ~~. ~ :t:,-:r.::rI ~ -... ... _, LlJ<=( LI/oiF:t
,-...__ 'l::t:"'.r~
I .... \ ... ,-' ~' !
I TH CAMPUS , .,- "o;,,~~~~
I NORTH " \ . -"
, -10.2 AC , , II TENNANT
--, ..
... - ... ..... . , I -24.9 AC
, ... ,~ .. l\
I .....-" ,"- I
I THCAMPus II ...:;, I
. SOUTH "CAMPUS F ~ '
I -12.4 AC " -13.4 AC ~ ",~
.. ~'II ... _ _ _ ",*"" ...... 1....S0(
w.. __ _ _..- _, ;g;;; - 615109
't:_
~ ~'
l.
'\:
"\:(1
~.
~';
~.~....sl:
.f>." ,
"10' ~~..
t:el
.
J
..
-..
.~
.
Po
"
~.
.t
loot
r.:
.!I
[Ii,
~~
I~
.
!
"'"t - ;"
. tII, ,ltlorv-,... qC~
W.l<.....W.r,
~Iho .!,!~',
,...--...-..-~
f
! MIXED-USE
I VILLAGE NORTH j
, -21.8 AC .J
,- '. ,itI-
...""""- -~~
(~ --fI'-'olt
I MIXED-USE 'j
'1 VILLAGE SOUTH
. -14.7 AC
, J~
..... '--
f!
~~1I'"
~~,Ii ..
~
.;
-. .\
; ''''~
ii
,
,~~ -
M ,'" U..
~~ ~.;.'
~,,'OI'
Dou:;v.. o~""1
RCs.m"T;Al
.' {Di:R1
,.
.'
9.6
AC
9.5
AC :'
~
~
Low Or~s"':Y
FUSIlX"'TlAL
:...
t
II
CAl.1PUl!I
p"t.." ,
_. 0... s"'"
r-?:.f. !t.
R ~";I
I ^"
~-.:.... -
CAMPUS C
-28.2 AC
The Plan for the Douglas Drive corridor imagines evolving land use as redevelopment
occurs and changes to the l'Oadway to accomodate those new uses and multiple modes
of transportation safely and in keeping with the community's characte~.
--
stun
City of Golden Valley""" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
The Concept Plan iii
The Concept Plan
IKE MANY OTHER COUNTI roadway
l corridors in Hennepin County, Douglas Drive
exists in a narrow right-of-way lined with
aging development and with some homes dating to
1900. Like other corridors, Douglas Drive has not
changed much, though it carries increased traffic,
accommodates contemporary uses, and serves
pedestrians and bicyclists. Looking forward, the
Golden Valley community sees an evolving Douglas
Drive as a model for accommodating change in this
kind of corridor-for traffic, use, and movement.
The recent deaths of two pedestrians on Douglas Drive
suggest the immediate need to safely accommodate pedestrian
movement on the corridor. Sidewalks are intermittent, and
where they exist, they are in poor or aging condition. With
redevelopment, opportunities to create safe passage for
pedestrians can be readily achieved; until then, this plan
recommends the implementation of continuous and safe
pedestrian facilities as a critical first step.
With time, the opportunities for change in the corridor grow.
As buildings age or become obsolete and as pressures for
redevelopment mount, this plan suggests vital new uses, quality
jobs, and expanded housing choices-and enhancements to
all modes of movement. It suggests an orientation to Douglas
Drive as a community street-not diminishing its role as a
transportation corridor, but reinforcing its place in Golden
Valley through wise public realm investments and eventual
new development.
City of Golden Valley ~ Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
-
rtH. .
iv The Concept Plan
TH 55 Campus
population. In fact, it's harder to
imagine the corridor staying the same
than to think that change will occur
here.
Even without the presence of a plan,
the Douglas Drive corridor will
change. Areas near TH 55 consist
largely of aging commercial/industrial
uses. Looking ahead, it doesn't
take much imagination to see that
significant change might occur here.
This area is prominently located near
the intersection of two major arterial
roadways, is visually prominent to
thousands of commuters, is close
to downtown Minneapolis, and is
reasonably close to a large segment
of the metropolitan area's working
This plan envisions a business campus
organized around a new boulevard,
with a campus commons providing
services to campus buildings and
workers. Parking is aggregated and
shared among all buildings, avoiding
expansive surface parking lots,
managing stormwater more effectively
and efficiently, and reinforcing the
sense of a connected campus.
TH 55
Ultimately, the TH 55 Business Campus mighl include 870,000 squarefeel of
development and provide ma!lyjobs.
--
Mixed Use Village
Another area of potential significant
change occurs along Duluth Street
near TH 100. Looking forward, it's
easy to imagine the current buildings
not serving their occupants well.
Here, the future uses might be more
mixed, with buildings that offer space
for working, shopping, and living, and
connections following an engaging
and walkable public realm with an
orientation to Bassett Creek. The
kinds of uses that people have grown
accustomed to here should remain-a
grocery store, for example, is important
to the community and offers a great
anchor for this area. While this plan
does not suggest eliminating uses,
some sites, like the MnDOT site, may
offer significant opportunities for new
development should it ever become
available. Again, having a plan is
critical in guiding the evolution of this
area over a long period of time.
The goal is to shape the kind of change
that might occur due to market forces
in order to create a place of value for
the community. This plan envisions
development of moderate scale, with
great public gathering spaces, inviting
streets capes, and quality buildings. In
many ways, this area might be viewed
as a village within the community-its
own place, but still a place connected
to the broader Golden Valley
community.
Mixed Use Node
On a smaller scale, but no less
important in terms of its potential
for change, is the area surrounding
the intersection of Douglas Drive and
Duluth Street. In this case, it might
be more difficult to see how change
might come, particularly because the
evolution would involve displacing
residents (as opposed to businesses).
ltDdJ
City of Golden Valley""'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
The Concept Plan v
Q/
>
}~,{
'cv
'C
<'
u
I.~j
o
o
.....
>-
III
~
..c:
Cl
J:
The Mixed Use Village might eventually include 73,000 squarefeet of commercial space
for retail, restaurants, and similar shopping uses, 350,000 square feet of office space,
and about 370 housing units.
Still, with an eye to the future, most
people recognize that multi-family
housing-particularly rental units,
loses some appeal with age, and that
even currently busy convenience
stores might eventually provide
opportunities for businesses that better
serve the community with functional
and aesthetic improvements.
A place founded in a pattern of mixed
uses offers a framework for change
here. A variety of housing choices,
some retail, and some employment
uses still find their way into the new
patterns, but now they are framed
around common spaces and a walkable
public realm. Importantly, the
transitions formed through reductions
in scale and intensity create a stronger
physical and visual connection to the
surrounding neighborhood.
Douglas Drive
Residential
While the patterns of existing use
along Douglas Drive are a mix of
residential, commercial/industrial,
and institutional uses, by far the most
parcels are residential. In the past,
homes along this corridor would not
have seemed out of place, but today
the function of the roadway makes
living along it more challenging.
Traffic is more intense, and probably
moves faster, making a front yard
less desirable and driveways less
accessible; and homes immediately
along Douglas Drive probably haven't
retained their value compared to those
further from the road.
The challenges of acquiring property
will make change here difficult and
incremental, but the difficulties must
be weighed with other considerations:
· the nearby neighborhood might be
better protected from the effects of
the roadway;
· more housing choices might be
available, with configurations that
bring activity to the street;
. access to the roadway from
driveways and intersecting streets
might become more safe;
· redevelopment might allow the right-
of-way to broaden to accommodate
pedestrians and bicyclists; and
· one of its primary streets might
be enhanced to better reflect the
community's character.
~~
>.
:"f"
""l
0'
fi
,.11
~e( ~
f~,
AtJull development, the Mixed Use
Node might accommodate 37,000 sf of
commercial use, 44,000 sf use of office
space, and more than 265 housing units.
City of Golden Valley"'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
-
flld, II
vi The Concept Plan
....,
II
cL.=
:iii .1
II.
~
CIl
. >
~"'1~.1
Cl
:I
o
1fl
1
I'J
,
'C
,0
Ii
Near the intersection of Douglas Drive
and the railraod, the residential model
might take on a smaller-scale feel. Town-
homes could replace single family homes,
buffering neighborhoods to the west, and
new multi-Jamily housing might replace
the existing aging apartment buildings
east of the road. The potentialfor concen-
trating access to and from Douglas Drive
will continue to be studied.
Several areas along Douglas Drive
have the potential for this kind
of change. This plan proposes
patterns that offer unity in the new
development, but not uniformity-
the new homes are intended to
bring life to the corridor, and they
should be designed to be enduring
improvements for the community.
They will change to reflect their
immediate context-in some places
as rowhomes and in others as more
intensive condominiums, apartments,
or senior living communities. But
most important, the change will be
incremental, resulting in patterns that
fit seamlessly with the public realm,
and that feel like a natural part of the
Golden Valley community.
--
:;
A market study was not performed as
a part of this planning process, but
given the evolutionary nature of the
plan, a market study might be quickly
irrelevant. This plan, as a companion
to the Comprehensive Plan, is intended
as a guide looking forward over
years-even decades-to demonstrate
the kinds of change desired for the
Douglas Drive corridor.
handle traffic (such as the segment
of Douglas Drive south of Golden
Valley Road and north of THSS). The
remainder could accommodate traffic
in a two-lane roadway (that is, one lane
in each direction, and a common and
continuous left turn lane). Eventually,
however, the two-lane section might
need to be expanded; in this case,
redevelopment drives the need to
expand the roadway, and the same
redevelopment offers the opportunity
for expanding the right-of-way to
not only handle the roadway but the
other functions that need to occur in
the roadway-parallel parking bays,
boulevards and sidewalk, bike lanes-
all of which are difficult to fit into the
corridor today. Still, even with an
expanded roadway, Douglas Drive
can become a street oriented to the
community even as it accommodates
the traffic of a county highway. .....,...
]
As important as framing the kinds of
use that might line the corridor, the
road itself must change with time to
be integrated with land use directions.
The need to accommodate safety
improvements has already been noted
as a critical immediate step. Projections
of traffic based on normal growth in
traffic and the new uses described
in this plan suggest that, in the early
stages of Douglas Drive's evolution,
certain portions need four lanes to
[
J
1~1
l:' 'I
~, i
0...... ..
~j- <I
II
~~
c~~l1~
~-t{,;t~
o
o
At the north end of the corridor, Sandburg School might serve as a school and
community center and a wide variety of residential redevelopment could occur
around this community amenity. East of the road, multi-Jamily housing could buffer
neighborhoods to the east.
mq
City of Golden Valley"""'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
Introduction 1
Introduction
OUGLAS DRIVE, from Medicine Lake
'D Road to Highway 55, forms the geographic
l!:::V center of Golden Valley. The corridor is an
important community route and links residential
neighborhoods, major employers, and a scattering
of retail areas. The corridor also intersects railroads,
the Luce Line Trail, and Bassett Creek, creating a
varied and unique transportation corridor.
Despite its assets, Douglas Drive is an aging street, both in
terms of infrastructure and development, and it has significant
safety issues, especially for pedestrians. As the corridor
evolves, it is important to address immediate safety concerns
while maintaining a vision of what the corridor could become
over the next decades. Designing a corridor for today's
context but expecting it to serve the needs of the community
in ten or twenty years is not likely to be successful. Instead,
planners must balance immediate needs with a vision for the
streetscape and redevelopment that anticipates and provides
flexibility to serve future needs.
This report describes the community's immediate and long-
term goals for the corridor and takes the form of a guide,
rather than a mandate, for change. It summarizes the current
condition of the street and the context for its planning. It
suggests forms development might take, ways to accommodate
that development with supportive transportation, and
design considerations for the streets cape and surrounding
developments. Finally, it outlines strategies for implementing
the vision, refining this report as developments and
redevelopments are proposed. ....,..
City of Golden Valley""'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
-
sID, I
2 Chapter 1: The Process
Chapter 1 : The Process
1 HE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, recognizing
the need for a short-term resolution of key
safety issues and the desire for a long-term
evolution of the corridor, established an Advisory
Committee to guide the creation of a plan for Douglas
Drive and orchestrated a number of other engagement
activities intended to bring stakeholders and other
interested parties directly to the planning process.
While the plan evolved, each of these groups played a
significant role in defining issues and shaping directions
for change.
The Douglas Drive Advisory Committee was composed
of representatives of the Golden Valley City Council and
Planning Commission. The Advisory Committee laid the
foundations for planning the corridor as they discussed
its potential for change. While the committee recognized
the commitment of current businesses and residents to
the Golden Valley community, they allowed themselves to
pose directions for change that looked forward years into
the future, solidifying the prospect of both residential and
commercial uses along Douglas Drive.
For the Advisory Committee, guidance necessitated an
understanding of how dramatically different the world might
be when implementation of the long term solution begins.
The committee did not want to see solutions implemented
that are appropriate for 2009 or 2010, knowing that when
implementation occurs-in 2020 or later-those ideas might
be ten or more years out-of-date. Rather, they chose to look
forward, framing a series of possible futures that might guide
--
fIIIn
City of Golden Valley"'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
Chapter 1 : The Process 3
the evolution of Douglas Drive. In
framing possible scenarios, several
broad issues were considered:
· Demographic shifts
Will Golden Valley be an older
community?... a more diverse
community?... a more dependent-
focused community?... a healthier
community?
· Environmental shifts
Will people rely on other
transportation modes? Will there
be a more significantfocus on
redevelopment?
· New economic and market
realities
Will the community experience
slower growth because of current
economic conditions? Will
consumers behave differently
compared to when Golden Valley
first developed?
· Changes in development patterns
Will there be greater
concentrations of development in
existing developed areas? Will
there be more-and different-
mixed use development? Will
development befocused around
more walkable environments?
While there are no answers to
these questions, the exercise raised
awareness of the possibilities that
different assumptions presented and
allowed the Advisory Committee
to guide the plan recognizing the
influence of several possible futures:
· A grayer future...
Golden Valley is a community
with a population that is aging,
with growing numbers of senior
citizens as Baby Boomers and
Gen-X'ers reach retirement age.
Trends suggest that younger
demographics will be more
interested in more walkable,
urban environments-the same
kind ofmixed environments that
support active senior residents.
Therefore,
Changes should be
made to accommodate
the community's senior
residents, and as a result,
those changes will be seen
as attractive to and a benefit
for all residents of Golden
Valley.
.
A younger future...
A mix of housing
opportunities will continue
to be needed in Golden Valley
and Douglas Drive should
include afull range of those
opportunities.
. A regenerative future...
Douglas Drive is one of the older
transportation corridors in
Golden Valley, with development
along its edges and infrastructure
below it that likely matches its
age. This is one of many aging
corridors in Hennepin County,
all of which may see some degree
of evolution in the coming years.
Therefore,
Douglas Drive should strive
to be the modelfor the smart
evolution of this kind of
corridor.
. A greener future...
A greater orientation to
sustainable practices and a
growing awareness of the
environment will direct attention
to natural features and systems
found in the corridor; regulatory
-r
.~~-
Stakeholder's ill thefuture of the Corridor gathered to share ideas.
I
I
City of Golden Valley ~ Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
Demographic trends suggest
that Golden Valley is a younger
community, with a household size
projected to be 2.5 persons per
household in 2030 (higher than
any surrounding community).
Even with a younger
demographic, singlefamily homes
and senior housing will not meet
all the needs of Golden Valley
residents and not all areas of the
community can accommodate
a wide mix of housing types.
Therefore,
, '} ~.J..
w .41:
-
stld/ .
4 Chapter 1: The Process
requirements or development
incentives result in changes in
development practices. Codes are
gradually changing to encourage
or require more sustainable
("green") development and
management practices.
Therefore,
Douglas Drive should be the
city'sfirst "Green Corridor."
Community Engagement
Approximately 70 residents attended a
public workshop conducted in October
2008 where they were asked to work
in small groups to provide input to the
planning process. The predominant
themes in their responses included:
. Reduce impacts in surrounding
neighborhoods
. Guide redevelopment/reuse of the
Denny's site, the apartments near
Olympia Street, and the northeast
corner of Douglas Drive and
Golden Valley Road.
While not nearly so common, other
responses were also offered:
. Add a trail along Bassett Creek
. Use the Canadian Pacific railway
as a pedestrian/bicycle route
. Consider guiding use along the
entire corridor either toward light
industrial, retail, or residential
. Add green space when planning
the entire corridor
. Improve pedestrian and bicyclist As a part of the corridor planning
safety and the experience of process, city staff identified various
pedestrians and bicyclists stakeholders along the Douglas Drive
. Direct attention to streetscape corridor with whom interviews would
improvements be conducted. While other methods
of gaining input from the community
. Improve the safety of certain occurred throughout the planning
intersections process, the interviews allowed
for deeper insights to be gained
before plans were defined. A range
of stakeholders were identified for
possible interviews, including:
. Major landholders and businesses
. Tennant Company
. Honeywell
I . Center Point Energy
I.
. OptumHealth (United Health
Group) represented by Jones
Lang LaSalle
. Small businesses and institutions
. Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's
Witnesses
. Gregg and Jim's Service
Honeywell was one of the major . AEI Electronics
landholders interviewedfor this stlldy.
. Winkley Orthopedics
Laboratory, Inc.
. Public sector agencies and
institutions
. Robbinsdale Area Schools
. Hennepin County Department
of Public Works
. Hennepin County Department
of Housing, Community Works,
and Transit
. Metro Transit
. Three Rivers Park District
. City of Crystal
. Transit for Livable Communities
. Bassett Creek Watershed
District
Beyond gathering the insights
from people who live on or near
the corridor, city staff shared the
reasons for conducting a corridor
study, highlighted some of the
conditions of the corridor that might
be resolved through the plan, and
noted the general schedule of events
in the planning process. During the
interviews, there were no standard
questions asked; rather, stakeholders
were encouraged to share thoughts
and concerns related to their
particular interest, to ask questions
of city staff and the city's consultants,
and to share their ideas about
improvements that would be attractive
for their use.
While notes were kept for each
interview, the comments offered
during the interviews are summarized
here without attributing the comment
to its author. While most stakeholders
would likely share their comments
publicly, it's more important to
understand the breadth of concerns
noted. In general, comments from
private stakeholders could be
summarized as follows:
--
stlld!
City of Golden Valley""'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
5
Chapter 1: The Process
. Safety was noted as the most
pressing concerns of stakeholders.
. Resident stakeholders voiced more
interest in a current development
proposal than a long term view of
the corridor, and indicated that
safety for pedestrians is a concern.
. Most stakeholders recognized the
need to improve the corridor for the
benefit of non-vehicle movement,
and many indicated support
for enhanced transit facilities-
especially transit shelters. Of
greatest concern was the lack of
reasonable pedestrian facilities.
. Many stakeholders suggested that
they would cooperate in dedicating
property for improvements to
pedestrian facilities (although it
was noted for each stakeholder that
there are no plans at this point).
. Corporate uses are located on or
near the corridor because of long-
term investments in their facilities;
it was not suggested that any of the
users had expansive growth plans.
. The corridor is a significant
employment center for the
community, with two world
headquarters and a number of
solid smaller businesses. There
was almost no mention of vacant
buildings or unoccupied spaces in
multi-tenant buildings.
. A need for more retail on the
corridor was noted.
. Several stakeholders noted the
positive improvements to Golden
Valley Road.
. Many stakeholders, as groups or
larger bodies, indicated a long
connection to Douglas Drive and
the Golden Valley community.
Public agency stakeholders were more
matter-of-fact in their interviews,
often relating their agency's policy as
A wOI'kshop participant provides feed-
back about her !!.is~onfor the corridor.
the corridor was discussed. Common
themes from the public stakeholders
include the following:
. Sandburg will remain a school
(although perhaps not in the
traditional sense), as there has
been significant investment in the
building. There is potential for
district-wide facilities to be added.
. A two-lane road with a shared
central turn-lane configuration for
Douglas Drive is being considered
for the City of Crystal, and there
is potential for this configuration
in Golden Valley. A three-lane
roadway works in locations where
traffic volumes (measured on the
basis of Average Daily Trips) are
less than 14,000. In Golden Valley,
the significant peaks in traffic
volume may be problematic at
some locations.
. The narrow width of the corridor
limits the ability to easily add
facilities for pedestrians and
bicycles or to accommodate other
regulatory functions of the road.
Still, most entities agree that
innovation is needed as the project
is planned (recognizing potential
mode shifts for transportation
functions or reductions in
water volume for stormwater
management).
. The culvert at Bassett Creek needs
to be studied for its condition,
its ability to be extended (if the
roadway or sidewalk were to
be widened), and its hydraulic
function (so that flows of the creek
are not limited).
. Hennepin County's Bicycle Plan
notes off-street facilities for bicycles
on Douglas Drive and Duluth
Street. Three Rivers Park District
recognizes the need for expanded
trail facilities (for commuting and
recreation) beyond those currently
being constructed for the Luce Line
Trail, and advocates for stronger
linking of their trails to each
other and to a local sidewalk/trail
network.
. The city has applied for a
grant from Transit for Livable
Communities and has received
a preliminary notification of an
award, While that award is not
final, it provides limited funds for
targeted bicycle and pedestrian
improvements. Other sources of
funding are limited but the city
is committed to defining pools
of local and outside funding that
can, over time, satisfy many of the
identified needs for Douglas Drive.
While no agency indicated that
improvements on Douglas Drive
are a part of their planned capital
improvements, Hennepin County
has noted the city's interest in
improvements and has encouraged
the city to begin engaging them
more directly in planning efforts.
The City of Crystal noted their
positive relationship with Hennepin
County and possible methods of
accessing funds for some roadway
improvements and corridor
enhancements. ...,.
City of Golden Valley"'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
-
stlJdJ I
6 Chapter 2: The Goals
Chapter 2: The Goals
LREADY, IT'S CLEAR THAT resolution
o of pedestrian safety issues is a clear and
~ immediate goal. But in pursuing this
plan, the community has more expansive goals-
articulated as principles for the corridor-that will
frame patterns of use and development and guide
an evolution of Douglas Drive over a period of ten
or twenty years or more:
1. Improve connectivity and functionality for all
transportation modes. As a county state-aid highway
and minor arterial street, Douglas Drive has historically
focused on motorized vehicles. Traffic volume has
increased significantly over the years as has the desire
for non-motorized transportation and transit options.
Improvements in pedestrian and non-motorized traffic
facilities must be developed so safe and attractive options
are available for all modes of travel in all seasons and
improved transit service can be provided. Enhancements
to the functioning of the TH SS/Douglas Drive and other
key intersections within the corridor are critical to safer
and improved movement for pedestrians, non-motorized,
and vehicular traffic in the corridor.
2. Enable the corridor to maintain a diverse mix
of land uses, including residential, commercial,
and industrial activities. A mix of activities, uses
and densities will sustain the corridor through changing
economic cycles, consumer preferences, and housing
trends. Clustered and mixed uses create synergies,
increase transit use, and enhance pedestrian activity.
--
stlJdJ
City of Golden Valley"""" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
Chapter 2: The Goals 7
3. Maximize integration rather
than separation of land uses
where appropriate. Many
land uses can benefit from
increased integration with one
another, including neighborhood-
serving retail, multi-family and
senior housing, offices, and low-
impact services. Residential
neighborhoods should be buffered
from adjacent non-residential
corridor uses.
4. Maintain the corridor as an
employment center. Jobswithin
the corridor help maintain Golden
Valley's jobs-to-housing balance
while sustaining commercial
enterprises. Retaining 'living wage'
jobs should be a priority.
5. Improve the visual coherence
and attractiveness of the
corridor. Improvements in
streets capes, landscaped areas,
open spaces, building aesthetics,
and parking/service areas all
contribute to a more unified and
visually appealing environment,
with an increased sense of
identity. Buildings and other
private improvements should
make positive contributions to the
corridor and the broader public
realm, while public improvements
should set the standard for private
investment.
6. Foster neighborhood-serving
retail and services. Multimodal
links to commercial development
should be enhanced.
7. Encourage and facilitate
sustainable development
and work to establish a
balance between urban and
natural systems. Encourage
the application of green building
and infrastructure techniques.
Examples include low-impact
development that maintains the
natural functions of the land,
reduces stormwater runoff, and
fosters resource conservation and
the use of renewable systems in
new construction.
None of this will happen overnight.
An evolution of the Douglas Drive
corridor that follows these principles
will take years, so the notion of looking
forward-and really imagining a future
that might be twenty years out-to
understand the potential for change
is a fundamental goal of the planning
effort. This perspective allows for a
more expansive view of the future, one
where the original seven goals are seen
as real possibilities.
Even as significant change IS
contemplated for the Douglas Drive
corridor, the community expects change
to reflect a Golden Valley character.
This applies to development along the
corridor, but it applies equally to the
roadway that supports development.
To be successful, the goal is a street
that "feels" like a Golden Valley street-
accommodating vehicle traffic, as well
as other modes of movement, and
providing a pleasant street as a front
yard for development. ..,..
Douglas Drive can be upgradedfrom its CUlTent state to a model mad through this study's goals and objectives.
- -
City of Golden Valley"'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
-
rfllll
8 Chapter 3: Corridor Context
Chapter 3: Corridor
Context
HE STUDY AREA FOCUSES on Douglas
T Drive from Highway 55 at the south to
Medicine Lake Road at the north and on
Duluth Street from Douglas Drive at the west to
Highway 100 at the east. In addition to the streets
themselves and the parcels immediately fronting on
the rights-of-way, it is also important to consider the
surrounding neighborhoods which are significantly
influenced by the corridor. In planning the corridor,
an early diagram (Figure 3-1) demonstrated the
study area with a "fuzzy" boundary, largely because
the influence of the corridor cannot be easily defined
by the lines of existing parcels.
The portions of the corridor within the right-of-way exhibit
a number of deficiencies, including conditions that limit
solutions and those with priority for resolution-all of which
are in the public realm, and all of which, assuming cooperation
from Hennepin County and other government entities, the
city could assist in resolving:
unsafe and discontinuous pedestrian facilities;
little accommodation of modes other than vehicles;
increasing traffic congestion;
unlinked transit facilities; and
narrow right-of-way and utility conflicts
These points become important when dealing with the rights-
of-way of Douglas Drive and Duluth Street. However, the
--
rII~,
City of Golden Valley""'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
Chapter 3: Corridor Context 9
context of the corridor and the potential
for change are a product of both the
public realm and the private parcels
that line the roadway. Achieving
a progressive solution will require
an understanding of the limits and
opportunities of both.
Community context
Douglas Drive lies at about the
geographic center of the Golden Valley
community and in the northwest
quadrant of TH 55 and TH 100
(Figure 3-1). Important intersections
include Duluth Street-a part of the
study area-which forms a link to TH
100, and Golden Valley Road, which
connects Douglas Drive to the retail
area at Winnetka Avenue and forms
a non-highway link to that portion of
Golden Valley lying east of TH 100 (in
fact, Golden Valley Road is even more
important to Golden Valley because
it forms the most extensive east-west
local street on the north side ofTH 55).
As a corridor, Douglas Drive extends
northward into Crystal, eventually
terminating at County Road 8 (West
Broadway Avenue); on the south, it
essentially terminates at TH 55, but
the street network continues to the
south (although not so clearly on the
same alignment). Today, the corridor
seems to be defined by its proximity
and interconnectedness with other
roadways and not by a clear identity
of its own. In short, people recognize
Douglas Drive as a street, but not a
place.
It's difficult to define Douglas Drive as
a district because of its length (8,300
feet, or 1.6 miles, for Douglas Drive,
and 2,500 feet, or 0.5 mile, for Duluth
Street) and the varied uses along that
distance, especially when compared
to other large planned districts in
Golden Valley like the Highway 394
Commercial Area and the Winnetka
Retail Area and Civic Core. However,
as a corridor, Douglas Drive and
Duluth Street form an important
transportation link and a focus for the
surrounding neighborhoods.
Development in the Douglas Drive
corridor is fairly typical of the
community. Golden Valley is a first-
ring community, with much of its
development dating to an era of
Medicine lla~ke ~p~. f"
~. ~..~~......-.. .
I' !ili
.' r.\J:_ !... I.
r, ",
1-
I
I
I
I,
I
l
....
"
~
Core Route
Area of Influence
Figure 3.1: Community
Context and Area of
Influence Digram
----
City of Golden Valley"'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
e ......... ...
... ,.
... p. _ Il
'~t~,..
#9 ...,., . . ~
-
rlld, II
10 Chapter 3: Corridor Context
suburban development in the decades
surrounding the 1960s. While most
development is residential and dates to
that same time frame, some homes date
to the early 1900s. The commercial
and industrial development is generally
about the same age, in some cases in
buildings that have evolved to suit more
contemporary use through renovation
and updating. It's important to note,
however, that this kind of building
does not improve with age. Other
communities with similarly situated
buildings have found that buildings
of this age often reach a stage of
functional obsolescence because of
the cost of updating communications
and data infrastructure, and when
those improvements cannot be made,
lease rates diminish and their financial
performance suffers.
land use
The city's land use plan (Figure 3-2)
demonstrates the varied nature of
development along Douglas Drive and
Duluth Street. Table 3-1 describes
land uses in the corridor, based on the
frontage of the street along Douglas
Drive and Duluth Street.
Zoning (Figure 3-3) in the Douglas
Drive and Duluth Street corridors
generally reflects the patterns of land
use. The exceptions are parcels guided
to High Density Residential that are
currently occupied by office or single
family residential uses.
Transportation
Douglas Drive is under the jurisdictional
authority of Hennepin County, and
is classified as an "An Minor Arterial
roadway in the county's Transportation
Plan; in county terms Douglas Drive is
County State Aid Highway 102. Duluth
Street is also a Hennepin County State
Aid Highway (County Road 66), and is
also classified as an "An Minor Arterial
roadway. With this classification, the
roads are intended to provide mobility,
serve short to medium length trips (two
to six miles) and have controlled land
access. In planning for the future of the
Douglas Drive corridor, it is important
that the function of the road as a part
of the county highway system remains
clear.
Traffic volumes are heaviest at those
points where the roadways intersect
with the regional transportation
facilities-at TH 55 and TH 100. Traffic
volumes on Douglas Drive (measured
as average daily traffic in 2008) are
9,100 south of Golden Valley Road,
11,400 between Golden Valley Road
and Duluth Street, and 10,900 north
of Duluth Street. Between Douglas
Drive and TH 100, the ADT for Duluth
Street was 14,700. For comparison, TH
55 carries about 33,000 cars per day
near Douglas Drive and TH 100 carries
about 90,000 cars per day near Duluth
Street. The ADT of Winnetka Avenue
was measured at 12,300, and Medicine
Lake Road carries about 10,000 cars
per day near its intersection with
Winnetka Avenue.
Transit routes (Figure 3-4) along
Douglas Drive include routes 705
and 755 at the south end, and routes
14 and 758 at the north end. The
middle portion of Douglas Drive is
not currently served by buses. For
these routes, Metro Transit counted 60
total boardings on Douglas Drive and
Duluth Street in a survey conducted in
the summer of 2008.
Three Rivers Park District recently
completed a section of the Luce Line
Trail in Golden Valley. While largely
Use
Residential
.Low..densii:y..res'ide.ilBiif'.................
Medium density residential
High density residential
Commercial1
........bffice.
Commercial
Industrial
........ ...Tildustdiir.......... .................................. ........... ....................if/:i.bO..li-ri.ea.r.(e.et'...........
Public and institutional
...........O'pe.n.spa.c.e.................. ......................................................... 600..ij.n.ea.d.e.et...............................
Schools and religious facilities 1,700 linear feet
Public facilities 600 linear feet
Street frontage
.......i).;ibo..n.n.ea.rfe.et'
600 linear feet
2,400 linear feet
...................i;.6bO.iTneadeet
2,000 linear feet
% of corridor frontage
28%
3%
11%
............'12:%.
9%
.2..3%....................................
............3%
8%
3%
Table 3-1: Uses ill the corridor.
--
--
ItIdJ
City of Golden Valley ~ Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
Chapter 3: Corridor Context 11
CITY OF CRYSTAL II
---..--......__.......__ --......--..--..--..--11
I - :_.P' ,
I ~ -...
> I
0:::
o
llldburg
liddle School
Mn/DOT
S T R E E '~
~.
A\lll_ :
. I
, I
, I
, I
o~~.
>
~
Cl
V
--
j
CJ ...J
LINDSAY SIRE I: r
RD
Minnesota
Center of
&the Arts ~
RESIDENTiAl .. 1-394 .....od \Joe
C,]lowOenMy a_.....,...__..
_M4!'OIum~ty ~B'I...b..."", _OpenSpace.flIb~."",",,",*o.......
_ Hig~ OPRSly II',...,................ r SChools and R...g101A Faolrtlt'&
t::I PublIC Faci1itlfl.. ........--.
_ ~.Put*c Facllite. "'---'"
r...,,1'IQ Loclll l...
P\'opoIedLoc.alT,.,
~lra.
~Rt'06DtwIT'"
Pad",'" ftr'ctge
R~ A...~f-V.w
Mwwcc>lllltll
COMMERCIAl
r .on"",
_ConYnerc.aI;Moo' 1~0IIft0I
~ OpcnWaler
I Wella~ "-.._....-,....,.............
1-....-_>>_.-
INDUSTRIAl
L..I Ligh11nduS:tial ''- ~CI"~I
_ Industnal ._ P >Po. CtI....
~ Railroad
Figure 3-2: Current Land Use Plan
r 01 CnY~'1 AL
[
~
\
. '~.., 't;>"J1',~
1~:'~"
JS'
........--..--,.--~ r-1-
I';. \~ lJ" I r r.
DUOIN "fYGJIlAl
'~n3j4HT8~~~ _
.4\1 f"}t ":1--1'1,
S.Vf....il)'CR.I)
- t..h.l""tt.. [){'l'Nly (R.:!) J:::~"'I.J.'f'Illo4l
_ M...JulIn Dl'n"lIy (R.,\) Ro"Oil".",c...1
_ 11il~h ()'1....ily (R: 41 J::.~ld''flIi.ll
a I-~ Ml'''~ u.... ...IEI ~'~1I';~i'~
_ C,'Oun,'r'ildl _~l..t.n,,},
_ LiI~hllll..lu...lrll,l _ ~.nnH
_1n.llI..tr..tl .
_ B-..,..u"'..... k Prul. """'''' "...1 Olht. ,....
""'lltuh.Vl.d __-'~"_' -== ~:"'..-.
_II O"'U'" I,...tno I ..
1'11.2....tl.........tnI1
111-'\''''u'''.''..tnol ;-.,.
_ 1I.......ul~Ilt...lI'.1 -.;
_1I,5....,,"".....tno1
~ P1.ulIll,1 Ullil ()'\'I'.'I'"lOnl [pun,
'A.... I ~1(k...L..._I_ilv.ll...I'..tC/.-..- A ..t>>
Figure 3-3: Current Zoning Plan
City of Golden Valley""'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
-
strI1JI
12 Chapter 3: Corridor Context
Bituminou!'; Trail
;.
Sidewalk without Boulevard
Sidewalk with Boulevard
r '"
~ ~;
l
,'" ',.
~ I -1 't~
1 'J I,
"
~'
.. .Jl~Rlll!''l.l5~ ..
" U
0,
f' t
J'
- -
.. _Blji, ~I~.H_ ..
.. _Blji,~tu!\ll....
.. ..Jl~R~t'!.ZO~ ..
Bus StOP:J(h Bench
Bus SID"" Shelter
I~
I . ~
Figure 3-4: Existing
Pedestrian and TrallSit Routes
,">
. 1", ~ . oi. '"
_ E'4 ;",jO, :'1' - t." ~
...~... r ~',l' 1 f I -.
l:i~r~ ~ !~~lJ- ~ "~:~-' - - - : ': ,I
_ -PJ,.. .. I .- ~ ... ~ . . ...... ~.~ _. _ s
"' ... -- .,. " t If. 1:"'" ~ .-
10:"'_ - - , \. .. ~4 {. , - i
,. ,.~1!,"" !;., .!:.f"~~1.t.~..." - .~ .
. ..... ~;:... .," .9....illf.J'-----............. ~ _
! Ir J.
"'~f "
.~ *
" "~
,-----.
.~~ "'" ,
. "r"~ I
... W" ". i
'Ii .~" \
--
ftrt~,
City of Golden Valley""" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
Chapter 3: Corridor Context 13
viewed as a recreation amenity, from
a transportation perspective the trail
offers an alternative to commuting by
car or bus into Minneapolis. In terms
of connectivity, the Luce Line Trail
reaches from Theodore Wirth Parkway
to Vicksburg Lane in Plymouth, and
from there it reaches another 63 miles to
the west as a gravel trail to Hutchinson.
Portions of the trail run alongside
Douglas Drive between TH 55 and the
old railroad corridor (Figure 3-4). Still,
portions of the pedestrian network are
somewhat discontinuous, with some
areas being particularly unsafe (like the
rail crossing area, where pedestrians
are essentially forced into traffic lanes
to cross the tracks).
Sidewalks are also a part of the
transportation component of Douglas
Drive. Today, the sidewalks exist as
both bituminous and concrete walks
with an asphalt shoulder, in some
locations immediately behind the
curb and in others with a boulevard
separating the walkway from the road
(Figure 3-4). For most of its length,
Douglas Drive has pedestrian facilities
on one side of the road.
Infrastructure
The unseen elements of Douglas Drive
are a critical part of its function in
the community. The corridor serves
as a route or crossing point for water
and sanitary sewer systems in Golden
Valley, and a source of stormwater that
enters Bassett Creek and downstream
water bodies. Given the potential for
~
'\-
'. ~""t~~ ~~.
. ~.;:i >
'r~ .~
long-term evolution of the corridor,
and the desire for a "greener" future,
the infrastructure supporting the
corridor becomes integral the plan for
its future.
While an in-depth analysis was not a
part of this study, considerations of
age and likely condition factor into the
long-term improvements that may be
needed to support new development-
and possibly, depending on future
investigations, development that
already exists along Douglas Drive.
Because runoff from development
enters Bassett Creek, a key natural
resource for the community, and
because contemporary methods of
managing runoff from development
and the road itself are dramatically
different than the methods when most
...
...
"-.
Where sidewalks are not available on both sides of the road, paths frequently have been created by pedestrians.
;}..'!-:t.. .
City of Golden Valley"'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
-
slid! I
14 Chapter 3: Corridor Context
development along Douglas Drive
occurred, management of storm water
becomes an essential part of the plan.
In fact, the Bassett Creek Watershed
Management Commission will exercise
some control over development
activities contemplated as a part of this
study.
Without any changes, these systems
serve existing development within the
limits of current regulations. With new
development or roadway construction,
higher standards for infrastructure
may become a requirement. It's also
possible that, with time, existing
systems will fail simply due to age.
Water systems
The area of Douglas Drive is served
by three trunk water mains running
in an east-west orientation through
this part of Golden Valley: a 16-inch
main located along TH 55; a 24-inch
main along St. Croix Avenue; and a 12-
inch main on Medicine Lake Road. In
addition, there are mains running north
of Olympia Street (16- and 18-inch) and
south of Olympia Street (6-inch) under
Douglas Drive. A distribution network
extends from the mains under nearly
every public street, as well as within
some of the larger developed parcels.
The age of water systems in this part
of Golden Valley varies. Water mains
in areas south of Golden Valley Road
were installed in 1973; in other areas,
the mains were installed in the early-
to mid-1960s. Based on discussions
with city staff, reports do not indicate
a significantly high occurrence of water
main breaks in the corridor.
Sanitary Sewer
Sanitary sewerage III the corridor is
generally divided in flow direction by
the Union Pacific Railroad (Luce Line
trail), with areas to the south collected
in 8- to lO-inch pipes and then directed
into a 12-inch concrete trunk line that
flows east along the railroad corridor
and eventually to the east side of TH
100. Pipes in this area are typically
vitrified clay, and were installed in
1959.
The remainder of the corridor is served
by a 27-inch trunk line that flows
onto Douglas Drive from the west at
Plymouth, flows north one block and
leaves Douglas Drive, flowing to the
east, at Knoll Street. Collector pipes
range from 8 inches to 12 inches in
diameter, are generally vitrified clay
pipe, and were installed in 1957 or
1958. There are sporadic instances of
ductile iron or cast iron pipe in this
area as well.
There are no recent televising records
of the sanitary sewer system in this
Storm water treatment ponds serve both aesthetic and envil"Onmentalfunctions.
--
stal
City of Golden Valley"""" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
Chapter 3: Corridor Context 15
area, so the extent of pipe cracking or
settling, or damage from roots is not
known at this time. However, pipes
of this material and age often have
significant damage that affects capacity,
and introduces infiltration of clean
water into sanitary sewers or leakage of
sewage into ground water.
Stormwater management
The Douglas Drive Advisory Committee
and members of the community noted
the desire for a "greener" Douglas Drive
corridor as it evolves. While some
might have considered "greener" to
mean more trees, others were definitely
noting the need to be more sustainable
and more environmentally responsible.
Management of stormwater is a key
element of a "green" philosophy.
In the Douglas Drive corridor, runoff
from the roadway typically finds its way
to Bassett Creek without any treatment
~~ b
,.,
'~
or storage. North of Golden Valley
Road, runoff from private parcels
is treated by private stormwater
management ponds in some instances.
South of Golden Valley Road (with the
exception of the Center Point Energy
facility), runoff from Douglas Drive and
development along its edges collects
in a series of catch basins, pipes, and
private ponds into 60- and 72- inch
trunk storm sewers that drain east
along the railroad corridor to a point
where water is discharged to a wetland
area in Schaper Park.
The remainder of the study area is
directed to Bassett Creek through a
variety of catch basins, pipes, ponds,
and ditches, with the ponds and ditches
located on private property and likely
sized for only the runoff generated on
that site. All roadway drainage enters
Bassett Creek without treatment.
; a
I
...'
CI ~\ "
, ( .
, i i.
..'"'...' , ,
.. ~
III ,
.
,
Bassett Creek is an important community feature.
The age of the stormwater system
is difficult to determine due to the
number of private facilities involved,
but available data indicates the
roadway system was installed between
1957 and 1970. Without any major
changes having occurred within the
immediately past decades, it is likely
that stormwater management for
both public and private areas of the
corridor will not satisfy contemporary
standards for storm water management.
Reconstruction of the roadway or new
development in the study area will be
subject to higher standards to protect
important community features like
Bassett Creek and Sweeney Lake.
I City of Golden Valley""'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
-
1tId11
16 Chapter 3: Corridor Context
I -"
t.. '1' ~ '" '"
~ J ..~'~~!;p '.Il
. l.... ~" I. _ \ I
-~~_, '~. -,' ..... 1.-' , ;. \ '1
, ..,. J ~'& ~'J.,.."; \
.... ;\; fo1r!i~ ::'7~..)<. It ~~ .... ."~ .
, 11' )t.!!:::"". ,'- "'11t\.., ~ f' . t
.... ~'Il .,,',~' r - '- ':f.."'\.. I" t" \
.~t,~ ' 'i'~r~~.l ; f' ;~"~/J. . ! I i
f'J " '" 1'.r....l1 'oj r \;< · ~ ,/;:.. . - :;.0 '-:~'" :~ 1,. 1
;-I'~" P ~~ ~.~ ..',,""~~ 'f lrr'~jt.' ~ ,
. ;~, V'" i; 1,:'" ".:' ..;\,t" ,. "" 4 l,~.... I . p!, " .. \:
~'...- .IJ~' "'''I'~.~~~~~'''~~~~J '~lr';iIJ..; :t,;':i' 1
'}.!s;t- . ~6 " 'f ~I . t,~ '" 'L' .' .oW.. - ...~~, ,
. - - - ~~. I '- ,- ~".. ,f..~' ~"I . ; "IIlIl ~l _<i · fo'!.... ..~
... ~.... ,. " t ~ _1"""1..... \.ol - "1l \ .,'f
.t",i~;'!~'" " I ;1.\11= " .I,!..I. ,~.~ . No "'-i;'f I,.,: ,
~/11.; :!' .' . :Jl" - ,'" .~ '.ll. v. '~J' rt'f L ~
. . ~~"...'" l -,~: "" '" ' I' 'f t I
i1 , It .~. ~-\nJ ~ 'I t!j. " ,~.' .... -~,' .....
'l.r ~12(" II .!!,.r\.f~.~;,.u-or. $I, I"J
"'.Tiii 'iTt..,,' ~"... , 'I( ~ PI
/ ,. il;-ilt.:. -' "'-i .: ,:or." ~ "! L I, ~. ;. .
, ~ ~ ~i1'" ~\ - - \, t ~r', ."\ 0'
"..i;r...:..I i';~~ ; ~ '- \!';1.' d' .p':,,\ ~
:~~t+. i~ ~ or .( ~\:.~'i.-~ ~ .,'~
~~ .~. I:it ~ ",1> 0.::;':,. .. 'l ": ; -']
.. .. " '1' \ t ,>. ~~':.~.,~ ..~t
. ,,\{ ...~ ~.Jt 'i(: ..r &!
~ \ ~ \ ... ) '"" '. ~~~~~. ~ ~
~ I II ) i ~ \ l.. "~if
"\ . \ ~ .,
"~~. I'~""" .,.;
/, 1 . ~.E
\ I () : I ,. ~t,;: "<,- .'~;j
- I \, 1.I "Z -....J ~ ....... "r I
I...
!."S, '-1.
...
i~"
-".t.
~""";;"9'~, r 31':"- - - ...--
r 'I' t!.. l~! .. L";''n ... _.~ ,.,"~
. ....-,p.~.. LJ '\_~,~~..a..~._ tf '"
r'~' "
] I ~ I ~
r ,0 I
. ~
~
I. to.l!!
t :- ~ ~
. ..c:
I '5
z
\ I".:i~'
'~~, .
I~~
, .r~
'< i;
\ , -E
.Ql
,:~. 0 ~
r,.
~.,
L"i[
f -:
r.- :..
,. ,;,.',.,......,-
I ~..
. ~ I
" Ql.
t: .
I' i~
'.i. ~
, ~ ::::i
~. ,~ .
I .
b=
r
. , 'J' ,
I
r:
..
-"'i.
.' It.
~:
f~
Figure 3-5:
Character' Zones
I ~ ~
N
I ~ ~
t 'J ;
(. ~~
t'" X .
,
.... 'C:"\
., "'J.I' ~"f '. -~I
t ~ _ y, I..,
.._..._ _.,;. ..\1 .:t..,
~;/I "AI:1' . ~ "l
. I!!~ y " I Eii..... (I ~,~
.,.;: . .." '1;. f "IJ ~.
i ~' . ,~ i...~..~ <, "T
- .... , \I ltr:, ~ ....f'..."....... ,\",_, ,iJ:. t
~.t. .." ""'. .....:-".;...,. ,'.1 'it' '"\. " \: ". .1
'\ on ..... ~ ~"~" - l' ., lr ....._" l&... ;-
i -. "..../7 . . ''E'' 'r \.' .,..."... " _~
~!.tJ - +..I..~ .' ~ ~ A -~ It-). ...........:a-
!
"
o ~'t\,
"< - -~. j#:j-i~:.:'~:"
r . ";~.A" "'" ",.
,P' /.-/ '
.".-. ,;/
//'
..
1
.'f
-,.~-" " r~~'" ' . ", -, 0,(1'< .'" "" 7'"' ,2
_ ". ri',. ~~<;"!j, . ~. ~"..
~"".l -f\. t!\fl\ }i,~"~-.!U';.c.....'!I.:IS, :
, J.~.-' l' .t.;."t. (], III. , ~ !If.. ..c........ "-::"-'17' ,
. '.. '~~~$J~ ~ ;;~l ij" 'nit,j.. .' ~ ,...:..-..: ~'tt,:". .
,. '~",'I:. .. ' ~ . 'I'. J " "ff""~P< "':J' ',,"
'~'-'....T-"'" .' ." C! i '-." ,fr.", ..~...."..t'"
Ii; ,,~..;~ .~o:l.~ ~"J.. ~~. ~j-~~:t 'I "i'~
.~t';9~ ~..., ~~! "_, l'\.J~~_4~. - , ~,~..(t
I' ti1(, ~;... ~ .~. r.}/ ;'"70. .~.lt..'\ \t~ a~:fl
....~:.r~, t q tJ'?"i''i'' iQ~':i& i.... t':!iIo;~lo. I
,.., "'''''.'1'' .. t. . . '. ... .'T.... j(...~, ''''. <
'. ~ :-_._ - ".~.,,~ :JJ,~ ~ I ':,J-~ iir~_,!.1:~,
/,11. .. f!o.' 1 .. I .' 'r. -" 1'",~" !.". - ,. .
.Ii~ f '" ~-.f ' ~ ....,.-mlt "~ '" II' '~ '.
ID.~ '..';~l--.~"r.....~~. .....~~.,...,. _~ril'''..~. ~.~:~'~.t~.:~.l ~.~; t.:'!.;f
~~_~._~':._ ~~ "~?PL~~~~.-'\' '~~4T ~ ~ ;; -i>:~.._.J
~"Cl(!. 'I"." *"r-" '. t,.....{ .,. .;IIr,~ ";":
."..... : U I..... ~...IP of.. ~..."It . ~W {'N' _.'
. r i r- ;.~j.~'";;;') t~ ;v.-".~ '\ ':\- - :II .
or ~ ~-,...~i, -.\ ' jlt ~.\;'fli 5 I:'~,.. 'W~J[l~,
."'1 ..~ ,"" ;';;"r ~ r-, , "
~. '~~. ..-.J~..;. ~ I~! ... .~"..~ .-
'.'1 ''''; .~~~ ~ ~'. .,1 .,),.
T"lF.I_.' i,,'1 I'
· ...... 1 (' "". ';S
... r Il ,I i' \ t;..-:ik.' . '# ~
~'..",.- t,
""'JI I,
\?it-
.:~ . ,f--l>L.. i
:.~~: ..:. I.'ii
. ..~ ~
. r . l ,i .
~ ,..,
.. . r.
. .
+
~ .
" .
;.
'j~'"
i ~
I
~ I
31
w
....
".
"
.~
j
;J
w
rJ.~
')1
,J
~
"
I
--
1I0dl
City of Golden Valley""" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
, ' . ,.- ~
' . '.o,C'!".! ..:0, ,j," ,. \ I
, .. ~\ 7. ';'''. ~'. J I~~. . 'tt~ '.' i
I 'lCIII .ii!ifS oJ IF "T _'- i
. L 'G'.J Vo,.;(,........' ... ...,-
~'t ~. '1;' To"",.: t: ~.. .iI-' j
11,. ~~ . . 1 l. . "':.!~: .~,;'!\-:...f ~ f ~'.:' ..
, . J ..t. .'6i'jlf ,-,,":;i,p' ["
_ . .",. . -'L--'...:c l"'"--i. .'1 _-:::.....
Chapter 3: Corridor Context 17
Character and features
While not nearly so quantitative as some
other aspects of context, the character
of Douglas Drive can be a factor in
its evolution, particularly because a
plan that reflects the community and
the unique features of this corridor is
desired. The characterization of the
corridor as five character zones (Figure
3-5 and Table 3-2) results from the
experience one has as a traveler on the
roadway, but it may aid in shaping an
identity for uses or clusters of uses that
line the roadway.
Several features suggest a quality unique
from other county road corridors-
features that might be celebrated in its
evolution to maintain a stronger sense
ofidentity and a corridor more reflective
of the Golden Valley community.
Bassett Creek flows under Douglas
Drive north of Golden Valley Road and
under Duluth Street between Douglas
Drive and THlOO. However, it's nearly
unrecognizable as a natural feature
other than a concentration of trees
because the creek flows in a culvert,
which makes the water nearly invisible.
The Luce Line Trail, already noted for
its connections between Minneapolis
and Hutchinson, crosses Douglas Drive
near its south end; while it is essentially
a replacement for a railroad that once
occupied the corridor, it is notable for
its regional connections and its value
as a recreation amenity for the Golden
Valley Community. A large open space
at the southeast quadrant of Douglas
Drive and Golden Valley Road will likely
remain so for the foreseeable future, as
CenterPoint Energy has intentions for
only limited development of a site that
is a critical service point for their gas
distribution system.
Development features also contribute
to the character of the street. While
Douglas Drive and Duluth Street are
populated largely with single family
residential development, two properties
stand out: Honeywell's Automation and
Control Solutions, with an expansive
front yard and modern design reflect
a contemporary manufacturer of
international scale; and the Kingdom
Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses, a building
of a much smaller scale, reflects a post-
modern aesthetic despite the fact that
the building was built by members of
its congregation.
Zone Character
North Gateway
.....M...A.. wood ed ~"""""""''''''''''''''''''M
residential area
Opportunities
.EsfiibilshedfreeciinopyU
Sidewalks on both sides
Proximity to stable neighborhoods
Proximity to school
Challenges
....t\hir.row~..cru.mb"irrl.g..srdewafks.. ... ... ...............................
Several abandoned, foreclosed, and
neglected homes
Central Mixed
.....................An.o.pen.iridusfriiii..
and retail area
Residential
...........Ahigher~density.
residential area
Luce Line
An office and open
space area
TH 55
A highway frontage
office area
Busy retail and offices......"......................"....
Investment in sites by anchor businesses
School grounds
Storm water ponds and significant open
space near road
....!:xistlng.freecanopy...
Creek crossing
Investment in sites by the newer
apartment/condominium complexes
Proximity to park and stable
neighborhoods
...!:XIstlng.freecanopym
Luce Line crossing
Investment by landowners in landscaping
......investment by Optum Health and BNC
bank in landscaping
High visibility from TH 55
Broad boulevards on both sides of street
Sidewiilkoniyoneasfside.;.southo(Duiuth
Street
Exposed and unsafe pedestrian experience
Inaccessible bus stops
Outdated and auto-oriented office
buildings
Sidew.alk only on the lower~density side
Crumbling and interrupted sidewalks
Outdated and neglected multifamily
housing
Houses with back fences towards Douglas
Drive
...1
No sidewalks..u......m.. .m... m....... mmmm....m
Large CenterPoint site with gas tanks
No sidewalk on either side at north east
corner of Hwy 55 & Douglas Drive
Neglected site at most visible corner
Exposed and very busy boulevards
Table 3-2: Character Zones
City of Golden Valley""'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
-
tilt", II
18 Chapter 3: Corridor Context
Change potential
Douglas Drive Advisory Committee
members were asked to share their
thoughts about the future of the
corridor through an analysis of parcels
and their resistance or susceptibility
to change. While not intended as a
definitive prediction of a parcel's future,
the analysis generally lend insights
about where change is possible, and
where the existing condition reflects
stability.
The analysis is organized to first
determine a parcel's resistance or
susceptibility to change. An absolute
determination is not the goal; that is,
a parcel receiving a susceptible label
does not indicate that it will change,
and similarly, a stable designation
is not a guarantee that the use will
remain. Ultimately, it is the areas of
the corridor where a number of parcels
receive similar designations that merits
attention.
A second level of analysis goes beyond
a parcel's resistance or susceptibility
to change, attempting to frame the
reasons underlying a designation.
Advisory Committee members assigned
at least one criterion supporting
each parcel's designation. Analysis
of these criteria gives insights to a
parcel's future, and when compared to
those parcels surrounding it, suggests
strategies supporting intervention to
stem negative influences or measures
that would support longevity for the
existing use.
Parcels noted for stability are not
surprising, and include those occupied
by major corporations (OptumHealth,
Tennant's Corporate Woods building,
and Honeywell), industrial uses along
Zane Avenue, and institutions (Perpich
Center for Arts Education, Sandburg
Middle School, and Kingdom Hall of
Jehovah's Witnesses). Along Duluth
Street, parcels occupied by Minnesota
Department of Transportation, King
of Grace Lutheran Church, the Spring
Gate Shopping Center, and office uses
were all categorized as stable. A few
multi-family housing sites also fall
into this category. Support for the
characterization of these parcels as
stable include:
The current use conforms to zoning
ordinances;
The current use supports the vision
for the corridor;
There are no negative influences
caused by the use; and
Adjacent or nearby uses are not
negatively influenced by the use.
Three types of parcels fall into the
category of susceptible: single family
'['he multi:family housing just south of the milr'oad may be susceptible to change because the buildings are becoming obsolete and
may have a negative impact on their neighbol's.
-~-
rtd.
City of Golden Valley"'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
Chapter 3: Corridor Context 19
homes abutting Douglas Drive, some
multi-family housing, and industrial-
use parcels east of Douglas Drive
nearer to Highway 55. Members
of the Advisory Committee offered
the following as support for these
designations:
Structure and/or infrastructure is
obsolete;
The current use negatively impacts
its neighbors; and
Pedestrian access is unsafe or
insufficient.
It's worth noting that some sites
identified as susceptible to change
were described as being the right use,
but a lack of investment in the building
or grounds detracts from the parcel's
otherwise positive contribution.
The analysis included several parcels
where the designations were not
conclusive. A parcel occupied by
Center Point Energy was considered
stable because the parcel is not for sale
or does not appear to be in transition,
that the use is not likely to move, and
that it offers a positive visual impact
for the corridor. It was also noted as
being susceptible because the use is
not necessarily consistent with the
vision for the corridor. An office use,
convenience store, and apartments
on the southeast corner of Douglas
Drive and Duluth Street are a cluster
of parcels where the opinions of the
Advisory Committee differed and a
conclusion is not evident.
The analysis revealed strong patterns
of stability and susceptibility, but
probably most important is the
expanse of areas noted as stable by
the Advisory Committee. From that
perspective, those uses are likely viewed
as valued parts of the corridor and the
community, and their longevity might
be encouraged. Still, with time, even
these uses could face conditions that
would suggest a change. The planning
effort should direct efforts toward
understanding how their presence can
be maintained over time.
At the same time, most of the parcels
noted as susceptible to change were
single family residential uses that
line the corridor. Two paths might be
considered for these parcels: changes
in the public realm that might result
in a more comfortable relationship
with a roadway that will continue to
carry significant traffic; or changes
to the parcels themselves that might
result in uses that are more compatible
with the corridor's activities. Perhaps
most important is a recognition that
some of these parcels abut other
single family homes; protection of
the neighborhoods near those homes
considered susceptible should be a goal
of this planning effort. ~
Well-maintained and active commercial uses may be more resistant to change.
City of Golden Valley ~ Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
-
rtrl/l
20 Chapter 4: Corridor Concept Plan
Chapter 4:
Corridor Concept Plan
PLAN FOR DOUGLAS DRIVE and Duluth
IJ1 Street involves shaping both the public and
~ private realm, defining evolution in stages,
and balancing development and transportation
needs with a character that resonates with the
community. Considering the potential for change
along the corridor, it becomes obvious that much
of the corridor could change. This plan considers a
series of precincts along the length of the study area,
each with its own potential and timeline for change,
and each with its own direction. What results is a
multi-use corridor, where the range of uses present
today remain, but may be refined to address the
changing needs and goals of the community. These
changes are manifested in a series of development
precincts:
TH 55 Campus
reinforce employment uses at the south end of the
corridor;
reorganizes roadway access to create parcels that are
more developable and to create a better link to Zane
Avenue;
provides common functions to serve all of the
development; and
enhances the corridor's south "gateway" with a more
campus-like setting.
--
m~r
City of Golden Valley""'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
Chapter 4: Corridor Concept Plan 21
.~
~:'\f 'f'\~'<1 " (1
\." 1. _y I
Figure 4-1: TH 55 Campus ConceptfOl' Development
...........
~h
-
100 150 225
TH55
Site Plan
~
'T'-' k 1--1t.
t't,j[ /' ,'- ." .
()
t1~ ;~~r,,,m:~,,\ . . ..' '. \../" .
I I ~ .., 4:~~....~ /t"'\ '
. 'llft)~., ~'" ~ ........ "
~ - --11.... .
Office
Massing view from north/~
(
'1>'
)..J'\0
.~
"
Illustration
City of Golden Valley"" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
-
1111,1
22 Chapter 4: Corridor Concept Plan
· Douglas Drive Residential,
which is actually a series of
residential precincts with the same
underlying goals
offers a neighborhood edge
of new housing that engages
Douglas Drive (no back doors
to the corridor), "protects"
remaining homes, and orients
housing to Douglas Drive
without turning back doors
onto neighbors;
directs access to Douglas Drive
to fewer points;
enhances Douglas Drive's
capacity to accommodate
pedestrians, bicyclists, and
transit use as housing adjacent
to the corridor evolves;
accommodates storm water
management as a key element
of common space;
provides a phased evolution
of residential areas to
accommodate a greater range
of housing choices for the
community; and
Massing view from northeast
-~.....~
-tr-
"iFl f
,'~ 'w
1
1 , I
~, )1,.
~/I
. '.
. . '. ~ i'~'
-" .,. I
I
,
K
.i
I";' . 7!~
/,1'"
?-:;f'-
/i"~-;"~' -
f' ~
.,
Illustration
- - "t{~
,r!!
'~i1
,lI)
c
.12
{!,OJ
J
"
~OiiSiance
----. ..... ..
1
~~
,I
jl
...
L
......
1I01'tt1
-
Olwl 100 no 225
,sl.te Plan- I
.\.:.1____
Figure 4-2: Douglas Drive Residential, South Conceptfor' Development
--
lIIir
City of Golden Valley --r Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
Chapter 4: Corridor Concept Plan 23
~ IJ ~.
'.~.;;
'~oooo~f!'f'
>1~ '~ojtt
~_./ 'i"itj
",,, ^"'" - o~ . "!Of;. ,
~o /#~.o. 0 ~~'1'0 W. 0
?' 'l'i ',f ('" <.J ,
~ J ,-- r " lJ Xl;. ,-.t~-.a
~i .,I'QoI."
tin ~~;" ! l .~ r ,b;~' _"..' :,
~.'. &f c::~ ~ ~>-
'14" ~~' 4:1
~ ~-~~ '~1. '~'"
f ~f~ ~:- ~ ,,'~ hf rI r
....~ .......... ~ "if,.
1- -
Medicine Lake Road
............
""'"
-
133 200 333
c
;~~~~"
~~f~~ >~,.~~~~~~o
~~ '" ~~'1!~>'<~. ~:::-.-..
r "..c[l:-~~"'" .?~~~~~
<l~"~ >...~~, ;. V'"' ~
;::" :;;- ,~-:-- ~.>~--<---:
~, ~ ~~~'~0; l~i 5> <-
~ ,,~~~( ... -v~ "'_
''''('''q~'t", ...........'. ^ )
0~~'!(~~'-2/~
-t(" .~~,~~ " , .
Ma,,,ng v,ew from northwest .1 ~
Massing view from southeast
-~
..
':.:W;
'Y"\J. '!ltII
~,..II
" .~..\~
" ,'!.!.,'~Z' '~1~
. .- ~,~~~ ....,. '('f~ I
. If'-!J!...-'J, - . , ~ .
'~1;- ..-':7-~ 1 .,1"""-~--
< ~ '"'~;L -<- )
-t ~ \.. \
~ ...
'" r
... f
io"\-,.,.-/
, ~
.!
"
~(~
'o,!"
......
\1
iY-".",
1Y'
~
./
r\
.If
T
Of""" f,
1
f l
Figure 4-3: Douglas Drive Reside,!!.~l, North C~nceptfor Development
City of Golden Valley""'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
I
I
I
I
J
M
:1
L
r
. /;
\ h"l . . ..
~. ':J-{.~. 0' I
'-:'-:-OW1L' I
l~ .
Jtr8 .0 I
c . . I
::10 J.~.~ l~'..I 0 .0_ S;tePla'!>
~..I
::l 0
o
C
Illustration
-
Itn. II
24 Chapter 4: Corridor Concept Plan
· Mixed use node
organize commercial uses
in way that integrates with
surrounding uses to create a
mixed use node at Douglas
Drive and Duluth Street;
intensifies use of large
scale, low intensity sites
without overwhelming the
neighborhood to the east;
provides smaller scale,
neighborhood serving retail on
Douglas Drive; and
maintains the Honeywell
presence as a major feature of
the corridor.
. Commercial
Office
Residential
Massing view from northeast
Massing view from southwest
--
,
_f
I
':filfj,_
G~~SJ,/~e'
~
"M"
-',
OiNlI 100 150j ~_S
--
Figure 4-4: Mixed Use Node Concept for Development
.../'~. - y-,
'" ,,\-,,,
..... t J' "~I _"t".., F
"'flf~'r A
Illustration
~
Ker.!neth.~ay
II
Duluth In
It.. ".....--
~~1
~.
;:cJ
1(.)
,i
. vJJ
leI
,2
(f9J
~
I
\~'fberrY11
-1
I
J
1
~
fhldr
City of Golden Valley"""" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
Chapter 4: Corridor Concept Plan 25
· Mixed use village
creates a mixed-use village-scaled
redevelopment pattern in areas north
and south of Duluth Street near TH
100;
establishes patterns of mixed use focused
on community spaces and walkable
street environments
preserves and expands choices of multi-
family residential use to help support the
commercial components of the mixed
use pattern;
accommodates storm water as a
component of common spaces; and
preserves street connections through
the "village" with an orientation to
pedestrians and identity.
~" Office
---~~... . k.'~.F..~.~.:~l~-..~
,gL- ~~'~ Residential
. . ~~.l ,: ' tF~'~' :~C~')_\
\.::..l~ 0.., .- . .".
,.--\ l'" C"-:':-- :)::~ E;:J.i-" '-
~i:J '~~I\tC -;. '-', ~~".)-);-~~..'.'
" ~~"i"-~ f~' -"
!f~~k'. . ;- 3 ~~{Ji.n~:f'j~~,.,.;-~
r .'1 _..=': ~~ .J c::>r-f' J ~ " ·
, .- \~ti~n~~
~~ Massing view from so~hwest
- ;..
~
...>--
( t
!
~
..1-- .. 1,,1
, \~ II
" \1\
t,
1
,
;:-~."~ I
/', ? VI
,y\ .~ _~1'~:\ 1
,.
r ...
t\
( .... '
J;;;... __ \r. ~ ~~ \1
Figure 4-5: Mixed Use Village Conceptfor Development
I
./
Sit_~:p"lan O~
~
-.
-
100 l!.O :ns
,.
\
\..
:7
~ (~'1\ ~
, ~.
~ ==------~- -
~ ~=-"
K"=---
J
.J<
....
1
"
~
!
i'"
Illustration
City of Golden Valley"""'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
-
Itrlll
26 Chapter 4: Concept Corridor Plan
Land Use
The overall pattern for land use (Figure
4-6) in the corridor is based, in part, on
the potential for change analysis. As a
result, some existing patterns remain
and are, in fact, strengthened, while
others could see change-which may
not involve a change in use so much as a
change in the pattern on a site. Market
forces, the age or utility of buildings,
and community needs all played a
role in shaping potential directions.
Ultimately, most of the corridor could
see some degree of change-in a long
term view.
The directions suggest a potential
for change, not a mandate. The
ability to support development
with roads and infrastructure is an
important consideration-that IS,
too much development could reduce
the function of the road to the point
where development is detrimental to
the corridor and the community. The
long term view is important when
roads and infrastructure are discussed:
the changes in use along the corridor
can support the ability to build better
facilities within the right-of-way for all
modes of movement-a major goal of
this effort.
in a different way in each precinct,
but the orientation of development
to streets and accommodation of
pedestrian circulation follow a more
consistent theme.
To more clearly demonstrate the
differences in land use and character
inherent in each precinct, they can
be compared according to a variety of
factors. While this might ultimately be
considered in a more prescriptive way,
it is intended here more as guidance.
So we look at how single use zones
become areas of more mixed activity,
and how primary and secondary uses
can complement one another; the ways
in which pedestrians move, which
ultimately tells a lot about the kinds
of experiences that are expected; how
parking is accommodated without
diminishing those experiences for
pedestrians; and, importantly, the ways
in which common spaces are integrated
into the patterns of development-as
truly public spaces, or as publicly
accessible, privately developed spaces.
In some cases, these patterns come
together to form nearly complete
communities on their own, as in the
Mixed Use Village, while in others they
form a critical seam between public
corridors and quiet neighborhoods. For
the Douglas Drive corridor, the general
characterization of use and character
described in Table 4-1 would apply to
each of the precincts in the corridor.
Defining land use offers some guidance
for change in the corridor, but the
goals of this planning effort require
a better understanding of the three-
dimensional character of the future
corridor. With this, the experience
people might expect in each of the
precincts can be evaluated alongside
more quantifiable criteria such as
densities and floor area ratios. As each
site is different, creative approaches
to land use and design should be
expected. Common functions such as
parking, open space, and storm water
management might be accommodated
Existing land lIses can transition tofit thefuhl1'e needs of/he corridor.
- ---- -----
--
ltIJIl
City of Golden Valley""" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
Chapter 4: Corridor Concept Plan 27
---\, ,
_ .'_ _ _... _, DDR 3 ',' ~ ." _, '.,. t-" b.
. -28.5 AC i
COMMUNITY I ' f j ,~,
CENTER I PARK ~ I " DDR 4' J'
-29.8 AC I H-1~.4)C
t 11.0
I H' d'
'- - - - .' "
i \
f ·
----_'
"... --~ I'.~ '~..,
'MIXED-USE '\
CAMPUS A NODE NORTPj
-87.9 AC -8.5 AC .J
,---
'---...."'"
\MIXED-USE I
NODE CENT~R
0;;6.6 AC ,
r~....~' .~ ,,",
i MIX~-USE .f, .'!< ~,'t
. NOD~ SOUTHi
.. \-3.7'AC
.~",\I
f,:t ,,'J
"I~
tr. t~
. 1" f. '. c v
;-roo' DDR2
~DR11 t,:;~~C
(4.0 A~ -
~ --..." I
'il
~..Iloo.....
)
'~
.J
~&
f!
':1
,<
~f_ '... ~...;:
!~;
""l~~_
~.;;. ;_W~!'
~I
<,
,,--'" --~.
f
I
I MIXED-USE
. V,ILLAGE NORTH I
I -~1:8 AC .F
,-- . . " "r'
...."""'"- -'i ~l ~
t~_~-,..,r,
1 MIXED-USE j
'\ . VILLA~E SOUTH '
. -14.7 AC
\' r~
~" .... '
- --
~~~
,.
\.
HONEYWELL
"'- .~OND PARK
;"A.9AC
;,;
~1~1-",.)l'
.1
~ ~~
"
l~
..
u
"
).
b
~qa
...-':':; ....,--'
,~'!'
~I:?,~~~'.
9.5
AC
';
';
9.6
AC
I
I -.Jt
.,' ,.
I ."
I ~\
I '~('l
CAMPUS B ,~ '1l
CAMPUS G " 13.8 AC , ~
-7.0AC \"....
-, , ~
1, ~:t'-J. '~~ ==r.1 :t. 1 '-...__' LUC(L~TIlAJt.
(-___, 1._1,~~ ~ :
. TH CAMPUS \ , ". ~~~-:t
. NORTH I' , If, - ,
f\ .,
\ -10.2 AC , , n TENNANT
.. - ... I.
,_ _ ... "- ... " -24.9 AC
".... \\
, '-, , " I
. TH CAMPUS ,,-..1;, I
. SOUTH "CAMPUS F " ,
I -12.4 AC , \ -13.4 AC JIc .,~
.. ~ ....___- , ..-' 1....50~
~ _ _ _ _..- _Ir .. r.J5I09
'!
~~:
".
_U>d...,~ii
CAMPUS C
-28.2 AC
!::.igure 4-6: Potential Land Use Patte1'll
City of Golden Valley""'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
MIXED USE
DOUGlAS DRIVE
RESIDENTIAL
(DDR)
LolV DENSITY
RESlDEN11Al
CAMPUS
PARK I
OPEN SPACE
p--.
AN~IPA1<D
: ~ VfiDPMENl
.--
-
Itfl41 I
28 Chapter 4: Corridor Concept Plan
Use type THSS Campus Douglas Drive Residentiall Douglas Drive Residential 2 Douglas Drive Residential 3
General location South of Golden Valley Road to TH 55 West side of Douglas Drive, south of CP East side of Douglas Drive, south of CP West side of Douglas Drive south of
Rail corridor Rail corridor Medicine lake Road
Scale and character Four to six story buildings of [90] feet Small scale (two and three story) Three and four story multi-family, Mixed residential uses organized around
maximum height; strong pedestrian attached dwellings, orientation to internal parking court, "front door" to public park and common spaces
connections to public streets, including Douglas Drive street with street accessible units
when the building is not oriented
primarily to the public street
Density 12.0 to S.OJ FAR [10 to 121 units per acre [20 to 24J units per acre [10 to 12] units per acre for rowhomes or
townhomes; 30 to 40 units per acre for
apartments or condominiums
Primary use Office, research, medical Attached residentialltownhomes, Apartments condos Attached residential (town homes.
rowhomes) rowhomes); multi-family lapartments,
condos)
Secondary use Uses supporting primary uses established None None School, community center
as common to the district
Orientation Development orientated to public streets Toward major street; no rear yard "Townhome" units oriented to Douglas Toward major street; no rear yard
with pedestrian oriented entry drives toward public streets Drive, Douglas Drive building entry toward public streets
where buildings do not touch the right-of balanced with entry at interior parking
way court;\ no rear yard toward public streets
Parking Parking structures and small highly Surface parking in drives, small parking In garages below buildings, with limited In garages below buildings, surface
landscaped surface parking areas areas off of alley. or protected parking surface parking at interior of site, parallel parking along interior streets, protected
bays on Douglas Drive in expanded right- parking along Douglas Drive in expanded parking bays on Douglas Drive
of-way right-of-way
Pedestrian Sidewalks on both sides of public streets; Sidewalks along Douglas Drive, front Sidewalk along Douglas Drive, sidewalks Sidewalks along Douglas Drive and
circulation pedestrian connections from every public walk to units, sidewalks along previous to interior court and building entries at Medicine Lake Road, and along both
street to a building entry rights-of-way interior of the site sides of interior streets
Common space Privately developed publicly accessible Public alley along west side of Public park and neighborhood "green;"
common space forming seamless redevelopment area next to existing courtyards between buildings
pedestrian-oriented spaces through the single family homes
district outside of publiC sidewalks
Other features The development pattern might be Access to garages from alley; this district
thought of as clusters of buildings forms transitions between single family
surrounded by continuous green space uses and more intensive uses along
Douglas Drive or Duluth Street. and can
be seen as an active buffer to those
streets
Table 4-1: Land Use Type and Character
--
flri,
City of Golden Valley"""" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
Chapter 4: Corridor Concept Plan 29
Use type Douglas Orive Residential 4 I Mixed use node I Mixed use village south I Mixed use village north
General location East side of Douglas Drive south of East side of Douglas Drive at Duluth South side of Duluth Street near TH 100 North side of Duluth Street near TH 100
Medicine lake Road Street
,
Scale and character Small scale (two and three story) Mixed development district, including Two to five story buildings generally set ITwo to five story buildings generally set
attached dwellings, orientation to retail, office townhomesjrowhomes as a at the edge of the right-of-way I at the edge of the right-of-way;
Douglas Drive and existing residential transition to existing single family uses, transition to single family residential
streets apartments/ condominiums at interior uses to the north occurs with two or
three story townhomes/rowhomes
aiong the north edge of the district
Density [10 to 12] units per acre . [0.3 to 0.5] FAR; [10 to 12J units per [0.3 to 0.5] FAR; residential densities of [0.3 to 0.5] FAR; residential densities of
acre for towmhomesjrowhomes, [20 to [10 t 0 12J units per acre for [10 t 0 121 units per acre for
40] units per acre for rowhomes/townhomes]; [20-24] units rowhomes/townhomes); [20-24] units
apartments/condominiums per acre at mixed use buildings; [30 to per acre at mixed use buildings; !30 to
481 units per acre for other multj.family 48] units per acre for other multi-family
i
Primary use Attached residential (town homes, Retail near Duluth Street; office at south I Mixed use with retail at street level, Office, mixed use, residential
rowhomes) end; multi-family residential for interior office or residential above
parcels
I
Secondary use none Single use buildings adjacent to Douglas Single use buildings (office or residential Some existing uses redirected to new
Drive and Duluth Street provided the buildings) in second tier of development buildings
building directly addresses the right-of- (away from Duluth Street)
way and facades are active
Orientation Toward Douglas Drive or other existing Orientation to Douglas Drive and Duluth I Orientation to streets internal to village, Orientation to streets internal to village,
public streets; no rear yard toward Street for exterior parcels; orientation with priority to "Main Street" and with priority to "Main Street" and
public streets to internal streets at interior parcels "Commons" "greens"
I
I I
Parking Parking in small landscaped parking Parking in structures and along streets; Parking in structures and along streets;
areas located behind or beside buildings limited surface parking lots limited surface parking lots
I
Pedestria n Sidewalks at both sides of Douglas Drive "Main Street" streetscape and sidewalks I "Main Street" streetscape and sidewalks
circulation and Duluth Street, and sidewalks on at on both sides of streets, landscape Ion both sides of streets, landscape
least one side of internal streets connections between surface parking connections between surface parking
areas and building entries areas and building entries
I
I I
Common space Interior "greens" creating links through Commons as primary focal space with a ,Greens as primary focal space with
redevelopment area direct connection to Bassett Creek direct connection to Bassett Creek
Natural Area
!
Other features Access to garages from alley; this district
forms transitions between single family
uses and more intensive uses along
Douglas Drive or Duluth Street, and can
be seen as an active buffer to those
streets
I
Table 4-1 continued: Land Use Type and Character
City of Golden Valley""'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
-
ffrdr II
30 ChApter 4: Corridor Concept Plan
Transportation
A critical balance should be struck
between transportation and
development in the Douglas Drive
corridor-if a corridor that feels like
Golden Valley is expected to result.
While the road must accommodate
traffic as a county highway, the
intention is to create a street that
works for traffic while accommodating
transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. In
accommodating the roadway functions,
it is the intention to create a compatible
relationship between the roadway, new
and existing development along the
corridor, and the community.
With current development and traffic
levels, traffic can be accommodated
on Douglas Drive in a combination of
configurations dependent on location
within the corridor. Between TH 55
and Golden Valley Road, the city has
studied a configuration that includes
two lanes of travel in each direction,
with protected left turn lanes created
by a median. In fact, this configuration
not only accommodates the levels of
traffic experienced today but also is
sufficient for all of the redevelopment
contemplated in the corridor, including
expected growth in background traffic.
In this stretch of Douglas Drive,
pedestrian accommodation should
occur on both sides of the road. The
Luce Line Trail improvements facilitate
pedestrian movements on the west side;
in the longer term, with redevelopment
in the TH 55 Campus, a sidewalk should
be added on the east side of Douglas
Drive. When coupled with the goals
for transit improvements, a bus stop
on Douglas Drive just north of TH 55
dictates expansion of pedestrian ways
that link those transit users to their
employment destinations.
The intersection of Douglas Drive
and Country Club Road remains an
issue. Leaving the intersection in its
current configuration fails to resolve
significant traffic and safety concerns,
but changing the intersection may
result in impacts to access for nearby
businesses. Resolution will most likely
require involvement of Hennepin
County and the Minnesota Department
of Transportation-in addition to the
City of Golden Valley. As a result, this
intersection remains an area for further
study.
North of Golden Valley Road, a cross-
section with three lanes is proposed
(more specifically, one travel lane in
each direction with a common left
turn lane). While this configuration
does not meet the cross-sectional
requirements of Hennepin County,
it can be accommodated within the
existing curbs, and it offers safety
enhancements for drivers since left
turning movements are directed to their
own lanes, without sacrificing traffic
capacity. In this configuration, the
potential for accommodating bicycles
on the street is limited to a relatively
narrow zone on each edge of the
roadway. However, a more definitive
and continuous pedestrian facility-in
the form of a sidewalk-is directed
to the east side of the road, where
permanent facilities for pedestrians
can be constructed in the short term.
This configuration is not without
limitations. Existing overhead utilities
must be buried within the roadway,
adding costs to the initial construction
and offering significant aesthetic
advantages, butmorecriticallyproviding
the needed space for pedestrian
movements within the existing right-
of-way. As this proposal assumes that
the improvements in the east boulevard
will be permanent, a significant amount
of engineering work remains to fully
understand the feasibility of these
improvements relative to the future
cross section of the roadway (ensuring
that the roadway can meet the curb
lines of the immediate improvements
without compromising the cross
section of the road or creating the need
for more aggressive construction on
the west edge of the roadway as the
future road is implemented). And of
more immediate concern, the railroad
crossing and Bassett Creek culvert
both need to be modified to reasonably
address pedestrian movements.
It is important to recognize that
improvements in the roadway are
interim improvements in that they fail
to meet the dimensional requirements
of Hennepin County's standard for
a three-lane roadway. When the
entire roadway is reconstructed
(with the exception of the east side
improvements), the right-of-way will
need to be expanded to accommodate
wider bicycle lanes and a wider center
turn lane to meet county standards.
Impacts to properties on the west
side will likely occur, and will vary
depending on the final cross section
and the city's desires for improvements
outside of the curb on the west side
of the roadway. The impacts may be
limited to the need for a few feet to as
much as 20 feet, depending on the final
cross section.
Accommodating traffic with the long
term improvements in the roadway
suggests that other changes occur, most
notably the reduction of intersecting
streets and driveways along Douglas
Drive. Foremost among these might be
the concentration of street intersections
between Golden Valley Road and the
railroad tracks.
While the changes to the roadway may be
important as long term improvements,
the roadway could remain essentially
--
rIIlr
City of Golden Valley ~ Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
Chapter 4: Corridor Concept Plan 31
rv -- _. -]!"'I! -. ~ ". ~1j ·
..- 'l;J "1'350 /11100 ~ ~ .. ;..,.. {IV'" ~ =:;:,:''-;~_,', ~~ 41.b:, ". i
I ..' - - .- .. -i"""'Ti-t "'-, ,~n It..,f I:IIPI, ;1 . ,'~~I, ..' .t.. '/_,.
1: L ~ IC; J - .... ....-.J~... I'" 11 .' 1 -. - M . - '
, 11""'.,., >>0 l' - r ;t !P . ~ :!;;. , 1 ..:( 1"\.-, '- r ,~-.Q,,~ ~': ""f "":-f '~~'.~'1.-. .
~.... l[, I '1, ~ I," -... J1fI r -~.. , ..... ... )'" .. r
'I l ~... , .' ~ . ~ It . ",.., 6 Y"'i ',.. "'.-q. ~ J " . .A -... ';.,' P1f":
I ......., . ~.;: : ", 0 "i~:'~" fr.-i'* ~IIP:: . "J.'''. If.~,J..., .
I " \ ..... ~ ' ~ M t. -.i...ri-": ~. . ,'\11'- '0,' l' . 'Or'...... ~."~ ll:'~
:. J I r - . ~ 'lift~'":oI"<'; " ,'\ ... i . . -.~;Q .'- '1 J;'~hY,1 i'
1 l "1 ; -. ~I\.. 1-::3';., '\.6.' ~. ~ ~~ It.~ :i. ~ii: ~:. ., l'
, I 0] " ~:~ t.C,H_ ~ ."'. ,,,,,. t.'\ l\.': o,!-...'
I W I ~ 0 .1,'1..' . ,-~ "IJ' t" ..,. ~~':;" i " 1'Cl.~. ,1~'
'i:. '...t, o,'.~.)' '>' ~ir.";;";~' ,tI.'~ Ul'-~,}~"
~ f T .1. ~. ~." . -, '.. ~-~"'~R.!- r IL ~l j r iT ~ rt~ J ji~. '
r I 1 . dtJ IIiiI' .. t". ' 1 ~, . < r., 1t- 1. _ .. ' . .. ~ r
1 I I 1;(' 18 It - ,. "' ~'. "'1,' . 'I' ,I' ~. I
I J -.' : Ii '. ~ 1;,1..... 'a: 1I~ r ~.. ~). - ~'\; .1'..;11 '.r ','
":=O'~ 2450/2700 ...".urj.;,.--~~j~'-'.~K" :'''~!. :0'
- O! /,;~. . '. "1l"1"'L 7.'p'~ $i, ~,';':;..O 0
] l.":wZ,"',".."',L-,' '1,.k-~0
, I '0' .i~ ~..J. ':t!'-_,!.~.."'.1. :. ~'" >'" .~ I ,"" 0)
'\ .. 0 tIi,rt tt'''.~' .~. f'.t,'Y" .'.'\.& l'--
1 .~ ... or'.,.1l: .. i,- ~,~f~ ,.. ,~,>' ~ 01.1;0'
1 ,; I...... '~, ' ~ t. o!t ~ ~'J -.r r--' -
~ to.. 1=,....JJIr_,l kJI .... ~, ,
J :J 0 .'F.,,"~; ,_oj' ~ -,\ :. .r ,I
'.t I - g. ,~ '~'. 1 .: r, I 'f I
f ~ -II ~ '~,? -~~' t }~~l"")l ! ~
;- . ....r ,.'_.... . ~ -.... 11
" I J 14~Q5I20160'7 It :,{ (!I I,
, ~' .'.{(;. - . I f [L , ~":- 'ii' .i i L '- '. " ..:-. 1 .
,,', h...... Jo.. I ~t" I,,' .~' ~~ .,I)'. ~~.,d4200/25100
· .jo ., ,., ,"', J\.'....yr ill !'" I 1;
I'". ~. '''';:''',. .' :-.' c' , ~ '1 'r /..J.: ~~ 'J',. ~ \i ~.
. ".., .. \~) ,;.,. ....... v ~ ; ,~ .., .....1 ~ u. ....~ ) ~ :."" ~ 'r l' "1
. ,,' .~J""'~""'.';" I '~-.; t,. ..., ';;#;i~_ ::"J,l( _... 0
I ~"" ~~" ~.. ~ - " t I ~ ~.~~. .... ., ~f '" '- a
If! ' ~~ '~r~ . ~'t~~., ........ t )'~ }iti ..-~ ';; ~'l ~i~~ ~ '" ---.. J ~
.. ",!";" ;t" ~q~ J,.' 1. 'l>,i'~- '. '" ~.:~ r- '1- . -,
.. , "l ~a..-t;:.' . ~'~...~~~.~ ~~ ~_il>~t ,f,~,' l,) . J 1 t i
.w .ail"." ".}, .., r'l.): ,~ ~,,,,. '1 <.. '.. .. < ~ -,
.' ':./ 1~5.'."'.;' 'ir' F\.. . .... ",,-'J, , :J ,,". ~ ... - .. . ,.. .J
V -I.~ ,GlO'll ~:...l ~', ,Y'. !\.:. ['IF: p~ ~' .) ""~ ~:: '.', ';l 'i ,if"-;:,1," ',,~',
-- ::,..., {-"i,lt", 1400 ""'" - .. _jlt' '~.'''''' h,~"~r~ .".
r llcl", ~{9J.?J~ r~~.(,., L. 1 1'1 \'ll1l1~0;1 I ~,,;,.._;;,- i)., '~" ir"'~ \.1 ;r;~' .~{.~ J 1
'i~h:!li' ~'_ ....Ml tJ.~ ~ ~.:~ ';:1 {"'" ~ ~; '" :E ~ '" .''! ":.- /' , \ ~ ." :I".r f/ '1 D1.. .;}X;~ .'
... .;;.:t;.:~ - - . ." - (0 ... , .' , ,.. 0\ ~ t '~~1\.1J. tf\' ,
'"I ',\tr..::ll~...:.q"" ...r'!;.~y...,~~r...... \ .}o~. ,- .' "'I ~"IO' :1. "
~ .i( l II> . . Itl - I" ~ -. '(...If~' ,,'" 4 '\, ~ ~ ... t ... {\I
..~t.;~ g;',.j\.L.~.'~lt'~~I.'I,ij!l_ o".~J I.,. J', '''~!1. ,I ;~-; '?JiO\.J I.
:. .-.., ...~" 0 - · l ,~" 1"" r:,,~ \ ,'~
I-,:r- . "-1' , l't~' '< '1 .;f , ", (":ty\J ,,~
l.i. V;1" ~ .. "If:r I. -:z.: ~ IJ ~ T-"' ~ - -I ~. "\ \... ~w /..-,..- -ft 1
. "t!, ~J':"'" '} .:. '\~.J'e"~'}r. ~ ~ .~~ ' t'l-. . I)n V i-l'.k.-8" ,u~.-; , 't '
- ...... ~~:.o.r r 0; If] "" ", ""-- ~., ~ ror4"'J' .~.t . .....
. '! ~\. ,p. <r . ~~ ~ (" ,.IlL ~ ., J. . ",;,.. ,~~ .. J .
~ '5~' ~~:"~'ij\'~#.!~ :~, ,. II ~...<; ,:,,, t:' '" \"-<~ '.\. '..t-.. ~~ . 'I
· ...., jI . , I ~\ r. ; ') ~ ~ ...:, :.w~. ;.:J, T ,.d' \ 1 ~ ~'"- ',."', Yo t' 0 ~
--} ,. 'K. ,., .. _... ....~, -I It. C)'\J. a ...: .. ,~'V..., .. 0
l" ,~'", ." .....~. "u('r-" -~1/l,.'" ,\} \. ' ~ .k..~ ~.' L , :. 0 '
* ...'.'-. .. '. /l,'6(J II" . '~"-:;9. '" J'~o)
-. ~ ~ \":,.tI' 'C'. =i -,.. ..: ~ ,~ l.. \ .. >..' ... ~ t, co
. ". ."." " . '.' . ~ ..., ~ ~ T .I! .'
J . I 0' :~: If~ ~., . . 'I,~' ."- <:. I ~ "..J.'4 ..' r _ '
, t..lI>o Ii ..~ ;-. ~.;:, ,f i ~ \ -.. \ ") II. " ' ~ ~ ~ -e
I.!' ,).1. <,.... ~f.f~\... ~t~-M~ci(), '~.~. _ ' " '. ,"} ~'" " _","~,;, <;, ~ ~ .
l': ". .-C) \. , ; " ~ ,.......,.." i:' II
f... ., ~ ~o.q.. , . "\. '. ~ \ r. 1.. '
, :;"", ~,,"', ,'~ ... '- .) ~ (~.. I I J.lI' ~1'
I. ','-.""..........._..JI ", 'f':. "." \ 't..
. -:'~'e~~n. T' ',. ,-,o;:.==: . ':,' J
J,t - ,y~-,~~ -'.;:',. '! ,,:;:~.~")-, 1~~1! ..' 1~~.1_'"I-,..J 1
I · ''''1 J ! J r~ I, · I ' 1 r" l j J
~ 'J '''',- <!i r Ll 0)- ~g I 'r-1 lJ"i -~. po ~
I.. .. )I ;'. ... ... l.. ,~, ,I-f . ~ ~~ i ~
.. t';:. ,0 1.
. .., ,,'~ .' \'. 1 !'r ~ ~,.... " ,C.\: ,[..,01 ~ 'I
1800 .... - MJl..I"'....1 t'........... ,
t'~ ~~ ;' ~ ~~; ,'~ -i ; - ..... 32000 . .
t 1-:1. . ,I .. \' . _
.~B~. ~~ ',t ~ . "~, ~ 't.ft! f~. ,. ~"iz,~,..~, '~~~~ ":~~'r~~:"
.. ~ '~fa . J4 4 t'".... , C. 4'; .." .J .. ".." _ lot.
.U, 11 ' ~.'. "':'>~ ~' 't. , qt 'II. ,'--~ t ~"
I ., it ...f:....: .... ,~~...t~ ~\{., :'i. ~I ~~' .' :t.ll1J~ ~:.-~! 'r,>i~ ~...-r;,"\
r~~~:", ':':~;....~~.rt'~!':., :.~....'J..} ,rr- J'" "..1., '..;I;o.:h-~''':'' ,J;, l',\
.,., :....~.... . ... "!-~~"C' ___~ _~.. . rn..!..~.:..JL ~ .,...."..~..-. 1.
'I
"
2005 Daily Traffic
2006 Daily Traffic
2007 Daily Traffic
2030 Forecast Daily Traffic
, J
::J1
..,1
;~1
'~
- ,
. I
'1
,'I
"
,
i
Figure 4-7: CWTent and
Forecast Average Daily Traffic
City of Golden Valley""'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
-
stDr I
32 Chapter 4: Corridor Concept Plan
PHASE 1 PERIMNEIfl
IMPROVEMENT "'-J-
I
I
I
f ~.F- t' Ul
?r ':..f~'
1:' ~-
, r:1
.. .' .,.
~~
. ~:I
~.~
' 1':.
... '
"-
fii:"
--1 · {1
r
!p .
,'1,
::...~
~l~
ts
.> ~IJI
v.-~
e
Piio\SE 1PER"-'NEI{J
'.,PROVEMENT "'-J - -
I -
I
I
"
EXISTIOO
FEATURES
PHASE t PERIMNEIfl
IMPROVEMENT "'-J-
I
I
I
11'
EXlSn~
FEATURES
.. R
74'PROP R
PHASE 1 PERMANENT
"PROVEMENT "'-J-
I
I
I
Possible e
intersection =
reconftguration
..""'.1
~l
~~
,. I
r,' . '" ..!
li '
f1Hn~
l'1:.,-:, " ','.
. . ....~-{,
.. :r .
~l · \.~I
~.~
[.., '1
1
8LVD.
Figure 4-8: Street sections allow for immediate
improvements and long-term development.
Figure 4-9: Several intersections may be
reconfigured to improve safety andfunction.
Cit of Golden Valley""'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
.......
Chapter 4: Corridor Concept Plan 33
't V
~ 1
~I\{L )' ~J: ~) ".. HII ~~
, ,r\l1 \ 1 ~ I I ~.." ~, [ i~:
-'t.. ~--~~ ,! if(} )~ ~',
ftt}t,. - t:; ~~._ ~__~. " (1~1.h '
1..... ""f1j . ~-..: - -~ ~. ~"i7J'
~ "=- --
-...::::- .
~
"""'~
~
in its current four-lane configuration.
Improvements on the east side should
remain a part of the immediate plan in
order to facilitate the needed pedestrian
safety improvements.
Intersections along Douglas Drive
have not been defined as a part of this
study. However, several intersections
are identified as needing further study
as a result of projected traffic volumes
(Figure 4-9). For each of these
intersections, possibilities ranging
from enhanced signalized intersections
to roundabouts may be considered.
As Douglas Drive is a Hennepin
County roadway, the determination
of intersection types will need to be
coordinated with the county as roadway
improvements are studied.
.
,.,.. 1'\",\ t ~',
, ;
Streetscape
Today, the Douglas Drive corridor
exhibits a rather pleasant landscape
aspect for most its length, not atypical
of suburban roadway corridors, but
certainly one that reflects a diversity
of character ranging from front lawns
of businesses dominated by parking, to
seemingly wild landscapes around low
lying areas and Bassett Creek, front and
side yards of single family homes (some
of which have been closed off by fences),
to corporate front lawns and expansive
green park areas, and to parking lots in
front of shopping centers, churches, and
office buildings. But what is interesting
here is these landscapes form zones
along the corridor, so that three broad
patterns of streets cape related to land
use might result:
the TH 55 Campus, the Mixed Use
Node, and the Mixed Use Village,
Douglas Drive and Duluth Street
might be more "urban," or more
designed;
r' ~) J
,"\
.'
in areas that are predominantly
residential, the character of the
streets cape might be more like a
parkway, with streets cape elements
(particularly trees) in a less regular
pattern or a more informal layout;
and
in front of Honeywell and
CenterPoint Energy, where the
existing landscape broadly open
and unencumbered by buildings,
a streets cape of a more "forested"
nature might be encouraged, with
patterns of trees dominating.
Focus might be provided at entry
points, gateways, or key intersections,
much like the streets cape that was
implemented along Winnetka Avenue
where more intensive landsca pe features
and identity elements occur. The creek
crossings might be more celebrated,
using a bridge or improvements to the
culvert that inspire a more bridge-like
feeling.
1;1
--
~ --<"
~ --
- ~~
Bridge-like enhancements at creek crossings would help highlight important cOr/'idor features.
- -
City of Golden Valley"""" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
-
stJldll
34 Chapter 4: Corridor Concept Plan
The streets cape is more than trees
and boulevards. The experience of a
street by pedestrians suggests a higher
degree of visual quality is desired, but
an approach that balances pedestrian
activity with the expectations of people
in vehicles suggests that improvements
that are bold and those that rise
above the pavement (lights, trees, and
plantings) might be more important
than those that are primarily horizontal
(pavement enhancements). Transit
shelters that afford protection from the
elements might be viewed differently by
transit patrons if the shelter were more
attractive, if they reflected a character
that is unique to the corridororto Golden
Valley, or if they were surrounded
by a more attractive landscape (a bus
stop garden). Continuous facilities for
pedestrians on each side of the street
are are also a desirable component of
the streetscape, along with provisions
for their comfort and use (like benches
and trash receptacles) and more clearly
marked street crossings that lend a
sense of permanence for pedestrian
facilities in the roadway (a sense that,
in those locations, pedestrians belong
and should be expected).
With this level of streets cape, it should
be obvious that it cannot be completely
implemented today. The public
realm of the corridor simply is not wide
enough. But with redevelopment and
the potential for increasing the width of
the right-of-way, sufficient space exists
to allow all of these improvements
to occur. However, two important
considerations remain:
These improvements, which are
in part focused on pedestrian
movements, need to be
complemented by a strategy of
extending pedestrian facilities
along other streets and corridors
that form important and
desired connections across the
community-which are directed
toward movement on foot, and not
in cars; and
Maintaining those improvements
is a necessary component of a
functional and pedestrian-oriented
streetscape, and without a clear
strategy for maintain the sidewalks
in a safe and accommodating way,
the value of the improvement is
greatly diminished.
Infrastructure
The evolution of Douglas Drive
needs support from contemporary
infrastructure. Current infrastructure's
capacity is generally sufficient for the
development posed by this plan, with
the notable exception of stormwater.
Still, the age and condition of the
existing infrastructure is the question.
Water
From a capacity standpoint, the water
system appears to be generally capable
of supporting the proposed land use
changes. Portions of the watermain in
Douglas Drive are currently six inches
in diameter. An 8- or 12-inch main is
recommended to improve capacity.
Winnetka Avenue is an example of a streelscape thai uses pedestrian
amenities to help express the community's character,
--
A full water model investigation should
be performed in the corridor to take
into account existing system pressures
and the proposed land uses. The model
will confirm the existing capacity and
identify potentially insufficiencies. It
is also recommended that, as each
development is proposed, the break
histories be re-examined to determine
the need for replacement of existing
mains, many of which are already 40 to
50 years old. Given the likely timeframe
for redevelopment, these systems could
be as much as 70 years old when the
final roadway improvements and lands
uses are realized. It is common practice
and a prudent use of public resources to
replace below-grade facilities of that age
in concert with surface improvements
and roadway reconstruction.
--
ItJ~J
City of Golden Valley"'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
Chapter 4: Corridor Concept Plan 35
Sanitary Sewer
Similar to the water system, the sanitary
sewer system seems generally adequate
for future land use demand. And like the
water system, a more thorough system
modeling analysis is recommended to
more fully determine the impacts of the
proposed development.
Age of the sanitary sewer system is an
issue, along with a heightened attention
to the issues of inflow and infiltration
limits dictated by the Metropolitan
Council. The combination of age and
pipe materials (predominantly vitrified
clay) suggests a high potential for cracks,
separated joints, and root infiltration-
all of which allow groundwater to enter
the pipes, or for untreated waste to leak
into the ground. Regardless of capacity
issues, future development impacts or
roadway improvements should include
televising of the sanitary sewer, which
will inform the methods of improving
the sanitary sewer systems (which could
include pipe lining, pipe replacement,
or manhole repair). Finally, and similar
to the water system, it will be prudent to
make these improvements coincident
with roadway reconstruction.
Storm sewer
Today, runoff from Douglas Drive
and adjacent sites drains untreated
into Bassett Creek, where it flows
into Sweeney Lake on its way to the
Mississippi River. The community
has indicated a preference for a
"greener" corridor. The Bassett Creek
Watershed Management Commission
requires a "best effort" for storm water
management for roadways, but clearly,
the storm water system is the one
element of infrastructure that is in
most need of attention.
With limited available land area in some
areas, improvements for storm water
management will be difficult to
accomplish. It is likely that partnerships
between the city and private developers,
or among the city, private developers,
and other entities, will lead to the most
beneficial solutions. Given the ever-
changing regulatory requirements, the
rapidly-expanding options for storage
and treatment, the desire for a "green"
corridor, and the intention of a land
use pattern that reinforces activity on
the corridor, it is likely that a unique
partnership and a solution tailored
to individual sites and the corridor as
a whole will be needed. This kind of
solution results in enhanced protections
for natural resources and perhaps a
unique identity for the corridor.
development occurs, an understanding
of the runoff quantities and treatments
will be the first step toward a combined
solution. Still, the solution will be one
that might:
utilize storm water treatment
as an amenity for the corridor,
particularly in areas where the
method can be integrated with a
pedestrian experience;
pursue the most innovative
methods of managing stormwater,
given the natural limitations (such
as soil conditions and high water
tables), to maximize development
opportunities; and
Preparation of a master drainage
analysis is recommended to
incorporate future land uses and
increased impervious surfaces. As each
integrate storm water management
methods with elements that create
identity for the corridor and the
community, where space exists and
regulations allow. .....,..
Futw'e storm water management should better protect Bassett Creek.
- -
City of Golden Valley"""" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
-
nld, I
36 Chapter 5: Implementation
Chapter 5:
Implementation
A
PLAN IS NOT AN OUTCOME, but rather a guide
for moving toward a vision. This plan suggests
a pattern of land use and changes to the public
realm, but suggestions do not result in the kinds of change
desired by the community. An implementation strategy, even
one that is directed to change that might take twenty years
or more to accomplish, is a necessary complement to the
recommendations for the Douglas Drive corridor. It serves the
purpose of encouraging cooperation and coordination among
public entities that must partner for some improvements, and
between public and private entities that must work together
to achieve mutually beneficial change on parcels along the
corridor. The implementation strategy also offers a way
of gaining support from the public, and then maintaining
support through a long evolution. And it suggests a sequence
of activities that emphasizes community priorities as way of
beginning a long term process of implementation.
While much has been made of the potential for change along
the corridor, the goals of this project-from the beginning-
direct attention to needed pedestrian safety improvements.
While many of the suggestions and recommendations are
long term and evolutionary in nature, the need to provide safe
passage for pedestrians along Douglas Drive is paramount.
As a result, a critical first step is defining a way of improving
pedestrian safety. Still, those improvements are balanced
with activities that help set the stage for an evolution of the
corridor.
--
m~r
City of Golden Valley ~ Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
Chapter 5: Implementation 37
This study suggests patterns of land
use that will eventually lead to actual
changes in land use designation for
many parcels along Douglas Drive and
Duluth Street. But the study anticipates
dramatic change only over a longer
period of time, so it's more reasonable
to move forward with the study being
used as a guide as redevelopment
activity occurs. In this way, current
uses remain legal and conforming, and
new development can find consistency
with the plan through incremental
changes to the city's land use plan.
Pol icy development
In pursuing a plan that suggests change
over a period of perhaps twenty years
or more, development of policies
that guide development might be as
important as regulatory direction or
design guidelines-especially because
the specific patterns of development will
be framed as developers demonstrate
their interest in projects. Two policy
,
. -,~.~
::- \2 :.;.~ ',"
,'.. tf'....~:
-.:
t
#
\
~-
directions are suggested:
Develop and adopt economic
development strategies for the TH
55 business campus. This area has
the potential for adding significant
tax base and jobs in Golden Valley
given its prominence in the corridor
and the region, and the potential for
creating more intensive patterns
of development in place of aging
structures.
Develop and adopt sustainable
development and design strategies
for the corridor. The community
identified a desire for the corridor
to be more "green," not only
in appearance but in function.
Several methods of moving
toward sustainability are possible,
including requirements for new
development or redevelopment
projects to achieve or match
certain standards identified by
the U.S. Green Building Council's
"
Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED)
program. While other methods are
possible, LEED offers a recognized
benchmark for the design,
construction, and performance of
buildings and sites.
Regulatory change
Development patterns demonstrated
in this plan won't necessarily match
those pursued by developers, but
they demonstrate an idea about how
development might be configured
to activate the corridor and create
destinations and neighborhoods that
are more connected and walkable. The
city's current development guidance
might already achieve most of the
goals, but a comparison of the existing
code to the demonstrated patterns
will help ensure desired development
results. Consideration of the following
regulatory directions is encouraged:
City of Golden Valley""" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
-
ftrd111
38 Chapter 5: Implementation
Compare existing zoning
requirements to those
demonstrated in this plan.
Density allowances likely vary in
some instances and many of the
development goals of the plan
result from increases in densities.
It should also be recognized
that increases in density may be
required to establish thresholds
where redevelopment activity
might be viewed as financially
attractive. Specific requirements of
the code for setbacks, lot coverage,
and building heights may require
attention.
Establish parking requirements
that reasonably serve development
while allowing for desirable
development patterns to result.
Parking inventories are typically
dictated by a code that establishes
a minimum parking ratio for a
given use, and fail to recognize the
opportunity for areas dedicated
to parking to be directed to other,
more attractive or productive uses.
Establishing parking maximums in
redevelopment zones encourages
an orientation to pedestrians
and transit without overbuilding
parking facilities, it promotes a
more efficient use of available
parking throughjoint-use or shared
parking configurations, it allows
for more intensity of buildings or
the creation of more expansive
landscape or open spaces, and
potentially reduces the volume of
storm water that must be managed.
From a sustainability perspective,
developers might be persuaded
to be more innovative in their
parking strategies, and employers
might be more aggressive in
encouraging transit, carpooling,
or other alternatives to the typical
commute.
Establish the ability to create
a parking district to serve
redevelopment zones in part or in
whole. A more aggressive parking
management strategy might look
across an entire redevelopment area,
or might suggest a comprehensive
parking strategy that flows across
several sites. Facilitation of shared
parking opportunities might result
by recognizing parking peak use
that accommodates a wider range
of uses on several sites within a
district. A by-product of a more
comprehensive parking strategy,
that spans a district or at least
several sites, is an increase in the
volume of street-level pedestrian
activity.
Establish minimum and maximum
thresholds for redevelopment
areas. The planning process yields
an understanding of the potential
end use for parcels in the study
rII!i.' ..1"
L l .
./
~
---
rll.
City of Golden Valley"'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
Chapter 5: Implementation 39
area, and considers an evolution
along a fairly lengthy time horizon.
However, if a parcel redevelops in
an early stage of the redevelopment
process at intensities significantly
less than the ultimate plan, there
may be lesser reason for succeeding
projects to pursue a path that
aligns with the intentions of this
plan. In a similar way, establishing
an upper limit for development
offers a greater ability to manage
impacts across an entire district,
and suggests a way of creating
improvements that fit the intended
character of the plan.
Consider methods of defining
development based on form,
and not solely on use. Many
communities have implemented
a form-based code format in
redevelopment districts that
offers direction to development
beyond basic use, lot coverage,
and dimensional requirements.
This code format, while different
than the city's existing zoning
code, directs attention to the form
of development, and perhaps
more directly, to the ways in
which pedestrians experience the
development. The creation of
overlay districts might offer another
way of guiding development toward
the goals of this plan, but allow an
underlying zoning to remain as a
district evolves.
Identification of
financial support
In considering a long term evolution,
it is often difficult to define a source
of funds that would encourage
conformance with the plan. While the
best methods of creating an alignment
between a community's plan and a
developer's intention is to have control
over sites or other critical components
of the development, having the ability to
shape development through incentives
is most often the path chosen. Several
methods might be considered, or even
be necessary:
Tax Increment Financing has
been the most commonly used
local finance tool to encourage
redevelopment, but its use has
been limited by legislative action.
Still, the ability to establish a
TlF district in areas that are
redeveloping may be an important
methods of capturing funds needed
to create supportive public realm
improvements and encourage
development that conforms with
the plan. Tax abatement is another
financing tool that is available at
the municipal level.
The creation of a property
acquisition fund might be especially
important in gaining control
over sites that have the ability
",r"'~
City of Golden Valley""" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
v-
sfllII
40 Chapter 5: Implementation
to shape development potential
around them-particularly in a
redevelopment process that might
unfold over ten to twenty years.
Properties acquired through
the use of these funds might be
used to provide land for public
improvements, to support efforts
to create mixed-income housing,
to remove blighted properties, to
spur conforming development,
or to simply control land until an
appropriate time for development.
In some cases, municipalities have
benefitted from acquisition of
certain properties well in advance of
roadway construction, dramatically
reducing the costs of right-of-way
acquisition at the time of the actual
improvements. As Douglas Drive
is a county roadway, coordinating
early acquisition of key properties
might be pursued.
The Metropolitan Council
and Hennepin County offer
municipalities funding assistance
through grants that support
connected development patterns
..
I..
~
-~ .
that link housing, jobs, and transit,
and that make use of existing
infrastructure. The City of Golden
Valley has made use of these Livable
Communities Demonstration
Account (LCDA) funds successfully
in the past to create the Valley
Square redevelopment. Hennepin
County offers funding for Transit-
Oriented Development (TaD) and
affordable housing initiatives.
A utility franchise fee allows a
municipality to levy a fee on a
utility provider (typically gas and
electric utilities) provided the fee is
passed directly to the consumer and
the fee is clearly identified on the
utility bill as a city fee. Cities can
choose to direct the fees received to
their general fund, although some
choose to dedicate the collected
fees toward specific purposes (for
burying overhead utility lines, for
example).
Funding for roadway construction
and reconstruction projects is
available through the Minnesota
Department of Transportation
through the Highway Safety
Improvement Program for
improvements designed to
decrease the frequency of crashes
involving vehicles, as well as
crashes involving pedestrians,
bicycles, and other non-motorized
vehicles. Improvements must be
permanent, and cannot include
right-of-way acquisition.
Sequence of
improvements
The need for improving pedestrian
facilities in the corridor has already
been identified. Still the process of
creating those improvements is made
difficult by the desire to be prudent with
the limited resources available to the
community, and to plan improvements
that can remain a part of the Douglas
Drive landscape even as more intensive
changes occur in the public realm. The
strategy of building so-called immediate
permanent improvements requires
significant engineering analysis to
ensure the improvements can actually
be permanent, but if determined to be
possible, these improvements would,
in part, satisfy the need for creating a
public improvement that significantly
enhances conditions for non-motorized
movement in the corridor.
The immediate permanent
improvements posed by this plan
include the creation of the "final"
streets cape improvements along the
east side of Douglas Drive, within the
available right-of-way. While space is
limited, reasonable improvements can
be made if overhead utilities are placed
underground in the same zone as the
pedestrian improvements. Within
the 11 foot "boulevard," a ten foot
wide sidewalk would be constructed
immediately behind the curb, with the
--
stJdr
City of Golden Valley""" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
Chapter 5: Implementation 41
first five feet reserved for "amenities"
such as street lighting and functional
needs such as roadway signage. The
second five feet would be the pedestrian
circulation zone, but the functional
width would only be limited in locations
where street lights and signs occur-
and even in those locations, more than
five feet would typically exist.
While the available width is limiting
for more substantial streets cape
improvements, this concept establishes
a zone dedicated to pedestrian
movement that is seriously lacking on
the corridor today. Other streets cape
improvements, such as street trees,
might occur in a zone beyond the
sidewalk through the creation of a
planting easement.
While the relocation of overhead utilities
is an obstacle, others exist as well. The
railroad crossing must be improved
to allow safe passage for pedestrians,
and the culvert at Bassett Creek must
be extended to support the sidewalk.
The creek crossing offers a chance to
emphasize one of the features of the
corridor by creating a culvert extension
that supports pedestrian facilities in a
form that is more bridge-like, and that
highlights the creek crossing.
The prospects for this first step in
implementation requires engineering
design of the future roadway sufficient
to fully understand the cross section
and profile of the future roadway-if
these immediate improvements are
really intended to be permanent. Still,
some improvements (such as those
near intersections or at transitions in
the roadway lane configurations), may
not be nearly so permanent. While it
might be demonstrated through the
engineering investigation that very little
of the improvements could actually
be permanent, the investigation itself
might identify alternative methods of
accomplishing the critical pedestrian
safety improvements, including the
creation of temporary improvements
in the same location.
While the creation of safe pedestrian
passage on Douglas Drive is the highest
priority, other early actions might also
be considered:
The city should begin the process
of gaining concurrence on the
transition of the roadway by working
with Hennepin County to verify
the potential for reconstructing
the road. This process has already
begun, as the county is aware of
the project and has encouraged the
city to begin working informally
to review several assumptions and
projection made by this plan as it
relates to the capacity of a future
roadway. As Douglas Drive is a
county facility, the county will be
responsible for determining the
feasibility of changes; the city may
have to respond by adjusting some
of the recommendations of this plan
to conform to county requirements
f~l~'
ii"
.'
that permit the road to function
as a part of their transportation
system.
The city would be well-served to
begin identification of parcels
where a short term change
would influence or limit future
development potential. While
this plan does not identify those
parcels or the timing of potential
change in private parcels, having
those key parcels identified and
having a method for establishing
control over their future offers
assurance that they will evolve in
ways that are supportive of the
plan's goals. The future of these
sites might be reasonably guided
by existing regulatory controls, but
in those instances where a change
might be "unrecoverable" from
the perspective of this plan, the
city should take action to ensure
current or anticipated development
will not diminish the integrity of
the remainder of the surrounding
parcels. ....,..
~.
....
V'
*=
" '".;
r:f
't'J~"';. .
,...'.... .~ ..~
"'./'
~~ ~.., ..,.
City of Golden Valley""'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
-
lIBr I
42 Appendices
Appendices
Appendix A: Summary of Interviews with Corridor Stakeholders
Appendix B: Resistance/Susceptibility to Change Analysis
Appendix C: Douglas Drive (CSAH 102) and Duluth Street
(CSAH 66) Traffic Forecasts
--
Itrdl
City of Golden Valley"'" Douglas Drive Corridor Study Report
----------
study
Summarv of interviews with corridor stakeholders
9 September 2008
Interview process
As a part of the corridor planning process, city staff identified various stakeholders along the Douglas
Drive corridor study area with whom interviews would be conducted. While other methods of gaining
input from the community will occur throughout the planning process, these interviews allow for deeper
insights to be gained before plans are defined. A range of stakeholders were identified for possible
interviews, including:
Major landholders and businesses
Tennant Company
Honeywell
CenterPoint Energy
OptumHealth (United Health Group) represented by Jones Lang LaSalle
Small businesses and institutions
Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses
Gregg and Jim's Service
AEI Electronics
Winkley Orthopedics Laboratory, Inc.
Public sector agencies and institutions
Robbinsdale Area Schools
Hennepin County Department of Public Works
Metro Transit
Three Rivers Park District
City of Crystal
Transit for Livable Communities
Bassett Creek Watershed District
In addition, residents living on or near the corridor were invited to an evening meeting.
Beyond gathering the insights from people who live on or near the corridor, city staff shared the reasons
why a corridor study is being conducted, highlighted some of the conditions of the corridor that might
be resolved as a result of this effort, and noted the general schedule of events in the planning process.
During the interviews, there were no standard questions asked; rather, stakeholders were encouraged
to share their thoughts and concerns that related to their particular interest, to ask questions of city
- slltJ
Summarv of interviews with corridor stakeholders
9 September 2008
Page 2
staff and the city's consultants, and to share their thoughts about improvements that would be
attractive for their use.
It was made clear to stakeholders that there is no plan, and that the effort to create a plan is beginning
with these series of interviews. The study area was also described to stakeholders, noting that this is no
prescribed boundary at this point in the planning process; rather, there is an area of influence indicated
by a "fuzzy" boundary on a map that was provided to each stakeholder group.
The interviews were only a first step in the engagement of the community. It is important that insights
are gained early to focus some of the work, but subsequent meetings and interactions will more directly
guide the effort to define a plan for the corridor.
Summary of comments offered
While notes were kept for each interview, the comments offered during the interviews are summarized
here without attributing the comment to its author. While most stakeholders would likely share their
comments publicly, it's more important for this process to understand the breadth of concerns noted.
In general, comments from private stakeholders could be summarized as follows:
Safety was noted as one of the most pressing concerns of stakeholders.
Resident stakeholders voiced more interest in a current development proposal than a long term
view of the corridor, but they did indicate that safety for pedestrians is a concern.
Most stakeholders recognized the need to improve the corridor for the benefit of non-vehicle
movement, and many indicated support for enhanced transit facilities-especially transit
shelters. Of greatest concern was the lack of reasonable pedestrian facilities.
Surprisingly, many stakeholders suggested that they would be cooperative in dedicating the
property for improvements for pedestrian facilities (although it was noted for each stakeholder
that there are no plans at this point).
Corporate uses are located on or near the corridor because of long term investments in their
facilities; it was not suggested that any of the users had expansive growth plans.
It became obvious that the corridor is a significant employment center for the community, with
two world headquarters and a number of solid smaller businesses. There was almost no
mention of vacant buildings or unoccupied spaces in multi-tenant buildings.
Several stakeholders suggested a need for more retail on the corridor.
- StrJJ
Summa of interviews with corridor stakeholders
9 September 2008
Page 3
Several stakeholders noted the positive improvements to Golden Valley Road.
Many stakeholders, as groups or larger bodies, indicated a long connection to Douglas Drive and
the Golden Valley community.
Public agency stakeholders were more matter-of-fact in their interviews, often relating their agency's
policy as the corridor was discussed. Common themes from the public stakeholders include the
following;
Sandburg will remain a school, as there has been significant investment in the building. There is
potential for district-wide facilities to be added to the site.
A three-lane road configuration for Douglas Drive is being considered for the City of Crystal, and
there is potential for this configuration in Golden Valley. A three-lane roadway works in
locations where traffic volumes (measured on the basis of Average Daily Trips) are less than
14,000. In Golden Valley, the significant peaks in traffic volume may be problematic at some
locations.
The width of the corridor is narrow and limits the ability to easily add facilities for pedestrians
and bicycles or to accommodate other regulatory functions of the road. Still, most entities
agree that innovation is needed as the project is planned (recognizing potential mode shifts for
transportation functions, or reductions in volume for stormwater management).
The culvert at Bassett Creek needs to be studied for its condition, its ability to be expanded (if
the roadway were to be widened), and its hydraulic function (so that flows of the creek are not
limited).
Hennepin County's Bicycle Plan notes facilities for bicycles on Douglas Drive and Duluth Street.
Three Rivers Park District recognizes the need for expanded trail facilities (for commuting and
recreation) beyond those currently being constructed for the Luce Line Trail, and advocates for
stronger linking of their trails to each other and to a local sidewalk/trail network.
There are no immediately accessible funds for making improvements in the corridor. Transit for
Livable Communities may have some funds remaining in their grant, but they have restructured
the methods for delivering those funds to communities. No agency indicated that
improvements on Douglas Drive are a part of their planned capital improvements. The City of
Crystal noted their positive relationship with Hennepin County, and possible methods of
accessing funds for some roadway improvements and corridor enhancements.
- rtUJ
Summary of interviews with corridor stakeholders
9 September 2008
Page 4
Interview notes
Tennant Company
Interview date:
Representation:
City representation:
21 July 2008
Larry Spears and Karen Durant
Joe Hogeboom, Mark Grimes, Jeanne Andre, and Michael Schraeder (LHB, Inc.)
Corporate Woods, their facility on Douglas Drive, has a population of about 250 people. It was
estimated that 95 percent of those employees drive, and there is no parking problem on the site. The
building includes large conference facilities, which might drive the population up at some times (still,
there is no parking problem). The company's corporate fleet is housed at this site.
Corporate Woods houses the company's customer service group (about 90 people) on the second floor.
Professional workers occupy the remainder of the building, most of whom are in the building for at least
a part of each day. The company uses flex hours, with most employees arriving between 6:30 and 9:00
am, and leaving between 5:00 and 7:00 pm. It is not unusual for a few employees to remain in the
building until 10:00 pm.
The plant near Highway 100 runs two shifts, with a total plant employment of about 600 to 700 (for a
total population of 1100 to 1200 employees on the main campus and Corporate Woods).
Tennant considers Highway 55 and Douglas Drive to be their front door. Traffic congestion, especially
eastbound Highway 55 to northbound Douglas Drive, can be a problem. The improvements at Golden
Valley Road are seen as a positive.
Employees use other places in Golden Valley as a destination for lunch, although there is a full service
dining facility in their main building (service is provided by Aramark).
There are currently about 250 office people in the Corporate Woods building, and another 250 in the
main building. They see the potential for one to two percent growth in those jobs in the next five to ten
years. They do not see employee growth in the plant, and probably no growth in trucking related to the
plant. Nothing was known about the potential for movement of goods by train in the future.
Golden Valley is the campus-nothing is envisioned that could change that. There are no plans for the
long term for the Corporate Woods building, but they indicated the company has a preference for a
consolidated campus.
The main campus is not particularly oriented to transit. Employees have indicated an interest in biking
to work. They said they would provide information about the numbers of employees living in Golden
Valley and within five miles of their main building.
Visibility is not key to their choice to be here. This is the Minneapolis and world headquarters facility,
and the choice to consolidate here was easy (the company recent moved or is in the process of moving
operations from a building on Maple Grove to the main campus).
- stI11
Summary of interviews with corridor stakeholders
9 September 2008
Page 5
Honeywell
Interview date:
Representation:
City representation:
22 July 2008
Leon Traut and Jim Hillier
Joe Hogeboom, Mark Grimes, Jeanne Andre, and Michael Schroeder (LHB, Inc.)
The Golden Valley facility is the world headquarters for the ACS (Automation and Control Systems)
Division. There are about 2000 employees at this site: 1400 office and professional workers during
regular hours (flex hours are possible), and 600 manufacturing workers on two shifts (6:00 am to 2:30
pm, and 2:30 pm to 11:00 pm). The total building area is about 1.3 million square feet, with about
700,000 square feet dedicated to manufacturing. The site encompasses 79 acres, with the most recent
addition occurring in 1983. That addition is the most significant change that is envisioned.
Manufacturing has occurred on this site in the 1950s.
The facility has an on-site cafeteria that closes at 1:00 pm. Office workers sometimes leave at noon,
with Bylerly's or the Winnetka area as their destination.
There is a bike club that has about 25 members, and there are bicycle commuters at the facility. Metro
Transit goes through the site at least twice each day. Bus shelters would be seen as an improvement; at
times, the company has allowed non-employee bus patrons to wait inside of the building.
Truck access uses Sandburg Road, and then Douglas Drive to Highway 55 or Duluth Street to Highway
100. Visitors are instructed to use Duluth Street from Highway 100, which brings them to the front door
of the plant.
A shift change occurred during the interview. It was plain to see that drivers exiting Honeywell did not
experience a delay, but drivers on Duluth street heading southbound on Douglas Drive had to wait
through at least one signal cycle (there is no arrow for their exclusive movement at the signal, causing a
delay and perhaps a back-up on Duluth Street).
They noted safety as a primary concern for the corridor, highlighting the need for lighting and
pedestrian crossings, and accommodations for both pedestrians and bicycles. They also noted children
walk in the streets in winter on their way to school. Bus traffic was also noted.
When asked about the width of the corridor, they indicated a willingness to cooperate to expand the
right-of-way. It was stated that we have no plans, but that conditions along the corridor are generally
confining, and there are few places where expansion of the right-of-way could be reasonably
accommodated-and their facility was one of those locations.
They asked a question about roundabouts, not in particular for the corridor but rather about locations
where they are used and the reasons a roundabout might be a preferred intersection type. It was noted
that roundabouts might be considered, but the study had not progressed to the point where
intersection analysis had been performed and configurations were considered. It seemed like they
would be amenable.
- mtl
Summary of interviews with corridor stakeholders
9 September 2008
Page 6
CenterPoint Energy
Interview date:
Representation:
29 August 2008
Chuck Becker, Manager, Facilities; AI Swintek, Manger, Local Government
Relations
Joe Hogeboom, Mark Grimes, Jeanne Andre, and Michael Schroeder (LHB, Inc.)
City representation:
CenterPoint considers their Golden Valley site as strategic in their system. It is central to the
metropolitan area, nearby highway work has been completed, and it is near their other major
metropolitan facilities. The site is a peak shaving plant, which is used to supplement underground
natural gas during extremely cold weather. The location is critical for their customers because of the
company's supply network.
The site contains propane tanks and a field-based office site with a construction operations focus.
Vehicles stored at this site include four crew trucks and trailers, plus pick-up sized vehicles. Crews stage
at this site in the morning (7 am to 8 am) and return in the afternoon (3:30 pm or later). These crews
serve an area significantly to the west of the site. Crews also stage from this site during emergencies.
There are eight to ten employees during the day on the site. The site also houses a "radio shop" (a
mobile data terminal support/service operation) with two employees, and a laboratory with two to
three people.
The long term outlook for this site will focus on the current operations. With three to four acres of open
area, the site might someday house a call center (about 200 people who are currently located in three
locations), a base for metering services, redistribution of services from other sites, or a warehouse.
Access from Golden Valley Road, as occurs today, suits the company's current needs adequately.
United Properties approach CenterPoint a few years ago about senior housing on the company's open
land. They were cautious about giving up the property to other uses when they may have a corporate
need in the future.
- stlltl
Summary of interviews with corridor stakeholders
9 September 2008
Page 7
Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses
Interview date: 23 July 2008
Representation: Jim Tuller and Mike Cave
City representation: Joe Hogeboom, Mark Grimes, and Michael Schroeder (LHB, Inc.)
Their building was built in 1956, and it has always served as their hall. It was designed by an architect
and built by members. They noted that it doesn't have any square corners or windows. The building
actually serves a number.of their groups, but it really cannot be updated economically. Varying levels
make it difficult, there is no elevator, and there is no reasonable way to expand.
There is activity in the building nearly the entire week. Parking is not currently an issue for them. Their
congregations will not grow beyond the capacity ofthis building-growth is limited to 150 members,
and then the group divides and a new congregation is started.
At one time drivers avoided the intersection by cutting through their parking lot, but the closure of the
driveway entrance on Douglas Drive solved that problem. This happened particularly in the evening
rush hour, and traffic is still more congested at that time than other parts of the day.
Their property is not necessarily for sale, but they have been approached in the past. They would sell, if
they could find a reasonably located property to build on-it has to be within the area of the
congregations that use this building.
Like Honeywell, they seemed willing to accommodate a right-of-way expansion if needed, noting they
have always been supportive ofthe community. Like Honeywell, it was expressed that there are no
plans.
- strdl
Summary of interviews with corridor stakeholders
9 September 2008
Page 8
Small businesses
Interview date:
Representation:
City representation:
23 July 2008
Stacey Hadland, Jones Lang LaSalle (for OptumHealth); Gregg Malik, Jim and
Gregg's Service; and Greg Gruman, Winkley Orthopedic Laboratories
Joe Hogeboom, Mark Grimes, Jeanne Andre, and Michael Schroeder (LHB, Inc.)
Douglas Drive serves as a kind of reliever to Highway 100 if something happens on Highway 100 and
traffic gets slow.
Sidewalks are really needed on Douglas Drive, along with improvements for transit-particularly bus
shelters, and even a park and ride facility, both of which would increase ridership. Bus access for
orthopedic customers would be a good improvement. Gregg Malik noted that people walk through his
parking area because there are no sidewalks along Douglas Drive; he would be supportive of the
addition of sidewalks, even if he has to give up property.
OptumHealth employs about 1500 people. They offer a valet parking service. Jones Lang LaSalle, the
firm that manages the property for OptumHealth, knows of no expansion plans.
Turning radii are difficult in some locations along Douglas Drive, with conflicts at intersections and
damage to fire plugs.
It was noted that more retail would be desired on the corridor, like the Homesteader.
- stIt1
Summarv of interviews with corridor stakeholders
9 September 2008
Page 9
AEI Electronics
Interview date:
Representation:
City representation:
18 August 2008
Richard Atlas, President; Oleh Artym, Vice President of Marketing; and Denise
Gamroth, Controller
Joe Hogeboom, Jeanne Andre, and Michael Schroeder (LHB, Inc.)
The discussion focused initially on the status of the Homesteader. Joe Hogeboom offered an update on
the city's actions, noting that the equipment currently on site was not a city contractor, and that the
owner may have decided to proceed with demolition after receiving the city's order for removal.
Richard Atlas talked about the impacts of road construction on businesses, noting his company's
previous location on Washington Avenue in Minneapolis. He said that construction continued for 18
months, nearly costing him his business and causing other businesses like his to fail (he noted that 16 or
17 businesses failed). Customers simply could not get to his business. It cost him $200,000 to keep the
doors open. He felt the problem was the scheduling of trades to get the work completed-that no one
was responsible for making certain that work happened on a timely basis.
Richard estimated that the tractor/trailer count to Tennant and other users in the area are 50 to 75 each
day.
They noted that the area of Country Club Drive at Douglas Drive is a problem, and offered suggestions
about how it might be fixed (changing the cycle of the lights, verifying that the loop detectors are
working properly, and eliminating left turns at onto Country Club Drive). They indicated that
pedestrians are at risk in the current situation. They also noted that the pedestrian count along
Highway 55 and the frontage road is virtually zero, and that Highway 55, while it is busy during certain
times of the day, is dead by 8 or 9 at night. It was suggested that the city look at the cow paths across
the Homesteader site to understand the directions of pedestrian traffic
AEI has been in their current location for six years, and they have 13 employees. Two employees use
bus transit. The entire building comprises 90,000 square feet, and AEI occupies 26,000 square feet.
There are three to six small tenants across the front side of the building, including a print shop (Color
Direct) that uses 5,0000 to 6,000 square feet.
The building used to be a milk carton plant, and it is well suited to their needs. Access and location work
well since most of their customers come from the west suburbs, and three-quarters of their customers
are contractors. They are a wholesale electronic parts distributor (a turnkey operation), providing the
same kinds of cabling, connectors, and other electronic parts available from a store like Best Buy, but
without the fancy packaging and costs. They will sell on a retail basis, but their sales force would prefer
the larger tickets of their contractor customers.
The company sees growth in the range of 10 to 20 percent per year as a possibility, depending on
construction, noting that they are not affected by the residential downturn because most of their
customers are not doing residential construction.
- mtJ
Summarv of interviews with corridor stakeholders
9 September 2008
Page 10
Robbinsdale Area Schools
Interview date: 31 July 2008
Representation: Tom Henderlite, principal of Sandburg Middle School; Jim Gerber, Facilities
Director for the district
City representation: Joe Hogeboom, Mark Grimes, and Michael Schroeder (LHB, Inc.)
There are many stories about what might happen at Sandburg Middle School, but investments made to
the building suggest that it remain a school. If it becomes a language school, there will be more bus
riders and parent drop-off than exists currently. Today, there are about 85 percent of students taking
the bus, with the remainder walking. About 20 percent of the buses head to the west, with most
heading first to Douglas Drive. Nearly all staff drive to work; the contract day is 7:30 am to 3:15 pm.
Sandburg Road improved significantly when the turn lane was added to the intersection and the arrow
was added to the traffic signal. The improvements helped move buses at the end of the school day.
Getting students safely across Douglas Drive will be an issue, even if the facility becomes a language
school. Walkers come from Crystal neighborhoods as well as Golden Valley. It was noted that sidewalks
are needed along Douglas Drive, but they are also needed along Medicine Lake Road. Speed limits, or
the speed of traffic regardless of posted limits, are a problem for pedestrians on these streets.
Traffic cutting through the parking lot was a problem, but it was resolved when the access to the north
was cut off. Today, with the reconfigured parking area, the parking situation is good. A one-way
circulation pattern was proposed in the parking lot, but it was never implemented.
Facilities in this building that are important to the larger community include a pool and gymnasium.
There is no auditorium.
Possible changes to Sandburg include (although no changes have been committed to):
Electronic learning; a greater need for data connections is required as a result, and this building
could be the heart of their network;
A bus garage, if the current administration building were to be relocated to this site.
There is no air condition in the building, so summer school will not likely happen here. Community
education uses the building in the evenings.
They wondered if there would be assessments likely to come with any Douglas Drive improvements.
Their concern was rooted in their need to reach out to residents for support of a referendum, and
assessments could affect an effort to raise funds through a referendum.
The apartment complex is a problem for the school-problems that exist in the home are brought to the
school.
District enrollment peaked years ago at 28,000 students. The enrollment is currently around 13,000
students, and this is expected to remain stable for the next ten years.
- IlU1
Summary of interviews with corridor stakeholders
9 September 2008
Page 11
Hennepin County
Interview date:
Representation:
City representation:
12 August 2008
Bob Byers, Department of Public Works; Karen Nikolai, Housing, Community
Works, and Transit
Joe Hogeboom, Mark Grimes, Jeanne Andre, Jeanine Clancy, Jeff Oliver, Tony
Heppelmann (WSB and Associates, Inc.) and Michael Schroeder (LHB, Inc.)
Hennepin County offered a more regional perspective on the role of Douglas Drive (and Winnetka
Avenue), suggesting that they will have to continue to support traffic in "overflow" conditions from TH
169 and TH 100. There are no plans for TH 169 to change in the foreseeable future. More locally, the
improvements that were made at the south end of the corridor would be considered interim
improvements, made with the understanding that they would work toward a larger vision for the
corridor (referring specifically to improvements made up to Golden Valley Road and a little beyond).
There are no paving or reconstruction projects programmed for Douglas Drive.
The City of Crystal may be interested in changing the configuration of Douglas Drive, creating a three-
lane roadway.
Traffic volumes on Douglas Drive and Duluth Street were noted as:
11,400 south of Duluth Street
10,900 Duluth Street to Medicine Lake Road
8,300 north of Medicine Lake Road
Based on these volumes, a three-lane configuration is possible for Douglas Drive. The county did note
the significant peaks may be an issue. For a start on an acceptable design direction, they suggested that
their Transportation Plan Guidelines be reviewed for cross section possibilities. They also noted that the
intersection of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road could be reconfigured.
Speed of traffic was discussed as one of the issues for Douglas Drive. A speed study could be conducted,
but there is a compliance issue for this street.
Douglas Drive and Duluth Street are both noted as bicycle routes on the county's bicycle plan. They
would like to have on- and off-street facilities for bicycles. The numbers of driveways were recognized
as an issue. They would support a ten foot wide multi-use trail, but allowed that a narrower trail may be
needed in some areas (a width more like eight feet). The city noted their ordinance allows bicycles on
sidewalks, but they must yield to pedestrians. The county noted that they will not direct bicyclists to
non-standard facilities.
The county will forward crash data to the city. It was noted that Highway 55 and Boone Avenue has the
worst crash counts; Douglas Drive at Highway 55 and at Duluth Street also have significant crash rates.
St. Louis Park experienced problems when the city tried to implement a sidewalk/trail project when they
looked at burial of power lines. Moving the power poles on Douglas Drive might be an easier approach.
- stJtJ
Summary of interviews with corridor stakeholders
9 September 2008
Page 12
The culvert at Bassett Creek may present a problem for a trail, since the space available is quite narrow.
The trail would have to be immediately behind the curb, or the culvert would have to be extended.
Innovation and mode shift (destination walking and bicycling) are priorities for Transit for Livable
Communities that will have to be coordinated with the county's interests in Douglas Drive.
- stJiJ
Summarv of interviews with corridor stakeholders
9 September 2008
Page 13
Metro Transit
Interview date:
Representation:
City representation:
27 August 2008
Cyndi Harper, Senior Transit Planner
Joe Hogeboom, Mark Grimes, Jeanne Andre, Jeff Oliver, and Michael Schroeder
(LHB, Inc.)
Cyndi noted that there used to be better transit patterns and service on Douglas Drive as recently as five
or six years ago. Budget cuts have forced them to reduce service, which is now focused on rush hours;
mid-day, evening, and weekend service was dropped. She discussed the express service available to
Golden Valley residents from the MnDOT park and ride facility (at Duluth Street) serving downtown.
That service is basically directional with rush hour traffic.
There are standards for passengers per hour relative to service provisions. Routes that fail to meet
those standards could be dropped. Cyndi suggested that improvements to transit use through
education might be achieved. In this case, Metro Transit would set up an 18 month target for ridership,
with local funding support. They would review the ridership numbers after the study period and, if the
results are favorable, they would make the route permanent.
Metro Transit recently completed a sector study for the northwest area, of which Golden Valley is a
part. We can find information about Douglas Drive in that study, and in their service improvement plans
(which Cyndi will forward to the city those parts that are pertinent).
The park and ride at the MnDOT site has capacity for 50 cars. There was a plan for expansion to a 250
car facility with a parking deck, but it was not pushed hard, and there were other demands for any
available funds.
Cyndi discussed their bus shelter policy. They require at least 25 boardings per day for the placement of
one of their standard shelters. The city (or some other entity) can put in a shelter, but Metro Transit will
not maintain it (or at least they will not guarantee that they can maintain it). They use standard sizes for
glass, which would be prudent to accommodate should the city decide to implement its own shelters. In
the event the city decides to implement its own shelters, a more custom design could be achieved (but
still, standards for glass should be respected if at all possible so that Metro Transit could decide to help
with maintenance).
She offered some insights about bus service on Douglas Drive, noting that professional workers tend not
to use the bus. She also said that congestion is not necessarily pushing commuters to buses, nor is the
prevalence of free parking. Improvements to the corridor might look at ways of reducing time for buses
that are on the corridor (coordinated signal timing), creating a more comfortable environment for
transit patrons (sidewalks, improved crossings, managing traffic speed on the street), and shaping
development that better addresses the street.
Cyndi offered to provide the city with the following:
Bus stop and shelter standards;
- rIJt1
Summary of Interviews with corridor stakeholders
9 September 2008
Page 14
Relevant portions of the service improvement plan;
Sector 8 Plan future service projections;
Boarding counts; and
Longitudinal employer-household dynamics (a tool that illustrates where people live or work
relative to a census block).
Cyndi provided the following via email subsequent to the interview (a portion ofthe email is included):
Attached are Metro Transit's standards regarding shelters and other amenities. Also, I did
review our Service Improvement Plan and the future changes outlined in our Northwest Metro
Transit Plan. At this time, the only improvements slated for Douglas Drive are for more express
Route 758 service if the park and ride at MnDOT expands. The ramp at MnDOT is not included
in our 2030 Plan at this time. That's not to say that the ramp or additional service along Douglas
could not be added to our plan in the future if the demand is there and based on some of the
changes your study is considering.
- stJtl
Summary of interviews with corridor stakeholders
9 September 2008
Page 15
Three Rivers Park District
Interview date: 25 August 2008
Representation: Stephen Shurson, Landscape Architect and Jonathan Vlaming, Planning Manager
City representation: Joe Hogeboom, Mark Grimes, Jeanne Andre, and Michael Schroeder (LHB, Inc.)
The Luce Line Trail is a Three Rivers Park District facility east of Vicksburg Lane in Plymouth. To the west,
it is a state trail.
Three Rivers is currently extending their portion of the Luce Line Trail through Golden Valley. The
current phase will extend the trail along portions of Douglas Drive to the rail corridor, and then eastward
to about TH 100. A subsequent phase will extend the trail to Theodore Wirth Park. Construction work
that can be seen today is for that section on Douglas Drive where new curb will be constructed along the
east side of the road to accommodate a multi-use trail, 10 feet wide, with a three foot clear zone near
the curb.
Three Rivers Park District will provide projections of use, but that work will not be complete until
October. Preliminary estimates have been prepared and will be provided. Other trails (such as the
Cedar Lake Trails) have about 300,000 visits per year (for each of the two trails). Use of this trail will not
be as great because it is a linear trail (the Cedar Lake Trail forms more of a loop). Still, they expect
significant use on this new trail.
They see about 50 percent of the use of their trails coming from within three-quarters of a mile of the
trail corridor, with another 25 percent from within three miles. The remaining percentage comes from
greater distances.
Providing links to the Luce Line Trail along Douglas Drive would be seen as a significant benefit. They
have no issues with the city or county pushing for these kinds of local connections to the trail.
They typically provide a kiosk with information about the community (a large map covering a one mile
radius beyond the "you are here" icon) every two miles along the trail. The map and kiosk will direct
trail users to destinations in downtown or other parts of the community. There will be directional signs
about every mile along the trail.
For this trail, there is no parking at a trailhead. Most of their trails begin and end in a Three Rivers Park
District facility, so parking is provided in those locations. If parking becomes a problem, they seemed
interested to work with the city to find a reasonable location for "trailhead" parking, even in downtown.
The trail is not maintained by Three Rivers in the winter, but the city could choose to do so under a
cooperative agreement. Jeff Oliver noted that the city currently maintains trails in the city to make sure
they are available for use during the winter.
It was noted that there are other trail corridors that Three Rivers is planning in Golden Valley. The first
is more immediate-within two years, and would follow 32nd Avenue through parts of New Hope and
- -
Summary of interviews with corridor stakeholders
9 September 2008
Page 16
Crystal (the Bassett Creek Trail). The second is more of a concept that would follow a north/south route
along the CP rail corridor, extending eventually to the Minnesota River. While this might offer some
local connections, the use of Douglas Drive is of greater interest now because of the way the Luce Line
Trail might link to employers along and near Douglas Drive.
Three Rivers Park District has about 80 miles of trails within Hennepin County, with about 85 miles
planned and another 30 miles at more of a concept stage of development. They also have a
considerable length of trails within their park facilities.
They will provide boards from their open houses that describe the Luce Line Trail (for use in our public
events). Jonathan also noted that a map of their existing and planned trails will be forwarded to the
city.
- stlt]
Summary of interviews with corridor stakeholders
9 September 2008
Page 17
City of Crystal
Interview date:
Representation:
City representation:
8 September 2008
Patrick Peters, Community Development Director; John Sutter, City Planner
Joe Hogeboom, Mark Grimes, Jeanne Andre, and Michael Schroeder (LHB, Inc.)
The city's Comprehensive Plan update questions the need for four lanes of traffic on Douglas Drive
through Crystal, and advocates for a three-lane approach. Questions that need to be addressed include
the impact of a three-lane roadway on buses (they may look to reduce the number of bus stops and
create pull-outs for buses) and a plan for implementation. The three-lane roadway works, according to
the City of Crystal, in locations where ADT is under 10,000, and in some cases just more than 10,000 ADT
will work as well.
The solution would be similar to recent improvements on Medicine Lake Road and Bass Lake Road
(which, in some cases, were essentially restriped to create three lanes from the existing four lanes). The
results have seem to demonstrate that the roadway is calmer, that there may be opportunities for more
intensive landscape development (which would occur in private property along the edges ofthe right-of-
way), and sidewalks and bike lanes were created. There is no room remaining for on-street parking.
The roadway, in cross-section, is 48 feet curb-to-curb, with sidewalks immediately behind the curb, all
within a 66 foot right-of-way.
The city noted that safety might be improved for residents along the road, because the bike lanes push
the travel lanes six feet further from the curb (offering more time to react to on-coming traffic).
The city discussed the Bassett Creek Trail, which runs along the west side ofTH 100 at Bassett Creek,
northward to 32nd Avenue, and then continuing to Douglas Drive with an off-street trail. The extension
west of Douglas Drive occurs as a trail. The city advocates for bike lanes in their Comprehensive Plan
update, with striped on-street lanes.
They see no long term evolution in the commercial areas at the northerly end of Douglas Drive.
They suggested that opportunities may exist for more immediate changes in locations where the
roadway has a rural section, and suggested that we review this with Hennepin County. They
undergrounded the overhead electric lines near the Crystal Shopping Center, but noted that they did not
do any other relocation of overhead electric facilities.
Landscape improvements may be possible through Hennepin County's Roadside Enhancement
Partnership Program, according to the City of Crystal.
- Itlll
Summary of interviews with corridor stakeholders
9 September 2008
Page 18
Transit for Livable Communities
Interview date: 25 August 2008
Representation: Steve Clark
City representation: Joe Hogeboom, Jeanne Andre, and Michael Schroeder (LHB, Inc.)
Steve Clark explained that TLC is looking for low cost immediate changes to benefit bicycle and
pedestrian movements. In the effort related to Douglas Drive, he suggested that Hennepin County
should not overly dictate the direction for the road. He noted the county's standards for cross-sections,
but also said there is a possibility for a variance to those standards (where a four lane to three lane
conversion is desired for roads with ADT greater than 15,000; where lane narrowing is desired beyond
11 feet; and where the required two-foot reaction distance at the curb line can be replaced with an on-
street bicycle lane).
He recalled a comment from a recent presentation he attended (John LaPlante?) indicating that on-
street bicycle lanes are ten times safer than sidewalks.
Steve indicated that a speed limit could be posted that is lower than standards without a speed study if
there are bicycle lanes on the street. There is a state statute to this effect that he will forward. This
would allow speeds to be reduced to 25 miles per hour (although that speed may not be the right speed
for Douglas Drive, it is the lowest the speed can be posted). Speed limit signs have to be posted for
these lower speeds.
There have been a number of successful four-to-three conversions in the country, but locally he
suggested that Rice Street in St. Paul was a good example. Its ADT is around 16,000.
Intersection configurations make a real impact on bicycle and pedestrian movements. He suggested
there be no free right turns, that intersections be "slimmed down," and that we should question added
turn lanes (they result in greater crossing distances for pedestrians).
TLC is supporting an effort to study bicycling and walking distances to transit facilities outside of
downtown Minneapolis. HR Green (Jack Broz) is conducting the work, which is due in fall of 2009.
For TLC, their remaining funds (about $5 million) are being allocated through a non-competitive process.
They are looking for good demonstration projects-places where their dollars would result in a
replicable model. He noted that they would not, for example, support a project that added bicycle lanes
but did so through a road widening. They are looking for more innovative methods of accommodating
bicycles and pedestrians. They would also support efforts to create short cuts for bicyclists-and this
would be open to any project, not just those they've already been supporting. Crossing improvements
using count-down signals would be a third area of potential support from TLC. Finally, they would
support wayfinding efforts with the remaining dollars.
- rt/dJ
Summary of interviews with corridor stakeholders
9 September 2008
Page 19
Bassett Creek Watershed District
Interview date: 25 August 2008
Representation: Jim Herbert, Barr Engineering Company
City representation: Joe Hogeboom, Mark Grimes: Jeanne Andre, Jeff Oliver, Pete Willenbring (WSB
and Associates, Inc.) and Michael Schroeder (LHB, Inc.)
Jim started by indicating that the watershed district exercised flexibility in its rules for linear projects like
roadway corridors, recognizing that there is often limited space for typical stormwater management
practices. They would encourage the use of best management practices wherever possible. They would
not respond well to a "do-nothing" approach, even though management may be difficult.
In the future, there will likely be a stronger push for volume reduction, and our planning should strive to
accommodate those possibilities. There may be such policies in the next generation plan by the district.
They would allow off-site best management practices to be used in the event no improvements could be
made within the corridor.
Jim did not note any flood plain issues. The hydraulic capacity of the culvert for Bassett Creek will need
to be maintained.
The district could not approve anything for this kind of a study, but it could react to concepts. However,
it was determined that we could reasonably determine the response of the district, so the study will not
likely be forwarded for review.
The city would not advocate for solutions that would include porous pavement in the street, but may-
in the future (given the longer term nature of this study)-consider the use of porous asphalt or
concrete in trails.
----------
study
Resistance/susceptibilitv to chan~e analvsis
12 August 2008
Process
Members of the Douglas Drive Advisory Committee were asked to share their thoughts about the future
of the Douglas Drive corridor through an analysis of parcels and their resistance or susceptibility to
change. While not intended as a definitive prediction of a parcel's future, the resulting patterns lend
insights about where change is possible, and where the existing condition reflects stability.
The analysis is organized to first determine a parcel's resistance or susceptibility to change. An absolute
determination is not the goal; that is, a parcel receiving a susceptible label does not indicate that it will
change, and similarly, a stable designation is not a guarantee that the use will remain. Ultimately, we
are interested in areas of the corridor where a number of parcels receive similar designations.
A second level of analysis goes beyond a parcel's resistance or susceptibility to change, attempting to
frame the reasons underlying a designation. Members of the Douglas Drive Advisory Committee
assigned at least one criterion supporting each parcel's designation. Analysis of these criteria gives
insights to a parcel's future, and when compared to those parcels surrounding it, might suggest
strategies supporting intervention to stem negative influences or measures that would support longevity
for the existing use. Criteria used in the evaluation include:
Considerations for Stability
Resistant to change Susceptible to change
,
conforming use i +A -A ' non-conforming use
use supports the vision +8 -8 I use inconsistent with vision
service-able structure and infrastructure +C -C ! obsolete structure and infrastructure
i
I negatively impacted by adjacent or nearby
no adjacent or nearby negative influences I +0 -0 I influences
positive influence on adjacent or nearby +E -E negative influence on adjacent or nearby
uses uses
business or property not for sale or in ' +F -F business or property for sale or in
transition transition
architecturally significant structure I +G -G I architecturally insignificant structure
historically significant (or potentially) i +H -H historically insignificant structure
structure '
activity contributes to the community +1 -I activity detracts from the community
pedestrian access is safe and sufficient +J -J pedestrian access is unsafe and insufficient
little or no obvious indication of pollution +K -K obvious indication of pollution
good vehicular access I +L -L poor vehicular access
- stJtJ
Resistance/susceDtibility to chanl!e analysis
12 August 2008
page 2
Results
Parcels noted for stability are not surprising, and include those occupied by major corporations
(OptumHealth, Tennant's Corporate Woods building, and Honeywell), industrial uses along Zane
Avenue, and institutions (Perpich Center for Arts Education, Sandburg Middle School, and Kingdom Hall
of Jehovah's Witnesses). Along Duluth Street, parcels occupied by Minnesota Department of
Transportation, King of Grace Lutheran Church, the Spring Gate Shopping Center, and office uses were
all categorized as stable. A few multi-family housing sites also fall into this category. Support for the
characterization of these parcels as stable include:
The current use conforms to zoning ordinances;
The current use supports the vision for the corridor;
There are no negative influences caused by the use; and
Adjacent or nearby uses are not negatively influenced by the use.
Three types of parcels fall into the category of susceptible: single family homes abutting Douglas Drive,
some multi-family housing, and industrial-use parcels east of Douglas Drive nearer to Highway 55.
Members of the Advisory Committee offered the following as support for these designations:
Structure and/or infrastructure is obsolete;
The current use negatively impacts its neighbors; and
Pedestrian access is unsafe or insufficient.
It's worth noting that some sites identified as susceptible to change were generally described as being
the right use, but a lack of investment in the building or grounds detracts from the parcel's otherwise
positive contribution.
Notably, one area designated as susceptible to change by the Advisory Committee included an area
currently under review by the city. Applewood Pointe, a senior cooperative housing developer, has
proposed a redevelopment of several parcels at the northeast quadrant of Douglas Drive and Golden
Valley Road.
The analysis included several parcels where the Advisory Committee members' designations were not
conclusive. A parcel occupied by Centerpoint Energy was considered stable because of the parcels is not
for sale or does not appear to be in transition, that the use is not likely to move, and that it offers a
positive visual impact for the corridor. It was also noted as being susceptible because the use is not
necessarily consistent with the vision for the corridor. An office use, convenience store, and apartments
on the southeast corner of Douglas Drive and Duluth Street are a cluster of parcels where the opinions
of the Advisory Committee differed and a conclusion is not evident.
- slit!
Resistance/susceptlbilitv to chanl!:e analvsis
12 August 2008
page 3
Conclusions
The analysis revealed strong patterns of stability and susceptibility, but probably most important is the
expanse of areas noted as stable by the Advisory Committee. From that perspective, those uses are
likely viewed as valued parts of the corridor and the community, and their longevity might be
encouraged. Still, with time, even these uses could face conditions that would suggest a change. The
planning effort should direct efforts toward understanding how their presence can be maintained over
time.
At the same time, most ofthe parcels noted as susceptible to change were single family residential uses
that line the corridor. Two obvious paths might be considered for these parcels: changes in the public
realm that might result in a more comfortable relationship with a roadway that will continue to carry
significant traffic; or changes to the parcels themselves that might result in uses that are more
compatible with the corridor's activities. Perhaps most important is a recognition that some of these
parcels abut other single family homes; protection of the neighborhoods near those homes deemed
susceptible should be a goal of this planning effort.
M:\08Proj\080247\DWGS\LA \appendices\Douglas Drive Corridor Enhancement Study change analysis. doc
..
WSB
& Associates. Inc.
Infrastructure . Engineering . Planning . Construction
701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
Memorandum
To: Michael Schroeder
From: Anthony Heppelmann, PE
Date: 16 January 2009
Re: Douglas Drive (CSAH 102) & Duluth St (CSAH 66) Traffic Forecasts
The purpose of this memo is to document the trip forecasting methods and 2030 projections for
a revised land use scenario on Douglas Drive (CSAH 102) and Duluth St (CSAH 66) through
Golden Valley, MN. Figure 1 displays the location and size of the sites considered for
redevelopment in this analysis. Table 1 displays the proposed land use information for each
redevelopment site, including the size of the parcels proposed for redevelopment and the
proposed residential densities and Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The land use scenarios were
developed by LHB in conjunction with City staff. This redevelopment scenario assumes that the
previously considered Campus A does not redevelop.
The future and existing land uses were determined using the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (8th Edition, 2008). Table 2 displays the number of trips
generated by the existing land uses, the number of trips generated by the proposed land uses,
reduction factors used, and the total expected growth in trips. It is expected that 23, 906 new
trips will be generated in this land use scenario.
Two trip reduction factors were used in the analysis. First, a pass-by trip reduction factor was
used to anticipate the number of trip ends within each redevelopment site that would be made
by the existing roadway users. This factor is used to account for trip-chaining and synergy
amongst land uses. The ITE Trip Generation Handbook publishes average trip reduction rates
of 28% to 34% for retail land uses. A conservative 10% trip reduction factor was applied to all
trips generated by proposed retail land uses. Second, a conservative 10% internal trip
reduction factor was applied to all trips generated by the proposed mixed use redevelopment
sites.
It is anticipated that the proposed land use scenario will generate 23,906 additional daily trips.
All future land uses assume a FAR between 0.4 and 0.6. Residential densities range between 8
units/acre for town homes in the Douglas Drive Residential (DDR) sites to as high as 40
units/acre in the Mixed Use Village sites. All proposed residential land uses were assumed to
use land use code 230 - Residential CondominiumlTownhouse or code 220 - Apartment. All
campus areas were assumed to use land use code 750 - Office Park or 710 - General Office
Building. The proposed mixed use sites were assumed to be composed of 25% retail (land use
code 820 - Shopping Center) and 75% residential.
The analysis assumed a 0% average annual growth rate for background traffic. Previous traffic
volumes recorded on the Mn/DOT traffic volume maps indicate that traffic volumes on both
ACEC 2008 Firm of the Year
Minneapolis. St. Cloud
Equal Opportunity Employer
K:\01826-00\A..1min\Docs\Trip OenrrBlioo.dnc
Douglas Drive & Duluth Street Traffic Forecasts
16 January 2009
Page 2
Duluth Street and Douglas Drive have decreased over time. Traffic on Douglas Drive and
Duluth Street have average annual growth rates ranging from -1.27% to -4.1 % since 1998.
Existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2. Traditional trip distribution methods (capacity
unconstrained) were used to assign the additional traffic growth to the roadway network. Year
2030 daily traffic forecasts for both scenarios are displayed on Figure 3.
T bl
p
d R d
La d U Ch
a e 1: ropose e eve opment n se aractenstlcs
CommerclaV Total Total Total Park &
Redevelopment Zone Area Area (s.f.) Office Floor Residential Residential Office CommerclaV Ride
(ac.) Area Ratio units/acre Space Retail (1000
(FAR) Units (1000 s.f.) sJ.) (acres)
DDRA 16.7 727,452 n 8 134 -- -- --
DDR B 3.5 1 52,460 -- 8 28 - -- --
DDRC 7.0 304,920 -- 8 56 -- n --
DDR D 10.6 461,736 n 8 85 -- -- --
DDR/Communitv Garden 3.5 152,460 -- 8 28 -- -- --
Campus B 13.6 592,416 0.6 -- n 60 -- --
Campus C 28.2 1,228,392 0.6 - -- 737 -- --
Campus D 18.2 792,792 0.6 - -- 476 -- n
Campus E 4.6 200,376 0.6 - -- 120 n --
Campus F 16.3 710.028 0.4 -- n 284 -- n
Campus G 7.0 304,920 0.6 - -- 183 -- n
Mixed Use Node A 8.2 357,192 0.4 20 41 - 107 --
Mixed Use Node B 7.0 304,920 0.4 20 35 -- 91 -.
Mixed Use Node C 4.1 178,596 0.4 20 21 -- 54 --
Mixed Use Village A 19.4 845,064 0.6 16 173 - 157 5
. Additional Area A 10.0 435,600 -- 16 160 -- -- n
Mixed Use Villaae B 9.0 392,040 0.6 40 270 -- 59 --
- Additional Area B 16.2 705.672 0.6 40 486 - 106 --
TOTAL: 203 8,847,036 n -- 1,516 1,860 574 5
K:'OI 826.00\4do1n\Do:lCs\Tnp Oene.taUI;fl.doc
Douglas Drive & Duluth Street Traffic Forecasts
16 January 2009
Page 3
T bl T'
a e2: rip Generation
Unadjusted Commercial/ A-dJusted
Trips Trips Retail Pass- Internal Trips Expected
Redevelopment Zone Generated Generated By Trip Trip Generated Growth in
by Existing by Reduction Reduction by Trips
Land Use Proposed Factor Factor Proposed
Land Use Land Use
DORA 258 776 -- -- 776 518
ooR B 90 163 -- n 163 72
ooR C 155 325 -- n 325 171
ooR 0 258 493 -- n 493 234
ooR/Community Garden 399 163 -- -- 163 -236
Camous B 0 685 -- -- 685 685
Campus C 4,067 8A17 -- -- 8,417 4,350
Campus 0 1,705 5A32 -- -- 5,432 3,727
Campus E 2,310 1,373 -- n 1,373 -937
Campus F 831 3,243 -- n 3,243 2,412
Campus G 683 2,089 -- -- 2,089 1 ,407
Mixed Use Node A 217 4,840 10% 10% 3,941 3,724
Mixed Use Node B 5,562 4,131 10% 10% 3,365 -2,197
Mixed Use Node C 726 2A20 10% 10% 1,971 1,245
Mixed Use Villaqe A 775 9,599 10% 10% 8,152 7,377
- Additional Area A 244 997 -- 10% 897 653
Mixed Use Villaae B 6,230 4,094 10% 10% 3,457 -2,773
- Additional Area B 2,749 7,369 10% 10% 6,223 3,474
TOTAL: 27,260 56,609 -- -- 51,166 23,906
Based on the projected traffic volumes, we have identified the type of facility that may be
required in the future. A 3-lane roadway (one through lane in each direction with a continuous
shared-left lane) may be sufficient to accommodate the expected traffic volumes on Douglas
Drive north of Duluth Street. A 4-lane roadway with turn lanes may be required to
accommodate the projected traffic volumes on Douglas Drive between Duluth Street and
Golden Valley Road. A 4-lane roadway may be required to accommodate the projected traffic
on the west end of Duluth Street and on Douglas Drive south of Golden valley Road. A 4-lane
divided roadway may be required to accommodate the projected traffic volumes on Duluth
Street near TH-1 00.
K:'t.l182t.i-OO\Adn:in\Docs\Tnp Genecatiw.doc
"&ftI.... 1lI_
~...........
roo~.!f6;77.?e1
l!~,,-~_
- ~ I
l
ir
fJ;:!/ J .1 ~ as
1,
L
~ .
~.
.,.
~
f"
II
'ii I!
7 l1ii
i.
~...
~rrd~~
\''':
{,
t,1 . t .~ I
I J
~~ I' r r
I ,l
- Y L~ J
r
I
tr.
I ,r .Jf
]
I
'.'
~
I ,
~
JI(j
10;1....
.j
.:.
, ,
--..
" ":~
!:;~)~
~
w iii ~r,""
~
~... - --- -...., r'
!
,
'~-mP~~~
-28!2IAC
.... -':r:-'~.
la~tg ~}.~~
d l;:',j
~
(",f Golden Valley
Figure 1:
Redevelopment Parcels
I
.
WSB
& A.uncia/e.t. fnc.
tl
,
. I
'l -., ,I
_' J
~ 1-1-
I
.1. _
It.
~!i)Ob~~2~:5~
'j
J,~ '. " ,1,
~J ~ r.
~ 'I . r~
]
...gl
'CI>I
'J: ,~
, ,
I " '
~
I
~' ~l.
f
, 1 ~I
~ .,
.,
..
ell .
p
...,J
"!
",.r.,J$.
-
,.. -, "
N 2005 Dally Traffic
A 2006 Daily Traffic
2007 Daily Traffic
I 0, Feet
~ I 1,000 1
.
~ &
~....... 1lI:J' 1 T'r 1
lIiIlWk _ . ~b)Oi:
,. {"g [\. - I I ~ ~~ -....
::l LJ.l -.
'J
I
I '" Golden Valley
~
!
I
10
.liS
i~
~'l . . " IIll
J/ t {.
L J. ; It
"'~C1 -"
~ .:I ,~i S I \, ~.
lif ~
CI>
N I . .
."
~ "
'to
I$J
::J
'-f
r'jl
Uj:J
....
:~."~-.:
. ~
I;t!
'" '
,.. ". .~
10'-
..
r
Figure 2:
Existing Traffic Volumes
II .&
I WSB
& AUn<'iale,~. Tnc.
" I
ae
r
J
2030 Forecast Daily Traffic
Volumes
'\
'"
,
tl
I'
'l'; ,I ·
" ,
~ Tl.l.
.. I J
a ~
o
.
Feet
500
1,000
.
I
.l,~
~b,~~21;-0-0
~. 'Jr ] . 00!I
, ,I,t.
:ff. ..,
j' 0'"
t ~~ 'c
.1 ..,. , ~
'i "'1,
t ~-'.L ....' ::.1
" I
'1' I
I I
- ~r r
, 1
. I
I
L":
~.;~~.~" '"
.IX: to.
,~...) lr
- -.. I "
I
\
"
fg~
......
~.."
.....,
.~,J
. ~ 1
Ei"" ........
~.... .- a' 1. ~.I'
.... .... J!0.9.l""'""n~._:",. ~
'. t~ l\ ~"I '4"";f1.
r:
li:I .r,' lJ
r.:J.
I
i
I
i
I u~,f Golden Valley
I
!
Figure 3:
2030 Forecast Traffic Volumes
I
.
WSB
& A.~.1inciale,f. lnc.