The URL can be used to link to this page

01-21-20 City Council Agenda REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order A. Naturalization Recognition Pages B. Pledge of Allegiance C. Roll Call D. Representative Winkler will be in attendance E. Resolution Affirming Commitment to Quad Cities Beyond The Yellow Ribbon 20-04 3-4 2. Additions and Corrections to Agenda 3. Consent Agenda Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no discussion of these items unless a Council Member so requests in which event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. A. Approval of Minutes: 1. Council/Manager Meeting – December 10, 2019 5-6 B. Approval of City Check Register 7 C. Licenses: 1. Approve License Agreement with Golden Valley Orchestra 8-13 D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. Planning Commission – December 9, 2019 14-20 2. Human Services Commission – November 11, 2019 21-22 E. Approval of Bids and Quotes: 1. Approve Purchase of an Armored Patrol and Response Van 23-25 2. Approve Purchase of Backhoe Loader 26-31 3. Approve Purchase of Core Aerator for turf maintenance at Brookview Golf Course 32 F. Acceptance of Grants and Donations: 1. Acceptance of Grant and Donation for Scoreboards for Isaacson Park Ballfields 20-05 33-34 2. Acceptance of Donation of Winter Disc Golf Tee Pads for Brookview Golf Course 20-06 35-36 G. Approve 2020 Appointments, Assignments and Reimbursements 20-07 and 20-08 37-41 H. Approve 2020 Legislative Priorities 42-93 I. Authorize Agreement with Breck School for Community Service Officer 74-77 J. Approve Legal Services Agreement with Zimmerman Reed 78-79 K. Approve Policy for the Design, Installation, Maintenance, and Enforcement of Grease Removal Devices 80-83 January 21, 2020 – Immediately following HRA meeting Council Chambers Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting January 21, 2020 – 6:30 pm 2 4. Public Hearing A. Public Hearing on Proposed Improvements for the 2020 Pavement Management Program, Project No 20-01 20-09 84-128 5. Old Business 6. New Business All Ordinances listed under this heading are eligible for public input. A. Receive and File Downtown Study Phase II Interim Report 129-233 B. Review of Council Calendar C. Mayor and Council Communications 1. Other Committee/Meeting updates 7. Adjournment Golden Valley City Council Meeting January 21, 2020 Agenda Item 1. E. Resolution Affirming Commitment to Quad Cities Beyond The Yellow Ribbon Prepared By Tomas Romano, Assistant to the City Manager’s Office Summary In 2014, the cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope and Robbinsdale united to form the Quad Cities Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Initiative. The attached resolution affirms the City’s continued support for the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon initiative. Financial Or Budget Considerations N/A Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution affirming commitment to Quad Cities Beyond The Yellow Ribbon initiative. Supporting Documents Resolution affirming commitment to Quad Cities Beyond The Yellow Ribbon initiative (1 page) RESOLUTION NO. 20-04 RESOLUTION AFFIRMING COMMITMENT TO QUAD CITIES BEYOND THE YELLOW RIBBON WHEREAS, in 2014, the cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope and Robbinsdale united to form the Quad Cities Beyond the Yellow Ribbon initiative; and WHEREAS, a Yellow Ribbon community unites key areas within a community to create a network that connects organizations, resources, and employers to meet the needs of local service members, veterans and military families in Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the outward showing of support enables successful transitions for those affected by military deployments and builds a stronger, more compassionate community; and WHEREAS, the Golden Valley City Council continues to support the Quad Cities Beyond the Yellow Ribbon initiative and agrees to be an ongoing active participant to help the Quad Cities maintain the Yellow Ribbon Community official designation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council for the City of Golden Valley agrees to affirm our support for and to continue to actively participate in the Quad Cities Beyond the Yellow Ribbon initiative along with the cities of Crystal, New Hope and Robbinsdale. Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 21st day of January, 2020. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk REGULAR MEETING MINUTES The meeting began at 6:30 pm in the Council Conference Room. Present: Mayor Harris and Council Members; Rosenquist, Schmidgall, Clausen and Fonnest. Staff present: City Manager Cruikshank, Human Resources Director Santelices, Physical Development Director Nevinski, and Planning Manager Zimmerman. 1. Downtown Study Update Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report on the Downtown Study Update including the different phases of the study and their implementation timeline. Staff from the City’s contractor Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. (HKGi) provided a summary of their work so far, focusing on the potential for future downtown changes and the foundations for development of new projects in the downtown area: including the potential for development on both residential and commercial projects. HKGi staff identified prospective walking and biking connections, identified in the online survey and the community open house. Some of the recurring takeaways included the complications of crossing and biking across HWY 5 and Winnetka Avenue. The Council discussed opportunities for collaborating with Hennepin County to renovate and upgrade the downtown Library. The Council also discussed the four quadrants surrounding Winnetka Avenue and Golden Valley Road, in particular the North West quadrant as an option for redevelopment, reinvestment and placemaking in the downtown core. 2. Highway 55 BRT Discussion Physical Development Director Nevinski presented the staff report including a timeline of studies completed by the Metropolitan Council, MNDoT and Scott County in relation to HWY 55’s potential to develop as a Bus Rapid Transit Corridor. Nevinski elaborated on a series of steps identified by Hennepin County, the Metropolitan County and neighboring cities, as necessary to advance the development of BRT on HWY 55. Mainly, additional analysis of the corridor to develop a proof concept, which could provide regional funding to run pilot bus routes to evaluate ridership demand. The Council discussed the possibility of enacting a resolution supporting BRT on HWY 55 as well as the financial implications that come with such participation of further analysis of the corridor. December 10, 2019 – 6:30 pm Council Conference Room Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road 2 City of Golden Valley City Council/Manager Regular Meeting Minutes December 10, 2019 – 6:30 pm 3. Employee Handbook Updates Discussion Human Resources Director Santelices presented her report. She explained changes reflected on the employee handbook in order to comply with all state and federal regulations. Some of the changes include expanding the City’s Tobacco, Drug and Alcohol Policy to reflect new federal regulations - The Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse (required for City’s CDL drivers). Updating the City’s time tracking procedures for employees (transitioning from paper timesheets to electronic time keeping). Creating a new section of the handbook called “Employee Travel” (and remove Employee Travel from the Expenses Policy section) which describes in detail the circumstances under which employees may travel for business purposes and the reasonable use of expenses for travel. The Council asked about recurrence of trips for staff, and out of state conferences approval. City staff defines a budget every year and allows for travel according to the approval of the supervisor, Human Resources Director, and City Manager. 4. Council Review of Future Draft Agendas: City Council December 17, 2019 City Council January 7 and Council/Manager January 14, 2020 No changes were submitted for future drafts agendas. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 pm. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Tomas Romano, Assistant to the City Manager’s Office Golden Valley City Council Meeting January 21, 2020 Agenda Item 3. B. Approval of City Check Register Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Approval of the check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley. Financial Or Budget Considerations The check register has a general ledger code as to where the claim is charged. At the end of the register is a total amount paid by fund. Recommended Action Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. Supporting Documents Document is located on city website at the following location: http://weblink.ci.golden-valley.mn.us/WebLink/browse.aspx?id=717279&dbid=2&repo=GoldenValley The check register for approval: o 01/10/20 Check Register Golden Valley City Council Meeting January 21, 2020 Agenda Item 3. C. 1. Approve License Agreement with Golden Valley Orchestra Prepared By Greg Simmons, Recreation and Facilities Supervisor Rick Birno, Parks & Recreation Director Summary The Golden Valley Orchestra has been a regular tenant at Brookview for many years. Staff has worked with representatives of the Golden Valley Orchestra to develop a space for performance license agreement for scheduled use of the Bassett Creek Room at Brookview. The new agreement is attached to this summary and has been reviewed by the City Attorney. Financial Or Budget Considerations Not applicable Recommended Action Motion to authorize City Manager to sign license agreement with the Golden Valley Orchestra. Supporting Documents 2020 Golden Valley Orchestra License Agreement (5 pages) Page 1 of 5 SECOND AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY & THE GOLDEN VALLEY ORCHESTRA THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY & THE GOLDEN VALLEY ORCHESTRA (“Second Amendment”) is made effective as of January 21, 2020 (the “Amendment Effective Date”) by and between the City of Golden Valley (“Licensor”) and the Golden Valley Orchestra Licensee”), a Minnesota nonprofit corporation. RECITALS WHEREAS, Licensor and Licensee are parties to a License Agreement, dated January 1st, 2018 and amended as of May 7, 2019 (the “License”). WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend the License as provided herein. WHEREAS, upon the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and Licensee, the terms of the License may be modified. WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the License as set forth below. AGREEMENT The parties agree to amend the License as follows, effective as of the Amendment Effective Date: 1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated herein by reference. Any capitalized terms used herein but not defined have the same meaning as that ascribed to them in the License. 2. Extension of Term. The term of the License shall be extended and the License shall continue in effect until December 31, 2020. 3. Exhibits. Exhibits B and C are replaced in their entirety with the attached Exhibits B and C. 4. Licensee’s Use of Storage & Personal Property. The first sentence of Section 6 of the Agreement is replaced in its entirety with the following: Licensor shall provide storage space (the “Storage Space”) for limited equipment belonging to Licensee, including two (2) tympani, two (2) single file cabinets and a single conductor’s podium (the “Stored Equipment”). Page 2 of 5 5. Ratification. Except as specifically provided in this Second Amendment, each and every provision of the License, as amended through the date hereof, remains, and is, in all respects, in full force and effect. 6. Counterparts. This Second Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, including facsimile and .pdf, each of which constitutes an original and all of which, collectively, constitute one and the same instrument. The signatures of the parties need not appear on the same counterpart. 7. Miscellaneous. (i) The provisions hereof are binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and assigns; and (ii) this Second Amendment and the License constitute the entire understanding between the parties in respect to the subject matter hereof. INTENDING TO BE LEGALLY BOUND HEREBY, the parties have executed this Second Amendment as evidenced by the signatures of their authorized representatives below. Signed: Golden Valley Orchestra, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation By: __________________________________ Print Name: ___________________________ Title:_________________________________ Signed: City of Golden Valley, a Minnesota municipal corporation By ________________________________ Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager Page 3 of 5 EXHIBIT B List of Rehearsal Dates and Board Meetings Date Start Time End Time Purpose 1/6/2020 6:00 PM 7:00 PM Board Meeting 1/6/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 1/13/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 1/20/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 1/27/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 2/3/2020 6:00 PM 7:00 PM Board Meeting 2/3/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 2/10/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 2/17/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 2/24/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 3/2/2020 6:00 PM 7:00 PM Board Meeting 3/2/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 3/9/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 3/16/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 3/23/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 3/30/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 4/6/2020 6:00 PM 7:00 PM Board Meeting 4/6/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 4/13/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 4/20/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 4/27/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 5/4/2020 6:00 PM 7:00 PM Board Meeting 5/4/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 5/11/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 5/18/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 5/30/2020 9:00 AM 12:00 PM Rehearsal 6/8/2020 6:00 PM 7:00 PM Board Meeting 7/6/2020 6:00 PM 7:00 PM Board Meeting 8/17/2020 6:00 PM 7:00 PM Board Meeting 9/14/2020 6:00 PM 7:00 PM Board Meeting 9/14/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 9/21/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 9/28/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 10/5/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 10/12/2020 6:00 PM 7:00 PM Board Meeting 10/12/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 10/19/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal Page 4 of 5 10/26/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 11/2/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 11/9/2020 6:00 PM 7:00 PM Board Meeting 11/9/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 11/16/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 11/21/2020 9:00 AM 12:00 PM Rehearsal 11/30/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 12/7/2020 6:00 PM 7:00 PM Board Meeting 12/7/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 12/14/2020 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT C Agreed Services Thursday, April, 30, 2020; 5:15-6:15 PM Brookview – Commission Dinner Monday, June 1, 2020; 7:00-8:00 PM Brookview Park - Concert in the Park Sunday, November 22, 2020; 4:00-5:00 PM Brookview – Teddy Bear Concert Monday, December 7, 2020; 12:45 PM-1:15 PM Brookview – Holiday Tea 7800 Golden Valley Road I Golden Valley, MN 55427 city 0J 763-593-3992 1 TTY 763-593-3968 1 763-593-8109 (fax) I www.goldenvalleymn.gov goldcnllvae PlanningCommissionY December 9, 2019 — 7 pm Council Chambers REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Chair Blum. Roll Call Commissioners present: Rich Baker, Ron Blum, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl, Ari Prohofsky, Ryan Sadeghi, and Chuck Segelbaum Commissioners absent: Adam Brookins Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Planner Myles Campbell Council Liaison present: Steve Schmidgall Approval of Agenda MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Baker, to approve the agenda of December 9, 2019, as submitted and the motion carried unanimously. Approval of Minutes MOTION made by Pockl, seconded by Johnson, to approve the November 25, 2019, minutes as submitted and the motion carried 5-0 with Commissioner Segelbaum abstaining. Public Hearing — CUP Amendment Applicant: Home Health Care Plus, Inc. Address: 800 Boone Avenue North Purpose: To modify an existing condition that limits the use of Boone Ave for loading, unloading, and parking of buses and vans Zimmerman introduced the request which involved revising an existing condition on Conditional Use Permit No. 119 for an adult day care at 800 Boone Ave N. He stated that a condition was added at the end of 2018 that prohibited the adult day care business from loading, unloading, and parking vans or buses on Boone Avenue. In September of 2019, the business was observed to be in violation of this condition. Staff sent a notice and was contacted by the operator who stated that they had never been informed of the condition and needed to utilize Boone Avenue for their clients for loading and unloading. Staff indicated that the only way to do that was to apply for a CUP amendment to remove or modify the condition. Zimmerman reminded the Commissioners that loading, unloading, and parking of vans and buses on Boone Avenue had been restricted on the west side of the road due to safety concerns around visibility while exiting driveways, but that the Commission had decided to restrict all activity on both sides of the street and require it to be conducted entirely on -site. He highlighted the way the site was being used by This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763- 593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. 9 City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 9, 2019 — 7:00 pm the adult day care, with approximately 175 clients using the west (front) entrance over roughly 65 trips in an average day. Some additional trips are taken via a southeast entrance to the building within the parking lot. He noted that bike lanes are being planned for Boone Avenue in 2020, likely requiring parking restrictions along the street regardless of any conditions associated with the CUP. Zimmerman highlighted the concerns the applicant had raised with moving activity off of Boone Avenue to the southeast entrance, which included: a lack of accessible accommodations at that entrance, the entrance being smaller in size, and the resulting longer trip through the building for clients. He noted that two options has been proposed by the applicant as potential ways to accommodate continuing to use Boone Avenue, including bumping in the east curb line to create a dedicated loading area or constructing a horseshoe drive that would bring clients closer to the front door. He demonstrated the various distances clients would need to walk to access the building under various scenarios. Zimmerman pointed out that there are a conforming number of parking spaces within the existing parking lot to meet the zoning code, and that front yard restrictions prohibit parking or drive aisles within the front yard setback without a variance. He stated the Engineering staff had concerns about traffic conflicts, queueing, the amount of impervious surfaces, and maintenance under either of the potential solutions proposed by the applicant. Zimmerman reviewed the findings necessary to approve a CUP and stated that staff did not feel three of them had been met and therefore was recommending denial. Baker asked if the parking analysis took into account the other businesses in the building. Zimmerman said that the calculations were based on the square footage requirements listed in the zoning code. Johnson asked if the property owner should be the applicant rather than the business operator. Zimmerman replied the owner signed the application, but that the business operator was the one who was asking for the modification to the condition. Johnson then asked about the number of clients that are being served. Zimmerman replied that they are allowed to have as many as the MN Department of Human Services allows, which in this case is up to 300. Johnson then asked if this was the property where vegetation was removed along Bassett Creek without a permit. Zimmerman said that it was but that the property owner had worked with the City to prepare a plan to reestablish vegetation beginning in the spring. Segelbaum asked for clarification about how parking spaces are assigned to various users of a property. Zimmerman explained that staff evaluates if there are enough spaces to meet code, but does not delve into the details of which users occupies which spaces. Segelbaum asked if there had been any discussions about adding pervious surfaces to offset the impact of paving a portion of the front yard. Zimmerman said no, but that it would likely be a condition of approval of any variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Sadeghi asked if staff were aware of the actual percentage of the site that was impervious. Zimmerman said that amount had not been provided. Pockl asked if parking along Boone Avenue would be prohibited if bike lanes were installed. Zimmerman replied that it would be likely if the project moved forward, but that making that decision would not City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 3 December 9, 2019 — 7:00 pm happen until outreach occurred in the late spring of 2020. Baker asked if there were other recent situations in which decisions were made in part based on future bike lane installations. Zimmerman replied that it was discussed with respect to a recent action by Borton Volvo, but ultimately it did not play a role in the site plan approval. Blum asked if there had previously been a revocation of the CUP. Zimmerman explained that the City Council had voted to revoke the CUP if no agreement could be reached regarding changes to the approved conditions, but that the Planning Commission worked with the property owner and did agree on new permit language so the revocation never took effect. Baker questioned how the business operator could not have been aware of the restrictions in the CUP. Zimmerman indicated that the property owner was aware of the conditions, but that it was up to them to share the conditions with the tenants of the building. Christine Eid, attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Planning Commission along with Innessa Marinov, applicant, and Randy Engel, Buetow 2 Architects. They explained there were actually three businesses operating within the building, including a rehabilitation business, and that Home Health Care Plus had been in operation at the location for over 10 years. Eid conveyed that the operator was not aware of the Boone Avenue restrictions and had not been knowingly engaging in a violation. They stated that it would be extremely difficult to have clients travel through the building to reach the adult day care area and that using Boone Avenue was critical. Engel stated that he worked with the property owner to obtain the original CUP and had worked through the recent amendment regarding after hours activities. He agreed that providing access for clients through the building would be very difficult and pointed out that entrances to the southwest and northeast were not accessible entrances. He disputed the staff findings that three of the factors of evaluation for the CUP were found not to be met. He said that there have been no issues with traffic congestion or accidents, that buses do not queue but arrive in a staggered fashion, that landscaping could be added to offset the addition of a paved area in the front yard, and that any flooding could be addressed by adding a drain to the storm sewer. Segelbaum asked who would bear the cost of these proposed changes. Engel said there would need to be an arrangement between the City and the property owner. Engel also claimed that the City had previously granted approval to the owner to utilize Boone Avenue for drop-offs and pick-up and that the introduction of bike lanes was unfairly impacting the business. Johnson asked who is the owner of the property; Engel replied that Pro Partners owns the property. Johnson asked who runs the business; Marinov replied that she operates Health Care Plus. Eid clarified that the property owner was not present. Blum asked if there was any shared interest between the property owner and any of the businesses in the building. Marinov replied that she did not believe so. Sandegi asked if buses park on Boone Avenue. Marinov said no, they only load and unload on Boone. Pockl asked for clarification regarding the unloading of buses. Marinov said the buses arrive every five City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4 December 9, 2019 — 7:00 pm minutes to drop off clients and that there are additional trips out during the day that depart from Boone Avenue. Sandegi asked if the applicant had looked at any interior modifications to provide better access. Engel said no, they did not believe there were any realistic options. Baker asked if the northeast entrance could be utilized. Engel replied that because it leads to a different business it is not possible. Segelbaum stated that is appeared to be less expensive to enhance the southwest entrance or enhance the walk along the west side of the building than to install a new driveway, with or without drainage. Engel reiterated that internal modifications were not possible and apologized for not having a complete floor plan available. Johnson pointed out that using one of the other entrances would get clients indoors more quickly. Engel replied that using the other entrances would require walking through other business areas and would be disruptive and would not really work. Pockl pointed out that the spaces south of the building were off limits to parking for buses. Segelbaum clarified with the applicant that no buses or vans were currently being parked in those spaces. Blum asked Eid if she had background in evaluating the abilities of the elderly in terms of commenting on their ability to travel through the interior of the building. She replied no. Blum asked Engel if he had engineering expertise in order to evaluate the drainage situation in the front yard of the property. He replied that he did not but that he has experience looking at similar situations. Eid added that denial of a CUP must be based on facts and that the City would need to provide an analysis if they were recommending denial based on those assertions. Blum asked Marinov to clarify the ownership structure of each of the businesses within the building and the owner of the property and building as well. Blum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to comment, Blum closed the public hearing. Segelbaum asked if all of the factors of the CUP evaluation needed to be met in order to recommend approval. Blum stated that he believed that was the case and Zimmerman agreed. Segelbaum stated that he believed the factor dealing with visual impact had failed to be resolved by the applicant. Baker pointed out that the owner of the building would need to undertake any modifications to the property and without the owner present he did not feel an evaluation could adequately be carried out. Segelbaum stated that given the miscommunication surrounding the last permit amendment, it appeared to be important to have both the owner and the operator present. Johnson agreed, and added that a full evaluation of the costs of all of the various options would be worthwhile. Baker recommended the agenda item be continued in order to allow the property owner to attend a future meeting and discuss all of the options before making a decision. Segelbaum agreed. MOTION made by Baker, seconded by Segelbaum, to continue the agenda item to the January 13, 2020, Planning Commission meeting and the motion carried unanimously. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 9, 2019 — 7:00 pm Discussion — Narrow Lots Zimmerman reminded Commissioners about the process and goals of examining the City's regulation around narrow lot residential homes. The previous meetings discussed setbacks, height, massing, tree removal, and stormwater management and also a panel of realtors to discuss the current housing market. Zimmerman explained that tonight's discussion would include presentations by architects and builders with experience designing for homes on narrow lots. Discussion would also cover lot coverage, site design, and solar access. He noted that a public forum would be held on January 16 to gather input from residents. Zimmerman introduced the architecture/builder discussion. He noted that staff submitted some preliminary questions to representatives from design -build firms to get the conversation started. He then introduced Gary Aulik and Charlie Peterson from Aulik Design Group and Doug Cutting from Greenwood Design Build. Aulik spoke first and acknowledged that a balance that needs to be struck when building on smaller lots, and that there are a wide range of issues that a City Council must try to balance. But in his opinion Golden Valley has been doing a good job of creating rules that address these issues. He said the tent - shaped building envelope, along with setbacks, is a good tool to address the concerns over how close a new home is to the adjacent structure and how massing is controlled. Aulik talked about the efforts Minneapolis made a few years ago to address similar issues and how the results were not quite what was intended. He provided some drawings that demonstrated different ways to construct homes on narrow lots that resulted in various massing configurations, and offered some thoughts on the impact of regulations on the aesthetics of the homes. In his opinion, it is easy to design homes that fit on the lot but are not especially attractive, but with some slight adjustments and with the addition of some incentives, more visually interesting homes could be encouraged. One way this could be addressed is by encouraging designers to lower the height at which the tent -shape tips inwards in exchange for offering the ability for dormers to be constructed across a percentage of the length of the home. This would reduce the impact of wall height on neighboring properties and provide the opportunity to gain some second floor living space, while at the same time breaking up the massing and providing more visually interesting buildings. He admitted the costs of construction for this type of design would be a bit higher. Johnson asked about the usefulness of split-level homes. Aulik replied that finished space below grade is often discounted by lenders and so it is hard to get financing. Because of the way comps are calculated, it is easier to build "up" instead of making use of a basement. Cutting commented that constructing split- level homes does not add much value to a lot compared to other options. He pointed out that designing a one -level home means the lot needs to be fairly deep, and that the option of building "up" is more attractive to buyers. Blum asked for clarification around the height of the dormers that might be allowed under an incentivized scenario. Baker noted that in the conversation with realtors that there was a weak market for one -level homes. He also pointed out that much of the concern around narrow lots is the amount of City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 9, 2019 — 7:00 pm shading that results from new construction. Aulik pointed out that flat roofs on garages also can help reduce massing impacts. In closing, he asserted that encouraging good design should be a high priority because it will result in increased values and more attractive neighborhoods. Peterson commented on the issue of dividing tax parcels and suggested that the use of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) could be one way to incentivize keeping lots combined while adding value for a new property owner. Cutting pointed out that the articulation requirement leads to more interesting house designs, but because bumping out into the setback area has limitations, it hampers the usefulness of that space to the homeowner. Aulik added that limiting building width to 28 feet on a 40 foot lot leads to garage dominated fagades. Cutting pointed out that a 22 foot wide garage leaves only 6 feet for an entry. Segelbaum asked if the presenters believed that the market was softer for 40 foot lots. Cutting stated that one of his concerns were lots with an alley. Putting a garage at the rear of the lot eats up the back yard with structures and driveway, leaving little yard space for the property owner. Segelbaum asked if, with all of the challenges, it works financially to divide tax parcels and build on 40 foot lots. The presenters answered that it does, but it is better if the regulations allow for more interesting homes to be designed with good floor plans and that a 30 foot wide building envelope is much better. Cutting added that leaving the lots combined makes it very hard to attract the investment needed to improve a home. Baker summarized by saying that as much as neighbors may want combined lots to stay combined, the financial incentives aren't there and therefore addressing regulations to produce the most attractive and well -designed homes possible might be the priority. Segelbaum clarified that one option would be to create regulations that discourage homes from being built on 40 foot lots. Blum asked about side -loaded garages and if they were a possibility on narrow lots. It was pointed out that it was challenging on 40 foot lots due to the limited lot width and impervious limits. Aulik wondered if shared driveways might help address this issue. Blum asked if a garage could be placed under the structure, regardless of the entry point. Cutting described challenges with the slope typically needed to access an underground garage. Zimmerman then reviewed the lot coverage and impervious limit regulations in Golden Valley and compared them to other peer cities. He noted that for the smallest lots up to 40% of the lot can be covered by buildings or structures. Up to 50% of the lot can be covered by impervious surfaces — this includes driveways, walks, patios, and swimming pools. Many other nearby cities allow similar amounts. He acknowledged the previous discussion touched on site design, but pointed out that the R-2 zoning requirements do not require a two stall garage and therefore do not have the same facade implications as narrow R-1 lots. Finally, he reiterated that the best way to regulate access to sunlight is to manage the massing, height, and setbacks of homes. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 9, 2019 — 7:00 pm N Discussion — Tobacco Sales MOTION made by Baker, seconded by Pockl, and the motion carried unanimously to postpone discussion to the January 13, 2020, Planning Commission meeting. Short Recess -- Council Liaison Report No Council Liaison Report was made. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, and other meetings No other reports were discussed. Other Business No other business was discussed. Adjournment MOTION made by Baker, seconded by Johnson, and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 pm. Adam Brookins, Secretary Zimnyer'Nan, Planning Manager REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:05 pm by Aaron Black, Chair. Roll Call Commissioners present: Denise La Mere –Anderson, Aaron Black, Jonas Courneya, Stephanie Devitt and Sophia Vento Commissioners absent: Hilmer Erickson, Katie Hart, Toots Vodovoz Staff present: Brian Erickson, Staff Liaison Approval of Minutes MOTION by La Mere Anderson, Jonas Courneya 2nd Agenda Item 1. Old Business A. Budget - Black reviewed and updated the commission. He noted that the budget looks good and pull tab revenue is projected to exceed budget. B. Allocation decisions - La Mere –Anderson reviewed the allocation decisions that we made at the October meeting. Black asked the commission if they would like to use some of the money in the reserves and all members voted yes. After that was determined, that commission reviewed the remaining allocations and agreed to a final funding request. 2. New Business A. Council Presentation, Tuesday, December 3, 2019 – Staff Liaison, Erickson, reminded the commission of the allocation recommendation will be presented to City of Golden Valley City Council on Tuesday, December 3, 2019. All members were encouraged to attend. B. Run The Valley Fees 2020 – Commission reviewed the fees from 2019 and decided to keep them the same for 2020. They are: $35 By March 15, $40 March 16-April 17 (by 2 pm), 45 Day of Race. $25 for Walk and $5 for Kids Fun Run. La Mere – Anderson suggested coming up with a different kind of bib number for the Kids Fun Run. Liaison, Erickson, said he would work on this. November 11th, 2019 6:45 pm Rice Lake Conference Room Brookview Golden Valley 316 Brookview Parkway S City of Golden Valley Human Services Commission Regular Meeting Minutes November 11 - 2019 2 C. 2020 Meeting Dates: Staff Liaison, Erickson, distributed proposed meeting dates for 2020. After some discussion, dates were unanimously approved. Adjourn MOTION by Black at 8:10 pm, Devitt 2nd Aaron Black, Chair Brian Erickson, Staff Liaison Golden Valley City Council Meeting January 21, 2020 Agenda Item 3. E. 1. Approve Purchase of an Armored Patrol and Response Van Prepared By Jason Sturgis, Police Chief Tim Kieffer, Public Works Director Marshall Beugen, Street and Vehicle Maintenance Supervisor Summary Unit 812, a 1988 Ford L7000 S.W.A.T. vehicle, has reached its useful life cycle and is scheduled to be replaced. Staff evaluate vehicles and equipment on an annual basis to determine replacement programing. The current vehicle meets replacement criteria set forth in the City’s vehicle replacement policy and Vehicle Condition Index (VCI). The VCI index is a tool utilized to assess all vehicles and equipment scheduled for replacement and any vehicle/equipment scoring 28 points and above meets the category of “needs immediate consideration.” The existing vehicle due for replacement scored 49 points. The vehicle is used to store and transport equipment, supplies, and personnel during high-risk incidents and training exercises. The vehicle may be used in the future as a mobile command unit when the current vehicle, shared with St. Louis Park, is decommissioned. Financial Or Budget Considerations The 2020 Vehicles and Equipment Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes $150,000 for the purchase of the S.W.A.T van (V&E-148). Staff recommend purchasing the equipment from the U. S. General Services Administration (GSA) cooperative purchasing program (CPP). The GSA has awarded contract GS-07F-9375S through the CPP. Under Minnesota Statutes Section 471.345, the City may contract to sell supplies, materials, and equipment which is surplus, obsolete, or unused using an electronic selling process in which purchasers compete to purchase the surplus supplies, materials, or equipment at the highest purchase price in an open and interactive environment. Staff recommend using this process to dispose of the existing vehicle. City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary City of Golden Valley January 21, 2020 2 Recommended Action Motion to approve purchase of a 2020 Armored Ford T-350 Transit from The Armored Group, LLC. in the amount of $148,485.00. Motion to approve contracting the auction sale of Unit 812. Supporting Documents The Armored Group, LLC. Quote (1 page) 2727 S.Beech Daly Rd Dearborn Heights,MI 48125 CONTACT:Jeremy Johnson Phone:817-332-4646 Cell:817-291-4956 Email:jeremy@armoredcars.com GSA Line Items Armored Ford Transit T350 High Roof Extended Length Tactical Package B6/NIJ III $174,375.00 Total GSA Pricing $174,375.00 Additional Discount offered by TAG 28,390.00$ Official GSA Quoting Price Per Unit 145,985.00$ Qty:1 Armored Ford Transit T350 High Roof Extended Length Tactical Package B6/NIJ III 145,985.00$ Open Market:Freight for Armored Ford Transit 2,500.00$ Total 148,485.00$ Jeremy Johnson Global Fleet Manager Mayor Authorized Signature The Armored Group,LLC Please add our GSA Contract GS-07F-9375S to PO when issued TOTALS City Manager Authorized Signature Golden Valley City Council Meeting January 21, 2020 Agenda Item 3. E. 2. Approve Purchase of a Backhoe Loader Prepared By Tim Kieffer, Public Works Director Marshall Beugen, Street and Vehicle Maintenance Supervisor Summary Unit 675, a 2004 Caterpillar 430D Backhoe Loader, has reached its useful life cycle and is scheduled to be replaced. Staff evaluate vehicles and equipment on an annual basis to determine replacement programing. The backhoe meets replacement criteria set forth in the City’s vehicle replacement policy and Vehicle Condition Index (VCI). The VCI index is a tool utilized to assess all vehicles and equipment scheduled for replacement and any vehicle/equipment scoring 28 points and above meets the category of “needs immediate consideration.” The existing backhoe due for replacement scored 50 points. The backhoe loader is used during excavations to repair water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer infrastructure. In addition to digging, staff utilize the jack hammer attachment to break up asphalt, concrete, and frozen ground. It is also used to plow the City Hall main campus during large snow events. Financial Or Budget Considerations Staff recommend purchasing the equipment from the state contract through the State of Minnesota’s cooperative purchasing venture (CPV). The Minnesota Materials Management Division has awarded contract number 167756 through the CPV. The 2020 Water & Sanitary Sewer Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes $160,000 for the purchase of the backhoe (W&SS-070). Under Minnesota Statutes Section 471.345, the City may dispose of retired equipment by trading it in. Ziegler Cat has offered $25,000 trade-in value for Unit 675. Staff believe this is a fair offer compared to current sales. The total cost for the new backhoe, attachments, and warranty is $184,619.36. The total remittance to vendor with the $25,000 trade-in is $159,619.36. Recommended Action Motion to approve purchase of a 2020 Caterpillar 440 Backhoe Loader from Ziegler Cat in the amount of $159,619.36. City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary City of Golden Valley January 21, 2020 2 Motion to approve trade-in of Unit 675 to Ziegler Cat in the amount of $25,000. Supporting Documents Ziegler Cat Quote (4 pages) Ziegler Inc. Page 1 of 4 169909-01 December 4, 2019 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 7800 GOLDEN VALLEY RD GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota 55427-4508 Dear Marshall Beugen, We would like to thank you for your interest in our company and our products, and are pleased to quote the following for your consideration. Caterpillar Model: 440 Backhoe Loader MN State Contract for Backhoe Loaders Contract #: 167756 Release#: T-622(5) We wish to thank you for the opportunity of quoting on your equipment needs. This quotation is valid for 30 days, after which time we reserve the right to re-quote. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Dillon Kelly Territory Manager Ziegler Inc. Page 2 of 4 Caterpillar Model: 440 Backhoe Loader Standard Equipment CONSIST NOTE THIS LISTING IS A GENERAL DESCRIPTION THE LOWEST CHARGE ITEMS. OF A 440 BACKHOE LOADER EQUIPPED WITH BOOMS, STICKS, AND LINKAGES 15' Center pivot excavator style (Boom, Stick and E-Stick) backhoe Cat Cushion Swing(tm) system Electrohydraulic operated hydraulic Bucket level indicator controls with pattern changer valve Lift cylinder brace Electrohydraulic operated stabilizer Return-to-dig (auto bucket positioner) controls Self-leveling loader with single lever Boom transport lock control Swing transport lock Transmission neutralizer switch Street pads stabilizer shoes Single Tilt Loader Anti-drift hydraulics POWERTRAIN Cat C4.4, 86kW (Net 104HP/78kW) disk brake with dual pedals & interlock Direct Injection Turbo Charged Engine, Differential lock with ACERT technology. Spring Applied Hydraulic Release (SAHR) US EPA Tier4 Final Emissions Compliant brake with Selective Catalytic Reduction(SCR) High Ambient Cooling Package Water separator with service indicator Torque converter Thermal starting aid system Autoshift transmission with 6 forward Eco mode and 3 reverse gears & neutral safety A dry-type axial seal air cleaner with switch integral precleaner, automatic dust Spin-on fuel, engine oil & transmission ejection system & filter condition oil filters indicator Outboard planetary rear axles Hydraulically boosted multi-plate wet Open Circuit Breather HYDRAULICS Load sensing, variable flow system Hydraulic oil cooler with 55 gpm axial piston pump Pilot control shutoff switch 6 micron hydraulic filter PPPC, Open Center with Flow Summation O-ring face seal hydraulic fittings Hydraulic suction strainer Caterpillar XT-3 hose ELECTRICAL 12 volt electrical start Key start/stop system 150 ampere alternator 1.000 CCA maintenance free battery Horn and Backup Alarm Battery disconnect switch Hazard flashers/turn signals External/internal power receptacles(12v) Halogen head lights (4) Diagnostic ports for engine and machine Halogen rear flood lights (4) Electronic Control Modules Stop and tail lights Remote jump start connector Audible system fault alarm OPERATOR ENVIRONMENT Lighted gauge group Hand and foot throttle Interior rearview mirror Automatic Engine Speed Control ROPS canopy, Rear Fenders One Touch Low Idle 2-inch retractable seat belt Floor mat and Coat Strap Tilt steering column Lockable storage area Steering knob Air suspension seat OTHER STANDARD EQUIPMENT Ziegler Inc. Page 3 of 4 Hydrostatic power steering CD-ROM Parts Manual Standard Storage Box Backhoe Safety Manual Transport tie-downs Operations and Maintenance Manual Ground line fill fuel tank with 44 Lockable hood gallon capacity Tire Valve Stem Protection Ground line fill diesel exhaust fluid Long Life Coolant -30C (-20F) tank with 5 gallon capacity Counterweight 500kg/1102lbs Rubber impact strips on radiator guards Padlocks Qty 2 Bumper MACHINE SPECIFICATIONS REF # DESCRIPTION LIST PRICE 506-3397 440-07A BACKHOE LOADER $126,410 0P-9003 LANE 3 ORDER $0 506-3426 STICK, EXTENDABLE, 15' $5,010 506-3406 POWERTRAIN, 4WD, AUTOSHIFT $13,330 518-9096 PRODUCT LINK, CELLULAR PL641 $0 506-3417 CAB, DELUXE $10,740 558-9623 SEAT, DELUXE FABRIC $925 491-6734 WORKLIGHTS (8) HALOGEN LAMPS $0 206-1747 BELT, SEAT, 2'' SUSPENSION $0 533-0488 TIRES, 340 80-18/500 70-24, MX $1,645 488-2944 STABILIZER PADS, FLIP-OVER $336 488-2908 INSTRUCTIONS, ANSI $0 421-8926 SERIALIZED TECHNICAL MEDIA KIT $0 506-3404 RIDE CONTROL $1,490 506-3430 LINES, AUX COMBO,EXT STICK 15' $3,500 540-2298 RADIO, FM BLUETOOTH $550 506-3449 COLD WEATHER PACKAGE, 120V HRC $780 0P-0210 PACK, DOMESTIC TRUCK $0 461-6839 SHIPPING/STORAGE PROTECTION $203 462-1033 RUST PREVENTATIVE APPLICATOR $108 0G-3280 PACK, MISCELLANEOUS MATERIAL $0 506-3415 HYDRAULICS, QC, 6FCN/8BNK $7,180 506-3434 LINES, HYD COUPLER 16' E-STICK $2,408 318-9902 PINS, SPARE $175 502-1117 BUCKET-GP, 1.75 YD3, IT, BOCE $5,765 WORK TOOLS 485-5303 – COUPLER, PG, HYD. D. LOCK, BHL-F $4,083 561-2555 – HAMMER, H95S $27,639 394-4922 – BRACKET, BHL 45-50MM, XL $1,065 399-6962 – LINES, H80, BHL-F $417 ADDITIONAL TOOLS 152-5342 – KIT, UNIVERSAL AUTO LUBE FOR HAMMER $2,476 AUTO LUBE INSTALL FOR HAMMER $1,150 RAVELING 24” FBSC BUCKET $2,900 SNOW WOLF IT ALPHA REVERSIBLE SNOW PLOW $13,700 Ziegler Inc. Page 4 of 4 SELL PRICE $180,555.00 LESS: MN STATE CONTRACT DISCOUNT @30.40% ($54,888.72) ADD: WORKTOOLS $33,204.00 LESS: MN STATE CONTRACT DISCOUNT @23% ($7,636.92) ADD: LABOR TO INSTALL WT @ 138/HOUR $1,840.00 ADD: ADDITIONAL TOOLS $20,226.00 ADD: 84 MONTH/3,000 HOUR PREMIER WARRANTY $11,320.00 SUBTOTAL $184,619.36 LESS: TRADE S/N: BNK04468 ($25,000.00) BALANCE DUE $159,619.36 TRADE-INS Model Make Serial Number Year Trade Allowance 430D CATERPILLAR (AA) BNK04468 2004 $25,000.00 Traded with Front GP Bucket, No Rear Bucket, H90 Hammer, Rotating Grapple, and Hensley Frost Bucket WARRANTY Extended Warranty: 84 Month/3,000 Hour Premier Full Machine Warranty 200.00 deductible per occurrence after 1st year on Premier warranties. Excludes wear items, tires, cutting edges, lights, brakes, batteries, and non-Cat attachments. F.O.B/TERMS: MINNEAPOLIS Accepted by _________________________________________ on _____________________ Signature Golden Valley City Council Meeting January 21, 2020 Agenda Item 3. E. 3. Approve Purchase of Core Aerator for turf maintenance at Brookview Golf Course Prepared By Mike Ward, Golf Maintenance Manager Rick Birno, Director of Park and Recreation Summary The current golf course core aerator is scheduled for replacement in 2020. Staff is recommending the Toro Procore 648 - model #09200. This recommended purchase will be a transaction through the National IPA State Purchasing Contract # 150841 and MTI Distributing. Financial Or Budget Considerations The 2020 - 2029 Golf Course Capital Improvement Program budget includes $25,000 for the replacement of one core aerator for golf course maintenance. The total expense for the purchase is as follows: Contract No. Item Vendor Amount 159841 Golf Course core aerator MTI Distributing $ 23,403.79 MN State Sales Tax $1,609.01 Purchase Price to City $25,012.80 Recommended Action Motion to approve the purchase of one core aerator from MTI Distributing through the National IPA Contract #150841 for a total purchase price, including Minnesota sales tax, in the amount of 25,012.80. Golden Valley City Council Meeting January 21, 2020 Agenda Item 3. F. 1. Acceptance of Grant and Donation for Scoreboards for Isaacson Park Ballfields Prepared By Rick Birno, Director of Parks & Recreation Summary As adopted in the Donation/Gift Policy, a gift of real or personal property must be accepted by the City Council by resolution and be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Council. A cash donation must be acknowledged and accepted by motion with a simple majority. We have prepared the following resolution detailing the specific donor and their fiscal gift for your consideration. Financial Or Budget Considerations Not applicable Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution accepting the donation and grant for the addition of two scoreboards at Isaacson Park. Supporting Documents Resolution accepting a donation from the Golden Valley Little League Youth Baseball Association and a Grant from the Hennepin County Youth Sports Grant Program for the addition of two scoreboards at Isaacson Park (1 page) RESOLUTION NO. 20-05 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A DONATION FROM THE GOLDEN VALLEY LITTLE LEAGUE YOUTH BASEBALL ASSOCIATION AND A GRANT FROM THE HENNEPIN COUNTY YOUTH SPORTS GRANT PROGRAM FOR THE ADDITION OF TWO SCOREBOARDS AT ISAACSON PARK WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 04-20 on March 16, 2004 which established a policy for the receipt of gifts; and WHEREAS, the Resolution states that a gift of real or personal property must be accepted by the City Council by resolution and be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Council. A cash donation must be acknowledged and accepted by motion with a simple majority. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council accepts the following grants and donations on behalf of its citizens: Golden Valley Little League Youth Baseball Association for the addition of scoreboards on Isaacson ballfield #2 and Isaacson ballfield #3 in the amount of 4,120.00. Hennepin County Youth Sports grant program for the addition of scoreboards on Isaacson ballfield #2 and Isaacson ballfield #3 in the amount of $4,120.00. Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 21st day of January, 2020. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk Golden Valley City Council Meeting January 21, 2020 Agenda Item 3. F. 2. Acceptance of Donation of Winter Disc Golf Tee Pads for Brookview Golf Course Prepared By Rick Birno, Director of Parks & Recreation Summary Golden Valley Community Business Gotta Go Gotta Throw is donating winter disc golf tee pads to Brookview to expand from 18 baskets to 36 baskets for the partnership of hosting the 2020 and 2021 Twin Cities Disc Golf Ice Bowl Tournament. As adopted in the Donation/Gift Policy, a gift of real or personal property must be accepted by the City Council by resolution and be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Council. All donations and grants must be acknowledged and accepted by motion with a simple majority. Financial Or Budget Considerations Not applicable. Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution accepting the donation of 18 winter Disc Golf tee pads for Brookview Golf Course. Supporting Document Resolution accepting a donation of 18 winter Disc Golf tee pads for Brookview Golf Course (1 page) RESOLUTION NO. 20-06 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE DONATION OF 18 WINTER DISC GOLF TEE PADS FOR BROOKVIEW GOLF COURSE WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 04-20 on March 16, 2004, which established a policy for the receipt of gifts; and WHEREAS, the Resolution states that a gift of real or personal property must be accepted by the City Council by resolution and be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Council. A cash donation must be acknowledged and accepted by motion with a simple majority. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council accept the following donations on behalf of its citizens: Golden Valley community business Gotta Go Gotta Throw is donating 18 winter Disc Golf tee pads to Brookview Golf Course for the expansion of the winter recreation amenity. Each tee pad is valued at $100 for a total donation value of $1,800.00. Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 21st day of January, 2020. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk Golden Valley City Council Meeting January 21, 2020 Agenda Item 3. G. Approve 2020 Appointments, Assignments and Reimbursements Prepared By Tomas Romano, Assistant to the City Manager’s Office Summary Each year, the City Council appoints its members and staff to fill several roles required by statute. Additionally, the Council appoints its members to serve as representatives on various Committees and Subcommittees. The Council discussed these appointments at the Council/Manager meeting on January 14, 2020. The proposed appointments are as follows: 1.Acting Mayor. Each year, the Council must appoint an Acting Mayor to fulfill the duties of mayor during the disability or absence of the Mayor. (Minn. Stat. § 412.121.) This duty has historically been rotated. The proposed Acting Mayor for 2020 is Council Member Rosenquist. 2.Assistant Weed Inspector. Under Minnesota Statute, the Mayor acts as the weed inspector for the City. Each year, the City appoints assistant weed inspectors (Minn. Stat. § 18.80, subd. 3) to carry out the duties of weed inspector. Historically, employees of the Fire Department, Parks and Recreation Department and the City Forester have filled this role. The proposed assistant weed inspectors for 2020 are: •Dave Gustafson, Fire/Property Maintenance Specialist •Jake Dashiell, Fire/Property Maintenance Specialist •Al Lundstrom, Park Supervisor •Tim Teynor, Assistant Forester 3.Board and Commission Liaisons. Each year, the Council appoints one Council Member to act as a liaison to each Board and Commission. The Proposed Board and Commission Liaisons for 2020 are as follows: Board or Commission 2020 Council Liaison Board of Zoning Appeals Fonnest Civil Service Commission Rosenquist Environmental Commission Fonnest City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary City of Golden Valley January 21, 2020 2 Human Rights Commission Harris, M. Human Services Commission Sanberg Open Space and Recreation Commission Sanberg Planning Commission Rosenquist 4. Committees and Subcommittees. Each year, the Council assigns Council Members to serve as representatives on various Committees and Subcommittees. These appointments are for a one- year term. (Golden Valley City Code Section 2-43(b).) The proposed committee and subcommittee appointments for 2020 are as follows: Assignment: Appointed Official: Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Campaign Mayor Harris Golden Valley Business Council Council Member Harris (Delegate) Mayor Harris (Alternate) Golden Valley Historical Society Board Council Member Fonnest Highway 55 Bus Rapid Transit Council Member Rosenquist Hopkins School District 270 Caring Youth Committee Council Member Sanberg Hopkins School District 270 Cities Joint Meetings Council Member Rosenquist (Delegate) Mayor Harris (Alternate) Legislative Liaison and Spokesperson Mayor Harris Blue Line Now! Coalition Mayor Harris (Delegate) Council Member Rosenquist (Alternate) Bottineau Light Rail Community Works Steering Committee Council Member Rosenquist (Delegate) Council Member Fonnest (Alternate) METRO Blue Line Extension Corridor Management Committee Mayor Harris (Delegate) Council Member Rosenquist (Alternate) Metro Cities Council Member Fonnest Minneapolis Water Advisory Board Mayor Harris Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications/ CCX Council Member Sanberg Regional Council of Mayors Mayor Harris Robbinsdale School District 281 Government Advisory Committee Council Member Rosenquist Sochacki Park Governance Policy Board Mayor Harris (Delegate) Council Member Fonnest (Delegate) 5. Joint Water Commission and Discover St. Louis Park. Periodically, the City Council appoints representatives to the Golden Valley, Crystal, New Hope Joint Water Commission and the Discover St. Louis Park Board (the Saint Louis Park Visitors and Convention Bureau). Historically, these roles have been filled by the City Manager. The proposed appointments to the JWC and DSLP for 2020 are as follows: Assignment: Appointed Official: Joint Water Commission City Manager Cruikshank Discover St. Louis Park Board City Manager Cruikshank City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary City of Golden Valley January 21, 2020 3 Financial Or Budget Considerations Under City Code, section 2-43, the Mayor and Council are paid $50.00 for each meeting they are directed or designated to attend, up to a maximum of $150.00 per month. Where a delegate and alternate are appointed, the delegate is eligible for payment for all meetings they attend. The alternate is eligible for payment for all meetings they attend that the delegate does not attend. The Ordinance requires the Council to outline the method for approval of meetings by resolution. The attached resolution meets this requirement. Recommended Action Motion to adopt proposed 2020 appointments for Acting Mayor, Board and Commission Liaisons, Assistant Weed Inspector, Committees and Subcommittees, Joint Water Commission and Discover St. Louis Park. Motion to adopt Resolution outlining the method for approval of meetings eligible for reimbursement under City Code § 2-43. Motion to adopt Resolution appointing City Manager as City of Golden Valley Representative on the Golden Valley, Crystal, New Hope Joint Water Commission. Supporting Documents • Resolution for approval of additional assignments and meetings payment attended by the Mayor and Council (1 page) • Resolution appointing City Manager as City of Golden Valley Representative on the Golden Valley, Crystal, New Hope Joint Water Commission (1 page) RESOLUTION NO. 20-07 RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENTS AND MEETINGS PAYMENT ATTENDED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL WHEREAS, each year the City Council assigns Council Members to serve as representatives on various Committees and Subcommittees; and WHEREAS, Golden Valley City Code Section 2-43(b) states “In addition to their salaries, the Mayor and Council shall be paid $50.00 for each meeting they are directed or designated to attend, up to a maximum of $150.00 per month. The method for approval of meetings shall be outlined by resolution of the Council”; and WHEREAS, at the January 21, 2020, City Council meeting, the Council approved assignments to the following meetings: Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Campaign • Regional Council of Mayors Golden Valley Business Council • Metro Cities Golden Valley Historical Society Board • Minneapolis Water Advisory Board Highway 55 Bus Rapid Transit • Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications/ CCX Hopkins School District 270 Caring Youth Committee METRO Blue Line Extension Corridor Management Committee Hopkins School District 270 Cities Joint Meetings Robbinsdale School District 281 Government Advisory Committee Legislative Liaison and Spokesperson • Sochacki Park Governance Policy Board Blue Line Now! Coalition Bottineau Light Rail Community Works Steering Committee BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley that it hereby approves payment to the Mayor and Council for attendance at the above listed meetings pursuant to City Code Section 2-43(b) and that payment shall be made upon submission of proof of attendance at the meeting to the City Manager. Where a delegate and alternate are appointed, the delegate is eligible to be paid for all meetings they attend. The alternate is eligible for payment for all meetings they attend that the delegate does not attend. Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 21st day of January 2020. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 20-08 RESOLUTION APPOINTING CITY MANAGER AS CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY REPRESENTATIVE ON THE GOLDEN VALLEY-CRYSTAL-NEW HOPE JOINT WATER COMMISSION WHEREAS, the cities of Golden Valley, New Hope and Crystal created a Joint Water Commission (the “JWC”) in 1963 to benefit the three communities; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 2 of the JWC Joint Powers Agreement, the City Council of each city must appoint a representative to the JWC Commission by resolution; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to appoint the City Manager to the Commission for a three year term or until such time as there is a change to the joint powers organization. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, that the City Manager Timothy J. Cruikshank is hereby appointed as the City of Golden Valley's representative on the Golden Valley-Crystal-New Hope Joint Water Commission. Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 21st day of January 2020. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk Golden Valley City Council Meeting January 21, 2020 Agenda Item 3. H. Approve 2020 Legislative Priorities Prepared By Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Summary Council reviewed the 2020 Legislative Priorities at the January 14, 2020, Council/Manager meeting. Once approved, Council will distribute the booklet at the Legislative Breakfast scheduled for Saturday, February 8, 2020, at 9:30 am at the Crystal City Hall. Financial Or Budget Considerations Various, depending on the item and legislative outcome. Recommended Action Motion to approve the City of Golden Valley 2020 Legislative Priorities. Supporting Documents •City of Golden Valley 2020 Legislative Priorities (31 pages) 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8006 2020 GOLDEN VALLEY LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES City of Golden Valley 2020 Legislative Priorities 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8006 Table Of Contents TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES T1. Support Funding For Bike And Pedestrian Safety Improvements To State Highway 55 .......................................................................................3 The City of Golden Valley seeks funding to improve operations, safety, and mo- bility at the intersections of Highway 55 and Douglas Drive and Highway 55 and Winnetka Avenue. Future improvements would better accommodate vehicles, pedestrians, transit, etc. T2. Support Comprehensive Transportation Funding ....................................4 The City of Golden Valley supports dedicating more resources to all components of the Twin Cities regional transportation system and ensuring local units of gov- ernment collaboratively have access to resources and funding tools to meet the growing needs of our area. ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES E1. Continue To Adequately Fund The DNR Flood Reduction Program For Local Projects ...........................................................................5 The City of Golden Valley is requesting legislative approval of funds through the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Flood Damage Reduction Program to implement public improvements within the DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road watershed. These projects include improvements within the Cities of Crystal, New Hope and Golden Valley (eg, flood storage, subwatershed diversion, and runoff rate control projects). E2. Support Funding For Metropolitan Council Inflow/Infiltration Grants—Public And Private Improvements ................................................6 Because I/I reduction efforts benefit the entire metropolitan area, the City of Golden Valley supports the state providing continued capital assistance for grants to cities as well as financial assistance for private property through future Clean Water Legacy Act appropriations. E3. Advance Building Performance ......................................................................7 The City of Golden Valley’s supports statewide energy efficiency improvements in buildings, lighting, and infrastructure and includes these as local goals in the Resilience and Sustainability Chapter of its 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Page 1 City of Golden Valley 2020 Legislative Priorities These priorities are supported by the Golden Valley City Council, along with Metro Cities, League of Minnesota Cities, and Regional Council of Mayors policies, and may be used by local officials and staff to advocate for during the Legislative session. FINANCIAL PRIORITIES F1. Support Funding For Local Government Aid ..............................................8 The City of Golden Valley supports funding of the Local Government Aid (LGA) component to help ensure needs for public services can be met by equalizing the tax base for all cities. F2. Modify Obsolete Fiscal Disparities Formula To Assist Local Units Of Government With Basic Needs ...........................................9 The City of Golden Valley supports reviewing and amending the 50-year-old Fiscal Disparities formula to ensure all metro area local governments have access to resources and funding tools to meet growing needs. By amending the Fiscal Disparities formula, all metro area cities can use the additional amount of prop- erty taxes received to help fund needed improvements. F3. Support Funding For Affordable And Workforce Housing .....................10 The City of Golden Valley supports additional tools for local communities to de- velop and preserve affordable and workforce housing. F4. Support Tax Incentives For Community Reinvestment ..........................11 Golden Valley supports state programs and incentives for reinvestment in older residential and commercial/industrial buildings, such as, but not limited to, tax credits and/or property tax deferrals. Appendix T1 ............................................................................................................12 Appendix T2 ............................................................................................................15 Appendix E1 ............................................................................................................17 Appendix E2 ............................................................................................................20 Appendix F1 ............................................................................................................22 Appendix F2 ............................................................................................................23 Appendix F3 ............................................................................................................24 Page 2 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8006 T1. Support Funding For Bike And Pedestrian Safety Improvements To State Highway 55 City Position The City of Golden Valley seeks funding to improve operations, safety, and mobility at the intersections of Highway 55 and Douglas Drive and Highway 55 and Winnet- ka Avenue. Future improvements would better accommodate vehicles, pedestrians, transit, etc. Issue Highway 55 passes through Golden Valley from its east to west city limits, creating a barrier between the northern and southern portions of the community. This results in significant delays for motorists crossing the highway at any of the signalized intersections due to long signal timing cycles that focus on moving traffic through the community. This barrier also creates difficult and dangerous conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists who wish to cross the highway. Actions • Advocate for funding of a pedestrian underpass and roadway improvements at Highway 55 and Douglas Drive (County State Aid Highway 102). These improve- ments will facilitate safe passage by pedestrians between transit stops on the highway and the Perpich Center for Arts Education, and improve bike and pe- destrian access to the Luce Line Regional Trail located on the north side of High- way 55 ($75,000 to complete design, currently at 60 percent, and $7 million for construction). • Advocate for funding from the Minnesota Department of Transportation to study access ways to provide community connectivity across Highway 55 at Winnetka Avenue to mitigate the highway’s impact on the community ($1 million for plan- ning and design, $13 million for construction). Additional Documents (See Appendix T1) • Highway 55 & Douglas Drive - Proposed (1 page) • Highway 55 & Winnetka Avenue Concept (1 page) TRANSPORTATION Page 3 City of Golden Valley 2020 Legislative Priorities T2. Support Comprehensive Transportation Funding City Position The City of Golden Valley supports dedicating more resources to all components of the state’s transportation system and ensuring local units of government have access to resources and funding tools to meet growing needs. Issue A comprehensive regional transportation system that meets the physical, social, and economic needs of Golden Valley and the state requires adequate funding. This transportation system includes streets, bridges, highways, transit, and multi- modal solutions. Collaborative efforts and initiatives are already in progress. Actions • Support language regarding rail liability for the Blue Line Extension light rail tran- sit project. (State Statute 473.4052 Right-of-Way Use; Contracts; Liability. 107.19 Subd. 4. Application. The liability limits under subdivision 2 and the insurance requirements under subdivision 3 apply only for that segment of a light rail transit line or line extension in which the project formally entered the engineering phase of the Federal Transit Administration’s “New Starts” capital investment grant pro- gram between August 1, 2016 and February 1, 2017.) • Provide full funding for the Blue Line Extension light rail transit project in the Twin Cities northwest corridor. • Advocate for full funding for Bus Rapid Transit on Highway 55, which impacts all communities along the corridor (Minneapolis, Golden Valley, Plymouth, Medina, and beyond). • Establish a sustainable formula to increase transit and transportation funding. • Advocate for including improvements to US Highway 169 between I-394 and Medicine Lake Road in the MnDOT Capital Improvement Plan. Additional Documents (See Appendix T2) • Memo: Status Of Blue Line Light Rail Extension Project (1 page) • Resolution: Supporting Future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Service On Highway 55 And Participation In Additional Study Of The Corridor (2 pages) Page 4 TRANSPORTATION 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8006 E1. Continue To Adequately Fund The DNR Flood Damage Reduction Program For Local Projects City Position The City of Golden Valley is requesting legislative approval of funds through the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Flood Damage Reduction Program to continue to implement public improvements within the DeCola Ponds and Medi- cine Lake Road watershed. These projects include improvements within the Cities of Crystal, New Hope and Golden Valley (eg, flood storage, subwatershed diver- sion, and runoff rate control projects). Issue The City of Golden Valley experiences localized flooding in the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue area and flooding from Bassett Creek in numerous locations throughout the community. This flooding causes damages to homes and business- es, and impacts infrastructure and emergency services. The City is in Phase II of a multi-phase project. Action Advocate for continued full funding of the Minnesota DNR Flood Damage Reduc- tion Program, including funding of the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long Term Flood Mitigation Project. Additional Documents (See Appendix E1) • Map: DeCola Ponds Flood Mitigation Area (1 page) Page 5 ENVIRONMENTAL City of Golden Valley 2020 Legislative Priorities E2. Support Funding For Metropolitan Council Inflow/ Infiltration Grants—Public And Private Improvements City Position Because I/I reduction efforts benefit the entire metropolitan area, the City of Gold- en Valley supports the state providing continued capital assistance for grants to cities as well as financial assistance for private property through future Clean Water Legacy Act appropriations. Issue Many metro communities are contributing excess inflow and infiltration of clear water into the regional wastewater system. Excess I/I results in wastewater flows that exceed the capacity of conveyance and treatment systems, resulting in significant environmental and public health issues and excessive costs to upgrade these systems. Action Advocate for financial assistance through future Clean Water Legacy appropria- tions to metro area cities with excess I/I. These resources should include assistance for cities to address I/I contributions from private property. Additional Documents (See Appendix E2) • Memo: MCES I&I Grant Benefits - City of Golden Valley (1 page) Page 6 ENVIRONMENTAL 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8006 E3. Advance Building Performance City Position The City of Golden Valley supports statewide energy efficiency improvements in buildings, lighting, and infrastructure and includes these as local goals in the Resil- ience and Sustainability Chapter of its 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Issue The State of Minnesota has a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 but is not on track to do so. Buildings are a top greenhouse gas emitter, and a different approach is needed to building design and construction. Building codes, which are established by the State, are not advancing fast enough to reach carbon reduction goals. Action The City of Golden Valley supports policy changes and other solutions that lead to increased building efficiency, including: • clear standards for developers and designers • financial support and incentives for energy efficient improvements • educational support and training • advancing code requirements at a rate faster than the typical building code up- date cycle • local adoption of building codes that advance energy performance in new and remodeled buildings. Page 7 ENVIRONMENTAL City of Golden Valley 2020 Legislative PrioritiesPage 8 F1. Support Funding For Local Government Aid City Position The City of Golden Valley supports funding of the Local Government Aid (LGA) component to help ensure needs for public services can be met by equalizing the tax base for all cities. Issue Golden Valley relies on LGA funding to help support public services but has not received LGA funding for the last couple of years. Actions Advocate for the state to keep pace with inflationary pressures and support increased funding for LGA. Golden Valley supports an increase in the LGA appropriation and a review in its entirety of the formula that would at least provide a minimum distribution to help fund public ser- vices. Golden Valley supports HF 2031 authored by Representative Her- taus in 2019. Additional Documents (See Appendix F1) • Table: 10-Year History Of Local Government Aid Distribution And Its Impact On Golden Valley (1 page) FINANCIAL 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8006 Page 9 F2. Modify Obsolete Fiscal Disparities Formula To Assist Local Units Of Government With Basic Needs City Position The City of Golden Valley supports reviewing and amending the 50-year-old Fiscal Disparities formula to ensure all metro area local governments have access to re- sources and funding tools to meet growing needs. By amending the Fiscal Dispar- ities formula, all metro area cities can use the additional amount of property taxes received to help fund needed improvements. For nearly 50 years, the Fiscal Disparities program has reapportioned 40 percent of tax capacity from metro area cities with higher commercial/industrial tax bases to those with less market value per capita. This is to help equalize funding for the betterment of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. While all cities have needs, those that historically have been net Fiscal Disparities contributors have aged and are experiencing greater infrastructure needs than 50 years ago. Much of this infrastructure was built before the early 1960s and is due for replacement. It is time to recalculate the Fiscal Disparities formula to reflect today’s realities. Since just 2001, Golden Valley has contributed almost $40 million to help other communities meet their needs. With the proposed change, over the next 20 years Golden Valley would keep an estimated $18 million help meet its needs. Issue Golden Valley, like most cities in Minnesota and the nation at large, is facing a looming infrastructure crisis. All across the US, aging systems for water supply, sanitary sewer management, storm water and flood control, transportation, etc, are in need of repair and/or replacement. Not only is much of Golden Valley’s infra- structure a half century or more old, but as populations grow, it’s taking on service demands it was not built to handle. The Fiscal Disparities program has been in existence for almost 50 years and in need of an overhaul. Actions Advocate for modifying the obsolete Fiscal Disparities formula so all metro area cities can fund needed infrastructure improvements while keeping taxes and util- ity expenses lower than they inevitably would be if this infrastructure problem is allowed to grow into a full-blown crisis. Additional Documents (See Appendix F2) • Table: 20-Year History Of Golden Valley’s Fiscal Disparities Contributions With 40 Percent Program And 20-Year Projection Of Golden Valley’s Fiscal Disparities Gains With 30 Percent Program (1 page) FINANCIAL City of Golden Valley 2020 Legislative Priorities F3. Support Funding For Affordable And Workforce Housing City Position The City of Golden Valley supports additional tools for local communities to develop and preserve affordable and workforce housing. Issue Cities must ensure they provide a full range of housing choices in the community. As cities, businesses, and the overall economy in the Minneapolis–St Paul region continues to grow, the need for housing available to those with low and moderate incomes also grows. Failure to expand housing options will impact the region’s ability to attract talent, grow its economy, and reinvest in itself. Actions Advocate for policy and financial tools that support both the preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing and construction of new affordable housing, including: • increasing funding for the state’s rental rehab loan fund for naturally occurring affordable housing and including use of the fund in the metro region • enhancing state programs, policies, and funding allocations to promote and finance the preservation and construction of affordable housing, particularly for assisted, senior, and transitional housing • modifying Tax Increment Financing (TIF) statutes to clearly enable pooling of TIF revenue for affordable housing • establishing a statewide notification requirement for rental properties prior to ownership transfer • creating incentives for property owners to participate in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program to increase housing options for low and moderate income earners • preserving and expanding the state’s 4d low-income property tax program that provides a property tax benefit to qualifying low-income rental properties Additional Documents (See Appendix F3) • Memo: Golden Valley Affordable Housing Work Plan (2 pages) FINANCIAL Page 10 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8006 F4. Support Tax Incentives For Community Reinvestment City Position Golden Valley supports state programs and incentives for reinvestment in older residential and commercial/industrial buildings, such as, but not limited to, tax credits and/or property tax deferrals. Issue Golden Valley has aging residential and commercial structures that are in need of repair and reinvestment. Reinvestment prevents neighborhoods from falling into disrepair, revitalizes community, and protects the tax base. Action Advocate for state-funded programs that promote reinvestment in communities for residential and commercial/Industrial property owners who make improve- ments that increase the property’s market value. FINANCIAL Page 11 City of Golden Valley 2020 Legislative PrioritiesPage 12 Appendix T1. Support Funding For Bike And Pedestrian Safety Improvements To State Highway 55 • Map: Highway 55 & Douglas Drive - Proposed (1 page) • Map: Highway 55 & Winnetka Avenue Concepts (1 page) 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8006 Page 13 City of Golden Valley 2020 Legislative PrioritiesPage 14 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8006 Page 15 Appendix T2. Support Comprehensive Transportation Funding • Memo: Status Of Blue Line Light Rail Extension Project (1 page) • Resolution: Supporting Future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Service On Highway 55 And Participation In Additional Study Of The Corridor (2 pages) City of Golden Valley 2020 Legislative Priorities Memorandum Physical Development Department 763-593-8090 / 763-593-3997 (fax) To: Tim Cruikshank, City Manager From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Status of Blue Line Light Rail Extension Project Date: January 15, 2020 __________________________________________________________________________ One of the City of Golden Valley’s legislative priorities for 2020 is to see full funding provided for the Blue Line Extension light rail transit project. The project has completed plans to the 90 percent design level and received a Medium-High rating in the 2020 New Starts Annual Report. Pending an agreement with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad to use the rail corridor, the project will be prepared to move plans to 100 percent design and to submit an application for a Full Funding Grant Agreement with the Federal Transit Administration. The construction of the Blue Line Extension is an important project for Golden Valley, providing access to jobs, services, amenities, and the wider transit network of the Twin Cities metro area. There are currently more than 16,000 jobs and a population of almost 31,000 within a half mile of the 11 proposed stations. Since 2014, there has been more than $522 million in development near the proposed light rail stations, with more potential projects in the wings. 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8006 City of Golden Valley 2020 Legislative PrioritiesPage 16 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8006 Appendix E1. Continue To Adequately Fund The DNR Flood Damage Reduction Program For Local Projects • Map: DeCola Ponds Flood Mitigation Area (2 pages) Page 17 City of Golden Valley 2020 Legislative Priorities 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8006 Gold e n Val le y New H ope Decola Pond B Decola Pond C Explore Potential for Flood Storage Proposed Flood Storage Area Completed, Liberty Crossing Infrastructure Improvement Project Under Construction, DeCola Ponds B & C Improvement Project Cr ysta l 0 450 900225 Feet Floodplain Flood Prone Properties Flood Storage Area Sub-Watershed Boundary Project Location D eCo la Po nd s New Hope Crystal Medicine Lake RdMedicine Lake Rd Douglas Dr NDouglas Dr NWinnetka Ave NWinnetka Ave N32nd Ave N32nd Ave N Olympia StOlympia StBBoooonneeAAvveeDuluth StDuluth St Hampshire AveHampshire AveBrunswick AveBrunswick AveSandburg RdSandburg RdLouisiana AveLouisiana AveNevada AveNevada AveNevada Ave NNevada Ave NGolden Valley DeCola Ponds, Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Long-Term Flood Mitigation Plan I Print Date: 1/8/2020 Sources: -Hennepin County Surveyors O ffice for aerial photography (2018). -MnDNR for city boundary lines & road data (2014). -Barr for 100-year in undation are a & watershed boundary of project area (2017). -City of G olden Valley for all other layers. Page 19Page 18 City of Golden Valley 2020 Legislative Priorities Appendix E2. Support Funding For Metropolitan Council Inflow/Infiltration Grants—Public And Private Improvements • Memo: MCES I&I Grant Benefits – City of Golden Valley (1 page) Page 20 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8006 G:\Communications\City Council\Legislative Policies\2016\Appendices\MCES Grant Benefit Memo.docx Date: January 28, 2016 To: Tim Cruikshank, City Manager From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer R.J. Kakach, EIT, Engineer Subject: MCES I&I Grant Benefits – City of Golden Valley The City of Golden Valley has utilized funding from the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) Grant Programs to reduce Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) in both the public and private sewer systems over the past several years. The public grants have provided additional funding to allow expanded scopes on projects and decreased timelines on I&I reduction programs. For example, as part of the annual street reconstruction projects, we have been able to increase sewer lining and manhole sealing quantities with the extra grant money that was available. Also, we were able to expedite a five to seven year sanitary sewer manhole cover replacement program into four years with additional funding from MCES. The 2013-2014 MCES private sewer grant allowed residents to repair their sanitary sewer lateral and be reimbursed by MCES at 33% of the repair cost up to $2,000. The available funding through this grant was so popular that City staff had to turn away applicants. Nearly 300 properties applied for the grant over the two year period. This reimbursement opportunity from MCES led to an increase in I&I compliance with the City Ordinance. The Ordinance requires all properties to become compliant prior to the sale of a property. This allows the City to gradually reduce I&I in the private system. The grant money attracted interest from properties all over the City, including people who were not selling their home. This extra interest in becoming I&I compliant from the available MCES grant funding helped propel the City forward in their I&I mitigation efforts. The public and private grants provided by MCES have helped to lower Golden Valley’s annual sanitary sewer flows over the past five years. The public grant has allowed for more thorough I&I reduction to be done with street reconstruction projects and I&I mitigation programs whereas the private grant increased interest in becoming compliant with the City’s I&I Ordinance. The additional funding from MCES has pushed Golden Valley ahead in their goal to reduce I&I in the sanitary sewer system. Page 21 City of Golden Valley 2020 Legislative Priorities Appendix F1. Support Funding For Local Government Aid 10-Year History Of Local Government Aid Distribution And Its Impact On Golden Valley Total LGA Statewide Distribution Golden Valley Portion 2011 $425,345,348 0 2012 $425,238,384 0 2013 $427,494,640 0 2014 $507,598,012 $219,081 2015 $516,898,012 $240,503 2016 $519,398,012 $252,446 2017 $519,398,012 $252,895 2018 $534,398,012 $37,185 2019 $534,398,012 0 2020 $560,398,012 0 Page 22 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8006 Appendix F2. Modify Obsolete Fiscal Disparities Formula To Assist Local Units Of Government With Basic Needs 20-Year History Of Golden Valley’s Fiscal Disparities Contributions With 40 Percent Program 2001 $629,460 2002 $1,289,977 2003 $873,927 2004 $1,343,255 2005 $1,384,112 2006 $1,462,884 2007 $1,437,447 2008 $1,756,887 2009 $2,141,648 2010 $2,325,874 2011 $2,311,610 2012 $2,262,916 2013 $2,119,872 2014 $2,662,702 2015 $2,401,573 2016 $2,321,355 2017 $2,676,662 2018 $2,674,558 2019 $2,727,495 2020 $2,961,983 Total $39,766,196 Page 23 20-Year Projection Of Golden Valley’s Fiscal Disparities Gains With 30 Percent Program* 2021 $698,408 2022 $718,685 2023 $739,182 2024 $759,902 2025 $780,845 2026 $802,012 2027 $823,406 2028 $845,026 2029 $866,876 2030 $888,956 2031 $911,266 2032 $933,810 2033 $956,587 2034 $979,600 2035 $1,002,848 2036 $1,026,335 2037 $1,050,060 2038 $1,074,026 2039 $1,098,233 2040 $1,122,682 Total $18,078,744 * New commercial/industrial tax capacity value prospectively City of Golden Valley 2020 Legislative PrioritiesPage 24 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8006 Golden Valley Affordable Housing Work Plan - 2020 Last updated: January 2020 Prepared By Emily Goellner, Senior Planner/Grant Writer Summary Based on direction from the Council and Manager, staff has developed a work plan on affordable housing strategies and policies. Key Points • The role that the City plays in local housing policy and programming has expanded rapidly since 2017. • Staff will continue focusing on building relationshi ps with NOAH property owners, landlords, and property managers in 2019. • Since health and safety are central to the City’s housing interests, any new policies or programs should not unintentionally discourage property improvements, rehabilitation, and code compliance. • The 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies many goals and action steps for the City to take. They are categorized into five goals: quality, variety, affordability, sustainability, and equity. Staff will work with existing human and financial resources to implement the plan. • Staffing and budgeting impacts associated with policy and program options must continue to be examined to ensure that administration, enforcement, and education can be completed properly. • Some policies and program ideas will be most impactful if enacted on a regional or state level. • The Housing Preservation Tools Workgroup meetings are attended by staff at Golden Valley and ten other city governments (Minneapolis, St. Paul, St. Louis Park, Edina, Eden Prairie, Bloomington, Richfield, Hopkins, Brooklyn Center, and Brooklyn Park), Hennepin County, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, Metro HRA, Urban Land Institute, and Family Housing Fund. The meetings are held to inform policy recommendations, share knowledge, and bring important stakeholders to the conversations. This group will continue to meet regularly. Staff has accomplished the following actions: 1. Adopted a Tenant Protection Ordinance (applicable to owners upon sale of NOAH property) and notified property owners 2. Adopted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which includes an extensive list of actions to be taken to meet affordable housing goals 3. Hosted a training on Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers by the Metro HRA at the February STAR Program meeting for property managers 4. Received CDBG funding for a land trust home for West Hennepin Afforda ble Housing Land Trust (WHAHLT) (dba Homes Within Reach) 5. Applied for CDBG, AHIF, and HOME funding for an additional land trust home with West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust (WHAHLT) (dba Homes Within Reach) Page 25 City of Golden Valley 2020 Legislative Priorities 6. Researched opportunities for an HRA levy a. Bonds or loans to rehabilitation or acquisition/resale of affordable properties b. Establish a loan program for maintenance of NOAH and/or single-family homes c. Other programs that further the Housing Policy Plan in the 2040 Comp Plan 7. Expanded the City’s legislative priority on affordable housing 8. Adopted changes to the Mixed Income Housing Policy to increase the number of housing projects required to comply 9. Provided input at the regional housing forum hosted by Governor Dayton’s Task Force on Affordable Housing 10. Planning, Fire, and Police department staff met to monitor condition of housing stock 11. Implemented a 4d property tax program to help preserve existing NOAH units within the City. Staff is taking continuing action on the following strategies : 12. Host additional discussions with NOAH property owners/manager and staff from the Minnesota Multi -Family Housing Association (MHA) 13. Create plan and timeline for selling and developing publicly owned vacant land for affordable housing 14. Update the Housing page on the City website to include more home remodeling information 15. Continue monitoring condition of housing stock and rental rates a. Request rental rate information with rental licensing program applications b. Perform update to housing inventory every 5 years c. Continue monitoring housing stock conditions with inspections 16. Actively follow the work of Prosperity’s Front Door, which is the next step after the Governor Dayton’s Task Force on Affordable Housing 17. Perform an evaluation of the STAR progra m for rental properties and recommend enhancements that help the City meet a variety of housing goals 18. Contact property owners to promote NOAH loan program with Greater MN Housing Fund (GMHC), which provides equity for property improvements in exchange for maintained rents 19. Exploring the possibility of using vacant public lands as the basis for new affordable housing via public land disposition. Staff is continuing research in partnership with other suburban cities on the following strategies: 20. Research ordinance prohibiting landlords from excluding Section 8 voucher holders from a building’s rental application process (pending MPLS lawsuit) 21. Continue monitoring lawsuit involving the City of Minneapolis policy that prohibits landlords from excluding Section 8 voucher holders from a building’s rental application process (at least 4 cities are interested in adopting a policy if lawsuit decides in favor of City of Minneapolis) 22. Research the benefits and process for the adoption of a local Fair Housing Policy, which the Metropolitan Council requires for participation in their grant programs for housing projects Page 26 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8006 Page 26 City of Golden Valley 2020 Legislative Priorities City of Golden Valley 2020 Legislative Priorities Golden Valley City Council Meeting January 21, 2020 Agenda Item 3. I. Authorization to Sign the Amended Agreement with Breck School for Community Service Officer Prepared By Steve Johnson, Commander Summary In 2009, the Police Department entered an agreement with Breck School to provide traffic control during school days in exchange for reimbursement for the salary and benefits of a full-time Community Service Officer. In prior agreements, the Police Department sent two Community Service Officers to assist with traffic control. The agreement was revised in 2015 to state the Police Department will now send one Community Service Officer and Breck School will provide one civilian employee to work under the authority of the Breck School Community Service Officer for the purpose of traffic control. Financial Or Budget Considerations A new agreement between the Police Department and Breck School was made for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years. This agreement for CSO traffic control paid by Breck School is for $32,431.00 for the 2020-2021 school year. For the 2021-2022 school year, it will be $33,404.00. Although paid for by Breck School, the Breck School Community Service Officer is an employee of the City, subject to the terms and conditions of employment with the City, and under the chain of command of the Police Department. Recommended Action Motion to authorize the Mayor, City Manager and Police Chief to sign the amended Community Service Officer Agreement with Breck School for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years. Supporting Documents Amended Community Services Officer Agreement (3 pages) 1 COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER AGREEMENT This Community Service Officer Agreement (“Agreement”) is made by and between the City of Golden Valley and Breck School (“Breck School”), pursuant to P.U.D. No. 88, Paragraph C(2). NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the parties to this Agreement agree as follows: 1. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Agreement is to define the duties and responsibilities of the City of Golden Valley, its Police Department, and Breck School in the operation of the Community Service Officer Program. 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT: The term of this Agreement shall be for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 Breck School Years, beginning upon execution of this Agreement. The Agreement may be continued, canceled or modified at the end of the 2020-2021, Breck School Year. Breck School is obligated to notify the City of Golden Valley of its intention to continue, cancel or modify this Agreement at least (90) days prior to its termination. 3. PERSONNEL: The Chief of Police shall staff a community service officer to fill the position of Breck School Community Service Officer (the “Breck School CSO”) during the term of this Agreement. Breck School shall staff a civilian employee to work under the authority of the Breck School CSO for the purpose of traffic control. 4. CHAIN OF COMMAND: Any individual serving as the Breck School CSO shall be a full-time employee of the City of Golden Valley and shall report to the Chief of Police or his/her designee regarding all law enforcement and employment related matters; and shall receive assignments to particular duties from the Chief of Police or his/her designee. The City of Golden Valley shall provide training to any individual serving as the Breck School CSO for his/her assigned duties including traffic control skills training and shall provide traffic control skills training to any other CSO providing traffic control services to Breck School on a regular basis. 5. WORK DAYS: The Breck School CSO shall work at Breck School providing traffic control services from a time period starting forty-five minutes prior to the school start time until fifteen minutes after the start of school time both as determined by the Breck School and fifteen minutes prior to the school end time until thirty minutes after the school end time both as determined Breck Schools, everyday school is in session, which times shall be adjusted as necessary in the event inclement weather or other events delay the school start time or cause early release. Any officer serving as a Breck School CSO shall make the appropriate arrangements for time off, vacations and holidays, etc. in accordance with the police collective bargaining agreement. 6. ABSENCE FROM WORK: In the event that the Breck School CSO is sick or has other unplanned absences, he/she shall notify BOTH the Breck School in accordance with their policy, and the police department in accordance with their policy. The police department shall attempt to provide officer coverage when the Breck School CSO is not available for duty. Requests for floating holidays shall be made to the police department for approval, and notification shall be made by the Breck School CSO to the appropriate personnel of Breck School. 2 7. TRAFFIC CONTROL: The Breck School CSO shall, twice per day at the times described in Section 5 herein, on all days when school is in session during the term of this Agreement provide traffic control services to Breck School. In addition, Breck School will provide one civilian employee to work with the Breck School CSO in carrying out the twice- daily traffic control duties on all school days to maintain the orderly flow of traffic. In the event of an unscheduled employee absence of the Breck School CSO, the City of Golden Valley shall attempt to provide alternate coverage. In the event of an unscheduled employee absence of the Breck civilian employee, Breck School shall attempt to provide alternate coverage. 8. DRESS CODE: This position is a uniformed position and the police department shall supply appropriate uniforms and equipment for CSOs providing traffic control services at the Breck School. 9. HANDLING OF POLICE RELATED INCIDENTS: Criminal activity and incidents normally handled by the police shall be dealt with by the Breck School CSO in accordance with police department policy, state and federal law, and generally accepted police practices. The City of Golden Valley shall be liable for the acts of its officers, employees or agents and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of the Breck School, its officers, employees or agents. 10. SCHOOL DISCIPLINE: The Breck School CSO is not part of the disciplinary team of Breck School, and shall not normally become involved in discipline issues or the enforcement of school rules except as they relate to maintaining a peaceful and safe environment at Breck School. 11. LIMITATIONS. The provisions of Minn. Stat. Section 471.59, the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minn. State Chap. 466 and other applicable laws govern liability of the City of Golden Valley and the Breck School. 12. COMPENSATION: It is agreed that Breck School shall reimburse the City of Golden Valley for the Breck School CSO and administrative time. $32,431.00 for the 2020-2021 school year and $33,404.00 for the 2021-2022 school year. 13. GOVERNING LAW. The Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the substantive and procedural laws of the State of Minnesota, without giving effect to the principles of conflicts of laws. All proceedings related to this Agreement shall be venued in Hennepin County. 14. INDEMNIFICATION. Breck School shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents from any liability, claims, demands, suits, penalties, personal injury, judgments and costs of any kind whatsoever, arising out of or resulting from Breck School’s acts or omissions with respect to Breck School’s provision of services under or breach of this Agreement. This provision shall survive any termination of this Agreement. 15. AMENDMENTS. This Agreement may only be modified by the mutual written Agreement of the parties. 3 16. ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES & COUNTERPARTS. Documents executed, scanned and transmitted electronically and electronic signatures shall be deemed original signatures for purposes of this Agreement and all related matters. All scanned and electronic signatures shall have the same legal effect as original signatures. This Agreement, any other document necessary for the consummation of the transaction contemplated by this Agreement may be accepted, executed or agreed to through the use of an electronic signature in accordance with the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 325L. Any document accepted, executed or agreed to in conformity with such laws will be binding on each party as if it were physically executed. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, including electronically. Each counterpart constitutes an original and all counterparts collectively constitute one and the same instrument. The signatures of the parties need not appear on the same counterpart. Dated this 21 day of January, 2020. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY _____________________________ Mayor, Shepard M. Harris ______________________________ City Manager, Timothy J. Cruikshank ______________________________ Police Chief, Jason Sturgis BRECK SCHOOL ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ Golden Valley City Council Meeting January 21, 2020 Agenda Item 3. J. Legal Services Agreement with Zimmerman Reed LLC Prepared By Maria Cisneros, City Attorney Summary In December 2018, the City, along with 9 other Minnesota cities, filed a federal lawsuit against several refiners and distributors of certain coal tar sealants. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants polluted numerous stormwater ponds with chemicals called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The City hired the law firms of Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Super Law Group and Gray Plant Mooty (GPM) to represent it in the case, with GPM serving as local counsel. GPM recently underwent a corporate restructuring and withdrew from the case. Weitz Luxenburg and Super Law Group recommended substituting Zimmerman Reed LLP as local counsel. Staff has met with representatives from Zimmerman Reed and recommends approving the change from GPM to Zimmerman Reed. Financial or Budget Considerations The City retained the firms on a contingent fee basis and will not pay legal fees or costs if there is no recovery in the lawsuit. Recommended Action Motion to authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute amendment to legal services agreement with Zimmerman Reed LLP in the form approved by the City Attorney for legal representation in the case titled In Re Municipal Stormwater Pond. Supporting Documents Agreement consenting to substitution of Zimmerman Reed, LLP (1 page) December 20, 2019 JUNE P. HOIDAL Admitted in Minnesota June.Hoidal@zimmreed.com Via E-Mail REPLY TO MINNEAPOLIS RE: Coal Tar Litigation (In re Municipal Stormwater Pond, Case No. 18-cv-3495) Dear Golden Valley: As the new member of the legal team representing the City in the coal tar litigation, we again express our appreciation of being involved in this important issue. We look forward to working together. As part of that representation, we are following up on the Legal Services Agreement (“Agreement”). Currently, the Agreement documents the City’s retention of the legal team of Weitz & Luxenberg, Super Law Group, and Gray Plant Mooty. Since the City has approved our firm stepping in to replace Gray Plant Mooty, we wanted to formalize that change in an amendment, consistent with the terms of the Agreement. Accordingly, we are confirming that, by this letter, our firm and the City are consenting to Zimmerman Reed representing the City in the coal tar litigation, consistent with the terms of the Agreement. To formalize this modification, we ask that you countersign this letter below, confirming the City’s consent to our representation. Thank you—and best wishes for the holidays. Best regards, ZIMMERMAN REED LLP June Pineda Hoidal CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY By: Title) Dated: By: Title) Dated: cc (via email): Robin Greenwald, Diana Gjonaj (Weitz & Luxenberg) Edan Rotenberg (Super Law Group) Golden Valley City Council Meeting January 21, 2020 Agenda Item 3. L. Approve Policy for the Design, Installation, Maintenance, and Enforcement of Grease Removal Devices Prepared By Tim Kieffer, Public Works Director Summary Food Service Facilities (“FSFs”) are required to install and maintain grease removal devices (“GRD”) in accordance with Golden Valley City Code Section 28-51. Most of the FSFs are not in compliance with the ordinance so staff worked with the City Attorney to create an enforcement process. As referenced in City Code 28-51(e), the City shall maintain an installation and maintenance policy and procedures which will document specific requirements of the ordinance. Once this policy is adopted, staff will be able to enforce the ordinance by issuing Administrative Citations, penalties, and/or fines. The purpose of the ordinance is for the removal of Fats, Oils, and Greases (collectively referred to as FOG”) at the source of origination before FOG discharges into the City’s wastewater collection system. The objective is to protect public health and safety, prevent sewer system overflows and backups, and comply with state and federal regulations. GRDs are essential to keep the sanitary sewer system in good condition and to provide safe and efficient conveyance of wastewater to the regional wastewater collection and treatment facilities. Failure to remove FOG discharge obstructs flow within the sanitary sewer system. The buildup of FOG requires excessive levels of maintenance by the City to prevent sewer backups into FSFs and other properties. The high maintenance levels place an undue burden on City resources. Financial Or Budget Considerations Staff estimate the City will save roughly $100,000 in labor and equipment costs. Recommended Action Motion to approve Policy for the Design, Installation, Maintenance, and Enforcement of Grease Removal Devices for the City of Golden Valley. Supporting Documents Policy for the Design, Installation, Maintenance, and Enforcement of Grease Removal Devices for the City of Golden Valley (3 pages) 1 Policy for the Design, Installation, Maintenance, and Enforcement of Grease Removal Devices for the City of Golden Valley January 21, 2020 Purpose The purposes of this Policy for the Design, Installation, Maintenance, and Enforcement of Grease Removal Devices (this “Policy”) are to establish standards for the removal of Fats, Oils, and Greases (collectively referred to as “FOG”) at the source of origination before the FOG discharges into the City’s wastewater collection system, to protect public health and safety, to prevent sewer system overflows and backups, and to comply with local, state, and federal regulations. Food Service Facilities (“FSFs”) are required to install grease removal devices (“GRD”) in accordance with Golden Valley City Code Section 28-51, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) Rules 406.04, 406.05, and 406.22, and Environmental Protection Agency Regulation 40 C.F.R. § 403.5(b)(3). As referenced in this Policy, FSF has the meaning given under Golden Valley City Code, section 28-1. GRDs are essential to keep the sanitary sewer system in good condition and to provide safe and efficient conveyance of wastewater to the regional wastewater collection and treatment facilities. Failure to remove FOG discharge obstructs flow within the sanitary sewer system. The obstruction of flow requires excessive levels of maintenance by the City to prevent sewer backups into FSFs and other properties. The high maintenance levels place an undue burden on City resources. Design All FSFs shall install a GRD, unless the FSF can prove its wastewater discharge does not exceed 100 mg/L of FOG or contain substances that may solidify or become viscous at temperatures between 32oF and 150oF. A FSF must install a GRD in accordance with the following requirements: All GRDs must be installed in compliance with the State Plumbing Code (Minn. R. 4715.1115). Existing FSFs may install an interior, hydro-mechanical GRD upon approval of the Department of Labor and Industry (“DOLI”) and review and issuance of a plumbing permit by the City. All new, renovated, or expanded FSFs that obtain a building permit shall install an exterior gravity GRD (also known as an exterior gravity grease interceptor device) in order to facilitate maintenance and to minimize health risks related to maintenance. Multiple FSFs within a building that have a single sanitary sewer service may install and share an exterior gravity GRD upon approval from the City. Such approval shall require a Maintenance Agreement between the FSFs that details each party’s responsibilities with respect to the operation, maintenance and repair of the GRD and the costs associated with the same. The Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder’s Office and the parties shall provide a copy of the recorded agreement to the City. 2 The connection of kitchen fixtures and devices within an FSF to a hydro-mechanical or gravity GRD shall be in accordance with the State Plumbing Code and approved by the DOLI and the City of Golden Valley Building Official. These fixtures and devices include, but are not limited to, floor drains in food preparation areas, pre-rinse and scullery sinks, the wash and rinse compartments of multi-compartment sinks, and automatic hood wash units. The sink compartments which are connected to the GRD must be labeled as being connected to the GRD, and labeled as WASH, RINSE, and SANITIZE compartments. Installation The installation process for GRDs is as follows: Each FSF shall contact a licensed plumbing or mechanical contractor to prepare plans and specifications to install the GRD. Contractors performing the work must submit their own plans and specifications. City staff will be available for questions during this process. The FSF or its representative shall submit final plans for the GRD to DOLI for review. Upon review by DOLI, the FSF shall prepare final plans that address all DOLI comments. The FSF shall submit the revised plans, along with an application for a Plumbing Permit and appropriate fees, to the City of Golden Valley Inspections Department, unless the FSF is a state-owned or state-licensed facility, then the State Building Official is responsible for issuing the permit and inspection. The City Building Official, as the local authority, may include additional requirements. Installation of the GRD may begin following issuance of the Plumbing Permit. The installation shall be inspected by the City of Golden Valley, unless the facility is state- owned, in which case, the State Building Official will inspect and permit the installation. Upon approval of the installation, the FSF is considered compliant with the installation portion of the City Code. The City assumes no liability for the failure of a system to adequately pre-treat wastewater to achieve effluent quality requirements. Maintenance Upon compliance with the installation requirements of City Code and this Policy, the FSF shall monitor and maintain the grease removal device to ensure effective operation of the GRD and removal of FOG from the sanitary sewer discharge. The effectiveness of the GRD is directly impacted by operations within the FSF. Introduction of any biological or chemical additives for the purpose of emulsifying or treating FOG is prohibited. Therefore, it is required that the FSF implement the Best Management Practices for FOG management, as amended from time to time. The Best Management Practices handout is available on the City’s Website (here). The FSF shall provide the City with all maintenance records for the GRD on an annual basis on or before April 1 of each year on the form provided by the City. Maintenance records shall be completely filled in and shall detailing all work performed. The maintenance requirements are as follows: The FSF shall inspect and maintain all interior hydro-mechanical GRDs at least monthly for the first year of operation. The FSF shall remove FOG and solids when 25 percent of the GRD’s operating depth contains accumulated FOG and solids measured at static conditions. Following the first year of reporting, the City may modify the frequency requirement based upon the maintenance records. 3 The FSF shall inspect and maintain all exterior gravity GRDs at least quarterly (once every 3 months) for the first year of operation. The FSF shall remove FOG and solids when 25 percent of the device’s operating depth contains accumulated FOG and solids measured at static conditions. Following the first year of reporting, the City may modify the frequency requirement based upon the maintenance records. The FSF shall perform a complete pump out of the GRD at least once every 12 month period. Actual pump out intervals may be more frequent depending on use. GRD maintenance shall include removal of the full contents, including wastewater, accumulated FOG, floating materials, sludge, and solids. Maintenance activities shall not cause FOG, solids, or sludge to be discharged into the wastewater collection system or environment. Removal and disposal of accumulated materials from GRDs shall be done by a licensed hauler in accordance with the requirements of the Minnesota Department of Health, Hennepin County and other agencies. The City has the authority to increase inspection frequency of cleaning requirements or to impose additional maintenance requirements based on accumulated FOG in adjacent sanitary sewer mains or other circumstances, such as a sanitary sewer overflow, which indicates that the existing GRD is not properly maintained. The City may also require more frequent maintenance of GRDs based upon information gatherd from CCTV inspections of sanitary sewer mains adjacent to a FSF, City sanitary sewer jetting records adjacent to a FSF, and visual inspection of GRD. Enforcement of Non-Compliance FSFs FSFs that are non-compliant with this Policy or City Code shall receive a warning letter stating the violation(s). The FSF shall have 120 days to become compliant, as determined by the City Manager or their designee. If compliance is not achieved in 120 days, the City may issue Administrative Citations, penalties, or fines, or take any other available legal action to enforce the provisions of City Code and this Policy. Administrative Citations and fines are issued in accordance with the Fee Schedule adopted annually by the City Council. Golden Valley City Council Meeting January 21, 2020 Agenda Item 4. A. Public Hearing on Proposed Improvements for the 2020 Pavement Management Program, Project No 20-01 Prepared By Jeff Oliver, City Engineer R.J. Kakach, Assistant City Engineer Summary At the September 20, 2018 Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to prepare a feasibility report for the 2020 Pavement Management Program (PMP). The proposed project included rehabilitation of 1.3 miles of local streets. The streets included in the project are shown on the attached project location map. The feasibility report for these projects has been prepared by the consulting engineering firm of Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc., (SEH) and will be presented at the public hearing. The feasibility report outlines a project that includes reconstruction of the subject streets, replaces and repairs the majority of the aging sanitary sewer and water systems, and storm drainage improvements through the project area. The estimated total project costs are as follows: 2020 PMP = $5,545,000 The estimated costs include all street rehabilitation, sanitary sewer and water main repair and replacement, and storm sewer construction. An estimated 25% of the construction costs have been included for indirect project costs, which includes project design, staking, construction observation administration, and legal expenses. Also included is a $40,000 incentive to be paid to the contractor for substantially completing the work on or before the specified completion date. The Pavement Management Policy was modified in the fall of 2019 to establish a standard residential street width of 28 feet based upon comments received during the public outreach portion of the preliminary project design. However, the project budget contained in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) was based upon the estimated costs to construct 26-foot wide roadways within this project. Therefore, the preliminary calculation of the per unit special assessment rate of $7,530/unit was calculated assuming a 26-foot wide roadway. The use of special assessments for financing public improvement projects is outlined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. This law requires that when special assessments are used to finance projects a minimum of 20% of the project cost must be specially assessed. Therefore, because special assessments are being used to finance a portion of the City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary City of Golden Valley January 21, 2020 2 street reconstruction costs, the assessments must be a minimum 20% of that cost. The project costs associated with sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer construction are financed from dedicated funds, and special assessments are not utilized for funding for utilities. Based upon the above discussion, the preliminary special assessment rate of $7,530 per unit represents 16.9% of the estimated construction costs for a 28-foot wide street, which does not meet the 20% threshold outlined in Chapter 429. Therefore, a new special assessment rate has been calculated at an estimated range of $8,360 to $9,529 per residential unit. The final special assessment rate will be calculated following the opening of construction bids and will be based on actual costs. The estimated special assessments are consistent with the City of Golden Valley Special Assessment Policy. Optional assessments to properties for private driveway reconstruction or sanitary sewer services rehabilitation are not included. Following Council authorization of the 2020 Pavement Management Project, the anticipated project schedule is as follows: Open Bids for 2020 PMP February 27, 2020 Award Contract 2020 PMP April 7, 2020 Public Hearing for Special Assessments April 7, 2020 Begin Construction 2020 PMP May 2020 Project Completion 2020 PMP Fall 2020 Financial Or Budget Considerations The proposed financing is as follows: Sewer and Water Reserve Fund $1,200,000 Storm Sewer Improvement Fund $ 750,000 Street Improvement Funds $3,595,000 Total Project Cost $5,545,000 These financing sources are consistent with the City’s 2020 Capital Improvement Plan. The special assessments for this will be used to reimburse the Street Improvement Fund. Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution accepting the Feasibility Report and Order Construction of Certain Proposed Public Improvements for 2020 Pavement Management Program. Supporting Documents • Project Location Map (1 page) • Feasibility Report 2020 Pavement Management Program (40 pages) • Resolution accepting the feasibility report and ordering Construction of Certain Proposed Public Improvements for City Project 20-01, 2020 Pavement Management Program (2 pages) BroggerCir Wisconsin Ave N23rd Ave NXylon Ave NElgin Pl Medicine Lake Rd AquilaAveNWinnetkaHeightsDr ZealandAveNA q uilaAveNZealandAveNRose ManorCavellAveN24th Av e N WisconsinAveN I 0 250 500125Feet 2020 PMP Print Date: 10/22/2019Sources:-Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2019) & Aerial Photography (2018).-City of Golden Valley for all other layers. CIP Streets 2020 1.27 miles local Feasibility Report 2020 Pavement Management Program City of Golden Valley, Minnesota GOLDV 148259 | January 13, 2020 Feasibility Report 2020 Pavement Management Program City of Golden Valley, Minnesota SEH No. GOLDV 148259 January 13, 2020 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Scott D. Haupt, PE Date: January 13, 2020 License No.: 46603 Reviewed By: Date: January 13, 2020 Justin R. Bergerson Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. 3535 Vadnais Center Drive St. Paul, MN 55110-5196 651.490.2000 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION ................................................................................. 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................ 2 Sanitary Sewer .......................................................................................................................... 2 Inflow and Infiltration .............................................................................................................................................2 Sewer Mains .........................................................................................................................................................2 Sanitary Sewer Services ......................................................................................................................................3 Water Main ................................................................................................................................ 3 Storm Water Drainage .............................................................................................................. 3 Bassett Creek Main Stem (Upstream) Subwatershed: .........................................................................................3 Medicine Lake Direct Subwatershed: ...................................................................................................................4 Streets ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Existing Street Widths ..........................................................................................................................................4 Pavement Sections ...............................................................................................................................................4 Subgrade Conditions ............................................................................................................................................5 Concrete Curb and Gutter ....................................................................................................................................5 Pedestrian Facilities .............................................................................................................................................6 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................................... 6 Public Participation ...............................................................................................................................................6 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main ............................................................................................... 7 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation ..............................................................................................................................7 Sanitary Sewer Service Rehabilitation ..................................................................................................................7 Water Main Rehabilitation ....................................................................................................................................8 Storm Water Management ........................................................................................................ 8 Additional Water Quality Measures ......................................................................................................................9 Streets ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Street Widths ........................................................................................................................................................9 Subgrade Corrections ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Concrete Curb and Gutter .................................................................................................................................. 10 Intersection Improvements ................................................................................................................................. 10 Pedestrian Facilities ........................................................................................................................................... 11 Street Lighting .................................................................................................................................................... 11 Tree and Landscape Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 11 Driveway Reconstruction Program ..................................................................................................................... 11 ESTIMATED COSTS AND PROJECT FINANCING ..................................................... 12 Estimated Project Costs .......................................................................................................... 12 Sewer and Water Costs ...................................................................................................................................... 12 Storm Drainage Costs ........................................................................................................................................ 12 Street Reconstruction Costs ............................................................................................................................... 12 Total Project Costs ............................................................................................................................................. 13 Proposed Project Financing .................................................................................................... 13 Special Assessments ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Sewer and Water Reserve Fund ........................................................................................................................ 14 Storm Sewer Improvement Fund ........................................................................................................................ 14 Street Improvement Funds ................................................................................................................................. 15 Financing Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 15 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 15 ii LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Location Map Exhibit 2A – 2F Proposed Project Layouts Exhibit 3 Existing Street Widths Exhibit 4 Proposed Street Widths Exhibit 5 Subcut Depths / Soil Borings Exhibit 6 Pedestrian Routes Exhibit 7 Sanitary Sewer Defects Exhibit 8 Subwatershed Drainage Summary of Residential Comments Assessment Roll 1 INTRODUCTION At the September 20, 2018 Council Meeting, the Golden Valley City Council authorized preparation of a feasibility report for the rehabilitation of streets for the 2020 Pavement Management Program (PMP). The proposed project includes rehabilitation of approximately 1.3 miles of residential streets located in the neighborhood east of the Medley Park neighborhood in the northwest corner of the City. Streets in the 2020 PMP area are bounded by Aquila Avenue North on the west, Xylon Avenue North on the east, 23rd Avenue North on the south, and Medicine Lake Road (County Road 70) on the north. The proposed streets are shown on Exhibit 1: Project Location Map. This feasibility report will discuss the existing conditions of the streets, sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer within the project area. In addition, the report will discuss the proposed project design, estimated project costs, and the proposed financing, including a preliminary special assessment roll. PROJECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION The proposed project includes: All properties in the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 30, Township 118 North, Range 21 West; within the City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota, that are adjacent to the following streets:  Aquila Avenue North: 23rd Avenue North to Medicine Lake Road  Zealand Avenue North: 23rd Avenue North to Aquila Avenue North  Xylon Avenue North: 23rd Avenue North to Medicine Lake Road  Rose Manor: Aquila Avenue North to Zealand Avenue North  24th Avenue North: Zealand Avenue North to Wisconsin Avenue North  23rd Avenue North: Cavell Avenue North to Xylon Avenue North 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Sanitary Sewer Inflow and Infiltration The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) provides wastewater treatment and interceptor collection services for the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The MCES has undertaken a major effort to eliminate excess peak flows in its system that exceeds the capacity of the collection and treatment facilities. These excess flows can and do result in overflows of raw sewage into the Mississippi River. Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) is defined as clear water that is either directly discharged (inflow) or indirectly discharged (infiltration) into the sanitary sewer system. Among the most common sources are improperly connected sump pumps or foundation drains discharging into the sanitary sewer and the infiltration of ground water through defects in sanitary sewer mains, services, and manholes. The City of Golden Valley is one of many cities within the MCES sanitary sewer district that have been notified of excess peak sanitary sewer flows being generated by their community. An Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) mitigation program has been implemented to take steps towards decreasing the peak flows associated with clear water entering the sanitary sewer and contributing to these excess peak flows. The peak flows in Golden Valley typically follow heavy rainfall events, indicating that improper connections to the sewer system may be present, and that sewers may be allowing ground water and surface water into the system through cracked pipes, leaking manholes, and substandard castings. The proposed project area is located within the portion of the City that has excessive volume of inflow and infiltration following rainfall events and high groundwater conditions. Sewer Mains The existing sanitary sewer system within the project area is comprised of local lateral sewers and one portion of trunk sewer main that were constructed in the late 1950’s when sanitary sewer was first available in the City. The sanitary sewer mains are constructed with nine-inch diameter clay pipes in the project area. A structural liner was installed in the existing clay sanitary sewer pipes on Aquila Avenue North in 2017. A Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) inspection was performed on all the City’s sanitary sewer mains within the project area as part of the preliminary project design. This inspection was intended to locate the extent and severity of the defects to the sanitary sewer system to determine if repairs are needed as part of the street reconstruction project. The television inspection has identified 3 distresses within the City system that are consistent with the age and pipe material. These defects include mineral deposits, cracked pipe, root intrusion, noticeable infiltration, and offset joints. These defects are typical sources of groundwater infiltration into the sewer system. The extent of these defects is typical compared to the defects encountered in previous residential street reconstruction projects containing clay pipes. Based upon these CCTV results, the sanitary sewer mains throughout the entire project area, with the exception of the previously lined sewer mains on Aquila Avenue North, will require structural lining as discussed in the “Proposed Improvements” section of this report. The existing sanitary sewer defects are illustrated on Exhibit 7. Sanitary Sewer Services As part of its I/I Reduction Program, the City is offering the residents within this project area an opportunity to have a CCTV inspection performed on the sanitary sewer service to their home. Property owners on the 2020 PMP will not be charged for this voluntary inspection during the project, which is identical to the Point of Sale Inspections required by City Code. The intent of this inspection is to identify I/I issues present in the private sanitary sewer services and allow property owners to make informed decisions regarding rehabilitation of the service lines, including voluntary participation in the repair program offered as part of the PMP project. This sewer service repair program will be discussed in more detail later in this report. Water Main The majority of the existing water main system within the project area consists of lateral mains that were installed during the early 1960’s. All existing mains in the project area are 6-inch diameter cast iron pipe (CIP), except for 23rd Avenue North which has 12- inch CIP. These mains are located within the existing City owned street rights-of-way. A review of water main maintenance records within the project area indicates a history of water main breaks and maintenance issues consistent with other water mains of the same age and material. In addition, leaky, inoperable gate valves have been discovered throughout the project area. Storm Water Drainage The entire 2020 PMP project area is part of the Bassett Creek Watershed, the majority of which is contained within the Bassett Creek Main Stem (Upstream) subwatershed. A small area is part of the Medicine Lake Direct subwatershed. The following is a brief discussion of the existing storm water facilities within the project area. Refer to Exhibit 8: Subwatershed Drainage for a map showing the subwatershed boundaries and flow patterns. Bassett Creek Main Stem (Upstream) Subwatershed: Beginning at the intersection of Wisconsin Avenue North and 24th Avenue North stormwater flows west to a group of catch basins at the intersection of Xylon 4 Avenue North and 24th Avenue North. Catch basins at the intersection of Zealand Avenue North and 24th Avenue North collect stormwater along Zealand south of Medicine Lake Road and along 24th Avenue North west of Xylon Avenue North. Catch basins at the intersection of Zealand Avenue North and Rose Manor collect stormwater along Rose Manor east of Aquila Avenue North and along Zealand Avenue North South of 24th Avenue North. Drainage structures at the intersection of Zealand Avenue North and 23rd Avenue North collect stormwater along Zealand Avenue North south of Rose Manor. Catch basins at the intersection of Aquila Avenue North and 23rd Avenue North collect stormwater along Aquila Avenue North south of Rose Manor, and along 23rd Avenue North east of Cavell Avenue North and west of Zealand Avenue North. Stormwater is conveyed in a trunk storm sewer line that drains to the west along 24th Avenue North, south along Zealand Avenue North and west along 23rd Avenue North to a drainage structure at the intersection of Aquila Avenue North and 23rd Avenue North. It is also conveyed in a trunk line that drains to the south along Aquila Avenue North to the drainage structure at the intersection of Aquila Avenue North and 23rd Avenue North, ultimately discharging to Bassett Creek at Wisconsin Avenue North just south of 10th Avenue North. A small portion Xylon Avenue North drains north and is collected in catch basins at the Medicine Lake Road and Xylon Avenue North intersection, entering the Medicine Lake Road storm sewer system and ultimately re-entering City owned storm sewer before discharging to Decola Pond B, in Pennsylvania Woods. Medicine Lake Direct Subwatershed: A small portion of the project area on Aquila Avenue North drains north towards the Medicine Lake Road and Aquila Avenue North intersection, entering the Medicine Lake Road storm sewer system and ultimately discharging to Medicine Lake. Streets The streets within the proposed project area are local streets that were originally constructed as development occurred. The original dates of construction throughout the project area generally occurred throughout the 1950’s and 1960’s. Existing Street Widths Typical street widths for all streets in the project area are 29 feet. Street widths are typically measured from face of curb to face of curb. If no curb exists, street widths are measured from edge of pavement to edge of pavement. Street widths can vary depending upon the location on any given roadway. Refer to Exhibit 3: Existing Street Widths for the typical street width for each street in the project area. Pavement Sections All the streets within the proposed project area have existing asphalt pavement. The streets abutting 23rd Avenue North to the south all contain concrete pavement. 5 The existing pavement depths for the project area vary and are shown in the chart below. Soil boring locations are shown on Exhibit 5. Soil Boring # Location Pavement Depth (inches) 20-1 23rd Ave/Aquila Ave int. 4 20-2 Aquila Ave/Rose Manor int. 4 20-3 Rose Manor 3 20-4 Aquila Ave/Zealand Ave int. 2 20-5 23rd Ave/Zealand Ave int. 3 20-6 24th Ave/Zealand Ave int. 4 20-7 Xylon Ave 3 20-8 Xylon Ave/24th Ave int. 4 20-9 Xylon Ave 3 As part of the preliminary design for the proposed project, a series of nine soil borings were taken to determine the suitability of the existing subgrade materials for street construction. These soil borings were also the source of the pavement thickness information provided above. Refer to Exhibit 5: Subcut Depths/Soil Borings for locations of soil borings. Properly constructed asphalt streets are built with a base course of fill beneath the pavement usually made up of granular (gravel) material. This base course layer is considered to be part of the pavement section. Not all soil borings taken in this project area encountered a base course layer. When encountered, some of the soil boring locations lacked the base course thickness that is required to meet today’s requirements for pavement base. The pavement distresses present within the project area are consistent with the age of the streets. Common pavement distresses include longitudinal and transverse cracking, alligator cracking, edge cracking, and patching. Patching is frequently used to cover severe distresses such as alligator cracking, and is therefore indicative of poor pavement quality. Subgrade Conditions The soil borings indicate that the subgrade soils (soils beneath the base course or sub base) in the project area are fill soils overlying glacial till soils typically classified as sandy lean clay. In addition, Boring 20-8 encountered an organic clay layer as part of the fill above the glacial till. Organic materials are prone to pumping, rutting, and deflection when wet, particularly during freeze/thaw cycles and during construction, resulting in premature pavement failure. Concrete Curb and Gutter The project area contains areas of existing concrete curb and gutter and rolled bituminous curb. The bituminous curb was typically constructed by placing extra asphalt off the edge of the paver when the streets were originally built. 6 The south side of 23rd Avenue North, Xylon Avenue North, and the majority of 24th Avenue North have existing concrete curb and gutter. The remainder of the project area contains bituminous curb. Pedestrian Facilities The only pedestrian facility within the project limits is the existing concrete sidewalk along the south side of Medicine Lake Road. Refer to Exhibit 6: Pedestrian Routes for locations of existing pedestrian facilities within the project area. Street Lighting No City-owned street lighting facilities exist within the project area. Three Xcel Energy-owned wooden poles with cobra-head light fixtures are present the intersections of Aquila Avenue North/Medicine Lake Road, Xylon Avenue North/Medicine Lake Road and Zealand Avenue North/Rose Manor. Decorative street lights also owned by Xcel are present along 23rd Avenue North at the Aquila Avenue North and Zealand Avenue North intersections. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS This portion of the feasibility report will focus on the proposed design of the project. The estimated project costs and project financing will be discussed later in this report. Public Participation As part of the preliminary design process for the 2020 Pavement Management Program, two project open houses were held. The first open house was held in May 2019 and the second was held in October 2019. The open houses provided residents with project information and a forum to express concerns and ask questions regarding the proposed project. Residents were able to view the preliminary project design, including anticipated impacts to landscaping, trees, and driveways. Information regarding the Driveway Reconstruction Program and the Inflow and Infiltration Sewer Service Inspection Program was also available at these meetings. All written comments received at or following the open house meetings, are summarized in Appendix A: Summary of Resident Comments. These written comments are an important tool for staff to identify issues that need to be addressed as part of the project design. The proposed improvements discussed in this portion of the feasibility report are shown on Exhibits 2A through 2F: Proposed Project Layouts. 7 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation As discussed earlier in this report, a television inspection of the existing sanitary sewer system was performed during the preliminary design portion of this project. Based upon the results of the televising, it has been determined that the majority of sanitary sewer mains within the project area are in need of repair, with the exception of the previously lined sewer mains on Aquila Avenue North. The nature of the defects, including primarily cracked pipes and root intrusion, indicates that the remainder of the sanitary mains can be rehabilitated by structural lining. Sanitary sewer lining will be effective in repairing the defects and addressing the infiltration issues within the City’s system. The existing sanitary sewer defects are illustrated on Exhibit 7. The proposed sanitary sewer improvements are illustrated on Exhibits 2A through 2F: Proposed Project Layouts. In addition to lining the sanitary sewer mains, this project will incorporate other measures to reduce the amount of I/I being introduced into the City’s sanitary sewer main system. These I/I reduction efforts include the replacement of all sanitary sewer manhole castings and covers and the rehabilitation and reconstruction of necessary sanitary sewer manholes. These measures have been implemented in past PMP projects, and are consistent with the City’s efforts to address all sources of I/I. Sanitary Sewer Service Rehabilitation As previously mentioned, residents in the project area have been given the opportunity to voluntarily have their sanitary sewer service inspected as part of this project and as part of the City’s ongoing I/I Reduction Program. The intent of this voluntary inspection, which is funded by the City’s water and sewer fund, is to identify potential sources of I/I from the privately owned sanitary sewer services. It is also intended to let the property owners know what sewer service repairs are needed in order to become compliant with City Code. Each of the property owners can use the information provided in the inspection to plan for future sewer service repairs, including participation in the sewer service repair program, which includes the option to specially assess the work offered as part of the proposed project. Sewer service inspections started in the fall of 2019 for residents involved with the project. Each property owner, including those who did not participate in the voluntary inspection program, will be given the opportunity to have repairs performed on their sanitary sewer service. These repairs will be performed in conjunction with this project, but will be completed under a separate contract from the public improvements. Homeowners will be able to have their sewer services lined, or removed and replaced, as part of this program. 8 Interested homeowners can enter into a three-way agreement with the Contractor and the City. The Contractor performs the work, the City pays the Contractor, and the homeowner reimburses the City over a ten year period via a special assessment. Water Main Rehabilitation Based upon water system maintenance records, it is proposed that the existing 6-inch and 12-inch diameter cast iron water main located in the project area be replaced as part of this project with C900 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic pipe. As part of the water supply modeling in the city’s comprehensive plan, it is recommended that existing 6-inch water main pipe be upsized as feasible to 8-inch pipe to assist with fire protection system wide. Existing water services will be replaced with high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic pipe to the right-of-way line. New curb stops will be also be installed at the right-of-way line on new water services. A temporary water supply system will be required to provide water to the homes during water main replacement. The proposed water main replacement is shown on Exhibits 2A through 2F: Proposed Project Layouts. In addition to water main replacement, all hydrant and gate valves will be replaced throughout the project area. Additional gate valves and hydrants will be added where needed to meet current spacing requirements. Storm Water Management The entire 2020 PMP project area is part of the Bassett Creek Watershed, and is mostly contained within the Bassett Creek Main Stem (Upstream) subwatershed with a small portion in the Medicine Lake Direct subwatershed. Therefore, the proposed improvements will be designed in accordance with the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC) Requirements for Improvements and Development Proposals. This includes the implementation of storm water best management practices (BMPs) as part of the project design and during construction. The majority of the proposed storm sewer improvements for the project area are modifications, extensions, and/or replacements of the existing storm sewer system to help facilitate drainage of streets, rights-of-way and adjacent properties to the extent feasible. As with past PMP projects, a sump discharge drainage system is proposed within the project area. This sump discharge drainage system consists of a piping system behind the curb and a service stub for potential connection of private sump pump discharges. The sump discharge drainage system is proposed for locations where a significant number of sump pumps are present, and provides an alternative to discharging sump pumps above ground into backyards, the street, or into the sanitary sewer system, where clear water flows are not allowed. 9 Additional Water Quality Measures While rain gardens or infiltration basins are not feasible due to the typical clayey soils that prevent water infiltration into the subsurface, rain gardens designed as filtration basins may be feasible. The City will provide technical assistance to individual homeowners if they desire to create “rain garden” filtration basins on their property. Storm sewer sump manholes with manhole baffles will be installed throughout the project area where practical, prior to stormwater discharge to surface waters. Manhole baffles provide pre-treatment to storm water entering the sump manholes by filtering out sediment as it enters the manhole. The sump manholes allow the larger debris and sediment that is filtered from the storm water by the manhole baffle to settle out in the sump, where it is cleaned out on a regularly scheduled basis as part of the City’s maintenance program. No additional water quality improvements are required for the 2020 PMP by the BCWMC. The minimization of impervious surfaces such as street pavement, which generate higher volumes of storm water runoff than vegetated pervious surfaces, is a goal of PMP design. Existing street impervious areas, post construction impervious areas, and the amount of decrease in impervious area for the 2020 PMP are shown below. Since the 2020 PMP street reconstruction is a linear project that disturbs more than 1.0 acre, it must be submitted to the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) for review. However, since the street reconstruction does not create more than one acre of additional impervious surface, it does not require permanent stormwater management. Existing Impervious Area (acres) Post Construction Impervious Area (acres) Decrease of Impervious Area (acres) % Reduction of Impervious Area Street 4.56 4.32 0.24 5.26% Streets The City of Golden Valley Pavement Management Program stresses the use of proper pavement rehabilitation measures for each street. After reviewing the streets within the project area, it has been determined that reconstruction to City standards is the appropriate rehabilitation measure. This section of the report will discuss proposed rehabilitation measures being recommended, as well as the structural and geometric concerns encountered during preliminary design. Street Widths For approximately the last ten years it has been the City’s practice to narrow the streets in the PMP projects from the existing widths (28 to 29 feet from face of curb to face of curb) in order to minimize storm water runoff, minimize impacts to adjacent trees and landscaping, and to reduce construction and maintenance costs of the pavements. The most common width following reconstruction has been 26 feet, with some streets being reconstructed to 24 feet. 10 During the public involvement portion of the 2020 PMP design, a number of residents from the project area, and future project areas, expressed concerns about the narrowing of the streets. Based upon these concerns, the City Council revised the Pavement Management Policy at its November 19, 2019 meeting to establish a standard street width of 28 feet between the face of curbs on each side of the street. Based upon this direction from the City Council, the preliminary design of this project has been modified to include reconstruction of all of the streets to the new 28 foot standard width. The impact of this modifications to the street widths will be discussed in the ESTIMATED COSTS AND PROJECT FINANCING portion of this report. The existing street widths are illustrated in Exhibit 3: Existing Street Widths. The proposed width of each street is shown on Exhibits 2A through 2F: Proposed Project Layouts and on Exhibit 4: Proposed Street Widths. Subgrade Corrections Based upon the subsurface conditions encountered within the project area, it is recommended that subgrade correction occur beneath each street. Subgrade correction is performed by removing soft, moisture-susceptible soils that are structurally unsuitable, and backfilling with clean (minimal silt) granular material such as sand or gravel. The subgrade correction planned for all streets in the project area includes subcutting and replacing the excavated soils with a minimum of three feet of sand and the City’s standard bituminous and gravel base street section. In addition, it is recommended to install geotextile fabric at the bottom of the three foot sand layer to provide additional subgrade stabilization above an organic clay fill layer near the intersection of Xylon Avenue North and 24th Avenue North. Geotextile fabrics are typically placed in areas where unsuitable subgrade soils have been identified. Refer to Exhibit 5: Subcut Depths/Soil Borings for an illustration of the proposed subcut areas and depths and anticipated geotextile fabric areas. Concrete Curb and Gutter The installation of concrete curb and gutter is required by the City because of its engineering and maintenance advantages. Curb and gutter provides pavement edge support and protection, facilitates roadway drainage, and eliminates the need for ditches. Given the practicality of curb and gutter and its usefulness, the City’s standard practice is to install concrete curb and gutter on all streets in the project area. The standard type of concrete curb and gutter on Golden Valley streets includes a 6-inch high barrier curb and an 18-inch wide gutter (B618 curb and gutter). Intersection Improvements The existing intersection of Xylon Avenue North and 24th Avenue North has an offset alignment which creates difficulties for traffic flow. It is proposed to slightly rotate the 11 proposed curb lines of the west leg of 24th Avenue North to the north to better align with the east leg of the intersection. This will help to reduce the offset of the driving lanes when crossing Xylon Avenue North along 24th Avenue North. Improvements to the remaining intersections include installing concrete curb and gutter throughout the project area, to comply with City standards for residential streets. The addition of curb and gutter will improve drainage at each intersection as well as provide better edge protection than areas with rolled bituminous curb, which has deteriorated over the years. Proposed geometrics for the project area are illustrated in Exhibits 2A through 2F: Proposed Project Layouts. Pedestrian Facilities The current City of Golden Valley Sidewalk and Trail Plan does not identify any new pedestrian facilities within the project area. The existing pedestrian ramps along Medicine Lake Road at Aquila Avenue North and Xylon Avenue North will be reconstructed in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) requirements. The existing pedestrian routes through the project area are illustrated on Exhibit 6: Pedestrian Routes. Street Lighting As described above, the project area does not contain any City-owned street lights. No new street lighting is proposed for the project area. Tree and Landscape Impacts The proposed project outlined in this feasibility report includes minimizing impacts to landscaping, trees and shrubs as a major design consideration. As a result, the impacts have been minimized to the extent possible. It is estimated that approximately 25 trees and 10 shrubs will be impacted by the proposed improvements. The extent of the potential tree impacts due to the reconstruction of sanitary sewer and water services cannot be quantified at this time. Because maintenance of private sanitary sewer services is the responsibility of the individual homeowners, the removal and replacement of trees and shrubs due to sewer service repairs will also be the homeowners’ responsibility. Any tree removals required for sewer service repairs will be included in the assessable costs, but replacement trees or shrubs will be the responsibility of the property owner. The potential impacts to trees, shrubs and landscaping is one of the primary reasons that lining of sanitary sewer services is the preferred method of rehabilitation. Driveway Reconstruction Program As with past PMP projects, homeowners within the project area whose driveways are impacted by street reconstruction will be given the opportunity to have their driveway replaced as part of the project, at contract unit prices. As part of this program, residents have the option of having the driveway reconstruction costs assessed against their property for a period of 10 years. 12 It should be noted that the City may reject homeowner participation in the driveway replacement program in situations where the reconstruction is excessively complicated or the risk of additional liability to the City is high during the reconstruction of the driveway. Challenging driveway reconstruction often includes pavement removal or installation against the base of retaining walls, foundation or basement walls or very flat or steep grades. The City also evaluates the number of driveways on a single property for compliance with City Code Chapter 113-88 – Street Access. Staff will meet with homeowners during final design to determine the status of secondary driveways. Typically, a property is allowed a single driveway unless specific conditions are met. ESTIMATED COSTS AND PROJECT FINANCING Estimated Project Costs The estimated costs for the improvements outlined in this report are separated by the type of work and funding sources. These categories include utility work, storm drainage improvements, and street reconstruction costs. The estimated project costs include construction costs and construction contingencies, and an estimated 25 percent of the construction costs as indirect costs. These indirect costs typically include project design, surveying, construction administration, and legal costs. Discussion on the financing and funding sources for the proposed improvements is included in the next section of this report. Sewer and Water Costs The estimated sewer and water costs include all water main replacement, sanitary sewer repairs (including service wye liners), and maintenance as outlined within this report. Estimated Construction Costs = $ 900,000 Estimated 25% Indirect Costs = $ 300,000 Estimated Sewer and Water Total = $ 1,200,000 Storm Drainage Costs The estimated storm drainage costs include all storm sewer installation, water quality measures, and erosion control. Estimated Construction Costs = $ 562,500 Estimated 25% Indirect Costs = $ 187,500 Estimated Storm Drainage Total = $ 750,000 Street Reconstruction Costs The estimated street reconstruction costs include all subgrade correction, pavement, curb and gutter and erosion control for the 28 foot wide streets as discussed previously. However, the estimated costs for street reconstruction for 26 foot wide streets is included for reference below. 13 28 Foot Wide Streets Estimated Construction Costs = $ 2,666,300 Estimated 25% Indirect Costs = $ 888,700 Completion Date Incentive = $ 40,000 Estimated Street Reconstruction Total = $ 3,595,000 26 Foot Wide Streets Estimated Construction Costs = $ 2,475,000 Estimated 25% Indirect Costs = $ 825,000 Completion Date Incentive = $ 40,000 Estimated Street Reconstruction Total = $ 3,340,000 As shown in the estimated street costs outlined above, the project contract will include an incentive, estimated to be a maximum of $40,000, to be paid to the contractor for substantially completing the work on or before the specified completion date. The contract will also include a disincentive if the contractor does not complete the project by the specified date. The completion incentive is included in the estimated street reconstruction costs. Total Project Costs Estimated Sewer and Water Costs = $ 1,200,000 Estimated Storm Drainage Costs = $ 750,000 Estimated Street Reconstruction Costs = $ 3,595,000 Estimated Total Project Cost = $ 5,545,000 Proposed Project Financing The proposed financing of this project is a combination of special assessments to properties abutting the streets being improved, Street Improvement funds, the Sewer and Water Reserve Fund, and the Storm Water Improvement Fund. The following is a brief description of each of these funding sources and a summary of the estimated amount to be funded from each source. Special Assessments The proposed special assessments for the 2020 Pavement Management Project are consistent with the City of Golden Valley Special Assessment Policy and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. As outlined in the Special Assessment Policy, residential properties are assessed on a per-unit basis for each single family or duplex unit. Oversized lots that may potentially be subdivided into additional conforming lots are assessed one unit assessment for each potential lot. However, only one unit assessment is levied with the project, with the other assessments being deferred until the property is subdivided. Corner residential lots are assessed one-half unit for each of the lot’s frontage being improved, with no more than one full unit assessed, unless the lot could be subdivided. Corner lots with County roads are assessed one full unit for the local street being reconstructed. 14 As previously discussed in this report, the City Council modified the Pavement Management Policy in the fall of 2019 to establish a standard residential street width of 28 feet based upon comments received during the public outreach portion of the preliminary project design. However, the project budget contained in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) was based upon the estimated costs to construct 26 foot wide roadways within this project. Therefore, the preliminary calculation of the per unit special assessment rate of $7,530.00/unit was calculated assuming a 26 foot wide roadway. The use of special assessments for financing public improvement projects is outlined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. This law requires that when special assessments are used to finance projects a minimum of 20% of the project cost must be specially assessed. Therefore, because special assessments are being used to finance a portion of the street reconstruction costs, the assessments must be 20% of that cost. The project costs associated with sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer construction are financed from dedicated funds, and special assessments are not utilized for funding for utilities. Based upon the above discussion, the preliminary special assessment rate of $7,530.00 per unit represents 16.9% of the estimated construction costs for a 28 foot wide street, which does not meet the 20% threshold outlined in Chapter 429. Therefore, a new special assessment rate has been calculated at an estimated range of $8,360 to $9,529 per residential unit. The final special assessment rate will be calculated following the opening of construction bids and will be based on actual costs. Based upon the current schedule for the 2020 PMP project, it is anticipated that the construction contract award and the Public Hearing for the Special Assessments will be held at the April 7, 2020 City Council Meeting. As shown on Appendix B: Preliminary Special Assessment Roll, the estimated amount of street reconstruction costs to be financed through special assessments is $771,849.00. Sewer and Water Reserve Fund The Sewer and Water Reserve Fund will be the funding source for all sanitary sewer and water main work discussed within this report. The estimated amount to be funded from this source is $1,200,000. The Sewer and Water Reserve Fund is financed from sanitary sewer and water utility fees. Storm Sewer Improvement Fund All storm drainage improvements, including lateral storm sewer extensions, drain tile, erosion control, and storm water BMPs are funded from the Storm Sewer Improvement Fund. The estimated amount to be funded from this source is $750,000. The Storm Sewer Improvement Fund is financed from storm water utility fees paid by all properties in the City. 15 Street Improvement Funds All street rehabilitation costs not funded by special assessments will be funded using street improvement tax levies. These levies are used to repay bonds sold to finance the project. The estimated amount to be funded from this source is $3,595,000. Financing Summary The following is a summary of the amounts to be funded from each of the sources discussed above. Sewer and Water Reserve Fund = $ 1,200,000 Storm Sewer Improvement Fund = $ 750,000 *Street Improvement Funds = $ 3,595,000 Estimated Total Project Cost = $ 5,545,000 *Street Reconstruction Bonds are sold, paid back with Special Assessments. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS This feasibility report for the proposed 2020 Pavement Management Project has been prepared in accordance with the Golden Valley City Council’s authorization on September 20, 2018. The proposed improvements are part of a city-wide Pavement Management Program adopted by the City in order to provide a high-quality street system in a long-term, cost-effective manner. The Pavement Management Program also includes the rehabilitation and/or replacement of the existing sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer systems as needed with each project. This report discusses the proposed improvements to streets illustrated on Exhibit 1: Project Location Map, which are proposed to be constructed during the 2020 construction season. Engineering staff has determined that the improvements outlined in this report are feasible from an engineering perspective. These improvements are consistent with the City of Golden Valley Pavement Management Program and will benefit the community and those properties abutting the proposed improvements. The cost-effectiveness of the proposed improvements should be determined by the City Council. Staff recommends approval of City Improvement Project No. 20-01, 2020 Pavement Management, as discussed within this report. Staff further recommends that the City Council authorize advertising for bids to construct the project. Exhibits Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit 2A – 2F - Proposed Project Layouts Exhibit 3 - Existing Street Widths Exhibit 4 - Proposed Street Widths Exhibit 5 - Subcut Depths / Soil Borings Exhibit 6 - Pedestrian Routes Exhibit 7 - Sanitary Sewer Defects Exhibit 8 – Subwatershed Drainage Save: 10/30/2019 10:55 AM jbergerson Plot: 1/6/2020 8:26 AM S:\FJ\G\Goldv\148259\4-prelim-dsgn-rpts\Exhibits\1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP.dwg0 feetscale 200 400200 100 EXHIBIT NO. 1 PHONE: 651.490.2000 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE ST. PAUL, MN 55110-5196 www.sehinc.com FILE NO. DATE: 148259 01/06/2020 PROJECT LOCATION MAP 2020 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (PMP) GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA LEGEND PROJECT LOCATION 234085402425240523852365235523352325230123602340232023002380MSB:20-1WMSB:20-2>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISSTSSTSSTSS9" LINED V.S.P.9" LINED V.S.P.9" LINED V.S.P.9" LINED V.S.P.9" LINED V.S.P.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.CONC.CONC.GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OHCONC.P-BURP-BURCONC.>>>>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>CO>>>>>COCOCOCOCOCOCOSTSTST251023402535254585552540250525018535MSB:20-4EXWDP-BURP-BURT-BURT-BURT-BUR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> >> >> >>IIIIIIIIIIII I I I IIISSSST9" LINED V.S.P.9" LINED V.S.P.9" LINED V.S.P.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.PAVERSBIT.BIT.BIT.GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURFO-DUCTFO-DUCTFO-DUCTFO-DUCTFO-DUCTP-BURP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OHCONC.CAUTIONEXISTINGBURIED POWERFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOEEBIT.CONC.IIII I II>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>COCOCOCO01/06/2020Save: 1/6/2020 8:23 AM jbergerson Plot: 1/6/2020 8:27 AM S:\FJ\G\Goldv\148259\4-prelim-dsgn-rpts\Exhibits\1 CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT.dwg0feetscale30603015 PHONE: 651.490.20003535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVEST. PAUL, MN 55110-5196www.sehinc.comFILE NO.DATE:148259CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT2020 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (PMP)GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTAEXISTING CURB & GUTTERPROPOSED CURB & GUTTERPEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTSEXISTING SANITARY SEWERPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTSEXISTING WATER MAINPROPOSED WATER MAINEXISTING STORM SEWERPROPOSED STORM SEWERPROPOSED DRAINTILEPEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP IMPROVEMENTSDENOTES PROPOSED STREET WIDTH (F-F)>II>>>SEE EXHIBIT 2BSEE EXHIBIT 2BSEE EXHIBIT 2CSEE BELOW LEFT SEE ABOVE RIGHT 0feetscale30603015SEE EXHIBIT 2D 224022452240224522408465230123002300854085202301MSB:20-1 WWMSB:20-5 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>IIIIII IIIIIIIIIII I I I I IISSTSTSSSTS>>9" V.S.P.9" V.S.P.9" LINED V.S.P. 9" V.S.P. 9" V.S.P. 9" V.S.P.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT. BIT.CONC.CONC.CONC.CONC.CONC.CONC.CONC.GGGGGGGGGGGG G GG GG G T-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OH P-BURP-BURP-BURIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>COCO>>>>>>>>>>>> >>COCOCOCOSTSTST00+1599.85+1584052240844583452255230023052300834023058250>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>IIIIIIIIIIIIII I IIIISSSCORAILROAD TIMBER RETAINING WALLGRANITE EDGINGBIT.BIT.BIT.CONC.CONC.CONC.GGGGGGG GT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BUR T-BURT-BURT-BUR T-BUR T-BURP-OHP-OHP-OH P-OHT HEDGE ROWCONC.IIIIIII>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>COCOCOCO01/06/2020Save: 1/6/2020 8:23 AM jbergerson Plot: 1/6/2020 8:27 AM S:\FJ\G\Goldv\148259\4-prelim-dsgn-rpts\Exhibits\1 CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT.dwg 0feetscale30603015PHONE: 651.490.20003535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVEST. PAUL, MN 55110-5196www.sehinc.comFILE NO.DATE:148259CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT2020 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (PMP)GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTAEXISTING CURB & GUTTERPROPOSED CURB & GUTTERPEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTSEXISTING SANITARY SEWERPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTSEXISTING WATER MAINPROPOSED WATER MAINEXISTING STORM SEWERPROPOSED STORM SEWERPROPOSED DRAINTILEPEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP IMPROVEMENTSDENOTES PROPOSED STREET WIDTH (F-F)>II>>>SEE EXHIBIT 2ASEE EXHIBIT 2ESEE EXHIBIT 2FSEE ABOVE RIGHT SEE BELOW LEFT SEE EXHIBIT 2D 2405 242585308540240523852365235523352360234085078511238085218520238585102365MSB:20-2 MSB:20-3MSB:20-6 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>IIII I I I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISTSSTSSSSS STSST9" LINED V.S.P.9" LINED V.S.P.9" LINED V.S.P.9" V.S.P.9" V.S.P.9" V.S.P.9" V.S.P. 9" V.S.P. BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT. BIT. BIT. BIT. CONC. CONC. CONC.CONC.CONC.CONC.CONC.CONC.CONC.CONC.CONC.GGGG GG G GGG GGGGG GGGGGGG GGG G GGGGGGG G GGG GT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BUR T-BUR T-BUR T-BUR T-BURT-BUR T-BURP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OH P-OH CONC.G>>>>>XWD III I IIIIIIIIII I IIIIIII>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>COCO COCOCOCOCO CO CO CO COCOCOCO CO STSTST01/06/2020Save: 1/6/2020 8:23 AM jbergerson Plot: 1/6/2020 8:27 AM S:\FJ\G\Goldv\148259\4-prelim-dsgn-rpts\Exhibits\1 CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT.dwg 0feetscale30603015PHONE: 651.490.20003535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVEST. PAUL, MN 55110-5196www.sehinc.comFILE NO.DATE:148259CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT2020 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (PMP)GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTAEXISTING CURB & GUTTERPROPOSED CURB & GUTTERPEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTSEXISTING SANITARY SEWERPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTSEXISTING WATER MAINPROPOSED WATER MAINEXISTING STORM SEWERPROPOSED STORM SEWERPROPOSED DRAINTILEPEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP IMPROVEMENTSDENOTES PROPOSED STREET WIDTH (F-F)>II>>>SEE EXHIBIT 2DSEE EXHIBIT 2ASEE EXHIBIT 2ASEE EXHIBIT 2D 240524252300232023502370238024002430246024652385236523252301WMSB:20-5MSB:20-6>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISSTSSSSTSSTSCO9" V.S.P.9" V.S.P.9" V.S.P.9" V.S.P.9" V.S.P.9" V.S.P.9" V.S.P.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.CONC.CONC.CONC.CONC.CONC.CONC.CONC.GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OHGIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOSTSTST2425250025 2 0 25402465 2530MSB:20-4XWD>>>>>>>>>>>>>>IIIIIIISSS9" LINED V.S.P.9" V.S.P.PAVERSBIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.CONC.CONC.GGGGGGGGGGGGGIIIIII>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>COCO CO CO COCO01/06/2020Save: 1/6/2020 8:23 AM jbergerson Plot: 1/6/2020 8:27 AM S:\FJ\G\Goldv\148259\4-prelim-dsgn-rpts\Exhibits\1 CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT.dwg 0feetscale30603015PHONE: 651.490.20003535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVEST. PAUL, MN 55110-5196www.sehinc.comFILE NO.DATE:148259CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT2020 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (PMP)GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTAEXISTING CURB & GUTTERPROPOSED CURB & GUTTERPEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTSEXISTING SANITARY SEWERPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTSEXISTING WATER MAINPROPOSED WATER MAINEXISTING STORM SEWERPROPOSED STORM SEWERPROPOSED DRAINTILEPEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP IMPROVEMENTSDENOTES PROPOSED STREET WIDTH (F-F)>II>>>SEE BELOW LEFT SEE ABOVE RIGHT SEE EXHIBIT 2ASEE EXHIBIT 2FSEE EXHIBIT 2CSEE EXHIBIT 2BSEE EXHIBIT 2B 84052240243083502390237023502330230523252345236523852405243524652300MSB:20-7MSB:20-8G>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISTSSSSSRAILROAD TIMBER RETAINING WALLGRANITE EDGING9" V.S.P.9" V.S.P.9" V.S.P.9" V.S.P.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.CONC.CONC.CONC.CONC.CONC.CONC.CONC.CONC.CONC.GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURCONC.GHEDGE ROWHEDGE ROWIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>COCOCOCOCOCOCOST2540250024902460246524952505254525858239MSB:20-9EECTRLT-BURT-BUR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>STSTIIIIIIIIIIIIIISSSTIMBERRETAININGWALLWOODEN9" V.S.P.9" V.S.P.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.CONC.CONC.GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURT-BURFO-DUCTFO-DUCTFO-DUCTFO-DUCTFO-DUCTP-BURP-BURP-BURP-BURP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OHP-OHCAUTIONEXISTINGBURIED POWERFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOP-OHSTBLOCKRETAININGWALLIIIIII>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>COCOCOCOCOCO01/06/2020Save: 1/6/2020 8:23 AM jbergerson Plot: 1/6/2020 8:27 AM S:\FJ\G\Goldv\148259\4-prelim-dsgn-rpts\Exhibits\1 CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT.dwg PHONE: 651.490.20003535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVEST. PAUL, MN 55110-5196www.sehinc.comFILE NO.DATE:148259CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT2020 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (PMP)GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTAEXISTING CURB & GUTTERPROPOSED CURB & GUTTERPEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTSEXISTING SANITARY SEWERPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTSEXISTING WATER MAINPROPOSED WATER MAINEXISTING STORM SEWERPROPOSED STORM SEWERPROPOSED DRAINTILEPEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP IMPROVEMENTSDENOTES PROPOSED STREET WIDTH (F-F)>II>>>0feetscale30603015SEE EXHIBIT 2FS E E B E L O W L E F T SEE ABOVE RIGHT SEE EXHIBIT 2BSEE EXHIBIT 2F 2380 2400 237583008350239023852405MSB:20-6 MSB:20-8 G>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I I I I I I I I I I II I I ISSTSTS SS9" V.S.P.9" V.S.P. 9" V.S.P.9" V.S.P.9" V.S.P.9" V.S.P.9" V.S.P.BIT.BIT.BIT.BIT.CONC.CONC. CONC .CONC.GGGGGGG G G G GGGP-OH P-OH P-OH P-OH P-OHCONC.CONC.GP-OH P-OH P-OH P-OH P- O HGIIIII III>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>COCOCOCO COCOCOCOCOST ST01/06/2020Save: 1/6/2020 8:23 AM jbergerson Plot: 1/6/2020 8:27 AM S:\FJ\G\Goldv\148259\4-prelim-dsgn-rpts\Exhibits\1 CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT.dwg PHONE: 651.490.20003535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVEST. PAUL, MN 55110-5196www.sehinc.comFILE NO.DATE:148259CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT2020 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (PMP)GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTAEXISTING CURB & GUTTERPROPOSED CURB & GUTTERPEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTSEXISTING SANITARY SEWERPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTSEXISTING WATER MAINPROPOSED WATER MAINEXISTING STORM SEWERPROPOSED STORM SEWERPROPOSED DRAINTILEPEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP IMPROVEMENTSDENOTES PROPOSED STREET WIDTH (F-F)>II>>>0feetscale30603015SEE EXHIBIT 2DSEE EXHIBIT 2ESEE EXHIBIT 2ESEE EXHIBIT 2D Save: 1/3/2020 1:56 PM jbergerson Plot: 1/6/2020 8:28 AM S:\FJ\G\Goldv\148259\4-prelim-dsgn-rpts\Exhibits\EXISTING STREET WIDTHS.dwg0 feetscale 200 400200 100 EXHIBIT NO. 3 PHONE: 651.490.2000 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE ST. PAUL, MN 55110-5196 www.sehinc.com FILE NO. DATE: 148259 01/06/2020 EXISTING STREET WIDTHS 2020 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (PMP) GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA EXISTING STREET WIDTHS 29' FACE OF CURB TO FACE OF CURB Save: 1/3/2020 1:55 PM jbergerson Plot: 1/6/2020 8:28 AM S:\FJ\G\Goldv\148259\4-prelim-dsgn-rpts\Exhibits\PROPOSED STREET WIDTHS.dwg0 feetscale 200 400200 100 EXHIBIT NO. 4 PHONE: 651.490.2000 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE ST. PAUL, MN 55110-5196 www.sehinc.com FILE NO. DATE: 148259 01/06/2020 PROPOSED STREET WIDTHS 2020 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (PMP) GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA PROPOSED STREET WIDTHS 28' FACE OF CURB TO FACE OF CURB 20-1 20-5 20-2 20-4 20-3 20-6 20-7 20-9 20-8 Save: 10/30/2019 11:15 AM jbergerson Plot: 1/6/2020 8:28 AM S:\FJ\G\Goldv\148259\4-prelim-dsgn-rpts\Exhibits\PROPOSED SUBCUT DEPTHS.dwg0 feetscale 200 400200 100 EXHIBIT NO. 5 PHONE: 651.490.2000 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE ST. PAUL, MN 55110-5196 www.sehinc.com FILE NO. DATE: 148259 01/06/2020 SUBCUT DEPTHS/SOIL BORINGS 2020 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (PMP) GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA LEGEND 3' SUBCUT 3' SUBCUT W/ GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SOIL BORING LOCATION20-1 Save: 10/30/2019 11:15 AM jbergerson Plot: 1/6/2020 8:28 AM S:\FJ\G\Goldv\148259\4-prelim-dsgn-rpts\Exhibits\PEDESTRIAN ROUTES.dwg0 feetscale 200 400200 100 EXHIBIT NO. 6 PHONE: 651.490.2000 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE ST. PAUL, MN 55110-5196 www.sehinc.com FILE NO. DATE: 148259 01/06/2020 PEDESTRIAN ROUTES 2020 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (PMP) GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA OFF ROAD SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS EXISTING PEDESTRIAN ROUTES 2230 2220 220024602500 25202540 2 5 3 5 2 5 4 5 8 5 5 5 2540255524352 5 0 5 23008507851123808521852023858510236523258505854085202485 2505 2540 2500 2490 2460 2430 8350 2390 2370 2350 2330 2305 2325 8455846584852200 8460845084302 1 5 5 2 1 6 5 2 2 0 5 2 2 4 5 2240 846584458 3 4 522402245 2 2 0 5 2 1 6 5 2 1 5 52150 2 1 6 0 2 2 1 0 2 2 4 0 2215 22358405 2 2 4 0 2 1 6 5 2 2 0 5 2 2 2 3 225022552 4 0 5 2 4 2 5 25102430 85308540 2 4 2 5 2 4 0 5 2 3 8 5 2 3 6 5 2 3 5 5 2 3 3 5 2 3 2 5 2301 23602 3 4 0 2 3 2 0 2 3 0 0 2 3 0 0 2 3 2 0 2 3 5 0 2 3 7 0 2 3 8 0 2 4 0 0 2 4 3 0 232025012465253084458465850585352550257523012 4 0 0 2 3 9 0 2 3 7 0 2 3 5 0 2 3 3 02335 2 3 5 5 2 3 7 5 8300 2425 24452345 2365 2385 2405 2435 2465 2 4 9 5 2505 2545 8401 2585 8239 8229 2300834023058250!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(!( !(!( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!( 1249 1913 1914 1912 1896 1250 1267 1926 1916 1917 1265 1264 1266 1274 1273 1272 1271 1268 1269 1270 1879 1878 1876 1894 1893 1892 1890 1891 1880 1881 1882 1883 1889 1888 1887 1886 18851884 1874 1874A18752652 2651 23rd Ave N Zealand Ave NMedicine Lake Rd Brogger CirZealand Ave NAquila Ave N2 4 t h A v e N Wisconsin Ave NAquila Ave NXylon Ave NWinnetka Heights Dr Rose Manor Exhibit No. 7 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR. ST. PAUL, MN 55110 PHONE: (651) 490-2000 FAX: (888) 908-8166 TF: (800) 325-2055 www.sehinc.com SANITARY SEWER DEFECTS Map by: jbergerson Projection: Hennepin CC Source: City of Golden Valley, SEH Project: GOLDV 148259 Print Date: 01/06/2020 This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. 2020 Pavement Management Program (PMP)Path: S:\FJ\G\Goldv\148259\4-prelim-dsgn-rpts\43-prelim-dsgn\2020 PMP Sanitary Defects Exhibit.mxdPipe Defects !(Fracture !(Infiltration !(Intruding Tap !(Mineral Deposits !(Obstacle !(Offset Joint !(Pipe Broken !(Pipe Crack !(Roots !(Pinhole in Lining O 1 inch = 200 feet Elgin Pl Medicine Lake Rd Brogger CirDecatur Ave N23rd Ave N Zealand Ave NZealand Ave NWestbend Rd 27th Pl N 24 th Ave N Or k l a Dr Medley Ln Xylon Ave NElgin PlEnsign Ave NAquila Ave NYukon Ave NZealand Ave NWisconsin Ave NCavell Ave NWinnetka Heights DrBoone Ave NR o s e Ma n o r Xylon Ave NAquila Ave NExhibit No. 8 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR. ST. PAUL, MN 55110 PHONE: (651) 490-2000 FAX: (888) 908-8166 TF: (800) 325-2055 www.sehinc.com SUBWATERSHED DRAINAGE Map by: jbergerson Projection: Hennepin CC Source: City of Golden Valley, SEH Project: GOLDV 148259 Print Date: 01/06/2020 This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. 2020 Pavement Management Program (PMP)Path: S:\FJ\G\Goldv\148259\4-prelim-dsgn-rpts\43-prelim-dsgn\2020 PMP Watershed.mxd1 inch = 350 feet Legend 2020 PMP Project Location Hennepin County Parcels Medicine Lake Direct Watershed Bassett Creek Main Stem (Upstream) Watershed O Summary of Residential Comments HOUSE No.STREET2020 PMP Property?Invisible FenceAutomatic Sprinkler SystemSump PumpRetaining Walls/ Landscape FeaturesSanitary Sewer Service ProblemsStreet Width IssuesComments852023rd Ave NYXXResident does not know discharge location8540 23rd Ave N YXSump discharges back right of house. Would like curbs and support redoing streets - would be concerned if curb/street height were to increase. Concerned about narrowing streets - we need opportunities to park & drive; narrow streets would be an impediment to our needs. I respectfully request that the streets not be narrowed. 2105 Aquila Ave N NXI understand that Engineering calls those who object to their plans "the torch-and-pitchford crows." Nice. Because our block won't be redone until 2021, I asked if someone could let me know what happened at the Open House for the repavement project for 2020. Why am I so concerned? Street width one block north of us will determine street width for our block, and I walk in the area being repaved next year. I used to walk in the Medley Park area but now it seems too dangerous to walk there. Here is one person's interpretation of how seriously homeowners were taken at the Open House last night: " I can only tell you what I heard from other residents who were gathered around the engineering person we talked with. A number of residents shared their concerns about the street width. The engineering staff's response was consistent and well rehearsed. "They only make recommendations to the city council, the mayor and city council make those decisions." Of course you can expect the city council to respond that they aren't engineers and they have to rely on the engineering recommendations. While we heard the term "traffic calming" one resident correctly pointed out that "calming" isn't needed because Aquila Rose Manor and Zealand already have traffic calming features by virtue of the curves in each of those streets and narrowing those street widths won't slow traffic but simply make them more dangerous. The engineer only response was a suggestion that the resident fill out a form handed out to us to record any concerns. I think this gives you some idea of what will happen at the upcoming city council meeting. No one will take ownership of the decision on street width with engineering saying they only carry out the directives of city council and the city council saying that they rely on the engineering recommendations. We are looking for transparency and accountability and common sense. If a car comes along, will the driver try to pass the little girl on the tricycle who is in the picture below? Will the driver see the little girl on the tricycle? There are many streets left in our neighborhood that can be kept a safe width of 29 feet. Most people aren't involved because they think it will do no good. I have more hope than that but am dismayed by how homeowners have been treated. Their comments were recorded but ignored. Their input never really was considered. They were mocked as "the torch-and-pitchfork crowd." Thanks.2105 Aquila Ave N NXHere is one person's interpretation of how seriously homeowners were taken at the Open House last night: " I can only tell you what I heard from other residents who were gathered around the engineering person we talked with. A number of residents shared their concerns about the street width. The engineering staff's response was consistent and well rehearsed. "They only make recommendations to the city council, the mayor and city council make those decisions." Of course you can expect the city council to respond that they aren't engineers and they have to rely on the engineering recommendations. While we heard the term "traffic calming" one resident correctly pointed out that "calming" isn't needed because Aquila Rose Manor and Zealand already have traffic calming features by virtue of the curves in each of those streets and narrowing those street widths won't slow traffic but simply make them more dangerous. The engineer only response was a suggestion that the resident fill out a form handed out to us to record any concerns. I think this gives you some idea of what will happen at the upcoming city council meeting. No one will take ownership of the decision on street width with engineering saying they only carry out the directives of city council and the city council saying that they rely on the engineering recommendations. We are looking for transparency and accountability and common sense. If a car comes along, will the driver try to pass the little girl on the tricycle who is in the picture below? Will the driver see the little girl on the tricycle? There are many streets left in our neighborhood that can be kept a safe width of 29 feet. Most people aren't involved because they think it will do no good. I have more hope than that but am dismayed by how homeowners have been treated. Their comments were recorded but ignored. Their input never really was considered. They were mocked as "the torch-and-pitchfork crowd."2510Aquila Ave NYXNot problems--concerns. Need to save tree. Need to line sewer line. Need to define driveway apron width. Concerns about street width. 8091 Duluth NXI am writing in regards to the proposed narrowing of the remaining residential streets in Golden Valley. I live on Duluth St. West of Winnetka and I recently learned from a neighbor that the project is set to take place on my street in 2021. I was also informed from this neighbor that each residence will receive a bill from the city in the ballpark of $7,500 and that the project will not only significantly reduce the width of the street but that a bike path will also be added. I’d like to bring a few concerns to your attention that are felt by many neighbors in the area who have been communicating via the Next Door website in hopes that this brings your attention to the concerns of residents of Golden Valley. First, in the 5 years that my husband and I have been residents of Golden Valley, we have never seen anyone riding bikes on our street. However, there are several dozens, maybe even hundreds of people who run and walk their dogs past our house each day. Why was the decision made to add a bike lane rather than a sidewalk? With so many walkers and runners, I am concerned about the safety of these people when the street is less than half as wide. Another concern with such a narrow street is the ability for emergency vehicles and busses to get through if there are cars parked on the street. Second, we have family who live in Plymouth- a city with generally higher incomes and property values than Golden Valley who have also had streets repaved in recent years and the price per home was nowhere near $7,500. Why is the cost so high? This seems excessive. I am also alarmed that as a resident, we have not received any information about this project (details about construction plans or about the enormous cost per household) to prepare for construction and a bill to arrive in the mail. I am disappointed that informing residents of these changes and costs has not been a priority. All communication about this project has come from neighbors. I would ask that the ciyt be forthcoming about cost, plan and completion time of project. I do not know what the discussion has been about the narrowing of streeets within your internal staff but I am hearing from many neighbors that they wish they had been able to contribute their concerns and input- especially if they are being charged such a large amount. I am asking you to consider changing the plan from 26 feet to 28 feet so our residents can safety walk and run as they do so often now and to please provide information to your residents well in advance to prepare for payment. I love living in Golden Valley and I know the work you do is making our city better, but this is a big concern with many residents and we feel we need to be heard.2225 Orkla Drive NThank you for all your work for making Golden Valley a good place to live. I am concerned about your support for narrowing streets to 26 feet, even though it is very apparent that the neighborhoods do not want their streets narrowed! Have you talked to people in the Medley neighborhood? Everyone I have talked to is very unhappy with their new streets. These streets will be around for 50 years. Your decision will affect not only us, but a future generation. Please vote to keep the streets at a 28 feet width. 2355 Orkla Drive NXI think we should let the residents decide if safety is not an issue. (26 vs 28 ft) Each area in question should be looked at. IT seems like extra design work for not much gain. What happens when snow pack does not allow plows to get from curb to curb? Please study big vehicle turning movements where needed. Just don't make things worse. We want 28 ft. widths. Don"t forget about school buses turning.8505Rose ManorYXDischarges above ground. Concerns are narrowing of street and getting to my house.8507Rose ManorYXSump discharges to street. Resident has no email2020 PMP Open House Comment Cards (as of 12/5/19) HOUSE No.STREET2020 PMP Property?Invisible FenceAutomatic Sprinkler SystemSump PumpRetaining Walls/ Landscape FeaturesSanitary Sewer Service ProblemsStreet Width IssuesComments2020 PMP Open House Comment Cards (as of 12/5/19)8520 Rose Manor YX XDischarges to yard. We're happy that the streets are being fixed--finally. We're NOT happy with the palnt o narrow the streets 3 to 4 feet. It's a safety issue. We dno't have sidewalks so people walk on the streets & kids play in them. Giving us 3' less space to walk means we'll be competing with cards-NOT SAFE! At the meeting (open house) your engineer just shrugged his shoulders & smiled condescendingly when I gave him my concerns. Gave me the impression that you've already decided & getting our inputs is really just a box checking exercise. I watched the progress on the street improvement project to the S.W. of us this summer & it shocked me how long the project took & the negative impact that the homeowners had to endure for most of the summer. I've managed projects for the last 40 years & from the outside looking in, this on appeared to be haphazzard at best. I'm hoping you can gather lessons learned from this one & apply it to the next proejct (ours). Pelase get inputs from the homeowners affected. Once again, PLEASE reconsider the decision to reduce street widths. The cost savaings will pale in comparison to the impact if one person gets hit by a car because of narrow streets. 8521 Rose Manor YXTwo sumps. Most active one is on west side other one on SE corner of house. I'm mostly concerned with the narrowing of the street. Rose Manor has two curves and only 7 homes. Traffic is minimal. I feel the street will get narrower in the winter as the plow is going to have to stay a distance from the new vertical curbs to keep from damaging equipment. Mike Fait 10-23-198105 Wynwood Road NXFirst of all I want to thank those of you who have considered the voices, opinions, and information shared by your employers, your constituents, we-- the citizens of Golden Valley. Many of us have written to you as well as shown up to public meetings to ask you to reconsider narrowing our streets. It appears, however, that only a few have respect for your employers. As for the rest it appears you do not respect your employers but defer to your predetermined “expertise” and opinion based on written plans rather than the real day-to-day impact on the community. My understanding is that you are likely to go forward with the 26 foot-wide streets, regardless of the negative impact on our neighborhoods. I grew up in and have worked for over 40 years in the City of Minneapolis where almost all of the streets are too narrow for safe travel—but those streets at least have alleys for some parking, and sidewalks for pedestrians. What you will be creating with 26-foot wide streets here in Golden Valley will mirror Minneapolis along with the numerous problems that come with streets that are too narrow. This process of narrowing the streets without full citizen input was not right. And now, going forward with the same plan regardless of citizen concern and feedback is also not right. As a long time resident who will likely be impacted in the next one to two years, my husband and I will be strongly considering leaving this city we have believed in and loved for over 30 years. We are so disappointed. It is sad that citizen participation seems to be ending in futility. There is too much of that going on in our government these days. There is still time to listen to your constituents and reconsider your decision by allowing the streets to be reconstructed at a more reasonable width of 28 feet. It is a matter of how seriously you take your role in serving the public and respect for the trust we have placed in you. 2115 Xylon Ave N NXAs a 15 year resident of GV, I do NOT want to see my streets get smaller! We moved to this area because we live on a corner, and where there are lots of children in our neighborhood. We have a great neighborhood that all sits together and the kids play between our houses and bike in the streets. Our roads are concrete which we really loved and now they no longer be. Then we found out that the streets would be narrowed to 26’ wide and we are not at all happy about this. Last night many people came to the council meeting showing their support to not continue with what you have been doing with the streets. It is my understanding the mayor is even behind us not doing this, but there are some council members that are still ok with the idea – and you three are not. I am writing to urge you to change your mind. As a resident and tax payer, I do not want to loose the feel of our neighborhood, and the safety that the wider streets bring. As a council member I would hope that you would listen the residents that will be personally effected by this change. We do NOT want to see our street widths shrunk to 26’. Please reconsider your position and vote next Tuesday to have our streets at 28’. Our entire neighborhood is against this and I have urged them all to share their feelings with you so you can understand what we as residents and tax payers want for our neighborhoods.2325 Xylon Ave N YOur main concern about narrower streets are SAFETY concerns. Since we don' have sidewalks, we use the streets. I see adults pushing babystrollers, walking their dogs, or even seniors walking with their walkers. Families ride their bikes together on the street. Narrow streets make these activities less safe. When cars are parked on both sides of the street on these narrow streets, there isn't much room left; plus its harder to see around the parked cars. Also there is concern for emergency vehicles or buses to get through double parked streets. Also when a homeowner has projects done on their property sometimes many large trucks or vehicles are parked on the street causing congestion.2430 Xylon Ave N YXDischarges south of driveway. Install D.T. stub @ south side of driveway. Would like to widen apron to north. Rear yard drainage issue. Against narrowing street at all - safety hazard to pedestrian and bicyclists. 2500Xylon Ave NYXXDischarge NW side of house. Connection of sewer to the main sewer has dropped.2325 Zealand Ave N YSafety Concern: reducing width of street! Sight problems: reducing width of street. City Council stated to retain road width. Drainage should not be a concern since for 50+ years 30' road handled run off. Never will we have a sidewalk if run off is a concern. Traffic calming is not reative to a neighborhood as phase 2! Wider street is more astectically appealing. Stop using term "traffic calming". Not appropriate for this area. Hold contractor accountable to "deadlines". Where will staging equipment be stored? Apron on driveway is too small. Should be 2 more feet. Cover full right of way! Questions engineer!2370Zealand Ave NY X Discharges to back yard.2370 Zealand Ave N YXDischarges into my back yard. My concern is for street lights. Right now there is ONE on our whole street located on corner (sw) of my lot. I requested it many eyars ago & I understand the 4 hourses around it pay for it. However, it benefits many on the street--why are only 4 assessed for it? We need more lighting on this street & others around it, but everyone should be assessed equally for them.2400 Zealand Ave N YVery concerned about narrowing of streets - I feel it's a safety issue first and foremost. With cars parked on the street, navigating a car past it with pedestrians in the road is impractical and dangerous. We do not have a traffic problem in our neighborhood! We are happy walkers, strollers, runners! Roads the size of country lanes are not an improvement in any way and in fact are in danger of becoming a safety issue!2400Zealand Ave NYPlease inspect to determine if retaining wall is in ROW. Spruce tree in ROW and requests removal. Ash tree north side of driveway--requesting forester inspect for ash bore. 2425 Zealand Ave N YX XSump Pump left side of home. We want to connect it into sewer system if possible. We would like to connect our sump pump discharge into the sewer system if possible. Please contact us to discuss this. Assessment Roll Preliminary Special Assessment Roll CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 2020 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT RATE NO. OF PROPERTIES $9,529.00 86 PID Property Owner HOUSE NO. STREET ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNERS FRONTAGE NOTES RES. UNITS DEFERRED ASSMTS LEVIED ASSMTS TOTAL ASSMTS 30-118-21-13-0030 8405 23RD AVE N 8405 23RD AVE N J R RAY & L F O RAY 122 1, 3 0.5 $0.00 $4,764.50 $4,764.50 30-118-21-13-0029 8445 23RD AVE N 8445 23RD AVE N GERALD A YOUNG & JACQUELINE M YOUNG 104 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-13-0028 8465 23RD AVE N 863 LAKE FOREST RD CLEARWATER, FL 33765 J D JOHNSON & D J JOHNSON 104 1, 6 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0041 8520 23RD AVE N 8520 23RD AVE N ANTHONY ROGERS 105 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0042 8540 23RD AVE N 8540 23RD AVE N VICTOR & EMILT MENCHACA 105 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0074 8300 24TH AVE N 8300 24TH AVE N ANDREW R ZILLER & COURTNEY A ZILLER 125 1, 3 0.5 $0.00 $4,764.50 $4,764.50 30-118-21-12-0073 8350 24TH AVE N 8350 24TH AVE N DAVID L KANGAS & HOLLY C KANGAS 261 1, 2 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-13-0026 2240 AQUILA AVE N 2240 AQUILA AVE N JORDAN S KUSHNER & FADOUA KUSHNER 125 1, 3 0.5 $0.00 $4,764.50 $4,764.50 30-118-21-13-0001 2245 AQUILA AVE N 2245 AQUILA AVE N STEPHANIE EVANS & BRYCE EVANS 145 1, 3 0.5 $0.00 $4,764.50 $4,764.50 30-118-21-12-0043 2300 AQUILA AVE N 2300 AQUILA AVE N TIMOTHY P BIRKE & SARAH J OFFUTT 210 1, 2 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0019 2301 AQUILA AVE N 2301 AQUILA AVE N MICHAEL J RADCLIFF & JUDITH A RADCLIFF 264 1, 2 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0044 2320 AQUILA AVE N 2320 AQUILA AVE N DORIS CROWLEY 96 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0018 2325 AQUILA AVE N 2325 AQUILA AVE N RYAN C & NATALIE M SAWATZKY 102 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0017 2335 AQUILA AVE N 2335 AQUILA AVE N BRYAN TRAUTMAN & K TROUTMAN 102 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0045 2340 AQUILA AVE N 2340 AQUILA AVE N JUSTIN & WHITNEY BUCK 120 1, 7 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0016 2355 AQUILA AVE N 2355 AQUILA AVE N RICHARD BERGGREN & ANNE BERGGREN 100 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0046 2360 AQUILA AVE N 2360 AQUILA AVE N JANE MARIE SNYDER 120 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0015 2365 AQUILA AVE N 2365 AQUILA AVE N RACHEL ROVNER & DOUGLAS ROVNER 100 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0047 2380 AQUILA AVE N 2380 AQUILA AVE N CURTIS D LARSON 225 1, 2 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0014 2385 AQUILA AVE N 7605 EQUITABLE DR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 EQUITY TRUST CO CUSTODIAN 100 1, 8 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0013 2405 AQUILA AVE N 2405 AQUILA AVE N ROBERT M & CARA J PORTER 100 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0012 2425 AQUILA AVE N 2425 AQUILA AVE N SHAWN M JANEY & SHELLEY JANEY 83 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0057 2430 AQUILA AVE N 2430 AQUILA AVE N JONATHAN H HARM & SARA E KOWSKI 217 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0011 2435 AQUILA AVE N 2435 AQUILA AVE N MITCHELL T HUNSTAD & HOLLY S HUNSTAD 83 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0010 2501 AQUILA AVE N 2501 AQUILA AVE N SIGURD RISHOVD III 83 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0009 2505 AQUILA AVE N 2505 AQUILA AVE N CLINTON & KATHLEEN SCHROEDER TRUST 148 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0058 2510 AQUILA AVE N 2510 AQUILA AVE N ANDREW T WELTER & BETHANY J WELTER 101 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0059 2530 AQUILA AVE N 2530 AQUILA AVE N JOHN F CASSIDY JR & ARLENE CASSIDY 204 1, 2 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0008 2535 AQUILA AVE N 2535 AQUILA AVE N KEVIN HO YUEN KWONG 150 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0077 2545 AQUILA AVE N 2545 AQUILA AVE N DOUGLAS LARSEN & STEPHANIE LARSEN 100 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-24-0026 2240 CAVELL AVE N 2240 CAVELL AVE N JOHN E ONEIL 94 1, 4 0.5 $0.00 $4,764.50 $4,764.50 30-118-21-21-0041 2300 CAVELL AVE N 2300 CAVELL AVE N PATRICK L MCNEELY 98 1, 4 0.5 $0.00 $4,764.50 $4,764.50 30-118-21-12-0067 8239 MEDICINE LAKE RD 8239 MEDICINE LAKE RD DARREL C BOGREN & P BOGREN 110 1, 5 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0023 8535 MEDICINE LAKE RD 8535 MEDICINE LAKE RD CARIDAD CHAVARIN 130 1, 5 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0006 8555 MEDICINE LAKE RD 8555 MEDICINE LAKE RD MICHAEL D & R L QUAM 105 1, 5 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0038 8505 ROSE MANOR 8505 ROSE MANOR MARK HEIMERL & KATHLEEN A HEIMERL 95 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0037 8507 ROSE MANOR 8507 ROSE MANOR LAVONNE A JOHNSON 95 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0053 8510 ROSE MANOR 8510 ROSE MANOR T H BUCK & L ROHLOFF 228 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0036 8511 ROSE MANOR 8511 ROSE MANOR MARK F NELSON & BECKY A NELSON 95 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0054 8520 ROSE MANOR 8520 ROSE MANOR JAY & DIANNE HEATH 120 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0035 8521 ROSE MANOR 8521 ROSE MANOR MICHAEL FAIT & SHARON FAIT 205 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0055 8530 ROSE MANOR 8530 ROSE MANOR GARY & SHARYL HOSFILED 115 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0056 8540 ROSE MANOR 8540 ROSE MANOR CORINNE CALDERON 235 1, 2 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0083 2375 WISCONSIN AVE N 2375 WISCONSIN AVE N BARBARA DUNCAN & CURTIS NELSON 126 1, 3 0.5 $0.00 $4,764.50 $4,764.50 30-118-21-12-0079 2300 XYLON AVE N 2300 XYLON AVE N ROGER A HIETALA & CONSTANCE A HIETALA 126 1, 3 0.5 $0.00 $4,764.50 $4,764.50 30-118-21-12-0088 2305 XYLON AVE N 2305 XYLON AVE N LEROYCE CHAPMAN & EVAN BOLDT 253 1, 2 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0087 2325 XYLON AVE N 2325 XYLON AVE N NORMAN & BETTY HELVIG 100 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0078 2330 XYLON AVE N 2330 XYLON AVE N JEROME & M WINDSPERGER 100 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0086 2345 XYLON AVE N 2345 XYLON AVE N ROBERT B CARLSON 100 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0077 2350 XYLON AVE N 2350 XYLON AVE N LARRY J TUURA 100 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0085 2365 XYLON AVE N 2365 XYLON AVE N KIMBERLY A SORENSEN & ANDREW D SORENS 100 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0076 2370 XYLON AVE N 2370 XYLON AVE N DORIS M WASTI 100 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0084 2385 XYLON AVE N 2385 XYLON AVE N KURT A ROSE 243 1, 2 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0075 2390 XYLON AVE N 2390 XYLON AVE N MELVIN E NELSON 255 1, 2 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0090 2405 XYLON AVE N 2405 XYLON AVE N JOHN E MAASS 252 1, 2 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0072 2430 XYLON AVE N 2430 XYLON AVE N SHELLEY KIM PARKER 100 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0089 2435 XYLON AVE N 2435 XYLON AVE N PAUL A MOQUIST 107 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0071 2460 XYLON AVE N 2460 XYLON AVE N FRANCES M SHIMA 101 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0064 2465 XYLON AVE N 2465 XYLON AVE N JONATHAN C VLAMING & DIANE W MONCRIEF95 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0073 2490 XYLON AVE N 2490 XYLON AVE N GERALD & CAROLYN JOHNSON TRUST 95 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0063 2495 XYLON AVE N 2495 XYLON AVE N CECILIA JIMENEZ-GONZALES & DAVID A ROBBI 133 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0069 2500 XYLON AVE N 2500 XYLON AVE N CHERYL A RIECKHOFF 77 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0062 2505 XYLON AVE N 2505 XYLON AVE N MELINDA I GERDES 70 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0068 2540 XYLON AVE N 2540 XYLON AVE N WYLIE M ANDERSON & WIFE 100 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0061 2545 XYLON AVE N 390 ROBERT ST N ST PAUL MN 55101 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 100 1, 9 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0060 2585 XYLON AVE N 2585 XYLON AVE N DANIEL KLOBUCAR 100 1, 5 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-13-0027 2240 ZEALAND AVE N 2240 ZEALAND AVE N TERRENCE D CURLEY 121 1, 3 0.5 $0.00 $4,764.50 $4,764.50 30-118-21-13-0014 2245 ZEALAND AVE N 2245 ZEALAND AVE N MICHAEL P COATY & VICTORIA L PAN 126 1, 3 0.5 $0.00 $4,764.50 $4,764.50 30-118-21-12-0034 2300 ZEALAND AVE N 2300 ZEALAND AVE N KRISTINE M & NOAH JOSEPH 234 1, 2 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0040 2301 ZEALAND AVE N 2301 ZEALAND AVE N JEFFREY A WANAT 220 1, 2 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0033 2320 ZEALAND AVE N 2320 ZEALAND AVE N ADAM M MEYERRING 100 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0039 2325 ZEALAND AVE N 2325 ZEALAND AVE N THOMAS L DILL & CINDY L DILL 230 1, 2 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0032 2350 ZEALAND AVE N 2350 ZEALAND AVE N ANDREW ARCHBOLD & CHRISTINE PATTERSON97 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0052 2365 ZEALAND AVE N 2365 ZEALAND AVE N S BEIGLARI & F NAYERI 240 1, 2 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0031 2370 ZEALAND AVE N 2370 ZEALAND AVE N CHERYL J GUSTAFSON 100 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0030 2380 ZEALAND AVE N 2380 ZEALAND AVE N WILLIAM C ZIEZULEWICZ 247 1, 2 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0051 2385 ZEALAND AVE N 2385 ZEALAND AVE N JAMES L & PAMELA N DOW 110 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0029 2400 ZEALAND AVE N 2400 ZEALAND AVE N C L MEANS & C L MEANS 220 1, 2 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0050 2405 ZEALAND AVE N 2405 ZEALAND AVE N MICHAEL E & MARGIE G MARKS 110 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0049 2425 ZEALAND AVE N 2425 ZEALAND AVE N SHARON L GELPERIN & DAVID H GELPERIN 104 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0028 2430 ZEALAND AVE N 2430 ZEALAND AVE N R D GIFFORD & K L THOMPSON 103 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0027 2460 ZEALAND AVE N 2460 ZEALAND AVE N CARL & SARAH OLSON 103 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0048 2465 ZEALAND AVE N 2465 ZEALAND AVE N DAVID H LANE & RAMONA M LANE 221 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0026 2500 ZEALAND AVE N 2500 ZEALAND AVE N JEAN B STACCHINI & MELISSA STACCHINI 100 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0025 2520 ZEALAND AVE N 2520 ZEALAND AVE N GLORIA J WIETZKE 100 1 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 30-118-21-12-0024 2540 ZEALAND AVE N 2540 ZEALAND AVE N ALFONSO LENTINI & ANDREA AGA LENTINI 228 1, 2 1 $0.00 $9,529.00 $9,529.00 Total Deferred Assessments = $0.00 Total Levied Assessments = $771,849.00 Total Assessments = $771,849.00 NOTES 1 2 Residential lot with frontage on city PMP street. Corner Lot - two streets being reconstructed on local PMP street - assessed 1/2 unit assessment for each street = 1 full assessment 3 Corner Lot - Assessed 1/2 unit assessment for 2020 PMP project. To be assessed 1/2 unit assessment for future project 4 Corner Lot - Assessed 1/2 unit assessment for 2020 PMP project. Previously assessed 1/2 unit assessment for past project 5 Corner Lot - one street being reconstructed on local PMP street, one street adjacent to county highway, assess one full unit 6 Different taxpayer address: 863 LAKE FOREST RD CLEARWATER FL 33765 7 Different taxpayer address: 2913 MAJOR AVE GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55422 8 Different taxpayer address: 7605 EQUITABLE DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 9 Different taxpayer address: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL FAMILY AFFORD HSG PROGRAM 390 ROBERT ST N ST PAUL MN 55101 Sustainable buildings, sound infrastructure, safe transportation systems, clean water, renewable energy and a balanced environment. Building a Better World for All of Us communicates a companywide commitment to act in the best interests of our clients and the world around us. We’re confident in our ability to balance these requirements. RESOLUTION NO. 20-09 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY STUDY AND ORDERING CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ON PROJECT NO. 20-01: 2020 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council No. 18-55 adopted September 20, 2018, a report has been prepared by Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (the “Feasibility Study”) with reference to proposed Improvement No. 20-01, the improvement of the following streets: 2020 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT: All properties in the NE ¼ of Section 30, Township 118, Range 21; within the City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota, that are adjacent to the following streets: • Aquila Avenue North: 23rd Avenue North to Medicine Lake Road • Zealand Avenue North: 23rd Avenue North to Medicine Lake Road • Xylon Avenue North: 23rd Avenue North to Medicine Lake Road • Rose Manor: Aquila Avenue North to Zealand Avenue North • 24th Avenue North: Zealand Avenue North to Wisconsin Avenue North • 23rd Avenue North: Cavell Avenue North to Xylon Avenue North by reconstructing said streets; and WHEREAS, the Feasibility Study provides information regarding whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible; whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement; the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended; and a description of the methodology used to calculate individual assessments for affected parcels; and WHEREAS, a council hearing was held on Improvement No. 20-01 on this day (January 21, 2020) at 6:30 pm at 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, ten days’ mailed notice and two weeks’ published notice of the hearing was given, and all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA: 1. The Feasibility Study is hereby approved. 2. Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report. 3. Such improvement is hereby ordered. 4. The City Engineer is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. The engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. Resolution No. 20-09 -2- January 21, 2020 5. The council will consider the assessment of abutting properties for at least 20% of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $5,545,000. Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 21st day of January 2020. _____________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk pity°f EXECUTIVE SUMMARY olden Physical Develo mentvalleyP 763-593-8030 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Golden Valley City Council Meeting January 21, 2020 Agenda Item 6. A. Receive and File Downtown Study Phase II Interim Report Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary Staff is bringing forward the Phase II Interim Report of the City's Downtown Study for the City Council to receive and file. This report includes two sub -components: Downtown Study Phase II Community Input Report Golden Valley Walk/Bike Connectivity Project Report Throughout the last half of 2019, a number of activities were carried out related to the study of the blocks surrounding the intersection of Winnetka Ave N and Golden Valley Road —what is being referred to as the City's "Downtown." Staff worked with HKGi to conduct Phase II of the Downtown Study and with HKGi and Hennepin County staff on an Active Living project. The goals of Phase II of the Downtown Study were to identify a draft vision and guiding principles for the downtown, explore targeted redevelopment scenarios, envision the potential future of the City Hall Campus, develop a detailed downtown walk/bike plan, and conduct community engagement around these topics. HKGi talked with staff from various departments to understand the findings from Phase I of the study (conducted by the ULI Technical Assistance Panel in 2018), met with key stakeholders, drafted concept scenarios, and held an Open House at Brookview on October 21. Over 60 residents attended and the event was recorded and posted on the City website along with an online survey to collect comments and feedback on the walk/bike plan and the redevelopment concepts. The City's Community Input Report from the Phase II work, which summarizes all of the online feedback received, is included. HKGi is prepared to continue the work of the Downtown Study with Phase III in 2020, which will result in a final downtown vision and guiding principles, refined concepts, street sections demonstrating key walk/bike infrastructure, and additional guidance on implementation and phasing. The Golden Valley Walk/Bike Connectivity Project Report concludes the City's 2019 Hennepin County Active Living Community Engagement Project. This initiative utilized money from Hennepin County Public Works and Public Health with funding from the Statewide Health Improvement Partnership SHIP) from the Minnesota Department of Health. City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary City of Golden Valley January 21, 2020 The Active Living project looked to promote walking and biking to and within downtown Golden Valley and to conduct community engagement in conjunction with a major downtown event — the Golden Valley Arts and Music Festival on September 14. As part of the demonstration activities, staff installed temporary wayfinding signage and a temporary bicycle corral. In -person surveys were conducted at three booths and additional participation was encouraged afterwards at the Hennepin County Library. A walk/bike audit of City Hall Campus was conducted on August 8 in advance of the festival. The findings and recommendations from this report will be incorporated into the ongoing Downtown Study efforts. Financial Or Budget Considerations None Recommended Action Motion to receive and file the Downtown Study Phase II Interim Report. Supporting Documents Downtown Study Phase II Interim Report (93 pages) side i _ t DOWNTOWN STUDY PHASE PREFERRED REDEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS Interim Report JANUARY 2020 W'I RikeStreet Stormwater , Surface 3 r i l Parking Surfs Library and Parki Commercial) r Z 3 ' y o Resid Water 140-15 Plaza 1 Tower 1 ` C - r w New -Public Street Mixed 5,000 SF Use Gom! mmereiial Surface 12 S 000 SF Coi Commercial 8,000 SF v C ommercial ded ROW Golden ValleyRd + Y - si:tis is - Commercial .p ` 1715001SF +/ A OEM- to r - r- Existing M '.i':"+ _ -. ` commercial 1 City (7 golden. valley ©® STUDY PROCESS & INVOLVEMENT ............................. 2 Phase 2 Process.........................................2 Phase 2Involvement..................................... 2 COMMUNITY INPUT .......................................... 3 Public Open House on October 21, 2019..................... Online Comment Form (November/December 2019).......... 3 Downtown Walking/Biking Survey (August/September 2019)....3 DOWNTOWN STUDY AREA ..................................... 4 DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT ISSUES/OPPORTUNITIES....... 5 Issues..................................................5 Opportunities ............................................ REDEVELOPMENT/REINVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY AREAS...... 6 PREFERRED REDEVELOPMENT CONCEPT ....................... 7 Overall Downtown Concept ................................ 7 SW Quadrant............................................8 NWQuadrant.............................................9 NE Quadrant Option 1.....................................10 NE Quadrant Option 2.....................................11 NE Quadrant Option 3.....................................12 Potential Short -Term Redevelopment Concept...............13 DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN..............................14 Bike/Walk Connectivity ........ . ............ 14 Transit Connectivity.....................................14 Automobile Connectivity.................................14 Walk/bike bridge over Hwy 55 @a Winnetka ..................16 ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS EXPLORED .........................17 Community Open House..................................17 VISION & GUIDING PRINCIPLES................................19 Downtown Vision (Draft)..................................19 Guiding Principles (Draft).................................19 Z IDOWNTOWN STUDY PHASE II GOLDEN VALLEY, MN STUDY PROCESS & INVOLVEMENT Phase 2 Process 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update (201812019) Downtown West identified as area in need of further study Large area west to Hwy 169, east to Country Club Downtown Study Phase 1 (Summer/Fall 2018) City worked with panel of local real estate, development and finance experts (ULI MN) Recommendations included focus on smaller core downtown area, redevelopment sites, strong market potential, improving connectivity, public -private partnerships Downtown Study Phase 2 (Summer/Fall 2019) Envision the future of the civic campus as buildings age and need reinvestment/ replacement Explore targeted potential redevelopment scenarios Explore walk/bike connections between the regional trail and Brookview/south of Hwy 55 Develop a detailed downtown walk/bike plan Seek community input Identify a draft vision and guiding principles for future downtown changes Downtown Study Phase 3 (2020) More detailed planning, design, and implementation approaches to be completed that results in a Downtown Redevelopment Framework Plan document Phase 2 Involvement City Staff City Council/Planning Commission Public Open House on October 21, 2019 Property owners/stakeholders COMMUNITY INPUT Public Open House on October 21, 2019 Highlights of Comments Received Comments were received from open house attendees via sticky notes placed on information boards as well as comment cards. From these comments, we have identified the following key concerns and preferences expressed at the open house: SIN quadrant - support for street improvements (safer, more walkable), support for attracting additional commercial businesses (grocery, pharmacy), support for redevelopment, concerns about Wisconsin Ave/ Hwy 55 intersection traffic movements. NE quadrant — support for improving walking environment/network, concerns about new streets/preference for pedestrian only streets, concerns about potential changes to the library, support for adding public outdoor spaces, support for adding residential in downtown. NIN quadrant - no major concerns were identified for the proposed concepts and support was expressed for residential and office development in this area. Redevelopment/Reinvestment Opportunities — some concerns about relocating existing uses in the NE quadrant, such as civic, post office, library, McDonald's. Active Transportation Opportunities — concern about safety of pedestrian/ bike crossings of Hwy 55 and Winnetka Ave. Online Comment Form (November/December 2019) See separate report"Downtown Phase II Community Input Report" Downtown Walking/Biking Survey (August/September 2019) See separate report"Downtown Walk/Bike Connectivity Project Report" JANUARY 2020 1 3 DOWNTOWN STUDY AREA @ountr`y-]a 47 Q. Y 4 I DOWNTOWN STUDY PHASE II GOLDEN VALLEY, MN pr DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT ISSUES/OPPORTUNITIES Issues Opportunities Commercial buildings in need of reinvestment and updating Growing interest in development projects in the area, including Some industrial buildings are obsolete and converting to non -industrial residential and new businesses uses Most buildings are not oriented to the downtown street main streets and sidewalks — Winnetka Ave and Golden Valley Road, e.g. Golden Valley Shopping Center's blank back wall faces Golden Valley Road Fire/police facilities need more space and upgrades, which resulted in a recent expansion/consolidation study The downtown core essentially consists of 4 quadrants that are not well connected Existing development is dominated by one-story buildings and large surface parking lots Walking environment is not comfortable or inviting including: high traffic and wide streets that make street crossings challenging lack of pedestrian streetscape design large surface parking lots separate buildings from sidewalks Lack of bicycling facilities/trails Challenging for walking/biking access to the pedestrian bridge over Hwy 55 Lots of community interest in attracting more businesses, particularly a grocery store and pharmacy Community support for a broad mix of uses in downtown, including adding new housing options in the downtown 2040 Comprehensive Plan's long-term guidance for more mixed land uses in downtown core area The City's interest in exploring future opportunities for the civic campus block as part of needs for reinvestment, expansion, relocation of facilities, including potential relocation of the public works facilities outside of the downtown core The downtown is adjacent to major recreational amenities, including regional trail and Brookview The City has prioritized improving the walking and biking network in the downtown Community interest in a new walk/bike bridge over Hwy 55 Planned Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stations on Hwy 55 at Winnetka Ave Community's desire for a public open space or multiple smaller public spaces in the downtown Bassett Creek is a hidden asset JANUARY 2020 1 5 3 -RAT Dr G, phwootlgVe ,' i Study Area Feet 0 100 200 300 6 I DOWNTOWN STUDY PHASE II GOLDEN VALLEY, MN REDEVELOPMENT/ REINVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY AREAS The City's intent is to promote redevelopment/reinvestment opportunities through proactive planning, policy changes, regulatory changes, public infrastructure investments, and municipal redevelopment tools. Based on analysis and understanding of current property uses and market conditions, the downtown study area has been broken down into potential redevelopment/ reinvestment sites and phasing. REFERRED REDEVELOPMENT CONCEPT Overall Downtown Concept Redevelopment is anticipated on three of the four quadrants - SW, NE and NW - but not on the more recently redeveloped SE quadrant Mixed use redevelopment is proposed for all three redevelopment areas The 2020 Municipal Facilities Needs Study will provide additional long-term needs, options, and direction for determining the priorities, sequencing, and financing of any changes to the civic campus The NE quadrant is envisioned as a consolidated civic institutional area on the northern portion with a mix of commercial and residential on the southern portion with a signature bike/walk pathway and public outdoor gathering spaces running through the middle of the site The SW quadrant is envisioned as a mix of commercial and residential uses with some multi- story buildings The NW quadrant is envisioned as a desirable area for creekside residential redevelopment, including new housing types for downtown JANUARY 2020 1 SW Quadrant Redevelops older single story commercial buildings with mix of commercial and residential uses and some multi -story buildings Vacates City's public right-of-way (Golden Valley Dr, which no longer connects to Wisconsin Ave) Enables redevelopment of western portion (four single -tenant building) separately from eastern portion (multi -tenant retail strip mall) Locates new commercial with improved visibility from Winnetka and/or Hwy 55 Provides a new roadway connection (likely private street) between Wisconsin Ave and Golden Valley Road Creates downtown "blocks" of development in place of today's large suburban commercial block Expands housing options in downtown and places new housing across the street from existing housing Provides centrally located surface and structured parking facilities Expands width of Golden Valley Road to accommodate street improvements, including an off-street bike/walk trail and planted boulevard between trail and street 8 I DOWNTOWN STUDY PHASE II GOLDEN VALLEY, MN Off-street Bike Trail Z NIResidentialr ... a 1 T Access Res - Ident Residential Off -Street 1BikeTrail • + GV Drive Pulic ROW Vacated Commercial { New Private Street LTr_____a_a Residential 80_9.0_Units Tparki 0struc ngfourt,ret-Y.rdAbove, dO0SF1Ret T NW Quadrant Allows development potential for a greater mix of uses if existing industrial buildings become obsolete or underutilized Large surface parking lot on north side of 10th Ave offers a potential redevelopment site for office use Redevelopment financing realities will likely demand multi -story buildings Creekside properties would be attractive for residential redevelopment, including new housing types for downtown Adds a new street connection to Wisconsin Ave, particularly for convenience and address for new residential development Enables improved Stormwater management with increased green spaces vs. today's large footprint single story buildings and large surface parking lots Provides opportunity for public trail along Bassett Creek vrkld pr w mot. J • Surface Parking Faribault st 8,000 SF Stormwater office• Stormwater - 10tb Ave i I Existing Office Potential Future Redevelopment Investment. J1Surface - z Parking a New Street Connection / + o r 3 Lewis Rd I Stormwater" Residential' I-, 100-110 Units ,o-" Residential'. J w L i•rti r" Priba' te•Y9rdStornncater,' Private Yard x Area_ r_ Poli J+ 1'•;\ 'Stormwater Z .. H Plazas Water .. OffStreet.-'f Bike Trail 1 j Tower = New Public Street JANUARY 2020 1 9 NE Quadrant Option 1 The 2020 Municipal Facilities Needs Study will provide additional long- term needs, options, and direction for determining the priorities, sequencing, and financing of any changes to the civic campus Relocates Public Works, Police, Fire Station, and McDonalds away from this site Provides a new, combined City Hall, License Center and Library on Bassett Creek Creates a central north/south bike and pedestrian pathway through center Adds public outdoor gathering spaces next to the water tower and the creek Expands residential housing along Rhode Island Avenue Adds streets for east/west pedestrian and vehicular movement Adds shared surface parking and structured parking facilities Expands commercial development near the central intersection of Winnetka and Golden Valley Road 30,000 sq. ft. +/ 20,000 sq. ft. +/- 10 I DOWNTOWN STUDY PHASE II GOLDEN VALLEY, MN a Faribault StIk}" M 5 NE Quadrant Option 2 The 2020 Municipal Facilities Needs Study will provide additional long- term needs, options, and direction for determining the priorities, sequencing, and financing of any changes to the civic campus Relocates Public Works and McDonalds away from this site Provides a new, combined Library, City Hall, License Center, Police & Fire Station on Bassett Creek Creates a central north/south bike and pedestrian pathway through center & streets for east/west movement Adds public outdoor gathering spaces next to water tower, walk/bike oriented street, and the creek Expands residential housing along Rhode Island Avenue Adds shared surface parking and structured parking facilities Expands commercial development near intersection of Winnetka and Golden Valley Road 30,000 sq. ft. +/ 25,000 sq. ft. +/ 20,000 sq. ft. +/ 17,500 sq. ft. +/ 5 000 7 Commeraal iir 8,000}SF, Commercial Commerrcial ti o N Golden VallARd WsidentialexampWow I*- 4 JANUARY 2020 1 11 NE Quadrant Option 3 The 2020 Municipal Facilities Needs Study will provide additional long- term needs, options, and direction for determining the priorities, sequencing, and financing of any changes to the civic campus Relocates Public Works away from this site Creates new Fire Station on former Public Works site Develops a new, combined City Hall, License Center, and Police Station on former Public Works site Existing library and McDonald's sites not planned for redevelopment Creates a central north/south & east/west bike and pedestrian pathway through center Adds a public gathering space next to the water tower Creates a new mixed use block along Golden Valley Road (ground floor retail/commercial, housing above, and structured parking) Adds shared surface parking and structured parking facilities City Hall & License 35,000 sq. Center Library Existing. on -site Police 00 0 0 sq. Fire Station 121 DOWNTOWN STUDY PHASE II GOLDEN VALLEY, MN A FaribaultSt Golden Valley Rd 3 aa z f ' _`_. I r y piilli 11 • ., I _ Civic example 102. a or aeaere,o, 1j f _= L I; s I •4 .. -. <,. Yark nyfi«• . : - -1•^ 3 y III e 1 S Y' 40 i' OH, S,reei 1. th' „ r n '. '. Y.I•rrC , y . • . L:- 4 Y 4 y yFx I arla«Park'n ' Lh--mil ,,.. • . 1rr - . Goo sF-s r,a<e '' -=i x 1_ _ `' • r = j4f 4 t y •, r. . I it 1 s im Potential Short -Term Redevelopment Concept SW Quadrant Redevelopment of three freestanding buildings at intersection of Hwy 55 & Wisconsin Ave with Golden Valley Shopping Center remaining Site assembly involving two private properties and City's vacation of Golden Valley Drive public road right-of-way Development of a new (private) road access on Wisconsin Ave that connects through the site to Golden Valley Road NW Quadrant Large surface parking lot on north side of 10th Ave offers a potential short-term redevelopment site for office use Potential for development of a regional trailhead on triangle green space at corner NE Quadrant The 2020 Municipal Facilities Needs Study will provide additional long-term needs, options, and direction for determining the priorities, sequencing, and financing of any changes to the civic campus Relocates public works facilities away from the downtown core Redevelopment of public works site to residential Potential need to hold northern portion of public works site until future plans for library site are determined JANUARY 2020 113 DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN Bike/Walk Connectivity The proposed downtown bike/walk network consists of a variety of facility types including the following: Signature Bike/Walk Pathway - north/south connection from Luce Line Regional Trail to Golden Valley Road, linking to Golden Valley Commons plaza, separate side -by -side bikeway and walkway ideally Multi -use Trails - combined bike/walk pathway Wisconsin Ave from Luce Line Regional Trail to Hwy 55 Golden Valley Road, south side Hwy 55, north side from Wisconsin Ave to Winnetka Ave Winnetka Ave, Golden Valley Road to Hwy 55 Bassett Creek, north side On -Street Bike Lanes (planned installation in 2020) 10th Ave Rhode Island Ave Sidewalks, Public - new streets in civic campus block, Lewis Road Sidewalks, Private - new streets as part of SW quadrant redevelopment Street Crossings, Grade -Separated Bridge over Highway 55 at Winnetka Potential bridge over creek by library Potential bridge over creek west of Winnetka Potential tunnel under Winnetka adjacent to creek Street Crossings, At -Grade Enhance safety and comfort of existing intersection crossings Potential mid -block crossings, e.g. 10th Ave, Rhode Island Ave, Golden Valley Road Wayfinding Signage lit IDOWNTOWN STUDY PHASE II GOLDEN VALLEY, MN Transit Connectivity Coordinate walk/bike connections with: Bus stops on Winnetka Ave, Golden Valley Road, and Wisconsin Ave Proposed BRT stations on Hwy 55 @Winnetka Automobile Connectivity The proposed circulation plan identifies street types, new streets (public, private, "woonerf"), driveway access points, and parking facilities (off-street and on -street) PFFFMM'M'FF I j e Feet gd° 0 100 200 300 400 Harold Ave j I A, 0 Study Area 1 • o. '\ f YII Metro Bus Stop Existing Regional hail Sidewalk Multi -Use Trail On -Street Bike Lane Private Sidewalk y. Proposed IIIIIII Shared Street(Woonerf) Fa ribauIt St 2i' i, Signature Bike/Walk Pathway Multi -use Trail r On -Street Bike Lane 1 Signed Bike Route r Sidewalk Private Sidewalk BRT Platform Bike/Pedestrian Crossing 20 1 4- ^^tla e af3--------------- JANUARY 2020 115 Walk/bike bridge over Hwy 55 @ Winnetka Replacement and redesign of existing bike/ walk bridge should include the following considerations: Determine the priority landing points and how many landing points, e.g. priority connection may be Golden Valley Commons to Brookview or could there be 3 or 4 landings rather than 2 More user friendly design, including avoiding ramps with tight switchback turns and easy access from trails, sidewalks and bike lanes Coordinate location ofBRTstations with bridge landing points, e.g. consider shifting westbound station to east side of Winnetka Potential for the bridge to provide community identity, landmark, e.g. explore precedents like Sabo bridge (Hiawatha Ave), planned Bruce Vento bridge (downtown St. Paul), Lakeshore Drive bridges (Chicago) 161 DOWNTOWN STUDY PHASE II GOLDEN VALLEY, MN tom-•'/ 4.Y]ii3s GtitB , yr, rl F? 7 1, i-f I 5 pk v j' 277/ t-%.. I I ^ C ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS EXPLORED) NORTHEAST QUADRANT 181 DOWNTOWN STUDY PHASE II GOLDEN VALLEY, MN VISION &GUIDING PRINCIPLES Downtown Vision (Draft) Golden Valley's downtown will continue to evolve into the community's central destination for a wide variety of desirable places and activities for residents, employees and visitors, including places to shop, eat and drink, access civic services, work, live, walk, bike, sit outside, enjoy recreational and natural spaces, and interact with neighbors. Through strategic redevelopment and reinvestment, the downtown will become a more attractive, connected and walkable place that is conveniently accessible to people walking, bicycling, driving, and taking transit. Guiding Principles (Draft) Weave together all four quadrants of the downtown through development of more walkable streets, improved street crossings, and a strong bike/walk network. Ensure that buildings and outdoor gathering spaces will have a strong orientation toward the downtown's main streets -Winnetka Ave and Golden Valley Road. Attract a greater variety of uses to the downtown to make it a stronger destination, including employment opportunities, unique restaurants, entertainment, daily needs (e.g. grocery, pharmacy), and recreation. Cluster and expand commercial uses at the downtown's core intersection of Winnetka/Golden Valley Road and in prominent locations along Hwy 55. Leverage redevelopment to incorporate additional public outdoor gathering spaces in the form of plazas, outdoor seating areas, small parks, and trails. Strengthen the downtown's connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods and recreational amenities, particularly Brookview and the Luce Line Regional Trail. Add new housing and job options that have convenient access to commercial, transportation and recreational amenities and create a desirable downtown living and working environment. JANUARY 2020 119 r .. o 1 Downtown Study Phase II COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT city of golden! l''f valley Contents Overview...................................................................................... 2 Active Transportation Opportunities................................................... 4 Redevelopment And Reinvestment Opportunities .................................. 7 SWQuadrant............................................................................ 9 NEQuadrant............................................................................ 11 NWQuadrant............................................................................ 13 Quadrant Concepts......................................................................... 15 SWQuadrant............................................................................ 15 NEQuadrant............................................................................ 20 NWQuadrant............................................................................ 27 Long -Term Vision For Downtown...................................................... 31 Appendix A: Open House Presentation Boards ..................................... 34 Appendix B: Consultant's Summary Of Open House ............................. 46 Appendix C: Social Media Reach And Engagement .............................. 51 Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 1 Overview Soliciting public input was a major component of the Golden Valley City Council's consideration of the Downtown Study Phase II and before moving forward to Phase III. Staff solicited input from the community through an online comment form and a public open house regarding the following areas: multimodal transportation opportunities through the downtown redevelopment and reinvestment possibilities draft concepts of each quadrant of the downtown To promote the feedback opportunities, the City published four online stories in Oct and Nov 2019 and two in the Sept/Oct 2019 and Nov/Dec 2019 issues of CityNews. The City further promoted the comment form and open house through social media posts on Facebook and Twitter. Open House The City hosted a Downtown Study Phase 11 Open House Oct 21, 2019 at Brookview Golden Valley, where community members could learn more about the issues and offer input. See Appendix A to view the open house presentation boards. Representatives from the City and Hoisington Koegler Group (HKGi), the City's planning consultant, were on hand to make presentations on each portion of the study and answer questions from attendees. The open house presentations were recorded and published to YouTube for later viewing. See Appendix B for the consultant's summary of the event. Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 2 Downtown Study Phase II Comment Form To gauge public opinion on the potential future of Golden Valley downtown area, the City asked residents to watch the recorded presentations from the Oct 28 open house, review design concepts, and answer questions about the concepts. The online comment form went live Nov 4. After noting a few social media complaints about the online comment form being confusing and difficult to understand, staff revised it to include larger cropped images, including breakout images for each downtown area quadrant instead of one overview image. The revised form was open Nov 19—Dec 3. Both comment forms asked the same questions and garnered 58 responses.* All comments are included as they were received and not corrected for typos or spelling errors. Social Media Outreach The City posted information and reminders about the open house and the comment form six times on Facebook and six times on Twitter between Oct 1, 2019 and Nov 30, 2019. See Appendix C for reach and engagement details for each post. City of Golden Valley, MN - Local Government "' Published by Loamly l`. - October 1 - 0 An open house Oct 21: 5-7 pm at Brookview, will update community members about the City's Downtown Study and its exploration n the four quadrants surrounding Winnetka Ave and Golden Vailey Rd. htlps:flwww-goidenvalleymn.govl... ±act-21-open-house-to-focu... t City of Golden Valley, MN GoldenValleyMN After receiving feedback from residents about v complications with the original Downtown Study Phase II survey, a new survey was created to fix the initial issues. The deadline for the new survey is Dec 3, 4.30 goldenvalleymn.gov/newsarchive/in... 5:25 PM - Nov 19, 2019 - Loamly III View Tweet activity Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 3 Active Transnnrtatinn Onnnrtunitips Respondents were asked to study the map and indicate which of the potential future trail routes through downtown they like or don't like and why. (See complete presentation board in Appendix C.) k_, +' Futum OppaesnION n_- S.-Il cap f lure BMe lanefsl c 17111 s IA1:A•Inn11nGAMJW V, { {{ Poleniklirail tlnb I l At{ Inienx y rr- retmc n 1 Ar Grade SePamred 2 Imprn mrmnt r- i f i•. aA .r Ibanr+el krmldbbck DT cross nq n..° r s i •ee IaMnmaoollen 4 1 X • rkroe aw I. a Esisting hats aad Sidewalks v J C 21. Three RI —Park City Tralls&Sidewalks esaewauil.i A+Pb+aharl lla.i mr On -Street Bikeways Proposed Trallsand 646 IL a w `1111.AAI tIt aYl? ?— 1l e 1' r 1 tir r m,• Which of the potential future trail routes through the downtown do you like and why? No strong preference. I like the purple ones that go through downtown N-S. I personally like C2 because I live on the East side of Winnetka versus West. Bike lanes! We need bike lanes C1 because it will make the "downtown" core more bikeable/walkable and will allow people to experience Basset Creek. C2 because it is most direct route to the shops and eateries in downtown They all look like good options. We walk and ride bikes, and would potentially like to use the electric scooters as well D2 - connects to existing trails and connection to retail, restaurants, and city services. The purple trail along Basset Creek and the Green along Winnetka - Crossing 55 at Winnetka is a high desire line a1, a2, d1, d2 None Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 4 C and B, because they improve on bike and pedestrian traffic in this area, go near businesses, and existing crossings C2 easy access to down town Al and A2 - they connect to the Luce Line west of Winnetka. C1 and C2 - nice to bike through the main business area. D2 Like Al, A2, B, C2. Do not like C1, D1, D2. A1- I don't like the way it never takes the bikers really anywhere near the downtown. I love the light rail connection and wish it would come into downtown a bit more It depends on future developments. I'd like to be able to ride to a grocery store. This map is very confusing. I like all of them, especially Al, C2, and D2. These seem to be the most high traffic areas for pedestrian use. C1/C2 options both look safe for bikers (less used) and seem to give key access to local businesses or events (farmers market) Trail route D and C which allow easier access to the most destinations downtown. D. We ride our bikes on the Luce Line at least 3-4 times each week from early April through November. Getting traffic off Pennsylvania is an advantage - I have been hit twice by "errant golf balls". Also away from the Calvary traffic is an advantage. Green- keeps bikes away from traffic C - If you are going to bother with trails, you need to make them go to and through areas people care about. Going around the outside of downtown makes little sense. B or C because I don't like being on the roads Purple potential trail links All of them. Nice to have multiple options. C", it allows bikers and pedestrians safe passage to either side of downtown without further constriction of traffic. C", it allows residents on either side of the busy Winnetka Ave to visit either side of Golden Valley's Split Downtown. Though it begs for a better bridge system to cross Hwy 55 to get to the Community Center. The bike lanes down Rhode Island and on Winnetka and all of the potential trail links. Anything that can make the area more accessible to bikes. Rt C; It goes thru the center and covers both sides Boone or Rhode Island. The Green Future Bike Lanes that connect the Luce Line to 55 would be ideal as it is currently a hazardous area to ride bikes/walk B and C because it adds safer access to retail locations D2, it is the most direct path with existing land to use The C route east of winnetka Purple line —because it's on streets that are less busy and wider (or, at least without double traffic lanes) D2, will interfere less with car traffic Like the bike lane proposal and the potential trail links. I wish something good to be done to make crossing 55 easier even at the pedestian bridge. I would prefer off -road trail options. I think any sharing of the road ie: bike lanes, will not allow families to use the trails. Also walking trails need to be an option. It's nearly impossible to understand the map and read the map legend. And this is not a properly structured survey question. D. Most accessible. I like linking the bike trails and added bike lanes. Any increase in the walkability of downtown is a positive. Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 5 Which don't you like and why? No strong preference. I don't dislike any of them, but route B seems the least important. Don't like any of them... "trail routes" thru the middle of downtown don't make any sense. The Millennials have gone overboard! and have not considered the needs, and constraints, of senior citizens> Al because it is too far out of the way A and D are too far out of the way Crossings over 55 should be tunnels, preferably the one at Winnetka so kids can bike to Brookview, and families can bike safely to events in the park. I dislike the planned BRT stops on Winnetka and 55. C1-constructing a tunnel under Winnetka is not cost-effective for the "anticipated" results. Taking a southerly exit from B to the west part of C1 would be much more cost-effective. Anything along Golden Valley Road (D1 and D2) would greatly affect driving and not have much benefit for bike trails without adverse impact. D2 - 1 like the way this connects to both the east and west existing lanes. It keeps bikes just passing through from clogging the downtown roads. None All look fine. Not applicable. I think that any and all would be a great improvement. D2 is not an ideal option - Rhode Island is already congested in the mornings and, with an incredibly long stoplight I could see a lot of safety concerns and additional congestion Routes A and B don't actually cross any roads. Traffic calming on Winnetka is needed to allow people to actually bike in downtown. I do not like C2 - too much interaction with vehicle traffic. I do not like A - most of Golden Valley is to the east of this area and there is little residential development in the immediate area of A. It is unlikely to have high value to those of us who are G.V. residents and ride the Luce Line regularly. Purple- doesn't go anywhere I don't understand the pont of A - it is on teh far edge of town and would seem to make most residents go out of their way to use it. I think A is too far west and D is on a busier road. I avoid biking and walking on busy roads A", it is only easily accessed for those west of Winnetka and forces the larger population to navigate the busy Winnetka Ave to shop, eat or visit anything on ghe west side. A", it forces the larger population on the east side of Winnetka to have to navigate the busy Winnetka Ave to visit anything or anyone on the west side. It also provides only one option for crossing Hwy 55. if a question of funding and something had to be left out, I would say the link in A2. The bike lane on Winnetka could be used to get to area C1. Other routes circumnavigate the cityto much Highly disagree with a trail trough private property. Streets are already too narrow. The sidewalk gaps don't seem to be as helpful as other options Do not have issues with any of them C2, it goes through a very busy entrance to the strip mall Red line —much too crazily busy of a street as is. I think this would be very dangerous. D1 and C1, it will interfere more with car traffic I don't like any trail that is placed on a busy street. Trails and bike lanes should be on side street when ever possible. Bikes should be separated from car traffic as much as possible The tunnel seems excessive, if there is a safe crossing - why go to the expense of a tunnel? Provided there is not an appreciable negative effect to traffic it's all good. Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 6 Redevelopment And Reinvestment Opportunities Respondents were asked to study the SW, NE, and NW quadrants of the Redevelopment and Reinvestment Opportunities map and comment on the potential change areas, including their concerns. The first comment form showed only the combined map below. NW Quadrant Scenarios +` a - a1 -71 A, after parking utilization study i N., . E A+B with trailhead addition ; . ,. }_ - _ NE Quadrant Scenarios C, to potentially include C _ • L — ¢»Municipal Facilities Study to 2 u A+B+C with trailhead addition ' , - + determine outcome of A+B v D, site assembly (3 parcels) for A C+D, potential need far renovation/ redevelopment N - +. expansion incoordination with A+B P, market driven investment E, market driven investment or t possible relocation L wl Rd % Mill If,vaa'' C.. ryC bDr Y YYY W • / r r j-' i _fir `-• \ rr SIN Quadrant Scenarios .._ 1 SE Quadrant Scenario A n A+8 with portions of Golden 4 s. i r :Identifydevelopmentprinciples Valley Dr. ROW redevelopment - ! -_ - - for any potential infill or n A+B+C and vacatingGolden _ _ • d r ''F,' redevelopment that may occur in , Valley Dr. ROW (Site Assembly) ,i - this quadrant. e redevelopment C,,, retrofit of Golden Valley Shopping Center • "°•..;. _ • .,., _ ' Ca, redevelopment of Golden Valley Shopping Centers Do you have any comments on the potential change areas on the Redevelopment/Reinvestment Opportunities map? Please don't toss out our favorite vendors! Please keep the iconic Golden Valley shopping center. Granted, it needs some work, but it's such a great landmark. A grocery store would be wonderful! in area C the retro shopping mall should be saved. it is of the midcentury era that defines this city. any and all development should work with this. If traffic at the SS/winnetka exchange is already horrific during rush hour, how will the addition of more dense housing effect it? We don't need to expand City Hall per se... its not that old!!! Would like a retrofit of Golden Valley Shopping Center to have a more current/updated look. no strong opinion on this Would lobe to see the shopping mall area redeveloped! Driving through the parking lot is kind of a nightmare, and biking along Winnetka in this area is challenging with all the entry/exit points. Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 7 I think the City misses an opportunity when it neglects to make Brookview Park a focal point in the planning process. Downtown needs to fully and seamlessly bridge Brookview with any development across 55. Currently parking lots are the face of GV when driving through 55, on Winnetka and Rhode Island. Leave the NE Quadrant alone. Anything but minor changes would adversely affect Calvary Lutheran Church and Center Cooperative. Right now it is a convenient and quiet area for residents, agencies, and businesses already there. I like item in 1 - particularly the redevelopment if of the strip mall. it needs updating. We need more retail in any and all areas of downtown, with more walkability. What concerns do you have regarding the Redevelopment/Reinvestment Opportunities map, if any? The updates will raise the rents of the commercial spaces and drive out some of the businesses we have counted in for years and years! My greatest concern is that any new development will look like every other suburban development where everything is beige with fake brick/stone. We don't need another 50th and France, or Excelsior and Grand. This is a tremendous opportunity for Golden Valley to create a character all it's own. Please get more small business/non-chain / no more fast food restaurants Traffic Whatever you do, don't you DARE to chase McDonald's from its existing location. It is ideally located and serves a much needed service. IF you dare mess with McDonalds, you WILL run into a firestorm of opposition!!!! None. Need something long lasting, stability. That they don't fully integrate or see lesson connect downtown to one of GVs most amazing assets: Brookview Park. You do not look beyond the borders of the areas being addressed, thereby affecting neighboring businesses and homes. I would hate to see any public money put into 4 - it abuts the freeway and is far from the "downtown" of Golden Valley. Some residential is a good idea; too much residential is not. There is a need for affordable housing, not luxury condos. Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 8 The revised comment form asked the same questions but broke each quadrant into separate maps to give respondents a better view of the areas. sw wuaarant tMINNUMA _ A Do you have any comments on the potential change of the SW Quadrant? quadrant A seems like such wasted space - love the idea of redeveloping! There is currently no area to walk along storefronts in Golden Valley. An internal street with zero setbacks or along Golden Valley Road would help make a true downtown Main street feel. The Golden Valley Shopping Center needs to be redeveloped. It is an eyesore at the entry to Golden Valley. Taking the entire SW quadrant and re -developing could help change the whole look of the gateway into Golden Valley. What an exciting opportunity! Revamp shopping center I hope the city entices existing businesses to stay. I'd hate to lose Down in the Valley, for example. Otherwise, that whole area needs to be revised. It is half empty all the time, and having a town with two strip malls instead of any actual downtown is sad. I think it's time for the shopping center to go. It's tired and doesn't match the rest of the Area. I would love a grocery store Who will be purchasing these buildings? If it's the city/taxpayers, NO! Since Golden Valley's "Downtown" is split the western side is in need of an update but it needs to be done so we preserve the great businesses that make that "Downtown" popular. If it is to be a mix of residential and retail, perhaps the better approach will allow the businesses to stay at their current rental rates and subsidize the increases with residential convenience fees for a several year transition Golden Valley doesn't have a real "Downtown" or a "Downtown Look". redeveloping the SW Quadrant could bring a better and more community -minded look to the Downtown, with both sides of Winnetka looking upgraded. The plans showed a mixed use area with residential above retail. If done similarly to Excelsior & Grand or the West End, it could bring that Downtown feel Why Not Move this idea closer to 169 around where the strip malls are? Better flow of traffic Minimize parking area. Add a co-op and increase walking friendly areas Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 9 I like the grocery store. And PLEASE leave the hardware. Looks appropriate to me. This area seems to be a total redevelopment opportunity for A+B+C given the poor use of space We shop at the existing retailers in the SW Quadrant. It seems the biggest benefit of this plan would be modernizing the space, making it look and function better. Make sure facilities are accessible for wheelchairs. It would be nice to have accessible, public restrooms that are ADA accessible and all gender. No This spot definitely needs refreshing. Green space would be lovely Please, please, please consider attracting a grocery store or, better yet, a cooperative It would great to revitalize the GV shopping center area. Having the New Bohemia restaurant moving in was great, can new businesses be lured in? Would like to see grocery store and more restaurants and retail It would be great to coordinate a redevelopment or reinvigoration of this dated strip mall development type. This is the face of Golden Valley and it is a strip mall and is not pedestrian friendly. The Golden Valley Shopping Center is long overdue for redevelopment. I recall Mayor Harris talking about a potential food coop (like The Wedge) coming there 4 years ago. I would definately like to see the GV Shopping center redeveloped. This question assumes a planner level understanding of the maps and language. Do you really want resident input or are you just saying that you are so city leaders can do what they want? C is outdated and for a focal point of our city it can be summarized best as meh. Would encourage mixed use development along the A, B, and C zones. Reverse the mall. Put storeftonts on GV Road I find many of the businesses currently located in this location to be convenient A retrofit of GV Shopping Center is overdue. Retrofit of GV Shopping enter would be excellent. What concerns do you have regarding the (SW) map, if any? Other than the fact that the strip mall looks like it's from 1970, 1 LOVE all of the local businesses (especially Down in the Valley & Liquor Barrel - GREAT customer services and local offerings). I'd hate to see them pushed out by a development. Added commerce requires more dense residential nearby to make it a true destination. I'd like to see the entire "downtown" area carefully revised, not done in pieces where we end up with more of the same of what we have. Entice these people to work with us on a general revision to the entire area. What happens to existing businesses?? How will the crosswalks or bridges be placed/reconstructed to compliment new thinking? Major concerns are that the businesses in the west side shopping center are "cornerstones" to the community and are why the community wants access to that side. A drastic remodel/redevelopment would raise rental rates that some may not be able to bare. If the residential units sold above them were to be made to pay a "Convenience Fee" for a period of time, it could off -set the rate increases and allow them to slowly adjust to the new rental rates. This would preserve the Community" that exists there, and that is so heavily patronized by our residents. Disaster ahead with traffic at 55 and Winnetka It is not a "user" friendly area. Parking The curve in Golden Valley Road is already a traffic hazard. Need to control for that. There really, really has to be a better connection here to Brookview than existing overpass for pedestrians and bikes. This is an urgent consideration as 55 is a major hurdle in this area and barrier to success. My family banks at Wells Fargo and shops at several of the retailers in this quadrant. It's not clear from the map if they would be relocated within downtown Golden Valley, or close altogether. We'd be disappointed if they closed. Making the right improvements that add to the city of GV That we'll put more stupid little strip mall-esque buildings there. I want to make sure that all of the residential housing that is added is not rental -I'd like there to be stability and not a population that is just temporary. Condos vs. appts. Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 10 We dont need DT housing. Dont mess up the small business's. I shop there daily. I don't want to lose the easy access to the businesses there Redevelopment would not have a positive effect on the area. NE Quadrant S Country Club Dr Do you have any comments on the potential change of the NE Quadrant? Would love to see some more local or small restaurants come in - similar to LAT14. Similar to Golden Valley Drive, this is in area with an opportunity for a more pedestrian feel by significantly reducing allowable setbacks. I like the idea of combining City Hall and the library into one building. We use the library a lot and love that it is smaller than some of the other H.C. libraries. Better traffic flow Our downtown needs to NOT be industrial. There is plenty of area elsewhere for that, and over time, I'm certain these buildings will turn into empty shells. I think it's smart to have fewer city buildings if we don't need them all Who will be purchasing these buildings? If it's the city/taxpayers, NO! This section is truly the "Municipal" portion of the city, with so much infrastructure buried in it (e.g. public works water supply piping, police and fire utilities and facilities and equipment storage) and I think it should stay there to minimize costs. Sections A &B could certainly use upgrades that provide Police, Fire and Public Works with more state-of-the-art facilities and space for more community training and education of what they do. Sections C & E could be reconfigured to allow the library to expand and provide more services to the community and meeting spaces for groups north of Hwy 55. Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 11 Dense housing is already over running the area, adding here will create potential issues of traffic and if affordable housing can possibly bring additional crime none at this time The relocation of City Hall, fire and police departments is a taxpayers nightmare. Plus the convenience of having them in their current locations iw wonderful. They are part of the living community. The best choice. renovation urgently needed for Library area and the tie to the river None I love the idea of updating the library! It is important to have community space that is beautiful and inviting for all residents and visitors. I believe the city owns a lot of land in this quadrant - it would be cool for GV to work with the Dakota/Indigenous leaders and explore the options for giving part of the land back (since it was stolen). I'm not sure how this could look - but it would be amazing to be part of a city that actually returned stolen land to its original stewards! Would like to make sure the changes are good for us now as well as looking towards the future It is nice to have our GV services in one location. No It doesn't seem to me that A, B, C or D are in need of work. Save the money. Want to see retail in this sector The intersection of Winnetka and GV Road needs a major overhaul. Get rid of the silly and ill suited pillars. I would like to see green space there but not something that has overgrown shrubbery after a season or two. Provide resources to keep it looking healthy and if possible, pollinator friendly. I like the police station, fire station and city hall central to the city in this quadrant No A new Fire Department building is needed, let the Police take over the entire public safety facility. Relocation of Public Safety and Public Works for expansion would be great. What concerns do you have regarding the (NE) map, if any? Feels like a bit of a waste to put City Hall at the top right off the bike trail - as local businesses could be a better traffic driver. I do love the idea of better visibility to the library to the community with a combo City/Hall but worry it would be the most congested spot - curious what any type of traffic study would say about it. It would be good to maintain an area for the farmers market. Same as before, please coordinate all of this to create a real downtown. I think we need to find the right mix of commercial and residential Wasn't the Library recently closed for 18 months and remodeled for millions $$$? My concerns are based on the extreme cost of possibly moving water tower (or making it fit the new surroundings), moving or building on the associated plumbing for the water tower, and will the land be suitable for residential use since the soils may have issues from public works refuse and the possible contamination. (i.e. the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. site in St. Louis Park). Disaster ahead with traffic at 55 and Winnetka. Before any of this should be done, it needs to be revamped like Hwy 7 and Louisiana which will take much more tax $ 1 like having a convenient library. I think running easy access for pedestrians/bikes thru the center would be nice. I don't feel it is advantages to the taxpayer to waste the dollars in buying out McDonalds. It is actually nice and would be nicer if there was pedestrian access to them. Cost of relocating current tenants. It's concerning that there isn't a plan to include revitalization of the Bassett Creek and surroundings to capitalize on this strong asset in the downtown area None None This quadrant doesn't need market -driven redevelopment. It should remain municipal None I'm not a huge McDonalds fan, but it's probably one of the most successful businesses in GV, so I'm not sure a new investment" will necessarily be better. Just hoping for an aesthetically pleasing design for Winnetka/GV Road intersection. do not move the fire station, police station away from this area. It is central to the community Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 12 No None. NW Quadrant A+B with trailhead addition G to potentially include C, A+B+C with trailhead addition D, site assembly (3 parcels) for Do you have any comments on the potential change of the NW Quadrant? Unsure - I've lived here several years and have never visited the spot other than riding through on Luce Line. The area along the Luce Line is a great opportunity to create a regional attraction (cafe, etc.) that Luce Line riders would connect with Golden Valley We bike the Luce Line a lot - all the way to Watertown and sometimes beyond. Some of the other communities have really nice trailheads - it would be great to see Golden Valley with a trailhead including offstreet vehicle parking, portapots, drinking water, bike tools & tire air, etc. It is quite a ways on the trail before another community with restaurants close to the trail. This could be a huge benefit to G.V. Better mixed use, traffic flow Same as other quad - move away from industrial Who will be purchasing these buildings? If it's the city/taxpayers, NO! Possibly a great location for a Single Story Townhome Association, that would provide the aging members of the community another option to down -size and stay in the city they love and,grocery store/market which this side of the city is needing. Move this idea to the left where the strip malls are. They are run down eyesores Like the addition of trailhead additon. sounds fine. Good for non retail Definitely agree with the need for a trailhead in this area None It seems this area would have mixed use opportunity. I think it's important to have affordable housing options and free parking options for visitors to the shops and restaurants. It would also be great to have community innovation/incubator labs - to support residents in growing their own businesses. Access to public transportation will be important to make sure residents can get to their jobs and access their social networks. Make sure there is adequate parking for the trailhead A trail head is a nice idea Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 13 Would have made a convenient and pleasant high density residential area I'd much prefer revitalizing this whole area with more retail or restaurants. These types of businesses would be better place farther away from "main street" Want to see retail Not thrilled about a self storage facility on 10th Av. Is there where McKesson was? No No Opinion No comments. What concerns do you have regarding the (NW) map, if any? None Redevelop all of this with a coordinated plan. Because of the immense amount of buried utilities in this area, is it safe for residential use? Traffic is already an issue and anything with this will require a big shift on 55 Could area A be developed for affordable housing. N/A None None No No Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 14 Quadrant Concentt Respondents were then asked to study the each quadrant of the map and share their thoughts about the concepts proposed for them, what they thought should be changed, and what they viewed as the long-term vision each area. SW Quadrant Concept A OfF Street 50! r) Units GuldcnWalleyTlr.- public R O eniains_ NcwMuj] ` y F.ntrance Ex anded ROW f-w P Golden 4alley Rd L_J 1. 3rface Parkin •Existing+Building- fl Cmziin FxMing Building - underground Reconfigured &,100 SP Reconfigured 000 SP— Stormwater) u Off"'Ireet Iriil !t z Commercial I - What do you think about this concept? Weak on substance relying on eminent domain to give tax breaks and freebies to developers I like the concept where the shopping center remains. Absolutely love the grocery store! I think that we should celebrate the unique layout and character of the existing "mall" buildings, Concept A is my preferred. If we do something like Concept B (getting rid of the unique, quirky architecture), then GV becomes like every other soul -less suburb. I like the concept of adding residential We do not need any more apartments or condos in this area. We need more nice restaurant options so we don't have to leave GV to eat. Prefer Concept A but keep the Wells Fargo instead of erecting new apartments/condos. Like Concelt A better Maybe a Trader Joe's? Like the smaller grocery store concept. Not impressed. Seem to be replacing dull with dull. Not much green space. New buildings and materials seem outdated. Do not try to make the SW Quadrant like the SE Quadrant. The cost of development with related higher leasing/rental costs would not benefit downtown Golden Valley. Businesses need to have a reasonable place for business without high lease/rent rates due to being "upgraded and redeveloped". Again, would love to take care of historical local businesses - Down in the Valley, Liquor Barrel..etc. but love the idea of a refresh. A local grocery store besides the incredibly outdated Cub would be welcomed! Unfriendly to pedestrians and bikers. This appears to be an unpleasant place to be outside of a car. Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 15 More AFFORDABLE residential units are a great idea! Especially in this area with easy access to public transportation. And a grocery store next door would be a huge bonus. I don't think reconfiguring the shopping center is enough - it needs to be torn down. Too much residential with poor traffic configuration It sucks. We need to get away from strip malls It's ok, but prefer the others Too many apartment buildings in GV already. As I mentioned above, this concept is a good one only if it is designed to preserve the current business mix and if the grocery store is the product of a stable and growth minded vendor. A grocery store or better a co-op would be a great investment in the community. Doable but paying for relocating Wells Fargo....... 100-120 new units would overload Golden Valley Road I think the residential area is a good use, other areas could use some help Don't like the removal of Wells Fargo as we bank there. Unless the grocery store is Lunds & Byerlys, a co-op, or Kowalski's, I won't shop there. Housing is a really big concern - could we build more units on top of the stores in the GV shopping mall? I like it, it would be good to have another grocery option in town Do we need more housing here? Excellent ideas I like the addition of a grocery store Love grocery store Love the idea of integrating a grocery store and higher density residential. This makes complete sense. I just wish the existing stripmall could be completely changed as it is an eye sore and dated development style. It is the face of the city as most people see it from 55 and should be treated as such. Keep strip mall but smaller. Would like to keep hardware store auto supply store, would be nice to add a couple more restaurants especially none chains I like it but will Wells Fargo relocate and still have a presence in GV? There are many variables that go into making decisions about a given concept - important considerations. So whether we like" or "don't like" an option is meaningless. Not bad. mixed use and reconfiguration of the shopping complex. I like the grocery store, that's something that is definitely lacking in the immediate area In my opinion this would be an appropriate change to downtown. This would be preferred to the redevelopment. Change, but not a lot. What do you think should be changed about this concept? Please don't toss out our favorite vendors! Any new development should face away from Hwy 55. An ample green buffer between 55 and any development would be ideal. Combining the parts of A concept that keep the mall with adding some retail and residential density in Concept B would be ok. Clearly parking would have to be reconsidered be you could make a unique pedestrian amenity between the existing mall and the new ground level retail along 55 better and more thought out green space. this looks like an architect dropped some trees in a plan. there needs to be a strong concept around the pedestrian experience. Nothing Remove residential development --that does not make me want to go there. Both concepts increase population density and thus traffic in an already busy area. Materials. So much focus on parking - don't make that be the focus and what people see first. More green space needed, perhaps consider micro real estate too. Leave the strip mall alone. If you want to "upgrade" to look, offer some TIF to the owners without requiring teardown and rebuilding of the mall. Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 16 It should be harder to drive and easier/safer to walk - more like a downtown, less like a shopping center. Tear down the G.V. Shopping Center and start over. Drive it out of town with pitchforks? Burn it? Perform an exorcism? Need significant changes to strip mall There are 15+ grocery stores within 5 miles. I think the egress routes and entry points for this section should be re -thought to consider, not only pedestrian traffic, but how to make it easier for entry/exit from Hwy 55. Is there another wasy to address parking? Ramp or less parking lot? It seems there is an unecessary amount of parking in front of the strip mall. grocery store should be mini -Target or equivalent; there really needs to be a direct tie-in with the Brookview side of 55; where's the beautification of this piece with native prairies, trees, etc? It seems like a lot of residential is replacing existing retailers, which makes the space less useful. Would the grocery store focus on local/sustainable food sources? Could we use more of a global market concept where a variety of local, small businesses could sell items? Make larger grocery area like concept B A park, please No sure what is meant by reconfigure. Not sure we need even more residential added. There have been a series of residential already put up up and down 55 Redevelop or reinvigorate the strip mall area. There could be a more commercial density and it could be much more pedestrian friendly. Wheres the bank going? Thats a busy bank. Do we really need more apartment buildings? It seems like the area would be saturated. I'd rather see businesses located there. Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 17 SW Quadrant Concept B What do you think about this concept? Concept B is better. smaller parking areas with an emphasis on the pedestrian. The precedents are terrible. We should not be looking at existing suburban models of off tan colors. We need to have a bolder more progressive vision for the architecture of our community. I like the mixed use approach of Concept B. Gives the area a more urban feel while also adding restaurants and pedestrian opportunities. I like both. I like concept B slightly better, with the residential. Really like the idea of a Fresh Thyme, Sprouts, or Coop Grocery store is great, and I like the courtyards in concept B. I do not like the mixed use at all. There appears to be more sidewalks, and small setbacks along Winnetka. I like this better than Concept A. High Density, affordable housing on this site makes a lot of sense. Close to public transportation. Close to a new grocery store. Close to retail. Better use of shopping center area but concerned about congestion with too much residential space Moving towards biz, more for the community to enjoy, green space. I like this LUV IT See comments in Concept A This concept, like the other, provides for a community/village feel, it would be reasonable to expect the facade of the buildings to look like the section east of Winnetka. The same concerns for preserving the current business mix, that is patronized by so many of Golden Valley's resident, exist. Like the grocery store idea but still doesn't consider the traffic of Winnetka and 55 You're removing too much shoping from GV Good concept. better than concept A, but looks very crowded, like access by car/bike/pedestrian will be tough Don't like the removal of Wells Fargo as we bank there. Unless the grocery store is Lunds & Byerlys, a co-op, or Kowalski's, I won't shop there. I prefer the location of residential in Concept A. Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 18 It would be cool to have a co -working space for people who own small businesses and/or work from home (e.g. the Coven). More downtown residence would be good Makes sense as well I prefer this over Concept A. Still don't love more residential, but like this paired with the expanded retail, which will be a greater draw. Like other better. Too much housing in plan Better than A. Grocery store will be welcome. Updating and improving the visual appeal of the strip mall is needed so glad that is being considered. Hate it. Just stop. Like this more than A. like the parking w/ courtyard above. I greatly dislike this concept Too much change. There is plenty of residential/retail in GV already. What do you think should be changed about this concept? too many apartments in B Concept B is the better of the two concepts, but there is perhaps too much residential. Is the parking in the residential enough for all the units? It seems they continue to build without adequate tenant parking let alone guest parking - would depend if it's apartments or single family homes. The added "street" should have storefronts all along it with minimal setbacks. Sidewalks along the highway 55 side of the retail are useless. Do what you can to make this look and feel like a real, old school, downtown. Make it walkable, make it have parking. Do not make it feel too closed in. I worry about a wall of retail facing outward to the busy highway. You get a little sense of that in St. Louis Park where those areas are just not filling up and keeping businesses. There is nothing like having two sides of a street lined with biz - there is a reason it has worked for hundreds of years. Just need to make sure parking works. The grocery store at west end has a crazy parking lot. This feels it could be similar Perhaps a skyway system that would allow the residents in these developments to get to the retail locations easily, even in bad/cold weather. Another feature that would allow for a "Convenience Fee" that off -sets the rental rates for the community businesses. Your retail only allows for residential customers.... No parking. Which leads to social situations requiring more police work. needs a direct/better tie to Brookview; more pedestrian access; more natural areas Again, seems like a lot of residential is replacing retail, making it less useful. What resources are in place to help renters in GV to become home owners (if this is desired by the individual)? Exiting commercial businesses in GV mall would probably permanently relocate, and potentially out of GV No more large-scale apartment buildings! Housing doesn't have to be massive, ugly, and bereft of green space. Hope you don't price out classic places like Down in the Valley. The residential adjacent the ground level retail adjacent highway 55 would be better used for more commercial or alternately, have the commercial be more dense against 55. Not crazy about residential on Hwy 55. We lose the convenient businesses with more apartment building Less residential/commercial. Already enough high rise housing along 394. Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 19 NE Quadrant Concept A What do you think about this concept? Why can't we have brave architecture!? Why so much more of this rubbish that surrounds Uptown Minneapolis and St. Louis Park!? Accentuating and allowing access to the creek. minimized and smaller parking is great. but it still feels parking heavy Don't you dare move McDonald's out of its present location, or you will be sorry when the opposition rears it's head. Like Concept A the best that the residences are off in a corner away from retail. I like the bike and walkway example. Nothing. Don't like the additional appts but if have to choose, concept A I Don't. I prefer A as it utilizes current building and will not cost nearly as much as the other concepts. However, it down allow for more housing without overwhelming the area with lots of apartments. I like the residential more than the commercial here I like the added residential and bike/walk pathway. A large portion of these housing units need to be affordable. It makes sense to move the public works building to a space that does not have some of the amenities inherent to this area. Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 20 Too much residential with poor traffic flow/congestion Nothing. Seems like a good use of funds This works for me The residential offerings here, by sheer numbers, implies high density rentals or lower cost condos which may put stress on the area with added traffic, parking needs and pedestrian interaction/safety. I like it. Practical. Park areas and a place for outd000r gathering such as the farm market which it a friendly place Like it. Spreads housing density. Fine with the exception of the northern residential 40-50 units No comment It's good, but I like B better Nope. Our public buildings aren't that old. This is wasteful. I like this option least. Too much housing The additional higher density residential is ideal here. Where will the farmers market be It's OK. This survey is flat out embarrassing in its incompetence. Eheres the city moving to? Needs to be answered first. Where does public works go? I like locating the apartment buildings (IF WE MUST HAVE THEM) in this area over replacing businesses near the strip mall Not a lot of improvement. Doesn't address enough changes needed. What do you think should be changed about this concept? All of it. Your mood boards look dated and do not inspire. Please don't fill out beautiful city with this faux facade garbage buildings Cool it with the beige/brick aesthetic, seriously. I think a plaza more internal to the development would be far more desirable. Winnetka will always be an unfriendly, fast corridor and not someplace to linger. All developments should be forced to put parking below grade. This would transform this plan and make for a precedent setting development in the suburbs. The housing examples shown are terrible and look like the uninspired low rise housing that is scaring our suburban landscapes. Keep the existing city buildings. That is the most efficient use of our tax dollars. Imagine the traffice nightmares if we increased both retail/commercial and housing. It is already a busy area. less apartments No new residential. Leave the NE Quadrant alone. Anything but minor changes would adversely affect Calvary Lutheran Church and Center Cooperative. Right now it is a convenient and quiet area for residents, agencies, and businesses already there. Again, stop light at Rhode Island is already long and congested and I worry this could make it worse without adequate adjustments and the influx of new residents inevitably heading downtown. The area along Winnetka should be improved as well - what is the realistic parking need at City Hall? Everything. Look, we need to make this a town we WANT to live in folks - having a bunch of parking lots and yet MORE appartments is not helping the existing residents. I would change this plan to not exist. Keep the number of housing units lower, consider a mix of 1st -Time and Empty -Nest options. All if, and only if, the soils test out to show no potential for contamination surfacing from the site that would endanger residents. Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 21 nothing The entire northern area, should be the library, Bassett Creek and restored area surrounding the creek and library - scrap the northern 40-50 residential units and tie to your asset, the river, No comment The library is not updated Scale down the residential units. Everything Less housing Keep MacDonalds. Hate to admit how often I go there N/A Don't bother, Concept B is better. Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 22 NE Quadrant Concept B What do you think about this concept? I like the additional commercial space in concept B. I like that B and C celebrate Bassett Creek. There is currently no real expression of it that is truly publicly accessible. Love the plaza and small commercial spaces connected by a bike path - very interesting proposal! I like the added commercial and residential. I would prefer to have police and fire moved out of this area. City buildings should be more central- park once and walk to businesses. Too much residential space Much better. Move this all to be a place where people want to be. Shops, green space, preserve the best community parts like the library an move the rest. Fine, but what's it going to cost the taxpayers? No. I don't want my taxes to increase for more housing. Police, City and Fire take a back seat and become less prominent and doesn't help establish the village feel. Retail/Commercial will further fragment the community gathering space and will have a further negative impact on the small shopping center on the west side of Winnetka. Awful idea, adding that much dense housing will cause issues with schools, and just overall crowdedness This concept has potential depending on the type of housing and commercial options. Golden Valley is in need of affordable housing. The number of units proposed in this plan could include mixed housing (emphasis on affordable housing). Too expensive and diruptive to all with no real advantage except to the contractors. Like this the best.no grocery store. Definitely needed. Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 23 Much, much better than A, the mixed use is great No comment Love it, the city campus is codenced I like having a larger municipal presence. Yuck, except for the McDonald's part. I like the additional commercial and like putting all the city buildings together and using up less prime real estate. Much prefer mix of use especially retail Much nicer than scheme B. Not sure if the expense of moving city hall is worth it though. Expensive and unnecessary to move city buildings It's OK Ugh. Why? Like Concept B more than A. The commercial space would make this area more desirable. The current facilities seem adequate, this seems like a waste of resources. Unsure that police and fire would have enough room to grow. Not enough room for Public safety. What do you think should be changed about this concept? I think Concept B could pose a safety issue with people having to cross a street to get from the parking lot to the library. B and C require way too much public money and are not necessary. Golden Valley has a great residential feel and taxes are not completely out not control -- yet. Lets keep it that way so that existing residents are not priced out of their own homes. I think concept A doesn't have enough commercial space, and concept C has too much residential. Concept B has a good blend. Looks like adequate parking while balancing a lot of green space - would be curious again on the residential parking allotment- is it enough for residents/guests so we avoid getting into a congested position where no one can park at businesses or visit residents? Compare the setbacks, commercial space size, and parking to a real downtown (i.e., Robbinsdale). This concept could be improved by emulating areas which have very high value/square foot rather than areas with much lower value/square foot. I would encourage sufficent public parking while considering whether we can create a plaza that is large enough and open enough for events, whether farmer's market, music, or just people to gather. I can't tell whether we're killing that given teh design. Maybe again we should rethink how much more we need to invest in apartment space in this city. We seem to have boomed with it already. It seems like library and city hall end up with the best views of the creek. Would be great to have a restaurant and or park area for people to enjoy. Maybe this is where the Trailhead area is? Bring the City Hall to the southwest portion of the quadrant, establishing a City presence as seen in many established cities. Allow Police and Fire to expand and take the space shown in the northeast corner, by themselves. Adding more green space. leave the fire and police station alone. Same withlibrary and city hall Needs better access, more space for creek and surrounding landscape and library, much, much more expanded pedestrian access to the area No comment Do *not* take away the lovely green space by the library. The side streets off of winnetka will be problematic. We need more single level "patio" type housing with no interior or exterior steps. That stuff build on Winnetka and 27th is useless for seniors. Preserve as much green space as possible and create walking trails What is the taxpayer funded cost to relocate the public service buildings? Do we really need brand new fire, police, and city hall? Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 24 NE Quadrant Concept C What do you think about this concept? Don't like that it's missing the plaza or community space. Feels like a residential grab. I think the plaza is a great idea. I love it! What an amazing improvement this will be for Golden Valley as long as it includes a high % of affordable residential units that are not all congregated in the same building. No. I like smaller government buildings LUV IT No. Change for change sake doesn't always work. I would replace the Commercial development in the southwest corner with Police and Fire. And change the total 300 units of Residential to Condominiums, or 200 units of rentals This would be my 2nd choice of plans. not muvh Better than A, not better than B; like the city hall, library consolidation No comment No. Same comments as above. I like the 2nd best Like this too City Hall and library combined to one building sounds good. Im not paying for this. Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 25 Like more than A due to mixed use of the space and the increased density. It seems like a big effort for little return Looks great. This would be great. What do you think should be changed about this concept? Prefer the option with a bit less residential and more business space (Option B) As with concept B, separated large commercial buildings with large setbacks and lots of parking are not what the market values. Fire and police kept central is still a good idea, and while I appreciate the library and city hall in one concept, I think having a huge chunk of central space facing Winnetka be parking is a tragic mistake. Might be too much Housing. If these are low end apartments then the area will become run down in a short time I still think offering Commercial spaces here fragments the community and will suffocate the businesses in the strip on the west side of Winnetka. Adding more green space. I want City Hall downtown; plus where do you plan to move the firestation? And with the much residnetial how far away do you plane to move the police Needs better access, more space for creek and surrounding landscape much, much more expanded pedestrian access to the area No comment Please leave this quadrant alone. The side streets off of winnetka will be problematic. Do not move the police and fire station from tis location. sufficient parking whether surge or underground/ramp based. I don't think we need brand new fire, police, and city hall buildings, I think their current locations make sense Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 26 NW Quadrant Concept A What do you think about this concept? Change Accentuating and allowing access to the creek. I like that Bassett Creek is more celebrated - as long as that is what this is saying I like adding residential not a strong opinion on either The residential component. I like the idea of the sw quadrant having a small grocery store. I am ambivalent. Again, I prefer the concept with the least amount of expense. Both fine. No Opinion Stormwater management is a good idea near the creek. If we have to take it, ok? This is an odd comparison between A and B. The assumptions about the giant middle area changing or not are key. Seems reasonable Excellent choice of use if the units are not rentals and are feasible for 1st -Time owners or empty -nesters. Looks fine to me Residential housing is too concentrated Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 27 this is fine, but doesn't do enough for beautification/restoration/access to Basset Creek and trail No comment It would be great to have emergency shelter for people experiencing homelessness. And easy access to mental health resources. It's better than B Ok i don't like this proposal. Like the increase in higher density housing. It's OK. I hope we're not spending money to someone to create this survey. What a waste of city funds it would be. Why didnt the city buy the McKesson building? Lost oppertunity. Like the trail connection and residential use. This seems reasonable Meh. What do you think should be changed about this concept? The architect A large greenspace„ as in concept A, would be ideal, but it should be a public amenity. parking goes below grade. more sustainable features. Better architecture I don't like the aesthetics of being on the Luce Line trail and seeing parking lots. The substation is ugly enough, and now that the one business cut down all their trees, the trail would lose the natural landscape aspect. Way to much housing crammed in to these areas. Tons more traffic. NW Quadrant would be perfect for additional development as long as you do not force out the businesses already there. They are part of Golden Valley downtown too. Too much residential. Trail connection seems nice but a bit unnecessary Missed opportunity to allow a destination along the Luce Line. What can we? The middle area changing is a question - assuming it can't means this is about the only thing you can do, assuming it can pushes to Plan B. Is there really a call for this much of an increase in office space? nothing I'd say this concept should be scrapped, buildings too close to creek/trail No comment I would make it higher density It shoud be more densily developmed to fully utilize the space. Sufficient parking for residential units. Would love to see an off leash dog park Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 28 NW Quadrant Concept B What do you think about this concept Concept B gets rid of that eye sore building. I like the additional office space; bring more businesses to GV. No Opinion Too much parking for the office buildings. Prefer this to the other, can't tell whether feasible. Luv It! It could be acceptable, depending on the types of units of residential units and the types of office space planned. This concept might be preferable to concept A, however, I would need to give it more thought. Hard to have a viable business without parking. Not sure that we want additional fixes buildings, given the level of congestion already in this area. this is fine, but doesn't do enough for beautification/restoration/access to Basset Creek and trail No comment The residential units are too large. No comment I prefer this concept. Better location for residential than some of the other plans. Prefer this option Like the increase in higher density housing. It's OK Ugh. Like more than A due to mixed use. I like this - gives the businesses an upgraded look and feel as well This would be an improvement on what is currently there. Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 29 What do you think should be changed about this concept? I prefer the apartment configuration of concept B better than that of A. Narrow 10th avenue to make trail crossings safer. Look folks, if you are going to push 500-1000 more units on us for apartment living no matter what concept, what's the point in asking? If you do this, you need to make real changes to require affordable living, and good luck with traffic. Reduce the number of Residential units to avoid over -crowding. I would not remove all the businesses I'd say this concept should be scrapped, buildings too close to creek/trail No comment Do not repeat the mistake of allowing the too -large, too close to the street apartment building on Xenia and Laurel. I would make this quadrant all residential It shoud be more densily developmed to fully utilize the space. does this have sufficient parking? Add an off leash dog park Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 30 Long -Term Vision For Downtown What do you think the long-term vision should be for the downtown? A place where old and new can coexist; one where we aren't taken over by big box stores and fly by night chain stores A new urbanist haven with plenty of trees and greenspace, where you can bike or walk to get groceries, run errands, dine out, etc. more walkability to and within the corridor we need to flip the suburban model and look to outlining cities like chicago that have dense active pedestrian friendly areas around their transportation hubs. It should be vibrant and attract millienials and younger generations. if it looks like the precedents it will be no different then every other suburb in america. uninspired, and cheap architecture. The site should have design guidelines that are not style based but quality based. Slim chance of getting the owner of the strip mall to renovate this eyesore!! Mix of shops and eateries along with residential We do not need more high-rise condos/apartments... we have too many. Look at what downtown Robbinsdale has done -- it's a mini eat street. Retail, restaurants that people flock to, bakery, coffee shop, hardware, etc. It isn't a downtown. If you want a downtown, tear everything down on both sides of GV Road and Winnetka and start over with a pedestrian friendly concept- think downtown Robbinsdale. Grow businesses (retail, breweries, restaurants) Not what is proposed. Groceries are being delivered to homes more and more, so why add a grocery store with a massive parking lot. How about bringing in unique restaurants and boutiques. GV doesn't seem to have an identity. Perhaps, consult with the folks who helped create the North Loop. Go lightly and DO NOT CARRY A BIG STICK. An area with more of a downtown feel. However, parking remains important as that is the primary way Golden Valley residents (especially the elderly) get around. Retail, grocery, residential, walking/or biking friendly Make it a place that residents want to go to. More activity, more commercial, more entertainment. Continue to work with the retailers Love the idea of a more downtown style space for events like the Arts & Music festival or the farmer's market, not sure that this provides that. An area that is pleasant to spend time going to multiple stores, sit outside and spend time. It does not need to be easy to drive in and out of. A mix of affordable housing, high walkability, connections to the Luce Line, increase in options for public transportation, better esthetics as one side of the gateway into Golden Valley. Primiarily commerce. Not industrial, residents if we can support the infrastructure and if they feed to our tax base and to maintaining the new biz below. A place to congregate. Could there be a plaza? A splash pad? Shopping, Coffee Shops, and Residential and Grocery Again, who will be paying for this? Make this the area recognized as "Downtown", with a significant city government presence, and utilizing the Courtyards areas for city festivals, farmer's markets and special events. If the buildings with the Ground Level Retail were kept with a slightly lower profile than the rest, the Courtyards could be a viewing place for celebratory fireworks that could be done from Brookview Golf Course! On the right track but this needs much more infrastructure We need either a grocery store or co-op and much more affordable housing! I think you ned more open space and parks. There's no where to recreate ooutside other than walk. UGH!!!! A space that offers basic amenities (bank, post office, city services, hardware store, coffee shop) and unique/local retailers and restaurants. Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 31 I agree that a mix of residential, grocery/Target/ light retail is needed; however there needs to be innovation in a link to Brookview both from a pedestrian standpoint (something better than existing overpass) and making this area more natural e.g., restored prairie) Long term vision of down town should be a SPACE WHERE EVERY PERSON IS UNDERSTOOD, VALUED, AND GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO THRIVE. A good mix of commercial and residential. Potentially commercial LL and residential about like some of the downtown MPLS areas that have recently been done been Some housing is good. But please preserve set -backs and create green space. I'd be more enthusiastic about the housing options if we actually had decent bus service. Perhaps with higher densities we would get it. More retail and non -chain restaurants. People want new, hip-er restaurants. Vibrant shopping, eating and entertainment area The city's goal should be to view this area as the focal point of the city and as such it should focus on increasing density in a mixed use fashion. There should be more consideration given to how the area is seen from highway 55. There shoudl be more focus on creating community gathering spaces and making it more pedestrian friendly. Businesses to which residents may walk and take care of basic errands along with restaurants. Easy entrance / exit from Hwy 55 and Winnetka. Visually appealing! More business friendly, not less. the Winnetka, Golden Valley, 55 area needs to be the focal point of the city. More businesses - less apartment buildings Improved possibilities without changing the character. I think we should look deeper into the options for better architects; the kind with vision and not just dollar signs in their eyes. Also, where are the plans for low income housing and mixed use buildings? A new urbanist haven with plenty of trees and greenspace, where you can bike or walk to get groceries, run errands, dine out, etc. density, sustainability, vibrancy, diversity, accessibility. we need to desire to be in our downtown. it is currently a gathering of strip mall type suburban shops. Put a grocery store in. There's a big lacking of this as the nearest is in plymouth City government sector Redesign the fire station so we don't have to worry about where to build a bigger second fire station. minimal to no change Community center that includes a water park. Seriously. Like Crystal Cove or the one in Maple Grove. More green space and family friendly space. Go lightly and DO NOT CARRY A BIG STICK. Make it a place that residents want to go to. More activity, more commercial, more entertainment. Community space with a bit of a 'downtown' feel where you can go to businesses and meet up with the community at local events (e.g. Pride). Dense, small commercial buildings which allow small businesses and not just chain stores to create a real downtown that Golden Valley residents can be proud of. We need a place for people to enjoy. It needs to drive us to come to it as residents. We have so very little in the way of shops and good entertainment, we should be encouraging things beyond yet more apartments and parking lots. I'm fine with police and fire being located centrally - and their space can be integrated with city service buildings of multiple stories that look nice and integrated into the landscape. Make all these quads harmonize, not be slapped together over 50 years. Connection to the creek. A place to congregate The long-term vision should be to develop a site that says community, invites participation from all directions and a destination for work, family and fun. Downtown Golden Valley should include a grocery store option, more affordable housing, more green space and bike lanes. Keepit cohesive. with lots of green space in nooks and crannies for neghborly interaction. Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 32 Focus should be on bringing the Bassett Creek and restoration out as a gem/asset of Golden Valley as priority, second is improving pedestrian access, third is improving the library I think what's here is fine Keep the municipal campus, and don't mess with the library or the green space west of it. Should stay as is, except, perhaps, for the McDonald's site. It would be ideal to look at this area primarily as a civic space and then infill with residential and commercial beyond that. Make this the focal point of the city. The commercial/residential use would be great to have. Businesses Weak, late to the party architecture with overpriced commercial spaces that only chain stores and fast food places can afford. Stop looking at St. Louis Park for your "inspiration". Dream bigger With the increase in housing comes the need for an increase in local goods and services. It would be nice if we could be selective about what businesses occupy the new retail spaces. Preference should be given for affordable grocery stores, and businesses that serve/appeal to people of all cultures and financial brackets. Keep the light rail out. Talk to the folks who've created the neighborhoods downtown. GV has much to offer, but all these plans/designs seem traditional and uninspiring. Go lightly and DO NOT CARRY A BIG STICK. It is more removed, so a quieter residential approach makes sense. Could have higher residential density to help support downtown walkable commerce. You folks can't add a possible 1000-2000 working individuals in apartments within these 4 areas combined including this one, plus all the other construction, and expect Winnetka to not become a living hell. You folks failed to bring the light rail down SS to accomodate all these people living centrally to GV, and you aren't going to win this battle with bike trails, so you really can't get good feedback on this stuff without total infrastructure analysis. In the morning, Winnetka is messed up enough. You can't feed more people down it during rush hour without screwing up the entire town. Time to think of such things. Many other problems/issues to deal with first. Do we really need a "downtown"?. The long-term vision should be consistent with prior visioning. These areas will all have a common theme and look it would be nice if encouragement fo business other than retail with jobs that paid more than minimum wage were encouraged. Your concepts have nothing there except to do away with allo of them and put in houseing which will defintely degrade with time if all the people have is minimum wage. Mix of housing, retail, and a grocery store. Vision: How do you tie the Luce Line and Basset Creek to Golden Valley? Make this area into a major trailhead highlighting the creek and giving access the city, huge restoration of the creek and bringing back a Big Woods remnant too Plan looks fine Thank you for gathering input from residents - I know some of the apartment complexes in GV allow outside groups to conduct "info sessions" on site. Please take advantage of this opportunity to make sure renters have a voice in the decision making process. Residential good spot for residential if the other proposed areas have increased commercial and restaurants. More focus on high density residential. I think this area could use a facelift and would be a good spot for apartments if absolutely required Downtown Study Phase 11 Community Input Report Page 33 APPENDIX A Open House Presentation Boards city of golden` valley Page 34 owntov ^Stud lea City of Golden Valley Y Open House Purpose.* Provide an update on the downtown study and gather input from community members on preferred downtown changes in the future. OTl „ _ 7;;, U I UU LUU SUUiba Milo " r i MINT 10th Ave N.6pop Yk ddop I E f \ WED rr- IP 4TL hL Lewis Rd now AL r 6 por r7m an VA 3 fitAA V M r e S A slt ^,r 1ti ' w rt. '` - _ — .. 1rr i i 4 T s '1 • •• r . CMINE oft 9 MINE— + WE LA no TIP. I a ` _ w 1 x1. 1 T_: ' 1, Si a • , , {{j l 1x'. . l Study Overview Phase II c n ka 2040 Comprehensive Update Golden Valley Downtown Study Phase II Identified the Downtown West area as one in need of further study. Downtown West is bounded General Project Schedule by Highway 169 and 55, the Luce Line regional trail, and the Golden Valley Country Club. TASK 1: PhaseDowntown Study IUnderstandPotentialJJChangeAreas Summer 2018 - The City worked with a panel of local real estate, development, and finance experts - the MN Urban Land Institute (ULI) - to begin the downtown study. TASK2: Explore Site Redevelopment The Phase I study resulted in the written report prepared by the ULI. scenarios Oct 9, 2018 -Summary of the Phase I findings and recommendations shared with City Council. One of the phase I findings was that the City should focus on a smaller core area within the TASK 3: downtown -the four quadrants surrounding Winnetka Ave and Golden Valley Road. Other Seek Community Input gnu recommendations included identification of redevelopment opportunities, strong market potential, need for improving connectivity into and within downtown, and the need for public partnership in Task4: future redevelopment. Prepare Preferred Site J J Concepts Downtown Study Phase 11 Focused on establishing an overall vision and guiding principles for preferred redevelopment, Staff MeetingDesign Charrette ] reinvestment and placemaking in the downtown core. Public Engagement Event + Envision the future of the City Hall campus as buildings age and need to be replaced. Property Owners/ A" Create potential targeted redevelopment scenarios. Stakeholders Meeting Develop a more detailed downtown bike/walk plan to encourage more downtown bicycle and foot PC or CC Meeting traffic with the addition of bike and pedestrian facilities. Design a way to better connect the downtown to the area south of Hwy 55 and to Brookview. 1001 INS INS INS No a" 100 on INS EN ON 00 00 00City- o en NE ME, lT1$'&I OEM soowSEEI SbI 40, 'EM MMM 001 MEN WE ME MEN WE WIN 100 MR NE I Downtown Stud I e City of Golden Valley It -? information r. _ , t -- GI is _ f-i 1 - y •1 _ _ a F i fir. " a '['' 4 - °' ' - -- -* " - " :. ' OklaOYI(IaDr C k to 'rt r , rYi:• - _ , - - - + r { " Dr tl a_ - 4'.•, r.. IFNI0 Study Area 0 Study Area Building to Land Value Metro Bus Stop - f,a _ +y` Existing Trails and NIA,•a + ii. y,w ' Sidewalks:i}r . 1 y `1 e F r i •w• * w r . R Ri F• R R-. , C 1 -2.5 Three Rivers Park .y 4 D_ d a d r, 4 a r•s 10th Ave N ` -- r — -- _ ,'., District . - rk 10th Ave N f >_ 2.5 Existing Regional Trail ' 1 . 4 - M? x 1.331 N/A .i f•.r Feet City Trails & Sidewalks z Se 1 0 100 200 300 I , 1.791 ti c. , Concrete Sidewalk (34.1 Asphalt Trail (16.2 mi.) Lewis R'd Z -' - Private Sidewalk or Golf Cart Trail _`P krr 4! r C R • ' s ' .I 2.44.1 2.3.1 ' w il. On -Street Bikeways V ¢ ,- < '1•i D Bikeable Shoulder 4: I r Z 3.48:1 ai irAl • 'a + w • ' v^ - ' • Feet rr w t • N/A 7.48 1 - L3 0 100 200 300 vl 7 r+r kl R 1? Y N/A N/A I , L + ,fT 6 is oi- t 4r G enVa Golden Valle Rd • +* +' Va ey Golden Valle Rd -- 1 odd Y, 4 n r, Z Country Club Dr Golden y Z . Country Club Dr Qk4. bilk CZ A i - + • - t At IL Soft AU z y ate+ '• ' a SCALE 1NIN FEET I r I xx } < I I I r SPACES Parking Supply vs.ZP1 +xx GV Parking Code '" SPACES • r • i - I E _ Post Officer p% 0 Study Area _ _ ' " ® ON IFY - - a ' # I _ J I 1 I I Golden Valley Commons 75" ' ' I (Restaurants, commerical) Chipotle 275PA€ES 1a3•sr. - <` i 'k VAI SPA •' iw # + iSP ;ES ` : # < l 8-1 l l 1 7 5..PA{F5 , rwasa j'z i j-. y rr. a3.C535.1 il l w {[ r I s spaces it wl+t 1iJYsf. _p,aa Z r i!r rt A ' +S SQ1iCE5 So-, ssISl. 4. i ]Ilkrl4 - _ Blue Line \ _ — -ice \ (0r' ` I? A• : 0 ' '• STATION KEY MAP METRO -` 1 '. _ • * ` _. C Line R \ fA Y +" rt i l rt45PRCE5 I { i * 8Q 1 y tl MINNESOTA c fir, 1= - n nll ulll l c ' •1..`.. [ 5 I r 1Ai#€.IS r y- - _ - FY r < F5 SPAL-ES' i 5 CS5 l < 80 sigs,r, 5L Specific Notes I \ \ I __ 01 Alternative station location t ` f r IStationLocationsl _' Y r':Fit+,sss .y rrhsJSf. ar,3cr3t. F;-SSPACES +, a45e. li)9 l i • i.f.I. - l a ISPACES - ' J _ - SOUTHBOUND/WESTBOUND GREEN LINE LRT TRACKS EXISTING BUS STOP 7F- i > NORTHBOUND/EASTBOUND — PARK AND RIDEu{•r , _ _ BLUE LINE LRT TRACKS 1111.0 x r " P. F•!` TRAFFIC SIGNAL i>- _ soacEs *;, - _ SB PLATFORM LOCATION RIGHT OF WAY NB PLATFORM LOCATION OM EXISTING MANHOLE PROPOSED ROADWAY l - - 3,w - ALTERNATIVE ROUTING EXISTING LIGHT POLE PROPOSED SIDEWALK mi. C-LINE BRT ® EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE PROPOSED TRANSIT ONLY Parking Supply Potential Hwy 55 Winnetka us R pi ransit (BRT) OWN -z I LL] _ I I I I I j 1 QOWinsdale St n II S Legend al Z 0 Single Family (R-1) M 0 Moderate Density (R-2) Residential apd Medium Density (R-3) Residential N m High Density (R-4) Residential z m v I-394 Mixed Use , J Je id U Q I TM //ji Subdistrict lom Rise-upma:mriee J / Subdistrict Mid Rise - up to stories x O z 24 d Subdistrict High Rise -up to f0 stories 111 th Avenue - _ e _ , Commercial > i Id Storage Union Ja , s v - / , _ \_ 0 Light Industrial d e c - t R . I \'- /\ l Industrial E 0 Business & Professional Offices E Dr Institutional Fo,IPoa.r„'., M. de.eu.ui. au R.a i.uooao e. oL) (I-1) Sub -District (.humhes, e.hooie, em) Fad` - an ault St (I-2) Sub -District (libraries, museums and colleges. etc) X ve — l Oth Ave N 0 (I-3) Sub -District tureen hams. p... te.iube eed Library- - , — 96 Hlfl -' (I-4) Sub -District (golf courses, parke:: pieygmunde and r i government officetc) elc) Z Hennepin (I-5) Sub -District roemetede:,etc) County Q Ott -Cruel`_ i Lewis Rd Librar 26 46 se Planned Unit Development (PUD) r , c a) Calvary 0 , c o Lutheran51z ' ' 56 Church vernment ( 25 ; _ ' y pass-ett6ree* enter& io - r— Bo nei z Station #1 55 Open o a z Space 71 Q Go\ derJ 7thAve N NG Yi r Club Dr cU.S. nt Post Offic GtehW CD I I y J„vy 55 _ ooQ'Ave Rd72 `MM° J 39 CD 47Fr0_ 0a9eR m Pond - -- ` - - - - J - - - r Spiita ope 5n _e 6 r R Church Pond Wa11 St Spirit of n Hope L F C PondI Harold Ave 'PQ, AO e _ • Pon B 201 and M Harold r Future Land Use eg1'' - GMillsal Pond Lions Brookview $ a Residential Mixed Use Industrial Institutional Pond Park 1z Park ,a en rz z Oko c r Dr d S o d oy Low Density Neighborhood r Light Industrial Assembly Q 5 Q z Va ICUModerate Density Community Industrial Civic Western Avenue ° Marsh ' o L Medium Density Commercial Open Space - Medical '. ero iew - Pond 16 a High Density ' Office Parks and Natural Areas Right -of -Way Brookview C E GolfCourse04008001,600 YM2,400 _ r— i Retail/Service Water Feature Railroad s n ve set Western 9 Right -of -Way (public and private) _ r r Good Shepherd L N > ,uc ' Catholic Church v C rt r\ % i 11 i Q ? it ;.i > Lnnri hanh,--- A 3 1ture Land se Map From nsiv 040Comprehe0 e Plan Zoning Map to ow wo aw wo go 00 00 ' 60 ow go go w- wo 00 00 00 so wo ou so go 00 00 to toCity D 60 Iden I 00 00 aft _ valle talbC rVrde health MEN— aft sm sm a ow MI a so I 00 r Downtown I ttic I e City of Golden Valley Y It -t information IF 17 7, i '' k Study Area , y, - E OrklaDr " 3 s 1 •, O-rWODr _ - s° s., .._ rifrocWaterMain1 . I _ '^ _ oc 0 Study Area CityWatermain 1 •' T - 1 ', 'ram Public Tree Inventory 1 JWC Water Main _ T v Diameter Abandoned " Y _ • - . < 4.7 in. C Faf111A • ' • • • F 4.7-10.9 in. Private Main -' 1 -----__--- 10th Ave N _ — Private Hydrant Lead i * i A 10th Ave N 10.9-15.9 in. 1 Storm Basin / • 15.9-25.7 in. r Pond _ 1 / . • 25.7- 47.7 in. 1 '• -: ' Sedimentation Basin r ' t ' Wetland Flood Hazard Zones Bioretention Basin ` Floodway -k Underground Pipe r Lewis Rd / Z1 %Chance of Flooding ` Chamber '+ . i - 1 -,• Q •' Underground Wet Vault ; . ~ Jrr • a - , ' w - " Storm Channel a = r Feet 0 100 200 300 Creek N = - * _ , • F .+ ' Ditch- 3 .; Swale 1 Spillway .` ; "_. Storm PipeW14 ` Gravity 1 14A. Forcemain ti r N Other Storm Pipe +-•S 1 1 •a` Lam. i • ' ; - - - Draintile 1 Private or Other Agency 1 1 Draintile IFId! 1 ey 11Go aenVa Golden Valley Rtl Z _ s 1 Other Agency Storm I<ir: C,o`derVa Golden Valley Rd '' : Z Country Club Dr Private Culvert W. / Private Storm A Abandoned Pipe ' - _ "' r' PI Jw TA~ Sanitary Main 1 : t ' ,' "` r" • i + r "ll, a -..•. •` . _ City Gravity _ - , f r a ' - ° o i - • R ' isf —1 6, MCES Forcemain • • e, Jk r_ -; - ' `r_ W Other Sanitary Main + — • ti a - I ."i' r Private Sewer / • i . - - {+ r i i T - ^ I: -"+ * ; Abandoned Pipe . - • • • -- . ,--. i• r.,.,..... . we rti ,': 0 100 200 300 . Q • •' _ ti. _-,+• f Tree Inventory and Flood Hazards Ya y ., :Its ` U Z LJ G — J a' - j; F1la rt L1 ElOrkla Dr F! - 3 s - Orkla_Drl 3, s O 0 Stud Area en L: LandValueOOen y B: Building Value Building Lot Coverage L: $994,000: 00— "` ` , - + r *Based on Hennepin County B: $22339,900: 00 _'> t • o, + .. Assessor' s data for taxes payable 2019 El0 L: $430,000. 00 L: 5B3: 850:000:0;0r `- 0 StudArea ' 0% v <_ 25% AFa' 25 50% 1 + rR R r a o 1. Oth Ave N - - Feet - add - 10th Ave N - >_ 50 /o 1 ' 0 100 200 300 0 Building Footprints Impervious Surface B7,$444, 000.00 L:,S903,000.00 i N 36.1% 0 Road System 1 L: $903,000.00 B:N/A ' T3. 4% 1 B.$ 1,613, 000.00 Z lE a Other Impervious Q t•' "' Lewis Rd Lewis Rd Z Feet 0 100 200 300 L:3zz6,000.00a;, ti wF L:$737, 000.00 * B:$520,000.0 B: 51,801,000. 00 a t ,# ,. L:N/A ' L: $209,000.0 — L:•$836,000.* B 27.7% 25.1 °k 11.6% B• N/ A jZ - B $601,000. 00 7 B $467,000:00 - Z 38% Q j O Q L N/ A B:•$911,000.00 ' .' - _ Q o n '000. $33800 `. - w S •• c0% 7 u i B: N/ A r L: N/A N o 0 0 0°/ o o i 1 L:•$ 1, 907, 000. 0 L N/A L N/A • p o o 1 B: $ 968,000. 00 B: N/A B: N/A 33.9% 27.7% 1„ L:N/A B:$3;928,000. 00 0 0 d B: N/A _ L: $927,1000.00 BA42000.00 VaUey 1 Golden Valle Rd u 1 C,o`deVaUeyGoldenValleyRd Z Country Clb Dr , - Y Z Country Club Dr r.i' _- B:•$496, 000.00 • G/QbW00tl 27.5% C fc G/eh Av L: a $7y686; 000.00 Avti .. - e; B: $5,4701000 00 s ._, r e An ulap e i at J, r. = f L: $4,790, 000.00 -• J 16.4% l l r a 0 0 ae Y ti rj7 -I=f J_ oEDJ v El 7 z; Ala, 17 IIt u a' Cf Li Ej 1 O OrklalDr N, t 5, Orkla Dr = s y Study Area O StudAreaLi Impervious Lot M 1 . . t, Total Value per Sq. Ft. o p 1 $19. 55/ Sq. 53-7% 0 Coverage Ft' $1.19/Sq. Ft. ' N/A 67 Ft. 10% $15. 00 _ r q r 10- 50%* - 1 F $ 15.00-$30. 00 30.00 10th_Ave N 50-75% r AL 10th Ave N + . iy `M 75% 73.3% R' i R 7. 8% Building Footprints Feet 69.9% 53.4° k Impervious Surface Ft. Ft• $ 28.32/ Sq, 0 100 200 300 0 Road System Ft' 1 1 11 Other Impervious • •_ 4` ' t 4 Lewi_sAd Feet _rS1 Ft. 56 / 0 0 100 200 300 P t i " q • • all. • A r } l I Z Q =121t *, Q $ 49. 79/ Sq. C - •..yam , o C 68. 8% 62.5% _ Ste' ~-nT It N/A Ft. ' --- : p 50.5% 1. 3%. o UPS 0 0 80. 9% oo $40. 33/Sq• \ z : •- , • . ' olden Valle Rd Golden Valle Rd - d t Y ZCountry_Club Dr C,o den y . Z Country Club Or Go - _ . 73.7% 67.4% Q , • •it 1• $31.58/Sq. N/A Q l , Woo v R dq v dADi \ e t Ft. . 1 r r L Y tom' .?. - + Ft. , #. i El a Impervious Lot Coverage Value Per SQ. FT. 00 • W 00 so 411 00 ,.___------_____ am aft am aft__ •. golden S I 40, valley City of Golden Va C t0 ives T107 k g -cam A r . r' m r • n V A I Harvlii 00 to i i I P 01 40 n 10pportunitil F --- L—F --- L—J Feet 0 100 200 300 400 s k As a part of the Downtown Study Phase 11, Future opportunities ex theCityisexploringfuture traiI pgM. 0 SidewalkGaproutes through the downtown, Future Bike Lanekj) gill PotentialTraiI Links Potential Alt -Grade Intersection Improvement Grade Separated 1, a Intersection Improvement Potential for mid -block crossing r Planned BR Stop r • Ft Platform Location zi 6L Study Area y Metro Bus stop F r - Existing Trails and 41Sidewalks Ar FarbauitStThree Rivers Park 1 r sry District .. CL , Existing Regional Trail City Trails & Sidewalks 70 Concrete Sidewalk (34.1 6` rn Q Asphalt Trail(16, rr'Q Private Sidewalk or Golf Cart Tra i I A-- 1A . 1' on -Street Bikeways w w op— Bikeablehoulder 1 Share the Road Corridor Proposed Trails and Sidewalks z I 4,-- , . Bike Lane r , Signed Bike Route fit •, Multi -Use Trail Sidewalk VJtI •' ti 7. V MOM kely a r * S'+ f IY P C e1%, + r Country Clut_Dr ITM Y CL r ;- --- a Y - , 0' 1k 1 ++ _ Via - _ - 1 • J_ ta ` IA Uj IM h dry - - 1, ` • , - ! V now tN no m4f V F AA WNW1 + _ 3 ] SSII , -_ y f ram* •- . yi - 3 It Harold' Ave Place a green dot next to the routes you like and a red dot next to routes you don't like, Potential Trail Routes Like it Don't like it r- 4/ city 0 golden S sit h n improvement partnership Downtown Stud Phase II City of Golden Valley Y Summary of the Downtown Walking/Biking Survey August/September 2019 A A D General Walking How often do you walk todestinationsin the downtown - How often do you bike to destinations in the downtown What are the top reasons you visit downtown? like stores, cityhall, or the library? - Like stores, city hall, or the library? y y y Socialize ' Hearing Center • Art Festival ; ; ; ; Pokemon Post Office Hardware Entertainment !0 Work Rarely/ never • Stores CityHall Liquor Store A few times/ • qAfewtimes/ A few times/ , LifeRestaurantsCoffeeBusinessmonth Rarely/never week month Dentist Doolittles 9% A, LibrarBrookview /, , Dining Farmers Market 4' Every , Retail/ShoppingFestival Coffee day ; ; Every Afew times/ ; day ear • A few times/ A few times/ Y weekyearWhatfactorswouldencourageyouto bike to/around downtown more often? (Mark all that apply) What factors would encourage you to walk to/around downtown more often? (Mark all that apply) 13% 12% 12% 11 % 10% 10% How did you get here today? . A Routes that More/better Convenient More Feeling safe Events and ; Routes that More are more marked bike convenient, or welcome activities that , More Events and Feeling safe or comfortable trails and parking useful, or fun on the encourage • are more convenient, activities that sidewalks welcome on and bike lanes destinations street or biking comfortable useful, or fun encourage and safer, enjoyabletrailgthestreetorandenjoyable destinations walkingbettermarkedtrailcrossings7% 7% 6% 5% 5% 2% ; f O << 0r1i 0 Sidewalks/ Places to stop, Trees/ Other Signsand ; Bike repair Other Trails/ Places to Signs and Classes or ' Intersections rest, and cool shade alongmaps that stations or stop, rest, maps that group rides : C cleared in winter help me Intersections poffwalkingnavigateairpumpsclearedinand cool off help me for new routes winter navigate cyclists • Why did you choose to travel that way today? Are there amenities that might make walking or biking in downtown more attractive. If so, what are they. PppPPP 7qN Convenience 18% Pleasure or Bike Paths More Trails Exercise 18% Diastance vel d Protected Bike Lanes Parks Bike Shop Parking 13% Mol tiple 00WMW Secure Bike ParkingGrocery/Pharmacy Better Shopping 2% 13% Traveling with Kids/Others L k ia6 Convenience Kid Fun', Parks Scenic Routes Available Parking 6161h,' Store Less Cars Carrying items BetterEatsBetter Connections 4 Wider Sidewalks Mobility Environmental Safer Short Bike RacesBathrooms Safety/Security Only Choice Cost • Concerns Crossing Signs Healthy Food Options Water Refill Stations Who PartIs icipated? ' goo your What is home zi ? Which ofthe followingp code80describes you? 6055405551045542140 55442 55441 55408 55427 55303 20 55416 55369 k 55447 o 55426 55106 r) > M > 5- > -0 Z 0 0 1— LA 0) 0) 0 0 554 CL 4 Wich applies to you h& a AWL 4c What is your age? ; : What isyour gender? . • , . , I Under 18: 1 % live in I'm visiting 18- 30: 10% :: Golden Golden Valley Valley 30-45: 18% 45-60: 30% : ; I work in 58% 42% Golden Valley Downtown Sty ha: City of Golden Valley Redevelo P ment/Reini Copp .- 111111 c - As a part of the Downtown Study Phase ti r 3 ! 1 NW quadrant scenarios * .= _r - f.- II, the Cityis exploring where future I r. -F " ` - = - - opportunities may be for downtownA, after parking utilization study 1 { E pp y k • r ry - 5orklai Dr redevelopment and reinvestment. A+B with tra lhead addition - p F s iVE Quadrant scenarios . r Within each of the downtown quadrants, C, to potentially include C -. . . . . . . . . . Municipal Facilities Study to we are also exploring phasingpg A+B+C with trailhead addition ,. ' - .., ' determine outcome of A+B „ isofredevelopment/reinvestment, e.g. A 4 D, site assembly (3 parcels) for " » C+D otential need for renovation anticipate to be the first area to change. I - - _ ._ p p g redevelopment _ o a reNexpansion in coordination with A+ f E market driven investment `' - 1 } E market driven investment or Do you have any comments or concerns on I ossible relocation thesepotential chan a areas? g5 Comments/ Concerns d w Am r 7 J al i 1 O f It S Op r R o I r om A Yal ey Rd h ,,a ` CountryClub DrA!e - mow`} #' . .^ f ` r ,` r! • - r XF1 L I yypp 0O tMINNESOTA OL k mot"`• - •• f1r F1 f - +s ji qr- • - i n ''''' F* .. w its s• s al Quadrant scenarios , F , ryi - s E Quadrant scenario A+ B with portions of Golden 'no no 4 Identify development principles Valley Dr. ROW redevelopment for any potential infill or A+ B+C and vacating Golden, - redevelopment that may occur in Valley Dr. ROW (Site Assembly)K #- this quadrant. 1redevelopment - - _ _ kdl CA, retrofit of Golden valley , A, Shopping Center- ppgV- 1 CB, redevelopment of Golden 1 `- 4 I' ___ _ ° }•' valley Shopping Center 0 Stud Area Feet city 0100200300 - Of Iden I 90improvemerd partnership City of Golden Valley t meant r(N& ROft'i 07 4 1 L ALL What do you like about these What do you think should be changed about concepts? these concepts? pop s Preceder, 9 I df. What do you think the long-term vision should be for this area of downtown? a 00 WS so t O 00 so MO Am am fta am_00 so 00 00 00 go 1 d e n,!,. ship Igo_-- valley 40, Downtown Stud Phase City of Golden Valley Y NL (1 . .: pts What do you about these concepts? J # ii• llrii r` - . - _ - - - --- # i ,I a ii•• 1{jl•4—' - . _ - - -_' _. - __. - Air ir• lrrlt ' x 1 CnILI UJ '++11iJ !_i -- -- .-. - - 1M11JCnJ1a7UiJ - tVA r Ir + . r . i ' O F • 0i' Allrr . i• MillPa king' i - pr a M . s W + F4 AT S Pow 1 1 • ti#•"y1L Y 17 .. rs1 • I _ • y4TM*s4; it I • • + _ ll.l ° • • •4 *1 10 Fill J: UU ti for 15 all y 19 @EHM% WIadn- Ir J 1 1• 14YIY, '' 1 : + ' IF/I rF «III 4 - i ` i — }1M k " --- i Concept A Concept C if A ir11i1 _ •} r r - •. 1M11JLJuJL7UU -- + 7 — 'r I a _ AL lilt - •_ k' r !' , - %% Jl ` I1- r FV 4 + JI I il - cr .' i + ' "" , y' i''• ` 1 '1i` L: 35. 1 ' d;'• i=+"'td T 'Rr •X t: 'y ]+[ r `! . i rr J I- G II II' I.L`- I + I I I ,141I5-1 1*IV/ t - i .I-= - III,I !' ' rz- .i' •. { Ij41 " F` ` i " i : ., _ - r * y 'y'I r i : IT !`r?_ y' « jMOW o - • - ° . • fr ` - I I' --I , ~- ,II II Ir , ,_ , , II I I l ___ '+; _ , rr ` , : _ { ,.# I., . ' - ..__ _ I ', r y-' r - - _ 3tit _ I L . - r-'1.. F: T _+. , . . / ° • 1 _" I' -- -111 _.L_ - _ "Z. - .... _ .I ;I _S r.] :AEI I¢LI+ '3 `lr rh. ,h-I ' rT . # "T girl r1 1 Tf.'. 17-' _-•_— .+1, _'i , . }4 ll- ' r I 4 .. • I . is _ IYF ' ti. '} - ,_. ' . _ •. , ; :- I rY ? _ - ' - 0 000- Resi ential ex mpi Bike and walk pathway exam e Q upon.-,. lliWater Tower Milkwr_' • . da Ad lit Y - * 0 1 1 • i l .. + Icy_.. - - r. L r' y.`: ' r _ d.• + a ! tip'"- L'• i Irr 141 Concept B Bike Fire stationexampandwalk pathway example What do you think should be changed about these concepts? What do you think the long-term vision should be for this area of downtown? WIN __________ so 00 so Am am am OR 00 go 00 00 so 00 SJUIW- M& heam 1r. UY U01lut AIr:0 SITITA SE bi a I Is 9 I r i 7 OL. . f L J SI.` 7 7t!!ll7ZYlIC:ZlS '* 'k'*' : .. O " - - 1' a' `• :... 1 , I `: JI .ice4mm ji k.... _-..,... r ELMH11R5i 255 .. .+. r ..'. y6tA:r •... -s'" -- ro. UM ;»- try. ..,......,... P. lunM, x,.yar` r` _ 4_ { - - #w +. FIIIf LI #' - - — • Via_- - „'w - • esidential example ti ; ,. 41 AMP 000 41 r tom • f i _ - l.• - a4.: '. t, 17, r r: - 4 _ 'f';• Aoid Concept A es dent• al courtyard exam le Y pLIN O..Jh x' r * '. - f _ Y it J 4 ` - l 4 ti - -' • x . F + .1 f . ' , r ryS+ - • . J• Fqr 46 AC T - + ~ , iF'.. K _ j1I T K * t , } *- `• 7FY `"- n -s; F' ' {'' -* 4 #• r' a. _ w _ - } k`_ y+ #w;• Ar jri f IMIV R..ii Y 1 • ''' 4 Iv 1 I . rr-•_ . 1T2Y t'••{' # Vl, p/ 0 '3- - '{ w = # - i , } { j+ -i A116 r. ar:l.rtFL AMM i ft.. Ak . a = NOW oI rL zw Or Creek trail bridge example 01 Wt AL a I i r 40 sf11 Concept B Multi -story example le p 1r. I &`r•1r•r:jNaTr.I1r_ 0 J6 AmCPC14; r t t• MLM1 11111 tip{ 4 -6 i yf •, . s kl..-• : iF High densi 1 using examp I l r 4 r 41 ti 14 s • f ` JjkW ommercial with outdoor dining example I Police station and firehouse example A. W I 11 LI. II II r {, l41 y Y' iY' . w j Nee or Ko ti r-:r -EJ k r 1 - or r , L Mixed use with housing example a• r k ' a a Fi I I r 1 ' T If r. LII . •' II __.I•L . 1• nil r. a f r r { a 0 r- . 0 F 4 • S 1' low 41WF i - - I Jt NL r - + AF ram I • _ . - , f Community festivals and gatherings example Civic example reekside Tunnel Trail r M7 L Roam,. Y y _ . . rt . A91 II1 Ylyq? pr. lsrfrr, w, r•' I r I5 j! P. 1 Le. '' I r; Zr or LI1 1 SO Library a mple 0 oldvall $ hlp APPENDIX B Open House Summary city of golden` valley Page 46 Golden Valley Downtown Study Phase II Open House 10-21-2019 Comments Received Highlights of Comments Received Comments were received from open house attendees via sticky notes placed on information boards as well as comment cards. From these comments, we have identified the following key concerns and preferences expressed at the open house: SW quadrant - support for street improvements (safer, more walkable), support for attracting additional commercial businesses (grocery, pharmacy), support for redevelopment, concerns about Wisconsin Ave/Hwy 55 intersection traffic movements. NE quadrant — support for improving walking environment/network, concerns about new streets/preference for pedestrian only streets, concerns about potential changes to the library, support for adding public outdoor spaces, support for adding residential in downtown. NW quadrant - no major concerns were identified for the proposed concepts and support was expressed for residential and office development in this area. Redevelopment/Reinvestment Opportunities — some concerns about relocating existing uses in the NE quadrant, such as civic, post office, library, McDonald's. Active Transportation Opportunities — concern about safety of pedestrian/bike crossings of Hwy 55 and Winnetka Ave. SW Quadrant Comments What do you like about these concepts? Grocery Store Concept! Drug Store. Grocery Store, Drug Store, Get rid of strip mall. GV got rid of 2 grocery stores years ago. Not enough room for a regular size one and parking — it would need to be very small. Eliminate the ugly shopping center! Grocery Store. Prefer Concept A. Like parking safe and clear sight lines. Do not agree with tearing down the shopping center and forcing existing businesses out. What do you think should be changed about these concepts? Where is our main street? Where will anyone walk? Simple near -term fix, down cast lights, aesthetics, screening. Avoid U-turns at Golden Valley Road and Winnetka. Access corridor at Wesley Commons Drive. Should be the first thing to go! Grocery store in its place. No more high rises or multi/apartments. The plan is too extensive. What do you think the long-term vision should be for this area of downtown? Include food retail. Services for bus transit. Use the old Park Nicollet for grocery store. Downtown is for people 1", Cars 2nd 1 Golden Valley Downtown Study Phase II Open House 10-21-2019 Comments Received Need the Wells Fargo Bank. Concerned about losing drive-thrus. Concept A Comments Highway 55 and Wisconsin Ave intersection — consider priority movement and sight lines. Concept B Comments Wisconsin Ave - 30 mph speed limit, private drive access. New residential, grocery, recessed parking. NE Quadrant Comments What do you like about these concepts? More residential more commercial is good. Downtown should be busy and crowded. More residential and hidden parking. New ped/bike paths without street. Like the idea of a trail connection to Luce Line and 10th, but not the location. Cars currently whip around the corner, and we never like crossing there currently with our kids on bikes. What do you think should be changed about these concepts? Make "new street" in Concept C pedestrian only. Don't rebuild library. Don't move library like in Concept A. Didn't we remodel the library a few years ago? Library visitors have to cross a street between the parking lot and building? Or is it a pedestrian only "street"? Calvary Co -Op residents would like a mid -block crosswalk. Like Concept A. Like residential by library and City Hall. Don't move library or City Hall or police. 1 would like walking trail connection from City Hall to library. What do you think the long-term vision should be for this area of downtown? N-S bike/walk corridor is good idea. Nice to have park/lounge areas on the creek. Currently very little creek access. Consider gravel pit on SW quad of Winnetka and 55 for city public works buildings. Separate bike+ped=good. Together=danger. Keep Community Festival and gathering space as central as possible — as close to 55 and Winnetka intersection. With the proposal for all commercial and multi -housing, where is the traffic study? In the designs, remember the elderly. Keep the library where it is. More dining options with outdoor space. Don't we have enough rental buildings?R City Hall/Library combined building. Great idea! Mixed/shared parking w/ Calvary Church. 2 Golden Valley Downtown Study Phase II Open House 10-21-2019 Comments Received NW Quadrant Comments What do you like about these concepts? Trail connection to Luce Line is basically already a trail anyway. I use it. Just make it a maintained trail. Concept B is better — private yard areas providing sense of community — yet safety that residents can see it. Nice to have residential by creek. Trash/recycling bins on Luce Line trail — please. More residential and small offices. What do you think should be changed about these concepts? 1 would prefer 3-4 story office building with more green space and smaller footprint. What do you think the long-term vision should be for this area of downtown? No comments. Redevelopment/Reinvestment Opportunities Comments Keep City Hall and Post Office and Police where they are — and library and Motor Vehicle Licensing in downtown. The City's trucks could be moved elsewhere — but the other City buildings bring residents to downtown. Grocery Store is great! Make 3A parking lot (adjacent to Luce Line Trail) into park. Build creek park access/benches. Currently there is no creek access. Why move a successful business — tax base — E.? (McDonald's) Library should stay in existing quadrant. Active Transportation Opportunities Comments Improve the Hwy 55 crossing for bikes and walkers. Put a tunnel under 55 instead of on Winnetka. Reduce traffic speed thru out city — 55 on 55 too fast. Request for better pedestrian crossing of Luce Line along Winnetka. Also request better ped crossing on Winnetka and Golden Valley road. General Comments Crossing 55 from south to goods and services. (Clover leaf addition). Schaper Park. Affordable housing needs to be in the mix, as we did with Common Bond. Put this front and center as the residential pieces are considered. 1 was so proud of the citizen group that advocated for what is now GV commons (SE quadrant) — aesthetically pleasing, nice place to invite people to, nice indoor and outdoor spaces to gather, curved (slowed) parking lots. I wish we could get a broad concept of what we want the whole to look like, how the 4 quadrants all relate and create a "downtown" that is cohesive and to be 3 Golden Valley Downtown Study Phase II Open House 10-21-2019 Comments Received proud of. Phase 11, per the first poster, is to "establish overall vision and guiding principles" — but I don't see those anywhere, so then it's hard for me to respond to the 4 quadrant "pieces". What are we trying to do? What do we want it to be? The more these principles and vision can be explicit and used to guide the consideration of options, the better. I so wish the SW quadrant would be redesigned to look nice and be something I'm proud of. I love Excelsior and Grand and the vision -to -reality of that place. My mom moved there at age 80 and everything was within walking distance or close driving distance. Can we accomplish something like that here? Requires a grocery store with pharmacy I think. Consider residents like us — age 60, homeowners, eventually will want to downsize, love GV, would consider moving into this downtown area if done right. Are there condos and townhouses in the mix of residential? I have friends who want to move out of their single family homes in their 60s and say the supply of townhouse options is very low vs the demand. 1 think a priority, before higher density, is the re -development of the strip mall with Ace. It is an eye -sore and very empty. I heard the owner was given it by his father, how can the city inspire him to sell? Name the area after his father? There is so much opportunity, but no one will move in to that place in that condition. I am also worried about New Bohemia. New Bohemia is not doing well and have closed many restaurants already. If they leave, there will be little reason to go. 1 live in the NW quadrant of GV Road and Winnetka. I moved here to be able to walk to the library, City Hall, my bank, trails, shops and restaurants. To do so is life threatening? This area was built for automobiles and truck traffic, not for pedestrians. To build more commercial without making it safe for pedestrians is crazy. Likewise for extending trails and bike lanes. Close an area that is free of traffic. Make cars park outside the area to walk in. I am opposed to more development without changing traffic patterns first. Healthy and safe. Built in to the lifestyle. Businesses both large and small with incentives to reinvest in GV. Mixed use areas, gathering places. Accessibility. Library and Historical Society collaboration would be great! Share physical space. Leave old shopping center area alone! It gives "flavor" to GV. I'm in Wesley Commons. We'll never see the sun with higher development. Enough traffic in the area already without 200 more units. Our street is private! We pay for it and upkeep. No trail running on it please! 4 APPENDIX C Social Media Reach And Engagement city of golden` valley Page 51 SOCIAL MEDIA REACH AND ENGAGEMENT Downtown Study Phase II Reach = Number of people who saw the post Engagement = Number of people who interacted with the post Oct1 • COMMENTS Facebook 998 125 4 2 0 Twitter 254 7 2 0 0 Oct1 2019 COMMENTSLLHARESLFRETWEETS Facebook 782 87 0 1 0 Twitter 296 15 2 0 0 Comments Adam Svec @nbbauch Nov1 ' Facebook 778 73 3 1 0 Twitter 238 14 0 0 0 Nov1 • Facebook 1054 160 1 0 4 Twitter 283 21 0 0 0 Justin Zollar This survey is terrible. Lacking all of the important information (like cost, impact to local travel, tax assessments or levies, etc.), and even descriptions of what we are looking at. Karla Rose Also does not work on mobile. When I look at maps then try to get back to questions it boots me out and I have to start over. Did that 4 time and I gave up. Ilona Ilvonen Seriously this is very difficult to figure out. I had to give up City of Golden Thank you all for the feedback. We're learning as we go with these new community engagement Valley — Local efforts, and based on your comments, we're making the following changes: Government Future social media posts will link to the Downtown Phase II Study web page and explain that it's helpful to read the overview and watch the short videos before taking the survey. We will restructure the survey to make it easier to understand, including better explanations for each map and better explanations about the visionary nature of this exercise. We now realize embedding a survey into a webpage, as in the link above, may not be the easiest to complete on all formats (mobile, desktop, etc). The next post will include a link directly to the new survey that should work better. We expect to have all updates made by end of day Mon, Nov 18. If you have further questions or comments on the Downtown Study, contact that City Planning Department at 763-593-8095 Nov 19, 2019 Facebook 776 59 1 1 0 Twitter Nov 30, 2019 284 21 0 1 0 Facebook 855 36 4 1 0 Twitter 170 16 1 0 0 DOWNTOWN GOLDEN VALLEY WALK/BIKE CONNECTIVITY ACTIVE LIVING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROJECT Project Report JMUAW 2020 city of golden`f shipMIN valley statevride heakh improvement partnership PROJECT OVERVIEW Project Purpose This project was a collaborative e-ort between Hennepin County Active Living and the Qty of Golden Valley in Fall 2019. The purpose of the project wasto promote walking and biking to and within downtown Golden Valley and gain meaningful community engagement in conjunction with a major downtown event, the Golden Valley Arts & Music Festival. The project had ve goals: Make changesto the built environment to support active living Promote active transportation in and around downtown Golden Valley Improve the environment for pedestrians in downtown Golden Valley with afocus on providing safer optionsfor pedestrians at special events Build upon the work that has been done through Golden Valley's comprehensive plan, Urban Land Institute's Downtown Study, METRO Blue Line Light Rail Transit Station Area Planning, and other engagement opportunities that occur during the project to advance a vision and identity for downtown Golden Valley Build partnerships between businesses, residents, the City and community organizationsto support and encourage biking and walking to and within downtown Golden Valley Project Description This project involved the demonstration of strategiesto encourage walking and biking to and within downtown Golden Valley and community engagement activitiesto gain people's input on downtown's walking and biking environment. The project wasconducted during the Golden Valley Arts& Music Festival, which was held in downtown on Saturday, September 14, 2019. The demonstration activities included installation of temporary wayLnding signage between the Luce Line Regional Trail and the Arts& Music Festival and atemporary bike corral for festival goersto park their bikes. The community engagement activities included a walking/biking survey and informational boardsat three booths located at the festival, the library and along the Luce Line F;bgional Trail. In addition, the surveyswere submitted by participants in a downtown walking/biking audit that took place on August 8, 2019 and library patronsfrom September 16-30, 2019. 2 I DOWNTOWN STUDY PHASE II GOLDEN VALLEY. MN Three Rvers Park District trail kiosk a m/a maa - a a a a 1 R w a st Library rc ''_ip..pw Bike a fib' corral al> Ez ^sB g * & YJ TUJ CH 5SBJ Mr BCC y! - Festival booth 1,.' r , ' •, Metro Bus Stop y r Existing Trails and Sidewalks Three Rivers Park Moll, 1 I I t District r 1 Existing Regional Trail WV00City Trails&Sidewalks I. - - -_ Concrete Sidewalk (34.1 0 Project Area f J . ; rr iI - AsphaltTrail ( 16.2 mi.)Way- nding 9gn , s ,* Private Sidewalk or Golf Placement Cart Trail On - Street Bikeways BikeGorral T I No— BikeableShoulder Booth Locations Festival Location • A 4. 0 100 200 300 N A Project Area This project wasconducted in conjunction with the Gty's Downtown Study Phase II. The map above showsthe Downtown Study Area, which is bounded by Hwy 55 (south), Rhode Island Ave (east), the Luce Line F;bgional Trail/ 10th Ave (north), and Wisconsin Ave (west).The Golden Valley Arts& Music Festival took place in the northeast quadrant of downtown on the civic campus, "under the water tower". The map above also showsthe location of the festival, the bike corral, temporary wayEiding signage/bike route from the Luce Line Regional Trail to the festival, and the walking/biking info booths set up for the festival. MYR BACKGROUND & EXISTING CONDITIONS for - Existing Non -Motorized Facilities The map above shows existing sidewalks (pub I ic and private), city trails, regional trails, bikeable shoulder lanes, and the pedestrian bridge over Hwy 55 at Winn etka. Biking facilities are currently very limited in downtown, consisting only of the Luce Line Regional Trail that skirts along the north edge of downtown and bikeable shoulder lanes on 10th Ave (west of Win net ka). There are no designated bike routes through downtown north -south or east -west. While downtown has sidewalks, there are major gaps in the heart of downtown along Golden Valley Fbad and Win net ka. Walking and biking tothe pedestrian bridge is also challenging. Walk/bike street crossings are limited to controlled intersections whose spacing is pretty far apart from awalking/ biking perspective. r- J I t i , 46 Be Determinec t iri Future Study_ Bicycle & Pedestrian Network Existing Proposed Regional Trail --- Protected Bikeway Local Trail o Biike Lane Sidewalk Enhanced Sharmw On - Street Hike Lane Signed Bike Route Multi - Use Trall Regional Multi-ul Trail Fadlity Type TBD Sidewalk Planned Non -Motorized Facilities The City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Map, which is part of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, identi es existing and proposed walk/ bike routes and intersection improvements. In 2016, a Bicycle and Pedestrian PlanningTask Force was established by the City to assist in planning for additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the community. Thiswalk/bike network resulted from the task force'swork, including gathering and evaluating input from the community. This map identiCeswalking/ biking facilitiesto downtown but not within Cnnn tinntnTrail downtown. The planned connectionsto CysteminAd;a" nt C lty downtown are the Luce Line regional Trail, Crossing te tialC°°in Potenta multi - use trail along the south side of Treatments Hwy 55, bike lanes, and signed bike routes. s Multi-UseTrall Co ' tio The Downtown Study Phase II will identify FA- Study Area planned routeswithin downtown. 4 I DOWNTOWN STUDY PHASE II GOLDEN VALLEY. MN Previous Downtown Studies 2007 Walkable Community Workshop The CQty, in association with Hennepin County Public Worksand Blue Gross Blue Shield of Minnesota, organized a Walkable Community Workshop in May 2007. Workshop participants participated in awalking tour of downtown Golden Valley and then brainstormed ideasforwalking/biking improvements in downtown.Thise ort resulted in the identi cation of 12 action itemswhich are listed in the table below. Primary responsibilities and partners were also identi ed for each action item. Since it was awalking workshop, none of the improvements addressed downtown's biking environment. These action iterms are essentially split between improvementsto walkways and crosswalks, and are still relevant today. 2007 Walk Audit Table 2018 Walk/Bike Connections to Downtown Project In 2018, the City and Hennepin County Active Living worked with Community Design Croup on this project to plan for a temporary walk/bike demonstration project between the Luce Line Regional Trail and downtown Golden Valley. The identi ed demonstration project wastemporary bike lanes on Winnetka Ave. This report includes a summary of conditions in the general project area, a high-level summary of factors considered in the design process, and a potential design con Eiguration for the demonstration project. It also includes description of potential activation strategies that can be used to successfully deploy the demonstration project and invite residents and visitors to enjoy it. JANUARY 2020 1 5 PROJECT APPROACH AND ELEMENTS Golden Valley Arts & Music Festival The project'stemporary demonstration strategies and community engagement eL-ort was focused on the Golden Valley Arts & Music Festival, which took place on September 14, 2019. The walking/biking survey was also made available outside of this event, including a downtown walk audit event on August 8, 2019 and a post -event display at the library from September 16-30, 2019. Thep roject consisted of the following elements: Elke corral wayLnding Walking/Biking Info Booths Three walking/biking info boothswere set up during the Arts&Music Festival, which were located at the festival, the library and along the Luce Line Fegional Trail. city sta 1, Hennepin County Active Living sta 1, and HKGi consultants faci I itated these info boothsfrom 10am to 1pm. During this time period, sta and consultants reached out to walkers and bicycliststo share information about the City'swalking/biking e orts, the Downtown Study, and invite their input via the walking/biking survey. Each booth also had a large info board with a large aerial map showing downtown businesses, destinations, streets, and trailsand photo examplesof waysto improve downtown intersections and crosswalks, aswell as potential mid - block crosswalks in thefuture. People were invited to place colored dotson the large map to identify placesthat they currently walk or bike to, places that are challenging to walk or bike to, and barriersthat prevent walking or biking. Walking/Biking Survey People walking and biking to the event were invited to -1I out a short, one -page downtown walking/biking survey to help the aty and County understand how people get to, from and around the downtown area by walking and biking. Temporary Bike Corral Atemporary bike corral was set up at the festival to demonstrate the potential for adding bike parking facilities in downtown and as destination to test out way—nding signage. Eikeoorral Temporary Wayfinding Signage/Bike Route Temporaryway nding signage was setup to guide walkers and bikersfrom the Luce Line F;bgional Trail to the Arts & Music Festival, the bike corral and downtown. Pre -Event Downtown Walk Audit At the Downtown Walk Audit conducted on August 8, 2019, the walking/ biking survey was distributed to participants. These survey responses are included in the survey summary on the following pages. Post -Event Library Patrons Engagement The large walking/biking info board wasdisplayed at the library from September 16-30, 2019.Thewalking/biking survey was also made available at the library during this time period. These survey responses are included in the survey summary on the following pages. LuceLinetrail booth DOWNTOWN STUDY PHASE II GOLDEN VALLEY MN AEA G& BI MG IN DWW GM EN VALLEY •Places[haticurren[IY would walk or bike to Tell us what you think! Place a dot on the map to show: • Placesthatarechallengingtowalkorbiketo Barrier that prevents walking or biking D r LEGEND 9DBAALPS TPAILS RNATETPAILS O BD9NESSDEinWONS IV-- Ideasfor Future Treatments Intersections & Crosswalks Mid -Block Crossi 8 - Y S loldenr vane Largewalking/biking info board displayed at Artsand Music Festival JANUARY 2020 FINDINGS: SUMMARY OF DOWNTOWN WALKING/BIKING SURVEY Survey Responses from Walking Audit ft)jst 2019) and Golden Valley Arts & Music Festival & Library Patrons (September O 1. What are the top reasons you OV 1. How did you get here today? 03 1. Why did you choose to travel that way toddy Safety/Security Concerns ; Only Choice ; Mobility Issues Cost Environmental F asons Carrying items Available Parking Traveling with Kids/Others Multiple Stops Distance Traveled Reasure or Exercise Convenience 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Number of Votes visit downtown? Sod al i ze b4ari ng Center tit Festival Fbkemon Pbst ODe dzre EntertainmentbY` 1. What factors would encourage you to walk to/around downtown045moreoften? (Mark all that apply) v Q 48% 43% l 39% 35% Fdiutesthat are More convenient, more comfortable useful, orfun Eventsand activities that encourage and enjoyable destinations walking 29% k2:2 0/'o 2 0 % 9dewa s/ Intersections Races tostop, rest, cool oq and Trees/ shadealong walking routes clearedinwinterwarmupMore sidewalks and safer, better to marked crossings Other 32% Feeling safe or welcome on the street or ail t 6% Signs and maps that help me navigatenv aH' d 1. How often do you walk to destinations in the downtown -like stores, city hall, or the library? Afew times/ Afewtimes/ month year Rarely/never 0 Every day Afew times/ week 4J 1 8 DOWNTOWNSTUDY PHASE II GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 1. Are there amenities that might make walking orO biking in downtown more attractive? If so, what are O 1. How often do you bike to they? Bike Paths More Trai I sdestinationsinthedowntown - Like stores, city hall, or the library? Protected Bike Lanes parking parks Secure Bike parking Better Shoing Bi ke Shop0Convenienceaocery/Pharmacy ParksStore Less Cars Better Eats Better Connections Afewtimes! Short Bike Races Bathrooms Afew times/ week Safer Wbr SdeWks 1U Fun! Rarely/never month Crossing a ns M bbl thy Food MrPe II Stations ions Scenic Fbutes Every day Afewtimest.............................................. . year , 071. What factors would encourage you to bike to/around downtown more often? (Mark all that apply) 38% 34% 34% 32% 30% 28% O ; Routesthat are More/better Convenient More convenient, Feeling safe or Events and activities more comfortable marked trails and bike parking useful, or fun welcome on the that encourage biking and enjoyable bike lanes destinations street or trail 21% 20% 18% 16% 15% 10% ; 04P # c <<L (* F4 ob Other Bike repair. Trails/ Intersections Racesto stop, Signs and maps aassesorgroup stations or air cleared in winter rest, cool o, and that help me ridesfor new : pumps warm up navigate cyclists 1. What is your age? Under 18: 1% ; 18- 30:10% 30- 45:18% 60: 30% 1. What is your gender? Male Female 1. What is your home zip code? : ; 1. Which of the following describes you? 55405 55104 : ; 100 55421 55106 55442 55441 80 554085530355416 55369 55426 • : : 55447 : ; 60 55422 • ; ; 40 1. Which applies to you? :: 20 r1 :: 0di WDFDCDCDCD I live in I'm visiting I work in " D M v = Golden Golden Golden a v, Valley Valley Valley JANUARY 2020 1 9 FINDINGS: SUMMARY OF DOWNTOWN WALKING/BIKING SURVEY Survey Responses from Walking Audit ft)jst 2019) and Golden Valley Arts & Music Festival & Library Patrons (September My Golden Valley biking, walking, or rolling story is ......................... * 0 4 Favorite Place to walk, bike, or roll to: Library and Bach mans. If you could design a new trail in GVwhere would it be: Highway 55 and Boone Ramp. Our teenagers desire for a unique co ee shop like spyhouse co ee. Mom and dad would love for it to be in a bikeable location. Triple D doesn't have a good space for doing homework/work. More bike racks please! Bachman's got rid of theirs. Will the sidewalk/trail on Plymouth Ave near Highway 169 be completed Winnetka to under 169? 1 sure would like not to cross Plymouth Ave trail c aswe live near Wesley Park. Can you do anything about ooding on Luce Line near Wirth Trailhead? That is major artery for usaswe are avid cyclists and I desire safe ways for our kids to ride with us. Favorite Place to walk, bike, or roll to. By nature or downtown, they are often to busy to really enjoy biking. Where isthe rst place that you went on foot or wheels in downtown: To Starbucksfor Coee. My biggest concern about biking is the drivers of cars not being careful when they do right turns/not checking for bikes (and cars forget to signal right turns). Favorite place to walk around Laurel Fonds and Liona Park —both are free of auto trail c. I only walk to downtown if during the day and I am going only to a restaurant. You don't want to carry items on long walks or have unwieldy items like furnace titer/paint cans, etc. Favorite Place to walk, bike, or roll to. The Nature Reserve Where do you wish that you could bike, walk, or roll to in town and what would it take to get you there: Safe access. Where isthe li-st place you went to on foot or wheels in Golden Valley: Triple D Co ee Need better restaurants! would walk to the library more often if the door on Winnetka was accessible. Please re-create the Winnetka entrance! Douglas isa good route. I enjoy the trails that go east, and the roundabout is great. I grew up here and using this trail is important tome to keep connected to the city. Love Slverwood Park. I didn't know the library was here for the _-st 5 months I lived here, it needs better signage! My family ridesto and through downtown a lot. There are decent sidewalks on Winnetka but they are not safe for cycling. We ride to the library and retail locations throughout downtown. We also ride to the pedestrian bridge over Hwy 55 on longer rides because it isthe best place to cross in the area. We wish that cycling accessto that bridge were easier. I like to bike and walk, our streets are ne for that. Stop this spending money on a minority bike agen- da. No matter how many millions are wasted on pro -biking this is MN its cold and icy and not safe to bike in the winter. There are better concernsfor our money and votes. Moved to Golden Valley in '96 and I am a current resident. In early years (1996-2005)1 would bike May - Sept with 2 or 3 of my kids in a burley bike trailer to various city parks. The kidswould play on new playground equipment then we would bike to the GVcommonsto hang out at the fountain and have a snack at Starbucksor Bnsteins. Having a working fountain is important (but that's not the cities issue). Now my kids are grown and I've started biking the Luce Line trail in both directions. Thisgets me bik- ing to downtown. It made me realize that I can bike to the library, post o ce, and hardware pretty eas- ily (promote the Luce Line trail and you can promote biking to downtown!) Biking to farmers market is fun and should be promoted assuch. I live south of Hwy 55 and it isa major factor for the city to deal with if you want to get more residents walking/biking to downtown from this part of town. Yes, there isa foot bridge at Wnnetka/55 but it takesa long time to crossand is not bike friendly. Tunnelsat Hwy 55 and Douglas, Glenwood and Winnetka should be considered. Like the one on the Luce Line trail on 1-494. They are faster, safer, and weather friendly, especially if the wind is blowing hard. It'safun way to get out to the parkswith our kids. Heading west on Glenwood from Meadow to Bruns- wick it seems as though cars are confused and leadsto bikers compensating by using sidewalks on parts of this stretch. Thisjust further complicates the confusion from both sides. I ride east medicine lake to west medicine several times a week. Would enjoy more beautiful trail op- tions with beautiful scenery or easy access to fun shops/ restaurants. I'm against bike lanes in the city which impact parking for residents and guests in the residential areas. Parking availability impacts people with mobility issues and familieswith small children. They want to enjoy downtown Golden Valley with ample parking and not worry about careless bicyclists. I live in Wesley Commons. Ironically, I feel safer crossing Winnetka in the middle of a block, watching for a good break in tra c. The crosswalks at Winnetka and Golden Valley Rd are dangerous. Drivers don't think to look for pedestrians/walkers. I use the pedestrian bridge to go over to Brookview several times aweek, year-round (biking and walking.) My family'sfavorite place to bike/walk to in GV is the library. It is almost exactly a mile from our house over near Douglas Drive. We also enjoy walking to the fountain to get ice cream in the summer. I wish there were a safer way for my middle schooler to bike to downtown. We bike on the sidewalk along GV Fbad, but I think bikesare supposed to be on the street. JANUARY 2020 1 11 Why don't most bikersfollow the laws? They rarely stop at stop signs. Di -]cult to bike down Winnetka Ave with no bike facilities. Have to bike on sidewalksthat wind in and out on west side of Winnetka to get down to the pedestrian bridge to Brookview. If we ride down Wisconsin Ave, then we bike through shopping center parking lots to get to the pedestrian bridge. Biking to Diary Queen with the Family! Both kids are involved in GV'ssummer bike rangers program during the summer. Construction cones sometimes push them to bike on the busy streets which is challenging for small kidswho are not conLdent about biking along roads. One child had their bike stolen in the downtown area when it was parked. The Strip mall shopping center is surrounded by a large parking lot, which is not walking or biking friendly. We need more interesting and unique shops and restaurants, there are too many chains. Winnetka North to Golden Valley Fbad: Rashing left turnsare dangerous, driversare focused on on -coming tra cand don't alwaysthinkto look for bikesor pedestrians crossing. I really like the food down here, but it would be a huge improvement to be able to grocery shop in thisarea. Snow removal on Winnetka Ave isa problem in thewinter - (comment received by many) 121 DOWNTOWN STUDY PHASE II GOLDEN VALLEY. MN Community Engagement Findings People identiDgd abroad variety of destinations that draw them downtown, including entertainment, dining, co ee, stores, services (e.g. library, city hall, post o ce, dentist), and events (e.g. farmers market, arts music festival). There is a lack of designated bike facilities to and within downtown. The only existing bike facilities are the Luce Line Trail, bikable shoulders on 10th Ave west of Winnetka, and the ped/bike bridge over Hwy 55, although the bridge is not designed for smooth bike travel. Interest in developing downtown walk/bike routesthat are more comfortable and enjoyable. Concernsabout the safety and comfort of existing street intersections along Hwy 55 and WinnetkaAve for walkersand bicyclists including turning vehicles. Awareness of"downtown" Golden Valley and its close proximity to the Luce Line Trail is lacking. RECOMMENDATIONS ODesign and install temporary demonstration bike/walk projects Community feedback gathered during thisstudy supportsthe City'splan for installing bike laneson each side of 10th Ave and Rhode Island Ave west from Winnetka Ave to Hwy 55 in 2020. It is recommended that these bike lanes be installed with clear connectionsto the adjacent Luce Line Trail, such as: Includea connection for the northbound bike laneon Rhode Island Aveto theregional trail atthecornerof 10th/ Rhode Island byadding a curb cut and trail connection between theroadwayand regional trail. For accesstotheeast/southboundbikelanefromtheregionaltrail, add adedicated bikecrossingof10thAveat Wnnetka (e. g. green crossing next to thewhite pedestrian crossing) and considertesting a mid -block crossing of 10th Avefrom the regional trail to the library driveway/sidewalk. Demonstration bike/ walk facility from the Luce Line Trail through the center of the Civic Campusdown to Golden Valley Commons and Golden Valley Fbad between Winnetka Ave and Rhode Island Ave: Ind ude temporary mid -block crossings of10thAve and Golden Valley Fbad Ind udetemporary way nding signage Indudetemporarybike parking fad Iities Demonstration bike Ianesfrom the Luce Line Trail to the Hwy 55 pedestrian bridge using Wisconsin Ave and the north side of Hwy 55-and/or-from the Luce Line Trail to Winnetka Ave using Golden Valley Fbad: Work with commercial property owner Ind udetemporary way:hding signage Indudetemporarybike parking facilities t Legend Planned Bike Lanes 2020 Installation Recommended Temporary Demonstration Bike/ Walk Facility r _. • .; d a s . ter=, - _ _ - • '* ` t r - r 1 d t, ., t" .. • it - DOWNTOWN STUDY PHASE II GOLDEN VALLEY. MN Resolve the Existing Bike Lane Gap on Winnetka Ave Fbsolve the existing bike lane gap on WinnetkaAvejust north of 10th Ave where the turn lanes replace the bike lanes. WinnetkaAve isthe primary accessto downtown from the north due to the location of the rail line that serves as a barrier between downtown and neighborhoods to the north. 1-1 RECOMMENDATIONS Conduct Follow-up Community Engagement Conduct follow-up community engagement/surveysto Lhd out what typesof cyclistsare in Golden Valley, e.g. strong &fearless, enthusiastic & conCdent, interested but concerned, not able or interested. What featureswould make biking routes more comfortable and enjoyable to and within downtown for these typesof cyclists?Also, what featureswould make crosswalkssafer and more comfortablefor bicyclists? Not all people have the same level of comfort when it comesto biking. The"Four Types of Bicyclists' (see ILgure below) are meant to guide eLorts in evaluating what certain segmentsof the community require or want in a bikeway facility. The approach proposesthat most people can be categorized into the following four typologies: Strong and Fearless: People willing to bike with limited or no bike -sped infrastructure Enthusiastic and Con Cdent: People willing to bike if some bike-speci Cc infrastructure is in place Interested but Concerned: People willing to bike if high quality bike infrastructure is in place Notable or Interested: People unwilling to bike even if high quality bike infrastructure is in place These typologies help us identify which segments of the community need lower stress facilities to try biking or to bike more often. Most cities Lhd that as they build safer and more comfortable bike facilities, then umber of people biking increases. This occurs due tot he fact that one of the largest groups of bicyclists identify as" Interested but Concerned" with biking. When bike facilities are built to the needs of the" Interested but Concerned", the results of investment yield the highest number of users. Additionally, when more people start bicycling because of a more comfortable network, biking becomes safer due to the fact that motoristsare more aware of the bicyclists' presence. STRONG AND FEARLESS Advanced, con dent rider who is comfortable riding in most traf c situations Tend to have high performance gear, clothing Take the shortest routes and seek challenges Prefer to ride separated from pedestrians due to higher speeds ENTHUSIASTIC AND CONFIDENT Comfortable sharing the road with vehicular traf cbut prefer bicycle lanes, multi -use trails May choose to bike for health, environmental, transportation or recreation May or may not have high performance gear, clothing INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED Prefer to take off-street paths or low -volume residential streets Safety is a big concern for these riders Don t generally self -identify as bicyclists Largest potential for increases in ridership Improvements in facilities and networks would make riding a viable, more comfortable option NOT ABLE OR NOT INTERESTED People who have no current interest in biking or physically unable to ride a bicycle Often cite far distances, weather, costs as reason for not biking Improvements in local facilities and networks, encouragement and education could help make riding (or walking/ non -motorized travel) a viable opportunity The FourTypesofBicydists(Source:FbgerGeller, FourTypes ofOydists. Fbrtland,OROtyofFbrtlandOnoeof Transportation, Undated, drea 2007). 161 DOWNTOWN STUDY PHASE II GOLDEN VALLEY. MN 0 Broaden the City's Inventory of Non -Motorized Transportation Facilities Broaden the Qty's inventory and mapping of non -motorized transportation facilitiesto include crosswalks, tra csignals, walkwayson private properties(e.g. in front of retail strip malls), bike parking, and other bike/walk amenities. This inventory could also include the quality/condition of these facilities, such as sidewalk width, bu'--er space between bike/walkway and vehicle tra c, crosswalk length, and vehicular movement controls (priority walk signal, no right turns). Partner with Existing Downtown Businesses, Civic Groups and Other Organizations to Draw Bicyclists and Walkers Downtown Explore opportunities for organizing guided bike ridesfor community membersthat include downtown Golden Valley, such as: Partnering with the Qty'sBike Fbngersprogram to incorporate downtown asa biking destination foryoung bicycl ists involved in thisexisting program. Sow Fbll" communitygroup bikerides. Sow Fbll Minneapolisisan initiativethat coordinates local bikerides madefor regular peopleto discover their neighborhoods. Sow Fbll Minneapolisis modeled afterand oollaborateswith thegow Fbll movement founded in Detroit in 2010. Three Rvers Park District to collaborate on connectionsand wayOhding between Luce Line Fbgional Trail and downtown. Hennepin County Librariesto encourage walking and biking to the library and collaboration on events programming. Market in the Valley Farmers Market to encourage walking and biking to the market on aweekly basis. Golden Valley Community Foundation to explore ideasfor encouraging walking and biking to community events and the use of temporary public art. Use of Temporary Public Art Use temporary public art projectsto promote walking and biking to and within downtown. For example, temporary murals can be painted on streets, crosswalks, sidewalks ortrailsto draw attention to the possibilitiesof improving the walking and biking environment. Temporary public art projectscan enable project visioning, placemaking, trail c calming, and community participation. Street pavement muralscan be implemented at minimal cost and allow community membersto have hands-on involvement in creating the art. Junior Rangers EM Love to bi ke and be outside but lack experience with long rides? 9a guide round bike trips each week ranging from 4-7 miles, The group will explore Golden Valley and the surrounding area by visiting beaches, parks, and more! Participants MUSTALWAYS ride with their leaders, wear appropriate clothing and shoes, and provide a properly working bike, helmet, water, and snack. Ages7-9 Meet at Davis Community Center Mon, Jun 10—Jul29 (no class Jul 1) 1-3: 30 p m 29 resident, $ 32 non-resident S1139A Register by Mon, Jun 3 Explore Increasing Downtown Event Frequency Long-term, explore ideasfor increasing the frequency of events held in downtown, working with downtown property owners, businessowners, and the library. Open Streets Minneapolisto explore the possibility for organizing an Open Streetsevent on a downtown street, potentially Wiinnetka.Open Streetsevents involve designating a street as car -free for a day or half -day and allowing the street to be open forwalking, biking, play activities, food booths, info booths, art and entertainment. Open Street events occurred in 2019 on 50th Street (WooddaleAve in Edinato Chowen Ave in Minneapolis), Lyndale Ave, and several other streets. Golden Valley Business Council (GVBC) in order to explore ideasfor increasing thefrequencyof events held in downtown. For example, develop business incentive programsto encourage people to bike downtown. Consider creation of a separate business association speci-cally for downtown businesses. W DOWNTOWN STUDY PHASE II GOLDEN VALLEY MN JANUARY 2020 119 1-1