04-12-11 CM Agenda Packet AGENDA
Council/Manager Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Conference Room
April 12, 2011
6:30 pm or immediately following HRA Meeting
1. Douglas Drive Preliminary Design Update 2
2. Douglas Drive Moratorium Area Study Update 3-27
3. Comprehensive Plan Implementation Plan - Rezoning of Residential Areas 28-36
a. Harold and Winnetka Avenue Traffic Study 37-53
4. Park and Picnic Shelter Facility Analysis Report 54-55
5. City Communications Policies 56-59
6. Appointments to Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission and 60-61
Northwest Community TV Board of Directors
7. Proposed Livable Communities Act - Housing Action Plan 62-70
8. Adjourn to Executive Session - Security Training 71
Council/Manager meetings have an informal, discussion-style format and are designed
for the Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and
provide general directions to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The
public is invited to attend Council/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public
participation is allowed by invitation of the City Council.
• This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request, Please call
763-593-8006(TTY 763-593-3968)to make a request. Examples of alternate formats rf?
3' may include large print,electronic, Braille,audiocassette,etc.
GoGo y
o o v
, e n Valle
Public Works
763-593-8030/763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
April 12, 2011
Agenda Item
1. Douglas Drive Preliminary Design Update
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Ron Nims, Public Works Project Coordinator
Summary
At the January 5, 2010 City Council meeting, the Council formally authorized the Mayor to
request that the Douglas Drive Project (TH 55 to Medicine Lake Road) be placed in the
Hennepin County Capital Improvement Plan for right-of-way acquisition in 2015 and
construction in 2016. The estimated cost of the project is $20,327,500. The City's portion of
the project cost is estimated at $9,711,400. In general terms, Golden Valley is responsible for
paying for all improvements associated with city-owned utilities and lighting. The City and
Hennepin County will share the cost of design, relocating the overhead utilities underground,
street reconstruction, right-of-way, and landscaping.
The City has received notice from Transit for Livable Communities of an award in the amount
$1,050,000. The City is proposing to utilize this funding for design and some right-of-way
acquisition. The City Council authorized a contract with WSB &Associates, Inc. on
November 16, 2010 to prepare the preliminary design and develop the necessary
environmental documents.
Staff will update the Council with the design status and present alternate layouts that have
been developed by the Project Management Team (PMT) that includes the consultant along
with City and County Public Works staff.
Git''
G
Planning
Golden a 763-593-8095/7635981 09 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
April 12, 2011
Agenda Item
2. Douglas Drive Moratorium Area Study Update
Prepared By
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Summary
On June 1, 2010 the City adopted an Interim Ordinance which placed a one-year moratorium
on development within the area located at the northeast intersection of Highway 55 and
Douglas Drive. The Douglas Drive Corridor Study identified this area to be suitable for the
development of a corporate campus. During the moratorium, staff has examined ways in
which to accommodate a corporate campus setting on the moratorium area site. Attached is
a draft report which outlines the current conditions of the site and proposes ways to achieve
future redevelopment.
The preliminary report suggests that a viable option for the area would be the creation of a
new mixed-use zoning category that would promote corporate office development and also
permit other uses. If the Council wishes to change the land use and zoning designation of the
site, it may be necessary to extend the development moratorium. State law permits the
Interim Ordinance that assigns the moratorium to be extended for up to 120 days. To extend
the existing Interim Ordinance, a public hearing must be held at the May 17, 2011 City
Council meeting. Council should provide direction in the following areas:
Moratorium
1. Direct staff to start the process to extend the Interim Ordinance for 120 days to provide
time to complete the study and to consider land use options.
2. Allow Interim Ordinance to expire on June 11, 2011.
Land Use
1. Direct staff to create a new mixed-use zoning category for the area.
2. Direct staff to re-designate the area to existing land use and zoning categories
(e.g.: Business and Professional Offices).
3. Leave the area's existing land use and zoning categories in place.
Redevelopment
1. Direct staff to work with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to pursue
redevelopment opportunities for the area.
2. Do not proceed with redevelopment at this time.
Staff seeks direction from Council regarding further actions for the moratorium area.
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
Ordinance #440, Interim Ordinance Imposing a Twelve Month Moratorium on Certain
Development in Expressway International Park in the Douglas Drive Corridor, Golden Valley,
Minnesota (5 pages)
Douglas Drive Moratorium Area Study Report- Preliminary Draft (17 pages)
'' ` `�' � � � �1�11^i I ���e i e��r}�:�
.�
' -� _ .._�....: i�, t.•�f���' _
�++w� _ „ t
�, �'_�� � ��
i {� �
�� 1�" '_3 {� i � i� ag � t�'
��a , �!_���� � � � �l�� ���
:
, � .. i��.
: � _ �� � :
_ � ��
� �.......__. � •F
.. �:t.� !
�r � :�� :2� ��
i"t«' orrj�,. F : � � �' � „ ��I
'4� � ts; r5 I
�.� �Tq ��t . l !�t� f��
3 , � �,ti/•' .
...�. � ,';��,�•s��e�13 t �
.. .._ ... .,, � � _. .. � � . . _�
�'S� :o�;i -���.._. -i:� � ., y ..
�N"m.'s,::S�' �� t`� # � ' 1 .;'
fN�M� .;9 ~ � �. � t . . e��. �� .
� }���.�...''�F�<, �,� , ' a M'�.l'
\ i�
� v� � � `� ;�\ �_1`� a ;J � ..
�r .�`��t�ii� �"y„, i �� { �.. '� a S ,�v t t i 2. � 1 '
tS� s..;.'Lw � .. k - . .
5ey ;�7i ,�F�7 � ^
.,�, � 7� �. � +. ��; � ,� .. a _
i� e n„r k 3��� r � � `, s
( Itt .t � t t :E` Fy1t';��'1'��;„4�' :,I y ' ; ``� { ttl�r '� � :
`` s {i � x{tt�?;;,,�°'';u.;',•;-,i+ ';9;'� �" "'�� �a.. .E ���... �` ; ;
' , i � � E 1 'tt t'�e xiiy �, �,';� s �ii �� } .,� y yb:' I�n.
� �,r „i�r t t Fr .��� �� ` ����' �, t .'�+ _x ia
4
`�s� ky,t 1 1 .l� ` \ i`�.' �f �� � �r .tt�� � t �
�,
.�� , � s
�j +�5� W . Y� w� �.
� � i�� 7- \ 11 !� �ii� !1 . •{F 2� �7r
�y c i '�� .,ji
�,2Jl.. '. i"n t, #A —^'!..- t�,� ' 7 1r _.' ..
. » -
- .•.�a i� .�,.v - t,_ ' � . .• i:..
. .:._w . �. �,.. �
_,�t.ti -i, a�t ,,�.,�.� i. �`
_ _
� i !; � I'�ri�'ia_`�x�����4¢ � ?;' t � - ��,,.`
�, i•' r y, r '+, '� � ,. 0.0 , �'"�, �'f
.." ,s +. ( � � .,�� � ,.u,�r�
r { z
�jq 1 •ci,' s�
� [!i ��n'.��1�1JLl��ln,. �1�„ I-1� i.r ' ��� � �
i �:
aw
h���� �� ��i�
� , �, ' I �' t��� '` t4 �
r ��':,f�i �, s r�� f +f bf { . �r
y ■` � e� �_-4� r .,i t ...;'��'�E .t � .
� *Y I[ � �i ;E¢��"[- .1!'�. � {+='r��t yh- .. 3tS, �!�f r'i� .
'L ;� ic 't s8° �. If_:t� .1.. � �y� �� t�'�.
� ,f' �Y •3.''I?�" i�z t� i.� ���,F
O �a �,' .�. � � i I i ,�`;'•� �.' ``{ � !��
L L ,.� �i� ..�� ''��I � � v � .��t.
Q1�. .... :t
d ' ,I� ,� � � � � �
�L � _ R 1� 4 t ��, G .,,R �t� t�� .
� l�ir;' � nt� �i � �._, ' � , . '� � � G,',-��! } ,�-,
v1 . �.s i� ' � , � `r,,� � '� '�� ' �::
� e t �c �4. �� ��+' � �,
• ' ! 1 �
� 1 i�. r��� (hil��t p� __"'ft� � ��(=�'_�.��� .. � ' �%
� iK+.�1 .i �. � ��� ��_ � z�.�_ �� ��
0 1�1 � ,� � �r, � "
� t'. � n �? t, � ��r.^^ � "_''y„ Ii °-'e'�;y���
� .� t r � �� � -- � �� � .� ���c 1 il
��� 4 u s f �ti >."'�{ ; �' ��
'�w�i� �� uw. I '�� . r � � 't i�
.«
�
wi , .•x
% � ' � ..�6' '..�. .��" . �1 � t �i.�,. ♦ '>�„ ��.
,
�
i �
.
�
��Y �, �1 p �u' � � �' .� �
i:..(li_.� �� n�n , �
'` r .
r�Ix�Mnrm��i • . .� '
' -LV ��._� '. .... .. ....
Douglas Drive Moratorium
Study Report
Preliminary Draft
Golden Valley, M N
April 2011
,` , _ _ ,,,__
, �-�"'':
, �
__----
;'
,� �
, �-� -:�;
,�;, :� .,� ".,
, >
�r '� �� ?�.�" �...+'k�1.i6„', �' �,,r:v� .�Y �
'��� :;,. ��='t �t��U,�
� �-, �
. � ' _. .
���' � � �
, �`,� .
� � . — _.: ° �
� t .+w�•••.•'�"....+.�rr�'�-^'� � �� ,.=";�r
� i•� �'��'y� . . . _i.,,..:..r3 .'.I � ��A
7�X ' M,- .. ... .. �r- .�,. I ..
f �. ' � �,' .!I���:��t . e. . �
/ a.� .. ,.�..�+�'-• � ' ._ �'� . . — . , - ..'�.'
� �.. .. ��� .
A'xLi�
#�; ,�,• ���-
..�y�R . � ;y.
N�
S . m
I. Introduction
In 2007, the City of Golden Valley initiated a study of the land uses and transportation
patterns along the Douglas Drive corridor. Douglas Drive, designated as Hennepin
County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 102, is a north-south roadway that is located in the
geographic center of Golden Valley. Most of the land around the corridor developed in
the mid-twentieth century. The Douglas Drive Corridor Study examined ways to
accommodate redevelopment in certain areas of the corridor while making the roadway
more efficient for vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists.
While the Douglas Drive Corridor Study focused on long-term land use changes and
redevelopment, the current conditions surrounding this area have prompted the City to
examine the possibility of more immediate changes. The City Council imposed a twelve-
month moratorium on May 18, 2010. The goal of the moratorium is to allow City officials
and staff the opportunity to incorporate the goals and objectives identified within the
Douglas Drive Corridor Study into the land use plan for the area.
II. Douglas Drive Corridor Study
The Douglas Drive Corridor Study, adopted into the City's Comprehensive Plan in
January, 2010, describes the community's immediate and long-term goals for the
Douglas Drive Corridor. The report, included in the City's Comprehensive Plan, serves
as a guide for future change in the Corridor. It summarizes the current condition of the
infrastructure and suggests future land uses. It suggests redevelopment opportunities
and ways to accommodate and enhance that redevelopment through transportation and
streetscape design. The report discusses ways to enhance pedestrian and bike
accessibility. Finally, the report lays out strategies for implementing the vision for the
Corridor. The initial report was guided by an Advisory Committee, comprised of City
Council Members, Planning Commissioners, and City staff. Prior to adoption of the
Study, several neighborhood meetings and workshops were held to gather public input.
1
The Study identified the area :;;��;;�;�;�u;;
��:�;.,::;:���.,,
in the northeast quadrant of , '� ��;�i�a��; . ' :� -
the intersection of Hi hwa 55 ��' { �`� � � _ �'� ��'�''r�'y�±�t �Y � �f
9 Y �� '.�" '_ ` -� - � -
�}�� � �� i ��, �.� � s�- �,� ,rS��
�1���J F;1� 1�r 1+� :i �ti��f"� �i:�, s ��Y K : _,; ;i.' .
� �
[i�i 1 �. j� .. � ,� ► �,�'�1"5�+f�',:� ' '� :...
and Douglas Drive as the �.�' }�F� �,� � ; �, �� �� �'€� ,�, _ ,
l�;;l' .. ���,�it� ,� !^��..� v�.�k��'" ��� .��1�^ ,``�:: - � .ip�
Trunk Highway (TH) 55 � ����`..����¢� :���=��s� ,. , �� �„� � �u . W=� ,_,
��, � � ��..�- �,t -.,
Corporate Campus. It � ,,� _ '`'� - "
1 Y k � !f !' ..i+� '����
� � � .. � . ��€ �� `� ` �' �l/
f f
envisioned office-focused r� e� , ����r ��.�- � �
� , -�.. , .x ,.
� �� ���`�� +�t�E��t -���� � �� .
development in a corporate f_ �:��-�;�„��,��{�fE;,h�''�,";t yt� ;� �-
��i�' f : .� �:,,�,�6�, y�t� ,��i �
campus setting. Campus- � ..;�� . - ' - �-� � �`_�-��, �,,�,� Figure 1 - Location
:. �._. ` ._... ........ __"... ��„r ..
structured development was '�- � '��� ���
recommended because of its strategic location to both Highways 55 and 100.
III. Moratorium
�:.
Recent changes to the proposed corporate campus site have prompted the City to more
carefully consider the possibility redevelopment occurring on the land at the
northeastern corner of Douglas Drive and TH 55 and establish a land use moratorium to
do so. The building closest to the TH 55/Douglas Drive intersection (former
Homesteader Restaurant) has recently been demolished. Additionally, one of the larger
properties on the site has
Ac f0��' recently been sold through a
�'�i., . ���: —
� : ,
�"��4. �* ,yG, � ��'�' R Hennepin County Sherriff's
I � ��� " .. '.;.�'"
1 A �u' ° Auction. Hennepin County
m a� V
�r O ti
t CM1F'L'S g t,� .fl ,x E* �,A•,,
�,� has also indicated that it
Cr.anPUS G � 13.8 ac � .€ �� ` ..
—7.G nc � '� ,�r. �°�� �, ,
1�:� � * �„ �_ plans to include the Douglas
� i`�,.,p � � H��.:. .
� Drive Project in its 2015-
. � �.,�+�rr� �b� ►� Aai
. ., .,o.+�r+. ,,,s� '�`x.._c. ���TR'°n � ..
F,� r
� �_� I - 2016 Ca ital Im rovement
..�1 .... , '.
� TH Cn,rnPU�t_ t + i!'.. �t► ������� � p p
cr�,����� c < tvoRTH � � n "ti Program (CIP) and
—i� � ar - "�0.2 kC � � �� TEfJNANT
"'° "' *�► � ° �` reconstruct the road in 2016.
�,. .y.:,�,� "'a a- r� �24.9 nc
- _.. � :'��� �,
TH CAVIPUS 'y �`°' '"°A°� �
. JOUT11 CAMI'U^ F ��
��2.4 ac Figure 2 — TH 55 Campus
2
The moratorium area encompasses approximately 23 acres of land that is currently
zoned "Industrial". The appendix of this report includes a detailed listing of the five
parcels that make up the moratorium area. The 2010 estimated market value of the five
properties in the moratorium area is $10,761,000. The current tenants provide a wide
variety of commercial and industrial services.
The moratorium area has strong potential for redevelopment. Such development will
help set the character for the entire Douglas Drive corridor, as the moratorium area
serves as the corridor's southern gateway. The goal of this report is to provide a
framework to guide future land uses and identify transportation and infrastructure needs
within the moratorium area. r� ��
IV. Transportation Issues
The moratorium study area is bordered by a principal arterial (TH 55), a minor reliever
(Douglas Drive), and local road (TH 55 North Frontage Road). As noted in the Douglas
Drive Corridor Study, these roadway connections serve both local and regional traffic
including transit and pedestrians. Previous traffic counts showed that TH 55 has an
average annual daily traffic volume (AADT) of 33,000 vehicles while Douglas Drive has
an AADT of 9,100. The AADT on the North Frontage Road is 3,250. Public transit in the
area is provided by Metro Transit. Two bus routes operate along both TH 55 and
Douglas Drive (705 and 755). The routes are classified as low-frequency routes.
The existing transportation network in the area does not provide a complete sidewalk
system for pedestrian traffic. The Luce Line Regional Trail runs from east to west along
the northern edge of the moratorium area. The City's sidewalk plan calls for a sidewalk
along the east side of Douglas Drive from TH 55 north to the connection with the Luce
Line Trail, which would provide connections from the moratorium area to both bus
routes and the Luce Line Regional Trail.
3
� � Ceoterpom�. -
_ � .I � Eher9Y '�� . . ---� 1 ` .
_ ' � � L � o ' ' �'�4nd€8Y ^�
1 ��,. � , �--- - �
__ _ - — _ Ll--� C� r-
i �� -�....�., .. �.
i � ,
� � Z;
� � Tennant Compeny °
�- �
� -
OptumHealth �Z � m_._ � �C
� �° c�° �� r �
„ � _
, -
I � �.
_.__._.—, o �.
� � �
-_ � I� � �t
_ _ � r
l , �ts-��- --- � N s.e�q.�ta"'�"�'
I� J ���" Olaon MenMlial FIwY Mwy•,
_ � - . �
" � 1 � ,
—, a
H�y 55 �'� . . . ,
��
�
--- Lotal7ra�:
Figure 3 - Trail R�����,�-��� _' " '
� . �c�i,,re the Road c...:�a:s^
Locations �:�,�...��„E�,�..., e
ProWsedTrail ��"",""""";°'�'°`:"`°
Safety concerns in the study area are primarily driven by the frequency of crashes along
Douglas Drive. Between 2008 and 2010 a total of 25 crashes occurred at the
intersection of TH 55 and Douglas Drive. During that same time frame another 5
crashes occurred at the intersection of Douglas Drive and the North Frontage Road.
The most significant safety concern along Douglas Drive between TH 55 and the North
Frontage Road are the two crashes that have involved pedestrians.
Improving pedestrian connections along Douglas Drive and across TH 55 are critical
components of improving the overall safety and accessibility of the area. Coordination
and cooperation with MnDOT and Hennepin County are critical aspects for the
implementation of any safety improvements and will help make the overall
transportation network complete by providing safe routes for all corridor users.
V. Douglas Drive Preliminary Project Design
The City is currently developing preliminary design plans for infrastructure upgrades
along Douglas Drive from TH 55 to Medicine Lake Road (CSAH 70). Preliminary project
4
design has begun with aid from a federal grant awarded by Transit for Livable
Communities (TLC). The $1 million-plus grant will provide money for preliminary
engineering and some early right-of-way acquisitions.
The preliminary design will provide detailed information regarding the scope of
infrastructure improvements that are needed within the entire corridor and will be used
as the basis for the final design and reconstruction of the roadway. Douglas Drive is a
Hennepin County facility, and final project design will be subject to County approval. In
addition, collaboration with MnDOT will be necessary for the area surrounding the TH
55 intersection.
Reconstruction of Douglas Drive is expected to begin in 2016. The reconstruction
project woutd add turn lanes, shoulders and bike lanes, upgrade pedestrian facilities,
install street lights, and place existing above-ground private utilities underground. The
project has an estimated cost of about $19.5 million, with Golden Valley responsible for
roughly $9.5 million. Hennepin County will pay for about $10 million of the roadway
right-of-way acquisition, design and construction.
The proposed corridor improvements will provide the framework to support future
development or redevelopment in the moratorium area. Development-driven
transportation improvements along the frontage road may also be needed for traffic
demand related to proposed new development.
VI. Moratorium Area Infrastructure
As part of the Douglas Drive Corridor Study, a consulting traffic engineer identified the
potential realignment of the Highway 55 Frontage Road through the moratorium area to
allow for development opportunities on the north and south sides of the roadway. The
study also recommended both internal and external sidewalk connections in order to
promote multi-modal transportation. The conceptual alignment, shown below, provides
an enhanced connection to Zane Avenue.
5
o ,_,,
o �r�,. ,
v�
� �' � W� � �"�
a � ' , �. .
�
�' �< � � � r.. _
, _ . �
� .. .
, , �.
,, ,
�_.___ _ _ � , �;
� � �
; , , � ,;
-- _� � ,
� --- ��l'►r----�-,_ � �
�- � ,. >
. ,�
�Y �.
���~ �_ ` {
� .�„�.. i _ ',,
i �, �. � � r � 4 � '� {
�--- �+- .. Y-.� �� �`. `
� ;��'"�. _`� -- ,i' _r t
,
U _ ; ���� 1_ ar Y�.
> ��- , � � _
a '`• '' ,�;�.> ���� �
� �.�' a +� � _ "� ,.1i.._,JL.�I��
�, � � � `�°� � � � 1 i
� �k ..� f� . �y� � � 3 �—'�r'^� �_ ,� Q
p �+ t � �1��"'��} a � �
�'C r �� y -�1 � }� �
�.� -_ t �,.,.,_ �+'� N
�, � f ,
�� ; y ` � '
� '� % 't' r - -_ ; !
�,,._ �
_ �r------� � ''t
` � _ � •
�� .��
�r Figure 4— Proposed Road Realignment
6
This potential roadway realignment would offer the advantage of creating larger parcels
of developable land along Highway 55 but would only be accomplished in coordination
with major redevelopment. Depictions of possible development scenarios are as follows:
Figure 5 - Potential Redevelopment
�..� ;
� � - _ - � ..;-.� - r� �
t ��`.` � .
. ..:�
' -`-l- _ ;r �
��
��a'+._ �` . '�'�}`4� :
. .` � � ���'y�}[+�y ..�
. ' � � _ � ��'`/�y�:�.= .
�� . � .. �.y \�.��' Y ..
C. L �� -v''
� /
t �. �;����.�
_. -��� -� � ' '
`.��-`` /� r .
�.�`�. � . . �
.. -�. �.. . � r;
Facing Northwest �,� Facing Southeast
.-,..,,.,.,, � . .
..�, r , t ' �' •_ .�
, �„ ..:� �. �►��r
_ �
;�"� -��r,�
�. -�-±!� - - . , . __ _ .
-�-�-��"""'�`- �w��' -. ' ..�_..
.��:��� ..,�.'�" , . ,
T���y: ` �.. '" ... �
. __ .,.F. _.� t.� '
�
,----_ � �-� -
.r, I ,� � _ � ��';'�4,�,�„ , ., .
�'� ~�� �` .�, .: w�• }:�' � �"�.�. �r,
� ,
...., .
.
.. �-�-�- . �- r, � ' �,,. fi,.�« # -
, �.' .
_..
:Y �,. ..y x ,.... �/, .. vtw i �--?`�
- ,�. -
+, "''Mn'"'�`; •.`-� � , r' �:;,� �.iz`',::Y
�,., -.�_ , -
'Y�r'i..--�
� �'G- -----^""'.__ � � ` ; `�'�i r .� �"� _-.
t } L
f- J' �„ - '�"J � --.'> . 4
t'" _ -°r�'" 1 �-- �_. ����5�„�
7 . . _�_. ...._-� �� _...� � .
� � �
. -` . �- � -
_ ...... ,.,.
v �� � . ;y�;�:. �:`�
. . �..� L_.:..,..«.�. ' � �4���� '�� ,� ' � � �. .
. � �... � � � �
� � ,� �r��� � �� � � � � �
'��ih °Y;fi��i��`•, r
., �., ;
�- Facing East � • �
,
�
Some of the significant impediments to relocating the North Frontage Road include:
1. The City may need to vacate some or all of the current 60' right-of-way
(ROW) along the Highway 55 North Frontage Road. As part of the relocation
process the City would then need to obtain additional ROW in order to
construct a new street system in the desired location. Realignment of the road
would require that a bridge be built over the railroad tracks to the east of the
moratorium area. This would likely depend on the future redevelopment plans
on the other side of the railroad tracks including the reconstruction of Zane
Avenue and master planning by the Tennant Company.
2. The City may also need to relocate all existing utilities in the current Highway
55 North Frontage Road ROW to the new street location. Existing public
utilities in the frontage road corridor include:
a. 8" ductile iron pipe watermain
b. 8" and 10" public sanitary sewers, and storm sewers
c. 16" Joint Water Commission trunk watermain
d. Two Metropolitan Council Environmental Services force main sanitary
�t sewers are parallel to TH 55 and partially within the frontage road
„
ROW
e. Gas mains
-�;'
f. Electricity services
g. Telecommunication lines
h. Private utilities (sanitary sewer and water service connections)
i. Private storm sewers
Private utilities such as sanitary sewer and water service connections and
private storm sewers also exist on the properties in the area, as well as gas
main, electricity, and various telecommunications lines.
8
3. It is anticipated that significant subgrade correction may be required to obtain
the appropriate roadway design to accommodate heavy truck traffic present
throughout the area.
4. The cost of infrastructure relocation verses the amount of private investment
made if redevefopment were to occur.
Based on the extensive infrastructure in the area, relocation of the roadway may not be
realistic without comprehensive redevelopment of the complete moratorium area.
,���. �;��u
ti4
VII — Land Use ;
z.�,.:,
The moratorium was established to determine how to feature Corporate Campus usage
in the designated area and the feasibility of doing so. The Corporate Campus
designation presumes primarily office usage. Golden Valley currently has five zoning
districts that provide for office development: Industrial, Light Industrial, Commercial,
Business and Professional Offices and the I-394 Mixed-Use. (see chart outlining four of
those districts plus mixed-use districts in two other suburban cities on page 10)
Analysis of the existing districts suggests that a new, hybrid district would be
appropriate.
• The Business and Professional Offices zoning district has the strongest focus on
office, with only a few other uses allowed by conditional use. The other districts
all allow many more uses, some of which may be desired in a corporate campus
setting, but which could be a distraction, particularly if more than peripheral in
scope.
• Traditional zoning districts have prescribed setbacks and parameters for
development which generally promote land use on individual parcels. The mixed-
use districts operate on a performance basis, which would promote coordination
and integration of development. If the City wants to promote the integrated
development aspects presented in the Douglas Drive Corridor Study for this
area, a mixed-use district should be considered. However, the existing mixed-use
9
N a
d
L y o�0 �
� - � � � �
L G7 V C N '� � 7 U � O
GJ C �, >, Y � �0 3 a .�
io � a �n � � � a`i
� �in � j� c v � c v � a o '� � Q � o
(7 � � O r� � °_ � o ` �, Nc�L �n � o o u
m O ai � ai �n v c Y fo - u p i^ '^ � I I p Z o
i u � -> � � Y •- � ro 'Z o v o c � a �
m � v .� o � o
ar ° m ai ro � �a ar ai u o � ° � ai �n �ri £ ra
� O � � m z a � oc �n in x Q � in � v fv - � o
N '° a >
' � y � v �
�
a
f0 'C +0+ = ar �°- � a � u+ �p
�� G� wD '� a � a u
y X C y �n LL � a � v v ,� � o O
� � �� Y � a � � ?� c ,� °' u '� ,� � m o
� G� � � F '^ °- `� � o y ° o o c� ° � ouo�
O V � - Y a� Y �n �^ a�'i u ` c,`_` � m f0 vLi y 'a � ~ I ai � a°o
U m '�o > > �e }; u . ` ,: += u in o u n c v w c �°
N � '"' ai or � a�i � o � � a�i fo � '^ R ro � � o o` � `° o ' °i
}� � zz � mmxOusa � � oC7 ¢ Ovti LL �no°JC n z m o
U
�L
�--� d ia
N �
N ' �n a n
Q '� � in � � a V u
� v � � ] a o
� X y � 'i � oc j U u � ,� N °c �
� � Y � O � � T ta C v� O � $+ .'k' � to O
� L vf � N � O '^ � O� O O � � � a°
•O � _ ~ pq u_ � tp L Ol '-I "� in m Vl
Q1 Y ai «�'. N '^ a� � y � . � � N in v � � I O � �
� �e Y u . +_' u
N M ar w � a�i � o � � a"i co � .'� m � � '� p � rc .1 v
a`,
� oc � � mmxOu � d � � o17 ¢ O � �n � m m o
�
41 � $ > 'a
n �
L � � � u °o u
� f6 � 1/f � j a_@i � � Y �
4- 4l vyf V � y y af6i c � � � � N
O � � ;� � a.Y � � ,� a £ � 0 3 N o 7
'y O z � = moo � -o � o � L � �
3 3 � -o v r�o � c� c� y � c t o0 o c � o N
m a a ;; NLL � � � � -� sv � � Y
U . C u � Gl f0 � a.�+ � 3 � G1 �7 3 N C
� O J CO K LL In � f1l � f0 .0 CG O m N O �
�\ — L
/
L �
� y a ? O
� � '= = u 4-
d v o +,
.� N :u � = a � a
I a }`y, v� LL � � �� �° = O �
E � � o � � � � ,� o x $ � o x
l0 � v � x �
^, � F `N° c n � •°- o�^ moo� � ma v�i
L O _ � 41 T N � 41 V y � f0 � V1 � � N ` � � � L
C
� U ar ai ° a�i r�o o � •� a"i 'e r�'a rv > > � v a�i o > > N
ac oc � m m = O U � a � c7 ¢ O �i in � m m o �
� T �
a �o
�' u �
.y -+ * u
C a O f6
� � • a * � a 'i
�, v « �� v �a u U °c o N
y N � � � `^ c O U � �' t�o '� 7
3 � u, � v �v c v o a �n '� � " o C
� � O r 7 y � Y �p Y in �n . O M O � '^ 3�
a' O � N � t N "'i oU
� ° 3 � °' c' v a v :° � �6 ,�, `^ o � � � ,� v � in
> v, io = a`� G1
'o � � �a '° � � o a �c � �o ro � � v v �n 3 > �
� _ O 3 � J J S K Q O O C7 Q LL VI 1� � m O V
�+
(O
H �
� � y J � —
y Y � � y i �
.,: � � � �
� N � d 'a � 7 N � �
� � � • £ N �
a� v�i �a m •°-'o 'c � c
a � _ � � r
�
J
.i
district is targeted specifically to the I-394 area and could not be applied directly
to the moratorium area. Additionally, the wide scope of permitted uses in that
district may not be appropriate in the smaller moratorium area.
• While the Douglas Drive Corridor Study designation of Corporate Campus did not
anticipate housing in the moratorium area, there may be some benefits to
considering it. Traffic studies demonstrate that peak traffic demands on the area
transportation system can be distributed by combining residential and office
uses, because peak hours vary for these uses. Likewise, transit can benefit from
having stops which serve both as an origination and designation for passengers.
These factors suggest that housing could reasonably be added to the permitted
land uses in the area, particularly on the north side, adjacent to the Luce Line
Trail.
• Review of the Douglas Drive Corridor Study identified the following performance-
related parameters for Corporate Campus usage:
o Shared or public green spaces
o Shared or structured parking facilities with accommodation for bikes
o Active-living features such as sidewalks, links to trails and transit, and
building design that makes walking and biking in the area a desirable
alternative
o Increased development densities permitted if infrastructure and traffic
analysis demonstrate capacity
o Regional water quality and rate control ponding
o Integration of land uses
o Visual coherence and attractiveness
o A balance between urban and natural systems, including green
development and energy efficiency
o Elimination or remediation of noise, odor, vibrations, and fire hazards
Based on the above analysis the following new Douglas Drive Mixed-Use zoning district
is proposed to implement corporate campus usage in the moratorium area, with the
above performance standards to be applied to this zone:
11
Douglas Drive Mixed-Use
Permitted Office
Uses Limited Retail
Restaurants (no drive-thru)
Beauty Salons and Barber Shops
Banks and Financial Institutions
Hotels
Medical and Dental Clinics
Parking Structures
Multi-family Residential
Setback Front— 0 ft. to 10 ft.
Requirements Side — 10 ft.
Rear— 10 ft.
Building Height
Requirements 2-6 stories
Minimum Lot Size none
Lot Coverage Buildings cannot occupy over 65% of a lot
Parking Encourage shared and structured parking in order to reduce
number of spaces and impact of impervious surfaces required
for parking. Parking studies will be required to determine
parking need.
Landscaping At least 15% of lots over one acre shall be designed to provide
a plaza, green, park, play area, trail, parkway or combination
thereof that shall be open to the public.
Active Living principles shall be taken into consideration when
the site and buildin s are desi ned.
Green Construction Energy savin and sustainable construction is encoura ed.
VIII — Financial Tools ��� ��� ''"���
When considering changes in the moratorium area, the City can use the following
financial tools to assist with redevelopment:
• Economic Development Tax Abatement: A tool which is available if private
development occurs. Through Tax Abatement the City's portion of property taxes
payable can be set aside to pay for public improvements or returned to the tax-
payer to assist with private development costs or provide tax relief. The City can
also request other taxing jurisdictions to abate taxes for an identified project.
Under current state law the City can have no more than ten percent of its taxable
12
market value abated at any time. A portion of the City's tax abatement allotment
is currently dedicated to finance improvements at Highway 55 and Boone
Avenue North.
• Tax Increment Financing (TIF): This is another tool available if private
development occurs. Property taxes (city and county) from the new development
can be dedicated for a period of 10-25 years to finance allowable project costs,
which include public improvements, land write-down and environmental
remediation. State law provides for the creation of a TIF District for housing,
economic development or redevelopment. To establish a redevelopment district
a technical evaluation of the existing buildings must be undertaken to determine
that a certain percentage of the buildings are blighted, and the project must be in
a redevelopment area. The City has created a redevelopment area along
Douglas Drive, extending north from Golden Valley Road. The City Council could
chose to extend this redevelopment area south to the moratorium area if it seeks
to create a redevelopment tax-increment district related to private development in
the moratorium area.
• Public Grants: The Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County, and other agencies
offer municipalities grants that support connected development patterns linking
housing, jobs and transit. Grants are generally provided to plan or implement an
identified redevelopment project. There are also grants to help with
environmental remediation. Some of the grants require that the project be located
in a redevelopment area.
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority could move to include the moratorium
site in the Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area that was established by the City in
2010. If this area is determined to be included in the Redevelopment Area, financial
tools could be used to facilitate development. Allowing the moratorium site to
become part of an HRA-designated redevelopment area would allow the City to use
TIF and other funding sources mentioned above.
13
VII - Conclusion and Recommendation
Staff seeks further direction from the City Council regarding future actions in the
moratorium area. The moratorium will expire on June 11, 2011. Council may extend the
moratorium for an additional 120 days. The land use and zoning designations for the
area may also be changed. Staff will meet with the Council in April to discuss the
conclusion to this report and potential recommended actions for the site.
, e{,,;:
�b
14
Appendix A— Existing Parcel Information (January 2011)
Total Total
Business/Bldg Property Height Building Type of Zoning Year #of Market
Name Owner Address/Location stories Sq. Ft. Business District Built Acres Value $
Gregory
Winkley &
Orthotics& Candace
Prosthetics Co. Gruman 740 Dou las Dr. N 1 Sto 5,198 Office/Medical Industrial 1978 3.18 925,000
BNC Corp, Inc.
(BNC National (Same as
Bank Business 650 Dou las Dr. N 1 Sto 7,531 Office/Financial Industrial 1982 3.11 1,845,000
Welsh Five
Partners buildings, Multi-Tenant
85, LLC total of Office Complex
International (Welsh 6196 Olson Mem 89,800 /Light
Square Co. H 1 Sto sq.ft. Industrial Industrial 1978 7.65 4,567,000
Minneapolis Multi-Tenant
Molds 8� 6100 Olson Mem Light Industrial
En ravin , Inc. PFJ, LLC H 1 Sto 64,380 /Industrial Industrial 1955 7.51 2,610,000
HP 4, 6200 Olson Mem
Vacant Lot LLC H Industrial 1.5 814,000
,�:�;'_' .;a;ia, a^` s':i,w _ .
Y
1 �
'.�,. L i�
-?.,�,
15
Appendix B — Businesses in Moratorium Area (January 2011)
Building Business
Name/Addresses Business Name Address T pe of Business/Description
North(6180-6190) Environmental Graphic Design Firm
Ima inalit , Inc. 6182 "Identit •Si na e• Desi n"
Supplier, Installer and Service Provider in
Commercial and Industrial Business Large
HUFCOR Minnesota 6188 Fixtures
6190(1100 Zane
Avenue North, Bay
#4
Golden Valley, MN Manufacturers Representatives for Architectural
55422 listed on Doors, Frames, Hardware and Division 10
Combs&Associates, Inc. website S ecialties
West(6120-6134) Scott Wyberg
Photo ra h , Inc. 6124 Professional Famil Photo ra h Studio
Used Car Dealer and services, providing: Used
Venture Auto 6130 Autos• Financin •Auto Care Products
Central(6140-6158)
Mobius Residential
Mana ement, LLC 6140 Residential Property Mana ement
Professional Locksmith& Door Service, Door and
Assured Securit , Inc. 6144 Securit Hardware Specialists
DC Tech Audiovisual, Media Technology Integration,Automation,and
LLC 6148 Office Media Solutions
DHA or DNA? 6154
Maki Strunc Photography, Commercial Photography Studio specializing in
Inc. 6156 studio& location hoto ra h
East(6160-6178) Manufactures Representative of Industrial
Products; Industrial Process Controls and
P ro-matic, Inc. 6162 En ineerin
Sales and Service of Commercial Construction
RPG Sales 6172 Products to A/E/C Firms&General Market
Midwest Construction
Products, LLC 6172 Same as above?
Custom Fabricated Acrylic Products; Full service
Kreative Ac lics 6174 custom ac lic fabricator
Holographic Security Global Manufacturer of Custom Security
Conce ts, Inc. 6176-6178 Holo rams
South(6102-6112) Gonyea Homes& Building and Remodeling Custom Homes Since
Remodelin 6102 1987
Lincare 6104 Home Ox en and Res irato Services
Precious metals market maker; Commercial
NTR Metals, LLC 6106 Precious Metals Refinin and Bullion Tradin
Duct Works 6108 Heatin &Air Conditionin Services
Murray Design&
En ineerin 6108 ???
Full service residential building contractor
All American Restoration, specializing in exterior renovations. Roofing•
LLC 6112 Sidin •Windows
16
ORDINANCE NO. 440, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Interim Ordinance Imposing a Twelve Month Moratorium on Certain Development in
Expressway International Park in the Douglas Drive Corridor, Golden Valley, Minnesota
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. Preamble.
1.01. The staff for the City of Golden Valley, and the City's Housing and Redevelopment
Authority, Planning Commission and Golden Valley City Council, have had ongoing
discussions regarding the development of the Douglas Drive Corridor which area is
depicted in "Exhibit A" attached.
1.02. The City Council has adopted a preliminary study relating to the Douglas Drive
Corridor. The preliminary study was published in draft form on November 9, 2009, adopted
by the City Council and is pending approval by the Metropolitan Council to be incorporated
into Golden Valley's Comprehensive Plan (the "Preliminary Study").
1.03. The City Council finds it necessary to further study the existing conditions of the
Douglas Drive Corridor including without limitation the Douglas Drive and Highway 55
intersection, and immediately adjacent areas to the northeast, to determine the impact of
comprehensive zoning changes to the development of the City within the Douglas Drive
Corridor (the "Study").
1.04. The City Council finds the Study necessary to: (i) develop and adopt policies to
reinforce employment uses at the south end of the corridor, and provide common functions
to serve all of the development, and (ii) develop and adopt zoning and land use control
changes that would enhance the Douglas Drive Corridor's south "gateway" with a more
campus-like setting, reorganize roadway access to create parcels that are more
developable, and create a better link to Zane Avenue.
1.05. To protect the planning process and preserve the welfare of the city of Golden
Valley, the City Council finds it necessary to enact an interim moratorium on certain zoning,
planning and development in Expressway International Park Blocks 1 and 2 (the
"Moratorium Area"), as legally described as Blocks 1 and 2, Expressway International Park.
1.06. In order to protect the planning process and preserve the welfare of the citizens of
the City of Golden Valley, the City Council has determined it is necessary to place a twelve
(12) month moratorium on: (i) issuing building permits that would increase the footprint of
any existing building in the Moratorium Area; (ii) the application for, and construction of,
new projects in the Moratorium Area; (iii) the application for, and approval of, rezoning or
subdivision of any land in the Moratorium Area; and (iv) the application for, and approval of,
a planned unit development or conditional use permit in the Moratorium Area where such
development, rezoning, subdivision, conditional use permit or planned unit development
would otherwise nullify the import and benefits of such Study until the Study is completed
and considered by the City Council and all requisite notices and hearings are
accomplished. Without this moratorium, while the Study is pending, people may take
actions which are permitted under the present ordinance but would not be under new
restrictions. To prevent this from happening and to protect the planning process, the City
Council is adopting an interim moratorium as authorized by Minnesota Statutes Section
462.355, Subd. 4.
1.07. This interim moratorium must be adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
462.355, Subd. 4 in order to be effective immediately. If the normal zoning ordinance
process were used alone, a period of approximately sixty (60) days would elapse before
the ordinance could become effective. During this significant time gap actions could be
taken to prejudice the planning process.
1.08. The City Council has a substantial government interest in preserving the public
peace, health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Golden Valley, and accordingly, the City
Council finds that an interim ordinance is needed for the purpose of protecting the planning
process and the public peace, health, safety and welfare of its citizens.
Section 2. Background.
2.01. Based on the Preliminary Study results published in draft form on November 9,
2009, the City Council adopted the Preliminary Study, its findings and recommendations,
and the Preliminary Study is pending approval by the Metropolitan Council for incorporation
into Golden Valley's Comprehensive Plan.
2.02. Based on the City Council's adoption of the Preliminary Study, the City Council finds
it necessary to: (i) develop and adopt policies to reinforce employment uses at the south
end of the corridor, and provide common functions to serve all of the development, and (ii)
develop and adopt zoning and land use control changes that would enhance the Douglas
Drive Corridor's south "gateway" with a more campus-like setting, reorganize roadway
access to create parcels that are more developable, and create a better link to Zane
Avenue.
2.03. The City Council is concerned that the City's current zoning ordinance and related
ordinances may be inadequate in scope and restrictions to accomplish the goals adopted in
the Preliminary Study.
2.04. The City Council finds that City staff needs additional time to conduct further studies
so that the City can adopt a set of comprehensive plans and land use zoning regulations,
and optimal policies pertaining to the development goals in the Preliminary Study. Such a
study will address the policy goals, land use and zoning issues raised by the Preliminary
Study.
2.06. The City Council has directed that such further study be undertaken.
2.07. The City Council finds it necessary to enact this interim ordinance for the purpose of
protecting the planning process and the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the
City by prohibiting (i) the issuance of any building permits which would increase the
footprint of any existing building in the Moratorium Area; (ii) the application for, and
construction of, new projects in the Moratorium Area; (iii) the application for, and approval
of any rezoning or subdivision within the Moratorium area; and (iv) the application for, and
approval of, a planned unit development or conditional use permit in the Moratorium Area,
until such further study has been completed and any modifications to the City's zoning and
land use regulations are accomplished.
2.08. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.355, subdivision 4, permits the adoption of interim
ordinances which regulate, restrict or prohibit any use during the planning process.
Section 3. Planning and Zoning Study; Moratorium.
3.01. The City Council authorizes the Study to be conducted by City staff: (i) to develop
policies to reinforce employment uses at the south end of the corridor, and provide
common functions to serve all of the development, and (ii) to develop zoning and land use
control changes that would enhance the Douglas Drive Corridor's south "gateway" with a
more campus-like setting, reorganize roadway access to create parcels that are more
developable, and create a better link to Zane Avenue The scope of the study should
include, but is not limited to, the following:
a. the particular permitted or conditional uses allowed in the area;
b. the density and concentration of such uses;
c. the effect of such uses on other uses in the surrounding area.
3.02. Upon completion of the Study, the matter is to be considered by the Planning
Commission for its review and recommendation to the City Council.
3.03. The City Council adopts this Interim Ordinance pursuant to, inter alia, Minnesota
Statute § 462.355, subd. 4, imposing a twelve (12) month moratorium prohibiting: (i) the
issuance of any building permits which would increase the footprint of any existing building
in the Moratorium Area; (ii) the application for, and construction of, new projects in the
Moratorium Area; (iii) the application for, and approval of any rezoning or subdivision within
the Moratorium Area; and (iv) the application for, and approval of, a planned unit
development or conditional use permit in the Moratorium Area. During this twelve (12)
month moratorium period, no new or existing applications for building permits or approval
under Golden Valley Code, ch. 11 or ch. 12, shall be considered or granted which would
result in: (i) development within the Moratorium Area that incorporates an increase in the
footprint of any existing building in the Moratorium Area; (ii) any construction of new
projects in the Moratorium Area; (iii) any rezoning or subdivision within the Moratorium
Area, or (iv) any planned unit development or new conditional use in the Moratorium Area.
Section 4. Enforcement.
The City may enforce any provision of this ordinance by mandamus, injunction or
any other appropriate civil remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Section 5. Separability.
Every section, provision or part of this ordinance is declared separate from every
section, provision or part of this ordinance. If any section, provision, or part of this
ordinance is adjudged to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such judgment
shall not invalidate any other section, provision, or part of this ordinance.
Section 6. Duration.
This interim ordinance shall be effective immediately upon adoption and shall
terminate on June 11, 2011 (one year after publication) unless renewed by the City
Council.
Section 7. Penalty.
City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the
Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Sections 11.99 and 12.99 entitled
"Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though
repeated verbatim herein.
Adopted by the City Council this 1st day of June, 2010.
/s/Linda R. Loomis
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/Susan M. Virnig
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
Douglas Drive Moratorium Area
iiii.: /,,,/ /Aitt/' 1:1; /pit/
v.
it., , / . , ,
ea
xi,,,.,,2,01;'//'>':, '' ,/.7 ,,,,,,,
yri:'/ ,(" // /!rife.!/ i
V 9
4 N r°
7//:?.; ///V/ 1 #1 5;1.,0.:, /1;'
*%' J/.f�/ .0'.' /".4(' 582E
COUNTRY CLUB DR OlSON MEMORIAL HWY
11OGHWAY55
•
��' Memar� r�durn
o en a e Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
April 12, 2011
Agenda Item
3. Comprehensive Plan Implementation Plan - Rezoning of Residential Areas
Prepared By
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Summary
At the November 9, 2010 Council/Manager meeting, the City Council discussed several areas
within the City that must be rezoned in order to implement land use designations on the
General Land Use Plan Map located in the Comprehensive Plan. Council directed staff to
proceed with rezoning the areas that did not involve residential properties. Now that the non-
residential rezoning process has been completed, the City must address the residential areas
that are zoned inconsistently with the Comprehensive Plan. To comply with Metropolitan
Council regulations, the Zoning Map must correspond to the General Land Use Plan Map
within one year of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, which will be June 9, 2011.
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) is currently discussing the creation of a
housing task force. If a housing task force is formed, discussion of rezoning residential areas
could be scheduled to coincide with the work of that group. The rezoning could also proceed
independent of the work of the task force. Staff recommends initiating the public rezoning
process as follows:
I. Southeast corner of Winnetka Avenue and Highway 55
�� 72 �
- 70� 47
-...: _.,.�
. :a��
iipe
h�.rcn
I
5 I
Recommended Planning Commission Meeting Date - Mav 9, 2011
Recommended City Council Meeting Date - June 7, 2011
United Properties has alerted staff to its interest in developing senior housing on this site. The
total site area is approximately 8.81 acres. United Properties envisions constructing several
multi-family senior housing buildings that would contain cooperative units, assisted living units
and memory care facilities, with an estimated total of approximately 200 units. United
Properties is currently working with the bank to acquire nine of the eighteen properties between
Winnetka Avenue and the Spirit of Hope Methodist Church. Because of the current interest
shown by United Properties in developing this site, staff proposes to initiate the public rezoning
process in May.
For this development to occur, the properties must be rezoned to either the existing R-4 High
Density Residential Zoning District (senior housing at the proposed density is a permitted use
in the R-4 District) or they must be rezoned to a new zoning classification specific to senior-
only housing. Because senior-only housing has less traffic impacts than traditional
intergenerational housing, staff proposes to amend the R-3 Medium Density Residential
Housing to permit higher density senior housing, with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). A copy
of this proposed language is attached. A "senior and disability housing dwelling" is defined in
City Code as:
"A multiple dwelling building with open occupancy limited to disabled or handicapped persons
and/or persons over fifty five (55) years of age, except that no more than ten percent (10%) of
the occupants (excluding disab/ed or handicapped persons), may be persons under fifty five
(55) years of age (spouse of a person over fifty five (55) years of age or caretakers, etc.)."
Prior to assembling additional parcels, United Properties seeks the support of the City to move
forward with its proposed development. If Council endorses United Properties' concept of
developing senior housing on this site, then staff recommends moving forward with the
rezoning process to R-3 Medium Density Residential Housing. Coinciding with that process,
staff recommends adoption of language into the R-3 Code that would allow senior housing at a
higher density with a CUP. With Council approval, staff envisions combining the Informal Public
Hearing of the Planning Commission (proposed to be held on May 9) with a neighborhood
meeting which would allow residents to view and comment on United Properties' concept
plans.
If Council feels that senior/higher density housing is inappropriate for this site, staff
recommends re-designating the area on the General Land Use Plan Map to "Low Density
Residential" and retain the current zoning classification.
II. Northeast corner of Golden Valley Road and Douglas Drive
� _
4 �
�
: 6 : :�
.�,.�'I� � �aGr
�r C h
,.�.,�;�,r, I�
ti.��u.
�
,�:::.„.:,,8... . .�'� .
�
A
�
Recommended Planning Commission Meeting Date - June 13, 2011
Recommended City Council Meeting Date - July 5, 2011
In 2007, a high-density senior housing development was proposed to be located at this site.
At that time, neighboring property owners were concerned about the height and location of
the proposed buildings. In the Comprehensive Plan, this area is guided for "High Density
Residential" development. Because of past concerns about rezoning this area, staff suggests
having a separate public hearing process for this site. Similar to the process suggested with
the Highway 55/Winnetka Avenue area, staff suggests integrating features of a neighborhood
meeting into the Informal Public Hearing of the Planning Commission.
Because this area is guided for "High Density Residential" development on the
Comprehensive Plan, the only zoning option available for the site is "High Density R-4
Residential." Due to neighborhood concerns surrounding the formerly proposed development
at this site, the City implemented a limit of 5-sories or 60-feet in height for all buildings
constructed in the R-4 Zoning District. Buildings exceeding that height would require a CUP.
If Council now believes that high density housing is inappropriate for this location, then the
Comprehensive Plan must be amended to designate a different residential land use
classification to the site. Staff seeks direction for the land use and zoning designations for this
area.
III. Additional Areas
Recommended Planning Commission Meeting Date - Julv 7, 2011
Recommended City Council Meeting Date - Auqust 3, 2011
The following areas include residential properties that are proposed to be rezoned. These
areas are smaller in size, and are proposed to be rezoned together during one public hearing
process.
• Douglas Drive - North of Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses
Y ,,.
Kinq ol^r
Luthera
Chu�ch
2nE iCh
_-�>, ' NJCM�,-��
oVi�,NA:M =� - �,t
.,e. : n
�
0 4 parcels currently zoned "Single Family Residential R-1"
0 1 parcel currently zoned "Businesses and Professional Offices"
o All parcels are proposed to be rezoned to "Moderate Density Residential R-2"
The Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District allows single family homes as a
permitted use. Single family homes in this location could remain in place, expand, be
repaired, etc. The office building located at 2040 Douglas Drive North would become a non-
conforming use. Repairs could be made to the existing building, but it would not be able to
expand, if rezoned.
• Residential Area North of Golden Valley Road and West of Decatur Avenue
��_ . . �
��_�
�
0 1 parcel currently zoned "Medium Density Residential R-3"
o Parcel is proposed to be rezoned to "Business and Professional Offices"
The Business and Professional Offices Zoning District does not permit housing of any kind. If
this area were to be rezoned, the apartment buildings would become non-conforming. They
would be allowed to be repaired, but they would not be allowed to expand if the zoning
designation is changed. This area was thought to be an inappropriate location for housing
due to the office and industrial nature of the surrounding properties.
• Southwest Corner of Glenwood Avenue and Highway 55
_ �, ,
,�
. . fpnki�GFH:
0
z
5 z .$pc1�CT���.
Hope
Churcfr
ruaota nvE g
� �
5
0 14 parcels currently zoned "Single Family Residential R-1"
o All parcels are proposed to be rezoned to "Moderate Density Residential R-2"
The Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District allows single family homes as a
permitted use. Single family homes in this location could remain in place, expand, be
repaired, etc. Under the new zoning classification, however, twin homes and duplexes could
be constructed as permitted structures.
• Southwest corner of Xenia Avenue and Glenwood Avenue
,,.
p�,�,�i,. Gold�n
'ialleY
-' �, luther�
'� �hurch
�
�
ur � ' .s ,
d(s
0 2 parcels currently zoned "Single Family Residential R-1"
o Both parcels are proposed to be rezoned to "Medium Density Residential R-3"
This site was identified to be re-guided for higher density housing on the Comprehensive
Plan due to its location near the intersection of two busier streets, and the surrounding higher
density housing that already exists. If rezoned to the Medium Density Residential R-3 Zoning
District, the two existing single family homes would become non-conforming structures.
Next Steps
The above residential areas have must be rezoned to comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
If the City Council would like to allow the above areas to retain their current zoning
designations, then the Comprehensive Plan General Land Use Plan map must be revised to
reflect the corresponding land use classifications.
Staff seeks direction from the City Council on how to proceed with the residential rezoning
actions. If Council desires to move forward with the rezoning actions, staff seeks Council
endorsement of the proposed public hearing schedule. If Council wishes to retain current
zoning classifications for one or more of the above areas, staff seeks direction to amend the
General Land Use Plan Map in the Comprehensive Plan accordingly.
Attachment
Underline/Overstrike version of Section 11.23: Medium Density Residential Zoning District
(R-3)(4 pages)
§ 11.23
Section 11.23: Medium Density Residential
Zoning District (R-3)
Subdivision 1. Purpose
The purpose of the Medium Density Residential Zoning District (R-3) is to provide
for medium density, housing (up to ten (10) units per acre with potential for twelve
(12) units per acre with density bonuses) along with directly related and
complementary uses. Subject to issuance of a conditional use permit, Senior and
physical disability housing is permitted to a density in excess of twelve �1� units
per acre, but in any case shall not exceed five (5) stories or sixty �60) feet in
height, whichever if less.
Subdivision 2. District Established
Properties shall be established within the R-3 Zoning District in the manner
provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter, and when thus
established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.23, Subdivision 2 by an
ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.23 and which shall
become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as fully as if set
forth herein. In addition the R-3 Zoning Districts thus established, and/or any
subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and established in a similar
manner, shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as provided in
Section 11.11 of this Chapter.
Subdivision 3. Permitted Uses
The following uses and no other shall be permitted in the R-3 Zoning District:
A. Townhouses
B. Two-family dwellings
C. Muitiple-family dwellings of twelve (12) units or less per acre�
D. Foster Family Homes
E. Essential Services, Class I
F. No more than one (1) kitchen area and one (1) kitchenette shall be
permitted in each dwelling unit.
Subdivision 4. Accessory Structures
The following accessory structures and no others shall be permitted in R-3 Zoning
Districts:
A. Enclosed parking structures similar in construction and materials to the
principal structure
Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 4
§ 11.23
B. Storage structures similar in construction and materials to the principal
structure not exceeding five hundred (500) square feet in area. No accessory
structure shall be erected in the R-3 Zoning District to exceed a height of one
(1) story, which is ten (10) feet from the floor to the top horizontal member
of a frame building to which the rafters are fastened, known as the top plate.
C. Accessory structures
D. Private indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, including but not limited to
swimming pools and tennis courts
E. Underground parking structures
Subdivision 5. Conditional Uses
The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning
Commission and approval by the Council following the standards and procedures
set forth in this Chapter:
A. Residential facilities serving twenty-five (25) or more persons/
B. Group Foster Homes/
C. Principal structures in excess of four (4) stories or forty-eight (48) feet/
D. Senior and physical disability housing to a density in excess of twelve (12)
units per acre, but in any case not to exceed five (5) stories or sixty (60) feet
in height, whichever is less; or
E. Retail sales, Class I and II restaurant establishments, and professional offices
within principal structures containing twenty (20) or more dwelling units
when located upon any minor or major arterial street. Any such sales,
establishment or office shall be located only on the ground floor and have
direct access to the street.
Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots
In the R-3 Zoning District a lot of a minimum area of fifteen thousand (15,000)
square feet shall be required for any principal structure. A minimum lot width of
one hundred (100) feet at the front setback line shall be required.
Subdivision 7. Corner Visibility
All structures in the R-3 Zoning District shall meet the requirements of the corner
visibility requirements in Chapter 7 of the City Code.
Subdivision 8. Easements
No structures in the R-3 Zoning District shall be located in dedicated public
easements.
Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 4
§ 11.23
Subdivision 9. Maximum Coverage by Building and Impervious
Surfaces
Structures, including accessory structures, shall not occupy more than forty percent
(40%) of the lot area. Total impervious surface on any lot shall not exceed sixty
percent (60%) of the lot area.
Subdivision 10. Principal Structures
Principal structures in the R-3 Zoning District shall be governed by the following
requirements:
A. Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for
principal structures in the R-3 Zoning District.
1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be twenty-
five (25) feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way
line. An open front porch for each building, with no screens, may be
built on the ground level to within seventeen (17) feet of a front
property line along a street right-of-way line.
2. Side and Rear Yard Setback. When directly abutting any R-1 Zoning
District, the required side and rear yard setback shall be thirty (30)
feet. In all other instances, the required side and rear yard setback
shall be twenty (20) feet.
B. Maximum Density. Dwelling units shall not be built at a rate greater than ten
(10) units per acre, unless they meet the provisions of Subdivision 12.
C. Height. No building shall exceed four (4) stories or forty-eight (48) feet in
height, whichever is less, except subject to issuance of a conditional use
permit, Senior and physical disability housing may be up to (5) stories or
sixty (60) feet in height, whichever is less.
Subdivision 11. Enclosed Parking Structures and other Accessory
Uses
Enclosed parking structures and accessory uses in the R-3 Zoning District shall be
governed by the following requirements:
A. Setback requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for
all enclosed parking structures and other accessory uses in the R-3 Zoning
District.
1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be twenty-
five (25) feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way
line.
2. Side and Rear Yard Setback. The required minimum side and rear
setback for enclosed parking structures shall be thirty (30) feet when
abutting any R-1 Zoning District and twenty (20) feet in all other
Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 4
§ 11.23
instances. The required minimum side and rear setback for other
accessory uses shall be fifteen (15) feet.
3. Separation Between Structures. Accessory structures shall be located
no less than ten (10) feet from any principal structure and from any
other accessory structure.
Subdivision 12. Density Bonus
Multiple Family dwellings providing sidewalks as required by the City shall be
granted one (1) of the following density bonuses.
A. Underground parking. The provision of one (1) or more underground parking
space(s) per dwelling unit shall increase the maximum allowable density by
two (2) units per acre.
B. Public Transit. Scheduled public transit route within one thousand (1000) feet
of the primary entrance accessed by public sidewalk shall result in an
increase in the maximum allowable density by one (1) unit per acre and
reduce required parking to one and one half (1.5) spaces per dwelling.
C. Recreation. Indoor or outdoor recreation facilities such as swimming pools,
porches, tennis courts, or other facilities requiring a substantial investment
equaling at minimum five percent (5%) of the construction cost of the
principal structure shall increase the maximum allowable density by two (2)
units per acre.
Source: Ordinance No. 372, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 07-13-07
Golden Valley City Code Page 4 of 4
City
of
oe n Vail e
Public Works
763-593-8030/763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
April 12, 2011
Agenda Item
3. A. Harold Avenue and Winnetka Avenue Traffic Study
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer
Mark Ray, EIT
Summary
The most recent version of the Comprehensive Plan identified land use changes in several
locations throughout the City, including an area located south of TH 55, east of Winnetka,
north of Harold Avenue and west of Glenwood Avenue, excluding the Spirit of Hope Church
(see attached map). Minnesota Statute 473.865, subd. 3 requires that the City's zoning map
and comprehensive plan be consistent. Prior to making any changes to the zoning map,
Council directed staff to complete a traffic study for Harold Avenue.
The objective of the study was to identify existing traffic conditions, identify traffic conditions
under a variety of development scenarios, and provide mitigation measures for the
development scenarios.
The study identified that the intersection of TH 55 and Winnetka Avenue has operational
concerns under present conditions. During the morning peak, the level of service (LOS) at
this intersection is D (A being best and F being failing). An afternoon LOS of E is also
experienced under existing conditions. The addition of traffic created by development at a
combined R-2 and R-3 density will impact all of the intersections in the study area. While
these changes were measurable, they did not significantly decrease the peak hour operation
of any of the intersections. The peak hour impact of increased density to accommodate
senior housing has even less peak hour impact than that of R-3 zoning.
To improve traffic flow along Winnetka Avenue between TH 55 and Harold Avenue, the study
recommended that the intersection geometrics be revised to provide for additional
northbound and southbound lanes. The southbound lane would allow the intersection
geometry at TH 55 and Winnetka Avenue to be modified such that the traffic signal operation
could be improved. The northbound lane would actually be an extension of the existing
through-right lane at the intersection. This extension would increase the storage area for
vehicles waiting to cross and turn on TH 55 and reduce the length of the traffic queues on
Winnetka Avenue, south of Harold Avenue.
The study also recommended the addition of a westbound right turn lane for Harold Avenue
at Winnetka Avenue. This lane would allow right turning vehicles to turn, even if a left turn
vehicle was also waiting to make a turn at the intersection.
City and consultant staff members will be at the meeting to discuss the findings of the study
and respond to questions.
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
Memorandum from SEH dated February 7, 2011 (12 pages)
Memorandum from SEH dated March 1, 2011 (7 pages)
Z , ,
�--' >
�� Q
R
�`,,�` r Hennepin '�
� County _>
`' Library �
��
�� -
Calvary _
z Lutheran
e � Church
Q Government �
� �� � Center& va��ey�'
� Fire Station#1 Go�der
c
� � � -
�_. _ Country Club Dr
„��.�_�__
.. 1..=_.� U.S. `'�:r G/�n od
Post Office wo
q v�
z �
y J
.: ' N G`�
Q � _
'o p W `\et
Stat� � ,� Gro
Sfat��: Hwy No � , - � 5
�. 55 � �� � Y �Ison Memorial HwY
o �
�
3,���=
a, �f -
a' � °c
'� - Spirit of `�`
Ho e .�
; � ChurCh
r-__ .� E,�a�r'��� iiarold Av�
1 �cs�?�'t` �
"��..� �F.�
\ y
_. �
�
Y i.
y 0 .
C � C
� a Lions
� Park
Brookview = Z
Park >
z a
Western Avenue ; �
Q U
- - Marsh y
a �
��� .� - � � �
m `� Y
\_ 3 i �
ao� a J
es e' `Ave ir � �
Q � � i ��" ` ;
s � � �a µ;
Q �'
��'a! " _ `—°
a Ter � � �+ 'k
m d �
N O �
. Print Date:4/4/11
Locat�on Map Source
, City of Golden Valley for all GIS layers.
�� � F�T� � ! � Harold Avenue 8
Not to Scale
�J
J
SEH TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeannine Clancy
Mark Ray
FROM: Graham Johnson, PE
Mike Kotila,PE
DATE: February 7,2011
RE: Harold Avenue Traffic Study
SEH No. GOLDV-114723
This technical memorandum provides findings and recommendations related to a traffic impact study
performed to evaluate potential land use alternatives for three residential development scenarios in the City of
Golden Valley adjacent to TH 55. The proposed area being considered for re-zoning is bordered by Winnetka
Avenue to the west,Glenwood Avenue to the east, Harold Avenue to the south and TH 55 on the north side.
The primary access route from the site(s) would use Harold Avenue to Glenwood Avenue on the east or
Winnetka Avenue on the west. The findings of this study will also be useful to inform the design of Harold
Avenue especially at its intersections with Glenwood and Winnetka Avenues.
Existing Conditions
Existing turning movement counts along TH 55 were provided by MnDOT from 2006 and supplemented with
new 2010 traffic counts along Harold Avenue at Winnetka Avenue and Glenwood Avenue. Traffic along both
Winnetka Avenue and Glenwood Avenue has decreased during the peak hours since 2006 by over 20%. The
decrease is most likely due to the slowed economic conditions in recent years.
The 2006 volumes were not reduced to balance and match the 2010 volumes under the assumption that when
the economy turns around,traffic volumes would most likely increase to levels similar to 2006. Therefore,in
this analysis the TH 55 signals were analyzed with the 2006 volume demand and the Harold Avenue
intersections analyzed with the current 2010 volume demand.
Figure 1 shows the traffic operations network with existing AM and PM peak hour volumes. Table 1 shows
the results of the existing operations analysis.
I:�hic I - 1-:�istin_Pcal. Ilour l,c�cl��f5cr�icc Itc�ultc
Intersection Level Of Service
AM Peak PM Peak
TH 55 at Winnetka Avenue D E
TH 55 at Rhode Island Avenue B B
TH 55 at Glenwood Avenue B B
Winnetka Avenue at Harold Avenue* A/B A/B
Glenwood Avenue at Harold Avenue* A/A A/A
*Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control. The overall LOS is followed by the worst approach LOS.
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.,10901 Red Circle Drive,Suite 300,Minnetonka,MN 55343-9302
SEH is an equal opportunity employer � www.sehinc.com � 952.912.2600 � 800.734.6757 � 952.912.2601 fax
Harold Avenue Traffic Impact Study
February 7,2011
Page 2
The existing AM peak hour operates very well considering the long coordinated cycle length along TH 55.
The signal at TH 55 and Winnetka Avenue incurs the only operational problem for the study network. The
short green time for the southbound approach doesn't allow all of the traffic to clear through the signalized
intersection and is creating long delays. The two stop controlled intersections along Harold Avenue(east
bound at Glenwood Avenue and westbound to Winnetka Avenue)both operate very well with delays
represented by LOS A.
Traffic operations at the TH 55 and Winnetka Avenue intersection degrade with the increased volume demand
for the northbound Winnetka Avenue approach during the PM peak hour. The long cycle length needed for
coordinating TH 55 only allows for short green times for both the northbound and southbound approaches at
Winnetka Avenue. Frequently,traffic is not able to clear during the provided green time and vehicles will sit
through multiple cycles on both Winnetka Avenue approaches. The northbound approach spills back into the
Harold Avenue intersection,which at times blocks westbound Harold Avenue traffic from entering Winnetka
Avenue. The blockage occurs when queues in the northbound left turn lane at TH SSoverflow out of the left
turn lane and block the left most northbound through lane.
Trip Generation and Distribution
The Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation Manual, 8`"Edition,was used to develop trip
estimates for the proposed development scenarios. The Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan was used as a
guide to estimate the number of units per acre for two development scenarios. Scenario 1 includes the entire
16.6 acres as medium density residential (R2)yielding 197 townhome units. Scenarios 2 and 3 considered
developing the site with two different densities. The east side of the development is 9.2 acres in area and
would be developed as medium density residential (R 2)with 109 townhome units in both Scenario 2 and 3.
The west side of the development covers 7.4 acres and would be developed as medium high density residential
(R3)yielding 147 apartment units in Scenario 2 and as Senior Adult Housing(Attached)yielding 364 units in
Scenario 3.
Table 2 summarizes the trip generation estimates for Scenario 1, Scenario 2,and Scenario 3 for daily,AM
peak hour and PM peak hour demands.
1�ahlc 2 - l'ri�i Gcncr.�ti�in
Scenario Develo ment Dail AM Peak PM Peak
T e Units Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Scenario 1 -R2 all Townhome 197 1,144 16 70 86 66 37 103
Scenario 2-R2 Townhome 109 634 9 39 48 36 20 56
Scenario 2-R3 A artment 147 978 23 57 80 60 38 98
Scenario 2-R2&R3 Totals 258 1,612 32 96 128 96 58 154
Scenario 3-R2 Townhome 109 634 9 39 48 36 20 56
Scenario 3-R3 Sr.Housin 364 1,267 11 11 22 21 19 40
Scenario 3-R2&Sr.Hs . Totals 473 1,901 20 50 70 57 39 96
Scenario 3 has the highest total number of residential units and the highest daily total trips. However,due to
the trip generating characteristics of a senior housing development, the AM and PM peak hour trips are
relatively low compared to the number of units. The AM and PM peak hour demands for Scenario 3 are very
similar to or less than magnitudes in Scenario 1 and 2,therefore Scenario 3 would have lower level of impact
and was not further evaluated in the intersection analysis.
Harold Avenue Traffic Impact Study
February 7,2011
Page 3
Figure 1 shows the location of the development site and the development assumptions for each scenario.
Fi�urc I Lucs�tion 11ap
Golden
�allpy
i;�x:f«�t� .,:�
" _ _i�.1-...,. ..
1�/0
� "
�y�a ,�b , , � 30%
. � ` �
,
�inr
�.,.,, .,�,�F,n7tr'� �
� )1
25% �,� . ,,,,.
`"`'rar,,ro „ .,�.,�;��,�ir,., ;, , ,
�� ' �� 'T# j �`i
� a�rs�ir LL����� ' i� �
Scenario t-R2 R2 for all ����
_ . `lsy'c
�2� Sce�ierio 2 R3 Scenarios
Scenario 3-Senior Housing
8�
.
� .
,.. � �. . _ _ ___ -- _
; ;`.♦ DeveloprnentTrip '
X� Distnbution
_..__.,._.�._._
Development generated traffic for each scenario was distributed to the adjacent street network based on
previous analysis of the development site by SEH(file report dated November 21,2000). Trips were
distributed as follows: 25%to the west on TH 55; 30%to the east on TH 55; 10%to the north on Winnetka
Avenue; 12%to the south on Winnetka Avenue; 15°/o to the south on Glenwood Avenue and 8%onto
Ridgeway Road.
Figures 2 and 3 show the build scenario traffic AM and PM peak hour volumes for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2,
respectively.
Build Conditions
The overall traffic demands to and from each development scenario is relatively small,ranging from 86
vehicles for Scenario 1 in the morning peak hour up to 154 vehicles in the PM peak for Scenario 2. However,
the addition of these relatively low volumes of new trips through the TH 55 and Winnetka Avenue intersection
does measurably impact the quality of the traffic signal operation at that intersection. Under existing PM peak
conditions the northbound approach from Winnetka Avenue to TH 55 typically is not able to clear all queued
vehicles within one signal cycle. The added volume from the development,however small,compounds the
problem by increasing the number of vehicles not able to clear through the intersection and occupying more
storage lane length during the red intervals.
In all scenarios,the traffic traveling to the site during the peak periods has little impact to any of the
intersection operations due to existing available capacity for those movements.
Harold Avenue Traffic Impact Study
February 7,2011
Page 4
Due to the problems experienced with the TH 55 intersections,the operations analysis was conducted in two
separate analysis phases. The first analysis used the Highway Capacity Manual(HCM)procedures for
unsignalized intersections to determine what problems may occur at the Harold Avenue intersections without
the influence of problems experienced at the adjacent TH 55 intersection. The second phase of analysis
examined the network as a whole to better understand the operation issues that adjacent intersections will have
with one another when developinent traffic is added.
Using the HCM procedures,the intersections of Harold Avenue at Winnetka Avenue and at Glenwood Avenue
will have acceptable levels of delay during both the AM and PM peak hours for the existing scenario as well as
the two build Scenarios. All intersection approaches will operate at a LOS C or better for all scenarios. Table
3 summarizes the results of the HCM analysis. Results indicate that stop sign control of westbound Harold
Avenue at Winnetka Avenue and stop control on eastbound Harold Avenue at Glenwood Avenue will each
provide adequate opportunity for right turns and left turns to and from Harold Avenue.
�I nblc 3 tii�h�4�ati� ('apacit�� Manu�►I �u�il��sis
Intersection* Scenario Level Of Service
AM Peak PM Peak
Winnetka Avenue at Harold Avenue Existin A/C A/C
Glenwood Avenue at Harold Avenue Existin A/B A/B
Winnetka Avenue at Harold Avenue Scenario 1 A/C A/C
Glenwood Avenue at Harold Avenue Scenario 1 A/B A/B
Winnetka Avenue at Harold Avenue Scenario 2 A/C A/C
Glenwood Avenue at Harold Avenue Scenario 2 A/B A/B
*lndicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control. The overall LOS is followed by the worst approach LOS.
Analyzing the network as a whole,the development traffic does not have a significant impact on traffic
operations at the surrounding intersections,with the exception of TH 55 at Winnetka Avenue. Recall that 65
percent of the total traffic from the development will use the TH 55 intersections; 25 percent west on TH 55,
10 percent north on Winnetka Avenue and 30 percent east on TH 55. The remaining 35%will travel south
along Winnetka Avenue,Ridgeway Drive, and Glenwood Avenue.
Table 4 summarizes intersection delay and LOS for all five intersections for each scenario.
1`able� \et�sork �1'r•a1'fic Oper�tion An.►I��sis
Winnetka Glenwood
Avenue Avenue TH 55 TH 55 at Rhode TH 55
at Harold at Harold at Winnetka Island Avenue at Glenwood
Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue
Scenario Peak Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
Existing AM 2.8 A 1.5 A 46.0 D 17.2 B 10.9 B
Conditions pM 2.9 A 1.5 A 62.3 E 18.0 B 18.7 B
Existing Plus AM 2.8 A 1.7 A 48.1 D 17.6 B 11.5 B
Scenario 1 PM 4.0 A 1.6 A 60.8 E 17.8 B 20.3 C
Existing Plus AM 2.9 A 1.9 A 51.0 D 18.3 B 12.4 B
Scenario 2 pM 4.4 A 2.0 A 63.4 17.8 B 20.4 C
Harold Avenue Traffic Impact Study
February 7,2011
Page 5
The AM peak period would experience little change from the existing conditions with all intersections
operating at a LOS D or better with no storage or blocking problems at any of the study intersections. During
the PM peak,four of the five study intersection operates at a LOS C or better. The TH 55 and Winnetka
Avenue intersection operates at a LOS E with the northbound queue spilling back into the Harold Avenue
intersection. This spillback can block Harold Avenue vehicles desiring to access Winnetka Avenue
(northbound Winnetka Avenue vehicles block the intersection)and,westbound right turning vehicles from
Harold Avenue are not able to turn thereby blocking westbound through or left turning vehicles on Harold
Avenue that arrived behind them. The spill back length for build conditions is slightly longer than the existing
conditions. Table 5 shows the change of this queue spillback for each scenario.
�1'.ihlc � ll�►rold .���enue ul ��'innetk.� A��enuc - Impurted npproachcs
Harold Avenue Winnetka Avenue Winnetka Avenue
at Winnetka Avenue at Harold Avenue at TH 55
Westbound App. Northbound App. Northbound App.
Scenario Peak Delay LOS Queue Delay LOS Queue Delay LOS Queue
Existing AM 6.4 A 45 0.9 A 0 82.3 180
Conditions PM 11.2 B 62 2.8 A 138-'°` 138.8 `` � 514
Existing Plus AM 6.4 A 68 0.8 A 0 79.8 E 166
Scenario 1 PM 12.7 B 69 4.1 A 169 139.6 534
Existing Plus AM 7.2 A 77 0.7 A 0 79.3 E 181
Scenario 2 PM 13.6 B 86 4.5 A 23 _ " 140.1 502
The Harold Avenue westbound approach to Winnetka shows very good operations in the AM peak and a slight
increase in delay during the PM peak with the increased traffic from Scenarios 1 and 2. The maximum queue
for the westbound approach is less than 100 feet,which is equal to about 4 vehicles. The northbound
Winnetka approach to Harold is not stop controlled,so any queue at this intersection is directly related to the
delays at the TH 55 intersection.
In all three analysis scenarios there is a northbound queue at the Harold Avenue intersection in the PM peak
hour. `The maximum northbound queue extends about 6 vehicles south of Harold Avenue in the existing
conditions. Scenario lincreases the queue to an estimated 7 vehicles,while in Scenario 2,the highest peak
hour volume scenario,the queue is increased to an estimated 10 vehicles. From these results we can surmise
that northbound queues from Scenario 3 would extend 6-7 vehicles south of Harold Avenue similar to the
existing conditions and/or Scenario 1.
Rhode Island Avenue Access
A mitigation concept considered,if severe problems were anticipated on Winnetka Avenue,would be to allow
access from the new development site to TH 55 at the existing Rhode Island Avenue intersection. The existing
intersection currently serves traffic movements to and from the north only on Rhode Island Avenue. The
intent of the Rhode Island access to and from the south of TH 55 would be to alleviate any traffic problems at
Winnetka Avenue intersection caused by the new development trips.
Providing full access at the Rhode Island Avenue at TH 55 would require the traffic signal to operate under
split phased control similar to the current operation at Winnetka(the northbound and southbound Rhode Island
approaches would be served independently by the traffic signal). This is due to the existing lane configuration
Harold Avenue Traffic Impact Study
February 7,2011
Page 6
of southbound Rhode Island Avenue which currently has two left turn lanes and a right turn lane. The new
northbound configuration would consist of a through-left lane and a separate right turn lane.
Rhode Island Avenue north of TH 55 connects TH 55 to Golden Valley Road north of our study area. In view
of the fact that Rhode Island Avenue isn't a continuous north/south route,it would not draw any existing
demand from Winnetka Avenue and would only serve the new development area and some existing local trips
along Harold Avenue. Because the low number of vehicles anticipated to use the northbound approach from
Rhoda Island to TH 55,this change in the roadway network would not substantially alleviate the issue at the
TH 55 and Winnetka Avenue intersection. It does however increase the overall intersection delay at the TH 55
and Rhode Island Avenue intersection.
Table 6 summarizes the intersection delay and LOS for all five intersections under the two build scenarios.
7`able 6 Rhocie Island ���enue I�ull �lccess ;1n�ivsis
Harold Harold �/innetka Rhode Island Glenwood
Avenue Avenue at Avenue Avenue Avenue
at Winnetka Glenwood at TH 55 At TH 55 At TH 55
Avenue Avenue
Scenario Peak Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
Existing AM 2.8 A 1.5 A 46.0 D 17.2 B 10.9 B
Conditions PM 2.9 A 1.5 A 62.3 E 18.0 B 18.7 B
Existing Plus AM 2.9 A 1.5 A 44.4 D 22.1 C 11.1 B
Scenario 1 PM 4.4 A 1.6 A 63.0 E 21.2 C 21.2 C
Existing Plus AM 2.9 A 1.7 A 44.8 D 23.3 C 11.5 B
Scenario 2 PM 3.7 A 1.7 A 64.8 E 21.5 C 22.5 C
The new northbound approach into the TH 55 coordinated signal systein network has the potential to affect a
large portion of the vehicle demand on TH 55 throughout the day. The new northbound approach would serve
a relatively small demand from the development area and may not have a constant flow of vehicles arriving at
the traffic signal. Therefore the northbound signal phase would not be served each cycle. When the
northbound signal phase is skipped, the time would be provided to signal phases serving TH 55. When the
northbound signal phase is running,all of the traffic along TH 55 and southbound on Rhode Island Avenue
would incur the added delay. The northbound approach at Rhode Island would operate with delays
representing LOS E,with the left and through movements at a LOS F. This delay is incurred due to the long
cycle length along TH 55.
The TH 55 at Rhode Island Avenue intersection serves over 3700 vehicles in the AM peak hour and over 4200
vehicles in the PM peak hour. Increasing the intersection delay in the AM peak by roughly 5 seconds per
vehicle would mean that all 3,700 vehicles would incur that added delay,equating to over 300 hours of added
delay. The PM peak hour intersection delay increase is roughly 3 seconds per vehicle,which equates to over
200 hours of added delay.
In summary,providing access to TH 55 from the south at Rhode Island Avenue would be a route of
convenience for trips in the immediate area. However,the added convenience for a relatively small number of
users would come at a great cumulative cost to other users along TH 55 and would not substantially improve
conditions for existing or future users along Winnetka Avenue. For these reasons,this option does not warrant
further consideration.
Harold Avenue Traffic Impact Study
February 7,2011
Page 7
Signal Timings
The largest single issue for local traffic in the network is inadequate green time to clear all vehicles on the
northbound approach along Winnetka Avenue to TH 55. Major capacity improvements, such as adding lanes
through the intersection,would shorten queues and improve operations; however they come at a very high
capital cost for reconstruction. A relatively low cost potential solution would be to"re-program"the traffic
signals on TH 55 and adjacent crossroads which could result in lower delays for all drivers including those on
Winnetka Avenue.
MnDOT is currently preparing to implement a project to"re-time"the TH 55 corridor between Minneapolis
and west of Plymouth in 2011. During this project,MnDOT plans to include"cross-coordination"of signals
on crossing arterials such as Winnetka Avenue with the TH 55 coordination plan. The re-timing would be
done to serve existing traffic demands (we previously noted that current traffic demands are lower than had
been recorded in 2006 for TH 55,the current signal timings were developed to serve the higher 2006
demands). Re-timing has the potential to improve operations along Winnetka and TH 55 and reduce the
overall delay at the intersection if the cycle length can be shortened. With a decrease in overall delay at the
intersection,the average user would see a slight improvement traveling through the intersection. The change
may not appear as an increase in green time each cycle for Winnetka Avenue,but potentially would be an
increase in the number of signal cycles provided per hour resulting in more effective allocation of usable time
for Winnetka Avenue.
Operation of a coordinated series of signal systems like TH 55 requires that the mainline corridor be given
priority so that the higher volume of longer trips can be cleared through the corridor. TH 55 traffic demands
account for about 75%of the traffic at the Winnetka Avenue intersection and therefore would still demand the
majority of the green time. The retiming of the signals should provide a measurable improvement for drivers
when considered in aggregate that may not be immediately apparent to drivers on Winnetka on any given trip.
Recommendations
Development Scenarios 1 and 3 had the least impact to the existing operational problems in the network.
However, any of the three proposed development options could be considered as they each add an
incrementally minor impact to the existing roadway network. The qualiry of access to the highway system for
tenants in a new development should be a consideration as land use choices are ultimately made.
A separate right turn lane should be added on westbound Harold Avenue to store right turning vehicles. This
would allow westbound left turning vehicles to access the intersection without being blocked by those waiting
to go to the north. The eastbound approach from Harold Avenue to Glenwood Avenue does not require any
improvements as there are no blocking or queuing problems anticipated at that intersection.
Providing direct access between TH 55 and Rhode Island Avenue to the south is not warranted. The access
would be a convenience for a small number of users but it would not substantially relieve current operational
issues that are experienced on Winnetka Avenue and it would add significant cumulative delay for users on
TH 55.
MnDOT has plans to re-time the entire TH 55 signalized corridor between Minneapolis and west of Plymouth
in 2011 to better serve current traffic demands. This effort will include consideration of cross-coardination of
the signalized crossing arterials including Winnetka Avenue. The City should work with MnDOT to explore
opportunities for improved operations at the Winnetka Avenue intersection with a reduced coordinated cycle
length and/or more green time allocated for Winnetka Avenue.
p:\fj\g\goldvU 14723\traffic�harold tis memorandum 04062011.docx
��
�
SEH TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeannine Clancy
Mark Ray
FROM: Graham Johnson, PE
Mike Kotila,PE
DATE: March 1,2011
RE: Harold Avenue Traffic Study Land Use Scenario 3
SEH No. GOLDV-114723
This technical memorandum provides findings and recommendations related to a traffic impact study
performed to evaluate a potential land use alternative for residential development in the City of Golden Valley
adjacent to TH 55. The proposed area is bordered by Winnetka Avenue to the west,Glenwood Avenue to the
east,Harold Avenue to the south and TH 55 on the north side. The primary access route from the site(s)would
use Harold Avenue to Glenwood Avenue on the east or Winnetka Avenue on the west.
The findings of this analysis will also be useful to inform the design of Harold Avenue at Winnetka Avenue
and potential i�nproveinents to better serve existing and future demands at the intersection of Winnetka
Avenue and TH 55.
Existing Conditions
The existing conditions are documented in the"Harold Avenue Traffic Study Technical Memorandum"dated
February 7`h,201 L
Trip Generation and Distribution
The Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation Manual, 8`h Edition,was used to develop trip
estimates for the proposed development scenarios. The 16.6 acres site will be divided into two separate
residential development areas. The east side of the development is 9.2 acres in area and would be developed
as medium density residential (R 2)with 109 townhome units. The west side of the development covers 7.4
acres and would be developed as Senior Adult Housing(Attached)yielding 364 units.
Table 1 summarizes the trip generation estimates for daily,AM peak hour and PM peak hour demands.
I�ublc 1 - �I�rip Gcncr��ti�in
Scenario 3 Develo ment Dail AM Peak PM Peak
T e Units Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
R2 Townhome 109 634 9 39 48 36 20 56
R3 Sr.Housin 364 1,267 11 11 22 21 19 40
Preferred Develo ment Totals 473 1,901 20 50 70 57 39 96
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.,10901 Red Circle Drive,Suite 300,Minnetonka,MN 55343-9302
SEH is an equal opportunity employer � www.sehinc.com � 952.912.2600 � 800.734.6757 � 952.912.2601 fax
Harold Avenue Traffic Impact Study
March 1,2011
Page 2
Development generated traffic for each scenario was distributed to the adjacent street network based on
previous analysis of the development site by SEH (file report dated November 21, 2000). Trips were
distributed as follows: 25%to the west on TH 55; 30%to the east on TH 55; 10%to the north on Winnetka
Avenue; 12%to the south on Winnetka Avenue; 15%to the south on Glenwood Avenue and 8%onto
Ridgeway Road.
Build Conditions
The previous build analysis documented in the"Harold Avenue Traffic Study Technical Memorandum"dated
February 7`h,2011 showed that the development Scenarios 1 and 2 would add peak hour demands to the
existing TH 55/Winnetka intersection,compounding delays. Scenario 3 was identified to have higher overall
density but lower peak hour trip generation. Therefore this analysis evaluates improvements to the TH 55 at
Winnetka Avenue intersection to better serve existing traffic at the intersection and new development trips.
Due to the long coordinated cycle length along the TH 55 corridor, 180 second cycle in both peak hours,
Winnetka Avenue is served by only a small portion of the green time. In the morning peak hours,both
Winnetka Avenue approaches get a total of 54 seconds out of the 180 second cycle,the afternoon peak hours
only increases to 55 seconds of the total. For this analysis,regardless of phasing changes at the signal,the
overall time allotted to Winnetka Avenue was not changed in order to stay within the existing coordinated
system.
This study analyzed four potential improvement options to the intersection in order to improve traffic
operations. All improvement options build upon the previous option,such that Option 2 includes
improvements from Option 1. The improvement options are as follows:
Option 1 —Add westbound right turn lane at Harold/Winnetka intersection,extend existing northbound
Winnetka Avenue through-right lane at TH 55 down to Harold Avenue intersection(Figure 1).
Option 2—Option 1 plus restripe northbound Winnetka Avenue approach to TH 55 to include a left turn lane,
a left-through shared lane,and a through-right shared lane(Figure 2).
Option 3—Option 1 plus adding an additional separate left turn lane so the northbound Winnetka Avenue
approach to TH 55 would include exclusive dual left turn lanes,a though and a through-right shared lane. This
can be accomplished by restriping the southbound Winnetka approach with exclusive dual left turn lanes and a
single through lane(Figure 3). This options changes the phasing at the intersection so that the northbound and
southbound left turns can run concurrently.
Option 4—Option 3 plus widening Winnetka Avenue to the west to include two southbound through lanes.
The second southbound through lane could end as a right turn lane at Brookview Parkway or extend past
Brookview Parkway/Harold Avenue and become a lane drop(Figure 4). This options changes the phasing at
the intersection so that the northbound and southbound left turns can run concurrently as in Option 3.
All four options,including an existing conditions scenario were modeled using Synchro/SimTraffic. Under
existing conditions the AM peak has LOS F inainly due to the long cycle length,while the PM peak does not
provide enough green time to clear all traffic queued at the signaL In the PM peak hour,the northbound queue
extends beyond the Harold Avenue intersection by one to two car lengths.
The results of the operational analysis are summarized in Table 2.
Harold Avenue Traffic Impact Study
March 1,2011
Page 3
�1'able 2 'I'1�� 55 at Winnetka A�enue Intersecfion Uperations
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Approach Approach Approach Approach Intersection
Scenario Peak Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
AM 80.9 F 106.7 F 40.8 D 18.6 B 49.1 D
Existing
PM 132.5 F 132.3 F 48.2 D 29.4 C 62.5 E
AM 81.1 F 106.7 F 41.0 D 18.4 B 49.1 D
Option 1
PM 125.0 F 129.1 F 48.3 D 29.4 C 61.2 E
AM 85.2 F 104.4 F 38.6 D 18.4 B 47.8 D
Option 2
PM 156.0 F 141.9 F 47.6 D 28.2 C 66.1 E
AM 67.3 E 268.5 F 40.4 D 18.8 B 76.8 E
Option 3
PM 137.1 F 72.0 E 46.8 D 27.4 C 55.0 E
AM 73.5 E 78.1 E 38.2 D 18.1 B 42.0 D
Option 4
PM 114.8 F 69.4 E 46.1 D 27.1 C 51.3 D
Option l,with no signal operation changes,provides a slight improvement for the intersection operations.
This is partly due to more storage for the northbound queue which aids in the efficiency of the approach to use
its allotted green time. The northbound queue does not extend into the Harold Avenue intersection.
Option 2,with no signal operation changes,degrades the northbound approach operations since the left turning
traffic uses the shared left-through lane and removes existing storage for through vehicles. The shifting of
traffic causes fewer vehicles to clear the signal in one green phase. The queue extends beyond Harold Avenue
slightly more than the existing conditions.
Option 3,with concurrent left turn phasing,provides better operations during the PM peak hour. However
du:-ing the AM peak,the single southbound through lane cannot serve the demand and the delay for the
approach is almost 4 'h minutes. The queue extends over 1100 feet north of TH 55.
Option 4,with concurrent left turn phasing,provides the best operations of all the scenarios. With plenty of
capacity the PM peak average intersection delay is reduced by over 10 seconds per vehicle. The northbound
approach still operates at a LOS F due to the long cycle length and the protected left turn phasing. Queue
lengths on the northbound and southbound approaches are shortened as to no longer impact the adjacent
intersections of Harold Avenue or Golden Valley Road.
The intersection of Harold Avenue and Winnetka Avenue will operate well under all options above. The
westbound approach will have a maximum queue length of only 50 feet for all options and both peak hours.
Findings
Option 1 is the most cost effective solution to serve new development demands without degrading the
preexisting conditions. Option 4 improves most of the existing operational deficiencies at the TH 55/Winnetka
Avenue intersection; however it comes with the highest cost to construct. Options 2 and 3 don't provide a net
benefit and should not be considered.
p:\fj\g\goldvU 14723\traffic\scenario 3 analysis\harold t1S TriOTriOP3riC�UTri SCEriariO�4�62,�1 1.C�OCX
0
� z T
� O "
LL
W � �
= g �W�J
�w� m
� � W�woW
W o�QZ�
w = °zw°o�
w
Q O mzO���
U
Q�-
� =W Hp��W
� F—� �ZQZ�
O
_ ?� �m��?
z oa W=�Z�
m� UH�Y�
� H
J Z
Z m �� WZW��p
0 V~jWO= �(nZmWW
� Zz �zacn�w
o �g°zQ J ��zv�o
� ���C� c=r� J=�wwa `
� m��w w NNw�>O o
m , H � m OC , , m , QI-
,`� � . ��1 t - . ' '� � 1�
� - �4` a � �``' j
• y . �"'•� !! .�,�
� ' �� �' ��,�a. `��. � ZZ _ .
�� ` �` �' �, ►�' �. : �,� y= woy: °� :t: I
� � , � i _ og��� �oWw �
4� ' . � - q S "` it r �'�`�T m~W` ���Z � I
� .�,,,y_�.,m,,.� . +� �► � ° � � � W�
'' Z
� �' t ��f �i1 � � ��Q ` m
� • r.
E ' `� `���` .�..` � y�`' � ` a` ' ��� ��a
• ,i . � � .� —. . ; _ - J «
� r,� qp _ � �, _ �,,.. . . �,,. Z Z� �
�
: � �, � � � � r �... �'��� ��� .�
. � r O_
!/ `��`
� � � , �� wOQ �Zd' I
. ,, , ,.,�, �� r � 2 -;�,; C� �
�,�. � � . � � . ~ �'� ,- �X20$ �.�- Q�=
�" �. � ' . �fi ..� : wHF-- � ' _
� ��
� � i
_ � W `~ ~�„ ' 'i. ' I
m
tA~N "'�_ �� r
J � a T J #
; � R A��. m a� �, ..
'�>. ZMd � .. �j`
� � � , � �
� � �� ��'� .^.�* ;. ,,� ..:. �"r��� �� � � ,� - � �.
"I� " �� ' �
�
� -
, } � .��, w. ,� . ` ` � a z a
Jli�r� �f �i,�� �. ,r � 1' � 3�5 m
� � T 9
�� , � 9�'� �> �
� � . �� ' � � * �-� � �` o
�i �� i � r� m (
�' �._ ... i �, �� � .,;. � � � �p Z I
� ' r x�.�� { i��� �� ~�.� � � ` �- _� � .
- � �,p.. . w. t�� yf• .L. �,v ' ` H
� � i. � �, �s � �Y �t � � bdR � 8
` �:��� ����� �� �
'� ,. ,!� ; ����
�, �
,� ,,
� � P _
. � �. ����
, . � � :
� � � �.. _
. _� ; � � �
, a ._ , : � ��;,� '� •. �� � W
__., p V1
O
O Z N
r �
LL
W �
Z �
2 � 2
� � Q �ZU
w � �C7�
Z = da W��
w � Q �H
p � �� Uw�
� _ �'O ��O
w�
= z �_'"��' o,�-�g�
o � °�Z �`� �
z �
m�
0
� =W~JI— �H��
N 0 ����= aC�Ow
Z m �ZO�C7 OZ�CJ
O �jWZ�w�� wZ��
� �ZpQaw= vi o�zv
o gZ��o� J ��wo
0 �Z�p��p � ��V� N
� m��Q�Z= W Q J�� a
L T �/ ♦�C O
� 1 f 1 .L 1 �� LL I 1 vJ L
.. , � . r � ; � ,�.
,.•� �, _ ;� � _ +1� a�
_ , ,
; _ - , ,:. .
, + �" �' � r
,� � �""�"_,
P
4 � � i .�� � �'' - , �;, y� R::. .A.3a.�Z�`� • . ��
��
� � � ,� _� � '�Q= QW
_ ,y ^ , J .�. i
� s ' '• �t� �> �Z , m H'W : �Z� �
. � �
. -
� �__ , `a�,• � � 0; �, �_, OgW.
��' C #�� ��� �. R � ZQ -° ��Q ' mZ��
i x_
, ��x . � � w �pCp , F-�-'Q .
. � _ ,
. � .. . �..
�, � .� -. WO� Z=��,e c�� „
f ,� � ..�- � ,� � a= � � : - .-:.�..�ot�p ~�� r:
r � �- ��
_
� w - �.� � _� F- �
:«� � -� � ` �r �_ { ��Z` � f �µ WOQ Q=p���
...�, �''�, ,�` � , �u.10�� ��� , H�z `3�;., �(�Q
..
� y� °�����i .�,� }. +t,��'� � f � - �Z�" �`� , � wHp� �` �"' ¢�2 A
„:., - _, � _
� � t,,
_ � y~N ►w;� r� � Aw�.�.#
; *", h ��. f6 a S : .
� �� � '.#y, � y . zv�a � ` `
� � ' � ,�
.
� � �� 3 � � �._ � . �,
� }, A.,` „ 3 ' ��� ' N �
. � . «k.. , 7 c�7
'` "� � ,�� � i 'M` k �z a
:..� � �S� ,�, �, ,. � � �� g
� �
� , '� �> o
� d � ��� �` o
't �� �� „ � �"` ,� ,� ma z
' +' P r a#, �o
- :v *"N�*4"" � p�'' �, • �F .. u�V` 2
, s ,� w`r �'� +�� w
�5 r>�� . _ ":� �"'� � ��� . � F tn
!t � q '�x ... i�. �� � � � ,.. �. �' � 4 8
� �� �
�� ���� �� ` : � _ �� �
. 4 .
�.. � . °`.� ti' ' ....
�. � .. a q , i ��. +�- �.
. ��" , �.a+' �� .. �{ �y�
nw� k �� . � .¢ �•. ' , � . ��
, � ��� � � __ *'�'" �" ���ci
� a „ � . s� ���, • � ���' � ���,� , � _
µ W
O V1
0
O � � LL co
��\
� Z � ��7/
= g = ���p
�
� _ �o zo
� °°c }w
z = pa g~
¢ �
a � z°z °w
O �
UW
� _ ~00 c�0(�
� �2w Z�
= z ��Z �ao
0 0 0�� �QZ
O
� =w�WC7 wZw
z m �Wm�� Omo
a wZZ¢�w= iri o�N
o �g000� � �w
ZJZ W J ��� .
0 ������� � ��00 �
m � '� p Z w W� O a
mi HT2Qi J(/� 0�.' �, QO� �
`'�` i , p ` ��• i . � ;� � � .:_ , ,� '���Y �-
�k �
� ^ � ' , � Q� ��..� "
� n ..x -
_ 4 r� . �' .. � ��.�, ; �
� :
k �� F } � : �p . W �: , . =Zw
+� � � ,� r� �'.
M . 'i. r. ". _ "04��` _ . Y�ZW �
�. r � � J �
��� � ` • .��` �-'�> �� � �o w�`��� ���:'` ii'z � �� . �� .�gz �� �
t �F. � ,��-i�� Z "� Jv°zQ �.'�-�. . i ��a « mZ;� �
, � , w w�Q � x O� / �o
,. . �.. , .. i OQ �ZOYy, , ,. .... �,' �� (7J�
Y
• � ,�m W Q ' �,,. .� Z2
� � ` H �. � m� , , Q �f- ��
� � , ,� .�=w� R ,� �g=w, �x�. �. oc�� � ��
.,� _
, �, .��i *� I-F-zZ � �ZE-Z �� ,� z�Q O �
�� . - ' "" wOZ> ���` t �p�QZ� 'IW-�= :�� D�Q
,�� � �� ��(!��Q. q, � ��. aHZ� � �1 ,�W�� ��1 Q�=
� - � . ,
�, � .
"" r r
z T _ � . �
�W � ---.:" �.�.+
_ _�_ _ — e
. �. .. . ��. ?Q . � � ,.
�. +
� � /r. �w�- OO U S y ^�.
��� � w�,� ~ . . ��O a ....�,� � y jr.. ,t ,.
� � F �" ZUJ W � �' �
�� �,� � � �. Z • �� �z �
1.� �" R* � ��>� a � iwr ... t �� >
e ,
, •, �`' ?Qz °' � �,�� c> g
� �-,F t �, � : r . O�� . �� z
, .- m�
� , .� �� � �' � ��� W �� �, �c� x
, „
^, " . , = =W *`� ir� � oi
� �� � , " �ZJ a
v ��' �t - � `� �� �ZZ � ��� .� �
R �;� r ��� �� �
� ,,
. � .. ,, . _ ._H �
. , �� ` �, �>'��
� t ��+E �_� ,,,_ : � '. ,.�'_ :� ����
�
,H._..'!_ �`, # ���•��'c..R- �. ��,.����. � � _ti W I
f
� � i
, _.�_ , ___.
� r• -��i*�� "��rr � � � � :-
.�-- �„ i � � , � � „ �'! �11ft�i� �
°� � ,;a�� .. ,�,
�� � „� ' ' � .
�
� • :a
���`�� � � � �� � y p � . ` » ;.
':� ^�w,w� � ,�, a. . �� , �M' ,� ,t�
,��
�w�w.;,;� . ,,, . ...� �� � , r.' . . ��.
w� rW • s
Ke ,
y� � �,�,�► ,�r* " . �} ,�„
� ����}��_. . �
� � �� �� 1
+u^y.. 1 1 �� � �� �t�w .
�"'��_ � . �a�r .
. . . . � , . s+ .
,� %'�-�`� �,`�a�',�,,� � ,��A „` �
�; . � � ♦ ,�°� �" , �,�,
. .. �}�7 �` '
�' ,„��� '��,� �� �' � �', �,,, �
� y } �� .
�^�'� �`"° � ,►��
,.•
� •, � -�r �� x��.a
'�" ,. +
�-''r� .
. � ��� �.
„��4 .,� � �ex.� �w;��..
20'+l-ROW Impact�\ � ,, «M �
`J" �. ���, ,_`�� k y� ..
f e � � ,
x
�,�,�y,. 1 1 1 �r l�'� .. 'rx: ��� ��;.
A``� `�S+
r a. �,� :«'��:"'{ �F ,�- ,�ti�..
- i
�
� � i '�r �� `��:
_ _�
-.,-
. j. t
.� �� � ' .•>.� .
• . _'. -.. . 1 11 M y ♦ ,w° .i
..� t �.�h�!`�,t^�' .�d� }' � .
�•�.� ��,� �.il}'�iyy`�y,� ��.5,y.. �
Rr
�"`„""„�. ; :� s� �,� �`�.�� � �£
. ` �.�E 1 ..`,3.��
��� �9 t � -�`.�� �,�., � ' � �iY.
. .. .. _. . . � :.* 4 ' : a � ',. ' �
��.:
OPTION 4 �,�� 12 +I�ROw Impact e , - � �,���,
.._ ° .,°
� ENUS AT HAROLD �•' `$
1 � .� �z, =, ��
.,t.4, .� p � 1•i
10+l-ROW Impact � ��� 1 �' .;� '�. - �� � .
Y �s,�, a� �. o:�: � � ��:
; y 1 � � 19'.I-ROWlmpact ���t� - ��' �w �
� �� �. �� , s � ._� _
�, a�..��{.. � �`:t., d
� : � � ¢� • . _:.R.'�'�' '# ��.
`;•�pds1,: . — _
. • �oo p �
,,(r'iC�' " � __ . wr.�irra< �..
�f�� � ,�,'yp�,�,�. ����
��►
o � w � ..
o �,;°�y`fy� -�«. �N
o � '�� � ,a• _�i � �
E . ,
, . �
�. � ��� Y� i
14"+1-ROW Impact , ..
�a Y�:___�ti�\� ir x�� « .. r....,�
' � ' .�; A ..-!1 �!
�� � _ �, � +`��tiy'
# �' .. :�`'✓� ' '3 � � r �"y ��.� .
. �a OPTION 4A °` � - �� <� �:. ,�*� �� ; '
. �
;L ° SOUTH OF HAROLD , �° ,�, °� �,«, ,�. �s �,. •s _. � '""
�
�,e+, ,� �� :� , r -Y.� -.r�—+—n�
� � "" � �` �
�,� �" _ - ti �,.; �M��
. � ,,� �" ��= � �.,� ,�irr��
*� "�� . , � � w,py,4, � � ��
.
o , . M,
_
..�.,�� �� �eM I � ��2 �# 9 K �� � i�.v
� �r' j � ..Y � ,��,..
� �. ��' $ n e r� . .fi�
„�¢ ar � ,. ° »;�e`4 � �,x:z � , w.�`��
k�� � �'�,y��°� yF�' � . .
+"�+L t �7`', � ^,�
�� , � ,,
� a � � � �� , �
r �
u ..,�w�' z�.�; i�.'�`���s��' � ,E`�`.�
� �'� .. � � • b. �} '
';�,kh ,�x - e S�
. �.Mj u °� M ��`¢' fi$�`��'.'gy# ,�,',� . qy�
F<�" �� .��j�' 'k�"�
+ ��C
a.. `� , '� �.
u.11. � '{�h"a' «
Legend
-MedianShape —••— Proposed ROW(Approximate) Option 4 and 4A e
�PavementShape—LaneLines
_arrows �Parcels 0 50 100 200 300eet
City ,
Go ide
Public Works
763-593-8030/763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
April 12, 2011
Agenda Item
4. Review Park and Picnic Shelter Facility Analysis Report Prepared by Environmental
Process, Inc.
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Al Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator
Summary
Environmental Process, Inc. has completed the comprehensive facility analysis for Golden
Valley's park and picnic shelters. This analysis evaluated the existing building infrastructure,
paved site conditions, and long-term maintenance needs for the 11 shelters. The goal of this
report is to provide the City with a document that will serve as the basis for future building
maintenance needs and financial planning.
The entire study is available on CD for Council's reference. Staff has attached the summary
page of the study.
The analysis includes:
1. Evaluation of site conditions (parking lots, driveways, and sidewalks).
2. Evaluation of building exteriors (walls, windows, doors, and roofs).
3. Evaluation of building interiors (finishes, plumbing, accessibility, HVAC systems, and
electrical systems).
4. A 5-year prioritized Capital Improvement Plan based on the analysis.
Funding for the analysis was utilized in the 2011-2015 Capital Improvement Program (CIP),
Building Maintenance.
Attachments
2010 Park and Picnic Shelter Facility Analysis Capital Improvement Plan Summary - Per
Work Scope (1 page)
2010 Park and Picnic Shelter Facility Analysis (1 CD)
c, ; ' " ' II RI § §I ; I§-
a di'. 1I I II 41 NII ►1
' i11 1I § 1 1 1 $1 1
ill A al i a i 1 ig
! 1 I I
G G
•N F. F-
m g g
M 11
tli 11 N
8
a 1
N iIII. IIUIII1 1118 I i '
N a
I
x Nj8' 8II g o 1.
Y
>
W —. —G
o a N
1111111111 S
U . ' N ;
1 1111 I 11
. --.1---g, A, , ! 1 lip
UgI lt
_
- f t ' i 4 '4
G a
t i ill
y FA
1 110
omati
1 qi 111 /l M
g li Mi MO ! ". " ,
V N
l
U
N
W W Pi ir;
o a 14 ;a
'Oa! m' e ° a
W
City
of
City Administration/Council
Go , ey 763-593-8006/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
April 12, 2011
Agenda Item
5. City Communications Policies
Prepared By
Cheryl Weiler, Communications Coordinator
Summary
The City manages a variety of communication outlets that provide information from the City
and promote City-sponsored events and activities. These outlets include the City website
(www.qoldenvallevmn.qov), the City newsletter (Golden Valley CityNews), and City Cable
Channel 16.
To preserve the City's integrity and credibility and to protect the City from potential liability,
the City has established guidelines that limit the type of information published in these
communication outlets (see attached "Guidelines For City Communications Outlets," "City
Website Disclaimer," and "Golden Valley CityNews Overview and Mission"). Guidelines like
these are especially important when the communication outlets are funded by public dollars.
The City frequently receives requests to publish information from or provide website links to
private organizations. Golden Valley's communication policies ensure the City is fair and
equitable when using taxpayer dollars to communicate with the public.
Attachments
Guidelines For City Communications Outlets (1 page)
City Website Disclaimer (1 page)
Golden Valley CityNews Overview and Mission (1 page)
ary of
fi •
•
vaney
GUIDELINES FOR CITY COMMUNICATIONS OUTLETS
Description
The City of Golden Valley manages a variety of communication outlets that provide
information from the City and promote City-sponsored events and activities. These
outlets include the City website (www.goldenvalleymn.gov), the City newsletter
(Golden Valley CityNews), and City Cable Channel 16.
Acceptable Use
The intent of these communication outlets is to provide information from the City
and promote City-sponsored events and activities. Other acceptable uses include
promoting programs or organizations in which the City has a direct financial
involvement or organizations with which the City is partnering to advance a
particular initiative or program.
Web Site Links
Often the City receives requests to place a link on the City website to a particular
organization's website. Whether or not to link to a particular site is entirely the
decision of City staff. Those appropriate for linking include:
• other government organizations
• organizations the City supports financially
• organizations in which the City participates through joint powers agreements
• organizations in which the City has a membership
• organizations with which the City is partnering to advance a particular
initiative or program
Application For Use
In most cases, the communications manager will contact organizations eligible to
have information in City communications outlets. However, organizations that have
not been contacted and think they may qualify may contact the communications
manager for more information.
Contact Information
Questions related to this policy should be directed to:
Communications Manager
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Rd
Golden Valley, MN 55427
763-593-8004
City of Golden Valley,MN: Disclaimer
YOU ARE HERE: Home > Disclaimer
Disclaimer
This website is intended for use by the general public as a convenient way to access the information and
services provided by the City of Golden Valley. As a communications tool, it will:
provide community members and others with the first and most correct source of information about
Golden Valley
provide customers with credible, timely information about the City and its services
provide updates, notices, and other current information not adequately served by traditional
communications methods (newsletters, etc)
The City of Golden Valley has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided on its
website. However, several factors that are beyond the City's control (including unauthorized modification of
electronic data, transmission errors, browser incompatibilities, information that has been cached on the
local computer or storage device, or other aspects of electronic communication) can affect the quality of
the information displayed on this web site. For that reason, the City does not guarantee the accuracy of
the information provided on its web site and is not liable for reliance on this information.
To make sure you are viewing the most recent version of a webpage, the City recommends clearing your
cache (check your browser's help files for more information). Because updates, corrections, or additions
may have been made to a webpage since you last viewed it, you may wish to confirm information (such as
dates and meeting locations) immediately before the event. If you are concerned about the accuracy of an
item, contact the webmaster at 763-593-8004, or use the contact information listed on that webpage:
Maps Disclaimer
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 466.03, Subd. 21, the maps presented on this website are for illustrative
purposes only. They are not legally recorded surveys. These maps are part of a Geographic Information
System that compiles records, information, and data from various public and private sources.`TFieCity of
Golden Valley is not liable for any damages or claims that arise out of the use of these maps or the
information provided therein.
Link Disclaimer
The City of Golden Valley website currently links only to related government organizations and nonprofits
(specifically those in which the City has membership, those that receive financial support from the City,
and those providing services and information that support the function and services the City provides).
The links provided by this website are intended to provide a wide range of information to the public. The
City of Golden Valley does not endorse, approve, certify, or control those external websites and does not
guarantee the accuracy, completeness, efficacy, or timeliness of information at those sites. Nor is the City
liable for defamatory, offensive, or illegal conduct of other users, links, or third parties--the risk of injury
from the foregoing rests entirely with the user. The links from this site to other sites on the World Wide
Web do not constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the City of Golden Valley.
http://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/site/disclaimer/index.php 4/6/2011
city of
• PI oft
I 1 Ai\ k
.
Golden Valley CityNews
Overview and Mission
This bimonthly, 16-page, general newsletter is bulk-mailed to all city post-
al customers free of charge. Designed for a broad audience that wants ba-
sic information. The open format with liberal use of sidebars and graphics
is meant to give readers an overall picture if they have time to just scan
headlines and boxes. It presents a more detailed picture for those who
read the newsletter from cover to cover.
Mission
• Establish a link between taxpayers and the city where they live, work, and play.
▪ Provide all residents and businesses with regular, ongoing information about their lo-
cal government, how and why it works, and the services their tax dollars buy.
— Provide information residents don't usually get in the local press. Instead of news
bulletins and announcements, CityNews features a friendly, conversational approach
to issues and services.
Educate readers with a comprehensive approach to information that includes not
just facts but explanations.
Provide readers with helpful information from the various technical experts that
maintain the city.
Promote Golden Valley's service-oriented approach to maintaining and improving
the city for its taxpayers. Let readers know their city is in the hands of trained and
knowledgeable professionals.
Establish the newsletter as a sort of trade journal to local government activity.
• Establish a sense of community pride and identity for readers to relate to.
o `
e V City Administration/Council
, V Go 763-593-8014/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
April 12, 2011
Agenda Item
6. Appointments to Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission and Northwest
Community TV Board of Directors
Prepared By
Jeanne Andre, Assistant City Clerk
Summary
Through its joint powers agreement to franchise cable communications, the City is involved in
two bodies. The following is a brief description of each and the role the City has in
appointments and governance.
1. Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission
The Council must appoint two City representatives, at least one of whom shall be a
member of the City Council, or its designee, and the other a qualified voter residing within
the municipality. Those appointed serve at the will of the City Council and can be changed
at any time. This appointment can overlap with the appointment to NWCTV as the
meetings are held at the same time. Continuity does benefit the City, and for convenience,
it makes sense to look at this appointment as the Council considers its division of labor in
January of each year, unless there is a resignation at some other time of the year. The
City Manager should be consulted if a staff appointment is desired.
2. Northwest Community TV (NWCTV)
This is a non-profit organization, with a Board of Directors. Most of the Directors are
appointed by the Northwest Cable Commission. Each city is asked to recommend a
person for the Commission to appoint as the city's representative. This can be a Council
Member, staff, or member of the community. The term of office is two years (effective
February 15th) or until the representative resigns or is replaced. This appointment can
overlap with the appointment to the Commission as the meetings are held at the same
time. The Commission also recommends at-large appointments to NWCTV, which can
also be persons associated with a particular city, but not specifically representing that city.
Cities are not consulted about the at-large appointments. If a Council Member or staff
member fills this position, it makes sense to review in January of each year as the Council
considers its division of labor. If a citizen is appointed, the Council may wish to consider
this appointment in a coordinated manner with appointments to City boards and
commissions.
Meetings for both bodies are scheduled quarterly at 7:30 am (usually February, May,
September and November) although additional meetings could be called. Both bodies have
committees. The committees do not meet frequently and committee meetings are often
piggybacked after regular Board and Commission meetings.
The City's current appointees to the Cable Commission are Joan Russell and Bob Shaffer.
Mike Freiberg has recently agreed to replace Bob Shaffer and attended the last cable meeting
representing the City. Joan Russell continued to serve on the Commission after she left the
City Council and is willing to continue. Jeanne Andre has been the City's representative to the
NWCT Board since 1986. Joan Russell was appointed by NWCTV to an at-large position (not
officially representing the City) and will continue in that position.
Tom Burt has agreed to take the place of Jeanne Andre on the NWCTV Board.
The Council needs to take action to officially appoint Mike Freiberg as one of the City's
Commissioners and Tom Burt as the City's representative on the NWCTV Board.
,s (
Planning
coip ,
Golden V , V 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
April 12, 2011
Agenda Item
7. Proposed Livable Communities Act - Housing Action Plan
Prepared By
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Summary
At the February Council/Manager meeting, staff introduced a draft of the Livable
Communities Act Housing Action Plan. This plan is a required component of the City's
participation in the region-wide Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account
Program. To maintain its participation in the program, the City Council must adopt a Housing
Action Plan and submit it to the Metropolitan Council by June.
The Council requested that staff make several changes to the Housing Action Plan draft. A
revised copy of the document, which shows markups since the February draft, is attached for
your reference.
At the February Council/Manager meeting, the Council requested that the "Livable
Communities Principals" be included in the Housing Action Plan document. The Metropolitan
Council advised against doing this, stating that the principals change periodically. The
specific references to the current principals have been removed from the document. For your
information, the current principals are as follows:
1. Providing more transportation choices;
2. Expanding access to affordable housing, particularly housing located close to transit;
3. Enhancing economic competitiveness--giving people access to jobs, education and
services as well as giving businesses access to markets;
4. Targeting federal funds toward existing communities to spur revitalization and protect
rural landscapes;
5. Increasing collaboration among federal, state, and local governments to better target
investments and improve accountability;
6. Valuing the unique qualities of all communities--whether urban, suburban, or rural.
Additionally, the Council requested further clarification of the term "affordable housing." The
Livable Communities Act defines affordable housing as:
"Owner occupied housing that costs no more than 30% of the income of a household
earning 80% of the median income level as estimated annually by HUD, and rental
housing should cost no more than 30% of the income of a household earning 50% of
the median income in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area."
This information is now referenced in the Housing Action Plan. Staff seeks direction from
Council on proceeding with adopting the Local Communities Act Housing Action Plan.
Attachment
Second Draft of Livable Communities Act Housing Action Plan (7 pages)
Livable Communities Act- Housing Action Plan
City of Golden Valley, Minnesota
I - Introduction
In August, 2010, the City of Golden Valley passed a resolution that renewed its
participation in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives
Account Program (LCA LHIA). The program, aimed at creating and maintaining quality
workforce and affordable housing in suburban Minneapolis/,St. Paul communities, has
been in place since 1996. The City of Golden Valley has participated in this program
since its inception. Participation in the program has made the City eligible for various
funding opportunities.
The City has elected to continue its participation in the program through 2020. As part of
the continued participation, the Metropolitan Council has asked the City to establish the
I goal of adding 68-104 new affordable multiple dwelling housing units and 100-200 life-
cycle housing units by 2020. This Housing Action Plan,a required component of the
City's participation in the LCA LHIA program, will aid the City in achieving its affordable
and life-cycle housing goals. The Housing Action Plan is a required to be on file with the
I Metropolitan Council in order for the City to receive LCA grants.
This document identifies various goals and objectives, identified through the City's
Comprehensive Plan, that aid in preserving affordable housing in Golden Valley. Livable
Communities principals that,are achieved by each item are highlighted within the report.
II - Housing Quality.
Promote a high-quality living environment, the preservation of stable residential
neighborhoods, and where necessary, improvement of the condition of existing housing
stock in the City.
Objectives
• All housing meets or exceeds the quality standards established in City ordinances.
• Identification and removal of substandard housing units that are economically
unfeasible to rehabilitate.
prepertie
Policies
1. The City will use the Residential Property Maintenance Code (RPMC) and other
quality standards established in the Golden Valley City Code to determine whether a
house is substandard or in need of repair, except where a particular funding program
or regulation specifies an alternate definition.
2. The City will routinely evaluate the RPMC and amend as necessary in order to
maintain or improve the quality of the City's housing stock. A study will be conducted
to investigate including in the RPMCto identi im r ,*processes for handling
problems associated with vacant or abandoned residential properties or those
residential properties for which the owner cane t e`contacted or does not make
ncce-sa required improvements to the ro e y.
3. The City and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority- mI-work with property
owners to ensure that all housing units are of high quality construction. The City will
ensure that all housing units adhere to applicable City Maintenance Codes, which
work to enhance the quality and visual appearance:o the prope rty.
I 4. The City-maywili, if necessary, use its legal authority to remove substandard housing
for which rehabilitation has been determined to be economically unfeasible.
5. The City will continue enforcement of the Lighting Ordinance to promote resident
safety and appropriate lighting in residential neighborhoods.
6. The City will help protect the quality of its housing stock by promoting to real estate
agents and Prospective:home buyers or sellers the practice of contracting for private
home in t spriorto purchase of any Golden Valley home. Promotional efforts
may include but not be limited to periodic educational items in City publications
and information made available to the public by City staff.
7. The City Will establish a list of qualifying criteria us-serve-as-aas a basis for selection
+ a& 4for targeting targeted Community Development Block
Grant funds. Th ity will give high priority to rehabilitating its aging housing stock
when determinine appropriate use of Community Development Block Grant
funds.
8. The City will-may seek out or develop financial assistance programs to help low: and
moderate: income property owners address deteriorating housing problems.
9. The City will continue its relationship with Center for Energy and Environment or
similar agenciesy to assist residents in locating resources and financial assistance
for home rehabilitation.
10.The City will continue to work with owners and managers of multi-family housing and
group home facilities using thethrough rental licensing and the Safer Tenants and
Rentals (STAR) program. The City will consider developing a similar program to
cover single- and two-family rental housing to ensure that housing quality standards
are met for all rental units.
11.The City will investigate and promote resources for aging and disabled residents to
safely remain in their home as desired.
III - Housing Variety
Promote a variety of housing types and designs to aJiow all people a-housing choice§.
Objectives
f eo. - - - -- t. - - , - - - - -
seniors.
At least 10% of the city's housing supply sloes be multiple family and attached
single-family homes
Provide a mix of housing type, includ ng multiple ily housing, single family
housing, and lifecycle housing options.
Policies
1. The City will continue to offer the flexibility of the Planned Unit Development option
to housing developers who demonstrate an ability to successfully apply
contemporary design philosophies.
2. The City wild may guide for ink areas and redevelopment sites for single-family
attached and multiple family residential uses along major streets when
appropriate. e.- - - - - - - - - - - - . - - _ - - -
the City's S nior and multiple family housing objectives.
3. The City will-may assist in attempts to obtain any applicable funds for city approved
development proposals designed to maximize the opportunity of providing a variety
of housing types, costs, and densities that meet City objectives. Sources may
include, but are not limited to, federal programs such as the Home Investment
Partnership Program (HOME) or Section 202 financing for senior housing, state aid
such as the Low Income Tax Credit Program or the Low/Moderate Income Rental
Program, Metropolitan Council funds such as the Local Housing Investment
Account, or nonprofit assistance such as the Family Housing Fund or Habitat For
Humanity.
4. The City will identify underused, nonresidential sites where the vacant area may be
suitable for higher density residential use.
5. The City will work with state legislators to establish more specific rules regarding
integration of these facilities into neighborhoods.
6-:5. The City will research techniques used in alternative dispute resolution
processes, such as mediation, for assistance in formulating citizen involvement
guidelines that channel discussion of housing development proposals along a
productive course.
I 7,6. The City will encourage owner-occupied, multi-family housing, whenever
possible, to provide an alternative for those who are unable or unwilling to maintain a
traditional single-family type property.
IV - Affordability
Housing opportunities at a cost that low: and moderate: income households can afford
without compromising essential needs.
Objectives
• At least 20% of the City's housing supply in quality units that are affordable to low
and moderate income households.
Policies
F Y- ,
buyers.
2 1. The City will consider a potential housing affordability impact prior to adopting
or amending any development-related or construction-related regulation. Negative
impacts will be,balanced against concerns for the general public health, safety, or
welfare. Where possible, strategies for mitigating negative affordability impacts will
be identified.
3:2. The City will-may meet with owners of subsidized properties eligible to leave the
subsidy program, to learn about their plans and to discuss any obstacles that may
keep them from renewing their program contract.
4-3. The City win-may meet with owners of market rate rental properties to discuss
participation in the federal Section 8 voucher program and to ask what might make
vouchers more acceptable.
I 5A. The City will use the Livable Communities definition of affordable housing, which
defines affordable housing as: "owner occupied housing that costs no more than
30% of the income of a household earning 80% of the median income level as
estimated annually by HUD, and rental housing should cost no more than 30% of the
income of a household earning 50% of the median income in the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area."
.o • - -
• - - - -
override othcr legitimate devolopMent concerns.
5. If a new development or redevelopment proposal requires removal of modest-cost
homes or would signifi antly increase traffic noise or create other negative impacts
on nearby homes't e'City will consider and attempt to reasonably mitigate the loss
of, or impact on,.housing affordability and the supply Of modest cost single family
homes. However, such consideration will not necessarily override other legitimate
development concerns.
V - Sustainabili ty
Housing es lopment maintains or enhances economic opportunity and community
well-being ��
g Protecting' 1 restart?g the natural environment. Housing
Development meets current needs while leaving future generations as many options for
resource use and development as possible.
Objectives
• New housing developments meet or exceed energy efficiency standards and
implement sustainable design features where possible.
• Improvements made to existing housing meet or exceed energy efficiency standards
and implement sustainable design features where possible.
• Sustainable development options are identified that do not compromise the
affordability of housing.
1. The City will encourage energy efficient and sustainable development that meets
standards established by programs such as Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED), Mayors Climate Initiative, MN GreenStar, and Energy
Star.
2. The City will encourage development that saves or increases green spaces, parks,
and trails.
3. The City will review new housing development projects for adequate public or private
parkland, open and natural space, and recreational space.
4. The City will accommodate energy conserving technologies and construction
techniques, including active and passive solar energy features, by advocating their
use in application for new residential development and by amending City Code or
City policies as appropriate to allow residents to take advantage of new approaches.
VI - Nondiscrimination
Promote and encourage equal opportunity in home-ownership-afiet nd renting.renting and
purchasing homes.
Supports Livable Communities principles 1, 2, and 3.
Objectives
• No discrimination against persons seeking housing based on age, religion, race,
ethnic origin, sexual preference, sex, or disability.
Policies
2,1. The City's Human Rights Commission will continue its role as a forum for
discussion of discrimination issues by conducting ongoing education efforts as
necessary to promote equal availability of housing opportunities and fair treatment of
all renters and buyers regardless of age, sex, income level, ethnic background or
religion.
3. The City will work with state legislators to reform regulations regarding the location
of residential facilities
subsidized housing developments.
2. - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - -- - - - - - ., - A Livable
Communities impact evaluation shall be included as part of the consideration of any
housing-related development application. Potential impacts on all Livable
Communities benchmark areas shall be considered, but those areas need-may not
all-be weighed equally, nor will this evaluation necessarily take precedence over
other concerns that may be voiced in connection with the application.
VII — Implementation
The implementation of the Housing Action Plan will be achieved through various
controls. The primary controls that are available to enable housing action policies are
zoning, subdivision regulations, building code, and potential design requirements for
public improvements.
Official actions are-will be done through the Planning Commission, Housing and
Redevelopment Authority, and City Council. The City's housing,.goals are ongoing
measures and will be continually monitored through the Planning Department. The
Planning Department staff can be reached at 763-593-8095 for questions or requests
for additional information.
o i i
n ey City Administration/Council
Go 11 a, 763-593-8006/763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
April 12, 2011
Agenda Item
8. Adjourn to Executive Session - Security Training
Prepared By
Thomas D. Burt, City Manager
Summary
The City Council will be holding an Executive Session for the purpose of conducting security
training by the Police Department staff. As per State Statutes the City can conduct security
training in an Executive Session but only the procedures may be discussed, not financial
arrangements relating to them. Also, before closing the meeting, the Council must refer to the
facilities, systems, procedures, services, or infrastructures to be considered during the closed
meeting.