The URL can be used to link to this page

04-28-97 PC Agenda ~ / ... --- III. AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers APRIL 28, 1997 7pm I. Approval of Minutes - April 14, 1997 II. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment (No.1) to Valley Creek P.U.D. No. 71 (Area A-1) Applicant: Valley Creek Development L.L.C. Address: 8300, 8400 and 8500 Olson Memorial Hwy., Golden Valley, Minnesota. Purpose: Review of the amended Preliminary Design Plan. Approval of this P. U. D. would allow for the construction of three office buildings, totalling approximately 128,000 sq.ft. on 8.5 acres located on this site. -- SHORT RECESS --- Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals IV. Other Business A. Presentation by Fred Salsbury, Director of Public Works on the Golden Hills Redevelopment Area B. Reschedule Planning Commission Meeting on May 26 (Observed Memorial Day) V. Adjournment Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input The Planning.Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. The Commission Wil'ilflll ..., recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Commission's determination of . ~ whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use. will, or will not, adversely affect the sl.lrrounding neighborhood. The Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. With the completion of the informal public hearing(s) there will be a short recess before the commission continues with the remainder of the agenda. To aid in your understanding and.to facilitate your comments and questions, the Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Commission Chair will introduce the proposal and the recommendation from staff. Commission members may ask questions of staff. 2. The proponent will describe the proposal and answer any questions from the Commission. 3. The Chair will open .the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated.a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/ comments. 4. Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the Chair. Remember,your questions/comments are for the record. .. 5. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions. 6. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. 7. At the close of the public hearing, the Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. .~ . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7pm. Those present were Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Lewis, McAleese, Pentel and Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning, Beth Knoblauch, City Planner and Sharyl Thompson, Acting Recording Secretary. I. Approval of Minutes -March 24. 1997 MOVED by Prazak, seconded by Kapsner and motion carried unanimously to approve the agenda as submitted. Moved by Groger, seconded by McAleese and carried unanimously to approve the March 24 minutes with the following correction: Page 4, Paragraph 3, last sentence reworded as follows: McAleese asked how the City knows how another government agency has requested or receives bids on a product of this sort that the City of Golden Valley wishes to buy. Salsbury responded that the City checks into the purchase. Page Five, Paragraph 1, first sentence: remove "s" from happenings. Page Five, Paragraph 4, last sentence: add "turf' before the grass. II. Informal Public Hearing - (Continued from March 1 O. 1997) Preliminary Design Plan -- Planned Unit Development No. 75 Applicant: Menard, Inc. Address: 6800 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley, Minnesota Purpose: Review of the Preliminary Design Plan to allow for a mixed use of retail, office, warehouse and a lumber yard on the existing Menard site. The applicant is proposing to construct an addition onto the west side of the building and the north side of the building. Planning Director Mark Grimes summarized what at taken place from the meeting of March 10 regarding Menards. He noted areas of concern, i.e. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Two . adequacy of parking, elimination of parking spaces near the driveway to Market Street and screening on the site, particularly to the rear of the building. Grimes said that these concerns have been addressed by Menard and are now being brought back to the Planning Commission for consideration. He said that staff had a concern regarding the MGM Liquor Store and Menard has submitted a letter saying that MGM's lease would terminate in the year 2001. This area will then revert to Menard space to be used for building supplies which is a permitted use in the Industrial District. Grimes said that in reviewing the Menard site, staff and the City Attorney agreed that a P.U.D. should be used to permit expansion of the store and allow Menard to go through the expansion request and allow the rental use (MGM) to continue on the site. Grimes talked about the additional 71 parking spaces proposed by Menard. He said that these spaces would be used for commercial/contractor customers and would serve their needs quite well. The overall parking on the site would be 433 parking spaces, Menards believe this is adequate for its needs. Menard's traffic consultant, Jim Benshoof agreed that with the addition of the 71 spaces to the . rear of the building, parking will meet its peak demand period. Grimes noted that staff has agreed with the Menard consultant. Grimes talked about reviewing parking from other stores of similar size and believes that the proposed parking is adequate. Grimes talked about placing a condition in the P.U.D. Permit stating that if a parking problem becomes apparent in the front of the store, the commercial! contractor spaces to the rear of the building be opened either to the public or be used by employees. He said that he was also concerned about adequate parking during December, which is Menard's peak time, having Christmas tree sales in the front parking area. This should be moved to a place where there is no parking spaces. Grimes said that Menard has eliminated the parallel parking along Market Street to allow for better ingress/egress traffic. Grimes said that Menard is proposing a 14 foot screening fence along the north property line and a portion of the west property line. Staff believe that the proposed wood material, rather the existing metal material, is an enhancement for the site and should be made a part of the plan. Grimes briefly talked about the variances for the site, saying that besides the request for reduced parking, setback variances had been granted for the site in 1988 along Hampshire, Market and the Wayzata Blvd. frontage road, and also . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Three along Laurel. He said that there were no landscape plans included in the packet and requested that a detailed plan be submitted before the Preliminary Design Plan goes to the City Council. Grimes said the landscape plan would also be reviewed by the Board of Building Review. Grimes also talked about the rural type fencing along the southeast property line and suggested that landscaping be added to soften the look of this area. He talked about the noise from loud speakers and suggested that electronic type beepers be used. Grimes told the commission that City staff is now requiring code compliance studies and one is required for the new addition to Menard. He said this is being required as part of the permit to alleviate any problems at the building inspection level. Commissioner Prazak asked Grimes who would review future adequacy of parking as related in staffs memo. Grimes said it would be the Director of Planning and Development or Chief of Fire and Inspections. . Chair Pentel asked if the letter concerning zoning variances came from staff. Grimes answered it was supplied by Menard. Pentel also asked what happens if Menard does not comply with the restrictions, i.e. the outside speakers -- will there be a time frame for compliance. Grimes said Menard would have until the completion of the project to comply, or as part of the P.U.D. Permit, the applicant would be given a specific date for compliance. Pentel asked what would happen if the applicant didn't adhere to the restrictions. Grimes said it would be a violation of the Code, resulting in a misdemeanor. Commissioner Johnson asked how MGM was allowed to renew their lease in 1996 -- was it because they had renewable terms of every five years? Grimes said that the last five year period on the MGM's lease runs through 2001 and they will not be allowed to renew its lease by Menard. He talked about how MGM first started leasing the area noting that there was some misunderstanding by staff on what a MGM "warehouse" actually was and that warehouses were allowed in the Industrial Zoning District. Patrick Harrigan, General Counsel for Menard, Inc., asked staff for clarification about the P.U.D. in that when the MGM lease expires in November of 2001 would the P.U.D. continue. Grimes commented the P.U.D. would continue and the MGM space would be converted to Menard space. Harrigan agreed that the space would be converted for Menard floor space. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Four . Harrigan addressed Condition 3, in the staff report, regarding storage buildings and Christmas tree sales. He said that Menard has moved the outdoor storage building displays to another part of the site off the parking lot. It would like to maintain the Christmas tree sales area where it has been in the past selling trees from Thanksgiving to Christmas. Harrigan commented on Condition 5 noting that Menard will do away with the existing loud speaker system because of alternative technology available which will allow them to communicate with individuals in the yard. Commissioner Prazak talked about Christmas tree sales and using prime parking spots during peak demand for parking spaces. He said the City is not saying that Menard cannot sell Christmas trees but would like the sales lot placed elsewhere. Harrigan commented that because of the added parking spaces there is room to continue this past practice of selling trees in the same area. Chair Pentel asked if Menard ran the Christmas tree lot or is it a non-profit organization. Prazak asked how many spaces occupy the Christmas tree lot. Ross Berg love, Manager at Menard, 6800 Wayzata Blvd., said that the tree lot consumes 18 parking spaces. Pentel asked again if it was Menard who runs the . tree lot and Berglove said yes. Commissioner Johnson asked if they had looked at placing the tree lot in the back yard. Berglove said yes, but this kind of sales need visibility and would not work in the back yard. Commissioner Kapsner asked if Menard had the Christmas tree sales because of the business they do or to bring people into the store. Berglove commented that they sell approximately 1300 trees or about four semi-trailers full. Kapsner commented on using a portion of setback along the east property line for the tree sales. Marv Prochaska, Vice-President of Real Estate for Menard, commented that the problem with having the sale of trees in this location would make it easier for theft to occur. Prochaska commented on the parking lot being adequate; he also said that he would like to see no parking signs on both sides of Hampshire. He commented that the vehicles parking on this street and the frontage road are going to Burger King. Prochaska commented on the southeast corner of the lot saying that Menard is not in favor of putting up a wood fence but would work with staff pertaining to this corner. Prazak asked Prochaska if Menard would be willing to limit the number of spaces used for Christmas tree sales and Prochaska said yes. Prazak asked about the landscaping plan and Prochaska commented that he, Berglove and Harrigan . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Five were on the site and inventoried the plantings and talked about what is there now. Grimes commented that a landscape plan is required as part of the P.U.D. requirements and may mean just look at what is existing. Grimes and Prochaska agreed to working with the City Forester for suggestions of any further plantings. Prazak asked what new services would be provided with the expansion of the store. Berglove said that the expansion would provide more room for customers. Currently the aisles are too narrow in the store and there are not enough cash registers. Commissioner Groger asked if there would be a sales person attending the Christmas tree lot. Berg love commented that from 10am on there is and that the head cashier and others monitor the lot all the time. When Menard is closed, the temporary fence around the lot is locked. Groger asked if the tree lot could be moved farther away from the front of the store. Berg love said that the customer has to come into the building to pay for the tree, so it is best to keep the lot as close to the cash registers as possible. Kapsner asked how many employee cars are parked on the lot on an average day. Berglove said 40-45 and with a shift change it could vary up to 60 for a short period of time. McAleese asked about Condition 2 giving the Director of Planning discretion to open up the back yard, which is a semi-secure area, to customers or employees and would this work. Berglove commented that the way it is currently set up it would not work, but things could change but prefer it didn't. He noted that there are approximately 250 commercial/contractor customers who hold cards for parking in this back area and have now opened it up to people who are doing big projects. McAleese noted that he cannot see why a contractor would not use this space because the contractor desk is in the back. Grimes said that from reviewing the parking study it looks as though opening up the back lot is not going to have to happen, but is using the condition as a safe guard. He continued by saying that Menard could possibly give some of their employees cards to park in the back to free up parking in the front. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission\ April 14, 1997 Page Six . Tom Lieberman, 250 South Jersey, commented that the loud speaker issue seems to have been addressed and has only one other concern about landscaping with the addition of a 14 ft. wooden fence. He would like to see landscaping which can grow faster and have more height and density to it. Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner Prazak commented that with the encouragement from Menards for contractors to be using back yard parking, would suggest that the Christmas tree sales lot be limited to 20 parking spaces. Pentel asked if this would be a new condition, Prazak said no, just reword Condition 3. Grimes asked if he wanted to include "at Menard's discretion" for which spaces would be used. Prazak said yes. Kapsner said there is one more option to be explored, that being that if 20 spaces are going to be used for a Christmas tree lot, that 20 employees could park off site, maybe at Good Shepherd Church. Johnson commented on whether these 20 employees could park in the back lot and have the Christmas tree sales in the employee lot. Groger said that he was not concerned with the Christmas . tree lot and parking spaces, based on personal observation. Commissioner Lewis said that she does not see a problem with the lot and would like to see the tree sales continue. She added that should there become a problem, the Director of Planning could do something about it. Prazak said that Condition 2 could be changed to open the back yard to customers or staff and leave the specific language up to staff. Chair Pentel asked about replacement of the split rail fence. She would like it updated and improved and thought a black mesh or chain link fence was a good option to prevent people from parking in the Menard lot and then eating at the fast food restaurants. She questioned whether this could be added to Condition 1, that the site plan show a new fence. Groger had a question for staff on whether Hampshire would be rebuilt. Grimes said he was unsure when Hampshire was scheduled to be redone. He noted that when the road is rebuilt, it will probably have a sidewalk to connect to the frontage road sidewalk. Groger said that he believes that curbing will be put in when the road is redone. Grimes answer yes. Kapsner commented that he believed that the road had been redone when the pond on"Laurel was put in. . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Seven Prazak asked if this is a new P.U.D. Knoblauch answered it is a new P.U.D. for an existing development. McAleese said that another type of fence may be more appropriate and believes the fence issue, under Condition 6, be addressed in the landscaping plan. Pentel agreed. MOVED by Prazak, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for P.U.D. No. 76, subject to the seven conditions. Condition 3 will be revised to include language concerning no more than 20 parking spaces to be used for Christmas tree sales. III. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Comprehensive land Use Plan Map Address: 7155 Madison Avenue West, Golden Valley, Minnesota Purpose: To change the designation of the subject property from an Industrial use to Semi-Public Facilities IV. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning Applicant: Hennepin County Property Services Address: 7155 Madison Avenue West, Golden Valley, Minnesota Purpose: Rezoning of the subject property from industrial to Institutional (1-3) Planning Director Mark Grimes gave a summary of his staff report. He said that Hennepin County Property Services is requesting the City to amend its Plan Map and approve a rezoning of the subject property to allow for a boys detention facility for Hennepin County Community Corrections. He noted the subject property is currently zoned Industrial and that the existing structure had been used as a group home for adolescent girls. Since the mid-1970's, it has not been used for the past few years, but has been on the market. Grimes commented that Hennepin County was denied additional beds at its downtown facility. He Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Eight . said Hennepin County would use the subject property to house boys who were not a threat to the community. Grimes said the County chose this site because it was previously used as a group home. He noted that the Council, in 1975, under a provision of the Zoning Code at that time, allowed for this use. At that time, the City Council could allow a use in the Industrial District if the City Council. determined that the use was not detrimental to the neighborhood. This clause was removed from the Code somewhere around 1988. Grimes noted that Hennepin County was willing to use the existing footprint and make extensive renovations to the building which would have been consistent with the zoning code. The County met with the Industrial neighbors in the area to explain what they wanted to do. The neighbors reactions were that they knew that Hennepin County could operate a detention center from the existing building, but would rather see a new facility with a better constructed outdoor activity area, better landscaping and better parking for the site. Grimes noted that staff went to the City Council, in February of 1997, and the Council asked staff to look at the alternatives to allow this type of facility. Staff and the City Attorney's best suggestion would be to rezone to Institutional and . the Plan Map be amended to Semi-Public Facility so a Conditional Use Permit could be issued for a residential facility on the site. Hennepin County would then build a new facility as shown on the plan submitted. Grimes noted that variances may be needed for this proposed building and the applicant may need to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Commissioner Johnson asked if Hennepin County has committed to which type offenders would be housed at the facility. Grimes asked Johnson to address that question to Sig Fine from Hennepin County Corrections. Grimes talked about a covenant agreement for this site between the City and County that would state the kind of offenders to be housed in this facility. Commissioner Kapsner asked which property is located directly to the east of the subject property. Grimes said it is Boustead Electric Company. Chair Pentel asked if the covenant would be attached to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Grimes answered yes. Pentel asked if the CUP comes before the commission for review and Grimes said yes. Commissioner Groger said that his problem is that the City is taking an existing nonconforming situation and making it permanent by changing the zoning and Plan Map. Mark said yes. Grimes said the approval of the rezoning would make . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14. 1997 Page Nine the property consistent with the Plan Map. Groger said he didn't have a problem with the existing use and attached covenant. but what happens in the future if the number of juvenile offenders goes down. Grimes said that they have set out specifics in the covenant and the City would have to agree to any changes. City Planner Knoblauch asked for clarification that jf Hennepin County did not want to use it as a detention facility, but maybe a clinic, would this be allowed. Grimes said no. Hennepin County has agreed by covenant to use this site as stated and would have to come back to the City if the use would change. whether permitted by code or not. . McAleese said for the purposes of rezoning, we are talking about a general type of use that will occur here. but on the other hand this could fall through and we don't know if the covenant will be signed further restricting the use of the property. There are other meetings at which it will be addressed. Grimes said that staff will only entertain the CUP if the covenant is attached. McAleese said that that was down the line and technically we can think of the covenant but not something concrete. Grimes said the commission will need to ask if they are comfortable with this zoning district at this location. He said that because this is a small piece a property. there are some limitations and how it can be used. However, we are trying to put protections in the code that Hennepin County will be the only users of the property. Pentel asked if the City will collect taxes on this property if Hennepin County has it. Grimes said no. McAleese asked if the rezoning and Plan Map amendment doesn't get approved tonight or by the Council what happens. He said that it is his understanding that Hennepin County could use the existing facility "as is". Grimes said yes. Grimes said that Hennepin County could maintain the footprint and rebuild. McAleese asked what the City review process would be. Grimes said they would need to pull a building permit. Grimes said that in any case, Hennepin County would supply a covenant limiting its use to 16 beds for juvenile boys. McAleese asked for clarification on the previous nonconforming use, that hasn't been in business for 6 months. Grimes said that staff has discussed this issue with the City Attorney who has commented that if someone consistently markets the property for a grandfathered nonconforming use. the property is not considered abandoned. . Kapsner asked how many beds were proposed. Grimes said 16. Kapsner commented that this could possibly revert back into a group home and Grimes answered yes. He continued saying that once you review the plans. one can see that there is a specific use in mind. Kapsner asked if the City of Golden Valley Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Ten . was compensated by Hennepin County regarding past police calls to this site. Grimes said no. Groger asked about the appearance of the building. Grimes said that Hennepin County has sketches and is willing to work with the area businesses. Kapsner asked how close the nearest school was located. Grimes said the Sandburg Junior High is a couple of blocks to the east. Sig Fine, Director of Correctional Institutions for Hennepin County, complimented staff whose has worked with Hennepin County for the past five months. Mr. Fine talked about the need for space to house less serious juvenile males. He noted that one person has escaped in the past 14 years from the juvenile facility in Minneapolis. Mr. Fine talked about the need for more space and what kind of juveniles would be housed on the subject property. He noted the average length of stay would be approximately seven days. He talked about trying to comply with the City's zoning code, by taking the building apart, putting in the needed security features and still maintain the building footprint. Mr. Fine told the commission that his organization met with the neighbors and they would like to see a new facility built which would blend better with the Industrial area. He said . there decision to pursue the proposed requests resulted from the neighbors concerns about security, aesthetics of the existing building and could a new building be built that blended better. Commissioner Kapsner asked if rebuilding is cheaper than adding another story onto the facility downtown. Mr. Fine said yes, it was significantly cheaper. Commissioner Johnson questioned what kind of offenders would be placed at this site. Mr. Fine said it would be offender-based instead of offense-based. These juveniles will be hand selected. He doesn't anticipate any public safety risk. Commissioner Prazak asked if an offender would be moved from this facility to downtown if there were any problems associated with the offender. Fine answered yes. Chair Prazak asked how much movement would be seen from this facility to downtown. Fine said there would be daily movement. There may be two or three trips a day. All juveniles will be booked downtown and then brought to this facility. Grimes asked if food would be brought in everyday. Fine said yes. . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Eleven Pentel said she noticed a study area on the plan. She asked if there will be visitors. Fine said yes, you might see parents, professionals, or attorneys. Fine said that under State Statute, they can hold a juvenile in detention for 14 days before they have to give formal education so the plan is to not hold anyone that long. Someone who would be held that long will be located at the downtown facility. Grimes commented that there are set hours for visiting and a limitation on the number of visitors at one time. All visitors must first call for an appointment. Chair Pentel asked about the outdoor activities and asked about visibility to the outside. Fine said there would be a brick wall. Wayne Winsor, Winsor/Faricy Architects, reviewed the proposed building plan. Commissioner Lewis asked if the outdoor activity area would be covered. Mr. Winsor answered no. Pentel asked at what time of the evening activities would be outside. Barb Karn, Acting Division Manager for the Juvenile Detention Center answered that at the downtown facility, the outdoor area is lit and activities go on until 9:30pm, but this would not be the case at the Golden Valley facility. The juveniles would only be outside during daylight hours. Kapsner asked if the proposed building is designed so a second story could be added. Fine and Karn both said no. Groger asked the applicant, given the restrictions being placed on this facility, Le. number of males to be housed and only for a short period of time, is there a long term need for this type of facility and restrictions. Karn said yes, that demographic studies have been done to determine the number of beds that are needed. After the year 2010, the age range of these juveniles start dropping. Pentel asked if 16 beds is really what was needed. Karn responded that for detention purposes, this number of beds was sufficient. Grimes asked if the juveniles would be monitored when outdoors. Karn responded that outdoor activities are always monitored. Groger asked Karn if it is anticipated that this facility would be full all the time. Karn answered yes. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Twelve . Pentel asked what kind of signage would be placed on the property. Fine answered only the address. Pentel asked how many of existing trees would remain. The architect said all the trees on the boulevard would remain. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing Steve Svensen, VP & co-owner of Boustead Electric, 7135 Madison Avenue West (located directly to the east of the proposed property), said that all the neighbors agreed that they do not want to see another facility like the last one. Mr. Svensen commented that the neighbors want the property rezoned, so Hennepin County can build a security building and take care of these juveniles. He noted that the County has made a lot of concessions so business customers are not exposed to the residents of this facility. McAleese commented that visually it would be an improvement. Svensen agreed. Curtis J. Smith, CJ Printing, 2420 Nevada Avenue North (property located to the south of subject property). Mr. Smith commented that his biggest concern were . people on the outside trying to get residents out. He is concerned that people may climb his building trying to get the residents of this facility out. Smith noted that his building is five (5) feet of the property line. Pentel pointed out that the plans show that the proposed detention center's outside wall would be 15 feet from the subject property line. Grimes reaffirmed with the applicant that there would be outdoor security cameras scanning the area at all times. Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Prazak commented that he was comfortable with the "spot zoning" for this area. He believes that the proposed use would be an improvement over the previous use. Prazak commented that he believes the City of Golden Valley has a responsibility to provide facilities of this kind. Johnson agreed with Prazak's comments and added that she liked the idea of a new building instead of remodeling the existing one. She believes this type of facility is greatly needed and is appropriate for the City to participate in placing this type of facility in Golden Valley. McAleese said if the proposal was for an empty lot, he would be unable to support either of the requests, but because the City is stuck with the existing conditions, the proposal would be an improvement. McAleese noted that he is . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Thirteen bothered by something that comes close to being "spot zoning" but is willing to go along with this proposal. He said he was deeply troubled by the interpretation of the zoning code that a "group home" and a "jail" are the same things, but doesn't believe that this particular case is so bad. McAleese continued saying that if the facility were for hard core criminals, he would be troubled and perhaps the zoning code isn't specific enough on what is meant by residential facility. The Planning Commission may want to revisit the zoning code on this issue. Prazak commended Hennepin County for contacting the neighboring businesses regarding this issue and that the design takes into account the businesses concerns. Kapsner asked the applicant if the residents of the facility would be unsupervised in the outside area at any time. Fine answered no. Kapsner asked staff what affect would this facility have on the housing goals for Golden Valley. Staff said none. . Groger said he supports the proposal and believes it is a vast improvement and that his only concern would be the outdoor activity area regarding to noise or things being thrown over the wall. He said that he trusts staff for monitoring this situation and taking appropriate action. Groger added that he does like the flag poles in the front of the building. Pentel said that she favors the proposal, but is concerned that when demographics change, there may be a need to reconsider what is happening at this site. She believes that through the CUP process and covenant, that the Planning Commission and staff will be assured that it will be for juvenile males and only for 16 beds. MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map from Industrial to Semi-Public Facilities. MOVED by Kapnser, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council to approve the rezoning of the subject property from Industrial to Institutional (1-3). V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority , City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals . No reports were given. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Fourteen . VI. Other Business Commissioner Kapsner gave a brief summary of his encounter at the APA convention in San Diego. Staff and the commission briefly talked about the Hidden Lakes development project. VII. Adjournment Chair Pentel adjourned the meeting at 8:55pm. Emilie Johnson, Secretary . . . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: April 23, 1997 Golden Valley Planning Commission Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Design Plan Review for Valley Creek Office Park, P.U.D. No. 71 - Southwest Quadrant of Golden Valley Road and Wisconsin Avenue - Valley Creek Development L.L.C., Applicant . BACKGROUND The subject property is also known as Valley Square's Area A-1 redevelopment site. It is owned by the City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). For several years, the Valley Square Redevelopment Plan has designated it for office uses. The first attempt at an office Planned Unit Development (PUD) on the site failed about a decade ago. Last year, a Preliminary Design Plan for Valley Creek PUD was reviewed by the Planning Commission in January and approved by the City Council in February. The property was rezoned from Open Development to Business and Professional Offices at the same time. A clinic, to be operated by North Memorial Medical Center, was to be one of the main tenants of the proposed office development. Developer George Sherman delayed the General Plan stage of approval while pre-leasing efforts were under way. The PUD plat was approved and recorded without completion of the rest of the PUD process, because the City Attorney needed to have new legal descriptions in order to clear the title of several small parcels of land abutting Highway 55. The PUD's particulars have been quite fluid over the past year. A few months ago, Mr. Sherman's designated developer status expired with no action taken on the General Plan. LOGIS, a shared computer service operated by a consortium of local governments, stepped in as prospective developer of the first of the three proposed buildings, with itself and the North Memorial clinic as tenants. LOGIS had to bow out last month due to cost considerations. Meanwhile, a new group, Valley Creek Development L.L.C., has stepped forward with an interest in taking over development of the entire PUD. North Memorial clinic remains a participant. The Partnership has other tenants lined up as well, enough so that the overall square footage of the development has increased from the original Valley Creek concept. Some of the engineering details . . have changed as well. While the Preliminary Plans are not dramatically altered, there are enough differences to warrant an amended approval before going on to the General Plan stage. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The plan sheets (attached) show generally the same layout as the previous proposal. Summary statistics for the old and new proposals are as follows: Characteristic New Proposal Old Proposal Site Size 8.7 Acres 8.3 Acres Ponding Area? Yes No Number of Lots 1 2 Number of Buildings 3 3 West Bldg. Area 42,900 s.f. (gross) 30,000 s.f. South Bldg. Area 51,300 s.f. (gross) 40,000 s.f. . East Bldg. Area 42,900 s.f. (gross) 29,000 s.f. Parking - Surface 465 stalls 404 stalls Parking - Covered up to 159 stalls 30 stalls Overall Parking Ratio 4.5 stalls/1000 s. f. 4 stalls/1000 s.f. (based on 110,000 s.f. total bldg. area) . The change in site area is not a result of bad math. The new proposal includes several miscellaneous parcels of abandoned or excess right-of-way along Highway 55 to which the HRA is now registering title. Those parcels are shown as undevelopable outlots on the current plat. When registration is complete, the entire PUD will be replatted to incorporate the parcels as part of the buildable area. At the same time, the two existing lots will be merged into one. Because the replatting cannot be completed until after the title registration runs its course, the City's approval of the PUD may have to allow for later platting. The development agreement makes the platting a responsibility of the HRA. Ponding requirements for storm water maintenance have become more strict since the initial engineering review of the old preliminary plans. Therefore, the current plan shows a necessary storm water detention pond in the low area adjacent to the creek at the west of the site. The adequacy of the pond will have to be evaluated prior to final PUD approval. 2 . Comparisons between old and new Preliminary Plans get a bit more fuzzy when looking at building areas and parking stalls. The old proposal, as indicated earlier, was rather fluid as tenant prospects came and went; various statistics are from different points in time. It is clear, however, that the new proposal reflects increased building area and increased parking. There is still some debate over the extent of the underground parking, but if built to the maximum it would contribute to an overall ratio of 4.5 parking spaces per 1000 square feet. That would be more than code requires for straight office uses, but the clinic in the east building would have a higher requirement. . PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS There is no need to examine whether this proposal fits the definition, intent, and standards for PUD's in Golden Valley. Despite the differences between what the City is now looking at and what was granted Preliminary Plan approval last year, the broad concept remains the same. Its suitability for consideration as a PUD has thus been satisfactorily established. In terms of completeness of the application packet, it meets City requirements except for one item. The City is in possession of the required application form, the preliminary design exhibits, the required mailing list, and an application filing fee, and staff find all components suitably complete. There is no preliminary plat application. As explained above, however, there is already an approved PUD plat. In order to allow the profitable use of the abandoned/excess right-of-way parcels, the HRA is in the process of registering title to them, and will ultimately undertake replatting of the entire parcel to reflect the larger area. The development agreement between the HRA and the developer specifies that replatting will be the responsibility of the HRA. Having established the suitability and completeness of the application, it remains only to review any planning considerations that might affect how the proposal is shaped as it moves from Preliminary Plan stage of application to General Plan. The types of issues that come up in connection with PUD applications can vary based on the PUD type and on specific characteristics of each PUD. In this case, staff have identified no particular concerns beyond those that generally accompany office PUDs. They can be grouped into the categories of zoning trade-ofts and miscellaneous engineering/construction issues. Each category will be addressed in the following paragraphs. Zoning Trade-ofts -- The proposal is not asking for much that would not be allowed under standard Business and Professional Office zoning (comparison table attached). The most significant zoning trade-off does not come from the district standards, but is instead a provision applying to all zoning districts in the City: City Code Section 11.12 prohibits more than one principal building per lot. This proposal features three buildings on one lot, allowing the City and developer to benefit from a campus setting with shared parking and other amenities and unified architectural design. The City has received a letter from the developer stating that they would like the ability to use up to ten percent of the floor space of the total development for support or accessory uses such as a retail shop, pharmacy, and a deli/food provider. This is . 3 . not uncommon for this type of development. The staff would suggest that any accessory use or support use is purely incidental to the primary use of the buildings. The staff would not like to see, for instance, a restaurant in the building aimed at persons other than those working in the building. A business that was expected to draw from outside the building would cause parking problems. The plan is to construct the east building first followed by the other two buildings over the next two years. The entire parking area, ponding area, landscaping, and other site improvements will be completed as part of the first phase. The building pads for the other two buildings will remain vacant until construction begins. The staff recommends that these pads be seeded or sodded in the meantime. The staging of the construction of these buildings is to bring these buildings to the markets as they are pre-leased. Miscellaneous Engineering/Construction Issues -- This matter has been referred to the Engineering Department for their review. At this time, the only comments that staff has received involves the need for a storm water retention pond on the site. As indicated on the site plan, there will be such a pond as required by the Bassett Creek Water Management Organization (BCWMO). The final sizing of the pond will be approved both by the City and BCWMO. As part of the development, sidewalks will be constructed along the south side of Golden Valley Rd. and along the west side of Wisconsin Avenue. A preliminary landscape plan is also a part of the attached plan packet. This provides an overall concept of plantings and other features. The staff would like to highlight that the plan calls for a low Berm on both Golden Valley Road and Wisconsin Avenue to screen the car lights from the parking lots. This is particularly important because there are apartments on the north side of Golden Valley Road. The plan calls for numerous boulevard trees along both streets. A final landscape plan will be made a part of the general plan of development and go to the Building Board of Review for approval. lhe staff would like to see as many of the existing trees on the site saved. This is especially critical along the creek and along Hwy. 55. This plan indicates two access points from the parking lot to Golden Valley Road. The Planning staff has reviewed this matter with the City Engineer. It is his recommendation that this be allowed. The two driveways are far enough apart and an adequate distance from Wisconsin Avenue. There will be only one access point to Wisconsin Avenue. The developer has submitted building elevations and floor plans for only the east building. However, the other buildings will be of a similar style and layout. Each of the buildings is three (3) levels with underground parking. The middle building will have a slightly larger footprint. The total square footage of the three buildings is 128,000 sq. ft. . . STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of this revised preliminary design plan for Valley Creek PUD No. 71. This plan for the redevelopment of this HRA owned site is similar to the previously approved preliminary design plan approved by the City in 4 . 1996. The 8.7 acre site will be developed for 128,000 sq. ft. of office space which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, zoning, and HRA plans for the site. Attachments: Location Map Plan Sheets (oversized packet; may be enclosed separately) Zoning Comparison Table Letter from Valley Creek Development L.L.C., dated 4/22/97 . . 5 'j' . ' . ~. .AJ .,... .: o. - ,.. "" I !l. ()J{\) )> ... .. VI I i:- f ,..... .. ~. J I l:. r 1\ Q #, , II. . ". / I .' \ .\ : \ I f \ ' l 0'L u. ,.~ .., - -:~ 0-1 .. .':0 :h I I I L~,:Lq~ '" ... ... ---- ;!! o ti, .C1J o r- CI). O' "> I ::r: - ~ 4:' 6 ~ " ~: BOONE '2: '::> '"'T1 " _ U _ I ........ ;; ~,~ Al~: ,:, .:--..... . ';0 ,-- '.. I AVE.:: ~'~-:::' '" , ~:."~"'" . <.I" ,. ~ o,;'.,\~ ~ _ ," I :! I 1> () ,........- -.. - -- :::0 1JT1 en ., "',. r J, ,~c5i' 3 i I\l 4. ~. r. \I. . 601 ^arTn =D51 cf). -e '0. _ C"'.,r 4 UI3 N z ~ 5. S 5 .... ... IV .., r ~ C) ..; 3"b 31 NtJ..~. ~"."l\ . " . '. ~ .... 0'" " :.: U> o. ... I> ... ..... '. r' - N' ~ ""t" ... .... . ",I' ,.' ~.., .", ...~ 3;:33 ... .u I I I ~ _ VOl ; u-BOONE--, ,._-L .\..d/?__ ~I~ 'Zl__.;....:.:.- ., \1'0.0 ... ,'16 \ i \ VI ... .. r.~o , ':" '\.~. .~..". 70 .. r . . 11 I' I~ " I~ .. \ ". \ . 1 . ;. \ 'J'I v'" ; \ '" '83 .. j !o'c",y( ~,46'. ~S' 't, It"" " .,' " . ,~ \ .., I ". 'oO '..' :' ~ . . ., ~: ~:: '. ~ .~; fl.. .. ",. '. .~ I', 7$0 . L Y' ~ ~ .J... ... .... Q <:> . \ ... .. "" C) ~ J · ,.-F-- I :~ 10 i .,:1:..' . .. ,J):IJ '_'_ :,.')"l -.. I to '1 . '.- . . ... ...J~ \v....t'..... . ~ '., "l'~~ . ~_~~~~.If. '".... 'oS-', e <1 If) '2: 17- ~;:: .. .4 ..,.. :I " .. (". .,.0 r-=,- Of C!J.... c ,0 ~. ':\ ~ ~ :~ :~Proposed Si te . j'Valley Creek PUD No. 71 ! ... '" 1.z8.' 'f.". ... .... < to .. ):> l.. ~ '" . .. r " I' tod~ 0 r 0 JoS ~'8 (;:)~ rr1 -< N N . 1'- -- "t ! 1 I .. ~ .. I I - ~ :::: :: ., AVe ,I ... #. '" . '"I t, \> I / / / III .. ~. I::l CI) if ;;t. ~ .cs , ..., .:.""~ ~l. ~:\_ /.,.-. .S . ~'-. ~. ..... ... "'t#. CJI .. .' Jl' ..I IJI." . /6:'../ ~~:;. ~t.... . . ......! ,.,,~.- , · 'y"" jJ' \..~t,.. I e,. r,'" . '.' "" r .'.;-- (",' ... ~..... ;;;> I ''t' - .... . ,,~~~ .,~, J';"":J9 If> ... ..r'~.<S"' "'.~~. "'.... ..... ...... ~.- :? i'~ ~~t CD . .It 40 . . . ZONING COMPARISON TABLE Business and Professional Office District vs. Proposed Valley Creek Office Center PUD B&P Office Zoning PUD Proposal Permitted Use: Office Uses Proposed Uses: Office and Clinic Uses Minimum Lot Width: 100 Feet Proposed Lot Width: Ample Minimum Lot Area: One Acre Proposed Lot Area: 8.7 Acres Minimum Structure Setbacks: Proposed Structure Setbacks: Street: 35 Feet Street: > than 35 Feet Side/Rear: 20 Feet Side/Rear: > than 35 Feet Minimum Parking/Paving Setbacks: Proposed Parking/Paving Setbacks: Street: 35 Feet Street: At least 35 Feet Side/Rear: 10 Feet Side/Rear: At least 50 Feet from west property line near creek Maximum Bldg. Coverage: 40% of Area Proposed Bldg. Coverage: 36% of Area Maximum Height: 3 Stories Proposed Height: 3 Stories Minimum Parking Stalls: Proposed: 1 Per 220 SF Gross Overall General Offices: 1 Per 250 SF Gross Clinic: 1 Per 250 SF Gross No separate Breakdown for Clinic. PLUS 1 Per Doctor Plus 1 Per 3 Misc. Employees V ALL~ r L.tU.,~K U~ V ~LUYNl~i'fJ.', LLC 5000 Glenwood A venue, Suite 225 Minneapolis, MN 55422 (612) 377-7090 I . I April 22, 1991 Mr. Mark Grimes Planning Director City of Golden Valley, Mn. 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Mn. 55421 Re: Valley Creek Office Development Golden Valley, Mn. Dear Mark: It is our understanding that the existing PUD permit for the above captioned site contemplates only office uses. We feel it would prudent to expand the allowed uses at this time to provide for any potential support and accessory uses or services necessary for a successful office _ development. Such accessory or support uses could include, but might not be limited to, a retail shop, a pharmacy and a deli/food provider. The size of the support or accessory uses is not . anticipated to exceed ten percent of the total square footage of the development. Please include this request into the pun amendment which has already been filed with your office. Please contact us with any questions regarding the enclosed. Thailk you. Sincerely, ~ Frank C. Dunbar cc: Ms. Jeanne Andre, HRA Director, City of Golden Valley . I I t' I I I I I I Ie I I I I I I I I- I ~ Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study City of Golden Valley, Minnesota SEH No. A-GOLDV9506.01 . February 10, 1997 - .... -:.: [- ~-. :- . ~-' ~SeJ ~ ,., - ,-. ~'" I . -.. ;: . . ~~~ -".-- _I..~~~ __....._ I I I I ) ) J J J J ] J I 1 ) J J J J Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study City of Golden Valley, Minnesota SEH No. A-GOLDV9506.01 February 10, 1997 I hereby certify that this Report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ~47!&IJ~ Fi/:; /D /9?7 Reg. No.: 9ou:! ttrJ1li~ ,j LJ~ ~. /~, If?? f D~ Date: Reviewed by: Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. 3535 Vadnais Center Drive 200 SEH Center St. Paul, Minnesota 55110 (612) 490-2000 ~ . . . I I I- I I I I I I I- I I I I I J f I- I Table of Contents Certification Page Table of Contents Page Section I - Summary 1 Section II - Background Land Use Changes Traffic Issues and Roadway System Development Proposed Alternatives 2 2 2 3 Section III - Study Process Data Collection Public Involvement 5 5 6 Section IV - Existing Conditions Land Use Existing Traffic Patterns Modeling Existing Conditions Operational Comments 8 8 9 11 12 Section V - Future Conditions Land Use Modeling Future Conditions Operational Comments 14 14 15 15 Section VI - Future Road Considerations Golden Hills Drive/lce Arena Area Access Laurel Avenue (commercial area) Market Street/Laurel Avenue (residential area) Turner's Crossroad I Glenwood Avenue I Xenia Avenue Extension 18 18 19 19 21 Addendum No.1 Recommendations Adoption 23 23 27 Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9506.01 Pagei I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I List of Figures . Figure 1 General Area Map Figure 2 Project Location Map Figure 3 Travel Patterns Figure 4 . Average Daily Traffic Volumes Figure 5A Golden Hills Drive Extension Figure 58 Golden Hills Drive Extension - Commercial Access Figure 6A Laurel Avenue - Market Street Extension . Figure 68 Laurel Avenue - Diverter Figure 6C Laurel Avenue - Reconstruction Figure 60 Laurel Avenue - Limited Residential Access Figure 7 A Xenia Avenue Extension to Glenwood Avenue Figure 78 Xenia Avenue Extension to Lilac Drive . Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley. Minnesota A-GOLDV9506.01 Pageii I I t' I I I I I I Ie I I I I I I I Ie I List of Tables Page Table 1 Existing land Uses 8 Table 2 P.M. Peak Hour Trip Generation for Existing land Uses 9 Table 3 Comparison of Future land Uses 14 Table 4 Comparison of P.M. Peak Hour Trip Generation for Future land Uses 15 Appendix Public Involvement Questionnaires: Questionnaire for Business Owners and Operators Questionnaire for Affected Residents of laurel Avenue Area Comment Form for Proposed Alternatives Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study A-GOLDV9506.01 Golden Valley, Minnesota Page iii I I , ;;;..l I I I I I I I I I I II . I . . a February 10, 1997 . Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota Section I - Summary This traffic study for the City of Golden Valley (the City) focuses on the Golden Hills Redevelopment Area and includes a section bounded by Highway 100 on the east, 1-394 on the south, Winnetka Avenue on the west, and Glenwood A venue on the north. The purpose of the study is to consider the impact of proposed redevelopment on the area traffic patterns. The study looks at the routes traffic currently utilizes in the study area. As businesses and residents in the area know, some of these routes are on . local streets through residential areas. Based on these traffic patterns, the study reviews options to improve access to the commercial/industrial. area and mitigate routes through residential areas. As the study area redevelops, traffic patterns and access needs will change. The study helps to determine the amount of change in traffic volumes that can be expected on surrounding roadways and suggests roadway improvements to reflect the traffic volume change. In studying these possible changes to the street system, some were found to be feasible and others infeasible. From discussion with the City staff, variations and other alternatives were examined. All of the ideas reviewed are presented in this report. Details on the various options explored are found in Sections V and VI. It should be noted that the redevelopment assumptions used in the study were for the most intense possible development and can be considered a "probable worst-case" scenario. As specific developments become known, the traffic impacts of any proposed plan should be reviewed and compared to this study to maintain the assurance of adequate traffic operations. . A-GOLDV9506.01 Page 1 . . ~ -' -t 1 1 t , . . .. . . . .. . Ct . Section II - Background The intent of this study is to analyze existing traffic conditions in the Golden Hills Redevelopment Area of Golden Valley (Figure 1) and to estimate the traffic impacts from redevelopment. The study area including the Golden Hills Redevelopment Area is bounded by Highway 100. 1-394, Winnetka Avenue, and Glenwood Avenue (Figure 2). There have been a great number of changes in the road system surrounding and within the study area in recent years. Routes in and out of the area are now relatively indirect. However, there are still high volumes on many of the roadways adjacent to 1-394. The study provides the existing traffic patterns, including the traffic generated by the existing businesses. The changes to traffic demand because of redevelopment are furnished also. The options available for modifications to the existing road system are presented for evaluation. Land Use Changes The study area is composed of commercial, residential, industrial, and institutional land uses. As redevelopment occurs in the area, the land uses will change from roadway and convenience type businesses to destination type businesses. If traffic from redevelopment has an adverse impact on the roadway system, some restraints in development may need to be considered. The proposals for redevelopment will need to be closely monitored for their impact to the traffic system. Traffic Issues and Roadway System Development The road system serving the Golden Hills Redevelopment Area is a hybrid mixture of streets, former frontage roads, and high volume interchanges. Access into this area is limited by 1-394, Highway 100, Highway 169, and Highway 55. Highway 55 is a limited access expressway, and the other three roadways are limited access freeways. In the 1940s and 1950s, the concept for high volume roadways was to develop a four-lane expressway with limited access and frontage roads on either side. Highway 12, which was the original access into the study area, is an example of this concept. The concept worked well except for the intersections of the frontage roads and cross streets. Commercial establishments generally developed along the frontage road, with their access via the frontage road and the major cross streets. With high traffic being generated from these commercial uses, the intersections of the frontage road and the cross street generally became congested. Golden Hills Rede\felopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A.GOLDV9506.01 Page 2 ~ - , I I I 'I I I I I I , I I I The immediate solution to this congestion was to bend back the frontage road as far as possible within the same conceptual alignment. This generally resulted in only a 50-foot to ISO-foot setback from the highway that still had problems of delays and congestion. Traffic signals at the frontage road created complex signal phasing and clearance problems. The next solution was to create remote frontage roads with access to the cross street from behind the first or second businesses on the cross street. These frontage roads were then bent along property lines back to the initial frontage road. These "around the block" frontage roads worked better because the distance from the highway was greater and the access was still readily apparent. However, there were still closely-spaced major intersections along the cross street creating some congestion. The next efforts were to create completely remote frontage roads or to develop "back access" or dual-sided access from an entire street system adjacent to the expressway. In newly-constructed areas, this worked quite well. Retrofitting it to an existing system generally created a circulation system with some unusual features and/or confusion to unfamiliar motorists. . When expressways were upgraded to freeways, the closing of intermediate intersections and the development of interchanges forced further setback of the frontage road and further complicated circulation along the old expressways. Again, the replacement of Highway 12 with 1-394 is an excellent example of some of the complications a circulation system can develop. At the same time that changes were taking place along many of the highways, low volume streets. with direct residential access were faced with higher traffic volumes from the adjacent commercial areas. Often, the streets were made discontinuous in an effort to reduce traffic volumes past these residential neighborhoods. Streets also were made discontinuous because of development of specific facilities, natural features such as wetlands, or discontinuous planning between adjacent communities. . Proposed Alternatives Five proposed alternatives based on the impact of additional traffic from redevelopment were suggested by the City for analysis. A brief description of each is provided as follows: 1. No changes to the existing street system. Analyze the proposed traffic patterns within the study area following redevelopment, assuming no major changes occur with the street system. . Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9506.01 Page 3 II II r/' II , II II II II lie II II II II II II II ,- II 2. Second railroad crossing west of Xenia A venue. Evaluate the impact of creating a new major crossing just west of Xenia Avenue between Laurel Avenue and the 1-394 frontage road. 3. Discourage use of Laurel A venue. Study ways to emphasize use of the frontage road for access to the 1-394 commercial area and discourage the use of Laurel Avenue. 4. Improved access onto Turner's Crossroad. Investigate means for improving access onto Turner's Crossroad from the Xenia A venue area, and investigate traffic congestion at Glenwood A venue. 5. Extension of Market Street. Examine mechanisms for the intersections of Louisiana A venue and Market Street, and Louisiana Avenue and Laurel A venue, to emphasize use of the 1-394 frontage road between Market Street and Xenia A venue. Prior to the analysis of the proposed alternatives, existing traffic patterns were determined. Traffic count data and trip generation volumes were correlated to ascertain which traffic was passing through the area from the adjacent residential areas. This provided a clear understanding of existing traffic patterns and desires. Each proposed alternative was then compared to the analysis of the existing conditions in order to evaluate changes to the circulation patterns. Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9506.01 Page 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Section III - Study Process The study process determined existing traffic patterns, redevelopment traffic impacts. and potential modifications to the circulation system. Data was collected on existing traffic patterns and served as a base to evaluate proposed changes. To evaluate the impacts from development and roadway modifications, traffic forecast methodology is used. This included determination of existing and projected redevelopment land use types and densities, generation of vehicle trips for each land use, distribution of vehicle trips between traffic analysis zones (T AZs), assignment of vehicle trips to individual roadways, calibration of modeled traffic assignments, intersection capacity analysis, and operational analysis. Data Collection Although some information on traffic patterns in the area already existed, much of it was of limited value because of the continual changes in accessibility of the area. Studies of the proposed auto mall, the Market Street reconstruction, and the Louisiana Avenue traffic signals provided some data. Historical data was available from MnlDOT, Hennepin County, and Golden Valley. To supplement the information, turning movement counts were taken for both the a.m. and p.m. peak periods (6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 to. 6:00 p.m., respectively) at five key intersections: · Louisiana A venue and Market Street, · Laurel A venue and Louisiana A venue, · Xenia A venue and the frontage road, · Xenia A venue and Laurel A venue, and · Turner's Crossroad and Glenwood A venue. One hour turning movement counts during both the a.m. and p.m. peak periods were taken at another six intersections: · Winnetka Avenue and the frontage road south of 1-394, · Winnetka A venue and the frontage road north of 1-394, · Winnetka A venue and Laurel A venue, · Laurel A venue and Pennsylvania Avenue, · Laurel A venue and Turner's Crossroad, and · Turner's Crossroad and the frontage road north ofI-394. In addition to turning movement counts, tube counts were taken at 3 I locations. These included directional counts along Winnetka Avenue, Laurel A venue, Market Street, Xenia A venue, Turner's Crossroad, the frontage road between Market Street and Xenia A venue, and several cross streets. Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9506.01 Page 5 . . . I I '" . I , I I - I. I I I I I I I Ie I The above information was used to establish existing traffic patterns as well as to gain understanding of the changes made as a result of the past modifications in the road system. To establish a base for traffic generation, existing land uses in the study area were determined. Land uses for the study area were obtained through a variety of sources. A comprehensive list of the area businesses and their respective locations was obtained from a hand delivered traffic questionnaire to each business in the study area. (The questionnaire asked for information on employees, shift change times, hours of operation, customers, commercial traffic, as. well as concerns regarding access to and from the area.) Aerials of the study area were obtained by Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH). The aerial was used to verify the location of each business and estimate the building sizes. SEH staff called businesses to verify data that seemed unusual or inconsistent. The City staff provided redevelopment plans and proposals (Golden Hills Redevelopment Plan, Golden Hills West Area redevelopment proposal) and other likely development types and their estimated intensities. The land use data gathered by SEH was reviewed by the City staff to verify type, intensity, and location. Public Involvement A public involvement program has been included as part of the study. It was assumed that business owners would be extremely interested in this traffic study because land use changes were being proposed, and land use restrictions might be a possibility. As noted previously, a questionnaire was developed and hand-distributed by SEH to the area businesses. The questionnaire asked for information regarding employees, customers, and truck trips in order to gain understanding of the commercial and industrial traffic volumes and patterns of the study area. The questionnaire also served to determine concerns and interests of the business owners, thereby establishing a communication network and letting them know they are part of the planning process. An open house was held in late January 1996 as a follow up to the questionnaire. This gave the City an opportunity to present some of the redevelopment concepts and solicit input from the businesses. Another questionnaire was created and sent to affected residents. (A copy of each questionnaire can be found in the Appendix.) The information requested included their concerns regarding traffic in the area and what actions should be taken to change traffic circulation in the area. An open house, separate from the one for the business owners, was held for the residents, also in late January 1996. The "open house" format for public Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9506.01 Page 6 II . . II , . . , II II II , ~ ~ ~ . . . . involvement allowed for a more informal atmosphere and more "one-on- one" contact between the public and the City staff. The two meetings were separated because there are two distinct audiences. The businesses are primarily traffic generators and the residents are primarily recipients of traffic volumes. Each has a significantly different outlook on goals for traffic in the area. . . . Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9506.01 Page 7 I I .e I I I I I I Ie I I I I I I I Ie I Section IV - Existing Conditions Land Use Land use data is collected and used to identify existing characteristics in the study area that influence traffic patterns. These characteristics include: · size and type of development. · location within the S1. PaullMinneapolis metropolitan area, · specific tenants. · trip distribution characteristics, · multi-use and site interactions. and · "pass-by" traffic characteristics. The predominant land uses in the study area are commercial and industrial bordering on residential areas. Table I show the uses, sizes or p.m. peak hour trips for general land use categories. Table 1 Existing Land Uses. Commercial: Commercial 572 ksf Office 357 ksf Other 202 trips Industrial: IndustriaVOfficelVVarehouse 570 ksf VVarehouse/Office 267 ksf Manufacturing 25 ksf Residential: Single Family 208 DU Multi-Family' 200 DU Other: Schools 469 students Churches 89 ksf Public 48 trips Other 171 trips * ksf = thousand square feet DU = dwelling units The land use types are used to determine the potential vehicle trips generated by each use. Land use trip generation is used because it has the ability to track accumulative site impacts. The vehicle trips are calculated by using trip generation rates from the Fifth Edition of the ITE Trip Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9506.01 Page 8 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Generation Manual (and local rates, if known) for a specific land use and intensity. . The generated trips shown in Table 2 are for the p.m. peak hour. The p.m. peak hour is typically used for the design and sizing of roadways, since it is usually the period of the highest recurring traffic volumes on an average daily basis. The traffic volume information provided by the City and the vehicle counts taken by SEH were used to determine that the p.m. peak hour generates a recurring highest volume of traffic on an average daily basis in the study area. Table 2 P.M. Peak Hour Trip Generation for Existing Land Uses Existing Commercial 3271 Industrial 953 Residential 335 Other 474 Total 5033 . Although the industrial uses occupy roughly the same amount of space as the commercial uses, the commercial uses generate 65 percent of the existing vehicle trips from the study area. Industrial uses generate 19 percent of the vehicle trips, with the remaining coming from residential and other uses. Because of the variety of commercial uses and the mix of office and industry in the area, it is assumed a portion of the trips will be dual-purpose trips. An example of a dual-purpose trip is: a commuter who needs gas leaves from the office and stops at a gas station before heading home rather than going from the office to home, home to the gas station, and then back home again. We assumed that 15 percent of the generated trips will be dual-purpose trips. Existing Traffic Patterns Traffic trying to travel d north/south route through (and, in some cases, to and from) the study area cannot do so directly because of the discontinuous or terminating streets as shown in Figure 3. Major access from the north into the area is Winnetka Avenue, which is a major north/south roadway in New Hope, generally carrying 13,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day. However, when it enters the area south of Highway 55, . Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9506.01 Page 9 I I . I I I I I I I -I. I I I I I I I I- I th~ character changes to residential and it terminates at the south frontage road of 1-394 and has no remaining direct access to 1-394. Similarly, Louisiana Avenue is a major north/south street in St. Louis Park beginning at Excelsior Boulevard. It has a number of major intersections and full interchange at 1-394 and becomes discontinuous two blocks north of 1-394. Park Place in St. Louis Park and Turner's Crossroad in Golden Valley were once connected to a major intersection on Highway 12. Development of the 1-394 interchange relocated the access in Golden Valley to Xenia Avenue, which is terminated two blocks north of 1-394. The Golden Hills Redevelopment Area, which was once served by several intersections directly accessing Highway 12 and a close frontage road, now has very mixed, limited, and somewhat unknown access. Traffic, instead of being able to turn at intersections of Highway 12 with Colorado A venue, Louisiana A venue, and other intersections, must instead exit at an interchange and travel along a series of streets to reach the same destination. One pattern of through traffic is the use of Laurel A venue as a connection between Winnetka Avenue and Louisiana Avenue. This is confirmed by noting the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes in Figure 4 around the intersection of Winnetka Avenue and Laurel Avenue. (ADT volumes give a measure of the present demand for service on the roadways and serve to establish patterns of use by traffic in the study area. This permits the evaluation of the present traffic flow with respect to the existing road system.) The ADT on Winnetka Avenue north of Laurel Avenue is 8,000 vehicles per day. South of Laurel Avenue, however, the ADT on Winnetka A venue drops to 4.600 vehicles per day. The remaining traffic is diverting to Laurel A venue. The ADT volumes in Figure 4 indicate that there is also a pattern of traffic using Laurel Avenue to connect between Louisiana A venue and Jersey Avenue. This would indicate traffic from the north is gaining access to the study area via Jersey Avenue as well as Winnetka Avenue. A critical roadway of the study area is Louisiana Avenue, especially from the intersection of Louisiana A venue and Market Street to 1-394. As Figure 4 shows, this section of the study area has the highest existing ADT volumes. In addition to the north/south traffic passing through this intersection, it is the main access for traffic accessing the commercial establishments east of Louisiana A venue along Market Street and the 1-394 frontage road. The businesses consist of high traffic-generating destination-type land uses including a gas/convenience station, family restaurants, and fast food restaurants. The intersection of Louisiana A venue and Market Street should be monitored as existing businesses reach their full trip-generating potential and new businesses area added. Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley. Minnesota A-GOLDV9506.01 Page 10 I I I I I I I I I I I , I I t , . . . On the eastern side of the study area, Turner's Crossroad is an area of concern. A traffic pattern has emerged whereby Turner's Crossroad is used as the route to get to and from Highway 100. Similar to the west end of Laurel A venue, the concern is that a great deal of traffic is passing through a residential area. Additionally, this traffic passes through the intersection of Turner's Crossroad and Glenwood Avenue. The Meadow Brook Elementary School is in the northeast comer of the intersection and the Golden Valley Lutheran Church day care facility is in the southwest comer Safety is of great concern because of the proximity of high volum: craffic to the young children. Modeling mg Conditions A computen: 'sportation model was developed to derive the necessary peak intersection turning movements for the potential redevelopment in the study area. The model was developed using the PathPro software package. The first step in the modeling process was to calculate the vehicle trips that are generated within the study area as well as through trips that do not have an origin or destination in the study area. The pattern for how the traffic leaves and enters the study area is known as the distribution. The access points into the study area include interchanges with 1-394 at Louisiana Avenue and Xenia Avenue to the south. Glenwood Avenue provides access through an interchange at Highway 100 to the east and by intersecting with Highway 55 to the north. Winnetka A venue at the western border of the study area provides access to the north. also by intersecting Highway 55, and to the south by intersecting with the south frontage road along 1-394. The ADT volumes in Figure 4 helped determine the distribution pattern of the traffic accessing the study area. Louisiana A venue currently carries the most traffic in the study area. About 45 percent of the traffic currently accesses tile study area via Louisiana Avenue and Xenia Avenue. Another 30 percent of the traffic uses Glenwood A venue as an access route, with the remaining 25 percent using Winnetka A venue. . Vehicle trips generated for this study were assigned to routes based on the above trip distribution using PathPro. The assumption for determining a route is based on the theory that people select the travel path which gives them the shortest o'verall travel time. The computer output provides traffic volumes for roadways and for turning movements at intersections based on these assigned routes. When the vehicle trips had been distributed, the model was checked to make sure the volumes on any given roadway in the study matched the Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9506.01 Page 11 . . . ~ , , . , II . q II .. . . . . . . . flit . respective ADT volumes and distribution. The volumes from the computer model were checked against the existing volumes obtained from traffic data and traffic counts to test the reasonableness of the computer assignment and to give some assurance that it represents existing conditions. The model was then calibrated to the existing p.m. peak hour volumes. This means it was fined-tuned until the directional flow and the turning movements approximate the existing p.m. peak hour conditions. The resulting volumes generated by the calibrated model for this study were somewhat higher than the volumes from the actual traffic counts. It was determined that the traffic counts were lower than expected, probably for two reasons. Since some of the businesses are rather new, they may not be generating their full potential of vehicle trips. Also, there had been recent road work in the study area when the traffic counts were taken. This likely impacted the traffic patterns and, therefore, the traffic counts. The higher volumes from the model were used for operational analysis since they indicate the full trip generation potential of the land uses in the study area. Operational Comments Operational analysis of the key intersections using existing traffic counts shows the signalized intersections to be operating well. These intersections are: · Louisiana A venue and Market Street, · Xenia A venue and Wayzata Boulevard, and · Glenwood A venue and Turner's Crossroad. However, it is perceived by drivers that these intersections do not operate as well as indicated by the operational analysis from existing counts. As stated previously, there had been recent road work in the study area when traffic counts were taken, and this may have impacted the traffic counts. Using the slightly higher volumes generated from the computer model, the operational analysis results are closer to the perceived conditions. Operational analysis of the key unsignalized intersections using traffic counts shows most to be operating well. The intersections analyzed include: · Winnetka A venue and the south frontage road of 1-394, · Winnetka Avenue and the north frontage road ofl-394, · Winnetka A venue and Laurel Avenue, · Laurel A venue and Pennsylvania Avenue, · Laurel A venue and Xenia Avenue, · Laurel A venue and Turner's Crossroad, and Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9506.01 Page 12 I I I I · Turner's Crossroad and the frontage road north ofl-394. . I The analysis shows that drivers are experiencing significant delay on several of the approaches of the intersection of Laurel A venue and Pennsylvania A venue. The intersection of Turner's Crossroad and the frontage road north of 1-394 also shows significant delay on several approaches. Another intersection showing delay on at least one approach is the intersection of Winnetka A venue and the south frontage road. As with the signalized intersections, it is perceived by drivers that the unsignalized intersections do not operate as well as indicated by the operational analysis from existing counts. Using the slightly higher volumes generated from the computer model, the operational analysis show results for the unsignalized intersections that are closer to the perceived conditions. For purposes of having base analyses to compare against future alternatives, both sets of operational analysis (from counts and from model volumes) will be used for both the signalized and unsignalized intersections. I I I I I I . I I I I I I I . Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9506.01 Page 13 I I I I- I I I I I r I- . I I I I I Ie I Section V - Future Conditions Land Use Redevelopment information provided by the City staff served as the basis for trip generation projections. The conceptual plans show that most of the new development and redevelopment will occur in the eastern part of the study area. Specifically, there are plans for a three-phase office/warehouse development west of Xenia A venue and south of Laurel Avenue. Just to the south are redevelopment plans which could include a hotel, restaurant, and general office building. An additional general office building is planned for the Colonnade area east of Xenia A venue. On the western end of the study area, Lupient Properties recently expanded, Menards has discussed plans to expand into the Zeos Computer space, and a Mermaid Car Wash has opened. It should be noted that the developments and redevelopments listed above are only conceptual in nature. Actual decisions regarding uses, intensities, and approval to build. will be determined by the City. Table 3 shows the changes in land use by comparing the existing and proposed redevelopment uses: Table 3 Comparison of Future Land Uses. Existing Redevelopment Change Commercial: Commercial 572 ksf 620 ksf 48 ksf Office 357 ksf 543 ksf 186 ksf Other 202 trips 320 trips 118 trips Industrial: Industrial/OfficeIW arehouse 570 ksf 570 ksf -- VVarehouselOffice 267 ksf 542 ksf 275 ksf Manufacturing 25 ksf 25 ksf --- Residential: Single Family 208 DU 218 DU IODU Multi-Family 200 DU 200 DU --- Other: Schools 469 students 469 students -- Churches 89 ksf 89ksf -- Public 48 trips 48 trips -- Other 171 trips 148 trips - 23 trips * ksf = thousand square feet DU = dwelling units Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9506.01 Page 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Nearly all of the proposed changes are commercial and industrial. If the redevelopment plans are iI?plemented as proposed, the predominant land uses in the study area will remain commercial and industrial. Table 4 shows the change in generated trips by comparing the p.m. peak hour trips for the existing and redevelopment uses: Table 4 Comparison of P.M. Peak Hour Trip Generation for Future Land Uses Existing Redevelopment Change Commercial 3271 3857 586 Industrial 953 1367 414 Residential 335 345 10 Other 474 451 (23) Total 5033 6020 987 The redevelopment land uses are projected to generate an additional 987 vehicle trips in the p.m. peak hour. The projected proportion of uses will remain roughly the same as under the existing land use trip generation. The commercial uses will continue to generate the most traffic (64 percent). Industrial uses are projected to generate 23 percent of the vehicle trips, with the remaining 13 percent coming from residential and other uses. Modeling Future Conditions The trips generated by the redevelopment plans were added to the computer model and assigned to the existing roadway system. This initial model of redevelopment changes assumed there were no physical changes to the roadways (such as wider streets or more lanes). This provided information relative to the ability of the street system to handle the additional traffic, given its existing configuration. Operational Comments The signalized intersection of Glenwood A venue and Turner's Crossroad is the most affected by the proposed increase in traffic. Three of the four approaches would operate poorly. To improve the operation of the intersection, the northbound approach would need to be changed from one lane to two lanes. This change facilitates the large number of vehicles turning right from the northbound approach to go eastbound to Highway 100. (Even without the future traffic, it may be necessary to add Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9506.01 Page 15 . . . I I .- I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I I- I the lane to the northbound approach since there are reports of vehicles currently using the shoulder for a driving lane.) A right-turn-on-red (RTOR) could also be allowed for the northbound approach with the additional lane. The existing restriction was placed at the request of the school district for the school crossing. The westbound approach of the signalized intersection of Xenia A venue and the frontage road north of 1-394 would operate poorly due to the traffic from the proposed addition to the Colonnade complex. By adding another left turn lane (there is currently one westbound left turn lane), drivers at the intersection would experience only slightly more delay than under existing conditions. With the addition of redevelopment traffic, operations at the signalized intersection of Louisiana A venue and Market Street experience only a slight increase in delay. The unsignalized intersections of Winnetka Avenue and the 1-394 south frontage road, Laurel Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue, and Turner's Crossroad and the frontage road north of 1-394 would have increased delay. These intersections are not only affected by the increase in traffic but also by the fact that the traffic has a sharp peak. This means that instead of the traffic arriving at an intersection at an even rate over an hour, a good portion of the traffic arrives in a short period, such as fifteen minutes. Traffic backs up at the intersection during the peak period, causing extra delay for each driver. The unsignalized intersection of Laurel A venue and Winnetka A venue will experience more delay on some approaches. The intersections of Laurel A venue and Xenia A venue, and Laurel Avenue and Turner's Crossroad, will have at least one approach that experiences increased delay. Signalization may be a consideration to improve operations at some of the unsignalized intersections, such as the intersection of Laurel A venue and Louisiana A venue. Signalization for the intersection has already been approved by the City and has been implemented. The intersection of Laurel A venue and Pennsylvania A venue may also improve with signalization. However, the signalization of the intersection of Laurel A venue and Louisiana A venue may impact the intersection of Laurel A venue and Pennsylvania A venue. This intersection should be reviewed periodically after the intersection of Laurel A v~nue and LoUisiana A venue is signalized and as redevelopment begins to occur. In summary, the additional traffic generated by redevelopment will increase delay at most of the key intersections in the study area. The addition of one lane to the intersection of Turner's Crossroad and Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9506.01 Page 16 . II II . II II ~ ~ II II II . . . . . . . . Glenwood A venue, and one lane to the intersection of Xenia A venue and the frontage road north of 1-394, will be required at a minimum to keep the intersections operating adequately. . . . Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9506.01 Page 17 I I .e I I I [I iI I -. I - I I - I I .. . Section VI - Future Road Considerations As summarized at the beginning of the report. five proposed alternatives were requested for evaluation. Analysis of the first scenario, redevelopment with no changes to the existing street system, was presented in the previous section. The remaining scenarios, with some added variations, are presented in this section. Each of these four alternatives is evaluated against the results of the first proposed alternative detailed in the previous section. Golden Hills Drivellce Arena Area Access As part of the redevelopment of the Golden Hills Area. a second railroad crossing was proposed across the c.P. Railroad just west of Xenia Avenue between Laurel Avenue and the frontage road north of 1-394. (Please note that the railroad crossing has been implemented.) The purpose of this alternative is to emphasize traffic flows on the frontage road north ofI-394 and de-emphasize the use of Laurel Avenue to access businesses in the study area. This alternative started with the base future computer model described in Section V. The model network was modified to extend the frontage road north ofI-394 westward from Xenia Avenue. over the railroad tracks. and to Colorado A venue (Figure 5A). Operations for this alternative are the same or slightly improved from the future base scenario for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. The minimum required changes because of increased traffic from redevelopment are the same as the base future scenario: 1. One westbound left turn lane (for a total of two) would need to be added to the Signalized intersection of Xenia A venue and the frontage road north of 1-394. 2. One northbound lane (with allowance for RTOR) would need to be added to the signalized intersection of Glenwood A venue and Turner's Crossroad. The change specific to this alternative is the extension of the frontage road north of 1-394 westward over the railroad tracks to connect with Colorado A venue. (The designated name for this extension is Golden Hills Drive.) Golden Hills Drive and Xenia Avenue would serve as primary routes to the freeway (to the south and east) rather than using Laurel Avenue. Provisions for access to the parcels of land in the area of the Breck Ice Arena needs to be addressed. To provide room for this access. the current transition of curves on the frontage road could be shifted back to Colorado A venue and connected to Golden Hills Drive (Figure 5A). Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9506.01 Page 18 ~ - ~ .- -, , l II 'I 11 ]I II II II II . . . . Laurel Avenue (commercial area) Several methods were reviewed for the area bounded by Laurel A venue. Xenia Avenue. and the frontage road north of 1-394, including street realignment. signing, signalization, etc.. that would serve to emphasize use of the frontage road for access to the 1-394 commercial area and discourage the use of Laurel A venue. The preceding alternative (extension of the frontage road) helps to achieve the goal of discouraging use of Laurel A venue. With the addition of the extension of the frontage road, traffic will tend to use the frontage road to access Turner's Crossroad rather than using Laurel Avenue. Signs for the northbound and westbound traffic at the intersection of Xenia Avenue and the frontage road north of 1-394 could indicate the use of the frontage road to reach the commercial area. Also, the "S" curve on the frontage road could be moved westward and connected to the proposed extension of the frontage road (Golden Hills Drive) to further encourage the use of this route to the commercial area (Figure 5B). . Market Street/Laurel Avenue (residential area) Strategies were reviewed for mitigating traffic using a route passing through the residential area of Laurel A venue, from Winnetka A venue to Louisiana A venue, as primary access into the commercial area. These strategies included: Option A: Connecting Market Street between Louisiana A venue and Pennsylvania A venue (Figure 6A). . Option B: Placing a diverter at the intersection of Pennsylvania Avenue and Laurel Avenue (Figure 6B). Option C: Reconstructing Laurel Avenue between Pennsylvania A venue and Winnetka A venue (Figure 6C). Option D: Widening Laurel A venue between Louisiana A venue and Winnetka A venue and reducing access to residential areas from Laurel A venue by eliminating intersections (Figure 6D). By connecting Market Street between Louisiana Avenue and Pennsylvania A venue under Option A, volumes along Laurel A venue through the residential area decrease by only 160 vehicles in the p.m. peak hour (see Figure 6A). Since the Market Street extension route is rather indirect, it does not draw enough through traffic from Laurel A venue to decrease volumes significantly along Laurel A venue between Winnetka Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue. What does change . Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota ' A-GOLDV9506.01 Page 19 . , ., . , II II II II III q . . . . . . ., . significantly are the volumes along Laurel A venue east of Pennsylvania Avenue. Traffic from the businesses south of Laurel A venue between Pennsylvania A venue and Louisiana Avenue shift from using Laurel Avenue and Louisiana Avenue to using Market Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. So, while this option improves operations at the intersection of Laurel A venue and Louisiana A venue, it increases exposure to residents along the north frontage road and does not significantly decrease exposure for the residents already impacted along Laurel A venue. Extending Market Street may also cause on-site circulation problems for businesses west of Louisiana A venue. The strategy of putting a diverter at the intersection of Pennsylvania A venue and Laurel A venue was explored under Option B. This would break the direct route along Laurel A venue and reduce the traffic significantly (see Figure 6B). Since the traffic could no longer use Laurel Avenue to access Winnetka A venue, the traffic (440 to 550 p.m. peak hour trips) would change their route to use Jersey Avenue and Western Avenue to access Winnetka A venue. As with Laurel Avenue, this traffic would impact residents along Jersey Avenue and Western Avenue. While this option reduces exposure for 28 residences along Laurel Avenue and Winnetka Avenue, it increases exposure for at least 34 residences along Jersey Avenue and Western Avenue. Other residences may be affected as these diverted drivers choose to find other shortcuts through residential neighborhoods to reach Highway 55. The diverter at the intersection of Laurel Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue would also limit access for the residents who currently use that intersection. However, the diverter would also cause the elimination of Laurel A venue from the Municipal State Aid Street System, which affects funding, and potentially requiring refunds to MnlDOT for past construction expenditures on Laurel A venue. Since the previous two options do not reduce the overall exposure to residential areas, another option (Option C) is to leave the route as it is and widen Laurel A venue to accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic due to redevelopment. Some residential yard sizes would be reduced due to right-of-way acquisition. Access to Laurel Avenue from the residential cross streets would remain intact (see Figure 6C). The final option (Option D) is a variation on the previous option. Laurel A venue would be widened but the residential cross streets would no longer have direct access to Laurel Avenue (see Figure 6D). Both residents and business employees along Laurel. A venue would have to fmd alternate routes out of their neighborhoods and businesses. The p.m. peak hour vehicle trips affected by closing access at Rhode Island A venue, Sumter A venue, and Quebec A venue is 80 vehicle trips in the p.m. peak hour. For the affected residents and employees, access to Laurel Avenue would be via Winnetka Avenue or Louisiana Avenue and Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9506.01 Page 20 . II II . II 11 -lI -- -II 11 '. .. -. -- . -. -. -. ~ would require some routing through neighborhoods. Some residential houses would have to be removed due to right-of-way acquisition. . Turner's Crossroad I Glenwood Avenue I Xenia Avenue Extension A method for improving access onto Turner's Crossroad from the Xenia Avenue area. was reviewed. It included an analysis of volumes on Turner's Crossroad and a recommendation for a street section. Improving access for Turner's Crossroad from the Xenia A venue area involves the route traffic takes to get to and from the Glenwood A venue interchange of Highway 100. so the proposed alternative of changing access to Turner's Crossroad was expanded to include the operations at the intersection of Glenwood Avenue and Turner's Crossroad. Several scenarios for the treatment of the intersection of Glenwood Avenue and Turner's Crossroad were reviewed: Option A: No changes to any streets or intersections (Figure 11). Option B: Extend Xenia A venue from Laurel A venue to Glenwood Avenue (Figure 7 A). Option C: Extend Xenia A venue from Laurel A venue through Glenwood Avenue to the intersection of Turner's Crossroad and Lilac Drive, and allowing no access to Glenwood A venue from Turner's Crossroad (Figure 7 A). As stated in the summary for the base future scenario, the minimum required change because of increased traffic from redevelopment is the addition of one northbound lane (with allowance for RTOR) to the signalized intersection of Glenwood A venue and Turner's Crossroad. If Xenia Avenue is extended from Laurel A venue to Glenwood A venue, under Option B, some ofthe traffic from the Xenia Avenue area would use the new extension rather than Turner's Crossroad. The p.m. peak hour traffic on Turner's Crossroad would drop by 585 vehicles per hour. As with the previous option, the operation of the intersection of Glenwood Avenue and Turner's Crossroad would be improved by adding one extra lane. Under Option B, however, the eastbound approach should change by adding a left turn only lane. Option B would require the creation of a new intersection for the extension of Xenia A venue at Glenwood Avenue. Additionally, the intersection of Xenia A venue and Laurel Avenue would need to be signalized. If, however, access from Turner's Crossroad to Glenwood A venue is blocked and Xenia A venue is extended from Laurel A venue through Glenwood A venue to the intersection of Turner's Crossroad and Lilac e. Drive under Option C, nearly all traffic from the Xenia Avenue area would be eliminated from Turner's Crossroad. The intersection of . Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9506.01 Page 21 . II " . II 11 11 JI JI .. . . . . . . . lit -- Turner's Crossroad and Glenwood A venue would no longer need to be signalized. The new intersection of Xenia A venue and Glenwood A venue would required signalization, as would the intersection of Xenia Avenue and Laurel Avenue. Since only through traffic (thus eliminating conflicting traffic) would be allowed at the intersection of Turner's Crossroad and Glenwood A venue, safety should improve for the children of the elementary school and the day care facility. It should be noted that some provisions for pedestrian traffic to cross Glenwood A venue near the school would have to be added. Options Band C would require acquisition of the railroad right-of-way in order to extend Xenia A venue. Some private properties would also need to be acquired. Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9506.01 Page 22 . . II II . q 11 q q q q q . II II II . . . Addendum No.1 Recommendations Subsequent to publishing the draft Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study in September 1996, two public open house meetings were held in October 1996 to solicit input from residents and businesses that could be potentially affected by roadway changes. The public meetings were held after a draft report was ready but prior to the preparation of the. final report. This ensured that enough information was available to answer questions and concerns of the public. This does not mean that all concerns will be resolved or that specific demands will be met, but it does allow their input to be considered in the study process and final report. This addendum finalizes the draft traffic study report. The information is organized by the three sub-areas of the study. These include: · the Market StreetlLaurel A venue area, · the Turner's Crossroad/Glen wood A venue/Xenia A venue area, and · the Golden Hills Redevelopment area. . For the first two sub-areas, a recap of the proposed alternatIves is provided. For all three sub-areas, a summary of the comments from the public meetings is provided. Finally, conclusions .and recommendations are given. . MARKETSTREET~AURELAVENUE Proposed Alternatives Strategies were. reviewed for mitigating traffic using a route from Winnetka to Louisiana A venue, passing through the residential area of Laurel A venue, as the primary access into the commercial area. These strategies included: Option A: Connecting Market Street between Louisiana Avenue and Pennsy Ivania Avenue (Figure 6A). Option B: Placing a diverter at the intersection of Pennsylvania Avenue and Laurel Avenue (Figure 6B). Option C: Reconstruction of Laurel A venue between Pennsylvania A venue add Winnetka A venue (Figure 6C). Option D: Widening Laurel A venue between Louisiana A venue and Winnetka A venue and reducing residential access to Laurel A venue (Figure 6D). . Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9506.01 Page 23 I I Ie I I I I Ie I I [ I I I I ,e I Analysis found that Option B significantly reduced traffic on Laurel A venue between Pennsylvania A venue and Winnetka. A venue. while Option A only slightly reduced traffic. The purpose of Options C and D was to more effectively handle traffic through the area rather than trying to reduce it. The major issue for these options is acquisition of right-of-way in order to make improvements. Public Involvement The proposed alternatives studied for Laurel A venue from Winnetka Avenue to Pennsylvania A venue were presented at a public open house held on October 9. 1996. The public was invited to ask questions and comment on alternatives in both oral and written form. There were only a few written comments on Options A, C, and D. The comments were evenly divided between 'pros' and 'cons' for these options. Option B, however, received the most comments with 90 percent of those comments in favor of placing a diverter at the intersection of Laurel A venue and Pennsylvania A venue. In addition to comments relating to the specific options, many general comments were submitted. Suggestions for Laurel Avenue included more restrictive weight limits and speed limits, narrowing the street width, and using signage to direct/divert traffic to appropriate alternative streets. Conclusions and Recommendations The recommendation for the residential portion of Laurel Avenue (from Winnetka Avenue to Pennsylvania Avenue) is to lessen traffic volumes by use of the following traffic control measures. · Install signs to direct through traffic to use the south frontage road instead of Laurel A venue as the route to go to, or come from, the Louisiana Avenue interchange ofl-394. · Install signs to suggest a truck route via Winnetka A venue and the south frontage road. (However, it shall be noted that trucks cannot be prohibited from Laurel A venue if it is on the State Aid Street System.) The aim of these traffic mitigation measures is to reduce heavy truck traffic, through traffic, and traffic that is not specifically accessing the commercial area. The advantage of these measures is that they can be implemented quickly at low cost. One area of concern is that the traffic control measures may not be enough to offset the familiarity and desirability of the existing route along Laurel Avenue. It is recommended that the route be monitored periodically to determine if traffic has been "reduced as a result of the traffic control measures. Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A~GOLDV9506.01 Page 24 . II II II II II II II II II II II . . . . . . . If traffic has not been reduced, the following option could be implemented to augment the earlier measures: · Install signs that indicate Laurel A venue from Pennsylvania A venue to Winnetka A venue is to be used for local traffic only. . If the preceding measures do not reduce traffic or are not used, it is recommended that the feasibility of Options C and D be reviewed, Options C and D, while obviously less popular with residents than Option B, reduce direct conflicts through design, and/or right-of-way acquisition and relocation.. TURNER'S CROSSROAD I GLENWOOD AVE I XENIA AVE Proposed Alternatives A method for improving access onto Turner's Crossroad from the Xenia A venue area was analyzed and included traffic operations at the intersection of Glenwood A venue and Turner's Crossroad. Several scenarios for the treatment of the intersection of Glenwood A venue and Turner's Crossroad were reviewed: Option A: No changes to any streets and intersections. Option B: Extend Xenia A venue from Laurel A venue to Glenwood A venue (Figure 7 A). . Option C: Extend Xenia A venue from Laurel A venue through Glenwood Avenue to the intersection of Turner's Crossroad and Lilac Drive, and allow no access to Glenwood Avenue from Turner's Crossroad (Figure 7B). Option B draws significant traffic off Turner's Crossroad. Nearly all traffic currently using Turner's Crossroad would be eliminated under Option C. As development occurs, some modifications to increase capacity would be necessary even under Option A. Public Involvement The public open house held on October 10, 1996, presented the traffic mitigation alternatives studied for Turner's' Crossroad as well as the Golden Hills Redevelopment Area. Comments from residents and business representatives were again taken in oral and written form. The comments were evenly divided between 'pros' and 'cons' for Options B and C. Specific comments regarding Option A were that Turner's Crossroad is in desperate need of improvement. However, residents preferred improvements that would make the street more . Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9506.01 Page 25 = rd tll ~ 'II rI~ Id ld ~ Id Id I III 1I -# ,~ residential rather than improvements that would make the street a preferred arterial route. Conclusions and Recommendations Improving operations on Turner's Crossroad involves the route traffic uses between the Xenia Avenue area near the 1-394 frontage road and Laurel A venue, and the Glenwood A venue area near the Highway 100 interchange. The recommendation for improving operations on Turner's Crossroad is to extend Xenia A venue from Laurel A venue to Glenwood A venue (Option B, Figure 7 A). Since extension of Xenia A venue provides a more direct route for traffic accessing the Glenwood A venue interchange of Highway 100, traffic volumes on Turner's Crossroad are greatly reduced. Another benefit is the reduction of the he~vy turning movements at the intersection of Glenwood A venue and Turner's Crossroad. Reduction of the conflicting traffic movements should improve safety for the children of the elementary school and the day care facility, assuming provisions for pedestrian traffic to cross Glenwood A venue are retained. The right-of-way along the unused railroad track and adjacent private properties needs to be acquired by the City. If right-of-way for the extension of Xenia Avenue cannot be acquired, the capacity of the intersection of Turner's Crossroad and Glenwood A venue must be increased. The addition of one northbound lane (with allowance for RTOR) is required. However, this option retains volumes on Turner's Crossroad and continues the conflicts with pedestrians at Glenwood A venue. GOLDEN HILLS REDEVELOPMENT AREA As part of the redevelopment of the Golden Hills Area, a second railroad crossing (Golden Hills Drive) was added across the c.P. Railroad just west of Xenia A venue between Laurel A venue and the frontage road north of 1-394 (Figure 5A). The purpose of this extension is not only to provide access to new businesses but also to emphasize the use of the frontage road for access to the 1-394 commercial area and discourage the use of Laurel Avenue. Comments from businesses in the area indicate that they are the most concerned with having good access to their business establishments. A secondary issue is pedestrian access in the area. To further emphasize the use of the frontage road, it is recommended that the current transition of curves on the frontage road be shifted back to Colorado Avenue and connected to Golden Hills Drive (Figure 5B). (It is recommended that specific access points from the frontage road be discussed with property owners as redevelopment occurs.) Additionally, Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9506.01 Page 26 . I [II q Lq Iq 1 it is recommended that signs be added to indicate the use of the frontage a road to reach the commercial area for the northbound and westboun~ traffic at the intersection of Xenia A venue and the frontage road/Golden Hills Drive. Adoption The next step in this process is for the City Council to review the final recommendations and consider their adoption. If adopted by the City Council, implementation will depend upon redevelopment and its effect on traffic growth, approval of changes by the necessary agencies. and funding. . . Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9506.01 Page 27 , , II , , II II II II ~ . Pro ject Location 5W ~SeH GOLDEN HILLS Redevelopment Area Traffic Study ENGINEERS.ARCHJEr:7SIIPlANNERS N . 94 General Area Map Figure 1 I I ,e I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~~. ..... GOLDEN HILLS ENGINEERS.ARCH/TCC,.PlANNERS Rede_~~I?pmen t Area Traffic Study <( w a::: <( >- o ::> ~ (/) Pro ject Location Map Figure 2-.. I I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , i I ~ i - ~ ~\ /.I (0' ~"'rn~~-.. .. :.~~) 9/, .... \\ .;, ----...~~ ~2J :: j r 'i' ....-.,..~~\i'~..., ~ ~~f~~ '~ --=---~ <=\- ~.J ........,; ~A~~r~ _e'~~ . ~ ..... @I-~ ~ ~ ~~"" -~. ....., ._. ~ ", ~1 ~ ~ !"",.'" '.... '... ,,: ..e'1 .... .... -..0, C ~ OJ, ..~_I" r;~~it:':"<'f~ ~.....""' .,.. ':I ~ ._ I ""li"tJ!I'l:"'l-\i s ..,~ _1- '1'), ~"', if ,.J!! If.... ~ ......... '- ~ .... "~l'.,s"J.":) "m\W ~.~... ~.- j~:! of :;1t I ::; J: '1" 0;.5 ""/..",.., ~~ .... ii~/fV !l. Ilr)~i5 4:'~~ .... ~~B: i'~' lie:. -I;Iiofla 't',';;;o;- "~.\i~ -- ;; ;""'~J; ~1i.>1 ==.,f. ~~~' ,,.; ~I"'W';' ! .. ~~ . JIIIIIOiIItr ..,... 51 IlJ. __.. q,: L- ~ ... "":. :'s;; ~ .... _,,"1; I II,; ... 7 ' · ..It'l' Ii = i !:: ~~ ":W-ro~..,.. .1 ..... ~ ...: ~ ~'l; >CII~'_ ,1 ~ ~~l! .~ ') ~ -~:~ no,~ ~.:-I ~. , ,.~~ .t~ ....- ~~...,. '~...i""'_'''''''''Ir''''''.I''1' '~.2!!;lL....li ;:\! 13.: CllI cl'~ ~~2lIM l~~ ...~ I ....... _---'<#'IJ L ~;'1tCUZ*l; _\ i' e" .. -i 1 ~ ": --L-l. ot::!2........ ~... .... ...... ,,~ ";;ir .. Ia. ~~.;; !ocIi&.... ."'.....~.: :---;;01 ~"'" Ii -z .." ~ I . "'~ oJ" ~ 0 t.,.. o);l;;f ....." 8 , 4 \ \ ~~ it 'J>::: f'''' f .~. -....... 1";", wl/ II '~.~:f; ~ . fa; t!. \ i -= :t... ~ ~ C'; &:) .. c ~' t i ...~o~,.._! ~~ ;~ . !~F1: ......nunil '1f..l.\',;;~\~~~'" . ~ i~ ~~~ ~ 0 v:..J (! W ~ ~ ~~ ~ ':.J.;:. \\" r ~ l;;;ru ~~.. 81 ....-' 11 I ...... 19.il ~.......... ::i ....;. ;j"r.lUn 1i~. \t "'~II!""u...! "~. ...- n .. l~]l. f ::i ....fl:: .. [J .M!;.\ 1IflIIQQ.~'. \..~ i:s: uu;a",,, . . S' :i )l1;;:i f f ....el fiG' ~I!C\:;:'':';.'!.''-!:: if. ~. Il.).... w ~... 8i /."... ~ Ie ....::; CIllClIiiiji'tl · 'i~e "'" II ... ,.....' ."... : ~ ~ c -ta . B ot~~ ~la IS ~ elf ~ ~ . ~ -.,. ..2:...., ---.;_ I;~~l ! 0091 ~.., 5~ ~ .... _'" -~. ....:.... ; u....,. ~ J$- ~.. i ~::'"1 ~F-f!~ 'A! ,oS .... c...... :- >\~ ~... "~rn/ -- ~u.... I~'''~ ""_ ....,-, _.. ., > .. 0DftII, c "~.'m . PUU~ ... ..... - ib '~\'&':8 .....- . - -,- l_ "'r7 ....0 .. . Iu. -- ; ~!ll:l-eEZ '). ....__ ., .: ~a.: \'2:1.' (UU1.L'~ ~ ~~,...._; I:; ~ S' ....___'/ \ \ na=I-L , . ::~: ~, .... "-"'::1"" '(0 z,..Gl ~ ~-t:. .. . . L~ 1!\ ..... _ _.. 111'-'" .. AI. ~I q -\" lIQ lIQ 2 J=..-::': ....i Ii ie ~ -, . 1;' a.(~,.... .~ 06 ~ ~.... ~ Hi/(... I;'" -~~\ 9:i@illlt.! u v,.;,~~..... '.... __ ; : .~~~~. .;.\~:i .... / ... ~ 4. ..... 0 '< L! t.=. I "Q.o'''' ..,.. I'"- ~.... -.. ~ f'jo ill'" "'>>9 ( ~ ::i ! S 0;'0 G~ .lio t.._._tp,......,.~f/I:: .... f _:( \,~ ,...~\. :! 4 ,.... ~IU' \. g: ~.! no'.T ........l~:; ~ ']a'!! . -j; ,,~~ \,\ 1 N _.... II I'; I! :l l ~ .- tuWB'tj '[ .... . '-J l:i e.,.. -~ ! I E .~...... Ii 1""\ S ;'" ....-...., ( ,ti~ ~ rOot FA:~ ..,. 'i'! u ..... II - Ii.... ...., ~ I.C . or 08 ....._-.;~.... s., ~"":il ....,- IflI:, .,.. 11_ _., .... ,!i ~_~"S"Jd _. "M'll YO.AIII... r . ;c.~~ II . ~ &1111 -4 ~.TIII I a~ "S - ':1. I ":;fU"'- -- . i . i """::- i28J ; -... ,...:.::; _,,_ :( ~r...'::il-!;;.~-:l., .!~.....,.I:;;;; -."..... :l .. ~:( ~ r~1 ..I o$~ 'Ii ~ f !Ii "''''~ t ~I- .... 1- !I-- 1 ~~." ""'S" d!l~OJ: ~ ;;;Ji~"" b-. - 1': !! ~. \;~. ~\"'", ~~1v';;;~ 1--. ....I2iiiii1aiiii'l_ ...... i\' r~O E'I..;"". _:!e~. .T"'L1~~.~ 1--0-1....- - ~\I!lI. ,~ ... . .. ~l"..., ':in;;--';,\. ~ If ........... - . _ llrll... .~ at: S ..,./...~ ll( :p ~-- ".. N ~;:.~.~"'......'" .~~::: ~~j LE It tJ ~. ~. . ..... 1(... ~l~.Y 10 --......... -... ......'" :0..---. to "..~~.li~:io ,_ :ll II el il'~ ~ ~ " EiV i \ - ~ ~~'r" !:...~ =~~,.; '" "*~ i ! liP \\j:i~ :l;iifai."~ Of" ~ i '~~.......... I;;;~~\:>~ · ..: 4_"t.7iiiiL ... - \~.!l~ p. r ,'""..... .;..'ifI'o.~l =IJ5......_.:~~I:b\,!lot~ ::\!. ~ = . I'~...~ ~~: c ir~/ ~ ~\v.L . '" @ Ii ~ _ ~ \ e,~ ..... .~_ ..,=! r.-;~t\.. !It oon ~ ~.. ,-cxxu, 11\ ~ .. 5...~..:.~.. _~J-L,.~ ,.... ,........,... ~\ .. f ""'I~ :; !8/i I lU ~ Ii~ ~~!s ...:~ ti" . ~~ 1 di j ~D ~ - F'.....~. 1'" cJH ~, ; ~~ i L.l ;A.i= rl:_ i":j\!'l rH f. ~~ , . ".,.-- w L"\..... 8n'~ _MC'lftC'Il~~ N . t.f~~ "l.d- ) I~~. \. , !~ ~".. 1~. I I ~ fi\ _.~ ~ ~. ji./1" 00zv ~ l-,!, 00 J A n-...4:: '1., VDlI 00099 II _ -I., ~ . : ,,~t.OO ~. ~ -~ C~~~~~l II ~ i f f't t;"\.'MOr[. ~~"il-.~~ @11#hlil_ ..,p ... .. 10 e C/~~ 'IT- - ~ 2"'~\.~ ~..~.~ ':j ~~II~ ,r f ~~ ~ @ I~~dd:t:.~ Ii ~',l. .....-- ~ t:::\ ,,,.... __~~l I ~ ~Ilt )}t II ~ ..' ....., -'-'! ... ~s.- ~ 11 i Ji! ~ om 'T "'... ? \ ~ ~fl ';ji;'-!\ i1...,..".;j'. !l ~ jii IT 1. \;rd ~ Br ..,"'N._ I~!!o _ 4.~ r-~. l!... -~ #; -. -~~ "'-;f]J ; .,....14D ....;~;"'\ i... ~~ i..'P: ~ ;~I r.I f' ......-....-u. .:S ~ _~.. ~ ~ ..... ~! ~;~ ~~ ~:oo ~... "I\\\" i i ;rl - ,~.p lKo . : .. ~.J~ i Ii. ~@'" -mil I i @~,..-dI. 1.1 t.l!f~;~~-s.!~@-:ic '"'..... ~ ; ~~ ...., -WI ~ a~ aa ~~!, . In) ~~h .11~ ~'J D~ ~...:t; .....~ - il ~ I ~~~ ~ ~~~ il?Y.:...., p ~~ tl..J~,!'R J'! 'l~ ~~ j :.... ,..,.. . ~ ~... ilI'..;".; ~_.~ . <at> ~ ~ T ,.'.; iI! I!~.(f~ II ~ . ~ GOLDEN HILLS Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Trip Patterns Figure 3 CNGlNEERS_ARCHI7CC7SIIPI..ANNERS . . rf ~ , I: VlU3i;IrJ\ 'OS 0 0 0 CD ~ ---=$:- o o CO C') 'III ~" GOLDEN HILLS Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Average Daly Traffic Volumes Figure 4 CNGINEBIs8A11CH17n:7SaPf.ANNDtS . . L . N Frontage Road II Q) ::J C Q) II > <( (not to scale) 0 " 0 11 L- 0 (5 U q q Frontage Road q Existing , .q , , \L q l Golden Hills Drive Q) ::J C Q) N > <( ~ 0 " 0 L- 0 (5 U (not to scale) Proposed Design Concept ~SeH GOLDEN HillS Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Golden Hills Drive Extension Figure 5A CNrIINEERS.AlfCHm:JW1"I.AMIIaS I -, I .. N L Frontoge Road I CD ::J C I CD > (not to scale) <( 0 "0 0 I ~ 0 0 (J I I Frontage Road I Existing I. I 0 "OeD O::J L.c L OeD -> I 8< I Golden Hills Drive I I N I I (not to scale) .. Proposed Design Concept ~5SJ GOLDEN HILLS Golden Hils Drive I ExtensiorrCommercial ENGINEERS.ARCHm:SI'UlMlEltS Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Access ., Figure 58 --'-'iII .------.--..~..rJiI-.--___._-...-.riiI .... ..' .111' _ . . ill a> :J c: a> > <( ;0 0 ~ (1) ....... 0- a> (1) c: < c: (1) ~ 0 G) -0 3 0 (1) r- ~c )>m ..., z (1) 0 J: - -Ir d r ~cn 0 tf) .-+- c: 0- '< i S!. :n~~ ~ - ~ eei 0) ~, >::lI CD - N (not to scale) -72 -162 Laurel Avenue -88 North Frontage Road 391 138 384 a> :J c: a> > <( o .- c: o > ~ CJ) c: c: a> a.. : ! : ! : ~: :: : : : : : : !: : : ! : ! : ! : ! : 575 k{~ttrrt{tt Market Street Extension xxx- Change in Volume due To Extension -648 -303 -359 Market Street 648 a> :J c: a> ~ II -436 Cl c: o CJ) :J o -I a> :J c: a> > <( >- a> en L- a> J r- .--.--.-.-~-~-..- .:i. Ii" ,,- II .11." Ii -.J l Western Avenue /.. ) L 547 ~~ 619 ~'t3 Q:;-o Q) :J ;0 e Q) CD ~ " 439 a. -547 CD < >. CD Q) o G) en .... -00 Q) J ~ r- -652 -779 312 :J C r+m ~Z Laurel Avenue :J CD e Q) 0 :t Q) > - :J <( -ir- e 138 .~ II (3 r- Q) '-DIVERTER > ::Ben <( 0 () 0 > II II Market Street (f) .::L. >. ..... en r+ Q) e c: e c: a. e Q) '< ~ a... N Q) :J r- e a Q) > :n S!. <( CD >- Diverter 0 " < CD e CD ! 0 m XXX- Change in Volume due en OJ To Diverter :J c:" 0 CD ...J ::1 (not to scale) CD ... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I anuaA'v' AaSJ8r ..-... Q) c o Ul <~2 - o c: '-'" anuaA'v' D!UDA,^SUuad anuaA'v' PUDISI apo4~ anuaA'v' JalUJns anu8A'v' D>!laUU!M ~ Q.) ~ L... Q.) 0 :l ~ C Q.) > <( Q.) L... :l o ....J nr- UL- D[ .... Q.) Q.) L... .... U1 r..... . . . . . anU8A'v' DUD!S!nOl "0 Q.) .~ :l a- U <( Q.) CD o I- >- o 3: I - o I .... .c .2' a::: Figure 6C II , ,- "'0 II Q) anUaAV AaSJar o~ ::s CT Q) u ::s --- <( --- Q) II u c Q) Q) Q) Q) '- '- > --- CD 0- <( Q) (f) 0 ::J 0 .....Q) C --- II r- Q) Q) ::J '- > ~ >- o ::J <( '- ..cO 0 0 .........J ~ II 3: 3:0 Q) I '- - r- ::J 0 en 0 I Q) en ....J ..... E en II ..c ::J Q) en _U o u ~ ><( i ~ JI . . . . . . . . . . . ~ anuaAV O!UOA,^SUUad J fir) anUaMt PUOISI apo4~ ~ ~ n U n U anuaAV JalWns anuaAV o>jlauu!M anuaAV OUO!S!nOl - Q) "6 u <~~ .... o c: ........ "'0 o o 0::: Q) en o ... c o '- I..L. ..c --- '- o z C anUaAV PUOISI apo4~ ~ C anuaAV JalWns "'SeH GOLDEN HILLS CNt1INCERS8ARCH1rcr:1S811f.ANND1S Redevelopment Area Traffic Study LalJ'el A venue Linited Residential Access Figure 60 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Xenia Avenue Extension N (not to scale) Laurel Avenue Q) :J c: Q) > <( o c: Q) X Proposed Design Concept ~SeH GOLDEN HILLS Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Xeria A venue Extension To G1enwood AVerlJe Figure 7 A - (/) "8 ~o I... E(/) (/) 120 o Xenia Avenue Extension Laurel Avenue CIl ~ c: ~ c( .2 c: CIl x Lilac Drive N (not to scale) Proposed Design Concept GOLDEN HILLS Redevelopment Area Traffic Study Xen8 A venue Extension To Uac Drive Figure 78 I I ,- I I I I I I I- I I I I I I I I- I City of G~ley Questionnaire Golden Hills Area Traffic Study Business Owners and Operators January, 1996 Name of business: Address: Name of contact person: Telephone number: FAX number: 1. How long have you occupied your business at this location? 2. How many employees work out of your Golden Hills Area operation? 3. How many shifts do you have and how many employees work each shift? 3. What are the regular starting and ending times of those shifts? 4. How many customers come to your business on an average day? 5. How many customers come to your business on your busiest day? 6. What type of weekly, monthly, or seasonal variation do you have? 7. How many truck pick-ups and deliveries do you have on an average weekday? 8. If you are a retail or service business, where do most of your customers come from before stopping at your business? 9. Please describe your concerns about access to and from the area. Please use the back of this form or add sheets if necessary. If you have any questions regarding this questionnaire, please call either Jeff Oliver (593-8030) or Cindy Gray (490-2071). . II II II -- ;q q I ~ Your Comments About the Laurel A venue Area . Please take Ibis opportunity to let us know where you live and the specific concerns you have about traffic in Ibe Laurel Avenue and Western Avenue area. We are also including the residential area between Turner's Crossroad and m 100 in our study area so we are interested in the concerns of residents in that area as well. Your conunents will help the City of Golden Valley better assess what actions should be taken to change traffic circulation in the area. 1. Please describe where you live. (Example: On Laurel A venue between Sumter Ave. and Rhode Island Avenue) 2. What traffic circulation features do you like about your neighborhood? 3. What traffic circulation features do you dislike or have concerns with in your neighborhood? . 4. Do you have any specific comments about the following items as they pertain to your neighborhood? Traffic Volumes : Pedestrian Safety: Bicycling: Traffic Lights I Stop Signs: Road Widths: Bus Accessibility: Sidewalks: 5. Please desaibe any ideas for improving traffic circulation or explain any other traffic related concerns below: PI~ use the back of ibis form if you need more space; Thank you for completing this questionnaire. Please return this form to the "Return Survey" box in this room or mail your completed form to Jeff Oliver, Golden Valley Public Works Department, 7800 Golden Valley Road. Golden Valley, MN 55427. . I I. I I I I :1 I I . I. I I ! i I i I I t. Your Comments About the Golden Hills Area Please take this opportunity to let us know where you live and the specific comments you have about the traffic study. We are also interested in your concerns regarding traffic in the area as well. Your comments will help the City of Golden Valley better assess what actions should be taken to change traffic circulation in the area. 1. Please describe where you live. (Example: On Laurel Avenue between Sumter Avenue and Rhode Island A venue) 2. What are your general comments about the study program and process? 3. What traffic features do you like in your neighborhood alternatives? 4. Do you have any specific comments about the alternatives? Please use the back of this fonn if you need more space. Thank you for completing this questionnaire. Please return this fonn to the "Return Survey" box in this room or mail your completed fonn to Jeff Oliver, Golden Valley Public Works Department, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427.