The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015/10/19 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA OCTOBER 19, 2015 6:15 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Community Room Discussion Items 1. 60 min. Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Written Reports 2. 2015 City Manager Performance Evaluation Process 7:20 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -- Council Chambers 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes October 5, 2015 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Reports – None 6. Old Business – None 7. New Business 7a. Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Union Land II LLC – Hoigaard Village Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the Assignment & Subordination of Contract between the EDA, Union Land II, LLC and Lincoln Benefit Life Company relative to the Hoigaard Village redevelopment project. 7b. Business District Initiative Grant Application Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution authorizing the submission of a grant application to the Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HCHRA) Business District Initiative for Walker/Lake Streets Business Area. 7c. Authorize Grant Application Submittals for Redevelopment of 4911 Excelsior Blvd. Recommended Action: • Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution authorizing the Executive Director and President to submit a grant application to the Metropolitan Council Tax Base Revitalization Grant Program on behalf of the 4911 Excelsior Blvd project; • Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution authorizing the Executive Director and President to submit a grant application to the Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Program on behalf of the 4911 Excelsior Blvd project. 8. Communications -- None 9. Adjournment Meeting of October 19, 2015 City Council Agenda 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers 1. Call to Order 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 2a. Outstanding Citizen Award - Elliott Royce 2b. STEP 40-Year Anniversary Recognition 2c. Creative MN – Economic Impact of Nonprofit Arts & Culture in SLP 2d. Update on Kids Voting Initiative 2e. Recognition of Donations 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Closed Executive Session Minutes October 5, 2015 3b. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes October 5, 2015 3c. City Council Meeting Minutes October 5, 2015 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, or move items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.) 5. Boards and Commissions – None 6. Public Hearings 6a. Assessment of Delinquent Charges Recommended Action: Mayor to open the public hearing, solicit comments, and close the public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution to assess delinquent water, sewer, storm water, refuse, abating grass/weed cutting, tree removal/injection, false alarm fees and other miscellaneous charges. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None Meeting of October 19, 2015 City Council Agenda Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final Planned Unit Development Recommended Action: • Motion to Adopt Resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from RL – Low Density Residential to RM – Medium Density Residential for property at the southwest corner of Wayzata Boulevard and Texas Avenue, authorize summary publication. • Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Preliminary and Final Plat of Arlington Row Apartments West with conditions. • Motion to approve First Reading of the Ordinance creating Section 36-268-PUD 3 and amending the Zoning Map from R-1 Single-Family Residence to PUD 3 for property at the southwest corner of Wayzata Boulevard and Texas Avenue and to set the Second Reading of the Ordinance for November 2, 2015. 8b. CUP - Sherwin Williams Retail Store, 4911 Excelsior Blvd. Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a new retail building and parking lot with a total impervious surface area exceeding 70% of the total lot area, subject to conditions recommended by staff. 8c. City of SLP/City of Hopkins Municipal Boundary Adjustment - Japs Olson Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution for concurrent detachment and annexation of land to and from the Cities of St. Louis Park and Hopkins. 8d. Second Reading of Ordinance Modifying Salaries for the Mayor and Councilmembers Recommended Action: Motion to approve the second reading and Adopt Ordinance modifying salaries for the Mayor and Councilmembers and authorize publication. 8e. 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action Plan Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt the 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action Plan. 9. Communications -- None Meeting of October 19, 2015 City Council Agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 4a. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance establishing fees for 2016 as outlined in Appendix A of the City Code of Ordinances; and to approve the summary ordinance for publication. 4b. Adopt Resolution awarding Elliott Royce with the Outstanding Citizen Award. 4c. Adopt Resolution authorizing the submission of the Hennepin County Youth Sports Facility Grant Application to the Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission in the amount of $300,000 for The Rec Center Outdoor Ice Arena Project. 4d. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a donation/scholarship from the National Arbor Day Foundation in an amount not to exceed $350 for registration cost for Jim Vaughan, Natural Resources Coordinator, to attend the Partners in Community Forestry Conference in Denver, Colorado November 18 – 19, 2015. 4e. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from Comcast Foundation in the amount of $655.87 to be used for the purchase of materials for future parks clean-up events. 4f. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from Lisa Butman in the amount of $2,200 for a memorial bench in memory of Christopher Michael Bohlinger at Westwood Hills Nature Center. 4g. Award bids for the 2015 Concrete Replacement– Project No. 4015-0003. 4h. Adopt Resolution setting the 2016 Utility Rates. 4i. Adopt Resolution Declaring the Official Intent of the City of St. Louis Park to Reimburse Certain Expenditures from the Proceeds of Bonds to be Issued by the City. 4j. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a donation from Cub Foods, 5370 W. 16th Street, to the City of St. Louis Park for the October 8, 2015, Minnetonka Boulevard Bridge Ribbon Cutting (Value $115) for cookies given away at the event. 4k. Approve for filing Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes May 13, 2015. 4l. Approve for filing Environment & Sustainability Commission Meeting Minutes September 9, 2015. St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website. Meeting: Special Study Session Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Discussion Item: 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. Staff desires feedback on the information provided in this report and at the Study Session. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: In 2001, the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic study was completed. This significant report took a comprehensive look at anticipated redevelopment along Excelsior Boulevard between TH 100 and France Avenue and the surrounding neighborhoods. The study forecasted traffic and provided recommendations to mitigate neighborhood traffic impacts should certain levels of traffic be realized as a result of the redevelopment in the corridor. Over the last year, the City has received applications for two proposed redevelopments in the corridor. In the interest of providing context for these redevelopments and corridor traffic staff has completed a comparison of the land use, development, trip generation and traffic comparison between the year 2015 scenario in the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study (2001) and actual current conditions. Staff presented the results of this comparison at the August 10 Study Session. In general, the traffic in the Excelsior Boulevard corridor has not increased at the rate anticipated in the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study. While there are some localized intersection traffic delays, overall, there is capacity in the corridor for redevelopment. At that meeting, City Council directed staff to complete additional traffic analysis and meet with the neighborhood to gather input for the Park Commons Drive/ Monterey Drive intersection and W 36 ½ Street between Monterey Drive and Excelsior Boulevard. This report was completed in late September. Staff invited the neighborhood surrounding the site to an information meeting to discuss the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Study report and additional traffic review. This meeting was held on September 29, 2015 at the Rec Center. Mailings were sent out to 2200 addresses, and approximately 70 people were in attendance for this meeting. Attached is the feedback received at the meeting as well as a copy of the reports discussed and presentation. All information regarding the traffic review is available on the website: http://www.stlouispark.org/proposed-development/bridgewater.html FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Excelsior Boulevard Study Audit Report Excelsior Boulevard & Monterey Drive Subarea Report Alternatives 1-3 Site Maps Information Meeting Presentation (9/29/15) Neighborhood Feedback Summary Prepared by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Phillip Elkin, Sr. Engineering Project Manager Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: In 2001, the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic study was completed. This significant report took a comprehensive look at anticipated redevelopment along Excelsior Boulevard between TH 100 and France Avenue and the surrounding neighborhoods. The development scenarios included existing Year 2000, Year 2005, 2010 and 2015 conditions. The study forecasted traffic and provided recommendations to mitigate neighborhood traffic impacts should certain levels of traffic be realized as a result of the redevelopment in the corridor. Over the last year, the City has received applications for two proposed redevelopments in the corridor. In the interest of providing context for these redevelopments and corridor traffic staff has completed a comparison of the land use, development, trip generation and traffic comparison between the year 2015 scenario in the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study (2001) and actual current conditions. At the August 10, 2015 Study Session, staff presented the results of this comparison. In general, the traffic in the Excelsior Boulevard corridor has not increased at the rate anticipated in the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study. While there are some localized intersection traffic delays, overall, there is capacity in the corridor for redevelopment. To investigate alternatives for the intersection traffic delay at the Excelsior Boulevard/ Monterey Drive intersection staff hired SRF, Inc. to complete additional traffic analysis. The main objectives of this study were to evaluate various forms of traffic control and access at the Monterey Drive/ Park Commons Drive intersection as well as evaluate traffic volumes on W. 36th 1/2 Street with regard to roadway capacity. Attached is the Excelsior Boulevard & Monterey Drive Subarea Evaluation Report (September 28, 2015). What follows is summary of the information put together by SRF and staff for this additional analysis for a details please see the report. Monterey Drive/ Park Commons Drive Intersection Analysis The intersection of Monterey Drive/ Park Commons Drive was reviewed for accident history, sight distance and intersection capacity. 1. Accident History: There has been one accident at the intersection in the last 5 years. 2. Sight distance: Two trees partially obstruct the view for motorists waiting on the Park Commons Drive approach of vehicles travelling southbound on Monterey Drive. 3. Intersection Capacity The main concern discussed at the Council meeting was the eastbound Park Commons Drive vehicle delay and queues. The traffic volumes on Monterey Drive during the peaks makes it difficult for motorist to take a left to go northbound on Monterey Drive. This creates delay and queuing vehicles block the driveway into the parking lot at 4500 Excelsior Blvd. There is a significant traffic volume increase at this intersection beginning in the mid- afternoon continuing into early evening. This volume indicates that evaluating the pm peak hour (4:45 to 5:45 pm) will illustrate the worst- case operations scenario for the capacity analysis. The study intersections were analyzed using Synchro/SimTraffic software (V8.0). Capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS) which indicates how well an intersection is operating. Intersections are ranked from LOS A through LOS F. The LOS results are based on average delay per vehicle, which correspond to the delay threshold Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study values shown in the table below. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation, while LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity. Overall intersection LOS A though LOS D is generally considered acceptable in the Twin Cities area. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections LOS Designation Signalized Intersection Average Delay/ Vehicle (seconds) Unsignalized Intersection Average Delay/ Vehicle (seconds) A ≤ 10 ≤ 10 B > 10 - 20 > 10 - 15 C > 20 - 35 > 15 - 25 D > 35 - 55 > 25 - 35 E > 55 - 80 > 35 - 50 F > 80 > 50 The following traffic control and access alternatives were evaluated for level of service (LOS), delays, and queuing at the Monterey Drive/ Park Commons Drive intersection under existing conditions: • Alternative 1 – No Build (Existing Side-Street Stop with Full Access) • Alternative 2 – Side-Street Stop with Full Access and Eastbound Right-Turn Lane • Alternative 3 – Side-Street Stop with Three-Quarter Access • Alternative 4 – All-Way Stop with Full Access • Alternative 5 – Roundabout with Full Access • Alternative 6 – Traffic Signal with Full Access • Alternative 7 – Side-Street Stop with Right-In/Right-Out Access • Alternative 8 – Closed Side-Street Access Along with the Monterey Drive/ Park Commons Drive intersection, 13 other intersections were evaluated to determine if the proposed alternative would impact traffic operations. The primary goal of review of each alternative was to reduce the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection delays and queues, particularly the eastbound Park Commons Drive approach. A secondary goal of the review was to illustrate the effect of the alternatives on nearby intersections. All intersection alternatives resulted in acceptable overall intersection operations. However, some alternatives resulted in adding delay and queues to other legs of the intersection that do not exist today. A summary of the findings of the analysis can be found on Table 1. (page 7 of the Subarea Evaluation Report) Alternative 4 (All-Way Stop with Full Access), Alternative 5 (Roundabout with Full Access), and Alternative 6 (Traffic Signal with Full Access) were removed from consideration due to concerns about significant anticipated increases in mainline Monterey Drive queueing. Furthermore, Alternative 7 (Side-Street Stop with Right-In/Right-Out Access) and Alternative 8 (Closed Side-Street Access) were removed due to concerns about restricting inbound access to Park Commons Drive from Monterey Drive. Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 4 Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study The remaining three alternatives were selected for additional analysis under year 2017 development conditions: • Alternative 1 – No Build (Existing Side-Street Stop with Full Access) • Alternative 2 – Side-Street Stop with Full Access and Eastbound Right-Turn Lane • Alternative 3 – Side-Street Stop with Three-Quarter Access All three alternatives result in improvement for the Park Commons Drive and do not increase intersection delays and queues on Monterey Drive or other intersections in the corridor. Additional intersection capacity analysis was completed to determine how the potential Monterey Drive/ Park Commons Drive intersection alternatives will accommodate future traffic volumes. To account for general background growth in the area, an annual growth rate of one-half percent was applied to the existing peak hour traffic volumes to develop year 2017 background traffic forecasts. This growth rate offers a conservative estimate compared to recent historical trends. In addition to background traffic the traffic generated from the proposed Bridgewater and Bally’s redevelopment sites was also added to the roadway network. All three alternatives are expected to operate at an overall LOS B or better during the pm peak hour. In addition, minimal impacts on adjacent intersections are expected. A summary of the findings of the analysis can be found on Table 2. (page 15 of the Subarea Evaluation Report) Attached are exhibits that show these alternatives. • Alternative 1 – No Build (Existing Side-Street Stop with Full Access) With added traffic volumes at the Monterey Drive/ Park Commons Drive intersection caused by general background growth and area development, the Park Commons Drive side-street approach would be expected to operate at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour under year 2017 conditions. It should be noted that these type of side-street delays are common during peak periods within the Twin Cities and are generally considered acceptable. Eastbound queues would be expected to increase and extend beyond the 4500 Excelsior Blvd access along Park Commons Drive approximately 25 to 35 percent of the p.m. peak hour. • Alternative 2 – Side-Street Stop with Full Access and Eastbound Right-Turn Lane The eastbound approach of the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection would be expected to operate at LOS C during the p.m. peak hour under year 2017 conditions with the addition of an eastbound right-turn lane. A slight increase in eastbound Park Commons Drive queues would be expected, but these queues are likely to extend beyond the 4500 Excelsior Blvd access less than five (5) percent of the p.m. peak hour. • Alternative 3 – Side-Street Stop with Three-Quarter Access Minimal delay (i.e. LOS B) and queuing would be expected on the eastbound approach of the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection during the p.m. peak hour under year 2017 conditions with a modified three-quarter access. Eastbound Park Commons Drive queues would not be expected to block the 4500 Excelsior Blvd access. An increase in overall intersection delay would be anticipated at the Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Drive intersection under the three-quarter access alternative, as additional eastbound left-turn maneuvers would be expected due to Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 5 Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study travel pattern changes. However, the increase in overall intersection delay is expected to be only a few seconds. W. 36th 1/2 Street Traffic Concerns were shared regarding capacity, volumes, speed, and pedestrian safety for W. 36th 1/2 Street between Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive. The city has a Traffic Committee made up of staff members from Police, Public Works, Community Development, and Engineering. This group reviews traffic control requests based on the City’s Traffic Control Policy. What follows are our findings regarding the concerns raised for this road segment. 1. Capacity and Traffic Volume W. 36th 1/2 Street is an urban two-lane undivided roadway with a daily capacity of 8,000 to 10,000 vehicles. In both 2000 and 2015, turning movement counts were collected for the a.m. and p.m. peak hour at the Monterey Drive/ W. 36th 1/2 Street intersection. Using this information, we can estimate the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along the road segment. • The 2015 ADT along W. 36th 1/2 Street was estimated at 2,500 vehicles. • The 2000 ADT along W. 36th 1/2 Street was estimated at 2,800 vehicles These ADT volumes along W. 36th 1/2 Street are well below this capacity threshold. Also, the traffic volume along W. 36th 1/2 Street has shown little change over the last 15 years. 2. Traffic Speed The posted speed limit on this road is 30 MPH. Speed data was collected at two locations. W. 36 1/2 Street Segment 85th percentile speed Average Speed Monterey to Lynn 33 MPH 25 MPH Kipling to Excelsior 35 MPH 29 MPH The 85th percentile speed is the speed at or below which 85% of all vehicles are observed to travel under. It is used as a measure to determine speed limit compliance on a road. An 85th percentile speed of 5 MPH or less over the posted speed limit is generally not considered a speeding problem. The reason for this is that vehicle speed gauges can be off, causing a motorist to believe that they are going the speed limit by reading the guage, but their speed guage is off, or the increments are so small that that they are unable to accurately discern their exact speed. Staff recommends increased enforcement and adding it to our speed board rotation to assist in educating drivers. Also the street does not have speed limit signs. One could be posted to assist with driver awareness. 3. Intersection Review There are two intersections on 36 1/2 Street between Monterey Drive and Excelsior Avenue. There is a stop sign on the north leg of the Lynn Avenue intersection. The intersection of Kipling Avenue has stop signs on both the north and south legs. Staff completed a review of both of these intersections for the potential addition of stop signs on the east and west legs of the intersections. The City’s Traffic Control Policy guides the installation of stop signs. Past experience has demonstrated that placing stop signs in locations where they do not meet certain criteria can potentially cause an intersection to be less safe, and create enforcement complaints. We therefore take such requests seriously and consider traffic operation and public safety matters before recommending the installation of additional stop signs. The warrant criteria which we review at an intersection for the installation of a 4 way stop are: Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 6 Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study - Traffic Volume- more than 5,000 vehicles a day entering the intersection - Accident history- 5 or more accidents in a 3 year period that are correctable by installing traffic controls - Intersection geometry indicates a need for traffic control. - Sight obstructions. Based on the observed volume of vehicles and accident history, these intersections do not meet the criteria for the installation of all-way stop signs. If criteria for installation of traffic controls are not met, the residents can submit a petition for Council consideration. The petition should be from 70% of residents within a six hundred (600) foot radius from the intersection/site. Any special studies and installation of traffic calming controls, other than signs, would be at resident or neighborhood cost. 4. Pedestrian Safety The Connect the Park! plan includes a proposed sidewalk to be installed on the north side of this road segemtn in 2018. Public Meeting Staff invited the neighborhood to an information meeting to discuss the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Study audit report and additional traffic review. This meeting was held on September 29, 2015 at the Rec Center. Mailings were sent out to 2200 addresses, and approximately 70 people were in attendance. The meeting started out with a presention by staff and the consultant. The presentation contained information about the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study (2001), the recent review of this study that was discussed with the City Council at the August 10 Study Session, and an overview of the information from the Excelsior Boulevard/ Monterey Drive Subarea Report. The attendees were then broken out into groups; provided an opportunity to discuss other concerns and review the three intersection alternatives and provide feedback. Attached is the feedback recorded by the attendees and collected at the meeting. In general, there was no clear consensus from the attendees, however, there was a slight preference for Alternative 2 – Side-Street Stop with Full Access and Eastbound Right-Turn Lane. Other suggestions regarding traffic in the area were also provided. Next Steps The results of this analysis will serve as a guide for future street network planning and development application reviews. Memorandum SRF No. 0158921.01 To: Debra Heiser, P.E., Engineering Director City of St. Louis Park From: Matt Pacyna, P.E., Senior Associate SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Date: September 1, 2015 Subject: Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Study Audit Introduction The Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study was completed in July 2001 by URS. This study included existing (year 2000) and future (year 2005, 2010 and 2015) a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement counts and forecasts at 13 key intersections within the Excelsior Boulevard area. It also included assumed land use and development with the estimated trips generated for various future scenarios (year 2005, 2010, and 2015). SRF has completed a land use, development, trip generation and traffic comparison between the year 2015 scenario in the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study and actual current conditions. The results of our comparison are summarized as follows. Land Use and Development Comparison The first step to this evaluation is the comparison of the assumed land use and development for year 2015 in the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study with the actual land use and development in place today. As shown in Table 1, several differences exist between the projected land use and development assumed in the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study and what exists today. Major differences include: 1) Total square footage built for the “Park Commons East” development is approximately one-third of what was assumed (difference of 171,000 SF). 2) Total retail and office square footage built at the former “Al’s Bar” site is less than one-third of what was assumed (difference of 31,000 SF). However, more residential (i.e. units) development has been constructed than what was assumed. 3) Redevelopment of the “Wayside House” site has not occurred (difference of 90,000 SF). 4) Additional development and a change in use on the “Citizens Bank” site has not occurred (difference of 176,000 SF). 5) Redevelopment of the northwest quadrant of Quentin Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard has not occurred (difference of 73,000 SF). 6) Additional development on the “Target” site has not occurred (difference of 113,000 SF). 7) Redevelopment of the “AAA” site has not occurred (difference of 18,000 SF and a 120-room hotel). 8) Expansion of the “3900 Park Nicollet Campus” has not occurred (difference of 111,000 SF). ONE CARLSON PARKWAY, SUITE 150 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55447 | 763.475.0010 | WWW.SRFCONSULTING.COM Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 7 Debra Heiser, PE September 1, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Page 2 Table 1 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study – Projected vs. Actual Land Use Dev. Scenario (year) Land Use Description Projected 2015 Conditions (from URS Study) Existing 2015 Conditions (Actual Land Use) Difference (+/-) Projected Land Use (2015) Size (SF Unless Otherwise Noted) PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate PM Peak Hour Total Trips Actual Land Use (2015) Size (SF Unless Otherwise Noted) PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate PM Peak Hour Total Trips 2005-1 Park Commons East Retail 80,700 3.71 Per 1,000 SF 299 Retail 44,933 3.71 Per 1,000 SF 167 - 132 2005-1 Park Commons East Restaurant 28,000 9.85 Per 1,000 SF 276 Restaurant 16,691 9.85 Per 1,000 SF 164 - 112 2005-1 Park Commons East Office 114,200 1.49 Per 1,000 SF 170 Grocery 13,000 9.48 Per 1,000 SF 123 - 47 2005-1 Park Commons East Apartment 625 Dwelling Units 0.62 Per Dwelling Unit 388 Apartment 338 Dwelling Units 0.62 Per Dwelling Unit 210 - 178 2005-1 Park Commons East Townhomes 35 Dwelling Units 0.52 Per Dwelling Unit 18 Condominiums 306 Dwelling Units 0.52 Per Dwelling Unit 159 +141 2005-1 Park Commons East Health Club 25,000 3.53 Per 1,000 SF 88 -- -- -- -- -88 2005-1 Park Commons East Day Care 10,000 12.34 Per 1,000 SF 123 Day Care 12,044 12.34 Per 1,000 SF 149 +26 2005-2 Al's Bar Site Retail 20,000 3.71 Per 1,000 SF 74 Retail/Service 4,283 3.71 Per 1,000 SF 16 - 58 2005-2 Al's Bar Site Office 22,000 1.49 Per 1,000 SF 33 Medical Office 7,140 3.57 Per 1,000 SF 25 - 8 2005-2 Al's Bar Site Apartment 60 Dwelling Units 0.62 Per Dwelling Unit 37 Apartment 132 Dwelling Units 0.62 Per Dwelling Unit 82 +45 2005-2 Al's Bar Site Townhomes 9 Dwelling Units 0.52 Per Dwelling Unit 5 Restaurant 5,050 9.85 Per 1,000 SF 50 +45 2005-3 American Inn Site Hotel 36 Rooms 0.6 Per Room 22 Apartment 58 Dwelling Units 0.62 Per Dwelling Unit 36 +14 2010-1 Norwest Bank Site Senior Residential 300 Dwelling Units 0.25 Per Dwelling Unit 75 Apartment 192 Dwelling Units 0.62 Per Dwelling Unit 119 +44 2010-2 Wayside House Civic 60,000 2.74 Per 1,000 SF 164 Treatment Facility 41 Beds 1.42 Per Bed 58 - 106 2010-2 Wayside House Office 30,000 1.49 Per 1,000 SF 45 -- -- -- -- - 45 2010-3 Parking Ramp Parking Structure 1,422 Parking Spaces -- -- Parking Structure 1,385 Parking Spaces -- -- 0 2010-4 Citizens Bank Retail 58,000 3.71 Per 1,000 SF 215 Office 55,618 1.49 Per 1,000 SF 83 - 132 2010-4 Citizens Bank Medical Office 174,000 3.57 Per 1,000 SF 621 Surface Parking 280 Parking Spaces -- -- - 621 2010-5 SW Quadrant of Quentin & Excelsior Medical Office 33,500 3.57 Per 1,000 SF 120 Medical/Dental Office 21,798 3.57 Per 1,000 SF 78 - 42 2010-5 SW Quadrant of Quentin & Excelsior Bank 5,500 24.3 Per 1,000 SF 134 Bank 6,878 24.3 Per 1,000 SF 167 +33 2015-1 NW Quad of Quentin/Excelsior Retail 23,600 3.71 Per 1,000 SF 88 Office 21,588 1.49 Per 1,000 SF 32 - 56 2015-1 NW Quad of Quentin/Excelsior Medical Office 70,800 3.57 Per 1,000 SF 253 -- -- -- -- - 253 2015-2 Target Retail 128,500 3.71 Per 1,000 SF 477 Retail 115,555 3.71 Per 1,000 SF 429 - 48 2015-2 Target Office 100,000 1.49 Per 1,000 SF 149 Surface Parking 500 Parking Spaces -- -- - 149 2015-3 South side of AAA (redev.) Retail 18,000 3.71 Per 1,000 SF 67 Surface Parking 144 Parking Spaces -- -- - 67 2015-3 South side of AAA (redev.) Hotel 120 Rooms 0.6 Per Room 72 -- -- -- -- - 72 2015-4 3900 - Park Nicollet Campus Medical Office 167,200 3.57 Per 1,000 SF 597 Medical Office 56,096 3.57 Per 1,000 SF 200 - 397 2015-4 3901 - Park Nicollet Campus -- -- -- -- Surface Parking 434 Parking Spaces -- -- 0 2015-5 3800 - Park Nicollet Campus Medical Office 347,600 3.57 Per 1,000 SF 1,241 Medical Office 374,783 3.57 Per 1,000 SF 1,338 +97 2015-5 3801 - Park Nicollet Campus -- -- -- -- Surface Parking 307 Parking Spaces -- -- 0 Total 5,851 Total 3,685 - 2,166 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 8 Debra Heiser, PE September 1, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Page 3 Based on the major differences identified above, approximately 780,000 square feet of development has not been built within the Excelsior Boulevard study area. Translating this land use to vehicular trip generation, which is also shown in Table 1, results in nearly 2,200 fewer p.m. peak hour trips distributed to Excelsior Boulevard and other supporting roadways (i.e. 37 percent less than estimated in the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Study). Sites that have not redeveloped as planned are primarily located north of Excelsior Boulevard between Quentin Avenue and Park Center Boulevard. Extensive redevelopment was anticipated along Park Commons Drive west of Quentin Avenue when the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Study was prepared. Most of this development has not occurred. The sites identified in Table 1 as Al’s Bar Site and Park Commons East both redeveloped, but the mixture of land uses is significantly different than anticipated. Also, these redevelopments were completed much later than previously expected back in 2001. Both sites were expected to be complete by 2005, but were completed later. The Al’s Bar Site redevelopments were completed in 2010 and 2013. Traffic Volume Comparison A comparison was made between the 2015 p.m. peak hour turning movements in the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study and actual 2014/2015 p.m. peak hour turning movement counts at key intersections along Excelsior Boulevard between Quentin Avenue and Monterey Drive. This comparison focused on the p.m. peak hour since traffic volumes on Excelsior Boulevard are much higher during this peak period, particularly due to the retail nature of the corridor. Based on the year 2015 comparison, there are approximately 1,300 fewer vehicles traveling east-west (total) on Excelsior Boulevard east of Monterey Drive during the p.m. peak hour than estimated in the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study. The difference between the estimated forecast volumes and actual volumes continues to increase as you move towards the west. There are approximately 1,400 fewer vehicles east of Natchez Avenue, 1,500 fewer vehicles west of Natchez Avenue and 1,600 fewer vehicles west of Quentin Avenue traveling east-west (total) on Excelsior Boulevard during the p.m. peak hour. For the segment west of Quentin Avenue, this is 40 percent less than estimated, which correlates with the trip generation estimates in Table 1. From a daily traffic volume perspective, the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Study did not specifically document year 2015 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes. Therefore, two resources were utilized to better understand daily traffic volumes and trends within the study area. First, a review of historical average daily traffic volumes was completed and compared to planning level roadway capacity thresholds. This review, summarized in Table 2, indicates that the study area roadways are all operating at LOS C or better from a segment capacity perspective. Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 9 Debra Heiser, PE September 1, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Page 4 Table 2 Historical Study Area Daily Traffic Volumes and Level of Service Street Segment Average Annual Daily Traffic by Year Daily Roadway Level of Service(1) 2001 2005 2009 2013 Monterey Drive 9,500 8,900 9,400 9,000 B 38th Street 4,500 2,750 2,900 3,050 B Excelsior Boulevard (East of Monterey Drive) 18,500 20,100 19,200 19,900 C Excelsior Boulevard (West of Monterey Drive) 19,900 20,000 19,900 18,600 C Quentin Avenue (South of Excelsior Boulevard) 2,650 1,900 1,850 1,950 A Quentin Avenue (North of Excelsior Boulevard) 2,250 2,250 2,100 2,100 A France Avenue (North of 38th Street) NA 10,000 9,400 9,700 C France Avenue (South of 38th Street) NA 10,600 10,100 10,700 C (1) Based on roadway capacity thresholds developed by WSB & Associates, Inc. utilizing the TRB Highway Capacity Manual and Metropolitan Council Regional Travel Demand Forecast Model. The second resource to compare traffic volumes included applying an 11 percent factor to the p.m. peak hour volumes from the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Study. This approach indicates the forecast 2015 ADT volumes along Excelsior Boulevard would have ranged from approximately 27,000 to 36,000 vehicles per day (vpd). This is compared to today’s ADT volumes, which are closer to the 20,000 to 22,000 vpd range. Once again, the previous 2015 forecasts are approximately 25 to 40 percent higher than current volumes. Potential reasons for the difference include: 1) Forecast land use redevelopment has not occurred (as noted earlier) 2) Area transportation improvements have occurred (i.e. TH 100 and TH 7) 3) Improved area transit service 4) Mode-choice shifts (i.e. more biking/walking) It should be noted that p.m. peak hour volumes typically comprise of 8-12 percent of daily traffic volumes. H:\Projects\8921\TS\Report\8921 01_ExcelsiorBoulevardStudyAudit_150901.docx Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 10 Park Commons West Park Commons East Al's Bar SiteFRANCE AVE SEXCEL SI O R B L V D 40TH ST W 35TH ST W 38TH ST W KIPLING AVE SJOPPA AVE SHIGHWAY 100 SGLENHURST AVE S36 1/2 ST W 36TH ST WBELTLINE BLVD37TH ST W INGLEWOOD AVE SMO N T E R E Y D R VALLAC H E R A V E LYNN AVE SPARK GL E N R D NATCHEZ AVE S39TH S T W QUENTIN AVE SWOLFE PK WY 34TH ST W PARK CENTER BLVDRALEIGH AVE SPRINCETON AVE SMINIKAHDA CTPARK NICOLLET BLVDPRINCETON LN 36TH ST WHIGHWAY 100 S39TH ST W Excelsior Blvd CorridorComprehensive PlanLand Use Guidance 1,000 Feet ¯ Legend Study Redevelopment Areas Study Redevelopment Areas Comprehensive Plan (2030) Land Use Categories RL - Low Density Residential RM - Medium Density Residential RH - High Density Residential MX - Mixed Use COM - Commercial IND - Industrial OFC - Office BP - Business Park CIV - Civic PRK - Park and Open Space ROW - Right of Way RRR - Railroad August 5, 2015 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 11 Park Commons West Park Commons East Al's Bar Site EXCEL SI O R B L V D 40TH ST W 35TH ST W 38TH ST W KIPLING AVE SJOPPA AVE SGLENHURST AVE SHIGHWAY 100 S36 1/2 ST W 36TH ST W INGLEWOOD AVE SBELTLINE BLVD37TH ST WMO N T E R E Y D R VALLAC H E R A V E LYNN AVE SPARK GL E N R D NATCHEZ AVE SQUENTIN AVE S39TH S T W WOLFE P K W Y PARK C O M M O N S D R 34TH ST W PARK CENTER BLVDRALEIGH AVE SPRINCETON AVE SOTTAWA AVE SMINIKAHDA CTPARK NICOLLET BLVDMERID IAN LN 36TH ST WHIGHWAY 100 S39TH ST W Excelsior Blvd CorridorRedevelopment MapProjected vs. Actual Park Commons East Projected Actual DifferenceCommercial (sq. ft.) 143,700 123,981 (19,719) Office (sq. ft.)114,200 0 (114,200) Residential (units)660 644 (16) Al's Bar/AmericInn Site Projected Actual DifferenceCommercial (sq. ft.) 42,000 9,333 (32,667) Office (sq. ft.)22,000 7,140 (14,860) Residential (units)69 190 121 Hotel (rooms)36 0 (36) Park Commons West Projected Actual DifferenceCommercial (sq. ft.) 293,600 122,433 (171,167) Office (sq. ft.)923,100 529,883 (393,217) Residential (units)300 192 (108) Hotel (rooms)120 0 (120) Treatment Facility (beds) - 41 41 TOTAL Projected Actual DifferenceCommercial (sq. ft.) 479,300 255,747 (223,553) Office (sq. ft.)1,059,300 537,023 (522,277) Residential (units)1,029 1,026 (3) Hotel (rooms)156 0 (156) Treatment Facility (beds) - 41 41 1,000 Feet ¯ Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 12 Memorandum SRF No. 0158921 To: Debra Heiser, P.E., Engineering Director City of St. Louis Park From: Matt Pacyna, PE, Senior Associate Jordan Schwarze, PE, Senior Engineer Date: September 28, 2015 Subject: Excelsior Boulevard & Monterey Drive Subarea Evaluation Introduction SRF has completed a subarea evaluation in the vicinity of the Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Drive intersection located in the City of St. Louis Park (see Figure 1: Project Location). The main objectives of this study are to evaluate various forms of traffic control and access at the Monterey Drive/ Park Commons Drive intersection as well as evaluate traffic volumes on 36th-1/2 Street with regard to roadway capacity. The following sections provide the assumptions, analysis, and study conclusions offered for consideration. Data Collection Various data collection efforts have been conducted within the study area since October 2014. Peak period turning movement and pedestrian counts were collected by Spack Consulting during the week of October 13, 2014 at the following study intersections: • Excelsior Boulevard and Quentin Avenue • Excelsior Boulevard and Princeton Avenue • Park Commons Drive and Quentin Avenue • Park Commons Drive and Princeton Avenue Peak period turning movement and pedestrian counts were collected by SRF during the week of March 23, 2015 at the following study intersections: • Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive • Excelsior Boulevard and Kipling Avenue • Excelsior Boulevard and 36th-1/2 Street • Monterey Drive and Park Commons Drive • Monterey Drive and 36th-1/2 Street ONE CARLSON PARKWAY, SUITE 150 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55447 | 763.475.0010 | WWW.SRFCONSULTING.COM Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 13 0158921 September 2015 Project Location Figure 1H:\Projects\8921\TS\Figures\Fig01_Project Location.cdrExcelsior Boulevard & Monterey Drive Subarea Evaluation Saint Louis Park, MN NORTHNorthExcel si o r Bl v d Mo n t e r e y D r Park C o m m o n s D r Prince ton Ave 36th-1/2 S t Quent in AveGrand WayNatchez Ave 38th StMer id ian LnKipling Ave- Study Intersection - All-Way Stop Controlled Intersection - Side-Street Stop Controlled Intersection - Traffic Signal Controlled Intersection LEGEND See Inset INSET 2 0 5 ’ 120’ 90 ’Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 14 Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation Peak period turning movement and pedestrian counts were collected by SRF during the week of June 15, 2015 at the following study intersections: • Excelsior Boulevard and Grand Way/Natchez Avenue • Excelsior Boulevard and Meridian Lane (15-minute pulse count) • Park Commons Drive and Grand Way (15-minute pulse count) • Park Commons Drive and Meridian Lane (15-minute pulse count) • Kipling Avenue and 36th-1/2 Street (15-minute pulse count) Historical average daily traffic (ADT) volumes within the study area were provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive Intersection Evaluation Existing Conditions The existing conditions were reviewed to establish a baseline in order to identify the impacts of potential traffic control and access alternatives at the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection. Crash Analysis A review of crash records available from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety via the MnDOT Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool was completed over a 5-year period from 2010 to 2014. One non-injury, nighttime right-angle crash involving a southbound through vehicle and an eastbound left-turning vehicle was identified in the study period at the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection. The resulting intersection crash rate of 0.05 crashes per million entering vehicles is well below the statewide average of 0.18 for urban through/stop intersections. Therefore, the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection does not have a statistically significant number of crashes. It should be noted that the crash analysis was completed only for the Monterey Drive/ Park Commons Drive intersection. Sight Distance Despite a low intersection crash rate, a sight distance issue was identified in the northwest quadrant of the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection. Two trees were observed to partially obstruct the view of the southbound Monterey Drive approach for motorists waiting on the Park Commons Drive approach. The AASHTO recommended minimum sight distance for a left-turn maneuver from a stop condition across two lanes of a 30 mph roadway is 355 feet. As illustrated in Figure 2, the identified trees prevent a clear view out to 355 feet on the Park Commons Drive approach, and can limit visibility of an oncoming southbound vehicle. No other sight distance issues were identified at the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection. Page 3 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 15 0158921 September 2015 Sight Distance IssuesH:\Projects\8921\TS\Figures\Fig02_Sight Distance Issues.cdrExcelsior Boulevard & Monterey Drive Subarea Evaluation Saint Louis Park, MN Figure 2NORTHNorthExisting Sight Distance is estimated to be approximately 150’ 355’ = AASHTO recommended minimum sight distance for a left-turn maneuver from a stop condition across two lanes of a 30 mph roadway Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 16 Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation Traffic Volumes Based on data collected in March 2015, a 13-hour Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection traffic volume profile was created. The plotted traffic volume profile, shown in Chart 1, illustrates slight a.m. and midday peaks, but fairly consistent traffic volumes from morning to the mid-afternoon. However, a significant traffic volume increase is shown beginning in the mid-afternoon and continuing into the early evening. The traffic volume profile indicates that a capacity analysis of the p.m. peak hour (i.e. 4:45 to 5:45 p.m.) will illustrate a worst-case operations scenario for the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection. Therefore, the p.m. peak hour will serve as the design hour and be modeled under a number of traffic control and access alternatives. Chart 1. Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive Intersection Volume Profile Alternatives Evaluation As part of the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection evaluation, various traffic control and access alternatives were assessed under existing conditions to optimize intersection operations and safety. The areas of focus were eastbound Park Commons Drive delays and queues. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PMHourly Traffic VolumeMonterey Drive/Park Commons Drive Intersection Weekday Traffic Volume Profile -March 2015 All Intersection Approaches Monterey Drive SB Approach Monterey Drive NB Approach Park Commons Drive EB Approach Page 5 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 17 Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation Intersection Capacity Analysis The following traffic control and access alternatives were evaluated at the Monterey Drive/ Park Commons Drive intersection under existing conditions: • Alternative 1 – No Build (Existing Side-Street Stop with Full Access) • Alternative 2 – Side-Street Stop with Full Access and Eastbound Right-Turn Lane • Alternative 3 – Side-Street Stop with Three-Quarter Access • Alternative 4 – All-Way Stop with Full Access • Alternative 5 – Roundabout with Full Access • Alternative 6 – Traffic Signal with Full Access • Alternative 7 – Side-Street Stop with Right-In/Right-Out Access • Alternative 8 – Closed Side-Street Access Results of the intersection capacity analysis for the various Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection alternatives under existing traffic volumes are summarized in Table 1. The primary goal of the table is to illustrate the effect of the alternatives on Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection delays and queues, particularly the eastbound Park Commons Drive approach. A secondary goal of the table is to illustrate the effect of the alternatives on nearby intersections. All intersection alternatives resulted in acceptable overall intersection operations and negligible impacts on adjacent intersections. However, some alternatives produced more favorable side-street delay and queuing results than others. It should be noted that various alternatives may require additional analysis or considerations. Detailed alternatives evaluation results showing average delay/queue lengths for the study intersections under existing traffic volumes are provided in Appendix A. Alternative 1 – No Build (Existing Side-Street Stop with Full Access) As documented in the 4400 Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Study (dated May 1, 2015), the Monterey Drive/ Park Commons Drive intersection currently operates at an overall Level of Service A (LOS A) during the p.m. peak hour. The Park Commons Drive side-street approach operates at LOS D. Queuing issues were also documented along Monterey Drive and Park Commons Drive. Southbound queues along Monterey Drive at Excelsior Boulevard were observed to extend through Park Commons Drive approximately 10 to 15 percent of the p.m. peak hour. However, access to the dedicated southbound right-turn lane on the Monterey Drive approach to Excelsior Boulevard was blocked only approximately five (5) to 10 percent of the p.m. peak hour, as motorists tended to queue in the inside southbound through lane to prepare for a left-turn maneuver at Excelsior Boulevard. The documented southbound queues also impact motorists along Park Commons Drive as they attempt to access Monterey Drive, resulting in increased delay and queues. As observed during the week of June 15, 2015, eastbound queues extended beyond the Trader Joe’s access (i.e. approximately 120 feet or more) along Park Commons Drive approximately 20 to 25 percent of the p.m. peak hour. Page 6 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 18 Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation Table 1. Intersection Capacity Summary with Alternatives – Existing Traffic Volumes – P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Monterey Drive and Park Commons Drive Intersection Alternatives Alternative 1 No Build (Existing Side-Street Stop Full Access) Alternative 2 Side-Street Stop Full Access with EB Right-Turn Lane Alternative 3 Side-Street Stop Three-Quarter Access Alternative 4 All-Way Stop Full Access Alternative 5 Roundabout Full Access Alternative 6 Traffic Signal Full Access Alternative 7 Side-Street Stop Right-In/Right-Out Access Alternative 8 Closed Side-Street Access Monterey Drive and Park Commons Drive (95th Percentile Queues) (1) (2) [Park Commons Drive ADT Volume] (EB = 155 Feet) (SB = 55 Feet) (NB = 45 Feet) [4,400 veh/day] (EB = 90 Feet) (SB = 55 Feet) (NB = 45 Feet) [4,400 veh/day] (EB = 75 Feet) (SB = 55 Feet) (NB = 45 Feet) [3,400 veh/day] (EB = 85 Feet) (SB = 180 Feet) (NB = 125 Feet) [4,400 veh/day] (EB = 75 Feet) (SB = 130 Feet) (NB = 5 Feet) [4,400 veh/day] (EB = 125 Feet) (SB = 185 Feet) (NB = 140 Feet) [4,400 veh/day] (EB = 75 Feet) (SB = 50 Feet) (NB = Not Applicable) [2,400 veh/day] Not Applicable Park Commons Drive and Meridian Lane Park Commons Drive and Grand Way Park Commons Drive and Princeton Avenue Park Commons Drive and Quentin Avenue Excelsior Boulevard and Quentin Avenue Excelsior Boulevard and Princeton Avenue Excelsior Boulevard and Grand Way Excelsior Boulevard and Meridian Lane Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive Excelsior Boulevard and Kipling Avenue Excelsior Boulevard and 36th-1/2 Street 36th-1/2 Street and Kipling Avenue Monterey Drive and 36th-1/2 Street Legend Level of Service A – B Overall Intersection Delay Worst Side-Street Delay Level of Service C Level of Service D Level of Service E Level of Service F (1) The 95th percentile queue is defined as the queue length that has only a five percent probability of being exceeded during the analysis time period. (2) Queue distance limitations along Park Commons Drive and Monterey Drive are illustrated in Figure 1. Page 7 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 19 Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation Alternative 2 – Side-Street Stop with Full Access and Eastbound Right-Turn Lane The addition of an eastbound right-turn lane to the existing Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection would distribute approach volumes over two lanes and be expected to produce a moderate operational improvement. It should be noted that during the p.m. peak hour approximately 60 percent of vehicles on the eastbound intersection approach complete a right-turn maneuver, while the remaining 40 percent complete a left-turn maneuver. The Park Commons Drive side-street approach would be expected to operate at LOS C with the addition of an eastbound right-turn lane under existing traffic volumes. A significant improvement in eastbound Park Commons Drive queues would be anticipated, as queues would be expected to extend beyond the Trader Joe’s access no more than five (5) percent of the p.m. peak hour. Alternative 3 – Side-Street Stop with Three-Quarter Access A three-quarter access would prohibit left-turn maneuvers from Park Commons Drive to Monterey Drive. Approximately 70 p.m. peak hour and 1,000 daily vehicles would be impacted by this access modification. The impacted motorists would be expected to utilize other routes such as Meridian Lane and Grand Way. A three-quarter access modification also has the potential to introduce U-turn maneuvers along Monterey Drive at Excelsior Boulevard, although these maneuvers may not be physically possible for many vehicles. A three-quarter access would be expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS A under the existing traffic volumes. Eastbound Park Commons Drive queues would not be expected to block the Trader Joe’s access, and minimal change in queuing from existing conditions would be expected along Monterey Drive. Alternative 4 – All-Way Stop with Full Access An all-way stop controlled intersection would be expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS A under the existing geometry and traffic volumes. A significant improvement in eastbound Park Commons Drive queues would be expected, as no blockage of the Trader Joe’s access would be anticipated. However, a significant increase in southbound Monterey Drive queuing is anticipated. An additional concern is potential driver confusion at multi-lane all-way stop control intersections, where determining who has the right-of-way is challenging. Furthermore, existing traffic volumes at the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection do not meet an all-way stop warrant (see Appendix B). Alternative 5 – Roundabout with Full Access A roundabout would be expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS A under the existing traffic volumes. Although eastbound Park Commons Drive queues would not be expected to block the Trader Joe’s access, a significant increase in southbound Monterey Drive queuing is anticipated. Additionally, southbound Monterey Drive queues extending from the Excelsior Boulevard traffic signal through Park Commons Drive could cause roundabout gridlock and lead to driver confusion. Furthermore, the footprint of a roundabout would be expected to have a significant impact to area right-of-way and adjacent properties. Page 8 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 20 Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation Alternative 6 – Traffic Signal with Full Access A traffic signal warrant analysis was completed to determine if existing traffic volumes at the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection meet a signal warrant. Results of the traffic signal warrant analysis (provided in Appendix B) indicate that traffic volumes at the Monterey Drive/ Park Commons Drive intersection do not meet a traffic signal warrant under existing conditions. However, an evaluation of the traffic signal alternative was completed to determine the effect on intersection delays and queues. Eastbound Park Commons Drive queues would be expected to continue to extend beyond the Trader Joe’s access under the traffic signal alternative. However, the anticipated blockage is expected to be improved (i.e. 5 to 10 percent of the p.m. peak hour) as compared to the existing condition. Although a traffic signal in this location would be expected to operate adequately (i.e. LOS A), the signal spacing between Excelsior Boulevard and Park Commons Drive would be challenging and is not considered ideal. The closely spaced traffic signals along Park Center Boulevard at 36th Street and the eastern Target site access may serve as an example of minimally acceptable traffic signal spacing. Between these traffic signals is approximately 290 feet of vehicle storage, as compared to only approximately 205 feet of vehicle storage between traffic signals along Monterey Drive at Excelsior Boulevard and Park Commons Drive. Furthermore, both northbound/southbound directions of travel along Park Center Boulevard between noted signals consist of two through lanes, whereas the northbound direction of travel along Monterey Drive between Excelsior Boulevard and Park Center Drive has only one through lane. The combination of shorter storage distance and one less through lane results in approximately 65% less vehicle storage on the northbound approach to the Monterey Drive/ Park Commons Drive intersection as compared to the northbound/southbound approaches between noted traffic signals along Park Center Boulevard. Additionally, significant Monterey Drive queues are anticipated under traffic signal control at the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection. The northbound 95th percentile queues would be expected to fall approximately 65 feet short of extending into the adjacent Excelsior Boulevard intersection. Given limited storage capacity between Excelsior Boulevard and Park Commons Drive, a Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive traffic signal could potentially cause northbound Monterey Drive traffic to queue back onto Excelsior Boulevard. Page 9 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 21 Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation Alternative 7 – Side-Street Stop with Right-In/Right-Out Access A right-in/right-out access would prohibit left-turn maneuvers from Park Commons Drive to Monterey Drive as well as from northbound Monterey Drive to Park Commons Drive. Approximately 165 p.m. peak hour and 2,000 daily vehicles would be impacted by this access modification. The impacted motorists would again be expected to utilize other routes such as Meridian Lane and Grand Way. Like the three-quarter access alternative, the right-in/right-out alternative has the potential to introduce U-turn maneuvers along Monterey Drive at Excelsior Boulevard, although these maneuvers may not be physically possible for many vehicles. A right-in/right-out access would be expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS A under the existing traffic volumes. Eastbound Park Commons Drive queues would not be expected to block the Trader Joe’s access, and improved queuing would be expected along Monterey Drive. Alternative 8 – Closed Side-Street Access Closing the Park Commons Drive access would prohibit all maneuvers to/from Park Commons Drive at Monterey Drive. Approximately 435 p.m. peak hour and 4,400 daily vehicles would be impacted by this access modification. The impacted motorists would again be expected to utilize other routes such as Meridian Lane and Grand Way. Closing access to/from Park Commons Drive at Monterey Drive would not be expected to significantly impact nearby roadway segments or intersections. Other Alternative Considerations Wolfe Parkway Extension The potential exists to utilize City owned right-of-way to complete a new connection between Park Commons Drive and Monterey Drive. This potential connection would likely accompany an access restriction at the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection and could minimize the impacts of the modification. The connection, as illustrated in Figure 3, is a northern extension of Wolfe Parkway that would terminate at Monterey Drive near 36th-1/2 Street. A combination of eastbound left-turning and southbound right-turning vehicles at the Monterey Drive/ Park Commons Drive intersection would be expected to divert to this new roadway connection, resulting in daily traffic volume of 1,500 to 2,500 vehicles. Due to uncertainty regarding the potential Wolfe Parkway extension, additional analysis would be required. Page 10 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 22 0158921 September 2015 Potential Wolf Parkway Extension Figure 3H:\Projects\8921\TS\Figures\Fig03_Potential Wolfe Parkway Extension.cdrExcelsior Boulevard & Monterey Drive Subarea Evaluation Saint Louis Park, MNNORTHNorth Mo n t e r e y D r Park C o m m o n s D r Wolfe PkwyPotential alternative Wolfe Parkway connections between Park Commons Drive and Monterey Drive 36th-1/2 St Excelsior BlvdSpecial Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 23 Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation Alternatives Selected for Additional Analysis An initial vetting process was conducted in regard to overall intersection delays and queues to select viable Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection alternatives for additional analysis. Alternative 4 (All-Way Stop with Full Access), Alternative 5 (Roundabout with Full Access), and Alternative 6 (Traffic Signal with Full Access) were eliminated from consideration due to concerns about significant anticipated increases in mainline Monterey Drive queueing. Furthermore, Alternative 7 (Side-Street Stop with Right-In/Right-Out Access) and Alternative 8 (Closed Side-Street Access) were eliminated due to concerns about restricting inbound access to Park Commons Drive from Monterey Drive. Thus, the following alternatives were selected for additional analysis: • Alternative 1 – No Build (Existing Side-Street Stop with Full Access) • Alternative 2 – Side-Street Stop with Full Access and Eastbound Right-Turn Lane • Alternative 3 – Side-Street Stop with Three-Quarter Access Year 2017 Conditions To determine how the potential Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection alternatives will accommodate future traffic volumes, a year 2017 intersection capacity analysis was completed. To account for general background growth in the area, an annual growth rate of one-half percent was applied to the existing peak hour traffic volumes to develop year 2017 background traffic forecasts. This growth rate offers a conservative estimate compared to recent historical trends. As documented in the 4400 Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Study (dated May 1, 2015), two developments are expected to impact roadway network operations in the study area by the year 2017 and are included in this study. Bridgewater Development The proposed apartment/retail/bank development at 4400 Excelsior Boulevard is expected to generate approximately 178 trips (99 in/79 out) during the p.m. peak hour and 1,670 daily trips. Considering the trip generation for existing land uses on site and anticipated pass-by trips, approximately 113 net new p.m. peak hour trips (67 in/46 out) and 1,036 net new daily trips are expected. The generated trips were added to the year 2017 roadway network per the Alternate Access Scenario presented in the 4400 Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Study (dated May 1, 2015). The Alternative Access Scenario, shown is Figure 4, is proposed as follows: • Excelsior Boulevard: o Access A – A right-in/right-out access serving surface-level retail parking (Level 1), located approximately 300 feet east of Monterey Drive • Monterey Drive: o Access B – A full-access serving surface-level retail parking (Level 1), located approximately 270 feet north of Excelsior Boulevard, opposite Park Commons Drive o Access C – A full-access serving mid- and lower-level residential parking (Levels P1/P2), located approximately 410 feet north of Excelsior Boulevard Page 12 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 24 0158921 September 2015 Bridgewater Development Alternative Access Scenario Figure 4H:\Projects\8921\TS\Figures\Fig04_Bridgewater Development Alternative Access Scenario.cdrExcelsior Boulevard & Monterey Drive Subarea Evaluation Saint Louis Park, MNNORTHNorth Excelsior BlvdMo n t e r e y D r Access A Access B Access C Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 25 Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation Former Bally’s Site Development The proposed apartment/grocery store development at 4900 Excelsior Boulevard is expected to generate approximately 307 trips (170 in/137 out) during the p.m. peak hour and 3,296 daily trips. These trips were conservatively assumed to be net new system trips, as the building on site is currently vacant. The generated trips were added to the year 2017 roadway network. However, the development is expected to have a negligible impact on the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection. Intersection Capacity Analysis Results of the year 2017 intersection capacity analysis summarized in Table 2 indicate that all selected Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection alternatives are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS B or better during the p.m. peak hour. In addition, minimal impacts on adjacent intersections are expected. As with the initially considered intersection alternatives, the potential future alternatives produced varying side-street delay and queuing results. An illustration of anticipated year 2017 queueing for selected intersection alternatives is presented in Figure 5. Alternative 1 – No Build (Existing Side-Street Stop with Full Access) With added traffic volumes at the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection caused by general background growth and area development, the Park Commons Drive side-street approach would be expected to operate at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour under year 2017 conditions. It should be noted that these type of side-street delays are common during peak periods within the Twin Cities and are generally considered acceptable. Eastbound queues would be expected to increase and extend beyond the Trader Joe’s access along Park Commons Drive approximately 25 to 35 percent of the p.m. peak hour. Alternative 2 – Side-Street Stop with Full Access and Eastbound Right-Turn Lane The eastbound approach of the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection would be expected to operate at LOS C during the p.m. peak hour under year 2017 conditions with the addition of an eastbound right-turn lane. A slight increase in eastbound Park Commons Drive queues would be expected, but these queues are likely to extend beyond the Trader Joe’s access less than five (5) percent of the p.m. peak hour. Alternative 3 – Side-Street Stop with Three-Quarter Access Minimal delay (i.e. LOS B) and queuing would be expected on the eastbound approach of the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection during the p.m. peak hour under year 2017 conditions with a modified three-quarter access. Eastbound Park Commons Drive queues would not be expected to block the Trader Joe’s access. An increase in overall intersection delay would be anticipated at the Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Drive intersection under the three-quarter access alternative, as additional eastbound left-turn maneuvers would be expected due to travel pattern changes. However, the increase in overall intersection delay is expected to be only a few seconds. Page 14 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 26 Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation Table 2. Intersection Capacity Summary with Alternatives – Year 2017 Traffic Volumes – P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Monterey Drive and Park Commons Drive Intersection Alternatives Alternative 1 No Build (Existing Side-Street Stop Full Access) Alternative 2 Side-Street Stop Full Access with EB Right-Turn Lane Alternative 3 Side-Street Stop Three-Quarter Access Monterey Drive and Park Commons Drive/Access B (95th Percentile Queues) (1) (2) [Park Commons Drive ADT Volume] (EB = 180 Feet) (WB = 45 Feet) (SB = 115 Feet) (NB = 45 Feet) [4,450 veh/day] (EB = 105 Feet) (WB = 45 Feet) (SB = 115 Feet) (NB = 45 Feet) [4,450 veh/day] (EB = 85 Feet) (WB = 25 Feet) (SB = 115 Feet) (NB = 45 Feet) [3,450 veh/day] Excelsior Boulevard and Access A Monterey Drive and Access C Park Commons Drive and Meridian Lane Park Commons Drive and Grand Way Park Commons Drive and Princeton Avenue Park Commons Drive and Quentin Avenue Excelsior Boulevard and Quentin Avenue Excelsior Boulevard and Princeton Avenue Excelsior Boulevard and Grand Way Excelsior Boulevard and Meridian Lane Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive Excelsior Boulevard and Kipling Avenue Excelsior Boulevard and 36th-1/2 Street 36th-1/2 Street and Kipling Avenue Monterey Drive and 36th-1/2 Street Legend Level of Service A – B Overall Intersection Delay Worst Side-Street Delay Level of Service C Level of Service D Level of Service E Level of Service F (1) The 95th percentile queue is defined as the queue length that has only a five percent probability of being exceeded during the analysis time period. (2) Queue distance limitations along Park Commons Drive and Monterey Drive are illustrated in Figure 1. Page 15 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 27 NORTHNorthNORTHNorthNORTHNorth0158921 September 2015 Alternatives Queuing - Year 2017 Conditions Excelsior Boulevard & Monterey Drive Subarea Evaluation Saint Louis Park, MN Figure 5H:\Projects\8921\TS\Figures\Fig05_Alternatives Queuing.cdr- Average Queue - 95th Percentile Queue Existing Traffic Control and Geometry LOS B/F - Average Queue - 95th Percentile Queue Added Eastbound Right-Turn Lane - Average Queue - 95th Percentile Queue Three-Quarter Access Access B Excel si or Bl v dMo n t e r e y D r Excel si or Bl v d Excel si or Bl v d Access B Access B H:\Projects\8921\TS\Figures\Fig05_Alternatives Queuing.cdrLOS A/CMo n t e r e y D r LOS A/BMo n t e r e y D r Ave. A p p r o a c h D el a y > 5 0 s e c. Ave. A p p r o a c h D el a y 2 5 s e c. < Ave. A p p r o a c h D el a y < 1 5 s e c. Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 28 Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation Access Spacing Proposed Bridgewater development Access B and Access C are proposed approximately 140 feet apart along Monterey Drive. According to MnDOT access spacing guidelines, the minimum recommended spacing along a collector roadway in an urban area is 330 feet. While the minimum recommended spacing guideline is not met, similar access spacing exists on other collector roadways in the City of St. Louis Park and the access can function adequately as currently shown. Some concerns were expressed with internal site operations when combining residential and retail access. Therefore, if a consolidated access is preferred, it should be designed to minimize internal conflict areas between residents and retail patrons. It should be noted that the proposed right-in/right- out Access A along Excelsior Boulevard would continue to serve as an alternate access to a consolidated Monterey Drive access. Bridgewater Development Access Modifications Due to elevation differences between the proposed access locations, the only viable location for a consolidated Monterey Drive access is opposite Park Commons Drive (i.e. at Access B). An evaluation of anticipated year 2017 conditions with the consolidation of Access B and Access C opposite Park Commons Drive was performed to determine its feasibility. A side-street LOS F would be anticipated under both side-street stop full-access intersection alternatives. However, a side-street LOS B would be anticipated under the three-quarter access alternative. Pedestrian Considerations The proposed Bridgewater development is expected to generate pedestrian traffic in addition to vehicular traffic. It is recommended that pedestrians to/from the Bridgewater development utilize existing pedestrian accommodations (crosswalks and pedestrian phasing) at the Excelsior Boulevard/ Monterey Drive signalized intersection. Locations which are not clearly signed/striped specifically for pedestrian crossings, such as midblock along Monterey Drive or at the Monterey Drive/ Park Commons Drive intersection, may be more hazardous due to motorists not anticipating pedestrian crossings in those places. Depending on the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection alternative selected, additional accommodations may be necessary to physically direct pedestrians to the Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Drive intersection. 36th-1/2 Street Evaluation Traffic Volumes Concerns regarding potential cut-through traffic along 36th-1/2 Street between Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive have been expressed by local residents and City leaders. The existing ADT volume along 36th-1/2 Street was estimated at 2,500 vehicles based on a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement counts in the 4400 Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Study (dated May 1, 2015). Page 17 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 29 Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation The traffic volume along 36th-1/2 Street has shown little change over the last 15 years, as SRF estimates a year 2000 ADT volume of approximately 2,800 vehicles. This estimate was completed using a similar methodology to the year 2015 estimate, but based on year 2000 a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement counts at the Monterey Drive/36th-1/2 Street intersection presented in the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study (dated July 2001) completed by URS. An urban two-lane undivided roadway such as 36th-1/2 Street has a theoretically daily capacity of 8,000 to 10,000 vehicles. The current ADT volume along 36th-1/2 Street is well below this capacity threshold. The traffic volumes along 36th-1/2 Street are a mixture of commercial and residential generated trips as well as potential cut-through traffic between Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive. Summary and Conclusions The following study summary and conclusions are offered for your consideration: • The results of a crash analysis indicate the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection did not have a statistically significant number of crashes over a 5-year period. o However, two trees in the northwest quadrant of the intersection were observed to partially obstruct the view of southbound Monterey Drive for motorists waiting on the Park Commons Drive approach. • Several traffic control and access alternatives were evaluated at the Monterey Drive/ Park Commons Drive intersection. o An initial vetting process in regard to overall intersection delays and queues selected three viable alternatives for additional analysis:  Alternative 1 – No Build (Existing Side-Street Stop with Full Access)  Alternative 2 – Side-Street Stop with Full Access and Eastbound Right-Turn Lane  Alternative 3 – Side-Street Stop with Three-Quarter Access • Results of the year 2017 intersection capacity analysis indicate that the three selected Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection alternatives are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS B or better during the p.m. peak hour. In addition, minimal impacts on adjacent intersections are expected. However, the potential future intersection alternatives produced varying side-street delay and queuing results: o Alternative 1 – No Build (Existing Side-Street Stop with Full Access):  The Park Commons Drive side-street approach would be expected to operate at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour under year 2017 conditions. It should be noted that these type of side-street delays are common during peak periods within the Twin Cities and are generally considered acceptable. Eastbound queues would be expected to increase and extend beyond the Trader Joe’s access along Park Commons Drive approximately 25 to 35 percent of the p.m. peak hour. Page 18 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 30 Debra Heiser, P.E. September 28, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Monterey/Park Commons Subarea Evaluation o Alternative 2 – Side-Street Stop with Full Access and Eastbound Right-Turn Lane  The Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection eastbound approach would be expected to operate at LOS C during the p.m. peak hour under year 2017 conditions with the addition of an eastbound right-turn lane. A slight increase in eastbound Park Commons Drive queues would be expected, but these queues are likely to extend beyond the Trader Joe’s access less than five (5) percent of the p.m. peak hour. o Alternative 3 – Side-Street Stop with Three-Quarter Access  Minimal delay (i.e. LOS B) and queuing would be expected on the eastbound approach of the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection during the p.m. peak hour under year 2017 conditions with a modified three-quarter access. Eastbound Park Commons Drive queues would not be expected to block the Trader Joe’s access. An overall intersection delay increase would be anticipated at the Excelsior Boulevard/ Monterey Drive intersection under the three-quarter access alternative, as additional eastbound left-turn maneuvers would be expected due to travel pattern changes. However, the increase in overall intersection delay is expected to be minimal. • Bridgewater development Access B and Access C are proposed approximately 140 feet apart along Monterey Drive. The MnDOT recommended minimum spacing along an urban collector roadway (330 feet) is not met. However, similar access spacing exists on other collector roadways in St. Louis Park and the access can function adequately as currently shown. o If a consolidated access is preferred, it should be designed to minimize internal conflict areas between residents and retail patrons. It should be noted that the proposed right-in/right-out along Excelsior Boulevard would continue to serve as an alternate access to a consolidated Monterey Drive access. o An evaluation of anticipated year 2017 conditions with the consolidation of access locations along Monterey Drive opposite Park Commons Drive was performed to determine its feasibility. A side-street LOS F would be anticipated under both side-street stop full-access intersection alternatives. However, a side-street LOS B would be anticipated under the three-quarter access alternative. • It is recommended that pedestrians to/from the Bridgewater development utilize existing pedestrian accommodations (crosswalks and pedestrian phasing) at the Excelsior Boulevard/ Monterey Drive signalized intersection. Locations which are not clearly signed/striped specifically for pedestrian crossings, such as midblock along Monterey Drive or at the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection, may be more hazardous due to motorists not anticipating pedestrian crossings in those places. Depending on the Monterey Drive/ Park Commons Drive intersection alternative selected, additional accommodations may be needed to direct pedestrians to the Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Drive intersection. • An urban two-lane undivided roadway such as 36th-1/2 Street has a theoretically daily capacity of 8,000 to 10,000 vehicles. The currently estimated ADT volume of 2,500 vehicles along 36th-1/2 Street is well below this capacity threshold. H:\Projects\8921\TS\Report\8921_Excelsior Blvd & Monterey Dr SAE_150928.docx Page 19 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 31 APPENDIX A ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION – EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 32 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\1_Existing\Existing PM.syn SimTraffic Report Page 1 5: Monterey Dr & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)3.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)29.1 2.9 2.1 5.9 10: Meridian Ln & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.8 0.3 4.1 1.0 15: Grand Way & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)4.6 2.0 5.4 5.2 4.0 20: Princeton Ave & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.0 1.6 3.1 1.5 25: Quentin Ave & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)3.5 4.8 1.3 3.1 30: Quentin Ave & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)14.9 12.1 36.2 24.7 17.5 35: Excelsior Blvd & Princeton Ave Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.3 2.1 7.3 2.2 40: Natchez Ave/Grand Way & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)9.7 15.0 30.2 31.3 13.7 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 33 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\1_Existing\Existing PM.syn SimTraffic Report Page 2 45: Excelsior Blvd & Meridian Ln Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.3 2.1 4.5 2.2 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)25.6 25.2 49.2 34.1 29.2 55: Kipling Ave & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 3.4 0.8 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.8 1.0 14.4 21.6 2.6 60: Excelsior Blvd & 36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)0.8 0.4 1.9 0.7 65: Kipling Ave & 36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.7 0.3 4.3 4.8 1.7 70: Monterey Dr & SLP Rec Center Driveway/36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)2.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)11.0 7.8 0.7 1.8 2.1 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)504.4 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 34 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\1_Existing\Existing PM.syn SimTraffic Report Page 3 Intersection: 5: Monterey Dr & Park Commons Dr Movement EB NB NB SB SB Directions Served LR L T T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 174 84 82 62 101 Average Queue (ft) 86 36 3 3 9 95th Queue (ft)155 67 36 23 49 Link Distance (ft)178 201 775 775 Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 Storage Bay Dist (ft)50 Storage Blk Time (%) 4 Queuing Penalty (veh)13 Intersection: 10: Meridian Ln & Park Commons Dr Movement EB NB Directions Served TR LR Maximum Queue (ft)51 40 Average Queue (ft)3 14 95th Queue (ft)26 40 Link Distance (ft)483 203 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 15: Grand Way & Park Commons Dr Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)60 45 101 31 Average Queue (ft)31 28 47 22 95th Queue (ft)52 48 81 44 Link Distance (ft)567 483 214 213 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 35 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\1_Existing\Existing PM.syn SimTraffic Report Page 4 Intersection: 20: Princeton Ave & Park Commons Dr Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)20 31 Average Queue (ft)1 8 95th Queue (ft)13 29 Link Distance (ft)567 234 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 25: Quentin Ave & Park Commons Dr Movement EB WB Directions Served TR LT Maximum Queue (ft)72 47 Average Queue (ft)31 20 95th Queue (ft)57 46 Link Distance (ft)137 269 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 30: Quentin Ave & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T TR LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 156 291 246 123 95 190 196 366 55 68 52 Average Queue (ft) 35 185 150 63 50 70 78 197 40 29 20 95th Queue (ft)106 277 248 109 89 156 163 320 60 61 46 Link Distance (ft)1292 1292 1292 262 262 473 241 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 170 240 25 65 Storage Blk Time (%)9 0 63 4 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)4 0 59 12 0 0 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 36 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\1_Existing\Existing PM.syn SimTraffic Report Page 5 Intersection: 35: Excelsior Blvd & Princeton Ave Movement WB WB SB Directions Served T TR R Maximum Queue (ft)6 11 36 Average Queue (ft) 0 1 13 95th Queue (ft)4 10 38 Link Distance (ft) 542 542 234 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 40: Natchez Ave/Grand Way & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T TR LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 161 149 158 33 176 255 255 120 137 70 Average Queue (ft) 70 71 68 5 61 91 106 52 52 25 95th Queue (ft)129 131 129 21 121 208 224 105 107 66 Link Distance (ft)542 542 488 488 332 214 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 185 210 170 50 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 2 18 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 1 6 0 Intersection: 45: Excelsior Blvd & Meridian Ln Movement EB EB SB Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft)75 87 36 Average Queue (ft)5 7 10 95th Queue (ft)36 41 33 Link Distance (ft)488 488 203 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 37 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\1_Existing\Existing PM.syn SimTraffic Report Page 6 Intersection: 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T T R L TR L L Maximum Queue (ft) 231 253 250 135 76 303 320 105 114 172 150 231 Average Queue (ft) 127 139 149 23 10 151 152 77 44 76 115 143 95th Queue (ft)208 250 261 84 43 243 261 127 92 143 171 222 Link Distance (ft)232 232 371 371 626 201 Upstream Blk Time (%)1120 0 3 Queuing Penalty (veh)0780 0 10 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 200 70 65 110 100 Storage Blk Time (%)1 2 4 1 38 28 2 1 6 17 29 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 3 2 2 3 54 5 1 3 31 55 Intersection: 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 229 185 Average Queue (ft) 132 68 95th Queue (ft)217 161 Link Distance (ft)201 Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)125 Storage Blk Time (%) 13 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 17 0 Intersection: 55: Kipling Ave & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T TR UL T LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft)80 17 24 41 2 28 39 58 48 Average Queue (ft)24 1 1 10 0 3 12 7 14 95th Queue (ft)60 12 15 28 2 17 39 32 42 Link Distance (ft)371 371 547 544 403 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 75 25 25 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 2340 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0010 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 38 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\1_Existing\Existing PM.syn SimTraffic Report Page 7 Intersection: 60: Excelsior Blvd & 36 1/2 St Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)36 Average Queue (ft)12 95th Queue (ft)35 Link Distance (ft)348 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 65: Kipling Ave & 36 1/2 St Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)26 12 54 34 Average Queue (ft)1 1 23 11 95th Queue (ft)11 8 49 35 Link Distance (ft)286 348 403 269 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 70: Monterey Dr & SLP Rec Center Driveway/36 1/2 St Movement EB EB WB NB SB Directions Served LT R LTR L L Maximum Queue (ft)31 43 91 8 58 Average Queue (ft)8 16 44 1 21 95th Queue (ft)29 41 75 6 49 Link Distance (ft)424 531 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)50 70 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 314 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 39 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour_RTL Added Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\0_RTL Added\Existing PM_RTL Added.syn SimTraffic Report Page 1 5: Monterey Dr & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)18.7 3.1 2.1 4.5 10: Meridian Ln & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.0 0.4 4.0 0.7 15: Grand Way & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)4.7 2.1 5.5 5.2 4.1 20: Princeton Ave & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.9 1.5 3.2 1.4 25: Quentin Ave & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)3.3 4.8 1.4 3.0 30: Quentin Ave & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)14.9 12.2 39.2 24.6 18.1 35: Excelsior Blvd & Princeton Ave Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.2 2.4 6.7 2.3 40: Natchez Ave/Grand Way & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)9.2 15.9 32.8 30.9 13.8 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 40 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour_RTL Added Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\0_RTL Added\Existing PM_RTL Added.syn SimTraffic Report Page 2 45: Excelsior Blvd & Meridian Ln Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.2 2.1 6.1 2.2 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)23.1 23.9 44.6 32.9 27.2 55: Kipling Ave & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 3.4 0.9 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.7 1.1 13.6 19.8 2.6 60: Excelsior Blvd & 36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)0.8 0.5 2.0 0.7 65: Kipling Ave & 36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.7 0.3 4.0 5.1 1.7 70: Monterey Dr & SLP Rec Center Driveway/36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)3.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)9.1 6.5 0.6 1.8 2.0 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)458.4 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 41 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour_RTL Added Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\0_RTL Added\Existing PM_RTL Added.syn SimTraffic Report Page 3 Intersection: 5: Monterey Dr & Park Commons Dr Movement EB EB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L R L T T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 120 117 95 139 85 96 Average Queue (ft) 44 44 37 6 5 8 95th Queue (ft)91 91 73 51 39 49 Link Distance (ft)178 192 775 775 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)90 50 Storage Blk Time (%) 4 1 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 1 16 Intersection: 10: Meridian Ln & Park Commons Dr Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)6 36 Average Queue (ft) 0 13 95th Queue (ft)0 39 Link Distance (ft) 178 203 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 15: Grand Way & Park Commons Dr Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)56 45 101 35 Average Queue (ft)30 28 48 21 95th Queue (ft)53 46 82 45 Link Distance (ft)567 483 214 213 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 42 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour_RTL Added Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\0_RTL Added\Existing PM_RTL Added.syn SimTraffic Report Page 4 Intersection: 20: Princeton Ave & Park Commons Dr Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)6 31 Average Queue (ft) 0 8 95th Queue (ft)6 30 Link Distance (ft) 567 234 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 25: Quentin Ave & Park Commons Dr Movement EB WB Directions Served TR LT Maximum Queue (ft)51 43 Average Queue (ft)28 21 95th Queue (ft)47 46 Link Distance (ft)137 269 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 30: Quentin Ave & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T TR LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft)83 308 264 135 110 184 192 431 54 76 43 Average Queue (ft)33 177 139 61 47 66 77 208 40 32 19 95th Queue (ft)69 276 246 111 100 148 155 363 63 65 45 Link Distance (ft)1292 1292 1292 262 262 473 241 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 170 240 25 65 Storage Blk Time (%)9 0 64 4 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)4 0 60 12 0 0 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 43 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour_RTL Added Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\0_RTL Added\Existing PM_RTL Added.syn SimTraffic Report Page 5 Intersection: 35: Excelsior Blvd & Princeton Ave Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)36 Average Queue (ft)12 95th Queue (ft)37 Link Distance (ft)234 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 40: Natchez Ave/Grand Way & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T TR LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 144 143 159 32 153 233 257 134 121 73 Average Queue (ft) 71 67 65 7 56 102 115 57 50 26 95th Queue (ft)132 124 129 25 117 212 223 109 100 66 Link Distance (ft)542 542 488 488 332 214 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 185 210 170 50 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 2 17 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 2 5 0 Intersection: 45: Excelsior Blvd & Meridian Ln Movement EB EB SB Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft)74 75 44 Average Queue (ft)5 5 11 95th Queue (ft)33 34 36 Link Distance (ft)488 488 203 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 44 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour_RTL Added Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\0_RTL Added\Existing PM_RTL Added.syn SimTraffic Report Page 6 Intersection: 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T T R L TR L L Maximum Queue (ft) 228 266 250 104 112 238 255 105 122 169 150 226 Average Queue (ft) 118 128 136 19 13 145 142 78 41 67 116 141 95th Queue (ft)200 244 249 64 62 219 233 130 87 132 169 217 Link Distance (ft)232 232 371 371 626 192 Upstream Blk Time (%)1210 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 10 8 0 10 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 200 70 65 110 100 Storage Blk Time (%)2 2 3 37 27 3 0 4 17 29 Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 4 2 3 54 9 0 2 33 56 Intersection: 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 226 185 Average Queue (ft) 119 64 95th Queue (ft)200 144 Link Distance (ft)192 Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)125 Storage Blk Time (%) 10 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 13 0 Intersection: 55: Kipling Ave & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL TR UL TR LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft)82 4 45 7 28 37 45 49 Average Queue (ft)29 0 12 0 3 14 5 15 95th Queue (ft)60 3 35 4 17 42 21 42 Link Distance (ft)371 547 544 403 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 75 25 25 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 3320 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 0010 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 45 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour_RTL Added Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\0_RTL Added\Existing PM_RTL Added.syn SimTraffic Report Page 7 Intersection: 60: Excelsior Blvd & 36 1/2 St Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)36 Average Queue (ft)14 95th Queue (ft)37 Link Distance (ft)348 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 65: Kipling Ave & 36 1/2 St Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)16 12 50 30 Average Queue (ft)1 0 26 10 95th Queue (ft)8 7 46 32 Link Distance (ft) 286 348 403 269 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 70: Monterey Dr & SLP Rec Center Driveway/36 1/2 St Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB Directions Served LT R LTR L TR L Maximum Queue (ft)30 34 102 4 0 57 Average Queue (ft)6 14 39 0 0 24 95th Queue (ft)26 39 70 4 0 52 Link Distance (ft)424 531 775 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)50 70 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 326 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 46 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Three-Quarter Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\4_Three-Quarter Access\Existing PM_Three-Quarter Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 1 5: Monterey Dr & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)7.1 3.0 2.4 3.0 10: Meridian Ln & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.7 0.4 4.0 0.7 15: Grand Way & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)3.5 3.1 5.5 5.5 4.2 20: Princeton Ave & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.8 1.4 3.0 1.4 25: Quentin Ave & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)3.3 4.8 1.4 3.0 30: Quentin Ave & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)15.1 12.4 34.6 26.2 17.5 35: Excelsior Blvd & Princeton Ave Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.3 2.3 5.6 2.3 40: Natchez Ave/Grand Way & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)10.1 16.7 26.5 28.4 14.7 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 47 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Three-Quarter Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\4_Three-Quarter Access\Existing PM_Three-Quarter Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 2 45: Excelsior Blvd & Meridian Ln Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.5 2.2 5.5 2.4 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)26.4 25.6 48.2 33.3 29.3 55: Kipling Ave & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 3.7 0.8 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.7 1.1 14.3 20.8 2.6 60: Excelsior Blvd & 36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)0.8 0.5 1.9 0.7 65: Kipling Ave & 36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.7 0.3 4.0 5.1 1.7 70: Monterey Dr & SLP Rec Center Driveway/36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)2.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)10.1 5.9 0.5 1.8 2.0 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)516.0 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 48 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Three-Quarter Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\4_Three-Quarter Access\Existing PM_Three-Quarter Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 3 Intersection: 5: Monterey Dr & Park Commons Dr Movement EB NB NB SB SB Directions Served R L T T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 104 87 55 86 107 Average Queue (ft) 38 36 4 7 12 95th Queue (ft)75 72 42 49 62 Link Distance (ft)178 198 780 780 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)50 Storage Blk Time (%) 4 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)16 0 Intersection: 10: Meridian Ln & Park Commons Dr Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)18 48 Average Queue (ft)1 13 95th Queue (ft)9 40 Link Distance (ft) 178 202 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 15: Grand Way & Park Commons Dr Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)55 59 99 44 Average Queue (ft)31 33 50 22 95th Queue (ft)47 48 82 46 Link Distance (ft)567 483 214 213 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 49 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Three-Quarter Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\4_Three-Quarter Access\Existing PM_Three-Quarter Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 4 Intersection: 20: Princeton Ave & Park Commons Dr Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)6 31 Average Queue (ft) 0 10 95th Queue (ft)4 33 Link Distance (ft) 567 234 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 25: Quentin Ave & Park Commons Dr Movement EB WB Directions Served TR LT Maximum Queue (ft)58 46 Average Queue (ft)27 23 95th Queue (ft)49 48 Link Distance (ft)137 269 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 30: Quentin Ave & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T TR LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 160 322 289 126 98 181 197 398 62 81 59 Average Queue (ft) 34 187 146 61 48 71 80 196 40 31 19 95th Queue (ft)95 285 249 103 91 143 157 320 65 69 49 Link Distance (ft)1292 1292 1292 262 262 473 241 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 170 240 25 65 Storage Blk Time (%)10 60 4 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)4 57 12 1 0 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 50 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Three-Quarter Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\4_Three-Quarter Access\Existing PM_Three-Quarter Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 5 Intersection: 35: Excelsior Blvd & Princeton Ave Movement WB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)19 35 Average Queue (ft)1 13 95th Queue (ft)10 38 Link Distance (ft)542 234 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 40: Natchez Ave/Grand Way & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T TR LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 154 172 170 78 167 261 285 122 168 75 Average Queue (ft) 73 71 69 6 67 104 121 46 71 41 95th Queue (ft)135 139 134 44 126 219 244 96 138 83 Link Distance (ft)542 542 488 488 332 214 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 185 210 170 50 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 0 3 27 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 1 2 15 1 Intersection: 45: Excelsior Blvd & Meridian Ln Movement EB EB SB Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 123 116 48 Average Queue (ft) 12 11 21 95th Queue (ft)69 65 48 Link Distance (ft)488 488 202 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 51 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Three-Quarter Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\4_Three-Quarter Access\Existing PM_Three-Quarter Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 6 Intersection: 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T T R L TR L L Maximum Queue (ft) 231 270 248 149 116 249 280 105 88 168 150 227 Average Queue (ft) 145 143 151 26 16 152 155 80 39 69 115 144 95th Queue (ft)224 251 257 82 71 228 247 133 76 134 168 219 Link Distance (ft)232 232 371 371 626 198 Upstream Blk Time (%)1220 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 12 10 0 10 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 200 70 65 110 100 Storage Blk Time (%)1 2 4 39 30 3 0 4 17 30 Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 6 2 4 59 9 0 2 33 58 Intersection: 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 217 182 Average Queue (ft) 122 67 95th Queue (ft)206 151 Link Distance (ft)198 Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)125 Storage Blk Time (%) 11 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 15 0 Intersection: 55: Kipling Ave & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL UL TR LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft)67 51 4 28 44 42 51 Average Queue (ft)26 11 0 2 13 6 16 95th Queue (ft)56 33 3 13 42 25 44 Link Distance (ft)547 544 403 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 75 25 25 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 2450 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0010 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 52 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Three-Quarter Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\4_Three-Quarter Access\Existing PM_Three-Quarter Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 7 Intersection: 60: Excelsior Blvd & 36 1/2 St Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)33 Average Queue (ft)13 95th Queue (ft)35 Link Distance (ft)348 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 65: Kipling Ave & 36 1/2 St Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)22 6 54 30 Average Queue (ft)1 0 26 9 95th Queue (ft)8 5 47 31 Link Distance (ft) 286 348 403 269 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 70: Monterey Dr & SLP Rec Center Driveway/36 1/2 St Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB Directions Served LT R LTR L TR L Maximum Queue (ft)39 35 96 4 2 48 Average Queue (ft)10 16 39 0 0 19 95th Queue (ft)34 41 69 3 1 46 Link Distance (ft)424 531 780 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)50 70 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 342 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 53 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with All-Way Stop Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\1_All-Way Stop\Existing PM_All-Way Stop.syn SimTraffic Report Page 1 5: Monterey Dr & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)6.5 8.7 11.0 9.7 10: Meridian Ln & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.1 0.6 4.0 0.9 15: Grand Way & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)4.7 2.2 5.5 5.3 4.1 20: Princeton Ave & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.8 1.4 3.0 1.3 25: Quentin Ave & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)3.4 4.7 1.4 2.9 30: Quentin Ave & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)15.0 11.5 35.0 23.9 17.3 35: Excelsior Blvd & Princeton Ave Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.2 2.3 7.4 2.3 40: Natchez Ave/Grand Way & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)9.9 15.3 34.8 30.2 14.1 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 54 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with All-Way Stop Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\1_All-Way Stop\Existing PM_All-Way Stop.syn SimTraffic Report Page 2 45: Excelsior Blvd & Meridian Ln Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.3 2.2 5.8 2.3 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)26.5 24.5 48.6 35.7 29.8 55: Kipling Ave & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 3.6 0.7 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.7 1.1 15.8 22.7 2.7 60: Excelsior Blvd & 36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)0.8 0.4 2.2 0.7 65: Kipling Ave & 36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)0.8 0.3 4.2 4.6 1.7 70: Monterey Dr & SLP Rec Center Driveway/36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)2.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)8.6 8.5 2.4 1.8 2.7 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)518.6 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 55 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with All-Way Stop Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\1_All-Way Stop\Existing PM_All-Way Stop.syn SimTraffic Report Page 3 Intersection: 5: Monterey Dr & Park Commons Dr Movement EB NB NB SB SB Directions Served LR L T T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 106 99 166 142 224 Average Queue (ft) 48 42 77 69 102 95th Queue (ft)85 76 124 111 180 Link Distance (ft)178 201 775 775 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)50 Storage Blk Time (%) 2 13 Queuing Penalty (veh)7 12 Intersection: 10: Meridian Ln & Park Commons Dr Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)6 36 Average Queue (ft) 0 14 95th Queue (ft)4 39 Link Distance (ft) 178 203 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 15: Grand Way & Park Commons Dr Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)57 35 95 40 Average Queue (ft)32 27 48 19 95th Queue (ft)52 44 79 45 Link Distance (ft)567 483 214 213 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 56 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with All-Way Stop Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\1_All-Way Stop\Existing PM_All-Way Stop.syn SimTraffic Report Page 4 Intersection: 20: Princeton Ave & Park Commons Dr Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft)31 Average Queue (ft)10 95th Queue (ft)33 Link Distance (ft)234 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 25: Quentin Ave & Park Commons Dr Movement EB WB Directions Served TR LT Maximum Queue (ft)63 52 Average Queue (ft)26 24 95th Queue (ft)50 50 Link Distance (ft)137 269 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 30: Quentin Ave & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T TR LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft)92 310 274 134 115 178 173 409 60 77 43 Average Queue (ft)33 179 143 59 48 60 67 199 41 29 19 95th Queue (ft)74 272 244 103 91 129 139 339 61 66 45 Link Distance (ft)1292 1292 1292 262 262 473 241 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 170 240 25 65 Storage Blk Time (%)9 62 5 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)4 59 15 0 0 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 57 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with All-Way Stop Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\1_All-Way Stop\Existing PM_All-Way Stop.syn SimTraffic Report Page 5 Intersection: 35: Excelsior Blvd & Princeton Ave Movement EB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)10 36 Average Queue (ft)0 12 95th Queue (ft)7 38 Link Distance (ft) 262 234 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 40: Natchez Ave/Grand Way & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T TR LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 140 180 165 27 125 259 281 170 135 74 Average Queue (ft) 75 72 62 6 58 92 109 57 52 25 95th Queue (ft)132 139 129 22 107 211 231 124 108 68 Link Distance (ft)542 542 488 488 332 214 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 185 210 170 50 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 2 18 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 2 6 0 Intersection: 45: Excelsior Blvd & Meridian Ln Movement EB EB WB SB Directions Served T T T R Maximum Queue (ft)89 89 11 31 Average Queue (ft)7 7 0 11 95th Queue (ft)47 48 8 35 Link Distance (ft)488 488 232 203 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 58 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with All-Way Stop Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\1_All-Way Stop\Existing PM_All-Way Stop.syn SimTraffic Report Page 6 Intersection: 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T T R L TR L L Maximum Queue (ft) 230 257 254 110 73 287 285 105 98 163 150 226 Average Queue (ft) 128 146 149 20 11 147 144 75 41 73 111 139 95th Queue (ft)218 257 257 67 50 239 242 130 82 136 165 213 Link Distance (ft)232 232 371 371 626 201 Upstream Blk Time (%)1220 00 3 Queuing Penalty (veh)0890 00 9 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 200 70 65 110 100 Storage Blk Time (%)1 2 4 37 27 3 0 5 16 29 Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 3 2 3 54 7 0 3 30 55 Intersection: 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 228 185 Average Queue (ft) 131 63 95th Queue (ft)227 151 Link Distance (ft)201 Upstream Blk Time (%) 4 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 13 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)125 Storage Blk Time (%) 11 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 15 0 Intersection: 55: Kipling Ave & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL UL T TR LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft)70 46 4 11 28 41 32 45 Average Queue (ft)28 10 0 0 2 14 6 15 95th Queue (ft)59 31 3 6 13 42 25 42 Link Distance (ft)547 547 544 403 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 75 25 25 Storage Blk Time (%)0 3430 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0010 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 59 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with All-Way Stop Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\1_All-Way Stop\Existing PM_All-Way Stop.syn SimTraffic Report Page 7 Intersection: 60: Excelsior Blvd & 36 1/2 St Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)32 Average Queue (ft)12 95th Queue (ft)34 Link Distance (ft)348 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 65: Kipling Ave & 36 1/2 St Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)22 49 30 Average Queue (ft)1 25 9 95th Queue (ft)10 49 32 Link Distance (ft)286 403 269 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 70: Monterey Dr & SLP Rec Center Driveway/36 1/2 St Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB Directions Served LT R LTR L TR L Maximum Queue (ft)39 35 120 4 2 62 Average Queue (ft)7 15 44 0 0 23 95th Queue (ft)30 40 82 3 1 52 Link Distance (ft)424 531 775 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)50 70 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 325 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 60 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/22/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Roundabout Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\2_Roundabout\Existing PM_Roundabout.syn SimTraffic Report Page 1 5: Monterey Dr & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)5.4 3.3 5.9 5.0 10: Meridian Ln & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.1 0.4 4.0 0.8 15: Grand Way & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)4.5 2.3 5.4 5.4 4.0 20: Princeton Ave & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.8 1.3 3.3 1.3 25: Quentin Ave & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)3.2 4.7 1.3 2.9 30: Quentin Ave & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)14.3 12.3 36.7 23.2 17.4 35: Excelsior Blvd & Princeton Ave Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.2 2.0 6.6 2.2 40: Natchez Ave/Grand Way & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)9.7 14.7 32.1 29.2 13.5 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 61 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/22/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Roundabout Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\2_Roundabout\Existing PM_Roundabout.syn SimTraffic Report Page 2 45: Excelsior Blvd & Meridian Ln Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.3 2.2 4.7 2.3 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)24.9 25.0 45.2 33.2 28.4 55: Kipling Ave & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 3.7 1.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)2.6 1.0 10.5 35.4 2.9 60: Excelsior Blvd & 36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)0.8 0.4 1.8 0.7 65: Kipling Ave & 36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.7 0.3 4.1 4.7 1.7 70: Monterey Dr & SLP Rec Center Driveway/36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)2.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)10.0 6.5 0.9 1.8 2.1 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)451.9 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 62 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/22/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Roundabout Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\2_Roundabout\Existing PM_Roundabout.syn SimTraffic Report Page 3 Intersection: 5: Monterey Dr & Park Commons Dr Movement EB NB NB SB SB Directions Served LR LT T T TR Maximum Queue (ft)95 31 7 130 162 Average Queue (ft)37 7 0 37 40 95th Queue (ft)76 28 5 94 129 Link Distance (ft)160 159 757 757 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)50 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Intersection: 10: Meridian Ln & Park Commons Dr Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft)32 Average Queue (ft)16 95th Queue (ft)41 Link Distance (ft)203 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 15: Grand Way & Park Commons Dr Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)59 50 91 44 Average Queue (ft)29 29 47 17 95th Queue (ft)49 47 76 44 Link Distance (ft)567 483 214 213 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 63 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/22/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Roundabout Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\2_Roundabout\Existing PM_Roundabout.syn SimTraffic Report Page 4 Intersection: 20: Princeton Ave & Park Commons Dr Movement NB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft)35 Average Queue (ft)9 95th Queue (ft)33 Link Distance (ft)234 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 25: Quentin Ave & Park Commons Dr Movement EB WB Directions Served TR LT Maximum Queue (ft)63 44 Average Queue (ft)29 22 95th Queue (ft)52 48 Link Distance (ft)137 269 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 30: Quentin Ave & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T TR LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft)79 302 257 128 102 207 202 374 60 99 52 Average Queue (ft)29 175 135 62 46 71 80 198 38 32 19 95th Queue (ft)64 273 243 106 92 162 163 324 64 69 46 Link Distance (ft)1292 1292 1292 262 262 473 241 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 170 240 25 65 Storage Blk Time (%)8 0 61 3 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)3 0 58 11 0 0 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 64 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/22/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Roundabout Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\2_Roundabout\Existing PM_Roundabout.syn SimTraffic Report Page 5 Intersection: 35: Excelsior Blvd & Princeton Ave Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)35 Average Queue (ft)10 95th Queue (ft)33 Link Distance (ft)234 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 40: Natchez Ave/Grand Way & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T TR LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 131 161 162 26 142 252 248 145 126 74 Average Queue (ft) 65 69 69 6 59 83 100 51 48 23 95th Queue (ft)116 128 129 22 118 199 213 108 105 59 Link Distance (ft)542 542 488 488 332 214 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 185 210 170 50 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 2 16 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 1 2 5 0 Intersection: 45: Excelsior Blvd & Meridian Ln Movement EB EB SB Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft)84 90 31 Average Queue (ft)6 8 9 95th Queue (ft)46 46 31 Link Distance (ft)488 488 203 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 65 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/22/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Roundabout Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\2_Roundabout\Existing PM_Roundabout.syn SimTraffic Report Page 6 Intersection: 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T T R L TR L L Maximum Queue (ft) 208 240 245 153 116 256 310 105 104 148 159 212 Average Queue (ft) 116 129 137 21 13 146 147 77 41 70 119 146 95th Queue (ft)193 232 242 76 57 236 250 132 87 124 181 217 Link Distance (ft)230 230 367 367 626 159 Upstream Blk Time (%)1220 17 Queuing Penalty (veh)0980 025 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 200 70 65 110 125 Storage Blk Time (%)1 2 3 0 40 28 314613 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 3 1 0 4 55 8 1 2 12 25 Intersection: 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 213 159 Average Queue (ft) 133 77 95th Queue (ft)223 167 Link Distance (ft)159 Upstream Blk Time (%) 7 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 25 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)125 Storage Blk Time (%) 11 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 15 0 Intersection: 55: Kipling Ave & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL TR UL TR LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft)74 4 42 4 22 41 76 47 Average Queue (ft)25 0 11 0 2 13 12 16 95th Queue (ft)58 3 31 3 12 40 69 45 Link Distance (ft)367 547 544 403 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 75 25 25 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 1380 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0020 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 66 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/22/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Roundabout Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\2_Roundabout\Existing PM_Roundabout.syn SimTraffic Report Page 7 Intersection: 60: Excelsior Blvd & 36 1/2 St Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)28 Average Queue (ft)9 95th Queue (ft)29 Link Distance (ft)348 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 65: Kipling Ave & 36 1/2 St Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)32 6 45 30 Average Queue (ft)2 0 22 11 95th Queue (ft)16 5 47 34 Link Distance (ft)286 348 403 269 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 70: Monterey Dr & SLP Rec Center Driveway/36 1/2 St Movement EB EB WB NB SB Directions Served LT R LTR L L Maximum Queue (ft)35 35 74 4 48 Average Queue (ft)9 16 41 0 21 95th Queue (ft)32 41 65 3 47 Link Distance (ft)424 531 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)50 70 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 280 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 67 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Traffic Signal Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\3_Traffic Signal\Existing PM_Traffic Signal.syn SimTraffic Report Page 1 5: Monterey Dr & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)17.5 7.5 6.2 8.1 10: Meridian Ln & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.1 0.4 3.7 0.8 15: Grand Way & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)4.4 2.1 5.6 5.2 4.1 20: Princeton Ave & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.0 1.4 3.0 1.4 25: Quentin Ave & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)3.4 4.5 1.4 3.0 30: Quentin Ave & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)15.1 12.6 37.5 24.6 18.2 35: Excelsior Blvd & Princeton Ave Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.2 2.3 5.0 2.3 40: Natchez Ave/Grand Way & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)10.9 16.7 31.5 29.4 14.9 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 68 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Traffic Signal Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\3_Traffic Signal\Existing PM_Traffic Signal.syn SimTraffic Report Page 2 45: Excelsior Blvd & Meridian Ln Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.3 2.1 3.8 2.2 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)23.2 24.6 46.4 34.0 27.8 55: Kipling Ave & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 3.3 0.7 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.8 1.1 19.5 29.4 2.9 60: Excelsior Blvd & 36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)0.8 0.4 1.5 0.7 65: Kipling Ave & 36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.5 0.3 4.3 4.6 1.8 70: Monterey Dr & SLP Rec Center Driveway/36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)3.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)8.5 5.7 1.1 1.7 2.0 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)500.2 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 69 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Traffic Signal Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\3_Traffic Signal\Existing PM_Traffic Signal.syn SimTraffic Report Page 3 Intersection: 5: Monterey Dr & Park Commons Dr Movement EB NB NB SB SB Directions Served LR L T T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 157 99 176 171 230 Average Queue (ft) 74 45 59 57 81 95th Queue (ft)126 86 141 134 183 Link Distance (ft)178 201 775 775 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft)50 Storage Blk Time (%) 10 6 Queuing Penalty (veh)35 6 Intersection: 10: Meridian Ln & Park Commons Dr Movement EB WB NB Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)6 12 40 Average Queue (ft) 0 0 16 95th Queue (ft)5 6 41 Link Distance (ft) 483 178 203 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 15: Grand Way & Park Commons Dr Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)55 43 110 38 Average Queue (ft)32 27 49 17 95th Queue (ft)47 46 87 43 Link Distance (ft)567 483 214 213 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 70 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Traffic Signal Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\3_Traffic Signal\Existing PM_Traffic Signal.syn SimTraffic Report Page 4 Intersection: 20: Princeton Ave & Park Commons Dr Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)12 31 Average Queue (ft)0 7 95th Queue (ft)7 29 Link Distance (ft) 567 234 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 25: Quentin Ave & Park Commons Dr Movement EB WB Directions Served TR LT Maximum Queue (ft)56 43 Average Queue (ft)28 19 95th Queue (ft)48 46 Link Distance (ft)137 269 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 30: Quentin Ave & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T TR LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 221 310 305 152 116 179 187 412 60 88 47 Average Queue (ft) 36 182 152 63 50 69 78 216 40 29 20 95th Queue (ft)109 283 257 109 98 146 155 352 62 68 46 Link Distance (ft)1292 1292 1292 262 262 473 241 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 170 240 25 65 Storage Blk Time (%)9 0 63 4 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)4 0 59 12 1 0 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 71 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Traffic Signal Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\3_Traffic Signal\Existing PM_Traffic Signal.syn SimTraffic Report Page 5 Intersection: 35: Excelsior Blvd & Princeton Ave Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)43 Average Queue (ft)12 95th Queue (ft)38 Link Distance (ft)234 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 40: Natchez Ave/Grand Way & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T TR LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 178 178 184 31 151 247 274 140 154 74 Average Queue (ft) 72 79 74 6 59 106 118 54 47 23 95th Queue (ft)136 142 144 24 123 224 229 109 105 62 Link Distance (ft)542 542 488 488 332 214 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 185 210 170 50 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 3 15 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 0 2 5 0 Intersection: 45: Excelsior Blvd & Meridian Ln Movement EB EB WB SB Directions Served T T T R Maximum Queue (ft)74 67 7 31 Average Queue (ft)5 6 0 11 95th Queue (ft)33 34 5 35 Link Distance (ft)488 488 232 203 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 72 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Traffic Signal Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\3_Traffic Signal\Existing PM_Traffic Signal.syn SimTraffic Report Page 6 Intersection: 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T T R L TR L L Maximum Queue (ft) 225 239 243 118 90 281 294 105 94 173 150 235 Average Queue (ft) 112 131 142 21 12 149 151 77 40 67 117 144 95th Queue (ft)190 229 246 66 55 238 249 132 80 136 175 226 Link Distance (ft)232 232 371 371 626 201 Upstream Blk Time (%)0110 3 Queuing Penalty (veh)0570 12 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 200 70 65 110 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 1 3 0 38 28 2 0 5 17 30 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 2 1 1 4 55 6 0 3 32 57 Intersection: 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 226 185 Average Queue (ft) 127 65 95th Queue (ft)213 147 Link Distance (ft)201 Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)125 Storage Blk Time (%) 13 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 17 0 Intersection: 55: Kipling Ave & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T UL LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft)73 10 41 26 39 71 45 Average Queue (ft)28 0 10 3 9 9 14 95th Queue (ft)62 7 31 17 35 41 42 Link Distance (ft)371 544 403 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 75 25 25 Storage Blk Time (%)0 03360 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 00020 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 73 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Traffic Signal Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\3_Traffic Signal\Existing PM_Traffic Signal.syn SimTraffic Report Page 7 Intersection: 60: Excelsior Blvd & 36 1/2 St Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)33 Average Queue (ft)11 95th Queue (ft)34 Link Distance (ft)348 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 65: Kipling Ave & 36 1/2 St Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)11 12 58 30 Average Queue (ft)0 0 27 10 95th Queue (ft)6 7 50 32 Link Distance (ft) 286 348 403 269 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 70: Monterey Dr & SLP Rec Center Driveway/36 1/2 St Movement EB EB WB NB NB NB SB Directions Served LT R LTR L T TR L Maximum Queue (ft)35 47 77 4 1 10 59 Average Queue (ft)6 16 38 0 0 0 20 95th Queue (ft)27 43 61 3 1 8 50 Link Distance (ft)424 531 775 775 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)50 70 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 340 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 74 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Right In-Right Out Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\5_Right In-Right Out\Existing PM_Right In-Right Out Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 1 5: Monterey Dr & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)5.8 1.1 2.1 2.3 10: Meridian Ln & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.7 0.4 4.5 1.5 15: Grand Way & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)3.4 3.4 5.6 5.4 4.4 20: Princeton Ave & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.8 1.4 3.0 1.3 25: Quentin Ave & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)3.3 4.9 1.4 3.1 30: Quentin Ave & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)15.3 13.0 40.4 22.7 18.7 35: Excelsior Blvd & Princeton Ave Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.3 2.2 5.2 2.3 40: Natchez Ave/Grand Way & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)10.5 16.8 26.8 28.2 14.7 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 75 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Right In-Right Out Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\5_Right In-Right Out\Existing PM_Right In-Right Out Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 2 45: Excelsior Blvd & Meridian Ln Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.6 2.8 5.3 2.7 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)23.0 28.3 48.5 33.4 28.7 55: Kipling Ave & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 3.6 0.7 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.6 1.2 15.4 23.3 2.7 60: Excelsior Blvd & 36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)0.8 0.5 1.6 0.7 65: Kipling Ave & 36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.5 0.3 4.3 4.6 1.7 70: Monterey Dr & SLP Rec Center Driveway/36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)3.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)8.7 6.4 0.6 1.8 2.0 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)516.9 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 76 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Right In-Right Out Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\5_Right In-Right Out\Existing PM_Right In-Right Out Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 3 Intersection: 5: Monterey Dr & Park Commons Dr Movement EB SB SB Directions Served R T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 110 106 76 Average Queue (ft) 41 9 6 95th Queue (ft)76 52 36 Link Distance (ft)178 780 780 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 10: Meridian Ln & Park Commons Dr Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)25 74 Average Queue (ft)3 36 95th Queue (ft)16 59 Link Distance (ft)178 202 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 15: Grand Way & Park Commons Dr Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)49 59 108 50 Average Queue (ft)27 32 50 20 95th Queue (ft)48 47 86 47 Link Distance (ft)567 483 214 213 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 77 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Right In-Right Out Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\5_Right In-Right Out\Existing PM_Right In-Right Out Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 4 Intersection: 20: Princeton Ave & Park Commons Dr Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)12 31 Average Queue (ft)1 8 95th Queue (ft)8 30 Link Distance (ft) 567 234 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 25: Quentin Ave & Park Commons Dr Movement EB WB Directions Served TR LT Maximum Queue (ft)52 53 Average Queue (ft)29 24 95th Queue (ft)49 49 Link Distance (ft)137 269 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 30: Quentin Ave & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T TR LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 172 299 279 138 107 173 186 442 54 86 65 Average Queue (ft) 35 190 151 62 47 77 87 228 38 30 19 95th Queue (ft)99 275 245 105 91 150 160 386 62 68 48 Link Distance (ft)1292 1292 1292 262 262 473 241 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 170 240 25 65 Storage Blk Time (%)10 0 63 4 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)4 0 60 12 0 0 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 78 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Right In-Right Out Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\5_Right In-Right Out\Existing PM_Right In-Right Out Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 5 Intersection: 35: Excelsior Blvd & Princeton Ave Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)35 Average Queue (ft)10 95th Queue (ft)34 Link Distance (ft)234 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 40: Natchez Ave/Grand Way & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T TR LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 150 156 148 34 169 261 276 126 175 75 Average Queue (ft) 78 74 70 7 65 107 120 44 70 38 95th Queue (ft)129 135 130 25 131 225 240 92 140 84 Link Distance (ft)542 542 488 488 332 214 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 185 210 170 50 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 3 25 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 2 14 1 Intersection: 45: Excelsior Blvd & Meridian Ln Movement EB EB WB SB Directions Served T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 132 155 19 56 Average Queue (ft) 14 14 1 21 95th Queue (ft)77 79 10 49 Link Distance (ft)488 488 232 202 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 79 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Right In-Right Out Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\5_Right In-Right Out\Existing PM_Right In-Right Out Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 6 Intersection: 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T T R L TR L L Maximum Queue (ft) 230 259 261 200 105 311 319 105 138 156 150 227 Average Queue (ft) 128 135 143 29 14 172 170 72 60 58 112 144 95th Queue (ft)212 253 263 108 58 267 283 131 111 121 171 225 Link Distance (ft)232 232 371 371 626 198 Upstream Blk Time (%)0220 00 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 9 13 0 0 0 12 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 200 70 65 110 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 2 5 1 41 34 1 3 2 16 29 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 4 2 2 4 48 5 2 1 32 55 Intersection: 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 237 185 Average Queue (ft) 131 80 95th Queue (ft)221 175 Link Distance (ft)198 Upstream Blk Time (%) 3 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 11 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)125 Storage Blk Time (%) 12 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 17 0 Intersection: 55: Kipling Ave & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL UL TR LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft)69 53 5 33 44 44 49 Average Queue (ft)27 12 0 2 12 7 17 95th Queue (ft)59 35 4 15 40 26 45 Link Distance (ft)547 544 403 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 75 25 25 Storage Blk Time (%)0 2440 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0010 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 80 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/9/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Right In-Right Out Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\5_Right In-Right Out\Existing PM_Right In-Right Out Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 7 Intersection: 60: Excelsior Blvd & 36 1/2 St Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)28 Average Queue (ft)9 95th Queue (ft)30 Link Distance (ft)348 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 65: Kipling Ave & 36 1/2 St Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)16 6 50 35 Average Queue (ft)1 0 24 11 95th Queue (ft)8 4 47 34 Link Distance (ft) 286 348 403 269 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 70: Monterey Dr & SLP Rec Center Driveway/36 1/2 St Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB Directions Served LT R LTR L TR L Maximum Queue (ft)30 31 105 4 2 57 Average Queue (ft)7 14 39 0 0 18 95th Queue (ft)27 39 71 3 1 47 Link Distance (ft)424 531 780 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)50 70 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 313 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 81 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/10/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Closed Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\6_Closed Access\Existing PM_Closed Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 1 10: Meridian Ln & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.8 0.7 4.9 2.7 15: Grand Way & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)3.9 3.7 5.5 5.8 4.5 20: Princeton Ave & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.8 1.1 3.2 1.2 25: Quentin Ave & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)3.2 4.7 1.4 2.9 30: Quentin Ave & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)15.5 12.8 37.6 21.8 18.2 35: Excelsior Blvd & Princeton Ave Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.3 2.1 7.4 2.2 40: Natchez Ave/Grand Way & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)13.7 19.8 27.7 30.5 18.3 45: Excelsior Blvd & Meridian Ln Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.5 2.6 4.9 2.6 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 82 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/10/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Closed Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\6_Closed Access\Existing PM_Closed Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 2 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)24.3 26.0 47.7 29.4 27.4 55: Kipling Ave & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 3.6 0.9 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.6 1.1 17.9 25.3 2.7 60: Excelsior Blvd & 36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)0.8 0.5 1.5 0.7 65: Kipling Ave & 36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.5 0.3 4.1 5.0 1.7 70: Monterey Dr & SLP Rec Center Driveway/36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)3.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)10.4 6.3 0.5 1.7 1.9 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)674.5 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 83 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/10/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Closed Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\6_Closed Access\Existing PM_Closed Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 3 Intersection: 10: Meridian Ln & Park Commons Dr Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)29 108 Average Queue (ft)1 51 95th Queue (ft)13 86 Link Distance (ft)124 202 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 15: Grand Way & Park Commons Dr Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)63 76 114 52 Average Queue (ft)31 36 56 20 95th Queue (ft)52 57 93 47 Link Distance (ft)567 483 214 213 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 20: Princeton Ave & Park Commons Dr Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)6 31 Average Queue (ft) 1 10 95th Queue (ft)8 33 Link Distance (ft) 567 234 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 84 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/10/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Closed Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\6_Closed Access\Existing PM_Closed Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 4 Intersection: 25: Quentin Ave & Park Commons Dr Movement EB WB Directions Served TR LT Maximum Queue (ft)60 39 Average Queue (ft)28 20 95th Queue (ft)50 45 Link Distance (ft)137 269 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 30: Quentin Ave & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T TR LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 168 336 327 132 115 183 176 407 55 81 61 Average Queue (ft) 37 189 154 63 51 75 85 205 41 29 21 95th Queue (ft)100 289 264 111 99 145 151 342 59 66 50 Link Distance (ft)1292 1292 1292 262 262 473 241 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 170 240 25 65 Storage Blk Time (%)10 62 4 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)4 59 12 1 0 Intersection: 35: Excelsior Blvd & Princeton Ave Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)39 Average Queue (ft)9 95th Queue (ft)34 Link Distance (ft)234 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 85 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/10/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Closed Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\6_Closed Access\Existing PM_Closed Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 5 Intersection: 40: Natchez Ave/Grand Way & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T TR LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 170 169 173 34 188 218 230 144 201 75 Average Queue (ft) 85 82 83 6 91 113 128 52 111 41 95th Queue (ft)145 144 147 24 160 201 219 104 195 88 Link Distance (ft)542 542 488 488 332 214 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 185 210 170 50 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 1 2 39 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 0 5 3 22 1 Intersection: 45: Excelsior Blvd & Meridian Ln Movement EB EB WB WB SB Directions Served T T T TR R Maximum Queue (ft) 114 118 10 10 69 Average Queue (ft)780033 95th Queue (ft)47 52 7 6 55 Link Distance (ft)488 488 232 232 202 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 86 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/10/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Closed Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\6_Closed Access\Existing PM_Closed Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 6 Intersection: 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T T R L TR L L Maximum Queue (ft) 229 246 245 207 56 278 289 105 132 137 148 238 Average Queue (ft) 131 135 140 60 9 148 160 75 59 59 98 124 95th Queue (ft)214 243 248 136 45 234 251 135 109 112 157 201 Link Distance (ft)232 232 371 371 626 189 Upstream Blk Time (%)1210 00 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 11 9 0 0 0 7 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 200 70 65 110 100 Storage Blk Time (%)2240 37351311021 Queuing Penalty (veh)7430 3494211632 Intersection: 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Movement SB SB B5 B5 Directions Served T R T T Maximum Queue (ft) 256 185 43 38 Average Queue (ft) 112 107 2 2 95th Queue (ft)209 182 21 19 Link Distance (ft)189 793 793 Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)125 Storage Blk Time (%)7 5 Queuing Penalty (veh) 20 9 Intersection: 55: Kipling Ave & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL TR UL T TR LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft)63 13 45 5 6 26 36 67 47 Average Queue (ft)25 0 11 0 0 2 12 9 16 95th Queue (ft)56 7 32 3 4 14 38 38 46 Link Distance (ft)371 547 547 544 403 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 75 25 25 Storage Blk Time (%)0 2350 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0010 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 87 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 7/10/2015 Existing PM Peak Hour with Closed Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\2_Existing Alternatives\6_Closed Access\Existing PM_Closed Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 7 Intersection: 60: Excelsior Blvd & 36 1/2 St Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)32 Average Queue (ft)12 95th Queue (ft)35 Link Distance (ft)348 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 65: Kipling Ave & 36 1/2 St Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)22 12 49 31 Average Queue (ft)1 0 24 11 95th Queue (ft)9 6 48 34 Link Distance (ft) 286 348 403 269 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 70: Monterey Dr & SLP Rec Center Driveway/36 1/2 St Movement EB EB WB NB NB NB SB Directions Served LT R LTR L T TR L Maximum Queue (ft)35 36 86 8 2 2 64 Average Queue (ft)8 15 39 0 0 0 19 95th Queue (ft)30 41 64 4 1 1 47 Link Distance (ft)424 531 793 793 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)50 70 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 295 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 88 APPENDIX B TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 89 Warrants Analysis - Existing Condition VolumesMonterey Drive & Park Commons Drive Subarea EvaluationSt. Louis Park, MNWarrant Analysis for Monterey Drive & Park Commons DriveMajor Major Minor Minor Total Total LargestHourApproach 1 Approach 3 Approach 2 Approach 4 1 + 3 2 + 4 Minor Appr. 600 150 900 75 720 120 720 120 300 2006:00 AM86 96 29 0182 29 29 7:00 AM228 263 108 0491 108 108 X X 8:00 AM275 313 1000588 100 100 X X 9:00 AM242 291 930533 93 93 X X 10:00 AM285 204 1010489 101 101 X X 11:00 AM346 260 1230606 123 123 X X X X X 12:00 PM378 301 1640679 164 164 X X X X X X 1:00 PM366 304 1220670 122 122 X X X X X 2:00 PM384 281 1550665 155 155 X X X X X X 3:00 PM477 375 1760852176 176 XX XXXXXX 4:00 PM587 384 1790971179 179 XXXXXXXXX 5:00 PM759 457 19901,216199 199 XXXXXXXXX 6:00 PM500 389 2240889224 224 XX XXXXXXX7:00 PM0 0 0 8:00 PM0 0 0 Hours Met6243041DataAssumptionsApproachSpeed (mph)Lanes Date:7/7/2015 Major Approach 1: SB Monterey Drive302 or more 70% Factor Used:No Minor Approach 2: EB Park Commons Drive301 Population < 10,000:No Major Approach 3: NB Monterey Drive302 or more Minor Approach Right-turns Included:100% Minor Approach 4: WB N/A30N/AMWSAResultsWarrant CriteriaHours RequiredMet/Not Met Warrant 1A: Minimum Vehicular Volume8Not Met Warrant 1B: Interruption of Continuous Traffic8Warrants AnalysisConditon A Condition B Condition C Warrant 7Not Met Warrant 1C: Combination of Warrants8Not Met Warrant 2: Four-hour Vehicular Volume4Not Met Warrant 3B: Peak Hour1Not Met Warrant 7: Crash Experience8Not Met Multi-way Stop Applications (MWSA)8Not MetSpecial Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 90 Warrants Analysis - Existing Condition VolumesMonterey Drive & Park Commons Drive Subarea EvaluationSt. Louis Park, MN Warrant Analysis for Monterey Drive & Park Commons DriveNote: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.01002003004005000 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 3,000Largest Minor Approach Volume(vph)Major Street Total Approach Volume(vph)WARRANT 2: Four-hour Vehicular VolumeSeries3Series4Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 91 Warrants Analysis - Existing Condition VolumesMonterey Drive & Park Commons Drive Subarea EvaluationSt. Louis Park, MNWarrant Analysis for Monterey Drive & Park Commons DriveNote: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.01002003004005000 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 3,000Largest Minor Approach Volume(vph)Major Street Total Approach Volume(vph)WARRANT 3B: Peak HourSeries3Series4Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 92 APPENDIX C ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION – YEAR 2017 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 93 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_Existing TC & G Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\0_Existing TC & G\Year 2017 PM_Existing TC & G.syn SimTraffic Report Page 1 5: Monterey Dr & Park Commons Dr/Access B Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 33.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.8 Total Del/Veh (s)47.1 16.1 3.4 1.7 7.7 7: Excelsior Blvd & Access A Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.3 1.6 11.5 2.1 8: Monterey Dr & Access C Performance by approach Approach WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)18.4 0.4 1.4 1.4 10: Meridian Ln & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)5.6 0.4 4.7 2.2 15: Grand Way & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)4.5 2.0 5.7 5.4 4.1 20: Princeton Ave & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.7 1.4 4.1 1.8 25: Quentin Ave & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)3.8 4.9 1.3 2.8 30: Quentin Ave & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.0 1.4 0.6 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)18.6 16.8 39.9 23.8 21.4 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 94 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_Existing TC & G Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\0_Existing TC & G\Year 2017 PM_Existing TC & G.syn SimTraffic Report Page 2 35: Excelsior Blvd & Princeton Ave Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.4 3.0 7.1 2.7 40: Natchez Ave/Grand Way & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)11.0 15.5 33.5 29.6 14.5 45: Excelsior Blvd & Meridian Ln Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)6.5 2.2 4.4 4.7 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)37.9 26.5 50.5 38.7 35.6 55: Kipling Ave & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 2.9 0.8 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.0 1.4 27.3 30.4 2.1 60: Excelsior Blvd & 36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)0.9 0.5 2.0 0.8 65: Kipling Ave & 36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.6 0.3 4.1 4.6 1.7 70: Monterey Dr & SLP Rec Center Driveway/36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)3.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)9.7 7.2 0.5 1.8 2.0 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 95 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_Existing TC & G Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\0_Existing TC & G\Year 2017 PM_Existing TC & G.syn SimTraffic Report Page 3 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)2.3 Total Del/Veh (s)425.8 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 96 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_Existing TC & G Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\0_Existing TC & G\Year 2017 PM_Existing TC & G.syn SimTraffic Report Page 4 Intersection: 5: Monterey Dr & Park Commons Dr/Access B Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served LTR LTR L TR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 181 50 92 93 105 113 Average Queue (ft) 103 15 39 5 20 15 95th Queue (ft)182 43 74 49 73 68 Link Distance (ft)178 172 189 67 67 Upstream Blk Time (%) 5 0 1 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 0 5 5 Storage Bay Dist (ft)50 Storage Blk Time (%)6 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)27 0 Intersection: 7: Excelsior Blvd & Access A Movement EB EB WB WB SB Directions Served T T T TR R Maximum Queue (ft)16 3 96 96 59 Average Queue (ft)1 0 11 16 18 95th Queue (ft)11 0 56 68 49 Link Distance (ft)225 225 89 89 136 Upstream Blk Time (%)1 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)3 5 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Monterey Dr & Access C Movement WB NB SB SB Directions Served LR TR LT T Maximum Queue (ft)72 9 75 56 Average Queue (ft)23 0 9 2 95th Queue (ft)56 5 41 28 Link Distance (ft)148 67 656 656 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 97 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_Existing TC & G Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\0_Existing TC & G\Year 2017 PM_Existing TC & G.syn SimTraffic Report Page 5 Intersection: 10: Meridian Ln & Park Commons Dr Movement EB WB NB Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)80 6 31 Average Queue (ft)9 0 12 95th Queue (ft)61 5 36 Link Distance (ft)483 178 202 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 15: Grand Way & Park Commons Dr Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)59 41 108 49 Average Queue (ft)29 27 48 19 95th Queue (ft)52 46 84 46 Link Distance (ft)567 483 214 213 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 20: Princeton Ave & Park Commons Dr Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)12 68 Average Queue (ft)1 27 95th Queue (ft)8 55 Link Distance (ft) 567 234 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 98 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_Existing TC & G Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\0_Existing TC & G\Year 2017 PM_Existing TC & G.syn SimTraffic Report Page 6 Intersection: 25: Quentin Ave & Park Commons Dr Movement EB WB Directions Served TR LT Maximum Queue (ft)56 70 Average Queue (ft)30 32 95th Queue (ft)52 55 Link Distance (ft)137 269 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 30: Quentin Ave & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T TR LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 263 352 327 154 108 215 214 396 56 165 115 Average Queue (ft) 87 200 166 64 50 90 102 216 42 73 34 95th Queue (ft)175 295 271 117 94 172 184 350 62 135 85 Link Distance (ft)1292 1292 1292 262 262 473 241 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 170 240 25 65 Storage Blk Time (%)0 12 0 65 5 15 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 16 0 62 17 8 0 Intersection: 35: Excelsior Blvd & Princeton Ave Movement WB SB Directions Served TR R Maximum Queue (ft)6 67 Average Queue (ft) 0 23 95th Queue (ft)5 52 Link Distance (ft) 542 234 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 99 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_Existing TC & G Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\0_Existing TC & G\Year 2017 PM_Existing TC & G.syn SimTraffic Report Page 7 Intersection: 40: Natchez Ave/Grand Way & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T TR LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 159 223 215 43 156 300 309 144 121 74 Average Queue (ft) 70 99 93 6 60 111 127 57 50 25 95th Queue (ft)132 180 171 25 126 249 260 114 99 67 Link Distance (ft)542 542 488 488 332 214 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 185 210 170 50 Storage Blk Time (%)0 1 0 0 3 16 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 1 0 0 2 5 0 Intersection: 45: Excelsior Blvd & Meridian Ln Movement EB EB WB SB Directions Served T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 231 219 6 40 Average Queue (ft) 57 35 0 11 95th Queue (ft)220 167 5 36 Link Distance (ft)488 488 232 202 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 100 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_Existing TC & G Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\0_Existing TC & G\Year 2017 PM_Existing TC & G.syn SimTraffic Report Page 8 Intersection: 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T T R L TR L L Maximum Queue (ft) 231 313 302 231 134 245 245 105 108 169 150 228 Average Queue (ft) 189 219 195 41 28 170 173 83 45 78 129 166 95th Queue (ft)265 352 317 145 90 246 260 136 88 139 173 241 Link Distance (ft)232 232 225 225 626 189 Upstream Blk Time (%) 16 22 6 0 3 4 7 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 128 34 0 12 18 29 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 200 70 65 110 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 19 21 8 2 41 33 4 1 6 23 39 Queuing Penalty (veh) 85 51 4 6 8 73 12 1 3 45 76 Intersection: 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 227 185 Average Queue (ft) 139 77 95th Queue (ft)228 177 Link Distance (ft)189 Upstream Blk Time (%) 4 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 17 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)125 Storage Blk Time (%) 16 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 25 1 Intersection: 55: Kipling Ave & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T TR UL T TR LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft)68 81 55 50 37 46 49 46 76 53 Average Queue (ft)30 4 2 14 2 3 7 13 8 16 95th Queue (ft)60 38 20 34 19 20 29 42 36 45 Link Distance (ft)89 89 547 547 544 402 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 2 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 75 25 25 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 0 9470 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 1020 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 101 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_Existing TC & G Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\0_Existing TC & G\Year 2017 PM_Existing TC & G.syn SimTraffic Report Page 9 Intersection: 60: Excelsior Blvd & 36 1/2 St Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)33 Average Queue (ft)12 95th Queue (ft)35 Link Distance (ft)348 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 65: Kipling Ave & 36 1/2 St Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)6 53 35 Average Queue (ft) 0 26 12 95th Queue (ft)4 48 36 Link Distance (ft) 286 402 269 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 70: Monterey Dr & SLP Rec Center Driveway/36 1/2 St Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB Directions Served LT R LTR L TR L Maximum Queue (ft)31 39 111 4 1 63 Average Queue (ft)8 15 42 0 0 24 95th Queue (ft)29 41 75 3 0 53 Link Distance (ft)424 531 656 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)50 70 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 802 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 102 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_RTL Added Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\1_RTL Added\Year 2017 PM_RTL Added.syn SimTraffic Report Page 1 5: Monterey Dr & Park Commons Dr/Access B Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)24.2 24.1 3.3 1.8 5.3 7: Excelsior Blvd & Access A Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.3 1.5 9.2 2.1 8: Monterey Dr & Access C Performance by approach Approach WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)14.9 0.3 1.5 1.4 10: Meridian Ln & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.4 0.4 4.1 0.9 15: Grand Way & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)4.5 2.0 5.6 5.4 4.1 20: Princeton Ave & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.6 1.2 3.9 1.7 25: Quentin Ave & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)3.6 4.9 1.3 2.7 30: Quentin Ave & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.0 1.3 0.6 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)19.0 16.7 41.8 23.7 22.1 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 103 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_RTL Added Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\1_RTL Added\Year 2017 PM_RTL Added.syn SimTraffic Report Page 2 35: Excelsior Blvd & Princeton Ave Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.4 2.7 6.7 2.6 40: Natchez Ave/Grand Way & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)10.2 14.7 32.9 28.8 13.7 45: Excelsior Blvd & Meridian Ln Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)4.5 2.2 6.6 3.5 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)33.1 26.0 53.4 35.5 32.9 55: Kipling Ave & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 2.8 0.7 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.1 1.2 24.7 25.2 1.9 60: Excelsior Blvd & 36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)0.8 0.5 1.9 0.7 65: Kipling Ave & 36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.7 0.3 4.5 4.8 1.8 70: Monterey Dr & SLP Rec Center Driveway/36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)3.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)7.0 7.3 0.5 1.8 1.9 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 104 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_RTL Added Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\1_RTL Added\Year 2017 PM_RTL Added.syn SimTraffic Report Page 3 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)421.6 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 105 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_RTL Added Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\1_RTL Added\Year 2017 PM_RTL Added.syn SimTraffic Report Page 4 Intersection: 5: Monterey Dr & Park Commons Dr/Access B Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served LT R LTR L TR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 135 108 59 84 82 112 138 Average Queue (ft) 47 49 16 37 4 19 19 95th Queue (ft)105 99 45 68 36 74 81 Link Distance (ft)178 172 186 67 67 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 1 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 5 7 Storage Bay Dist (ft)90 50 Storage Blk Time (%)5 2 6 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 1 25 0 Intersection: 7: Excelsior Blvd & Access A Movement EB EB WB WB SB Directions Served T T T TR R Maximum Queue (ft)19 30 97 94 65 Average Queue (ft)1 1 14 15 21 95th Queue (ft)16 17 63 65 55 Link Distance (ft)225 225 89 89 136 Upstream Blk Time (%)1 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)2 3 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Monterey Dr & Access C Movement WB NB SB SB Directions Served LR TR LT T Maximum Queue (ft)61 8 71 64 Average Queue (ft)22 0 11 3 95th Queue (ft)50 4 47 32 Link Distance (ft)148 67 656 656 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 106 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_RTL Added Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\1_RTL Added\Year 2017 PM_RTL Added.syn SimTraffic Report Page 5 Intersection: 10: Meridian Ln & Park Commons Dr Movement EB NB Directions Served TR LR Maximum Queue (ft)10 41 Average Queue (ft)1 14 95th Queue (ft)9 40 Link Distance (ft) 483 202 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 15: Grand Way & Park Commons Dr Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)50 45 108 41 Average Queue (ft)29 28 49 21 95th Queue (ft)48 46 86 45 Link Distance (ft)567 483 214 213 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 20: Princeton Ave & Park Commons Dr Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)25 58 Average Queue (ft)2 27 95th Queue (ft)13 51 Link Distance (ft)567 234 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 107 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_RTL Added Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\1_RTL Added\Year 2017 PM_RTL Added.syn SimTraffic Report Page 6 Intersection: 25: Quentin Ave & Park Commons Dr Movement EB WB Directions Served TR LT Maximum Queue (ft)59 59 Average Queue (ft)29 30 95th Queue (ft)51 48 Link Distance (ft)137 269 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 30: Quentin Ave & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T TR LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 264 333 297 143 109 231 247 443 64 154 114 Average Queue (ft) 90 205 173 65 48 91 103 239 42 72 37 95th Queue (ft)182 295 277 114 92 176 192 383 66 131 91 Link Distance (ft)1292 1292 1292 262 262 473 241 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 170 240 25 65 Storage Blk Time (%)1 12 0 66 5 13 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 15 0 63 16 7 0 Intersection: 35: Excelsior Blvd & Princeton Ave Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)68 Average Queue (ft)20 95th Queue (ft)50 Link Distance (ft)234 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 108 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_RTL Added Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\1_RTL Added\Year 2017 PM_RTL Added.syn SimTraffic Report Page 7 Intersection: 40: Natchez Ave/Grand Way & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T TR LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 155 191 199 35 173 320 300 130 134 74 Average Queue (ft) 73 91 87 6 67 98 115 54 46 24 95th Queue (ft)130 159 163 23 137 234 243 109 97 66 Link Distance (ft)542 542 488 488 332 214 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 185 210 170 50 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 0 3 16 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 1 2 5 0 Intersection: 45: Excelsior Blvd & Meridian Ln Movement EB EB WB SB Directions Served T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 187 176 17 31 Average Queue (ft) 29 21 1 9 95th Queue (ft)147 114 12 32 Link Distance (ft)488 488 232 202 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 109 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_RTL Added Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\1_RTL Added\Year 2017 PM_RTL Added.syn SimTraffic Report Page 8 Intersection: 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T T R L TR L L Maximum Queue (ft) 231 308 313 194 134 237 242 105 111 180 150 224 Average Queue (ft) 174 198 192 33 27 168 170 85 46 85 120 153 95th Queue (ft)257 329 316 135 91 250 253 136 94 155 176 229 Link Distance (ft)232 232 225 225 626 186 Upstream Blk Time (%) 6 11 5 0 3 3 6 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 64 29 0 11 15 24 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 200 70 65 110 100 Storage Blk Time (%)7 11 7 1 42 34 5 2 8 18 30 Queuing Penalty (veh) 34 27 3 3 8 74 14 2 5 35 60 Intersection: 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 223 185 Average Queue (ft) 139 84 95th Queue (ft)221 183 Link Distance (ft)186 Upstream Blk Time (%) 5 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 19 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)125 Storage Blk Time (%) 16 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 26 1 Intersection: 55: Kipling Ave & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T TR UL T TR LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft)67 78 39 39 22 36 41 42 66 55 Average Queue (ft)30 5 2 10 1 3 7 13 8 19 95th Queue (ft)62 37 24 30 10 24 28 41 33 47 Link Distance (ft)89 89 547 547 544 402 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 75 25 25 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 7450 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 1010 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 110 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_RTL Added Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\1_RTL Added\Year 2017 PM_RTL Added.syn SimTraffic Report Page 9 Intersection: 60: Excelsior Blvd & 36 1/2 St Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)32 Average Queue (ft)13 95th Queue (ft)36 Link Distance (ft)348 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 65: Kipling Ave & 36 1/2 St Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)16 18 58 30 Average Queue (ft)1 1 25 11 95th Queue (ft)10 8 50 34 Link Distance (ft)286 348 402 269 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 70: Monterey Dr & SLP Rec Center Driveway/36 1/2 St Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served LT R LTR L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft)35 31 95 8 1 65 4 Average Queue (ft)5 15 41 0 0 24 0 95th Queue (ft)24 39 72 5 1 54 3 Link Distance (ft)424 531 656 750 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)50 70 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 621 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 111 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_Three-Quarter Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\2_Three-Quarter Access\Year 2017 PM_Three-Quarter Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 1 5: Monterey Dr & Park Commons Dr/Access B Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)10.8 3.9 3.0 1.6 3.0 7: Excelsior Blvd & Access A Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.3 1.5 10.0 2.1 8: Monterey Dr & Access C Performance by approach Approach WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)15.8 0.2 1.5 1.4 10: Meridian Ln & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.8 0.5 3.8 0.8 15: Grand Way & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)3.7 3.1 5.2 5.5 4.1 20: Princeton Ave & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.7 1.3 3.9 1.7 25: Quentin Ave & Park Commons Dr Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)3.6 4.9 1.3 2.7 30: Quentin Ave & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 0.0 1.5 0.5 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)19.1 17.5 51.9 23.8 23.7 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 112 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_Three-Quarter Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\2_Three-Quarter Access\Year 2017 PM_Three-Quarter Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 2 35: Excelsior Blvd & Princeton Ave Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.4 2.9 7.0 2.7 40: Natchez Ave/Grand Way & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)11.2 15.8 31.2 29.1 14.9 45: Excelsior Blvd & Meridian Ln Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)11.1 2.2 6.2 7.4 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 0.1 1.4 0.0 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)44.7 26.8 52.1 37.8 38.3 55: Kipling Ave & Excelsior Blvd Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 3.0 0.6 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.0 1.4 23.2 33.6 2.0 60: Excelsior Blvd & 36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)0.9 0.5 2.2 0.7 65: Kipling Ave & 36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)0.7 0.3 4.2 5.0 1.7 70: Monterey Dr & SLP Rec Center Driveway/36 1/2 St Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s)3.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)9.3 7.5 0.6 1.7 2.0 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 113 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_Three-Quarter Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\2_Three-Quarter Access\Year 2017 PM_Three-Quarter Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 3 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9 Total Del/Veh (s)498.2 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 114 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_Three-Quarter Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\2_Three-Quarter Access\Year 2017 PM_Three-Quarter Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 4 Intersection: 5: Monterey Dr & Park Commons Dr/Access B Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served R R L TR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 118 29 78 63 120 104 Average Queue (ft) 44 6 34 3 18 13 95th Queue (ft)86 24 64 37 76 61 Link Distance (ft)178 172 189 67 67 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 2 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 8 4 Storage Bay Dist (ft)50 Storage Blk Time (%)5 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)23 0 Intersection: 7: Excelsior Blvd & Access A Movement EB WB WB SB Directions Served T T TR R Maximum Queue (ft)23 89 100 70 Average Queue (ft)1 11 18 24 95th Queue (ft)10 53 71 54 Link Distance (ft)225 89 89 136 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)1 3 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Monterey Dr & Access C Movement WB NB SB SB Directions Served LR T LT T Maximum Queue (ft)63 6 75 76 Average Queue (ft)24 0 14 4 95th Queue (ft)51 4 55 53 Link Distance (ft)228 67 656 656 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 115 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_Three-Quarter Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\2_Three-Quarter Access\Year 2017 PM_Three-Quarter Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 5 Intersection: 10: Meridian Ln & Park Commons Dr Movement EB WB NB Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)6 39 40 Average Queue (ft) 0 4 16 95th Queue (ft)5 21 42 Link Distance (ft) 483 178 202 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 15: Grand Way & Park Commons Dr Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)55 55 91 58 Average Queue (ft)28 32 48 23 95th Queue (ft)48 47 79 48 Link Distance (ft)567 483 214 213 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 20: Princeton Ave & Park Commons Dr Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)19 68 Average Queue (ft)1 27 95th Queue (ft)10 53 Link Distance (ft)567 234 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 116 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_Three-Quarter Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\2_Three-Quarter Access\Year 2017 PM_Three-Quarter Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 6 Intersection: 25: Quentin Ave & Park Commons Dr Movement EB WB NB Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)63 60 4 Average Queue (ft)29 32 0 95th Queue (ft)52 47 3 Link Distance (ft)137 269 241 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 30: Quentin Ave & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T TR LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 268 336 318 164 148 265 266 492 58 157 114 Average Queue (ft) 91 205 170 65 54 102 114 276 41 72 37 95th Queue (ft)183 297 274 117 114 202 215 465 64 131 90 Link Distance (ft)1292 1292 1292 262 262 473 241 Upstream Blk Time (%)0002 Queuing Penalty (veh)0110 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 170 240 25 65 Storage Blk Time (%)0 13 0 67 5 15 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 16 0 63 17 8 1 Intersection: 35: Excelsior Blvd & Princeton Ave Movement EB WB WB SB Directions Served T T TR R Maximum Queue (ft)4 22 11 53 Average Queue (ft) 0 1 0 19 95th Queue (ft)3 12 8 48 Link Distance (ft) 262 542 542 234 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 117 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_Three-Quarter Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\2_Three-Quarter Access\Year 2017 PM_Three-Quarter Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 7 Intersection: 40: Natchez Ave/Grand Way & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T TR LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 157 209 207 31 175 282 295 134 193 75 Average Queue (ft) 68 97 93 6 68 113 132 52 73 43 95th Queue (ft)132 173 168 22 130 246 268 108 151 87 Link Distance (ft)542 542 488 488 332 214 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 185 210 170 50 Storage Blk Time (%)0 1 0 0 3 25 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 1 0 0 3 15 1 Intersection: 45: Excelsior Blvd & Meridian Ln Movement EB EB SB Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 317 265 63 Average Queue (ft) 114 70 22 95th Queue (ft)340 263 52 Link Distance (ft)488 488 202 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 118 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_Three-Quarter Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\2_Three-Quarter Access\Year 2017 PM_Three-Quarter Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 8 Intersection: 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T T R UL T T R L TR L L Maximum Queue (ft) 231 319 303 231 134 237 247 105 103 175 150 228 Average Queue (ft) 210 252 206 38 36 173 179 81 43 87 124 158 95th Queue (ft)266 383 326 138 103 246 264 133 88 156 177 238 Link Distance (ft)232 232 225 225 626 189 Upstream Blk Time (%) 26 36 7 0 3 4 8 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 219 42 0 12 19 30 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 200 70 65 110 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 33 35 10 0 0 42 34 6 1 8 22 35 Queuing Penalty (veh) 149 97 4 0 2 10 73 17 1 5 44 68 Intersection: 50: 38th St/Monterey Dr & Excelsior Blvd Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 226 185 Average Queue (ft) 134 80 95th Queue (ft)222 169 Link Distance (ft)189 Upstream Blk Time (%) 4 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 15 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)125 Storage Blk Time (%) 12 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 20 0 Intersection: 55: Kipling Ave & Excelsior Blvd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served UL T TR UL T TR LT R LT R Maximum Queue (ft)68 92 22 55 22 66 33 42 49 48 Average Queue (ft)31 5 1 12 1 3 5 13 8 12 95th Queue (ft)63 41 14 35 11 26 23 41 32 38 Link Distance (ft)89 89 547 547 544 402 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 75 25 25 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 0 5670 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 1020 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 119 8921 - Monterey/Park Commons SAE 9/10/2015 2017 PM Peak Hour_Three-Quarter Access Average of 5 Runs H:\Projects\8921\TS\Analysis\Synchro\3_Year 2017 Alternatives\2_Three-Quarter Access\Year 2017 PM_Three-Quarter Access.syn SimTraffic Report Page 9 Intersection: 60: Excelsior Blvd & 36 1/2 St Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)41 Average Queue (ft)13 95th Queue (ft)36 Link Distance (ft)348 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 65: Kipling Ave & 36 1/2 St Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)22 54 30 Average Queue (ft)2 25 10 95th Queue (ft)12 49 33 Link Distance (ft)286 402 269 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 70: Monterey Dr & SLP Rec Center Driveway/36 1/2 St Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB Directions Served LT R LTR L TR L Maximum Queue (ft)39 35 96 4 1 66 Average Queue (ft)7 15 42 0 0 21 95th Queue (ft)29 40 72 3 1 50 Link Distance (ft)424 531 656 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)50 70 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 1003 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 120 NORTHNorth0158921 September 2015 Alternative 3 Conceptual LayoutH:\Projects\8921\TS\Figures\Alternatives\Alternative 3.cdrExcelsior Boulevard & Monterey Drive Subarea Evaluation Saint Louis Park, MN Fut ure Future Fut ure Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 121 NORTHNorth0158921 September 2015 Alternative 2 Conceptual LayoutH:\Projects\8921\TS\Figures\Alternatives\Alternative 2.cdrExcelsior Boulevard & Monterey Drive Subarea Evaluation Saint Louis Park, MN Fut ure Future Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 122 NORTHNorth0158921 September 2015 Alternative 1 Conceptual LayoutH:\Projects\8921\TS\Figures\Alternatives\Alternative 1.cdrExcelsior Boulevard & Monterey Drive Subarea Evaluation Saint Louis Park, MN Fut ure Future Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 123 What Are these Roundabouts?Excelsior/ Monterey Area Traffic DiscussionSeptember 29, 2015Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 124 Agenda–Introduction–History–Overview–36 ½ Street–Park Commons/ Monterey Drive intersection–Table top exerciseSpecial Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 125 History•Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic study •Area Construction –Excelsior Reconstruction/ streetscape–Excelsior and Grand redevelopment•Comprehensive Plans (1998, 2009)Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 126 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study•Completed in 2001–Phase I‐review historical trends and previous studies–Phase II‐Document existing conditions & Potential future conditionsSpecial Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 127 Excelsior Boulevard Traffic StudyPhase II•Potential future condition analysis–Existing traffic operations at key intersections –Document cut‐through traffic in Corridor neighborhoods.–Year 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015 “Build” scenarios–Traffic generation of each proposed "Build" scenario and the distribution of traffic throughout the Corridor.–Develop mitigation measures and roadway improvements to improve traffic flow in the corridor.Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 128 Area Construction•Excelsior Boulevard reconstruction•Development of Excelsior/ Grand–Implemented intersection and road improvements as recommended in the EBCTS.Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 129 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 130 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 131 Overview•Concerns were raised regarding existing traffic operations and volume•Council asked for additional study–Traffic Control on 36 ½ Street–Park Commons/ Monterey intersectionSpecial Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 132 Traffic VolumeStreet Segment Average Annual Daily Traffic by year2001 2005 2009 2013Monterey Drive9500 8900 9400 900038th Street4500 2750 2900 3050Excelsior Boulevard (east of Monterey)18500 20100 19200 19900Excelsior Boulevard (west of Monterey)19900 20000 19900 18600Quentin Ave (south of Excelsior)2650 1900 1850 1950Quentin Ave (north of Excelsior)2250 2250 2100 2100France Ave (north of 38th)NA 10000 9400 9700France Ave (south of 38th)NA 10600 10100 10700Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 133 36 ½ Street‐Traffic Control Request•Traffic capacity•Speed•Intersections•SidewalkSpecial Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 134 Traffic Control Requests•Staff Review. (Police, Public Works, CD, and Engineering)–Criteria in Traffic Policy–MnMUTCD–Engineering study•City Council approval is needed for many requests Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 135 36 ½ Street ‐Capacity•Urban 2 lane undivided roadway•Capacity of 8,000 ‐10,000 ADT•Volumes–Year 2000 = 2800 ADT –Year 2015 = 2500 ADTSpecial Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 136 36 ½ Street ‐Speed•Posted 30 mph•85thpercentile –Monterey to Lynn = 33 MPH–Lynn to Excelsior = 35 MPH•Additional Police enforcement•Speed trailerSpecial Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 137 36 ½ Street‐Intersections•Request for all way stop signs (Kipling & Lynn)•Warrant analysis‐–Crash (5 or more in 3 years) –Volumes –Sight lines•Do not meet warrants for all way stop signsSpecial Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 138 36 ½ Street‐Sidewalk•Proposed as a part of Connect the Park! CIP–6 ft sidewalk/ 6 ft boulevard.–North side of street•Proposed for construction 2018Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 139 Traffic Policy•If criteria for installation of traffic controls are not met: –Petition from 70% of residents within a six hundred (600) foot radius from the intersection/site.–Special studies and installation of traffic calming controls would be at residents or neighborhood cost.Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 140 Monterey/ Park Commons Intersection•Intersection Study Review–Data Collection–Crash Analysis–Sight Distance–Capacity–AlternativesSpecial Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 141 Data Collection•Intersection Turning Movement Counts•Pedestrian Counts•ObservationsSpecial Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 142 Traffic Volumes•4,400 vpd along Park Commons Drive•11,000 vpd along Monterey Drive•Peak traffic between 4:45 and 5:45 p.m.020040060080010001200140016006:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PMHourly Traffic VolumeMonterey Drive/Park Commons Drive Intersection Weekday Traffic Volume Profile ‐March 2015All Intersection ApproachesMonterey Drive SB ApproachMonterey Drive NB ApproachPark Commons Drive EBApproachSpecial Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 143 Crash Analysis•Not a statistically significant amount of crashes•1 Reported crash between 2010 and 2014–Between eastbound left‐turning vehicle and a southbound through vehicle–Right‐angle type crash–Non‐injury–Occurred at nightSpecial Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 144 Sight Distance Review•Partially obstructed views to the northSpecial Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 145 Capacity•Capacity analysis focused on delays and queues•Overall intersection operating well•Park Commons Drive–Approach to Monterey Drive operating at LOS D–Southbound queues on Monterey Drive impact Park Commons Drive–Queues impact Trader Joe’s access–Driver frustration observed Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 146 Alternatives•Range from “do nothing” to “Access Closure” reviewed•Included potential changes to traffic control–All‐way stop–Signal–Roundabout•Included potential access modifications or turn lane improvements–Right‐in/right‐out–Three‐quarter–Access closureSpecial Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 147 Alternatives•Key takeaways from the evaluation: –Changes have varying impacts to adjacent intersections.–Some of the alternatives shifted delays and queues from Park Commons Drive to other legs of the intersection. –Some alternatives eliminate or reduce access and alter circulation within the areaSpecial Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 148 Alternatives•Alternative 1 –Existing conditions “do nothing”•Alternative 2 – Side‐street stop with full access and an eastbound right‐turn lane on Park Commons Drive •Alternative 3 – Side‐street stop with three‐quarter accessSpecial Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 149 Alternative 2 •Stop condition at Park Commons Drive•New right‐turn lane along Park Commons Drive•Reduces delay along Park Commons Drive (LOS C operations)•Reduces queuing along Park Commons Drive and impacts to driveway•Maintains all existing movementsSpecial Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 150 Alternative 3 •Stop condition at Park Commons Drive•Left‐turn from Park Commons Drive would not be allowed•Maintains all existing movements except for eastbound Park Commons Drive to northbound Monterey Drive₋Impacts about 70 p.m. peak hour and 1,000 vehicles per day•Reduces delay along Park Commons Drive (LOS B operations)•Reduces queuing along Park Commons Drive and impacts to drivewaySpecial Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 151 Table Top Exercise•Staff is available to answer questions•Provide comments/ feedback•20 minutes•Report back to large groupSpecial Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 152 Online Resources•Traffic Study available online: http://www.stlouispark.org/proposed‐development/bridgewater.htmlSpecial Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 153 Thank youMatt Pacyna, SRF ConsultingSean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisorswalther@stlouispark.org(952) 924‐2574Debra Heiser, Engineering Directordheiser@stlouispark.org952‐924‐2551Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic StudyPage 154 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MEETING September 29, 2015 OVERALL CONCERNS • Traffic study done only Tues., Wed., and Thurs. Busiest days are Fri., Sat., Sun. • Development creates permanent problems without real solutions. Example: Hwy. 7 & Wooddale • Does not include outdoor ice rink (and proposed community center) • Statistics are unbelievable that could get to Level B • Unsafe pedestrian areas between two developments • Is this good for business? • Level service D is unacceptable • What happened to petition signed by 325+ residents? • Where is Comprehensive Plan for SE quadrant of Excelsior Blvd.? 1. What has the City Council done about the petition they received on June 1st? Why hasn’t a comprehensive study been completed? 2. When will a discussion occur about the quality of life of current and future citizens, not just one intersection’s issues? 3. How many crashes/accidents have to occur before the City takes action? 1. Where is the City Council on the petition (June 1st)? 2. Bridgewater impact? 3. Other future development 4. Green Line impact 5. Belt Line corridor 6. Traffic circle • Why are we driving successful popular small businesses out? • Why are we not concerned about maintaining the single family home integrity of the area? (This is not Uptown) ** Demographic of residents and new residents is not 9 to 5 workers. Many travel M-F/weekly. Weekend traffic spikes when they return home, and to use E & G facilities. T, W, Th not representative of problem peak times. What is projected D.T. count – for 36 ½ St. after BUKD – what is existing? Formula for projections where? 1. The Bally’s development and the Bridgewater development will have a major impact on the traffic numbers that are shown in your current traffic study. Level service D will not be acceptable (even if it is acceptable in Mpls). Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 155 2 2. We have concerns about our property values once both developments occur. 3. What happened with the petition that was signed by 325 residents? We’ve seen NO response from the city! 4. Pedestrian safety at Quentin & Excelsior; at Beltline to go to the Bass Lake Preserve. 5. What about the wishes of the neighborhood? The integrity of our neighborhood? You don’t live in our neighborhood! How would you know how bad traffic is now – let alone the future. 6. Why weren’t 4820-4860 Park Commons Dr. sent postcards? ALT 2 = 1 Concern of intersection safety and L turns Can we sign “no L during peak period”? What happens with pedestrians? Where can they safely cross? ALT 3 Improves intersection and turning safety Concern of traffic now going through Grand Way because can’t take L General Wider sidewalks and safer crossings How do bikes fit? Excelsior & Monterey/38th people go L & R on red arrows now 1. Alternative 2 best 2. No Bridgewater*** traffic, height 3. What happens with light rail community center additional traffic 4. Back up to 38th St from missed lights crossing Excelsior L and R (stores) turns on Monterey not peak 5. Back up on Excelsior to 100 to Quentin non peak 6. Back up on Excelsior at Lake St. poor light coordination 7. Semis have trouble turning right on Monterey from Excelsior Preferred is a modified Alternative 2. Much of the current difficulty is the lack of breaks in north bound traffic on Monterey. We suggest that a no right turn on red sign be placed on west bound Excelsior at Monterey. Further help would be adding to south bound Monterey either a flashing prepare to stop light, a do not block intersection sign, or both. This would also apply to Alternative 1 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 156 3 * • More accidents than are reported • No Bridgewater – No driveways • We need to turn left on to Monterey from Park Commons Dr. • Alternative 2 best • Bridgewater and Bally’s will add Did not meet expected growth in office in area. But development in Uptown, Edina other cut through areas around Lake Calhoun. Trends – how much changed in 15 years 2001 2013 Excelsior 18,500 19,900 2001 2013 38th 4,500 3,050 Were the postcards on this public event mailed only to people that live within 600 ft. of the intersection that we discussed? I found a pile of the postcards at City Hall on Monday (yesterday). When will residents be given time to comment and express concern about the Bridgewater development? Traffic (Intersection and Trader Joe’s) • Sounds of horns all the time • Loud motorcycles • Trader Joe’s liquor delivery trucks park and deliver from Park Commons Dr. such as Coors, Pabst Blue Ribbon. I thought all deliveries were to be at the dock on Meridian. • Have not seen a police car in ages around here • I do not even get up to look when I hear a car crash – normal here at Park Commons Dr. and Monterey Jack McGinnis (952) 926-0736 Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study Page 157 Meeting: Special Study Session Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Written Report: 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2015 City Manager Performance Evaluation Process RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests direction to begin the performance evaluation process for the City Manager. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the City Council in agreement with the recommendations for the City Manager’s 2015 annual performance evaluation? BACKGROUND: The employment agreement between the City and the City Manager states “that the City may conduct an annual review of the Manager’s performance”. The purpose of the evaluation process is to provide feedback to the City Manager on performance so that he can strive for continuous performance improvement based on City Council expectations. Over the years, Council has used different methods to provide performance feedback to the City Manager. These methods range from completing the process “in-house” assisted by staff to hiring consultants. Last two years, Council used Lynae Steinhagen of BWO Organizational Consulting. Council appeared pleased with the work of Lynae; therefore, staff is recommending working with her again this year. As you are aware from the 2014 process, Ms. Steinhagen conducts her business from Cathedral City, CA. The consultant recommends changes in the forms used to be streamlined, done electronically and provide more of a goal setting opportunity. There would also be some review of past performance. If Council is in agreement, we will work with Lynae to set up this process. If another process is desired, HR would work to get that set up for Council as directed. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Funds from Human Resources budget would be used for this project. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Sample Evaluation Form Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Title: 2015 City Manager Performance Evaluation Process DISCUSSION Below is the outline of the scope of work from Ms. Steinhagen. Also attached is the evaluation form from the consultant that she recommends we use for this process. STATEMENT OF WORK 1. Update/revise the City Manager performance evaluation, in cooperation with Nancy Deno and Tom Harmening. 2. Using the revised City Manager performance evaluation questionnaire as a guide, prepare an interview guide for use in conducting face-to-face interviews with the City Council members and direct reports to the City Manager. 3. Schedule telephone interviews with each of the City Council members and direct reports to the City Manager. 4. Conduct 60 minute telephone interviews. Engage the interviewees in a dialog to capture robust and explicit examples of the City Manager’s performance against the prescribed competencies, including areas of focus for the coming year. 5. Submit the performance evaluation form to the City Manager’s direct reports to complete and return electronically. 6. Prepare a written report of the interview findings and direct report performance evaluations for the City Manager. 7. Meet with the City Manager via Skype or conference call to present the interview findings in person and offer coaching based on the findings. Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Title: 2015 City Manager Performance Evaluation Process Date: Organizational Management & Leadership Please rate the City Manager on the ability to drive organizational effectiveness and efficiency across all departments and employees. Consider such things as the ability to engage, develop, lead and inspire others to high levels of productivity, accountability and performance excellence. Consistently Exceeds Expectations Sometimes Exceeds Expectations Meets Expectations Does Not Meet Expectations Don’t Know      Please provide general comments and the area of focus for the City Manager in the coming year: Communications Skills and Public Relations Please rate the City Manager on the ability to communicate and cultivate with various constituencies. Consider such things as the ability to communicate in a manner that enables trust, collaboration, relationship building, decision making and problem solving. Consistently Exceeds Expectations Sometimes Exceeds Expectations Meets Expectations Does Not Meet Expectations Don’t Know      Please provide general comments and the area of focus for the City Manager in the coming year: Relationship with the City Council Please rate the City Manager on the ability to create a positive working relationship with the City Council. Consider such things as the ability to create and sustain relationships that are productive, solution-oriented, congenial, and mutually focused on the benefit of the City and its residents. Consistently Exceeds Expectations Sometimes Exceeds Expectations Meets Expectations Does Not Meet Expectations Don’t Know      Please provide general comments and the area of focus for the City Manager in the coming year: Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 4 Title: 2015 City Manager Performance Evaluation Process Interagency Relations Please rate the City Manager on the ability to cultivate effective relations with various agencies at the city and state levels. Consider such things as the ability to influence a group of diverse stakeholders in order to drive shared accountability, achieve desired outcomes and manage expectations. Consistently Exceeds Expectations Sometimes Exceeds Expectations Meets Expectations Does Not Meet Expectations Don’t Know      Please provide general comments and the area of focus for the City Manager in the coming year: Long Range Planning Please rate the City Manager on the ability to create viable and dynamic long range plans. Consider such things as the ability to think strategically, develop project plans and drive a group of diverse stakeholders to achieve milestones and deadlines. Consistently Exceeds Expectations Sometimes Exceeds Expectations Meets Expectations Does Not Meet Expectations Don’t Know      Please provide general comments and the area of focus for the City Manager in the coming year: Staff Supervision/Overall Performance of City Staff Please rate the City Manager on the ability to lead the City Staff team. Consider such things as the ability to identify performance strengths, capabilities, and gaps in order to develop and sustain operational excellence across all departments. Consistently Exceeds Expectations Sometimes Exceeds Expectations Meets Expectations Does Not Meet Expectations Don’t Know      Please provide general comments and the area of focus for the City Manager in the coming year: Special Study Session Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 5 Title: 2015 City Manager Performance Evaluation Process Fiscal/Business Management Please rate the City Manager on the ability to sustain the fiscal and operational health of the City. Consider such things as the ability to strategically and tactically understand all department functions, controls, business priorities, impact on financial reporting and the issues and risks associated with business operations. Consistently Exceeds Expectations Sometimes Exceeds Expectations Meets Expectations Does Not Meet Expectations Don’t Know      Please provide general comments and the area of focus for the City Manager in the coming year: Please provide any additional, general comments about your observations of the City Manager’s performance. Meeting: Economic Development Authority Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Minutes: 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 5, 2015 1. Call to Order President Mavity called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Commissioners present: President Anne Mavity, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Jeff Jacobs, Gregg Lindberg, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano. Commissioners absent: None. Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes September 8, 2015 The minutes were approved as presented. 4. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as presented. 5. Reports 5a. Approval of EDA Disbursements It was moved by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hallfin, to accept for filing EDA Disbursements for the period August 29, 2015, through September 25, 2015. The motion passed 7-0. 6. Old Business - None 7. New Business 7a. Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of the 4900 Excelsior TIF District. EDA Resolution No. 15-19. Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and explained that Oppidan Investment Company is proposing a major mixed use development on the former Bally site and will incur significant extraordinary costs with redeveloping the site and has applied for Tax Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of October 5, 2015 Increment Financing assistance to offset a portion of those costs to enable the project to proceed. He stated that in order to start the TIF process, the EDA must request that the City Council set a date and hold a public hearing for the creation of the 4900 Excelsior TIF District. It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Spano, to adopt EDA Resolution No. 15-19 Requesting the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park Call for a Public Hearing on the Modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Establishment of the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District. The motion passed 6-1 (Commissioner Sanger opposed). 8. Communications - None 9. Adjournment President Mavity adjourned the meeting at 7:36 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Secretary President Meeting: Economic Development Authority Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Action Agenda Item: 7a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Union Land II LLC – Hoigaard Village RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the Assignment & Subordination of Contract between the EDA, Union Land II, LLC and Lincoln Benefit Life Company relative to the Hoigaard Village redevelopment project. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA find that the proposed Assignment & Subordination of Contract agreement between the EDA, Union Land II, LLC and Lincoln Benefit Life Company is in the best interest of the city and its residents? SUMMARY: Union Land II, LLC (Dunbar Development) is in the process of refinancing its Hoigaard Village project with Lincoln Benefit Life Company. As a result, its lender has requested that the EDA approve a new Assignment & Subordination agreement. Pursuant to Section 7.2 of the Contract for Private Redevelopment of March 6, 2006 between the EDA and Union Land II, LLC, the EDA agreed to subordinate its rights under the contract to the holder of any mortgage securing construction or permanent financing related to the Hoigaard Village redevelopment properties, subject to terms and conditions mutually agreeable by the parties. The EDA approved a Subordination Agreement in connection with the original bank loan in January 12, 2007. The terms of this proposed Assignment & Subordination Agreement are substantially similar to the first Agreement. It asserts that the EDA’s rights under the Contract and Deed for the redevelopment properties are subordinate to the lender’s rights under its loan documents pertaining to the same properties. The proposed Assignment & Subordination of Contract Agreement replaces the original Subordination Agreement of 2007 with Union Land II, LLC and is substantially similar to other subordination agreements the EDA approved in the past. The EDA’s legal counsel, in consultation with staff, has reviewed the proposed Assignment & Subordination Agreement and recommends its approval. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed Assignment & Subordination Agreement asserts that the EDA’s rights under the Contract for the redevelopment properties constituting the Hoigaard Village project are subordinate to the lender’s rights under its loan documents pertaining to the same properties. With all stages of construction completed and the public financing in place, the EDA has very few rights under the Contract left to subordinate, and execution of the proposed document has no financial impact to the EDA or City. All costs associated with this agreement (Kennedy & Graven) are to be paid by Union Land II, LLC. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution of Approval Assignment & Subordination Agreement Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 2 Title: Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Union Land II LLC – Hoigaard Village ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ASSIGNMENT AND SUBORDINATION OF CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, UNION LAND II, LLC AND RELATED ENTITIES, AND LINCOLN BENEFIT LIFE COMPANY BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority ("Authority") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The Authority is currently administering its Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Project") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 ("HRA Act"), and within the Project has established the Elmwood Village Tax Increment Financing District (“TIF District”). 1.02. The Authority and Union Land II, LLC and various assigns (together, the “Redeveloper”) entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment Dated as of March 6, 2006, as amended (the “Contract”), regarding redevelopment of a portion of the property within the TIF District (the “Redevelopment Property”). 1.03. The Redeveloper proposes to refinance certain mortgage financing related to the improvements constructed on the Redevelopment Property through its lender, Lincoln Benefit Life Company (the “Lender”), and has requested that the Authority approve an Assignment and Subordination of Contract for Private Redevelopment (the “Assignment”) as authorized pursuant to Section 7.2 of the Contract. 1.04. The Board has reviewed the Assignment and finds that the approval and execution of the Assignment are in the best interest of the City and its residents. Section 2. Authority Approval; Other Proceedings. 2.01. The Assignment as presented to the Board is hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the Assignment by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. 2.02. The President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the Authority the Assignment and any other documents requiring execution by the Authority in order to carry out the transaction described in the Assignment. 2.03. Authority staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution. Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 3 Title: Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Union Land II LLC – Hoigaard Village Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority October 19, 2015 Executive Director President Attest Secretary Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 4 Title: Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Union Land II LLC – Hoigaard Village ASSIGNMENT AND SUBORDINATION OF CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT THIS ASSIGNMENT AND SUBORDINATION OF CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT (this “Agreement”), is made and entered into as of the ____ day of _________________, 2015, by and among the ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the “Authority”), UNION LAND II, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, CAMERATA, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, ADAGIO APARTMENTS, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, and MEDLEY ROW, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (individually and collectively, the “Redeveloper”), and LINCOLN BENEFIT LIFE COMPANY and its successors and assigns (the “Lender”). W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the Authority and the Redeveloper are parties to that certain Contract for Private Redevelopment dated as of March 6, 2006, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment dated as of July 10, 2006, as amended by that certain Second Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment dated as of March 5, 2007, as amended by that certain Third Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment dated as of April 28, 2008, as amended by that certain Fourth Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment dated as of August 17, 2009, as amended by that certain Fifth Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment dated as of October 18, 2010, as amended by that certain Sixth Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment dated as of March 5, 2012 (“Sixth Amendment”), as the same may be further amended or modified from time to time (collectively, the “Development Contract”); WHEREAS, all capitalized terms used herein, unless otherwise defined herein, shall have the meanings given them in the Development Contract; and WHEREAS, the Development Contract contemplated development of the Redevelopment Property on the real property located in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof (the “Redevelopment Property”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of that certain Loan Agreement dated September 30, 2015 by and between the Lender and Redeveloper (the “Loan Agreement”), the Lender has agreed to make a $50,000,000 loan (the “Loan”) to the Redeveloper; and WHEREAS, the Redeveloper has executed or will execute in favor of Lender that certain Promissory Note dated September 30, 2015 in the original principal amount of $50,000,000 (the “Note”), evidencing the original principal amount of the Loan; and WHEREAS, the Note is secured or will be secured by those certain Mortgages, Assignments of Leases and Rents, Security Agreements and Fixture Filings encumbering the Redevelopment Property each dated September 30, 2015 (the “Mortgages”), executed by each Redeveloper in favor of Lender and filed of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota on __________ ___, 2015, as (i) Document No. __________, (ii) Document No. __________, (iii) Document No. __________ and (iv) Document No. Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 5 Title: Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Union Land II LLC – Hoigaard Village __________, and in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, on __________ ___, 2015 as (i) Document No. __________, (ii) Document No. __________, (iii) Document No. __________ and (iv) Document No. __________; and WHEREAS, Lender has required, as an express condition to extending the Loan to Redeveloper pursuant to the Loan Agreement, (a) that Redeveloper assign to Lender its rights under the Development Contract with regard to the Redevelopment Property to secure the obligations of Redeveloper to Lender under the Loan, (b) that the Development Contract be subordinated to the Mortgages, and (c) that the Authority agree to certain other matters, all as more fully contained herein. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: Redeveloper hereby assigns to Lender all of its right, title and interest under and pursuant to the Development Contract (the “Rights”) to secure Redeveloper’s obligations under the Loan. Redeveloper hereby represents and warrants to Lender that there have been no prior assignments of the Development Contract that have not been terminated, that the Development Contract is a valid enforceable agreement and that neither Redeveloper nor the Authority is in default thereunder and that all covenants, conditions and agreements have been performed as required therein, except those not to be performed until after the date hereof. Redeveloper hereby agrees not to sell, assign, pledge, mortgage or otherwise transfer or encumber its interest in the Rights as long as this Agreement is in effect. The Redeveloper hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints Lender as its attorney-in-fact to demand, receive and enforce Redeveloper’s rights with respect to the Rights for and on behalf of and in the name of Redeveloper or, at the option of Lender, in the name of Lender, with the same force and effect as Redeveloper could do if this Agreement had not been made. This Agreement shall constitute a perfected, absolute and present assignment, provided that Lender shall have no right under this Agreement to enforce the provisions of the Development Contract with regard to the Rights or exercise any rights or remedies under this Agreement until an Event of Default (as that term is defined in the Loan Agreement) shall occur and be continuing. Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, Lender may, without affecting any of its rights or remedies against Redeveloper under any other instrument, document or agreement, exercise its rights under this Agreement as the Redeveloper’s attorney-in-fact in any manner permitted by law and in addition Lender shall have the right to exercise and enforce any and all rights and remedies available after a default to a secured party under the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted in the State of Minnesota. If notice to Redeveloper of any intended disposition of collateral or of any intended action is required by law in any particular instance, such notice shall be commercially reasonable if given in writing at least ten (10) days prior to the intended disposition or other action. The Authority hereby consents and agrees to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Authority further represents to Lender that the Development Contract is a valid agreement enforceable in accordance with its terms and that neither the Authority nor Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 6 Title: Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Union Land II LLC – Hoigaard Village Redeveloper is in default thereunder and that all covenants, conditions and agreements have been performed as required therein, except those not to be performed until after the date hereof. The Authority further represents, warrants, covenants and agrees that no funds or reimbursements are now due or outstanding by Redeveloper or any of Redeveloper affiliates under the Development Contract, nor in the future shall be due or outstanding, by Redeveloper, Lender or any of their respective successors, assigns or designees to the Authority, including, without limitation, in the event Lender foreclosures on one or more of the Mortgages or accepts a deed in lieu of foreclosure. For the avoidance of doubt, Lender and any of its successors, assigns or designees shall have no obligation to reimburse the Authority for any portion of the assistance provided by the Authority to Redeveloper or any other party under the Development Contract. The Authority hereby acknowledges and agrees that the Mortgages and the Loan Agreement have been approved by the Authority and that the defined term “Mortgage” as set forth in Section 1.1 of the Development Contract shall hereinafter include the Mortgages and any and all amendments, supplements, modifications, renewals, extensions or replacements thereto, thereof or therefor. The Authority hereby expressly agrees and acknowledges that the Development Contract, including, without limitation, all terms, conditions, provisions and obligations set forth therein, is subject to and subordinate to the lien of the Mortgages. Pursuant to Section 5.2 of the Development Contract, the Authority acknowledges that the rights of the Authority with respect to the receipt and application of any proceeds of insurance awards with respect to the Redevelopment Property shall, in all respects, be subject and subordinate to the rights of Lender under the Mortgages. Pursuant to Section 7.1(c) of the Development Contract, the Authority hereby agrees (i) to provide Lender with copies of any notice of default given under the Development Contract and (ii) that Lender shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure any such default on behalf of Redeveloper within the time period specified in the Development Contract. Pursuant to Section 7.1(c) of the Development Contract, Lender hereby agrees (i) to provide the Authority with copies of any notice of default given to Redeveloper under the Loan Agreement and (ii) that the Authority shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure any such default on behalf of Redeveloper within such cure periods as are available to Redeveloper as provided in the Loan Agreement and Mortgages. Pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Development Contract, the Authority hereby approves the assignment by Redeveloper to Lender of the Rights under the Development Contract pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The parties hereto hereby agree that no change or amendment shall be made to the terms of the Development Contract without the prior written consent of Lender. This Agreement can be waived, modified, amended, terminated or discharged only explicitly in a writing signed by all parties hereto. A waiver by Lender shall be effective only in a specific instance and for the specific purpose given. Mere delay or failure to act shall not preclude the exercise or enforcement of any of Lender’s rights or remedies hereunder. All rights and remedies of Lender shall be cumulative and shall be exercised singularly or Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 7 Title: Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Union Land II LLC – Hoigaard Village concurrently, at Lender’s option, and any exercise or enforcement of any one such right or remedy shall neither be a condition to nor bar the exercise or enforcement of any other. No provision of this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to alter, amend or modify, in any way, the rights and obligations of the Authority contained in the Development Contract. The Authority and Redeveloper acknowledge that Lender is not a party to the Development Contract, and Lender shall not, by executing this Agreement or by exercising its rights and remedies hereunder or under the Mortgages or the Loan Agreement, incur any obligations of any kind or otherwise be or become liable to the Authority or anyone, whether under the Development Contract or otherwise; nor shall the Authority, by executing this Agreement, incur any obligations of any kind or otherwise be or become liable to Redeveloper or Lender or anyone, whether under the Mortgages, the Loan Agreement or otherwise. The Authority hereby represents to Lender that the making, execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by the Authority have been authorized by all necessary action of the Authority, and that this Agreement is the valid and binding obligation of the Authority, enforceable against the Authority and its successors and assigns in accordance with its terms. Any notices, communications and waivers under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be (a) delivered in person, (b) mailed, postage prepaid, either by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or (c) by overnight express carrier, addressed in each case as follows: To Lender: c/o Ares Management LLC 245 Park Avenue, 42nd Floor New York, NY 10167 Attention: Real Estate Debt Legal Department With a copy to: ACRE Capital LLC 5800 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 200 Plano, Texas 75024 Attention: Lincoln Benefit Life Company Servicing With a copy to: Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 525 W Monroe Street – Suite 1900 Chicago, IL 60661 Attention: David R. Dlugie, Esq. To Redeveloper: Union Land II, LLC, Camerata, LLC, Adagio Apartments, LLC and Medley Row, LLC 3033 Excelsior Boulevard, Suite 525 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Attention: Mike Bader With copy to: Robins Kaplan LLP 2800 LaSalle Plaza, 800 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015 Attention: David Mitchell, Esq. Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 8 Title: Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Union Land II LLC – Hoigaard Village To Authority: St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 Attention: Executive Director or to any other address as to any of the parties hereto, as such party shall designate in a written notice to the other party hereto. All notices sent pursuant to the terms of this Paragraph shall be deemed received (i) if personally delivered, then on the date of delivery, (ii) if sent by overnight, express carrier, then on the next federal banking day immediately following the day sent, or (iii) if sent by registered or certified mail, then on the earlier of the third federal banking day following the day sent or when actually received. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Authority, Redeveloper and Lender and their respective successors and assigns and shall inure to the benefit of and may be enforced by Lender and its successors and assigns, including the purchaser in any foreclosure sale or the transferee in any transfer in lieu of foreclosure of the Redevelopment Property. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and by the different parties hereto on separate counterparts and each such counterpart shall be deemed to be an original, but all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same Agreement. Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 9 Title: Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Union Land II LLC – Hoigaard Village IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have made and entered into this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. AUTHORITY: ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota By: Its: President By Its: Executive Director STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF ___________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of October, 2015, by ____________, the ____________of the ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Notary Public Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 10 Title: Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Union Land II LLC – Hoigaard Village REDEVELOPER: UNION LAND II, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company By: Name: Kevin S. Bergman Its: Vice President and Secretary CAMERATA, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company By: Name: Kevin S. Bergman Its: Vice President and Secretary ADAGIO APARTMENTS, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company By: Name: Kevin S. Bergman Its: Vice President and Secretary MEDLEY ROW, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company By: Name: Kevin S. Bergman Its: Vice President and Secretary Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 11 Title: Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Union Land II LLC – Hoigaard Village STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of __________, 2015, by Kevin S. Bergman, the Vice President and Secretary of UNION LAND II, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, for and on behalf of such limited liability company. __________________________________________ Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of __________, 2015, by Kevin S. Bergman, the Vice President and Secretary of CAMERATA, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, for and on behalf of such limited liability company. __________________________________________ Notary Public Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 12 Title: Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Union Land II LLC – Hoigaard Village STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of __________, 2015, by Kevin S. Bergman, the Vice President and Secretary of ADAGIO APARTMENTS, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, for and on behalf of such limited liability company. __________________________________________ Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of __________, 2015, by Kevin S. Bergman, the Vice President and Secretary of MEDLEY ROW, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, for and on behalf of such limited liability company. __________________________________________ Notary Public Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 13 Title: Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Union Land II LLC – Hoigaard Village LENDER: LINCOLN BENEFIT LIFE COMPANY By: Ares Management LLC, its administrative agent By: Name: Thomas Jaekel Title: Vice President STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of __________________, 2015, by Thomas Jaekel, the Vice President of Ares Management LLC, the administrative agent of Lincoln Benefit Life Company, for and on behalf of such company. Notary Public Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 14 Title: Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Union Land II LLC – Hoigaard Village THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 525 West Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60661 Attn: Danna Horton, Esq. Loan No.: 31798 Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 15 Title: Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Union Land II LLC – Hoigaard Village EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Redevelopment Property The real property situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as follows: Adagio Apartments Parcel 1, Tract A: Lot 1, Block 1, Hoigaard Village Addition. Hennepin County, Minnesota Torrens Property Torrens Certificate No. 1346825 Parcel 1, Tract B: Non-exclusive easement for pedestrian access purposes created and described in Easement and Cost Sharing Agreement dated June 7, 2007, filed June 12, 2007, as Document No. 4395467. Parcel 1, Tract C: The benefit of the perpetual nonexclusive access easement contained and described in Access Easement and Cost Sharing Agreement dated August 28, 2008, filed September 10, 2008, as Document No. 4528237. Medley Row Parcel 2, Tract A: Lots 1 through 8 inclusive, Block 1; Lots 1 through 6 inclusive, Block 2; Lots 1 through 8 inclusive, Block 3; and Outlot A; all in Medley Row, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens Property Torrens Certificate No. 1355615 Parcel 2, Tract B: The benefit of the perpetual nonexclusive access easement contained and described in Access Easement and Cost Sharing Agreement dated August 28, 2008, filed September 10, 2008, as Document No. 4528237. Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 16 Title: Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Union Land II LLC – Hoigaard Village Camerata Parcel 3, Tract A: Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Hoigaard Village 2nd Addition. Hennepin County, Minnesota Torrens Property Torrens Certificate No. 1205084 Parcel 3, Tract B: Perpetual easement for access and parking purposes, for the benefit of Lot 2, Block 2, Hoigaard Village 2nd Addition, as created and described in Exclusive Access and Parking Easement dated September 3, 2008, filed September 10, 2008, as Document No. 4528240. Parcel 3, Tract C: The benefit of the perpetual nonexclusive access easement contained and described in Access Easement and Cost Sharing Agreement dated August 28, 2008, filed September 10, 2008, as Document No. 4528237. Harmony Vista Parcel 4, Tract A: Unit Nos. 201 through 219 inclusive; Unit Nos. 301, 302, and 304 through 319 inclusive; Unit Nos. 401 through 419 inclusive; Unit Nos. 503 through 519 inclusive; Unit Nos. S201 through S219 inclusive; Unit Nos. S301, S302, and S304 through S319 inclusive; Unit Nos. S401 through S419 inclusive; Unit Nos. S503 through S519 inclusive; Unit Nos. P-001 through P-096 inclusive; and Unit Nos. P-098 through P-101 inclusive; all in CIC No. 1817, Harmony Vista At Hoigaard Village, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens Property Torrens Certificate No. 1228656 (Unit No. 201) Torrens Certificate No. 1228657 (Unit No. 202) Torrens Certificate No. 1228658 (Unit No. 203) Torrens Certificate No. 1228659 (Unit No. 204) Torrens Certificate No. 1228660 (Unit No. 205) Torrens Certificate No. 1228661 (Unit No. 206) Torrens Certificate No. 1228662 (Unit No. 207) Torrens Certificate No. 1228663 (Unit No. 208) Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 17 Title: Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Union Land II LLC – Hoigaard Village Torrens Certificate No. 1228664 (Unit No. 209) Torrens Certificate No. 1228665 (Unit No. 210) Torrens Certificate No. 1228666 (Unit No. 211) Torrens Certificate No. 1228667 (Unit No. 212) Torrens Certificate No. 1228668 (Unit No. 213) Torrens Certificate No. 1228669 (Unit No. 214) Torrens Certificate No. 1228670 (Unit No. 215) Torrens Certificate No. 1228671 (Unit No. 216) Torrens Certificate No. 1228672 (Unit No. 217) Torrens Certificate No. 1228673 (Unit No. 218) Torrens Certificate No. 1228674 (Unit No. 219) Torrens Certificate No. 1228675 (Unit No. 301) Torrens Certificate No. 1228676 (Unit No. 302) Torrens Certificate No. 1228678 (Unit No. 304) Torrens Certificate No. 1228679 (Unit No. 305) Torrens Certificate No. 1228680 (Unit No. 306) Torrens Certificate No. 1228681 (Unit No. 307) Torrens Certificate No. 1228682 (Unit No. 308) Torrens Certificate No. 1228683 (Unit No. 309) Torrens Certificate No. 1228684 (Unit No. 310) Torrens Certificate No. 1228685 (Unit No. 311) Torrens Certificate No. 1228686 (Unit No. 312) Torrens Certificate No. 1228687 (Unit No. 313) Torrens Certificate No. 1228688 (Unit No. 314) Torrens Certificate No. 1228689 (Unit No. 315) Torrens Certificate No. 1228690 (Unit No. 316) Torrens Certificate No. 1228691 (Unit No. 317) Torrens Certificate No. 1228692 (Unit No. 318) Torrens Certificate No. 1228693 (Unit No. 319) Torrens Certificate No. 1228694 (Unit No. 401) Torrens Certificate No. 1228695 (Unit No. 402) Torrens Certificate No. 1228696 (Unit No. 403) Torrens Certificate No. 1228697 (Unit No. 404) Torrens Certificate No. 1228698 (Unit No. 405) Torrens Certificate No. 1228699 (Unit No. 406) Torrens Certificate No. 1228700 (Unit No. 407) Torrens Certificate No. 1228701 (Unit No. 408) Torrens Certificate No. 1228702 (Unit No. 409) Torrens Certificate No. 1228703 (Unit No. 410) Torrens Certificate No. 1228704 (Unit No. 411) Torrens Certificate No. 1228705 (Unit No. 412) Torrens Certificate No. 1228706 (Unit No. 413) Torrens Certificate No. 1228707 (Unit No. 414) Torrens Certificate No. 1228708 (Unit No. 415) Torrens Certificate No. 1228709 (Unit No. 416) Torrens Certificate No. 1228710 (Unit No. 417) Torrens Certificate No. 1228711 (Unit No. 418) Torrens Certificate No. 1228712 (Unit No. 419) Torrens Certificate No. 1228713 (Unit No. 503) Torrens Certificate No. 1228714 (Unit No. 504) Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 18 Title: Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Union Land II LLC – Hoigaard Village Torrens Certificate No. 1228715 (Unit No. 505) Torrens Certificate No. 1228716 (Unit No. 506) Torrens Certificate No. 1228717 (Unit No. 507) Torrens Certificate No. 1228718 (Unit No. 508) Torrens Certificate No. 1228719 (Unit No. 509) Torrens Certificate No. 1228720 (Unit No. 510) Torrens Certificate No. 1228721 (Unit No. 511) Torrens Certificate No. 1228722 (Unit No. 512) Torrens Certificate No. 1228723 (Unit No. 513) Torrens Certificate No. 1228724 (Unit No. 514) Torrens Certificate No. 1228725 (Unit No. 515) Torrens Certificate No. 1228726 (Unit No. 516) Torrens Certificate No. 1228727 (Unit No. 517) Torrens Certificate No. 1228728 (Unit No. 518) Torrens Certificate No. 1228729 (Unit No. 519) Torrens Certificate No. 1228730 (Unit No. S201) Torrens Certificate No. 1228731 (Unit No. S202) Torrens Certificate No. 1228732 (Unit No. S203) Torrens Certificate No. 1228733 (Unit No. S204) Torrens Certificate No. 1228734 (Unit No. S205) Torrens Certificate No. 1228735 (Unit No. S206) Torrens Certificate No. 1228736 (Unit No. S207) Torrens Certificate No. 1228737 (Unit No. S208) Torrens Certificate No. 1228738 (Unit No. S209) Torrens Certificate No. 1228739 (Unit No. S210) Torrens Certificate No. 1228740 (Unit No. S211) Torrens Certificate No. 1228741 (Unit No. S212) Torrens Certificate No. 1228742 (Unit No. S213) Torrens Certificate No. 1228743 (Unit No. S214) Torrens Certificate No. 1228744 (Unit No. S215) Torrens Certificate No. 1228745 (Unit No. S216) Torrens Certificate No. 1228746 (Unit No. S217) Torrens Certificate No. 1228747 (Unit No. S218) Torrens Certificate No. 1228748 (Unit No. S219) Torrens Certificate No. 1228749 (Unit No. S301) Torrens Certificate No. 1228750 (Unit No. S302) Torrens Certificate No. 1228752 (Unit No. S304) Torrens Certificate No. 1228753 (Unit No. S305) Torrens Certificate No. 1228754 (Unit No. S306) Torrens Certificate No. 1228755 (Unit No. S307) Torrens Certificate No. 1228756 (Unit No. S308) Torrens Certificate No. 1228757 (Unit No. S309) Torrens Certificate No. 1228758 (Unit No. S310) Torrens Certificate No. 1228759 (Unit No. S311) Torrens Certificate No. 1228760 (Unit No. S312) Torrens Certificate No. 1228761 (Unit No. S313) Torrens Certificate No. 1228762 (Unit No. S314) Torrens Certificate No. 1228763 (Unit No. S315) Torrens Certificate No. 1228764 (Unit No. S316) Torrens Certificate No. 1228765 (Unit No. S317) Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 19 Title: Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Union Land II LLC – Hoigaard Village Torrens Certificate No. 1228766 (Unit No. S318) Torrens Certificate No. 1228767 (Unit No. S319) Torrens Certificate No. 1228768 (Unit No. S401) Torrens Certificate No. 1228769 (Unit No. S402) Torrens Certificate No. 1228770 (Unit No. S403) Torrens Certificate No. 1228771 (Unit No. S404) Torrens Certificate No. 1228772 (Unit No. S405) Torrens Certificate No. 1228773 (Unit No. S406) Torrens Certificate No. 1228774 (Unit No. S407) Torrens Certificate No. 1228775 (Unit No. S408) Torrens Certificate No. 1228776 (Unit No. S409) Torrens Certificate No. 1228777 (Unit No. S410) Torrens Certificate No. 1228778 (Unit No. S411) Torrens Certificate No. 1228779 (Unit No. S412) Torrens Certificate No. 1228780 (Unit No. S413) Torrens Certificate No. 1228781 (Unit No. S414) Torrens Certificate No. 1228782 (Unit No. S415) Torrens Certificate No. 1228783 (Unit No. S416) Torrens Certificate No. 1228784 (Unit No. S417) Torrens Certificate No. 1228785 (Unit No. S418) Torrens Certificate No. 1228786 (Unit No. S419) Torrens Certificate No. 1228789 (Unit No. S503) Torrens Certificate No. 1228790 (Unit No. S504) Torrens Certificate No. 1228791 (Unit No. S505) Torrens Certificate No. 1228792 (Unit No. S506) Torrens Certificate No. 1228793 (Unit No. S507) Torrens Certificate No. 1228794 (Unit No. S508) Torrens Certificate No. 1228795 (Unit No. S509) Torrens Certificate No. 1228796 (Unit No. S510) Torrens Certificate No. 1228797 (Unit No. S511) Torrens Certificate No. 1228798 (Unit No. S512) Torrens Certificate No. 1228799 (Unit No. S513) Torrens Certificate No. 1228800 (Unit No. S514) Torrens Certificate No. 1228801 (Unit No. S515) Torrens Certificate No. 1228802 (Unit No. S516) Torrens Certificate No. 1228803 (Unit No. S517) Torrens Certificate No. 1228787 (Unit No. S518) Torrens Certificate No. 1228788 (Unit No. S519) Torrens Certificate No. 1228804 (Unit No. P-001) Torrens Certificate No. 1228805 (Unit No. P-002) Torrens Certificate No. 1228806 (Unit No. P-003) Torrens Certificate No. 1228807 (Unit No. P-004) Torrens Certificate No. 1228808 (Unit No. P-005) Torrens Certificate No. 1228809 (Unit No. P-006) Torrens Certificate No. 1228810 (Unit No. P-007) Torrens Certificate No. 1228811 (Unit No. P-008) Torrens Certificate No. 1228812 (Unit No. P-009) Torrens Certificate No. 1228813 (Unit No. P-010) Torrens Certificate No. 1228814 (Unit No. P-011) Torrens Certificate No. 1228815 (Unit No. P-012) Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 20 Title: Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Union Land II LLC – Hoigaard Village Torrens Certificate No. 1228816 (Unit No. P-013) Torrens Certificate No. 1228817 (Unit No. P-014) Torrens Certificate No. 1228818 (Unit No. P-015) Torrens Certificate No. 1228819 (Unit No. P-016) Torrens Certificate No. 1228820 (Unit No. P-017) Torrens Certificate No. 1228821 (Unit No. P-018) Torrens Certificate No. 1228822 (Unit No. P-019) Torrens Certificate No. 1228823 (Unit No. P-020) Torrens Certificate No. 1228824 (Unit No. P-021) Torrens Certificate No. 1228825 (Unit No. P-022) Torrens Certificate No. 1228826 (Unit No. P-023) Torrens Certificate No. 1228827 (Unit No. P-024) Torrens Certificate No. 1228828 (Unit No. P-025) Torrens Certificate No. 1228829 (Unit No. P-026) Torrens Certificate No. 1228830 (Unit No. P-027) Torrens Certificate No. 1228831 (Unit No. P-028) Torrens Certificate No. 1228832 (Unit No. P-029) Torrens Certificate No. 1228833 (Unit No. P-030) Torrens Certificate No. 1228834 (Unit No. P-031) Torrens Certificate No. 1228835 (Unit No. P-032) Torrens Certificate No. 1228836 (Unit No. P-033) Torrens Certificate No. 1228837 (Unit No. P-034) Torrens Certificate No. 1228838 (Unit No. P-035) Torrens Certificate No. 1228839 (Unit No. P-036) Torrens Certificate No. 1228840 (Unit No. P-037) Torrens Certificate No. 1228841 (Unit No. P-038) Torrens Certificate No. 1228842 (Unit No. P-039) Torrens Certificate No. 1228843 (Unit No. P-040) Torrens Certificate No. 1228844 (Unit No. P-041) Torrens Certificate No. 1228845 (Unit No. P-042) Torrens Certificate No. 1228846 (Unit No. P-043) Torrens Certificate No. 1228847 (Unit No. P-044) Torrens Certificate No. 1228848 (Unit No. P-045) Torrens Certificate No. 1228849 (Unit No. P-046) Torrens Certificate No. 1228850 (Unit No. P-047) Torrens Certificate No. 1228851 (Unit No. P-048) Torrens Certificate No. 1228852 (Unit No. P-049) Torrens Certificate No. 1228853 (Unit No. P-050) Torrens Certificate No. 1228854 (Unit No. P-051) Torrens Certificate No. 1228855 (Unit No. P-052) Torrens Certificate No. 1228856 (Unit No. P-053) Torrens Certificate No. 1228857 (Unit No. P-054) Torrens Certificate No. 1228858 (Unit No. P-055) Torrens Certificate No. 1228859 (Unit No. P-056) Torrens Certificate No. 1228860 (Unit No. P-057) Torrens Certificate No. 1228861 (Unit No. P-058) Torrens Certificate No. 1228862 (Unit No. P-059) Torrens Certificate No. 1228863 (Unit No. P-060) Torrens Certificate No. 1228864 (Unit No. P-061) Torrens Certificate No. 1228865 (Unit No. P-062) Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 21 Title: Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Union Land II LLC – Hoigaard Village Torrens Certificate No. 1228866 (Unit No. P-063) Torrens Certificate No. 1228867 (Unit No. P-064) Torrens Certificate No. 1228868 (Unit No. P-065) Torrens Certificate No. 1228869 (Unit No. P-066) Torrens Certificate No. 1228870 (Unit No. P-067) Torrens Certificate No. 1228871 (Unit No. P-068) Torrens Certificate No. 1228872 (Unit No. P-069) Torrens Certificate No. 1228873 (Unit No. P-070) Torrens Certificate No. 1228874 (Unit No. P-071) Torrens Certificate No. 1228875 (Unit No. P-072) Torrens Certificate No. 1228876 (Unit No. P-073) Torrens Certificate No. 1228877 (Unit No. P-074) Torrens Certificate No. 1228878 (Unit No. P-075) Torrens Certificate No. 1228879 (Unit No. P-076) Torrens Certificate No. 1228880 (Unit No. P-077) Torrens Certificate No. 1228881 (Unit No. P-078) Torrens Certificate No. 1228882 (Unit No. P-079) Torrens Certificate No. 1228883 (Unit No. P-080) Torrens Certificate No. 1228884 (Unit No. P-081) Torrens Certificate No. 1228885 (Unit No. P-082) Torrens Certificate No. 1228886 (Unit No. P-083) Torrens Certificate No. 1228887 (Unit No. P-084) Torrens Certificate No. 1228888 (Unit No. P-085) Torrens Certificate No. 1228889 (Unit No. P-086) Torrens Certificate No. 1228890 (Unit No. P-087) Torrens Certificate No. 1228891 (Unit No. P-088) Torrens Certificate No. 1228892 (Unit No. P-089) Torrens Certificate No. 1228893 (Unit No. P-090) Torrens Certificate No. 1228894 (Unit No. P-091) Torrens Certificate No. 1228895 (Unit No. P-092) Torrens Certificate No. 1228896 (Unit No. P-093) Torrens Certificate No. 1228897 (Unit No. P-094) Torrens Certificate No. 1228898 (Unit No. P-095) Torrens Certificate No. 1228899 (Unit No. P-096) Torrens Certificate No. 1228901 (Unit No. P-098) Torrens Certificate No. 1228902 (Unit No. P-099) Torrens Certificate No. 1228903 (Unit No. P-100) Torrens Certificate No. 1228904 (Unit No. P-101) Parcel 4, Tract B: Non-exclusive easement for pedestrian access purposes created and described in Easement and Cost Sharing Agreement dated June 7, 2007, filed June 12, 2007 as Document No. 4395467. Parcel 4, Tract C: Non-exclusive easement for pedestrian and vehicular access purposes contained in Access Easement and Cost Sharing Agreement dated August 28, 2008, filed September 10, 2008, as Document No. 4528237. Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 22 Title: Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Union Land II LLC – Hoigaard Village Parcel 4, Tract D: Non-exclusive easements for ingress and egress over stairways, maintenance and use of Condominium Entrance, residential parking, use of Support Facilities, installation, operation, maintenance and use of Utility Facilities, performance of required maintenance, and window washing and repair, all created and described in Cross Easements and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants dated September 11, 2008, filed October 1, 2008, as Document No. 4533880. Parcel 4, Tract E: Easements for ingress and egress, utility services, support, maintenance and repair, and access purposes created and described in Declaration of Common Interest Community Number 1817, Harmony Vista At Hoigaard Village, dated September 11, 2008, filed October 10, 2008, as Document No. 4536410. Meeting: Economic Development Authority Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Action Agenda Item: 7b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Business District Initiative Grant Application RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution authorizing the submission of a grant application to the Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HCHRA) Business District Initiative for Walker/Lake Streets Business Area. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA wish to apply to Hennepin County for a Business District Initiative Grant on behalf of the Walker/Lake Business Area? Does the EDA wish to provide up to $50,000 in matching funds from the Development fund for this grant? SUMMARY: Hennepin County is using a one-time funding source for a “Business District Initiative” designed to support and strengthen suburban municipalities’ small business districts. Grants up to $50,000 are available to help cities implement strategies that would enhance the economic vitality of specified business districts. Staff has identified the business area along Lake Street and Walker Street, near the high school, as an eligible location for these County funds. On Thursday, September 24th staff met with area businesses, property owners, the school district and other neighborhood representatives to gather their ideas and input for potential uses of the grant funds if awarded. There was a good discussion on ways to improve/revitalize the area in general and several grant eligible ideas were identified. Everyone at the meeting was excited for this opportunity and was eager to proceed with the grant application. The general consensus was that the business districts identification and wayfinding would be a good first step. Staff plans to submit an application for the maximum grant award for improving the business area’s branding and wayfinding including planning, designing and implementation. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: There are no match requirements for this grant application; however proposals that include a match –whether it is in-kind or leveraged funds are given greater consideration during evaluations. Would the EDA be willing to provide up to $50,000 in matching funds from the Development Fund for this grant? VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Resolution Prepared by: Julie Grove, Economic Development Specialist Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor/Deputy CD Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 2 Title: Business District Initiative Grant Application DISCUSSION Grant Background Hennepin County is offering a one-time grant through its Business District Initiative. The grant is available to suburban municipalities that have business areas with a concentration of neighborhood-serving retail. Similar to the Great Streets grant program in Minneapolis, this grant is designed to help small business districts thrive. Municipalities can request up to $50,000 in grant funds which can be used in small business areas for the following: • Business recruitment • District-wide marketing, branding, and/or promotion initiatives • District-wide wayfinding planning, design and implementation • Design and/or implementation of street furniture and/or other enhancements • Building facade improvements Several areas were discussed as eligible locations for this grant. However, the grant is geared toward a main street type of area. The Walker/Lake business area was identified given its historic nature (one of the oldest areas in SLP and was the city’s initial main street with the streetcar line), it’s tie in with the High School, the infrastructure recently installed nearby and the future LRT. Hennepin County thought Lake Street would be a great candidate. The hope is that if a grant was awarded and a project completed it could serve as a pilot for other neighborhood- serving commercial nodes in the city. Stakeholder Meeting On Thursday, September 24th staff met with area businesses, property owners, the school district and neighborhood representatives in the Walker/Lake business area. During the meeting there was in-depth discussion on area issues, ideas for improvement and opportunities for collaboration. There was general consensus that the first step in revitalizing the area should be creating an identity and making it easier to find. To that end the grant application will request funding to create an area wide brand or identity and the installation of signage identifying the business district. Several other issues/ideas were raised. Some of these include parking, facades, streetscaping, street upgrades, lighting, landscaping, and school partnerships. Staff will continue to work with this group on the grant and will follow up on several of the other items discussed. After the meeting, property owners and some of the businesses continued talking and are now working together on immediate changes to properties including adding lighting and front entry sidewalk/paver upgrades. In addition, neighborhood representatives and businesses are collaborating on a future area-wide get together. Staff hopes this collaboration will continue as work on the grant proceeds and that it will serve as a demonstration for city’s other commercial areas. GRANT SPECIFICS The grant application for the Walker/Lake branding and wayfinding will be submitted to Hennepin County on October 30, 2015. The HCHRA Board is expected to award grant contracts in February or March 2016. If awarded, the grant term will be between 12-24 months. Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 3 Title: Business District Initiative Grant Application The application will request the maximum grant award of $50,000, in addition to matching funds if approved by the EDA. An EDA contribution would help to further implement the proposed branding and wayfinding program. Grant activities will include hiring a consultant to work with area stakeholders to decide on an image/brand, creation of a logo, design of wayfinding and installation. Staff hopes to utilize local companies for this work to the extent possible. Area businesses, property owners and residents from the neighborhood indicated they would be willing to contribute toward the implementation of this program once it is further defined. Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 4 Title: Business District Initiative Grant Application RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR A HENNEPIN COUNTY BUSINESS DISTRICT INITIATIVE GRANT SUBMITTED THE BUSINESS AREA ALONG WALKER STREET AND LAKE STREET WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park acknowledges the Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HCHRA) has authorized approximately $195,000 for an initiative to strengthen suburban municipalities’ priority small business districts; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority wishes to submit an application requesting grant funds from the Hennepin County Business District Initiative Program; and WHEREAS, the grant funds will be used for certain Branding and Wayfinding improvement costs to enhance the economic vitality of this business district; and WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Business District Initiative Program Guidelines require authorization by the governing body of the Economic Development Authority for submission of a grant application to the Hennepin County Business District initiative Program; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to apply to Hennepin County for a Business District Initiative grant on behalf of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority, October 19, 2015 Executive Director President Attest City Clerk Meeting: Economic Development Authority Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Action Agenda Item: 7c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Authorize Grant Application Submittals for Redevelopment of 4911 Excelsior Blvd. RECOMMENDED ACTION: • Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution authorizing the Executive Director and President to submit a grant application to the Metropolitan Council Tax Base Revitalization Grant Program on behalf of the 4911 Excelsior Blvd project; • Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution authorizing the Executive Director and President to submit a grant application to the Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Program on behalf of the 4911 Excelsior Blvd project. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA support submitting grant applications to assist in environmental cleanup at 4911 Excelsior Blvd as outlined below? SUMMARY: TJL Development, LLC has a purchase agreement to acquire 4911 Excelsior Blvd and construct a new 3,329 sq. ft. retail building on the site. The building is expected to be leased to Sherwin Williams for a paint store. A conditional use permit is required for this redevelopment and will be brought before the City Council for approval on October 19th. During its investigation of the site, TJL Development, LLC discovered the soil on the subject site is impacted with volatile organic compounds as a result of a drycleaners which was formerly located on the site in the 1940’s - 60’s. To assist with cleanup costs, it is proposed that the EDA apply for approximately $170,000 in grants from Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Council. Each grant must be applied for by the EDA and requires a resolution from the governing body of the city where the project site is located indicating that it supports the project. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The EDA is the designated applicant for each grant but has no financial obligations. Staff will administer the grant if awarded. There is no matching fund requirement for these grants. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Resolutions of Support Prepared by: Julie Grove, Economic Development Specialist Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor/Deputy CD Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7c) Page 2 Title: Authorize Grant Application Submittals for Redevelopment of 4911 Excelsior Blvd. DISCUSSION Background: TJL Development, LLC has requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for 4911 Excelsior Boulevard. The developer is proposing to remove the existing building and parking lot and construct a new retail building and parking lot. The building is intended to be occupied by a Sherwin Williams paint store. The proposed building would consist of 1,928 sf retail space, 108 sf office and a 1,293 sf storage area (3,329 sf total). As part of the developers due diligence, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted in January 2015. Subsequently, a Limited Site Investigation (LSI), an Asbestos, Lead, and Regulated Materials Survey and a Development Response Action Plan/Construction Contingency Plan (DRAP/CCP) were completed and submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for review and approval. The Phase I ESA and LSI revealed that a dry cleaner formerly occupied the site from the 1940s- 1960s which had impacted the soil, soil gas and groundwater on the property. Redevelopment of the site will entail abatement of the asbestos in the building prior to demolition and management of the soil and soil gas impacts as outlined in the DRAP/CCP. Grant Assistance: The Developer is seeking contamination cleanup grants totaling $170,000, with $140,000 requested from Metropolitan Council and $30,000 from Hennepin County. Cleanup grants are intended for applicants to assist with the cost of implementing a cleanup plan and begin redevelopment. They are awarded on a competitive basis to redevelopment projects that will start within three years of receiving the grant award. All grant agencies require an authorizing resolution from the governing body of the city where the project site is located indicating that the city is supportive of the project. Grant awards are typically announced in January. TJL Development anticipates closing on the property in late January and to begin construction in February 2016. The goal is to have the store open in summer 2016. It is projected that the proposed redevelopment will create 5-10 new jobs. Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7c) Page 3 Title: Authorize Grant Application Submittals for Redevelopment of 4911 Excelsior Blvd. EDA RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TAX BASE REVITALIZATION ACCOUNT ON BEHALF OF TJL DEVELOPMENT, LLC FOR 4911 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Housing Incentives Program for 2015 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible to make application for funds under the Tax Base Revitalization Account; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority has identified a clean-up project within the City that meets the Tax Base Revitalization account's purposes and criteria; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreements; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the Tax Base Revitalization Account grant application submitted on November 1, 2015; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to apply to the Metropolitan Council for a Tax Base Revitalization Account grant on behalf of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority October 19, 2015 Executive Director President Attest Secretary Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 7c) Page 4 Title: Authorize Grant Application Submittals for Redevelopment of 4911 Excelsior Blvd. EDA RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR A GRANT FROM HENNEPIN COUNTY’S ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE FUND ON BEHALF OF TJL DEVELOPMENT, LLC FOR 4911 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority is eligible to make application for grant funds from Hennepin County’s Environmental Response Fund; and WHEREAS, the grant funds will be used for environmental clean-up of 4911 Excelsior Boulevard site in the City of St. Louis Park; and WHEREAS, the State Statute which created the Environmental Response Fund requires approval by the governing body of the EDA for submission of a grant request to the Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund; and WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration for any grant funds received; and WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreements; and WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the Environmental Response Fund grant application to be submitted on or before November 1, 2015; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority supports the 4911 Excelsior Boulevard project, for which an Environmental Response Fund grant application is being submitted for program eligible activities, and that the President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to apply to Hennepin County for an Environmental Response Fund grant on behalf of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority on or before November 1, 2015 and execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority, October 19, 2015 Executive Director President Attest Secretary Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Presentation: 2a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Outstanding Citizen Award – Elliott Royce RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor is asked to present the Outstanding Citizen Award to the family of Elliott Royce. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: The Outstanding Citizen Award Program is intended to provide the community with an opportunity to publicly acknowledge the contributions made by certain individuals who have worked and dedicated their time for the betterment of the community. The City believes it is important to recognize St. Louis Park community members for extraordinary accomplishments, heroic and courageous efforts, and perseverance despite incredible odds. In 2015 the City Council nominated and selected Elliott Royce as the recipient of the Outstanding Citizen Award. Elliott was a vital member of the St. Louis Park community who was committed to life-long learning, educating others, and building lasting relationships. Elliott’s passion for life and his dedication to the community epitomize what it means to be an outstanding citizen. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Presentation: 2b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) 40-Year Anniversary Recognition RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor is asked to recognize the St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) in honor of their 40th anniversary. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: The St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) has served the St. Louis Park community since 1975. The organization’s mission is to strengthen our community by responding to the basic emergency needs of individuals and families in St. Louis Park. Over the course of STEP’s 40 year history, the program has evolved into a community-wide resource serving the basic needs of more than 1,600 people each month. STEP differs from other food shelves because of the priority placed on longstanding social work practices and values. Each person using STEP’s services meets with a licensed social worker at every visit. STEP offers the following services to those in need: • Food Shelf – Approximately 70% of STEP’s clients visit once a month and 30% are served 2-3 times per month because of extended unemployment or persistent poverty. STEP is the largest kosher food shelf in the region. • Seasonal Support – Back-to-school supplies, summer food assistance for families with school-aged children, holiday food, and toys. • Clothes Closet – Providing clean, gently used clothing for children and adults. STEP is also an official site for the Coats for Kids program. • Crisis Support – Compassionate, confidential, and professional assistance. • Transportation – Partially funded by the Park Nicollet Foundation, this program provides rides to food shelf, medical, or school appointments. All rides are provided by volunteer drivers. • Emergency Financial Assistance – STEP provides emergency financial assistance to clients in specific crisis situations. • Referral Resources – Resources provided for utility assistance, home chore and project assistance for seniors, medical assistance, food support, or rent assistance. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Presentation: 2c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Creative Minnesota – Economic Impact of Nonprofit Arts & Culture in St. Louis Park RECOMMENDED ACTION: Sheila Smith, Executive Director of Minnesota Citizens for the Arts, will present the report results to the City Council. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: Arts and culture are important to the St. Louis Park community. They enhance our quality of life, bring diverse communities together, and make our area a magnet for jobs and businesses. This new study by Minnesota Citizens for the Arts shows that, in addition to contributing to our city’s excellent quality of life, the nonprofit arts and culture sector is also a substantial industry contributing at least $1,517,141 to the local economy annually. The City of St. Louis Park and St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts (FOTA) have partnered with Minnesota Citizen’s for the Arts and Americans for the Arts to develop an economic impact study of arts and culture, specifically in St. Louis Park, that pulls data collected for the year 2013 and economic models already created for the area. This local study follows the work and models used in a comprehensive report created about the sector’s health and economic impact. This study, Creative Minnesota: The Health and Impact of the Nonprofit Arts and Culture Sector looks statewide and takes into account Minnesota’s eleven arts regions. This report was released on Feb. 19, 2015 and is available at www.creativemn.org. It is a snapshot of spending by nonprofit arts and culture organizations and their audiences as well as other indicators of the sector’s health and impact on the economy. The study quantifies the economic impact from 15 arts and culture organizations in St. Louis Park. In addition to information about jobs created, it identifies local vs. non-local attendees spending, nonprofit arts and culture organizational budgets, and artist employment levels. George Hagemann, Friends of the Arts city liaison, and Jason West, Recreation Superintendent, will be present to provide introductions. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to promoting an integrating arts, culture and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Summary of Findings Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Senior Office Assistant Jason West, Recreation Superintendent Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager The Economic Impact of Nonprofit Arts and Culture Organizations and Their Audiences in the City of St. Louis Park, MN (Fiscal Year 2013) Direct Economic Activity Arts and Culture Organizations + Arts and Culture Audiences = Total Industry Expenditures Total Industry Expenditures $758,069 $759,072 $1,517,141 Spending by Arts and Culture Organizations and Their Audiences Supports Jobs and Generates Government Revenue Total Economic Impact of Expenditures (Direct & Indirect Impacts Combined) Economic Impact of Organizations + Economic Impact of Audiences = Total Economic Impact Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Jobs Supported 26 14 40 Household Income Paid to Residents $621,000 $409,000 $1,030,000 Revenue Generated to Local Government $13,000 $23,000 $36,000 Revenue Generated to State Government $64,000 $64,000 $128,000 Event-Related Spending by Arts and Culture Audiences Totaled $759,072 (excluding the cost of admission) Attendance to Arts and Culture Events Resident* Attendees + Non-Resident* Attendees = All Cultural Audiences Total Attendance to Arts and Culture Events 23,423 3,940 27,363 Percentage of Total Attendance 85.6% 14.4% 100.0%% Average Event-Related Spending Per Person $25.82 $39.16 $27.58 Total Event-Related Expenditures $604,782 $154,290 $759,072 Nonprofit Arts and Culture Event Attendees Spend an Average of $27.58 Per Person (excluding the cost of admission) Category of Event-Related Expenditure Resident* Attendees Non-Resident* Attendees All Cultural Audiences Meals and Refreshments $14.79 $17.21 $15.11 Souvenirs and Gifts $5.35 $2.72 $5.00 Ground Transportation $2.90 $5.48 $3.24 Overnight Lodging (one night only) $0.52 $9.95 $1.77 Other/Miscellaneous $2.26 $3.80 $2.46 Average Event-Related Spending Per Person $25.82 $39.16 $27.58 * For the purpose of this study, residents are attendees who live within the Seven-County Metro Area (defined as including Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington Counties); non-residents live outside that region. Source: Arts & Economic Prosperity IV: The Economic Impact of Nonprofit Arts and Culture Organizations and Their Audiences in the City of St. Louis Park. For more information about this study or about other cultural initiatives in the City of St. Louis Park, contact Minnesota Citizens for the Arts (www.mncitizensforthearts.org). Copyright 2015 by Americans for the Arts (www.AmericansForTheArts.org). City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 2c) Title: Creative Minnesota – Economic Impact of Nonprofit Arts & Culture in St. Louis Park Page 2 About This Study The Arts & Economic Prosperity IV study was conducted by Americans for the Arts to document the economic impact of the nonprofit arts and culture industry in 182 communities and regions (139 cities and counties, 31 multi-city or multi-county regions, and ten states, and two individual arts districts)— representing all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The diverse communities range in population (1,600 to more than 3 million) and type (rural to urban). The project economists, from the Georgia Institute of Technology, customized input-output analysis models for each participating study region to provide specific and reliable economic impact data about their nonprofit arts and culture industry—specifically (1) full-time equivalent jobs, (2) household income, and (3) local and (4) state government revenue. Minnesota Citizens for the Arts contracted with Americans for the Arts to conduct a separate economic impact analysis focusing solely on the nonprofit arts and culture industry in the City of St. Louis Park. The methodology used is identical to the national study, providing the ability to compare the results for the City of St. Louis Park with those of the national study participants. A detailed final report on the customized findings for the City of St. Louis Park is available from Minnesota Citizens for the Arts (www.mncitizensforthearts.org). Data Collection from Nonprofit Arts and Culture ORGANIZATIONS Each of the 182 study regions attempted to identify its comprehensive universe of nonprofit arts and culture organizations using the Urban Institute’s National Taxonomy of Exempt Entity (NTEE) coding system, a definitive classification system for nonprofit organizations recognized as tax exempt by the Internal Revenue Code. In addition, the study partners were encouraged to include other types of eligible organizations if they play a substantial role in the cultural life of the community or if their primary purpose is to promote participation in, appreciation for, and understanding of the visual, performing, folk, and media arts. These include government-owned or government-operated cultural facilities and institutions, municipal arts agencies and councils, private community arts organizations, unincorporated arts groups, living collections (such as zoos, aquariums, and botanical gardens), university presenters, and arts programs that are embedded under the umbrella of a non-arts organization or facility (such as a community center or church). In short, if it displays the characteristics of a nonprofit arts and culture organization, it is included. For-profit businesses (e.g., Broadway and motion picture theaters) and individual artists were excluded from this study. Nationally, detailed information was collected from 9,721 eligible organizations about their fiscal year 2010 expenditures in more than 40 expenditure categories (e.g., labor, local and non-local artists, operations, materials, facilities, and asset acquisition), as well as about their event attendance. Response rates for the 182 communities averaged 43.2 percent and ranged from 5.3 percent to 100 percent. It is important to note that each study region’s results are based solely on the actual survey data collected. No estimates have been made to account for non-respondents. Therefore, the less-than-100 percent response rates suggest an understatement of the economic impact findings in most of the individual study regions. In the City of St. Louis Park, all 15 total eligible nonprofit arts and culture organizations identified by Minnesota Citizens for the Arts participated in this study—an overall participation rate of 100.0 percent. The Minnesota Cultural Data Project (CDP) was the primary source of information about the universe of eligible organizations. The CDP data were supplemented using both data collected through a proprietary web-based survey process as well as grant application data. The most recently-available financial and attendance data were used for each of the 15 participating organizations in this analysis. In most cases, the most recently-available data are from fiscal year 2013 (the organization’s fiscal year that ended between January 1 and December 31, 2013). In some cases, however, data were used from fiscal year 2012 or earlier. The 15 organizations that participated are listed below: Eclectic Edge Ensemble; Harmony Theatre Company and School; Maggie’s Farm Free-Range Theater; Minneapolis Jewish Film Festival; Public Theater of Minnesota; Rimon: The Minnesota Jewish Arts Council; Saint Louis Park Community Band; Saint Louis Park Historical Society; Saint Louis Park Middle School Theater; Saint Louis Parks and Recreation; Sholom Community Alliance; St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts; The Park Theater Company; Theater Or; and Twin Cities Film Fest. Data Collection from Nonprofit Arts and Culture AUDIENCES Audience-intercept surveying, a common and accepted research method, was conducted in all 182 of the study regions to measure event-related spending by nonprofit arts and culture audiences. Patrons were asked to complete a short survey while attending an event. Nationally, a total of 151,802 valid and usable attendees completed the survey for an average of 834 surveys per study region. The randomly selected respondents provided itemized expenditure data on attendance-related activities such as meals, souvenirs, transportation, and lodging. Data were collected throughout 2011 (to guard against seasonal spikes or drop-offs in attendance) as well as at a broad range of both paid and free events (a night at the opera will typically yield more spending then a weekend children’s theater production or a free community music festival, for example). The survey respondents provided information about the entire party with whom they were attending the event. With an overall average travel party size of 2.69 people, these data actually represent the spending patterns of more than 408,000 attendees, significantly increasing the reliability of the data. To complete this customized study for the City of St. Louis Park, researchers used regional average per person arts attendee spending data that were calculated from a total of 789 valid and usable audience-intercept surveys collected from attendees to nonprofit arts and culture performances, events, and exhibitions that took place in the Seven-County Metro Area during calendar year 2014. Studying Economic Impact Using Input-Output Analysis To derive the most reliable economic impact data, input-output analysis is used to measure the impact of expenditures by nonprofit arts and culture organizations and their audiences. This is a highly regarded type of economic analysis that has been the basis for two Nobel Prizes. The models are systems of mathematical equations that combine statistical methods and economic theory in an area of study called econometrics. They trace how many times a dollar is re-spent within the local economy before it leaks out, and it quantifies the economic impact of each round of spending. This form of economic analysis is well suited for this study because it can be customized specifically to each study region. To complete the analysis for the City of St. Louis Park, project economists customized an input-output model based on the local dollar flow between 533 finely detailed industries within the regional economy that includes the Seven- County Metro Area (defined as including Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington Counties). This was accomplished by using detailed data on employment, incomes, and government revenues provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce (County Business Patterns, the Regional Economic Information System, and the Survey of State and Local Finance), local tax data (sales taxes, property taxes, and miscellaneous local option taxes), as well as the survey data from the participating nonprofit arts and culture organizations and their audiences. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 2c) Title: Creative Minnesota – Economic Impact of Nonprofit Arts & Culture in St. Louis Park Page 3 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Presentation: 2d EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Update on Kids Voting Initiative RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required. A brief update will be given to the Council by Eilseen Knisley from the League of Women Voters St. Louis Park on the Kids Voting Initiative. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: The League of Women Voters of St. Louis Park, St. Louis Park Schools, the city, and other community groups and individuals are working together to bring about the first "Kids Voting" plan for St. Louis Park. In 2015 two schools will participate in the program for the upcoming General Election: Aquila Elementary School and the St. Louis Park Middle School. Because the middle school is not the site of a polling place, students will vote on November 3rd during the school day in the media center on a ballot identical to what adults will use at their polling places. Aquila students will vote before or after school with their parents. Some students will also vote during the school day. An effort is being made to make this a valuable learning experience for students that will be similar to what they will experience when they reach the age of 18. In other communities it has been shown that students who "vote" while they are young are more likely to continue the practice when they are older. Kids Voting St. Louis Park is dedicated to educating youth about the rights, responsibilities and mechanics of participating in American democracy. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Presentation: 2e EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Recognition of Donations RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to announce and give thanks and appreciation for the following donations being accepted at the meeting and listed on the Consent Agenda: From Amount For National Arbor Day Foundation $350 Registration of Natural Resources Coordinator Jim Vaughan to attend the Partners in Community Forestry Conference in Denver, Colorado November 18 – 19, 2015 Comcast Foundation $655.87 Purchase of Materials for Future Parks Clean-up Events Lisa Butman $2,200 A memorial bench in memory of Christopher Michael Bohlinger at Westwood Hills Nature Center Cub Foods $115 Value Cookies given away at the October 8 Minnetonka Boulevard Bridge Ribbon Cutting Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Minutes: 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 5, 2015 Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Gregg Lindberg, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Ms. McDowell Poehler), Director of Operations and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), and Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Mr. Walther). 1. Closed Session to Discuss the Acquisition of 40th Street & France Avenue Property The City Council met in closed executive session to discuss the acquisition of the property located at 40th Street & France Avenue. Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Gregg Lindberg, Mayor Pro Tem Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Minutes: 3b UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 5, 2015 The meeting convened at 6:50 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Gregg Lindberg, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Director of Human Resources (Ms. Deno), City Attorney (Ms. McDowell Poehler), Director of Operations and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Public Works Services Manager (Mr. Merkley), Solid Waste Program Coordinator (Ms. Fisher), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). 1. Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Ms. Fisher presented the staff report and communications summary report prepared following the listening session on September 2, 2015. Councilmember Mavity stated she has not forwarded to staff all the emails she has received and agreed to forward these emails to Council and staff to make sure the record reflects that the initial support for a ban on plastic bags was more significant. She stated her research on the experience of other cities demonstrated that the majority of cities have had a positive experience with a ban or some kind of limitation on plastic bags. She felt the City can and will continue to push organics recycling and did not think that effort should get in the way of acting on this issue and she supported a ban on plastic bags and a fee on paper bags. She also supported an ordinance similar to the “bring your own bag ordinance” adopted by the City of Chicago in 2013. Councilmember Spano referenced the Hennepin County statistic about organics and unrecycled paper in the waste stream and stated until that figure is reduced, he was reluctant to take action on a ban on plastic bags and felt the City could be doing a lot more work to reduce this number that could have a direct and tangible impact on the amount of these products in the waste stream. Councilmember Sanger stated her first preference was the same as Councilmember Mavity. She asked where the money would go if the City imposed a fee and asked if the retailer keeps the fee or whether the City can redirect the fee either to environmental protection matters or to local nonprofits or whether the City can encourage retailers to give the money to local nonprofits. She stated another option might be to require that every business distributing plastic bags must have a public receptacle where people can return their bags for recycling and to require those businesses to produce their signed contract with a recycler to prove that the bags are being recycled. She felt if the City combined that approach with a program to incent people to bring their own sturdy reusable bags, the City might get to the same place and she could support either of those approaches. She agreed if everyone participated in organics recycling, there would be less plastic bags but the City cannot force people to participate in organics recycling. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 2 Title: Special Study Session Minutes of October 5, 2015 Acting City Attorney Ms. McDowell Poehler stated the City cannot impose a tax if there is no authority to do so and in this case, the City has no authority to tax in this venue. She added the City would have to establish a fee in a regulatory system and those fees have to match up with the cost of the service provided. Councilmember Mavity asked if the City could require the retailers to charge a fee. Ms. McDowell Poehler replied the City is limited by statutory authority and its charter and there is no explicit authorization for this sort of ban so the City would be left with police powers, i.e., the general welfare of the community, and the City’s all powers purpose in its charter. She stated the court has provided limits on those in the past and tends to consider whether a city is acting for the good of its local community and there is no guarantee this would be upheld if challenged. She also distributed a memo prepared earlier by the City Attorney regarding some of the legal issues related to a ban and ability to impose fees. Councilmember Brausen stated his belief that Council should address plastic bags since they are part of the waste stream and reflect the throw away mentality of consumerism as a lifestyle. He stated that after listening to the information provided at the listening session, including the information from the Environment & Sustainability Commission, he did not support an outright ban on plastic bags and supported incentives to change behavior and to use alternatives to plastic bags. He supported imposing a fee on plastic bags and paper bags with the requirement that businesses provide a recycling container in the front of the stores and stated he was okay with language similar to the Delaware statute that requires retailers to provide these receptacles, adding that the revenue generated from fees will finance the cost of providing this type of program. He added he was in favor of slow implementation to assist retailers and to educate the public. Councilmember Hallfin stated he was still undecided about the issue. He stated he was invited to tour the Knollwood Cub Foods store to see what they are doing with plastic, corrugated materials, and composting and was impressed by their efforts. He stated that their plastic recycling fills up quickly and is emptied three times a day into a container that is taken for recycling. He added he would like to get rid of plastic bags but has not yet made a decision. Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg stated that after hearing from all the various sources on this issue, he was leaning more toward a “carrot” rather than “stick” approach on the issue. He stated that Council has heard about the impacts of a plastic bag ban and felt there would be a disproportionate impact on small business owners and those on a fixed income if a fee were imposed. He stated the feedback has demonstrated that residents are not looking for a ban and he felt the City needed to focus its efforts on curbside compostable recycling efforts in its commercial and industrial areas, adding that incentive-based approaches will work better and provide measurable results for the City. Councilmember Hallfin stated he discussed a possible fee on bags at Cub Foods and the manager told him it was their belief that if a fee were charged, their customers would start bringing their own bags in order to avoid paying the fee. He added that if the City was looking at banning one substance, he felt that polystyrene was ripe for banning. Councilmember Mavity stated that other cities have exempted some people from the fee and felt that the City could include that exemption for low income seniors and others. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 3 Title: Special Study Session Minutes of October 5, 2015 Councilmember Spano stated he would love to see all plastic bags removed, but over the course of the past year, several sources including Hennepin County and the Environment & Sustainability Commission have indicated this is not where the City should be spending its time and effort. Councilmember Sanger asked if Byerly’s or Cub Foods has come forward with an incentive plan. Mr. Harmening replied that the City has not heard from these retailers. He added that he contacted the Minnesota Retailers Association requesting a proposal but nothing has come forward from them. Councilmember Sanger agreed with Councilmember Hallfin about Styrofoam and stated that maybe the City should ban that product now and come up with some intermediate steps on plastic bags. Mr. Harmening agreed to provide Council with a draft ordinance for its consideration at a future study session that imposes a fee on plastic bags and paper bags and requires plastic bag recycling collection at retail locations. Further discussion is needed to determine the amount of the fee to be charged. Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg adjourned the meeting at 7:29 p.m. Written Report provided and documented for recording purposes only: 2. Renewable Energy Power Purchasing Agreement Update ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Gregg Lindberg, Mayor Pro Tem Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Minutes: 3c UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 5, 2015 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Director of Human Resources (Ms. Deno), City Attorney (Ms. McDowell Poehler), Director of Operations & Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Principal Planner (Ms. McMonigal), Public Works Services Manager (Mr. Merkley), Finance Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), Rec Center Manager (Mr. Eisold), Wellness and Volunteer Coordinator (Ms. Smith), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 2a. Proclamation Honoring Mental Illness Awareness Week Mayor Jacobs recited the Proclamation for Mental Illness Awareness Week October 5-11, 2015. He encouraged residents to visit the Make it OK website at www.makeitok.org and to take the Make it OK pledge. 2b. Health in the Park Update Ms. Smith stated the Health in the Park team has been working on further defining the Health in the Park initiative and recently came up with a tag line: Health in the Park is You. She then introduced Ms. Jeanne Wolfe and Ms. Lynda Enright. Ms. Wolfe provided an update from the Wellbeing and Mental Health Action Committee and stated they have developed partnerships with NAMI, the City, and Park Nicollet to launch opportunities for education. She stated that this fall they are focusing on organizing community-wide efforts to educate the public on mental illness, including “Make it OK” classes. She stated they are developing a monthly parent series on various mental health topics and HealthPartners has recently connected with Health in the Park to explore education opportunities for school district staff. She stated that the local business community has been invited to bring the conversation into their organizations and they hope to meet with the various Rotary groups this fall. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 2 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 5, 2015 Ms. Enright provided an update from the Better Eating Action Team and stated that the recent community conversation demonstrated that the community’s priority is to create better eating with a focus on the schools and to increase citizen awareness. She discussed the action team’s goals and stated they hope to create a partnership with STEP. She also provided an update from the Active Connections Team and stated this action team is dedicated to making the City’s streets and trails accessible and fun for all ages. She stated they have created a strong partnership with Connect the Park! and have developed partnerships with the Environment & Sustainability Commission to support overlapping efforts. She thanked the City Council for its support and stated it is a great initiative that will be an example to other communities of what can be done to improve the health of a community. Mayor Jacobs extended the City Council’s thanks and appreciation to all of the volunteers working on the Health in the Park initiative. He encouraged residents to visit the website at www.HIPSLP.org. Mr. Harmening stated that Blue Cross Blue Shield recently invited the City to submit a request for funding for years four and five of the Health in the Park initiative that would provide funding up to $150,000 per year. 2c. Recognition of Donations Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s thanks and appreciation to David Kane and Joann Shaughnessy Kane, Robert and Lila Aske, Rocky Massie, and Stephen Williams for their donation of $105 to be used for the care and management of Westwood Hills Nature Center’s raptors in memory of Chris Bohlinger. 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Meeting Minutes September 8, 2015 The minutes were approved as presented. 3b. City Council Meeting Minutes September 21, 2015 Councilmember Mavity requested that the second sentence of the third paragraph on page 11 be revised to state “She stated that she was able to hear from a Twin Cities resident that spoke about blue zones, a healthy community that supports healthy living choices and contributes to the health of the residents, adding that the more the City can do to create a healthy community and a community that supports it, the more healthy the community will be.” Councilmember Brausen requested that the third sentence of the seventh paragraph on page 10 be revised to state “He stated that he has heard from dozens of people, along with a petition of 57 signatures, noting that there is support from people on both sides of the issue.” He requested that the fifth sentence of the seventh paragraph on page 10 be revised to state “He stated that the public right-of-way is the area for the people of the community pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists to get around in the community in a safe and efficient manner.” The minutes were approved as amended. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 3 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 5, 2015 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. 4a. Accept for filing City Disbursement Claims for the period of August 29, 2015 through September 25, 2015. 4b. Adopt Resolution No. 15-138 appointing additional Election Judges needed to staff the polls at the Municipal/School District/State Special General Election to be held November 3, 2015. 4c. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2478-15 vacating alley right-of- way, connecting Glenhurst Avenue and France Avenue, north of West 31st Street, and approve the Summary Ordinance for publication. 4d. Adopt Resolution No. 15-139 calling for a public hearing relative to the establishment of the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (a redevelopment district). 4e. Adopt Resolution No. 15-140 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 3955 Dakota Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN P.I.D. 21-117-21- 23-0039. 4f. Adopt Resolution No. 15-141 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line at 6811 24th Street West, St. Louis Park, MN P.I.D. 08-117-21-13- 0085. 4g. Adopt Resolution No. 15-142 authorizing final payment in the amount of $26,463.12 for Project 4014-2000 Connect the Park! with G.L. Contracting, Inc., City Contract No. 73- 14. 4h. Order a public hearing to be held on November 16, 2015, for the closure of the southbound access ramp at W. 16th Street along TH169. 4i. Adopt Resolution No. 15-143 approving acceptance of monetary donations totaling $105 from: David Kane and Joann Shaughnessy Kane in the amount of $30, Robert and Lila Aske in the amount of $25, Rocky Massie in the amount of $25, Stephen Williams in the amount of $25 all of which will be used for the Westwood Hills Nature Center’s raptors in memory of Chris Bohlinger. 4j. Adopt Resolution No. 15-144 Supporting Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Meadowbrook Golf Course Ecological Restoration Project. It was moved by Councilmember Lindberg, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Boards and Commissions – None City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 4 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 5, 2015 6. Public Hearings 6a. Consolidated Public Hearing (1) 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1. Resolution No. 15-145. (2) 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 2. Resolution No. 15-146. (3) 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 3. Resolution No. 15-147. (4) 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 4 and Extension of Special Service District through 2025. Resolution No. 15-148. (5) 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 5. Resolution No. 15-149. (6) 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 6. Resolution No. 15-150. Mr. Merkley presented the staff report and stated that the City provided all property owners in the Special Service Districts with the proposed 2016 budgets and service charges and met with each of the Special Service Districts to review the budgets and service charges. He advised that in all Special Service Districts, the property owners approved the proposed 2016 budgets and services charges with only two property owners not in favor. He stated the 2016 budget for Special Service District No. 1 has been reduced by $10,000 and the service charges remain the same as 2015. He stated the 2016 budget for Special Service District No. 2 is the same as 2015 and the service charges have been reduced by $11,000. He stated the 2016 budget for Special Service District No. 3 has been reduced by $10,000 and the service charges have been reduced by $15,000. He stated the 2016 budget and service charge for Special Service District No. 4 have been reduced by $5,000 compared to 2015. He noted that Special Service District No. 4’s term expires at the end of 2015 and reauthorization requires a petition process from the property owners and the City received an adequate number of petitions to have Special Service District No. 4 reauthorized. He stated the 2016 budget and service charges for Special Service District No. 5 are the same as 2015. He stated the 2016 budget for Special Service District No. 6 is the same as 2015 and the service charges have been increased by $4,000. Mayor Jacobs opened the consolidated public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs closed the consolidated public hearing. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt Resolution No. 15-145 Approving 2016 Budget and Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1; Resolution No. 15-146 Approving 2016 Budget and Service Charges for Special Service District No. 2; Resolution No. 15-147 Approving 2016 Budget and Service Charges for Special Service District No. 3; Resolution No. 15-148 Approving 2016 Budget and Service Charges for Special Service District No. 4; Resolution No. 15- 149 Approving 2016 Budget and Service Charges for Special Service District No. 5; and Resolution No. 15-150 Approving 2016 Budget and Service Charges for Special Service District No. 6. The motion passed 7-0. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 5 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 5, 2015 6b. Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of 2016 Fee Ordinance Mr. Heintz presented the staff report and proposed 2016 fee ordinance. He stated that the City’s fees are reviewed each year in conjunction with the budget process; in addition, the City’s fees are reviewed compared to other cities in the metro area and to make sure the City’s costs are covered for each service. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. It was moved by Councilmember Spano, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve First Reading of Ordinance Adopting Fees for Calendar Year 2016 and to set Second Reading for October 19, 2015. The motion passed 7-0. 6c. Public Hearing to Consider Ordinance Modifying Salaries for the Mayor and Councilmembers Ms. Deno presented the staff report and explained that in 2016, the salaries for the Mayor and Councilmembers would increase 2.5% and future increases would occur bi-annually commensurate with any salary increase for non-organized employees. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. Councilmember Lindberg stated he would not be supporting this and indicated that while this is a relatively small amount of money, the current compensation package is very competitive compared to the market and he felt the current compensation was reasonable. Councilmember Brausen supported the proposed salary increase and stated this is the first increase for the Mayor and Councilmembers since Council took a pay cut in 2009. He viewed the salary increase as necessary to incent residents to run for public office, adding this is an important job that requires a commitment to public service and a substantial amount of time and he felt the pay increase was modest and in line with staff increases. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve First Reading of Ordinance Setting Salaries for the Mayor and Councilmembers and to set Second Reading for October 19, 2015. Councilmember Sanger supported the salary increase and felt that a 2.5% increase was nominal. She also supported the way that future increases would be handled. Councilmember Spano stated he would not be supporting this ordinance. He stated that the proposed increase equates to approximately $7.00 per paycheck before taxes and he did not feel this was an appropriate incentive to bring someone into public service and felt there were other ways to spend that money. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 6 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 5, 2015 Councilmember Mavity supported the proposed salary increase as well as the policy for future increases. She stated that the City has worked hard to restructure all of its systems so that they are financially viable for the long term and tying future increases to employee salary increases is a rational, logical, and structured way to handle any future increases. Mayor Jacobs agreed and stated he supported the proposed salary increase. Councilmember Hallfin supported the proposed salary increase and stated this is a difficult subject for everyone on the City Council and there has been a lot of discussion about the matter and felt that having small incremental increases every two years was a reasonable approach. The motion passed 5-2 (Councilmembers Lindberg and Spano opposed). 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. Award Bids for Rec Center Ice Arena Refrigeration System Replacement Project Mr. Eisold presented the staff report and advised that Commercial Refrigeration Systems, Inc. was the lowest bidder on Bid Package 1 for $3,074,455. He stated that the lowest bidder on Bid Package 2 was Thelen Heating & Roofing, Inc., in the amount of $676,000. He stated that the lowest bidder on Bid Package 4 was Egan Company in the amount of $79,500, for a total base bid for the project of $3,829,955 and the total construction cost of $4,714,455 falls in line with the amount set aside in the budget. He advised the City has applied for a grant and if successful, the City hopes to implement several bid alternates including a low emissivity ceiling to reduce transfer of radiant heat. It was moved by Councilmember Lindberg, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to designate the below listed firms the lowest responsible bidders and authorize execution of contracts with the firms for the Rec Center Ice Arena Refrigeration System Replacement Project – Project Nos. 24165014 and 24145018: Bid Package 1: Ice System Replacement: Commercial Refrigeration Systems, Inc. ($3,074,455) Bid Package 2: Mechanical and Electrical Improvements: Thelen Heating & Roofing, Inc. ($676,000) Bid Package 4: Bleacher System Improvements: Egan Company ($79,500). Councilmember Brausen stated he would like to see the project include the low emissivity ceiling even if the City does not receive the grant money for this bid alternate. He stated this $119,000 feature includes an environmentally sound design with a payback in five to seven years and he felt this was a responsible thing to include in the project and City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 7 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 5, 2015 requested that the motion be amended to include Bid Package 3 in the amount of $119,775 to R & R Specialties, Inc., for a low emissivity ceiling. Councilmember Sanger questioned why anyone would provide a grant to the City if Council votes to include Bid Package 3 for the low emissivity ceiling and stated she would prefer that Council not amend the motion today and if the City does not receive the grant, Council can take action at a later date on that item. Ms. Walsh stated the wording in the grant application indicated the City would be using the money for environmental enhancements and the City will be notified in November whether it will receive the grant. She did not believe that approving the low emissivity ceiling would impact the City’s chances of receiving the grant and there are other things the grant can be used for in this project. Councilmember Mavity requested that any amendment to the motion indicate that the City Council has approved an amount up to $119,000 for the low e-ceiling and if the City receives grant funding, that the City will not spend another $119,000 on other items outside of current bid-alternates. Councilmember Lindberg agreed to the friendly amendment. Councilmember Hallfin seconded the friendly amendment to the motion. The motion passed 7-0. 8b. SWLRT Funding Agreements. Resolution Nos. 15-151 and 15-152. Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and stated that Hennepin County received a federal grant to partially fund trail grade-separations at Beltline, Wooddale, and Blake Road. The City has asked that they include stairways. She advised that the grant provides enough funding to cover stairways however there is a 20% match required from local government and the City’s grant match cost is $171,500. She explained that the Lynn Avenue Extension was originally approved by Council as a Locally Requested Capital Improvement (LRCI) and since the parking lot at Beltline was reduced, if this LRCI is incorporated into the SWLRT base project, one half of the cost would be paid by the FTA and would keep the City’s cost essentially the same, or up to $1,591,427. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt Resolution No. 15-151 Committing Funding Support for the Stairway Portions of the Regional Trail Grade Separations at Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard – a SWLRT Project Locally Requested Capital Improvement. The motion passed 7-0. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt Resolution No. 15-152 Supporting Local Funds to the Proposed Southwest Light Rail Transit Project (Metro Green Line Extension) for Design, Environmental Review, and Potential Construction of the Lynn Avenue Extension in the Beltline Station Area. The motion passed 7-0. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 8 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 5, 2015 8c. Hockey Association Contribution Agreement & Skate Park Relocation Update Mr. Eisold presented the staff report and advised that staff has been working with the St. Louis Park Hockey Association (SLPHA) to finalize the agreement for the outdoor rink, including the SLPHA’s contribution of $1.55 million over the next 12 years. He also discussed the skate park relocation and advised that staff met with skate park users and held an open house and the preferred skate park location is directly across the street from the Rec Center on the EDA property. It was moved by Councilmember Spano, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to authorize entering into an agreement with the St. Louis Park Hockey Association relating to their financial contribution and use of the proposed Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Rink facility and for staff to pursue relocation of the Skate Park. Councilmember Lindberg requested information about pedestrian access to and from the skate park to make sure users of the skate park are able to easily access the site. Ms. Walsh stated there is a clearly marked pedestrian crosswalk at the light and there are crosswalk signs posted at the Rec Center. She agreed to request police control during the initial relocation phase and to make sure pedestrian safety is emphasized at that location. Councilmember Mavity requested that the St. Louis Park Hockey Association remain cognizant of gender equity and to make sure that girls are being supported with as much intention and focus as the boys in all areas of programming. Mr. Paul Wandmacher, President of St. Louis Park Hockey Association, expressed the Hockey Association’s continued commitment to gender equity and making sure programming and the facility is available to everybody. The motion passed 7-0. 8d. Economic Development Authority President and Commissioner Salaries. Resolution No. 15-153. Ms. Deno presented the staff report and explained that it is proposed to have the same mechanism in place as the Mayor and Councilmember salaries with a 2.5% increase effective January 1, 2016, and any future increases would occur automatically on a bi- annual basis commensurate with staff increases. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to adopt Resolution No. 15-153 Amending the Compensation of the Commissioners of the Economic Development Authority. The motion passed 5-2 (Councilmembers Lindberg and Spano opposed). 8e. 2016 Employer Benefits Contribution. Resolution No. 15-154 Ms. Deno presented the staff report and stated that the City’s health insurance through HealthPartners will increase by 12% in 2016. She explained that last year, the City City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 9 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 5, 2015 changed its formula for delivering the employer benefit contribution and moved away from offering the same dollar amount for every employee choice and moved to a 65% contribution and in 2016, that amount will increase to a 70% employer funding level for employee + coverage; in addition, staff is recommending the addition of a higher deductible health plan choice for employees. She stated the City’s dental insurance rates will increase 3.75% in 2016, there is no rate increase for life insurance in 2016, and the City’s long term disability plan will continue to be offered at no cost to employees. She stated the City also offers a deferred compensation program with $10 per pay period provided to those who participate at a $50 per pay period minimum. It was moved by Councilmember Lindberg, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to adopt Resolution No. 15-154 Establishing 2016 Employer Benefits Contribution. Councilmember Brausen supported the proposed 2016 benefits contribution and agreed it was important to the health of the City to have a properly compensated staff. He noted the 12% increase in health insurance and stated that health insurance is one of the largest paid benefits provided by the City and continued double digit increases do not reflect the cost of providing the health care and felt that at some point the City, as a major employer, would have to demand that these costs be moderated and controlled. Councilmember Sanger disagreed with the employer benefits contribution formula and stated when the City provides extra contribution to employees who cover their spouses and children, it means that employees who perform the same jobs will get different rates of compensation based on circumstances that have nothing to do with their job qualification and are based on personal choice, which violates the spirit and law of equal pay for equal work. She stated that she fully understood that the City’s employees are asking for more money because of the rising cost of health insurance but those costs are due to factors beyond the control of the City. She stated she will reluctantly support this because the employees asked for it, but in the future Council will need to give serious consideration to the inequities it is endorsing with this kind of benefit plan. Councilmember Mavity stated she strongly supported this and indicated if the City is going to attract and retain talent, it needs to be competitive and this is not about an equity issue but a market issue. The motion passed 7-0. 9. Communications Mayor Jacobs invited residents and the business community to attend a listening session regarding zero waste packaging on Monday, October 12, at 5:30 p.m. at City Hall. Mayor Jacobs announced the reopening of the Minnetonka Boulevard Bridge on Thursday, October 8th. He also announced that Highway 7 would be closing on October 10th. 10. Adjournment Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Second Reading of 2016 Fee Ordinance RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance establishing fees for 2016 as outlined in Appendix A of the City Code of Ordinances; and to approve the summary ordinance for publication. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the proposed revisions to the fee schedule to reflect fee adjustments for programs and services called for by ordinance? SUMMARY: Each year our fees are reviewed by departments prior to renewal and as part of our budget process. Some fees must be set and adjusted in accordance with our ordinance; other fees are allowed to be set administratively. All fees are reviewed each year based on comparison to other cities in the metro area, changes in regulations and to make sure our business costs are covered for such service. At the September 21, 2015 Study Session, Council received a written report which included all proposed citywide fees for 2016. No objections were raised by the Council Fees called for within individual provisions of the St. Louis Park City Code are to be set by ordinance and listed as Appendix A. On October 5, 2015, Council approved first reading of the Appendix A fee schedule and set second reading for October 19, 2015. If approved, fee increases will be effective January 1, 2016. Proposed utility fees will be presented to Council for final consideration at the October 19, 2015 City Council Meeting. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed fee increases have been incorporated into the proposed 2016 budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Proposed Ordinance and Summary Prepared by: Patricia A. Sulander, Accountant Reviewed by: Steven Heintz, Finance Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 2 Title: Second Reading of 2016 Fee Ordinance DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: Each Department Director has reviewed fees listed in Appendix A of the City Code. The Administrative Services Department has worked with individual departments and their recommendations are included in the attached ordinance. Unless otherwise noted, proposed fee increases reflect the increased administrative costs of providing services and were comparable to other cities. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE FEE CHANGES: Administrative Services: An additional fee has been added for sweeping snow into the street. Community Development: Fees were reviewed and adjusted to cover increased costs to conduct business. Engineering: Fees were reviewed and adjusted based on the cost to conduct business. Inspections: Fees were reviewed and adjusted based on the cost to conduct business. An additional Temporary Certificate of Property Maintenance fee has been added to process Other Occupancies related to Commercial properties. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 3 Title: Second Reading of 2016 Fee Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. ____-15 ORDINANCE ADOPTING FEES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2016 THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS: Section 1. Fees called for within individual provisions of the City Code are hereby set by this ordinance for calendar year 2016. Section 2. The Fee Schedule as listed below shall be included as Appendix A of the City Code and shall replace those fees adopted October 20, 2014 by Ordinance No. 2455-14 for the calendar year 2015 which is hereby rescinded. ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES Chapter 4 – Animal Regulations $50 Chapter 6 – Buildings & Building Regulations Chapter 6, Article V – Property Maintenance Code $100 Chapter 8 – Business and Business Licenses $100 Chapter 12 – Environment $50 Chapter 12, Section 1 – Environment & Public Health Regulations Adopted by Reference $100 Chapter 12, Section 157 – Illicit Discharge and Connection $100 Chapter 12, Section 159 – Wetland Protection $100 Chapter 14 – Fire and Fire Prevention $50 Chapter 14, Section 75 – Open burning without permit $100 Chapter 20 – Parks and Recreation $50 Chapter 22 – Solid Waste Management $50 Chapter 22, Section 35b – Contagious Disease Refuse $200 Chapter 24 – Streets, Sidewalks & Public Places $50 Chapter 24, Section 24-43 – Household Trash & Recycling Containers blocking public way $25 Chapter 24, Section 50 – Public Property: Defacing or injuring $150 Chapter 24, Section 51 – Sweeping leaves into street prohibited (need to add snow into street) $100 $100 Chapter 24, Section 151 – Work in public right-of-way without a permit $100 Chapter 26 – Subdivision $100 Violation of a condition associated with a Subdivision approval. $750 Chapter 32 – Utilities $50 Chapter 36 – Zoning $50 Chapter 36, Section 37 – Conducting a Land Use not permitted in the zoning district $100 Violation of a condition associated with a Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit Development, or Special Permit approval $750 Repeat Violations within 24 Months up to a maximum of $2,000 Double the amount of the fine imposed for the previous violation, up to a maximum of $2,000. For example, if there were four occurrences of a violation that carried a $50 fine, the fine for the fourth occurrence would be $400 (first: $50; second: $100; third: $200; fourth: $400). City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 4 Title: Second Reading of 2016 Fee Ordinance Fines in addition to abatement and licensing inspections Fines listed above may be in addition to fees associated with abatement and licensing inspections. CITY CLERK’S OFFICE Domestic Partnership Registration Application Fee $50 Amendment to Application Fee $25 Termination of Registration Fee $25 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Comprehensive Plan Amendments $2,050 Conditional Use Permit $2,050 Major Amendment $2,050 Minor Amendment $1,050 Fence Permit Installation $15 Numbering of Buildings (New Addresses) $50 Official Map Amendment $525 Parking Lot Permit Installation/Reconstruction $75 Driveway Permit $25 Planned Unit Development Preliminary PUD $2,050 Final PUD $2,050 Prelim/Final PUD Combined $2,400 PUD - Major Amendment $2,050 PUD - Minor Amendment $1,050 Recording Filing Fee Single Family $50 Other Uses $120 Registration of Land Use $50 Sign Permit Erection of Temporary Sign $30 Erection of Real Estate, Construction Sign 40+ ft $75 Installation of Permanent Sign without footings $75 Installation of Permanent Sign with footings $100 Special Permits Major Amendment $2,050 Minor Amendment $1,050 Street, Alley, Utility Vacations $800 Subdivision Dedication Park Dedication (in lieu of land) Commercial/Industrial Properties 5% of current market value of the unimproved land as determined by city assessor Multi-family Dwelling Units $1,500 per dwelling unit Single-family Dwelling Units $1,500 per dwelling unit Trails $225 per residential dwelling unit Subdivisions/Replats Preliminary Plat $850 plus $90 per lot Final Plat $525 Combined Process and Replats $950 plus $90 per lot Exempt and Administrative Subdivisions $300 City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 5 Title: Second Reading of 2016 Fee Ordinance Temporary Use Carnival & Festival over 14 days $1,500 Mobile Use Vehicle Zoning Permit (Food or Medical) $50 Time Extension $150 Traffic Management Plan Administrative Fee $0.10 per sq ft of gross floor Tree Replacement Cash in lieu of replacement trees $130 $135 per caliper inch Variances Commercial $500 Residential $300 Zoning Appeal $300 Zoning Letter $50 Zoning Map Amendments $2,050 Zoning Permit Accessory Structures, 120 ft or less $25 Zoning Text Amendments $2,050 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Installation/repair of Sidewalk, Curb Cut or Curb and Gutter Permit $12 per 10 linear feet Administrative Fee (all permits) $60 Work in Public Right-of-Way Permit Administrative Fee (all permits) $60 Hole in Roadway/Blvd (larger than 10" diameter) $60 per hole Trenching in Boulevard $200 per 100 linear feet (minimum $200) Trenching in Roadway $400 per 100 linear feet (minimum $400) Temporary No Parking Signs (for ROW permit work) $60 per hour per project (minimum $60) FIRE DEPARTMENT False Fire Alarm Residential Commercial 1st offense $0 $0 2nd offense in same year $100 $100 3rd offense in same year $150 $200 4th offense in same year $200 $300 5th offense in same year $200 $400 Each subsequent in same year $200 $100 increase Fireworks Display Permit Actual costs incurred Service Fees Service Fee for fully-equipped & staffed vehicles $500 per hour for a ladder truck $325 per hour for a full-size fire truck $255 per hour for a rescue unit Service Fee of a Chief Officer $100 per hour After Hours Inspections $65 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.) Tent Permit Tent over 200 sq. ft. $75 Canopy over 400 sq. ft. $75 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Building Demolition Deposit 1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $2,500 All Other Buildings $5,000 City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 6 Title: Second Reading of 2016 Fee Ordinance Building Demolition Permit 1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $160 All Other Buildings $250 Building Moving Permit $500 Business Licenses Billboards $150 $155 per billboard Commercial Entertainment $280 $285 Courtesy Bench $50 $55 Dog Kennel $150 $155 Environmental Emissions $310 $320 Massage Therapy Establishment $340 $350 Massage Therapy License $110 $115 Therapists holding a Massage Therapy Establishment License $30 $35 Pawnbroker License Fee $2,000 Per Transaction Fee $1.50 $2.00 Investigation Fee $1,000 Penalty $50 per day Sexually Oriented Business Investigation Fee (High Impact) $500 High Impact $4,500 Limited Impact $125 Tobacco Products & Related Device Sales $550 $565 Vehicle Parking Facilities Enclosed Parking $225 $230 Parking Ramp $175 $180 Certificate of Occupancy For each condominium unit completed after building occupancy $100 Change of Use (does not apply to 1 & 2 family dwellings) Up to 5,000 sq ft $400 $450 5,001 to 25,000 sq ft $600 $750 25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $800 $950 75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $1,000 $1,250 100,000 to 200,000 sq ft $1,400 $1,550 above 200,000 sq ft $1,800 $1,950 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $60 $80 Certificate of Property Maintenance Certificate of Property Maintenance Extension $60 Change in Ownership Condominium Unit $145 $150 Duplex (2 Family dwellings) $310 $320 Multi-Family (apartment) Buildings $250 $255 per building + $12 $13 per unit Single Family Dwellings $225 $230 All Other Buildings: Up to 5,000 sq ft $400 $450 5,001 to 25,000 sq ft $600 $750 25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $800 $950 75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $1,000 $1,250 100,000 to 200,000 sq. ft $1,400 $1,550 above 200,000 sq. ft $1,800 $1,950 Temporary Certificate of Property Maintenance Other Occupancies $75 $80 $0 $200 City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 7 Title: Second Reading of 2016 Fee Ordinance Construction Permits (building, electrical, fire protection, mechanical, plumbing, pools, utilities) Building and Fire Protection Permits Valuation Up to $500 Base Fee $55 $500.01 to $2,000.00 Base Fee $55 + $2 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $100 over $500.01 $2,000.01 to $25,000.00 Base Fee $85 + $15 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $2,000.01 $25,000.01 to $50,000.00 Base Fee $430 + $10 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $25,000.01 $50,000.01 to $100,000.00 Base Fee $680 + $7 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $50,000.01 $100,000.01 to $500,000.00 Base Fee $1,030 + $6 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $100.000.01 $500,000.01 to $1,000,000.00 Base Fee $3,430 + $5 for each Additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $500,000.01 $1,000,000.01 and up Base Fee $5,930 + $4.50 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $1,000,000.01 Construction Permits (cont.) Single Family Residential Exceptions: Reroofing – asphalt shingled, sloped roofs only House or House and Garage $140 Garage Only $70 Residing House or House and Garage $140 Garage Only $70 Electrical Permit Installation, Replacement, Repair $50 + 1.75% of job valuation Installation of traffic signals per location $150 Single family, one appliance $50 Erosion Control Permit Application and Review $200 ISTS Permit (sewage treatment system install or repair) $125 Mechanical Permit Installation, Replacement, Repair $50 + 1.75% of job valuation Single Family Exceptions: Replace furnace, boiler or furnace/AC $65 Install single fuel burning appliance with piping $65 Install, replace or repair single mechanical appliance $50 Plumbing Permit Installation, Replacement, Repair $50 + 1.75% of job valuation Single Family Exceptions: Repair/replace single plumbing fixture $50 Private Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 8 Title: Second Reading of 2016 Fee Ordinance Public Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply Sewer & Water Permit (all underground private utilities) Installation, Replacement, Repair $45 + 1.75% of job valuation Single Family Exceptions: Replace/repair sewer or water service $80 Water Access Charge $750 Competency Exams Fees Mechanical per test $30 Renewal - 3 year Mechanical $30 Contractor Licenses Mechanical $100 Solid Waste $200 Tree Maintenance $95 Dog Licenses 1 year $25 2 year $40 3 year $50 Potentially Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $100 Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $250 Interim License $15 Off-Leash Dog Area Permit (non-resident) $55 Penalty for no license $40 Inspections After Hours Inspections $65 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.) $75 per hour Installation of permanent sign w/footing inspection Based on valuation using building permit table Re-Inspection Fee (after correction notice issued and has not been corrected within 2 subsequent inspections) $130 Insurance Requirements A minimum of: Circus $1,000,000 General Liability Commercial Entertainment $1,000,000 General Liability Mechanical Contractors $1,000,000 General Liability Solid Waste $1,000,000 General Liability Tree Maintenance & Removal $1,000,000 General Liability Vehicle Parking Facility $1,000,000 General Liability ISTS Permit Sewage treatment system install or repair $125 License Fees - Other Investigation Fee $300 per establishment requiring a business licen Late Fee 25% of license fee (minimum $50) License Reinstatement Fee $250 Transfer of License (new ownership) $75 Plan Review Building Permits 65% of Permit Fee Repetitive Building 25% of Permit Fee for Duplicate Structure Electrical Permits 35% of Permit Fee Mechanical Permits 35% of Permit Fee Plumbing Permits 35% of Permit Fee Sewer & Water Permits 35% of Permit Fee Single Family Interior Remodel Permits 35% of Permit Fee Rental Housing License City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 9 Title: Second Reading of 2016 Fee Ordinance Condominium/Townhouse/Cooperative $85 $90 per unit Duplex both sides non-owner occupied $160 $170 per duplex Housing Authority owned single family dwelling units $15 per unit Multiple Family Per Building $200 $220 Per Unit $14 $15 Single Family Unit $110 $120 per dwelling unit Temporary Noise Permit $60 $65 Temporary Use Permits Amusement Rides, Carnivals & Circuses $260 Commercial Film Production Application $100 Petting Zoos $60 Vehicle Decals Solid Waste $25 Tree Maintenance & Removal $10 OPERATIONS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT Permit to Exceed Vehicle Weight Limitations (MSC) $30 each Winter Parking Permit Caregiver parking $25 No off-street parking available No Charge Off-street parking available $125 POLICE DEPARTMENT Animals Animal Impound Initial impoundment $35 2nd offense w/in year $60 3rd offense w/in year $85 4th offense w/in year $110 Boarding Per Day $25 Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $250 Potentially Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $100 Criminal Background Investigation Volunteers & Employees $5 False Alarm (Police) Residential Commercial 1st offense $0 $0 2nd offense in same year $100 $100 3rd offense in same year $100 $125 4th offense in same year $100 $150 5th offense in same year $100 $175 Each subsequent in same year $100 $25 increase Late payment fee 10% Solicitor/Peddler Registration $150 Lost ID Replacement Fee $25 Vehicle Forfeiture Administrative fee in certain vehicle forfeiture cases $250 City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 10 Title: Second Reading of 2016 Fee Ordinance Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2016. Public Hearing October 5, 2015 Second Reading October 19, 2015 Date of Publication October 29, 2015 Date Ordinance takes effect January 1, 2016 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: City Clerk City Attorney City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 11 Title: Second Reading of 2016 Fee Ordinance SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. _____-15 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FEES CALLED FOR BY ORDINANCE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2016 This ordinance sets 2016 fees as outlined in Appendix A of the City Code of Ordinances. The fee ordinance is modified to reflect the cost of providing services and is completed each year to determine what, if any, fees require adjustment. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2016. Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2015 Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: October 29, 2015 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Resolution Awarding Elliott Royce with the Outstanding Citizen Award RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution awarding Elliott Royce with the Outstanding Citizen Award. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: The Outstanding Citizen Award Program is intended to provide the community with an opportunity to publicly acknowledge the contributions made by certain individuals who have worked and dedicated their time for the betterment of the community. The City believes it is important to recognize St. Louis Park community members for extraordinary accomplishments, heroic and courageous efforts, and perseverance despite incredible odds. In 2015 the City Council nominated and selected Elliott Royce as the recipient of the Outstanding Citizen Award. Elliott was a vital member of the St. Louis Park community who was committed to life-long learning, educating others, and building lasting relationships. Elliott’s passion for life and his dedication to the community epitomize what it means to be an outstanding citizen. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4b) Page 2 Title: Resolution Awarding Elliott Royce with the Outstanding Citizen Award RESOLUTION NO. 15-___ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA PRESENTING ELLIOTT ROYCE WITH THE 2015 OUTSTANDING CITIZEN AWARD WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park believes it is important to recognize certain individuals for extraordinary accomplishments and contributions to the St. Louis Park community; and WHEREAS, Elliott Royce was a pillar of the community whose lifelong service encompassed serving in the military in World War II to building several successful businesses to being a concerned and committed neighbor to volunteering in his community; and WHEREAS, Elliott Royce consistently demonstrated a desire to make a difference and leave a lasting impression on the lives of all those he knew; exhibited not only through his efforts to protect seniors from falls but also through his service to his synagogue, community and country; and WHEREAS, Elliott Royce demonstrated an exuberance and zest for life that was an example to his family, friends, colleagues, faith community and others and that will be a continuing legacy to those he’s left behind; and WHEREAS, Elliott Royce will be greatly missed by everyone whose lives he touched but whose memory will bring a smile to all of us, whether recalling his myriad collection of hats; his habit of handing out bananas at Excelsior and Grand in order to meet new people; or his love of puzzles and games. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, by this Resolution would like to recognize and honor Elliott Royce for an exemplary life filled with energy, passion, acceptance, and a persistent dedication to the betterment of the community by awarding him with the St. Louis Park Outstanding Citizen Award. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Hennepin County Youth Sports Facility Grant Application for The Rec Center Outdoor Ice Rink Project RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the submission of the Hennepin County Youth Sports Facility Grant Application to the Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission in the amount of $300,000 for The Rec Center Outdoor Ice Arena Project. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the City Council supportive of applying for grant funding to assist in the building of the Outdoor Ice Rink. SUMMARY: The Hennepin Youth Sports Program provides grants to local governments to improve youth athletics and recreational facilities. The State of Minnesota law authorizing the construction of Target Field allows Hennepin County to use proceeds from the 0.15% sales tax surcharge to award over $2 million each year for sports facilities and equipment. The Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission (MASC) is contracted to serve as the grant administrator for the Hennepin Youth Sports Program. MASC evaluates the applications and provides recommendations to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. Grant applications are due November 2, 2015 with notice of awards anticipated in mid-December. If awarded funding, grant funds must be matched dollar for dollar by the City and the project is required to be completed by June 30, 2017. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The latest estimate for the outdoor rink project is $6.9 million. If successful, grant funding will be used to reduce the construction cost of the outdoor ice arena project. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Senior Office Assistant Jason Eisold, Rec Center Manager Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 2 Title: Hennepin County Youth Sports Facility Grant Application for The Rec Center Outdoor Ice Rink Project RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $300,000 FOR THE OUTDOOR ICE ARENA PROJECT Resolution of LGU Hennepin County Youth Sports Facility Grant Application Required form of resolution authorizing filing of application and execution of agreement to develop sports or recreation facilities under the provisions of the Hennepin Youth Sports Program. WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, via the Hennepin Youth Sports Program, provides for capital funds to assist local government units of Hennepin County for the development of sports or recreational facilities, and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park desires to develop an Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Arena/Outdoor Recreation Facility. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL of the LGU: I. The estimate of the total cost of developing PROJECT is $6.9 million dollars. The LGU is requesting $300,000 from the Hennepin Youth Sports Program and will assume responsibility for a matching funds requirement of $300,000. II. LGU agrees to own and assume one hundred (100) percent of operational and maintenance costs for PROJECT. LGU will operate PROJECT for its intended purpose for the functional life of the facility, which is estimated to be 30 years. III. LGU agrees to enter into necessary and required agreements with Hennepin County for the specific purpose of developing PROJECT and managing its long-term operation. IV. That Tom Harmening, City Manager, is authorized and directed to execute the application for the Hennepin Youth Sports Program grant. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2015 Tom Harmening, City Manager Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4d EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Accept Donation from National Arbor Day Foundation RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a donation/scholarship from the National Arbor Day Foundation in an amount not to exceed $350 for registration cost for Jim Vaughan, Natural Resources Coordinator, to attend the Partners in Community Forestry Conference in Denver, Colorado November 18 – 19, 2015. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on its use? SUMMARY: State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation prior to it being expended. The City of St. Louis Park’s Natural Resources Coordinator, Jim Vaughan, will represent the Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee (MNSTAC) as the State of Minnesota Urban Forest Council President at the 2015 Partners in Community Forestry Conference in Denver, Colorado, November 18 - 19, 2015. This is an annual conference for arborists/community foresters covering many aspects in the science, technology, management and practice of urban tree care. MNSTAC elected Mr. Vaughan as their President in 2015. Most state urban forest council presidents attend this conference. As a result of Mr. Vaughan’s election, the National Arbor Day Foundation has offered to pay the registration cost for the conference in an amount not to exceed $350. The City Attorney has reviewed this matter. His opinion is that state law permits the payment of such expenses by this organization, regardless of whether the funds come from primary or secondary sources. It is treated as a gift to the city and needs to be adopted by a City Council resolution determining that attendance at this event serves a public purpose and accepting the gift. The resolution needs to be adopted before attendance at the conference. The City of St. Louis Park will pay for travel, food and hotel accommodations. These costs are accounted for in the City’s budget. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This donation will be used for the registration of Jim Vaughan, for the Partners in Community Forestry Conference in Denver, Colorado, November 18 – 19, 2015. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Administrative Secretary Jim Vaughan, Natural Resources Coordinator Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4d) Page 2 Title: Accept Donation from National Arbor Day Foundation RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATION FROM NATIONAL ARBOR DAY FOUNDATION FOR REGISTRATION COST FOR JIM VAUGHAN TO ATTEND THE NOVEMBER 18-19, 2015 PARTNERS IN COMMUNITY FORESTRY CONFERENCE WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize acceptance of any donations; and WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the donor; and WHEREAS, the National Arbor Day Foundation will pay for the cost of registration, in an amount not to exceed $350, for the City’s Natural Resources Coordinator, Jim Vaughan, to attend the Partners in Community Forestry Conference, November 18-19, 2015, in Denver, Colorado; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to the National Arbor Day Foundation with the understanding that it must be used for registration costs for Jim Vaughan to attend the 2015 Partners in Community Forestry Conference in Denver, Colorado. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4e EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Accept Monetary Donation from Comcast Foundation RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from Comcast Foundation in the amount of $655.87 to be used for the purchase of materials for future parks clean-up events. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on its use? SUMMARY: State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation prior to it being expended. This past summer, as part of their 14th annual Comcast Cares Day, a group of Comcast employees helped clean up several parks in St. Louis Park. In gratitude for helping make that day a “huge success”, Comcast has graciously donated $655.87 that will be used to purchase supplies, within our natural resources division, for future park clean-ups. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This donation will be used at the discretion of Natural Resources Coordinator for purchase of supplies for future park clean-up events. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Administrative Secretary Jim Vaughan, Natural Resources Coordinator Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4e) Page 2 Title: Accept Monetary Donation from Comcast Foundation RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 655.87 TO BE USED TO PURCHASE MATERIALS FOR FUTURE PARKS CLEAN-UP EVENTS. WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize acceptance of any donations; and WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the donor; and WHEREAS, Comcast Foundation donated $655.87 to the City of St. Louis Park; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to Comcast Foundation with the understanding that it will be used to purchase materials to aid future parks clean-up events. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4f EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Accept Monetary Donation from Lisa Butman to City of St. Louis Park ($2,200) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from Lisa Butman in the amount of $2,200 for a memorial bench in memory of Christopher Michael Bohlinger at Westwood Hills Nature Center. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on its use? SUMMARY: State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation prior to it being expended. Lisa Butman graciously donated $2,200 to The City of St. Louis Park. The donation is given with the restriction that it be used at Westwood Hills Nature Center for a memorial bench in memory of Christopher Michael Bohlinger. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This donation will be used at Westwood Hills Nature Center for a memorial bench in memory of Christopher Michael Bohlinger. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Carrie Mandler, Westwood Hills Nature Center Secretary Mark Oestreich, Westwood Hills Nature Center Manager Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks & Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4f) Page 2 Title: Accept Monetary Donation from Lisa Butman to City of St. Louis Park ($2,200) RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,200 TO BE USED AT WESTWOOD HILLS NATURE CENTER FOR A MEMORIAL BENCH IN MEMORY OF CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL BOHLINGER WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize acceptance of any donations; and WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the donor; and WHEREAS, Lisa Butman donated $2,200 to be used at Westwood Hills Nature Center for a memorial bench in memory of Christopher Michael Bohlinger. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to Lisa Butman with the understanding that it must be used at Westwood Hills Nature Center for a memorial bench in memory of Christopher Michael Bohlinger. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4g EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Bid Tabulation: Award Bids for the 2015 Concrete Replacement – Project No. 4015- 0003 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to award bids for the 2015 Concrete Replacement– Project No. 4015-0003. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to continue the City’s practice of repairing or replacing sidewalk, curb and gutter and catch basins in need of repair? SUMMARY: A total of two (2) bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid results is as follows: CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT Concrete Idea, Inc. $171,769.50 O’Malley Construction $292,488.94 Engineer’s Estimate $207,438.00 A review of the bids indicates Concrete Idea, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid. Concrete Idea, Inc. is a reputable contractor that has worked for the City before. Staff recommends that a contract be awarded to the firm in the amount of $171,769.50. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: These projects were planned for and included in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program with an estimated budget of $194,000. Based on the low bid received the total project costs are estimated to be $171,769.50, which is within the budget identified for this project. This project is funded by the Public Works Operations budget, Stormwater Utility funds and the Pavement Management funds. Funding details are provided in the Discussion section. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Prepared by: Phillip Elkin, Senior Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4g) Page 2 Title: Bid Tabulation: Award Bids for the 2015 Concrete Replacement– Project No. 4015-0003 DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: This project is the annual repair and construction of sidewalk, curb and gutter, and storm sewer catch basins at various locations in the city. Staff annually surveys the condition of sidewalks to identify hazards for repair. Panels of sidewalk that are cracked or have been lifted by tree roots to create trip hazards that need to be removed and replaced are included in this contract. Curb and gutter with similar defects that create drainage or safety problems are also repaired. Deteriorating catch basins that are within the work area will also be repaired or rebuilt. Most of this work will be concentrated in next year’s sealcoating area (Area 1 which includes the Texa Tonka, Lenox, and Sorensen neighborhoods). This project was originally bid in August. The bids received at that time were 28% above the budgeted amount. In the interest of getting the best bid for this work, the City Council rejected the bids at their September 8 meeting and staff rebid the project with a completion date of June 30, 2016. An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on September 17, 2015. In addition, plans and specifications are noticed on the City Website and are made available electronically via the internet by our vendor Quest CDN.com. The new bids were received on October 12, 2015. Ten contractors/vendors purchased plan sets including two Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) and one Veterans Preferred business Funding Details Based on the low bid received, cost and funding details are revised as follows: Expenditures Construction Cost (proposed contract) $171,769.50 Engineering & Administration $20,612.34 Total $192,381.84 Revenues PW Operations Funds (sidewalk repairs) $45,000.00 PW Operations Funds (curb and gutter repairs) $50,000.00 Pavement Management Funds $42,381.84 Stormwater Utility Funds $55,000.00 Total $192,381.84 These projects were planned for and included in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program. Construction Timeline: This work is to be completed by June 30, 2016. Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4h EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Adoption of 2016 Utility Rates RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution setting the 2016 Utility Rates. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council desire to set the 2016 Utility Rates as proposed? SUMMARY: At the September 8, 2015 study session, staff presented the proposed utility rates to Council. City staff, in conjunction with consultants, analyzed the City’s utility operations and capital plans over the next 10 years to determine if rate adjustments are needed to maintain long term sustainability in each of the four utility funds. The City Council reviewed and discussed information provided by staff over the course of the year to determine the proposed utility rates for 2016 to be considered this evening. Based on analyses from information in the CIP and the plan approved by Council, which is the continued phased-in increase to the fixed fee for the Water Fund as a means to reduce some of the seasonal volatility, changes in utility rates are being recommended. The changes are consistent with information Council received in the past and are in line with the goals of achieving long-term sustainability in the funds and promoting a decrease in refuse. For 2016, the approximate cumulative effect on a typical residential property for all the utility rate adjustments would be an increase of $60.76, or 5.95% for the year, or approximately $5.06 per month. This calculation is based on a family of four using 30 units of water per quarter (22,500 gallons), and 60 gallon solid waste service. The recommended rates will be in place for consumption or services provided beginning on January 1, 2016. The attached resolution provides specific information on the recommended rate adjustments for each fund. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The utility rates will support necessary city services to be provided during 2016. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 2016 Proposed Utility Rates - Impact on a Residential Property Resolution Prepared by: Steven Heintz, Finance Supervisor Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Controller Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 2 Title: Adoption of 2016 Utility Rates CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ESTIMATED QUARTERLY UTILITY BILL ACTUAL 2015 AND PROPOSED 2016 Household Size 4 Units per quarter 30 Solid Waste Service 60-gallon Meter size 3/4 inch Actual Proposed Dollar Percent Service Type 2015 2016 Change Change Notes Water Per unit rate - Tier 1 1.55$ 1.66$ 0.11$ 7.10% Service charge 19.91$ 22.35$ 2.44$ 12.26% State testing fee 1.59$ 1.59$ -$ 0.00% Consumption 46.50$ 49.80$ 3.30$ 7.10% Sewer Service charge 14.52$ 15.68$ 1.16$ 7.99% Per unit 2.84$ 3.07$ 0.23$ 8.10% Consumption 85.20$ 92.10$ 6.90$ 8.10% Storm Drainage Service charge 19.36$ 21.30$ 1.94$ 10.02% Bassett Creek Fee*1.93$ 1.93$ -$ 0.00%Bassett Creek fee Solid Waste (includes tax)68.05$ 67.50$ (0.55)$ -0.81% Total Bill without Bassett*255.13$ 270.32$ 15.19$ 5.95%Not including BCWMC Increase per quarter (dollars)15.19$ Increase per year (dollars)60.76$ * Since not all property owners would be charged this fee, it is not included in the dollar or percentage change in total bill. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 3 Title: Adoption of 2016 Utility Rates RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ RESOLUTION SETTING UTILITY RATES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has received a report through the Controller related to proposed utility rates; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the city to maintain charges in an amount necessary to cover the cost of providing service to users; and WHEREAS, maintaining rates through regular adjustment is a recommended practice rather than large intermittent increases; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, MN, that: 1. The water rates as recommended are hereby adopted. Description Units of Usage* Adopted Rate Tier1 0 - 40 units (0-30,000 gallons) 1.66 Tier 2 41-80 units (30,001 – 60,000 gallons) 2.07 Tier 3 >80 units (>60,000 gallons) 3.09 Commercial All units 1.66 Irrigation All units 3.09 *1 unit equals 100 cubic feet or 750 gallons 2. The water meter charges recommended are hereby adopted. Residential/Multi-family Quarterly Fee Commercial Monthly Fee Meter Size 2016 2016 5/8" $ 22.35 $ 7.45 3/4" $ 22.35 $ 7.45 1" $ 31.29 $ 10.43 1.5" $ 40.23 $ 13.41 2" $ 64.82 $ 21.61 3" $ 245.85 $ 81.95 4" $ 312.90 $ 104.30 6" $ 469.35 $ 156.45 2" compound $ 64.82 n/a 3" compound $ 245.85 n/a 3. The Minnesota Department of Health state testing for water quality will continue to be imposed at a rate of $1.59 per quarter for residential and multi-family and $0.53 per month for commercial accounts. 4. The sanitary sewer usage rate recommended is hereby adopted at $3.07 per unit. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 4 Title: Adoption of 2016 Utility Rates 5. The sanitary sewer base charge recommended is hereby adopted at $15.68 per quarter for residential and multi-family accounts and $5.23 per month for commercial accounts. 6. The storm sewer rate recommended is hereby adopted at $21.30 per quarter per residential equivalent unit or $35.50 per month per residential equivalent unit for commercial accounts. 7. The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Charge pass through for properties located within the Bassett Creek Watershed Management District will be $1.93 per quarter per residential equivalent unit or $0.64 per month per residential equivalent unit. 8. The solid waste service charges per quarter recommended are hereby adopted. Service Level In Gallons Rates – without tax 20 $ 28.47 30 $ 46.98 60 $ 64.06 90 $ 93.95 120 $ 136.66 150 $ 170.82 180 $ 204.99 270 $ 307.48 360 $ 409.98 450 $ 511.52 540 $ 614.96 9. The organic waste service charge recommended is hereby adopted at $10.00 per quarter for residential accounts. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Approval of Reimbursement Resolution for South West Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution Declaring the Official Intent of the City of St. Louis Park to Reimburse Certain Expenditures from the Proceeds of Bonds to be Issued by the City. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council desire to approve a reimbursement resolution to preserve the ability to bond for the City’s costs related to the multiphase expansion for SWLRT? SUMMARY: The SWLRT project continues to develop and more clarity is occurring regarding potential City costs or cost sharing projects. As such, it is requested to have the Council consider a reimbursement resolution from bond proceeds for eligible costs related to SWLRT. Currently, estimated costs are still quite preliminary, but the total potential City cost for the possible projects are approximately $55 to $70 million. Of this amount staff has and will be looking at ways to leverage City resources through grants, matching funds, etc. to help mitigate the cash outflow of city funds. These potential projects will be financed through the issuance of General Obligation Tax Exempt Bonds over several phases of the project life as funds are needed and in accordance with required spend down provisions. In order to preserve the ability to bond for the City’s construction costs, a pre-existing declaration of intent by the City to use bond proceeds to finance all or a portion of the expenditures is required prior to incurring those costs. The City is also eligible to be reimbursed for “preliminary expenditures”, such as architectural, engineering, and surveying costs, etc., up to an amount allowed under the reimbursement regulations. The attached resolution covers both construction and preliminary expenditures. The $39.75 million reimbursement maximum would cover projected costs and projects from 2015 through 2018, and then another reimbursement resolution or resolutions would be approved in 2018 or beyond to cover the remaining potential projects. The City is not required to issue $39.75 million in bonds, nor is obligated to many of the projects, but via this resolution has the flexibility to do so and reimburse itself for the costs. Also, if costs increase or are moved up on the timeline, the reimbursement resolution can be revised to reflect these changes with no detrimental impacts. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: As projects and cost continue to evolve and timelines developed, bonds may be issued to cover the costs of the project(s). These will be General Obligation Tax Exempt Bonds and will be financed via a property tax levy. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4i) Page 2 Title: Approval of Reimbursement Resolution for South West Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service has issued Treas. Reg. § 1.150-2 (the “Reimbursement Regulations”) providing that proceeds of tax-exempt bonds used to reimburse prior expenditures will not be deemed spent unless certain requirements are met; and WHEREAS, the City expects to incur certain expenditures that may be financed temporarily from sources other than bonds, and reimbursed from the proceeds of a tax-exempt bond; WHEREAS, the City has determined to make this declaration of official intent (the “Declaration”) to reimburse certain costs from proceeds of bonds in accordance with the Reimbursement Regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City proposes to potentially undertake projects consisting of the construction of City infrastructure improvements in connection with the construction of the Southwest Light Rail Transit line, along with associated utility improvements (the “Projects”). The City will construct the Projects over a period of approximately ten years. 2. The City reasonably expects to reimburse the expenditures made for certain costs of the Projects in the years 2015 through 2018 from the proceeds of one or more series of bonds in an estimated maximum aggregate principal amount of $39,750,000. All reimbursed expenditures will be capital expenditures, costs of issuance of the bonds, or other expenditures eligible for reimbursement under Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of the Reimbursement Regulations. 3. This Declaration has been made not later than 60 days after payment of any original expenditure to be subject to a reimbursement allocation with respect to the proceeds of bonds, except for the following expenditures: (a) costs of issuance of bonds; (b) costs in an amount not in excess of $100,000 or 5 percent of the proceeds of an issue; or (c) “preliminary expenditures” up to an amount not in excess of 20 percent of the aggregate issue price of the issue or issues that finance or are reasonably expected by the City to finance the project for which the preliminary expenditures were incurred. The term “preliminary expenditures” includes architectural, engineering, surveying, bond issuance, and similar costs that are incurred prior to commencement of acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of a project, other than land acquisition, site preparation, and similar costs incident to commencement of construction. 4. This Declaration is an expression of the reasonable expectations of the City based on the facts and circumstances known to the City as of the date hereof. The anticipated original City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4i) Page 3 Title: Approval of Reimbursement Resolution for South West Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) expenditures for the Project and the principal amount of the bonds described in paragraph 2 are consistent with the City’s budgetary and financial circumstances. No sources other than proceeds of bonds to be issued by the City are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside pursuant to the City’s budget or financial policies to pay such Project expenditures. 5. This Declaration is intended to constitute a declaration of official intent for purposes of the Reimbursement Regulations. Approved this 19th day of October, 2015, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4j EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Accept Donation for Minnetonka Boulevard Bridge Ribbon Cutting (Value $115) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a donation from Cub Foods, 5370 W. 16th Street, to the City of St. Louis Park for the October 8, 2015, Minnetonka Boulevard Bridge Ribbon Cutting (Value $115) for cookies given away at the event. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on its use? SUMMARY: State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation prior to it being expended. Cub Foods donated 400 cookies valued at $115 total. The donations were given with the restriction that they be used at the October 8, 2015, ribbon cutting event. Cookies were enjoyed by guests of the event. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This donation was used to host a community event celebrating the opening of the Minnetonka Boulevard Bridge over Hwy. 100. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Jacqueline Larson, Communications and Marketing Manager Reviewed by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4j) Page 2 Title: Accept Donation for Minnetonka Boulevard Bridge Ribbon Cutting (Value $115) RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING DONATION FOR MINNETONKA BOULEVARD BRIDGE RIBBON CUTTING (VALUE $115) WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize acceptance of any donations; and WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the donor; and WHEREAS, Cub Foods donated food worth a total value of $115; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to Cub Foods and General Manager Chris Pickar with the understanding that these items were used for the October 8, 2015, Minnetonka Boulevard bridge ribbon cutting. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4k OFFICIAL MINUTES Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission May 13, 2015, 6:30 p.m. Meeting The Rec Center Programming Office 1. Call to Order Ms. Griffin, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:27 p.m. Commission members present: Sarah Foulkes, Elizabeth Griffin, George Hagemann, Kirk Hawkinson, and Peter May. Commission members absent: Jim Beneke, George Foulkes, and Edward Halvorson. Staff present: Jason Eisold, The Rec Center Manager, Jim Lombardi, Recreation Supervisor, Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation, Jason West, Recreation Superintendent, and Stacy Voelker, Recording Secretary. Guest present: Sara Maaske, Health in the Park representative, Trent Seaman, Preside of Fastpitch Association, Kate Stites, Fastpitch Association Board Member, and Paul Wandmacher, President of Hockey Association. 2. Presentations St. Louis Park Fastpitch Association (Trent Seaman) The Fastpitch Association board member, Trent Seaman, provided an outline of a comparison between Fastpitch and baseball to the commission members. He feels there is an inequality in baseball versus softball in St. Louis Park and St. Louis Park is one of the only cities in the surrounding area that does not have a dedicated facility for fastpitch. While he does not want baseball to be minimized, he does want equality for girls and fastpitch. Mr. Seaman indicates the varsity baseball field has been re-sodded with wind screen and scoreboards added. The softball field at the Middle School has no pitchers’ mound, no batting cages, the dugouts are uncovered and lack other amenities that are in place for baseball fields. Commission members listened to what amenities the Fastpitch Association would like and reminded Mr. Seaman that the school facilities are not under City jurisdiction. Ms. Griffin advised the community raised over half of the funding for the scoreboard on the baseball field and inquired if the Fastpitch Association has a contribution. Mr. Seaman indicated Fastpitch is willing to fundraise in order to move forward with items on their wish list. Ms. Griffin indicated it helps if the Association is willing to provide some funding to assist with amenities and provided examples of how the Baseball Association brought forth contributions for their amenities. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4k) Page 2 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of May 13, 2015 Mr. Seaman mentioned there would be room at the Middle School for a four-plex with concessions. They would then have a field at the north side of town. A four-plex could be added at Peter Hobart also instead of the current fields. Ms. Griffin inquired how to proceed as Middle School and Peter Hobart are School District property. Ms. Walsh and Mr. West suggested a joint meeting with Andy Ewald, the Athletic Director for the school district. Mr. Hawkinson inquired how many teams Fastpitch has to which Mr. Seaman advised there are ten teams. Ms. Foulkes inquired how many players. There are approximately 120, 8-14 year olds, advised Mr. Seaman. Ms. Foulkes asked if they use Aquila fields. Mr. Seaman indicated their schedule does not work at Aquila as they generally play Tuesdays and need to be off the field at 7 p.m. Mr. Lombardi advised field four is available daily except Tuesdays; Pennsylvania and Bronx fields are available a couple days each week as it is shared with Little League. The Middle School fields are available seven days a week and are dedicated to Fastpitch. Mr. Hawkinson inquired if all leagues are on Tuesdays to which Mr. Seaman advised most of the leagues are on Tuesdays with some variation. Mr. Seaman mentioned the Suburban League makes the rules, not the Fastpitch Association. Mr. Lombardi advised they play alternating Thursday’s also. When requests were received for field usage from Fastpitch, baseball schedules were already received and created. Mr. Lombardi suggested reviewing fields in St. Louis Park to see which ones Fastpich may utilize and how they can share with other associations. Other cities are struggling with field space also, Mr. Lombardi indicated, and they share space between cities and provided examples from personal experience. Mr. Seaman advised they need 200 feet of fencing on fields to host regional tournaments. Ms. Griffin inquired how much it would cost to add a fence at Pennsylvania to make it a dedicated Fastpitch field and how much Fastpitch could contribute. Ms. Walsh mentioned the addition of lighting to certain fields to increase playing time is another option to review. Ms. Stites feels part of the upcoming discussions should include how much associations contribute versus the City for Association projects. Mr. Seaman comments the Children First community does a great job with boy’s baseball but not with girls Fastpitch. Ms. Walsh mentioned Aquila four has a scoreboard, lights, etc. as of last year. Ms. Griffin commented Fastpitch registered participants have been smaller than Little League participants which is more of the key to field usage than gender. Ms. Griffin explained ways funding was obtained for the boy’s baseball to assist in field upgrades. Mr. Hawkinson commented the Twins Foundation provided some funding; Mr. Lombardi commented a grant was received for some equipment also. Ms. Griffin believes Andy Ewald may have information on Hennepin County grants available to assist in funding. Mr. Lombardi mentioned if the association holds state tournaments and have temporary fencing, Aquila Park would be a great place. It was suggested to create a working group to review softball field locations in the City, discuss options with the school district, decide what amenities are needed at locations, and discuss how to fund. Ms. Griffin reiterated that she will contact Andy Ewald in the City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4k) Page 3 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of May 13, 2015 School District to set up a meeting. She will contact the Fastpitch Association with meeting information and will reconvene after the meeting to discuss. Commission members and Fastpitch Association members thanked each other. Encore Development Discussion (Ryan Kelley) Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner for the Community Development Department, briefly explained the Shoreham Development and provided additional maps of the exact location. The original name of the development was Encore which has been changed to The Shoreham. The development will have 150 residential units, 10,000 square feet of office and 10,000 square feet of medical office. Mr. Kelley briefly reviewed the outdoor recreation area of the development, which is required by the City. Since no parks are designated for this area, it is recommended to accept cash-in-lieu of land. Based on the 2015 dedication fee schedule, the estimated park dedication fee would be $219,000 and the trail dedication fee would be $32,850. These dedication fees go into the Park Improvement Fund along with tax-based funding. Mr. Hawkinson inquired on a bike connection at 31st and Highway 25. Mr. Kelley indicated the Cities of Minneapolis and St. Louis Park own 31st and Highway 25 but St. Louis Park is the area paved. Staff recommended France Avenue and 31st connect in this area with sidewalks and bike lanes on the street. Connect the Park shows a bike facility going north on France. Additionally, the regional trail is just south of it. The Cities of Minneapolis and St. Louis Park would like access to the regional trail, which 31st may serve as direct access. Ms. Griffin questioned when the development project would begin. Mr. Kelley advised the project will be presented to the City Council on Monday. Since the Planning Commission approved last week, if Council approves at Monday evenings meeting, the project will begin this summer. A motion to accept cash-in-lieu of land for Park Dedication in the amount of $219,000 and Trail Dedication in the amount of $32,850 for The Shoreham Development was moved by Commission member Hawkinson, seconded by Commission member Hagemann. Kirk. Seconded by Hagemann. The motion passed 5 – 0. St. Louis Park Hockey Association (Paul Wandmacher) Paul Wandmacher, President of St. Louis Park Hockey Association, introduced himself to the Commission. Midway through the Hockey Season Mr. Wandmacher became President (from Vice President). The Association currently has 360 registered individuals in the program. All higher levels are struggling and the recruitment of girls has lowered. Due to the low number of girl’s hockey players, the Association merged with Hopkins which went well last year. There are 4 – 5 teams at each of the bantam and pee wee levels. The Association works with the schools for recruitment. They have sponsored two Little League teams and are working with them to recruit young kids to promote hockey programs, with the focus on girls. The Association would like to find a balance between boys and girls. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4k) Page 4 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of May 13, 2015 Mr. Wandmacher announced the Hockey Association is very pleased to provide $1.5 million to help create a third ice rink outdoors. Once issue they have is not enough ice which the outdoor rink would assist. The funding comes from Bunny’s and the gambling end of the business. They have committed $100,000 per year for the outdoor rink. They would add another $50,000 for lighting the outdoor rink. It would be great if the Soccer Association, and other Associations, could use the outdoor rink when ice is out creating a multi-use facility. The goal is for the Association to partner with the City on the facility. Feedback was received from a couple tournaments held at The Rec Center in that it was a great place for tournaments. Hope to hold more. The Hockey Association has financially helped football, baseball, traveling baseball, etc. They are working to find a standard or balance so Associations receive equal funding. Ms. Walsh complimented the Hockey Association as they’ve always had a good relationship with the City, they’re great to work with, are open to discuss positive improvements and assist in funding. Mr. Wandmacher indicated they work hard to keep the partnership with City open and also assist STEP. Mr. Wandmacher thanked all; commission members thanked Mr. Wandmacher. 3. Approval of Minutes a. March 18, 2015 It was moved by Commission member Hagemann to approve the minutes as presented; seconded by Commission member Hawkinson. The motion passed 5 – 0. 4. Old Business a. Outdoor Ice Complex Update and Walk-Through (Jason Eisold) Jason Eisold, Rec Center Manager, provided a view of the project: the venue will be a year-round multi-use facility with ice in the winter, turf March – May, and a covered venue May – mid-October. The venue could be used for Parktacular, the Ice Cream Social, concerts, etc. Discover St. Louis Park will assist in marketing the venue. Mr. Eisold indicated great support has been received on this project to this point. Ms. Walsh advised the unknown at this point is the bidding climate. This project will be in conjunction with the replacement of the refrigeration elements in the ice arenas. Jason West, Recreation Superintendent, advised on May 26 an update will be presented to the City Council. If Council approves, the project will move forward with the preparation of construction documents. The project will begin the end of August with ground breaking in September. Staff and members discussed the wind screens on west side of project. The angled covering will add shade to Aquatic Park area if the bids come in at a reasonable price for that addition. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4k) Page 5 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of May 13, 2015 Mr. West advised there will be test pits in the Rec Center area. They dig trenches to see what the soils are made of to assist in determining what needs to be done with the soil. The City received a grant from the Metropolitan Council for these soil exploration which will also include areas of the potential Community Center, Ms. Walsh indicated. Mr. Hawkinson asked about parking to which Mr. Eisold indicated there will be 39 parking stalls on site. The rink will mostly be used for practices. The frontage road will stay which can be used as a drop off / pick up area as there will be an entrance/exit near the frontage road. Ms. Walsh mentioned could research getting a joint parking permits from Citizens Bank or Target on weekends that we are hosting larger events. Mr. Hawkinson asked if there will be a press area in the outdoor rink. Mr. Eisold commented if needed, could add a press area in the future. Staff brought members on tour of potential new outdoor rink. There will be a 15’ patio / plaza area replacing the old Rec Center entrance. Below the patio, under the ramp, will be locker rooms, Zamboni area, entrance to ice, and potential fireplace/seating area. The rink will have retractable bleachers to seat approximately 250-300. Approximately 85, 2 1/2” trees will be replaced. They will plant as many on the site as possible with others going into various parks. Staff is working with Melrose Institute to relocate the skate park by the tennis courts by their facility. This will not be finalized until a public process takes place after discussions with Melrose. Mr. Hawkinson inquired how this project may affect the potential Community Center. Mr. West indicated they are two separate projects but architects from both communicated with one another to ensure the area would look like a big campus. b. Health in the Park Update (Sara Maaske) Sara Maaske, with Health in the Park initiative, provided an update to members. Members were encouraged to attend the Park the Street 2 event to be held on June 7th on Texas Avenue between Cedar Lake Trail and Minnetonka Boulevard. Ms. Maaske expressed her excitement to have a pilot test program for Adult Fitness in the parks. They will also have an interactive survey of what people do in the parks from people as they did at the first Park the Street event. Volunteers are welcome and work in two our increments. Mr. May inquired what the third language is on the flyers to which Ms. Maaske advised it is Somali. Mr. Hawkinson inquired if there is signage in the parks for the adult play structures. Mr. West advised the City collaborated with Ramsey County and received a grant from the Minnesota Foundation. The adult play structures are in place but would like to add signage in select parks to show how adults may utilize the current amenities. The Park the Street event is a great opportunity to view the signs to see if they are understood Ms. Maaske commented. Ms. Maaske invited all to the Ice Cream Social to be held May 17 in Wolfe Park and mentioned displays will be there also to engage residents. Ms. Maaske thanked the City for the great partnership; staff and Commission members thanked Ms. Maaske. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4k) Page 6 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of May 13, 2015 5. New Business None. 6. Staff Communication Ms. Walsh indicated the Arbor Day event last weekend was successful. It was held at Bass Lake where older trees and buckthorn were removed. Volunteers added trees and woodchips to the area. The rest of Bass Lake will continue to change as this same process is completed around it. Mr. May, Mr. Hawkinson, Ms. Foulkes and Ms. Griffin attended the Minnehaha Creek clean up held on May 2. The exact date of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District grand opening has not been set; staff will forward that information onto members when received. Mr. West advised staff collaborated with the communications department to produce a full color, glossy page, creative brochure. Great feedback has been received from the community on the publication. The new branding initiatives on the brochure will be rolled out to all other communications from the City. 7. Member Communication Mr. Hagemann advised through the state and a federal initiative, a study has been done in Minnesota that gathered the economic impact of the arts. The study included all non-profits, the communities, etc. to gather the data. Friends of the Arts, the theater program in St. Louis Park, Sabes Jewish Community Center and four others in St. Louis Park also contributed information. The study reviewed all information including ticket sales, grants, the number of participants and published data for the state. Art has an astounding financial impact on the economic impact of the state. It was published that every dollar the city puts into the arts, $2-3 are returned for funding. St. Louis Park data will be combined to provide us a starting point on the impact of investments in the arts in St. Louis Park. This will also provide comparative data with another city of our size. The City agreed to pay for participation, with Friends of Arts partnership. Mr. Hagemann will email the link (www.culturaldata.org/2015/02/20/study-shows-strong-and- growing-impact-of-nonprofit-arts-and-culture-on-minnesota%E2%80%99s-economy) of the state report to Ms. Voelker for distribution to the members. Mr. Hagemann recognized Ms. Walsh for a leadership award she received form the Minneapolis Recreation and Park Association. 8. Other / Future Agenda Items Commission members discussed the next meeting be held August 5. Ms. Voelker will email all members to ensure a quorum. Members discussed September 10 as the tentative date for the Employee Appreciation luncheon to be held at Oak Hill Park. Ms. Voelker will reserve the park building and Main Shelter. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4k) Page 7 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of May 13, 2015 Ms. Walsh advised members the Minneapolis Park Board decided to renovate Meadowbrook Golf Course. They are undecided if it will be a 9 or 18 hole course. It is currently in public process. Once they have a draft of the plan, will invite them to a PRAC meeting to show members. Ms. Walsh inquired if there is another department or organization Commission members would like to hear from. Members discussed and indicated they would like an update on the southwest light rail, stationary planning, the Dakota Dog Park and would like to meet at Westwood Hills Nature Center. It was decide the August meeting will be held at Westwood Hills Nature Center and Mike McDonald will be contacted to update members on the Dakota Dog Park, as will Community Development will be contacted to update members on the southwest light rail. 9. Adjournment It was moved by Commission member Hagemann and seconded by Commission member S. Foulkes to adjourn at 8:02 p.m. The motion passed 5–0. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Voelker Stacy Voelker Recording Secretary Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4l MINUTES ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION: SUSTAINABLE SLP ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA September 9, 2015 Community Room, City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Anderson, Terry Gips, Ryan Griffin; Rachel Harris, Nancy Rose, Jayne Stevenson, Paul Zeigle. EXCUSED ABSENCE: Mark Eilers, Cindy Larson O’Neil, Karen Laumb, Renee McGarvey, Judy Voigt. STAFF PRESENT: Shannon Pinc and Recording Secretary (Mary Pappas). GUESTS: Abby Curtis-Water, Land, Wildlife Work Group Member 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. Introductions were made. 2. The minutes of the July 8 and August 5, 2015, meetings were approved unanimously. 3. New Business a. Report on Climate Resilience Event Chair Gips thanked Shannon for pulling this event together and noted it was well done and a wonderful event. Shannon thanked the commissioners for their participation and for helping to set up. She noted the event produced a positive response and was a great public event, which featured great education and communication. The Commission stated that approximately 70 people had attended and they would ask Pat Hamilton about providing free passes to the Science Museum and their back yard display. b. Report on Plastic Bag Ban Listening Session & Written Position request – The Commission stated they had been asked by City Council to attend the listening session. There was an excellent turnout with approximately 30 citizens, 6 commissioners, 5 staff and 6 Council members in attendance. The Commissioners who attended provided feedback about the listening session. Ryan said he was impressed with the thoughtful feedback shared, which was not anti-environmental. He added it was a good sharing session. Rachel stated that of 20 that spoke, all spoke against the ban on plastic bags. She stated there were thoughtful comments. Nancy noted one work group member Bill Allen came in anti-bag, and changed his views after meeting, which was significant. She added emphasis was more on recycle and reuse vs. banning plastic bags. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4l) Page 2 Title: Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of September 9, 2015 Shannon stated that she was impressed and added it took courage for folks to speak on the issue. She was impressed by those individuals and happy to see the good turnout, while noting she was glad all viewpoints were presented at the session also. Chair Gips stated his takeaway was that plastic bags added into recycling is destroying recycling operations, and there is a need for a major education program on this issue, as it is very significant. He added that the lifecycle assessments were well-documented and provided helpful information. He stated he would like to see a more metro-wide effort going forward on this issue. He added that there is a lot of misinformation on this issue also, and normally the City of St. Louis Park guides staff to research an issue such as this, and then they ask staff for their input. This process did happen in November, 2014, but Council pursued the issue beyond what staff had suggested at that time. Chris stated that he didn’t recall the impact on the environment was discussed related to plastic bags. After further discussion, Chair Gips and the Commission concluded that Judy’s draft would be combined with Chris’ information and Ryan’s statement, and then sent to all the commissioners for review and suggestions for the final draft statement. The plan would be to provide this draft to the City Council within the next week to 10 days, and then have staff weigh in also. Shannon said it is important for the Commission to provide their position to the City Council. c. Communications Work Group The group has drafted a work plan. Shannon and Nicole have worked on the social media plan. All Commissioners are to forward any comments to Shannon, who will forward them to staff. Progress has been made, and the social media plan is now ready for the next phase of revisions, with input from the Commissioners. Shannon presented the Face Book page for Sustainability St. Louis Park and noted that new photos will be added. She added that the Twitter account is also up and running live now. d. Water, Land Wildlife Work Group Plan update The work plan is ready, and the Commissioners will now review it and respond with their feedback. Shannon will send it to the Commissioners for review. Nancy noted that the Commission Resolution for Council Stormwater Education (January 2015) has been withheld from the Council, this time by City Manager Tom Harmening. Minutes of the August 24 Council Study Session state, under Communications, verbal- “Mr. Harmening referred to his weekly email and the request from the Environment & Sustainability Commission to participate in a training session by the University of Minnesota on stormwater management. Councilmember Spano felt that the Environment & Sustainability Commission should attend the training session and bring any recommendations to the City Council and that the training session should be an opt-in for Councilmembers to attend if their schedule permits.” Chair Gips stated that Shannon had moved the resolution forward. The recommendation was not an agenda item. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 4l) Page 3 Title: Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of September 9, 2015 Rachel asked what is the Commission’s relationship to the City Council, and to staff, and how can the Commission’s goals move forward? What can be done to facilitate and move things forward? She added it would be helpful to have Commissioners attend the City Council meetings quarterly and check in. She also suggested conducting a planning meeting with the Planning Commission to work on ideas and issues that align and overlap and also to notice how staff can work cross functionally with the Commission and City Council on issues such as stormwater. e. Zero Waste Work Group Jayne noted the composting fundraiser is in the works. f. Energy Work Group Ryan stated three weeks ago there was an energy meeting with First Partners, Xcel, Partners in Energy and 13 local businesses. There was a call to action to put together a vision statement, and at the Sept 24th meeting, this will be finalized and moved forward. g. Transportation Work Group Paul addressed all edits and feedback received on the work plan. He stated it will be presented to the City Council as a document. They are also collaborating with other work groups and setting priorities. Chair Gips stated that this is a very good plan. It is ready for formal approval; however, if Commissioners still have questions, they should please reach out to Paul with questions before the next meeting. h. Education and Action Work Group Chair Gips acknowledged Julie for her work on this group and their plan. i. GreenStepCities Nancy and Shannon will report on this item at the next meeting. Chair Gips thanked each group for all their hard work on their respective plans. j. General Updates – Shannon stated that she will address this nice consensus more next month and will send an email to commissioners on priorities, work and possible barriers, along with setting up a focus for the Commission. Chair Gips thanked Shannon for her efforts and hard work. 4. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Assessment of Delinquent Charges RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to open the public hearing, solicit comments, and close the public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution to assess delinquent water, sewer, storm water, refuse, abating grass/weed cutting, tree removal/injection, false alarm fees and other miscellaneous charges. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council desire to collect outstanding fees and charges through the special assessment process? SUMMARY: The City certifies delinquent charges to Hennepin County as a means to collect on these accounts. The certification is done via the special assessment process, and becomes a lien on the individual properties that is due over the next year or several years, depending upon the type of charge. Information on the 2015 certification process is provided below. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Collection of these charges is vital to the financial stability of the City’s utility systems and to reimburse the City for expenses incurred in providing services. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Sample Certification Letter Resolution Levying Assessment Prepared by: Steven Heintz, Finance Supervisor Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Controller Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No . 6a) Page 2 Title: Assessment of Delinquent Charges DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: Each of the customers involved in this special assessment process received a City service. Subsequently, the customers were then billed through our regular billing process. The invoice(s) is/are now past due, and the recommended method of collecting the past due amounts is through certification as a special assessment to the property for the next year or years taxes depending on the delinquency. In advance of the public hearing date, individual letters were mailed to property owners and tenants, if applicable, advising them of the assessment and their right to be heard before the City Council. Per discussion with Council and the resolution passed on September 15, 2014, all delinquent utility accounts have been assessed a $15 administrative fee. This fee is not included in the 2015 amount below so as to provide consistent comparative data. The table below shows comparison data from 2011 - 2015 in relation to number of letters mailed and value of delinquent amounts. Year Number of Letters Delinquent Amounts Final Certification Amounts 2015 1768 $900,558 N/A 2014 1810 $929,886 $516,290 2013 1811 $872,661 $475,977 2012 1803 $816,357 $504,937 2011 1631 $834,605 $583,642 Each year there are a number of residents who pay their delinquent amount(s) before the certification deadline, thereby reducing the final amount certified and sent to Hennepin County. In addition, during the month of October, there are several hundred property owners who contact the City with questions about their outstanding balance(s) and the certification process. The delinquent balance was $701,719 as of the close of business on October 9, 2015. Staff will provide the delinquent amount balance as of the close of business on October 19, 2014 at the Council meeting. Customers have until October 30, 2015 at 4:30 p.m. to pay the delinquent amount. The amounts shown do not include interest, the $30.00 per account administrative fee, or the $75 penalty for utility accounts that are being certified for the second consecutive year. Of the 761 accounts certified last year, 439 received this additional penalty of $75 for being certified in consecutive years. 2014 was the first year this was in place. A copy of the assessment roll is on file with the City Clerk’s office for review. NEXT STEPS: After conducting a public hearing, the City Council is asked to direct the assessment of delinquent water, sewer, storm water, refuse, abating grass/weed cutting, tree removal/injection, false alarm fees and other miscellaneous charges against the benefiting property. Staff will continue to collect payments related to the delinquent accounts and work with residents to resolve issues related to their delinquent accounts. All delinquent accounts outstanding as of October 30, 2015 at 4:30 p.m. will be certified to Hennepin County for collection as part of the owner’s property tax bill. Upon certification, the delinquent amounts will become a lien on the individual properties. At this time, the Accounting Division has not received notice of anyone wanting to speak at the Public Hearing. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No . 6a) Page 3 Title: Assessment of Delinquent Charges 5005 Minnetonka Blvd St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2216 Date of Notice: October 1, 2015 Mailing Address Line 1 Mailing Address Line 2 Mailing Address Line 3 Mailing Address Line 4 RE: Charges Owed: For Delinquent Utility Account: Service Address: Service Address Delinquent Amount: Current WO Balance Account Number: Account Number Customer Number: Customer Number Property I.D. Number: Tax Roll Numeric Dear: Customer Name The City of St. Louis Park encourages its customers to remain current in the payment of their bills. When accounts become delinquent, according to Minnesota law, they may be certified to Hennepin County to be collected with property taxes payable in the next year. City of St. Louis Park records show this account was delinquent as of September 17, 2015. By receiving this letter, this account has been moved into certification, and has received an administrative fee of $15. In an effort to avoid the account from being certified to the property taxes, the City is requesting that payment in full be received at City Hall by Friday, October 30, 2015 at 4:30 p.m. If payment in full is not received by that date and time, the outstanding delinquent amount, plus an additional administrative fee of $30, and interest at a rate of 4.00% for 13 months will be sent to Hennepin County for collection with the property taxes in 2016 (total administrative fee is $45). If this account was certified in the prior year, a $75 administrative penalty fee will also be assessed to the account (total administrative fee is $120). The City Council will consider final action on all delinquent accounts at a public hearing during the regular Council meeting on Monday, October 19, 2015 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. A written appeal may be presented to the Council at that time or appeals may be made to Brian Swanson - Controller, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416. The City would like to avoid the certification process, as it adds additional costs to all parties. Please feel free to contact our office at (952) 924-2111 if you have questions regarding this notice. Payments may be made via cash, check, or credit card in person at City Hall, by mailing a check to City Hall, or paying by credit card at https://eub.stlouispark.org. Payments cannot be accepted over the phone due to payment card industry guidelines protecting customer’s financial information. For those customers who use eBill, please check your “junk” email folder if that address is not on your safe senders list. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Brian Swanson Controller City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No . 6a) Page 4 Title: Assessment of Delinquent Charges RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ LEVYING ASSESSMENT FOR DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS, TREE REMOVAL/INJECTION, FALSE ALARM FEES AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES WHEREAS, the City Council has heretofore determined by ordinance the rates and charges for water, sewer, storm water and refuse services of the city and has provided for the abatement of tree removal/injection, grass/weed cutting and other miscellaneous charges to a home or business shall be at the expense of the owners of the premises involved; and WHEREAS, all such sums become delinquent and assessable against the property served under Section 6-158, Section 6-206, Section 9-103, Section 9-110, Section 11-2004 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code and Minnesota Statutes 18.023, 18.271, 443 and 429; and WHEREAS, Accounting has prepared an assessment roll setting forth an assessment against each tract or parcel of land served by water, sewer, storm water and refuse services of the City or charged for the costs of abating grass/weed cutting, tree removal/injection, false alarm fees and other miscellaneous charges which remain unpaid at the close of business on October 30, 2015; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that said assessment roll is hereby adopted and approved, and there is hereby levied and assessed against each and every tract of land described therein an assessment in the amounts respectively therein abating water, sewer, storm water, refuse, grass/weed cutting, tree removal/injection, false alarm fees and other miscellaneous charges which remain unpaid at the close of business on October 30, 2015; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Controller is hereby authorized to deliver said assessment roll to the Auditor of Hennepin County for collection of the assessment in the same manner as other municipal taxes are collected and payment thereof enforced with interest from the date of this resolution at the rate of four percent (4 %) per annum. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Discussion Item: 8a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final Planned Unit Development RECOMMENDED ACTION: • Motion to Adopt Resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from RL – Low Density Residential to RM – Medium Density Residential for property at the southwest corner of Wayzata Boulevard and Texas Avenue, authorize summary publication. • Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Preliminary and Final Plat of Arlington Row Apartments West with conditions. • Motion to approve First Reading of the Ordinance creating Section 36-268-PUD 3 and amending the Zoning Map from R-1 Single-Family Residence to PUD 3 for property at the southwest corner of Wayzata Boulevard and Texas Avenue and to set the Second Reading of the Ordinance for November 2, 2015. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to change the land use guidance of the subject property, approve the Final Plat and rezone the property to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow the proposed development to occur? SUMMARY: Melrose Company is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat, and Preliminary & Final PUD for property at the southwest corner of the intersection of Wayzata Boulevard and Texas Avenue. Approval would allow construction of two, three-story buildings with 17 units in each building. There are a total of 34 units providing a density of 24 units per acre. The buildings consist of a mix of one- and two-bedroom units with some two-story units. All parking is provided on-site in a surface parking lot and the proposal includes landscaping, rain gardens and vegetable gardens. Approval of the Final PUD requires a supermajority of the full City Council (five of the seven members). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary and Final Plat subject to conditions, and Preliminary and Final PUD subject to conditions, at the public hearing held September 16, 2015. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: No financial assistance is requested. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Resolutions Ordinance Development Plans Traffic Study Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Michele Schnitker, Deputy Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 2 Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: The proposed redevelopment site lies in the northwestern portion of the City adjacent to the Golden Valley Municipal Boundary, at the southwest corner of Wayzata Boulevard and Texas Avenue. The site is in the Westwood Hills neighborhood and is currently vacant as it was formerly excess right-of-way owned by MnDOT. The site is relatively flat for approximately the eastern half of the site, and then has a wooded hillside that slopes upward to the western property line. The City evaluated this parcel as part of the Excess Land Study in 2005/6, along with a vacant parcel just to the east, referred to as the “13th Lane” site. The properties were made available for purchase as part of the Excess Land Study but no proposals were accepted. At the time of the open bid process, multi-family residential development was the Council direction given for the Wayzata Blvd/Texas Ave site while mixed-use or multi-family residential development was the direction given for the 13th Lane Site. Staff have received several requests for commercial or office/medical office uses since 2007, which Staff have discouraged based on Council direction to allow only residential or mixed-use development at these sites. Melrose Company approached the City with a development concept similar to the current application in late 2013. The City Council indicated it was willing to consider acquiring the properties from MnDOT to sell them to Melrose in order to develop the properties as well as consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, plat and PUD. Melrose acquired the properties from the City in July of this year. The City received applications for the Texas Avenue site for a development titled “Arlington Row Apartments West.” The applications are for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment, Preliminary and Final Plat, and Preliminary and Final PUD. The development consists of two, three-story buildings with 17 units in each building. There are a total of 34 units providing a density of 24 units per acre. All parking is provided on-site in a surface parking lot. The buildings consist of a mix of one- and two-bedroom units with some two-story units. A neighborhood meeting was held August 12, 2015. The neighborhood primarily expressed concern regarding existing traffic and any potential for additional traffic and on-street parking, as well as the loss of open space. There was also support for the architecture and project scale. A traffic study was competed which considered both redevelopment sites. The study results are discussed later in this report and the full study is attached. The redevelopment proposal requires a land use change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a rezoning from R-1 Single-Family Residence to PUD. Staff anticipates applications for the 13th Lane site this fall. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 3 Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD EXISTING CONDITONS: Site Area: 1.39 acres Current Land Use Guidance: RL – Low Density Residential Proposed Land Use Guidance: RM – Medium Density Residential Current Zoning: R-1 Single-Family Residence Proposed Zoning: PUD-Planned Unit Development Current Use: Vacant Surrounding Land Uses: North: Wayzata Blvd and I-394 East: Texas Ave, Commercial/service, single-family housing South: Townhomes and single- family housing West: Townhomes COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT: A request for amending the City’s land use plan and zoning map is evaluated from the perspective of land use planning principles and community goals. These reflect the community’s long range vision and broad goals about what kind of community it wants to be and what makes strong neighborhoods. This amendment request is driven by a specific proposal for development; namely the Arlington Row Apartments West. The request is for a residential development at a density of 24 units per acre, which is considered Medium Density (RM) in the Comprehensive Plan. The current designation is RL – Low Density Residential. General Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan The City’s land use plan should reflect the broad goals, policies and implementation strategies incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan. These goals, policies and strategies are the basis for evaluating the requested change. The proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map addresses the following Land Use and Housing goals or strategies found in the Comprehensive Plan: − Promote building and site design that is oriented toward creating an integrated, human scale, multi-modal transportation environment  Encourage quality design in new construction considering such design elements as orientation, development scale, and massing both on-site and off-site, and pedestrian access.  Encourage new buildings to orient to walkable streets with appropriate building height to street width ratios. − Create a mix of residential land uses and housing types to increase neighborhood housing choices and the viability of greater neighborhood services through redevelopment or infill development.  Consider opportunities for allowing a broader range of housing types and densities within or adjacent to existing low density residential neighborhoods that are complementary and compatible with the existing neighborhood character. Golden Valley Proposed Development Site City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 4 Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD  Ensure that new and redeveloped medium and high density residential land uses are located within walking distance of transit services. − Promote higher density housing near transit corridors & employment centers − Explore and, if appropriate, promote ordinances to allow development of non-traditional housing types and increased density in single family neighborhood that is compatible with surrounding neighborhood. Changing the Comprehensive Plan map to RM-Medium Density Residential allows for the development of a vacant property providing additional housing units in an area that is well served by transit, and at a density that is appropriate for a site that is adjacent to both an interstate frontage road and RL-Low Density Residential guidance. The general area of the development proposal consists primarily of single-family houses and commercial buildings. The Comprehensive Plan calls for an increase in the availability of neighborhood housing choices and a broader range of housing types. The proposed development would provide medium density apartment housing in a building that is respectful of the scale of the surrounding structures and the wooded hillside on-site. The buildings are oriented toward the street with walk-up units and are designed with a residential style of architecture including pitched roofs, patios, and step- down in height at each end of the building. Availability of Infrastructure The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed development concept and found the public water and sewer infrastructure in the area to be adequate to serve the proposed development. A traffic study has been completed and is discussed further in the Planned Unit Development analysis below. The Comprehensive Plan identifies Wayzata Boulevard as an “A Minor Reliever”, and Texas Avenue as a “Major Collector”, both providing sufficient capacity for the proposed development; including the proposed development at the 13th Lane Site. Impacts to Surrounding Properties and the Physical Character of the Neighborhood The site is currently vacant with some trees and turf on the eastern portion of the site with a steep wooded slope on the western portion of the site. The proposal changes the nature of the site by constructing two buildings on a vacant lot, and of course adds residents to the area in a housing product that is not currently available. Melrose has proposed a development that is small-scale in nature which serves as a transition between single-family homes, townhomes, small-scale commercial and the Wayzata Boulevard/I-394 corridor and is at a density that has minimal traffic impacts to the surrounding street network. Public Process • 2006: Excess Land Study • 2007: Initial Bid Opening on subject property • October 8, 2012: Council Study Session Discussion • February 2, 2015: Council Study Session Discussion • April 27, 2015: Council Study Session Discussion • May 18, 2015: Council Approval of property acquisition from MnDOT and subsequent disposition to Melrose Company • July 15, 2015: Planning Commission Study Session • August 5, 2015: PRAC Meeting • August 12, 2015: Neighborhood Meeting at Westwood Hills Nature Center • September 16, 2015: Public Hearing at Planning Commission • October 19, 2015: Council Action City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 5 Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT ANALYSIS: Description The developer requests a preliminary and final plat to create a parcel from the previous right-of- way that is 1.3 acres in size known as “Arlington Row Apartments West.” The proposed plat meets all subdivision requirements for minimum lot size, shape, and dimension and provides the required drainage and utility easements. Uses The proposed use on the plat includes multi-family residential. This use is permitted if the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment request is approved and through a rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD). Utility Easements The plat provides a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement adjacent to Texas Avenue, five- foot wide easements along the interior lot lines and a 17-foot to 30-foot wide drainage and utility easement along Wayzata Boulevard, on the north side of the site. The larger utility easement is provided to accommodate existing utilities in this area. The required easements are provided. Park & Trail Dedication The proposed development is on property that has not been previously platted. Therefore park and trail dedication in the form of land or cash-in-lieu of land is required. No park land is designated in this location in the Comprehensive Plan so cash-in lieu of land will be required in the following amounts: Park dedication $51,000; Trail dedication $7,650. The City will collect these fees prior to signing the final plat. The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) concurred with Staff’s recommendation of collecting cash-in-lieu of land at its August 5, 2015 meeting. Tree Preservation The site plan was designed to minimize cutting into the wooded hillside on the western portion of the property as much as possible. The proposed development would require the removal of 15 significant trees, while 39 new trees are proposed. The plan exceeds the City’s tree replacement requirements. PUD ANALYSIS: The purpose of a PUD District is to benefit the city and its residents by providing a comprehensive procedure intended to allow greater flexibility in the development of land than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. The Arlington Row Apartments West proposal particularly addresses the following intentions of the PUD zoning district: • Promote higher standards of site and building design. • Encourage a more creative and efficient use of land. • Preserve and enhance desirable site characteristics, including flora and fauna, scenic view, screening and access. • Promote environmental sustainability in the development of land, building construction and building operations. • Ensure integrated pedestrian facilities to and within a PUD district. • Provide for improved connections to mass transit facilities. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 6 Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Building and Site Design Analysis: The PUD ordinance requires the City to find that the quality of building and site design proposed will substantially enhance aesthetics of the site and implement relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the following criteria shall be satisfied: (1) The design shall consider the project as a whole, and shall create a unified environment within project boundaries by ensuring architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features, and design and efficient use of utilities. (2) The design of a PUD shall achieve compatibility of the project with surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed, and shall minimize the potential adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse effects of the surrounding land uses on the PUD. (3) A PUD shall comply with the City’s Green Building Policy. (4) The use of green roofs or white roofs and on-site renewable energy is encouraged. The PUD zoning district allows a development such as is being proposed by Melrose Company. ZONING ANALYSIS: The following table provides the development metrics. The property will be rezoned to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The proposed performance and development standards, as indicated in the development plans, establish the development requirements for this property if approved. Zoning Compliance Table: Factor Required Proposed Met? Use Multiple-Family Residential Multiple-Family Residential Yes Lot Area Min. of 2.0 acres, less with approval. 1.3 acres; City Council indicated this size was acceptable 2/2/2015 Yes Height None with PUD 36.5 feet Yes Building Materials Minimum of 60% Class I materials Minimum of 70%. Yes Residential Density Up to 30 units per acre in RM- Medium Density Land Use 24 units per acre Yes Floor Area Ratio None with PUD 0.52 Yes Ground Floor Area Ratio N/A 0.18 Yes Off-Street Parking Residential – 52 Residential – 52 Yes Bicycle Parking Residential – 40 Residential – 40 Yes Open Area/DORA 7,305 sq. ft. (12% of gross lot area) 7,350 sq. ft. (13.7% of gross lot area) Yes Landscaping See Landscaping section Yes Building Setbacks None with PUD Varies, shortest setbacks: North building is min. 26.4 ft from north/front property line, 38.4 ft from west side, 19 ft from east side; South building is min. 15 ft from east side, 15 ft from south side Yes City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 7 Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Mechanical Equipment Full screening required Mechanical equipment will be within the building or through-wall units. Yes Sidewalks Required along all streets and building frontages Provided along all streets and building frontages Yes Refuse handling Full screening required Refuse is screened by masonry wall in compatible material/style as primary buildings. Yes Transit service None required 9, 643, 649, 652, 672, 675, 705, 756 Yes Stormwater Management Required Underground detention and rain gardens Yes Uses Arlington Row Apartments West is a multi-family residential development with a total of 34 units in two buildings. A Comprehensive Plan Land Use Guidance change from RL-Low Density Residential to RM-Medium Density Residential is one of the requests before the Commission. The proposed use is below the density maximum of the RM Land Use category and a rezoning to PUD permits the development plan as proposed allowing for less impacts to the wooded hillside. Rezoning to a PUD is specific to this development proposal dictating specific requirements of building dimensions and the site plan. If future redevelopment were to occur on the site a rezoning would be required at the discretion of the Council. A draft of the ordinance is attached to this report. Architectural Design The development plans demonstrate a high quality image with design considerations demonstrating sensitivity to the surrounding uses and character. The buildings are three stories in height to minimize the scale of the structures. Further attention was given to creating a more pedestrian scale environment by providing multiple entrances to the building from adjacent sidewalks, creating façade articulation to break up the mass of street facing walls, the generous use of glass to provide transparency and locating the parking lot toward the interior of the site. The building exteriors include a generous use of glass, brick and stucco. Glass, stucco and brick are counted as Class I materials on all buildings. The City requires a minimum of 60% Class I material coverage on each façade visible from off-site. The minimum Class I material coverage is 70%, which is on the interior facing elevations. The Class I material coverage of the facades facing Wayzata Boulevard and Texas Avenue is 82%. The buildings exceed City Code architectural requirements. Parking and Access Parking is provided in a surface lot that is accessed from Texas Avenue. The City requires one space per bedroom, for a total of 52 spaces. The applicant is providing 52 spaces which meets City requirements. The applicant is also providing secured bike storage in the north building for 25 bikes and spaces for 15 bikes in racks adjacent to both buildings. The City’s bicycle parking requirements are met. Exterior lighting is currently under review for compliance with Code requirements. A final lighting plan, which complies with Code requirements, will be required prior to the Second Reading of the PUD Ordinance. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 8 Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Traffic Study A traffic study has been completed by SRF Consulting and is attached to this report. The traffic study included an analysis of how the proposed development may impact the overall number of vehicle trips in the area and the Level of Service and delay at the following intersections: Wayzata Boulevard/Texas Avenue, Wayzata Boulevard/Pennsylvania Avenue, and Texas Avenue/13th Lane/Westwood Hills Drive. The traffic study also considered the proposed development of the 13th Lane site, which would include a maximum of 30 additional units. The study results indicate that the proposed development will have a minimal impact on traffic compared to the existing conditions. The level of service for each of the studied intersections is not projected to change and the number of vehicle trips is projected to increase over existing conditions as follows: 32 total a.m. peak period, 40 p.m. peak period and 426 average daily trips. The Wayzata Boulevard/Texas Avenue intersection currently operates at an overall LOS B with Texas Avenue, being the side-street, currently operating at a LOS E during the p.m. peak period with an average delay of 40 seconds. The LOS is not projected to change due to the proposed developments, but the time of delay could increase to an average of 46 seconds during the p.m. peak period. SRF has stated that “side-street delays of this magnitude are common and do not typically warrant mitigation.” Two changes to Texas Avenue, near the proposed Arlington Row Apartments West, were recently approved by the Council as part of the City’s Connect the Park! plan. These changes include prohibiting on-street parking on Texas Avenue adjacent to the Arlington Row site and adding a right turn lane on north-bound Texas Avenue to access east-bound Wayzata Boulevard. The removal of on-street parking should improve site lanes for traffic entering Texas Avenue from Westwood Hills Road and the right turn lane should reduce the average time of delay for north-bound Texas Avenue traffic at the intersection with Wayzata Boulevard. Loading/Service Areas The development plans show that trash/recycling service is located in the northwest corner of the parking lot. This area will be fully screened from off-site by a masonry wall that matches the material of the primary buildings. Landscaping The landscape plan indicates 15 trees will be removed and 39 new trees, 178 shrubs and over 100 perennials and grasses will be installed. This plan meets the City’s minimum landscaping requirements of 34 trees and 178 shrubs. The project also exceeds the City’s minimum tree replacement calculations by providing 130 caliper inches of trees when 129 caliper inches are required. Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA) The proposed development plans illustrate an integration of landscaping and DORA elements. The elements provided to meet the City’s DORA requirements include rain gardens along the building facades adjacent to unit patios as well as community garden plots for residents to use. The plan meets the City’s minimum 12% DORA requirement, providing 12% of the lot area. Signage A sign plan was not submitted for review. Signs will require permits and must comply with the sign rules for an R-4 zoning district. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 9 Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Utilities All utilities servicing the site will be placed underground. Utility service structures, such as a generator and transformer, will be screened completely from off-site with materials consistent with main building façade or placed within the building. The applicant is also exploring the use of a geothermal system for heating/cooling and solar panels for common area lighting, and has submitted a grant application for funding these elements. PUBLIC INPUT: A neighborhood meeting was held August 12, 2015 on the proposed development. The primary concern expressed at the meeting related to the fear of increased traffic. Other concerns included: the potential for increased on-street parking by residents of the new development and impacts to Merry Maids and the on-street parking they use; the development of vacant space and the impacts to wildlife that are seen on the site; potential impacts due to the addition of rental housing in the area such as a decline in property values. A number of attendees also expressed their appreciation for the scale of the buildings and overall development program and that the proposed use is less impactful than other potential proposals, such as office uses. ATTACHMENTS: • Existing and Proposed Land Use Guidance • Existing and Proposed Zoning • Comprehensive Plan Amendment Resolution • Plat Resolution • PUD Ordinance • Title Sheet • Preliminary Plat • Final Plat • Architectural Site plan • Reference Images • Site Plan • Grading Plan • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan • Landscape Plan • Floor Plans • Exterior Elevations • Traffic Study City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 10 Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Existing Land Use Guidance Proposed Land Use Guidance City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 11 Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 12 Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364 Southwest Corner of Wayzata Boulevard and Texas Avenue WHEREAS, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Council on December 21, 2009 and provides the following: 1. An official statement serving as the basic guide in making land use, transportation and community facilities and service decisions affecting the City. 2. A framework for policies and actions leading to the improvement of the physical, financial, and social environment of the City, thereby providing a good place to live and work and a setting conducive for new development. 3. A promotion of the public interest in establishing a more functional, healthful, interesting, and efficient community by serving the interests of the community at large rather than the interests of individual or special groups within the community if their interests are at variance with the public interest. 4. An effective framework for direction and coordination of activities affecting the development and preservation of the community. 5. Treatment of the entire community as one ecosystem and to inject long range considerations into determinations affecting short-range action; and WHEREAS, the use of such Comprehensive Plan will insure a safer, more pleasant, and more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial, and public activities and will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare; and WHEREAS, said Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable change, thereby bringing about significant savings in both private and public expenditures; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has taken due cognizance of the planning activities of adjacent units of government, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan is to be periodically reviewed by the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park and amendments made, if justified according to procedures, rules, and laws, and provided such amendments would provide a positive result and are consistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park recommended adoption of an amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan on January 7, 2015, based on statutes, the Metropolitan Regional Blueprint, extensive research and analyses involving the interests of citizens and public agencies; City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 13 Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 15-29-CP); WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File 15-29-CP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that the Comprehensive Plan, as previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, is hereby amended as follows: Change the land use designation as shown on the attached map from RL – Low Density Residential to RM – Medium Density Residential. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2015 (Contingent upon Metropolitan Council review) City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 14 Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364 Southwest Corner of Wayzata Boulevard and Texas Avenue This resolution states that land use designation will be changed RL – Low Density Residential to RM – Medium Density Residential. Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2015 Contingent upon Metropolitan Council review. Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this resolution is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: October 29, 2015 City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 15 Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF ARLINGTON ROW APARTMENTS WEST FOR PROPERTY AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WAYZATA BOULEVARD AND TEXAS AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. Melrose Company has submitted an application for approval of preliminary and final plat for land in the southwest corner of Wayzata Boulevard and Texas Avenue in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder. 2. The proposed preliminary and final plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park. 3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, to-wit: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NW1/4 SW1/4) of Section 5, Township 117 North, Range 21 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the north line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 5, distant 12 rods east of the northwest corner thereof; thence south for 20 rods; thence deflect to the left at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes and run easterly to the public road (known as Texas Avenue) running south from Wayzata Boulevard (as located and established prior to November 15, 1961); thence north along said public road to the south line of said Wayzata Boulevard; thence west to the point of beginning. (to be platted as Lot 1, Block 1, ARLINGTON ROW APARTMENTS WEST) Conclusion 1. The proposed preliminary and final plat of Arlington Row Apartments West is hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk subject to the following conditions: a. No land disturbing activities, excluding demolition, may occur prior to recording the final plat with Hennepin County. b. Prior to the City signing the final plat: City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 16 Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD i. Park dedication fees totaling $51,000 and trail dedication fees totaling $7,650 shall be paid to the City of St. Louis Park. ii. A financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $5,000 shall be submitted to the City to insure that a signed Mylar copy of the final plat is provided to the City and that iron monuments are placed at the property corners. iii. Developer shall enter into a Planning and Development Contract with the City which at a minimum addresses the following: a) The installation of public improvements, including, but not limited to: sidewalks, boulevards, landscaping, utility work, and street maintenance and repair. b) The installation of private improvements including, but not limited to: landscaping, a privately owned and privately maintained underground storm water management system and a maintenance agreement for said storm water management system. c) A financial security for the public and private site improvements. c. A public easement for the sidewalk along Texas Avenue that lies outside the public right-of-way shall be granted to the City. Said easement shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. d. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to the above-named owner, who is the applicant herein. 3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled. 4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 17 Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 18 Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD ORDINANCE NO. ____-15 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY CREATING SECTION 36-268-PUD 3 AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WAYZATA BOULEVARD AND TEXAS AVENUE THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Findings Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 15-29-CP, 15-30-S and 15-31-PUD) for amending the Zoning Ordinance to create a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning District. Sec. 2. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as RM – Medium Density Residential. Sec. 3. The Zoning Map shall be amended by reclassifying the following described lands from R-1 Single Family Residence to PUD 3: Lot 1, Block 1, Arlington Row Apartments West; Hennepin County, Minnesota; and to the center line of all adjacent right-of-way. Sec. 4. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-268 is hereby amended to add the following Planned Unit Development Zoning District: Section 36-268-PUD 3. (a) Development Plan The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the following Final PUD signed Official Exhibits: 1. T1.1 – Title Sheet 2. AS1.2 – Architectural Site Plan 3. AS2.1 – Reference Images 4. C1-1 – Existing Conditions 5. C1-2 – Preliminary Plat 6. C1-3 – Preliminary Plat 7. C2-1 – Site Plan 8. C3-1 – Grading Plan 9. C3-2 – Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 10. C4-1 – Sanitary & Watermain 11. C4-2 – Storm Sewer 12. C8-1 - Details 13. C8-2 – City Details 14. L1-1 – Landscape Plan 15. L2-1 – Tree Inventory Plan 16. Photometric Plan City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 19 Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD 17. A1.1 – Floor Plan 18. A1.2 – Floor Plan 19. A1.3 – Floor Plan 20. A1.4 – Floor Plan (Roof) 21. A3.1 – Exterior Elevations 22. A3.2 – Exterior Elevations 23. A3.3 – Exterior Elevations 24. Final Plat 25. Zoning Map Amendment Exhibit The site shall also conform to the following requirements: 1) Parking will be provided off-street in a surface lot. A total of 52 spaces will be provided for residential users including five (5) spaces for guest parking. 2) The maximum building height shall be 37 feet. 3) The development site shall include a minimum of 12 percent designed outdoor recreation area based on private developable land area. (b) Permitted Uses (1) Multiple-family dwelling. (2) Parks/open space. (c) Accessory Uses Accessory uses are as follows: (1) Private garages and parking lots. (2) Private swimming pool in conformance with section 36-73. (3) Service and retail facilities intended for use of residents not to exceed ten percent of the gross floor area of the development. (4) Property management or rental office provided that it does not occupy more than ten percent of the gross floor area. (5) Gardening and other horticultural uses. (6) Solar panels as regulated by this Chapter. (7) Decorative landscape features including but not limited to pools, arbors and terraces. (8) No outdoor uses or storage allowed. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 20 Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD (d) Special Performance Standards (1) All general zoning requirements not specifically addressed in this ordinance shall be met, including but not limited to: outdoor lighting, architectural design, landscaping, parking and screening requirements. (2) All trash handling and loading areas shall be screened from view by a masonry wall no taller than six feet in height and constructed out of a material compatible with the principal buildings. (3) Signs shall be allowed in conformance with the approved redevelopment plan or final PUD site plan and development agreement in accordance with this Chapter and the sign area and height regulations for the R-4 Multiple-Family Residence zoning district. Sec. 4. The contents of Planning Case File 15-29-CP, 15-30-S and 15-31-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec. 5. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Public Hearing August 19, 2015 First Reading October 19, 2015 Second Reading November 2, 2015 Date of Publication November 12, 2015 Date Ordinance takes effect November 27, 2015 Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 2, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney LOUCKS W:\2015\15186\CADD DATA\SURVEY\S15186-MasterPlotted: 09 /08 / 2015 11:10 AM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. CADD QUALIFICATION SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE QUALITY CONTROL Arlington Row Apartments West St. Louis Park, MN Melrose Company 22375 Murray Street Excelsior, MN 55331 07/10/15 CITY SUBMITTAL 08/10/15 CITY RE-SUBMITTAL 08/19/15 CITY RE-SUBMITTAL 09/08/15 CITY RE-SUBMITTAL C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1-2 PRELIMINARY PLAT C1-3 PRELIMINARY PLAT C2-1 SITE PLAN C3-1 GRADING PLAN C3-2 SWPPP C4-1 SANITARY & WATERMAIN C4-2 STORM SEWER C8-1 DETAILS C8-2 CITY DETAILS L1-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L2-1 TREE INVENTORY PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAT GENERAL NOTES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NW1/4SW1/4) of Section 5, Township 117 North, Range 21 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the north line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 5, distant 12 rods east of the northwest corner thereof; thence south for 20 rods; thence deflect to the left at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes and run easterly to the public road (known as Texas Avenue) running south from Wayzata Boulevard (as located and established prior to November 15, 1961); thence north along said public road to the south line of said Wayzata Boulevard; thence west to the point of beginning. DATE OF PREPARATION: July 2015 BENCHMARK: STAMPED SURVEY DISC MARKED 2789AV LOCATED IN SE CORNER OF WINNETKA AVE BRIDGE OVER HIGHWAY 394. ELEVATION = 921.97 FEET (NGVD29) EXISTING ZONING: Zone (R-1) Single Family Residential AREAS: Proposed Lot 1 = 60,830 +/- Sq.Ft. or 1.40 +/- Acres Proposed Right of way = _9,632 +/- Sq.Ft. or 0.22+/- Acres Total Property Area = 70,462 +/- Sq.Ft. or 1.62 +/- Acres FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION: This property is contained in Zone X (areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 27053C0332E, effective date of September 2, 2004. PRELIMINARY PLAT C1-2 License No. Date I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Field Crew Richard L. Licht - PLS 26724 Project Lead Drawn By Checked By Loucks Project No. 7/9/15 15-186A RLL SFM RLL DP SHEET INDEX SCALE IN FEET 0 30 N City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Page 21 LOUCKS W:\2015\15186\CADD DATA\SURVEY\S15186-MasterPlotted: 09 /08 / 2015 11:9 AM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. CADD QUALIFICATION SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE QUALITY CONTROL Arlington Row Apartments West St. Louis Park, MN Melrose Company 22375 Murray Street Excelsior, MN 55331 07/10/15 CITY SUBMITTAL 08/10/15 CITY RE-SUBMITTAL 08/19/15 CITY RE-SUBMITTAL 09/08/15 CITY RE-SUBMITTAL C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1-2 PRELIMINARY PLAT C1-3 PRELIMINARY PLAT C2-1 SITE PLAN C3-1 GRADING PLAN C3-2 SWPPP C4-1 SANITARY & WATERMAIN C4-2 STORM SEWER C8-1 DETAILS C8-2 CITY DETAILS L1-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L2-1 TREE INVENTORY PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAT GENERAL NOTES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NW1/4SW1/4) of Section 5, Township 117 North, Range 21 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the north line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 5, distant 12 rods east of the northwest corner thereof; thence south for 20 rods; thence deflect to the left at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes and run easterly to the public road (known as Texas Avenue) running south from Wayzata Boulevard (as located and established prior to November 15, 1961); thence north along said public road to the south line of said Wayzata Boulevard; thence west to the point of beginning. DATE OF PREPARATION: July 2015 BENCHMARK: STAMPED SURVEY DISC MARKED 2789AV LOCATED IN SE CORNER OF WINNETKA AVE BRIDGE OVER HIGHWAY 394. ELEVATION = 921.97 FEET (NGVD29) EXISTING ZONING: Zone (R-1) Single Family Residential AREAS: Proposed Lot 1 = 60,830 +/- Sq.Ft. or 1.40 +/- Acres Proposed Right of way = _9,632 +/- Sq.Ft. or 0.22+/- Acres Total Property Area = 70,462 +/- Sq.Ft. or 1.62 +/- Acres FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION: This property is contained in Zone X (areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 27053C0332E, effective date of September 2, 2004. PRELIMINARY PLAT C1-3 License No. Date I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Field Crew Richard L. Licht - PLS 26724 Project Lead Drawn By Checked By Loucks Project No. 7/9/15 15-186A RLL SFM RLL DP SHEET INDEX SCALE IN FEET 0 30 N City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Page 22 SCALE IN FEET 0 30 N LOUCKS KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Arlington Row, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, fee owner of the following described property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to wit: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NW1/4 SW1/4) of Section 5, Township 117 North, Range 21 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the north line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 5, distant 12 rods east of the northwest corner thereof; thence south for 20 rods; thence deflect to the left at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes and run easterly to the public road (known as Texas Avenue) running south from Wayzata Boulevard (as located and established prior to November 15, 1961); thence north along said public road to the south line of said Wayzata Boulevard; thence west to the point of beginning. Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as ARLINGTON ROW APARTMENTS WEST, and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use forever the public ways and the easements for drainage and utility purposes as shown on this plat. In witness whereof said Arlington Row, LLC has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this ______ day of ____________________, 201_____. ARLINGTON ROW, LLC ____________________________________ Nameofowner, Ownertitle State of ______________ County of ______________ This instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of ____________________, 201_____ by _____________________, ________________________ of Arlington Row, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. _________________________________________ (Signature) _________________________________________ (Printed Name) Notary Public ____________________ County, _______________ My Commission Expires January 31, 20_____ SURVEYORS CERTIFICATION I, Richard L. Licht, do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. Dated this ______ day of __________________, 201____ __________________________________ Richard L. Licht, Licensed Land Surveyor Minnesota License No. 26724 State of Minnesota County of Hennepin This instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of __________________, 201_____ by Richard L. Licht, a Licensed Land Surveyor. _________________________________________ (Signature) _________________________________________ (Printed Name) Notary Public ____________________ County, Minnesota My Commission Expires January 31, 20_____ ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA This plat of ARLINGTON ROW APARTMENTS WEST was approved and accepted by the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, at a regular meeting thereof held this ______ day of _________________, 201_____. If applicable, the written comments and recommendations of the Commissioner of Transportation and the County Highway Engineer have been received by the City or the prescribed 30 day period has elapsed without receipt of such comments and recommendations, as provided by Minn. Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2. CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA By __________________________________, Mayor By ______________________________, Manager RESIDENT AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES , Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that taxes payable in 201_____ and prior years have been paid for land described on this plat, dated this ________ day of ____________________, 201_____. Mark V. Chapin, Hennepin County Auditor By ________________________________, Deputy SURVEY DIVISION , Hennepin County, Minnesota Pursuant to MN. STAT. Sec. 383B.565 (1969) this plat has been approved this ________ day of ______________________, 201_____. Chris F. Mavis, Hennepin County Surveyor By _________________________________ COUNTY RECORDER , Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that the within plat of ARLINGTON ROW APARTMENTS WEST was recorded in this office this ________ day of _____________________, 201_____, at ________o'clock __M. Martin McCormick, County Recorder By ________________________________ Deputy City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Page 23 EXISING TREE LINE 52' - 1 1/2"55' - 0 1/2"TRUENORTHRETAINING WALL REF CIVIL FOR LAYOUT CIVIL 920.0 919.5 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A12A13A14A15A16A17A18A19A20A21A22A23A24A25A26A27A28 A45A42A43A40A41A38A39A36A37A34A35A32A33 A11 14' - 7"15' - 0"24' - 3 3/4"29' - 1 1/4" 917.27TC 920.0 921.0 918.6 A31 TYPE A UNIT - REF BUILDING PLANS FOR INTERIOR LAYOUT 919.5 920.5 919.5 919.5 920.5 BLDG A BLDG B TRASH / RECYCLE 2 AS1.2 920.0 A1 TEXAS AVENUE SOUTH WAYZATA BOULEVARD24' - 0" A44 A52 A51 A50 A49 A48 A47 A46 A29A30 10' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"CURB 10' SET BACK 5' - 0"CURB TO BUILDING29' - 3"6' - 0"6' - 0" SIDEWALK8' - 9"18' - 0"8 4 .7 8 ° BIKE STORAGE BIKE RACKS TREES / LANDSCAPING SHOWN FOR REF SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS TO LAYOUT AND SPECIES 4' - 0"10' - 0"TREES / LANDSCAPING SHOWN FOR REF SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS TO LAYOUT AND SPECIES RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY GARDER PLOTS AND LANDSCAPING - SEE LANDSCAPE DESIGN MASONRY WALL SCREEN / ACCESS GATE ACCESS GATE elness swenson graham architects 500 washington avenue south m inneapolis m innesota 55415 p. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 5 0 8 f. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 3 8 2 w w w . e s g a r c h . c o m I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or r e p o r t was prepared by m e or under m y direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect under the laws of the State of M innesota Signature Typed or Printed Nam e License # D ate PROJECT NUM BER D RAW N BY CHECKED BY O RIGINAL ISSUE: REVISIO NS KEY PL A N N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N **D R A F T **9/8/2015 4:04:36 PMAS1.2 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN - SITE A - "TEXAS" 215515 ESG ESG ARLINGTON ROW ARLINGTON ROW ST. LO UIS PARK, M N PUD / COM P PLAN - 9/8/2015 1/16" = 1'-0"AS1.2 1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN PARKING COUNT - TEXAS SITE Texas Site A ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL 3 S STANDARD 8'9" X 18'0"49 52 UNIT MATRIX - SITE A - TEXAS Count Unit Type Name SF Unit (Paint to Paint) Gross Unit Rentable (Per Unit) Total Gross Unit Rentable (=Rentable * Count) Bed rooms Total Beds BUILDING A - SITE A LEVEL 1 2 1A 2 BED 786 SF 863 SF 1,726 SF 2 4 2 1B 2 BED (2 STORY) 956 SF 1,088 SF 2,176 SF 2 4 4 1C 1 BED 545 SF 545 SF 2,181 SF 1 4 8 6,083 SF 12 LEVEL 2 3 2A 2 BED (2 STORY) 1,000 SF 1,123 SF 3,369 SF 2 6 2 2B 2 BED (2 STORY) 1,029 SF 1,168 SF 2,336 SF 2 4 4 2C 1 BED (2 STORY) 672 SF 753 SF 3,012 SF 1 4 9 8,717 SF 14 17 14,800 SF 26 BUILDING B - SITE A LEVEL 1 2 1A 2 BED 786 SF 863 SF 1,726 SF 2 4 2 1B 2 BED (2 STORY) 956 SF 1,088 SF 2,176 SF 2 4 4 1C 1 BED 545 SF 545 SF 2,181 SF 1 4 8 6,083 SF 12 LEVEL 2 3 2A 2 BED (2 STORY) 1,000 SF 1,123 SF 3,369 SF 2 6 2 2B 2 BED (2 STORY) 1,029 SF 1,168 SF 2,336 SF 2 4 4 2C 1 BED (2 STORY) 672 SF 753 SF 3,012 SF 1 4 9 8,717 SF 14 17 14,800 SF 26 34 29,600 SF 52 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS - 34 BUILDING FOOTPRINT(S) - 5,578 (X2) BUILDING GROSS SF - 15,831 (X2) SITE AREA - 1.397 ACRE DENSITY - 24.3 UNITS / ACRE No.Desc r iption Date PLANNORTH0 168 32 1/16" = 1'-0"AS1.2 2 TEXAS SITE ELEVATION City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Page 24 elness swenson graham architects 500 washington avenue south m inneapolis m innesota 55415 p. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 5 0 8 f. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 3 8 2 w w w . e s g a r c h . c o m I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or r e p o r t was prepared by m e or under m y direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect under the laws of the State of M innesota Signature Typed or Printed Nam e License # D ate PROJECT NUM BER D RAW N BY CHECKED BY O RIGINAL ISSUE: REVISIO NS KEY PL A N N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N **D R A F T **9/8/2015 4:04:36 PMAS2.1 REFERENCE IM AGES 215515 Author Checker 07/07/15 ARLINGTON ROW ARLINGTON ROW ST. LO UIS PARK, M N PUD / COM P PLAN - 9/8/2015 No.Desc r iption Date City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Page 25 18.025.018.0 8.08.8 MODULAR RETAINING WALL MODULAR RETAINING WALL WITH RAILING WHERE WALL IS 30" OR TALLER BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK TYP. (5) CONCRETE PATIOS WITH SCREEN WALL. SEE ARCHITECTURAL (5) CONCRETE PATIOS WITH SCREEN WALL. SEE ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE SIDEWALK TYP. CONCRETE SIDEWALK TYP. CONCRETE PAVEMENT TRASH & RECYCLE ENCLOSURE W/CONCRETE PAVEMENT WITH MASONRY WALLS TO MATCH BUILDING. SEE ARCHITECTURAL 3 STAIRS 2 STAIRS 2 STAIRS SEE ARCHITECTURAL 2 STAIRS SEE ARCHITECTURAL 2 STAIRS SEE ARCHITECTURAL 2 STAIRS SEE ARCHITECTURAL PEDESTRIAN RAMP PEDESTRIAN RAMP BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 8.5 18.0 24.0 18.0 8.5 8.0 (7) BIKE STALLS (25) INTERIOR BIKE STORAGE (8) BIKE STALLS CONNECT SIDEWALK TO EXISTING PEDESTRIAN RAMP PEDESTRIAN RAMP 9.7 14.6 12.6 17.8 19.0 26.4 38.4 48.9 6.0 6.0 6' TALL CEDAR FENCE 1' BEHIND RETAINING WALL 6.0 LOUCKS W:\2015\15186.0A\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Sheet Files\C2-1 SITE PLANPlotted: 10 /06 / 2015 2:5 PM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. CADD QUALIFICATION SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE QUALITY CONTROL Arlington Row Apartments West St. Louis Park, MN Melrose Company 22375 Murray Street Excelsior, MN 55331 07/10/15 CITY SUBMITTAL 08/10/15 CITY RE-SUBMITTAL 08/19/15 CITY RE-SUBMITTAL 09/08/15 CITY RE-SUBMITTAL 09/25/15 CITY RE-SUBMITTAL 10/06/15 CITY COMMENTS C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1-2 PRELIMINARY PLAT C1-3 PRELIMINARY PLAT C2-1 SITE PLAN C3-1 GRADING PLAN C3-2 SWPPP C4-1 SANITARY & WATERMAIN C4-2 STORM SEWER C8-1 DETAILS C8-2 CITY DETAILS L1-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L2-1 TREE INVENTORY PLAN N  WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES 1.MINIMUM SETBACKS: FRONT BUILDING SETBACK = 25 FT SIDE BUILDING SETBACK = 10 FT. REAR BUILDING SETBACK = 9 FT. 2.ZONING EXISTING ZONING =R-1 PROPOSED ZONING = PUD 3. PARKING SUMMARY BIKE COUNT SUMMARY SURFACE REGULAR STALLS = 49 1 PER DWELLING = 34 SURFACE HANDICAPPED STALLS = 3 1 PER 10 PARKING STALLS = 6 TOTAL SURFACE STALLS = 52 TOTAL REQUIRED = 40 BIKE STALLS INSIDE = 25 BIKE STALLS OUTSIDE = 15 TOTAL PROPOSED = 40 4. AREA/DENSITY TOTAL AREA = 60,830 SQ.FT. OR 1.396 AC. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA = 34,647 SQ.FT. OR 0.795 AC. = 56.9% PERVIOUS SURFACE AREA = 26,183 SQ.FT. OR 0.601 AC. = 43.1% 5. ALL PAVING, CONCRETE CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DETAILS SHOWN PER SHEET C8-1 AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. SEE LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR ANY ADDITIONAL HARDSCAPE APPLICATIONS. 6. THE CITY AND THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY WORK WITHIN THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY (SIDEWALK, STREET OR DRIVEWAYS) 7. MINNESOTA STATE STATUTE REQUIRES NOTIFICATION PER "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY GRADING, EXCAVATION OR UNDERGROUND WORK. 8. SEE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS FOR ANY REMOVAL DETAILS. 9. ANY SIGN OR FIXTURES REMOVED WITH IN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR AS PART OF THE SITE WORK SHALL BE REPLACED BY THE CONTRACTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN ANY EXISTING STREET LIGHTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNS PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. 10. CLEAR AND GRUB AND REMOVE ALL TREES, VEGETATION AND SITE DEBRIS PRIOR TO GRADING. ALL REMOVED MATERIAL SHALL BE HAULED FROM THE SITE DAILY. ALL CLEARING AND GRUBBING AND REMOVALS SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY ESTABLISHED UPON REMOVAL. (SEE SHEET C3-1) 11. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN ALL PERMITS FROM THE CITY AS REQUIRED FOR ALL WORK WITH THE STREET AND PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. 12. A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS NOT SHOWN ON THIS SHEET ARE DESCRIBED AND PROVIDED IN FURTHER DETAIL ON THE ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS. THIS INCLUDES LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND OTHER FIXTURES. 13. B612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE EDGE OF ALL COMMON DRIVES AND PARKING LOTS. 14. CONSTRUCTION NOTES: A. PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE LOCATIONS SHOWN AND AS SHOWN PER THE LANDSCAPE SITE PLANS. B. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SAW-CUT BITUMINOUS AND CONCRETE PAVEMENTS AS REQUIRED PER THE SPECIFICATIONS. REMOVE EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER AND INSTALL B618 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER. 15. SEE SHEETS C3-1 AND C4-1 FOR GRADING AND UTILITIES. 16. ALL CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER B612, CITY'S STANDARD PLATES. (SEE DETAIL SHEET). 17. THE INTENT OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IS TO PRESERVE AS MUCH OF THE EXISTING STREET PAVEMENT AS POSSIBLE, AND TO MILL AND OVERLAY. REMOVED PAVEMENT AREAS AND PATCHING SHALL BE INSTALLED PER PAVEMENT SECTION PROVIDED PER DETAIL SHEET. PAVEMENT LEGEND: CONCRETE PAVEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK SITE PLAN C2-1 Review Date SHEET INDEX License No. Date I hereby certify that this plan, specification or 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. PJ Disch - PE 49933 Project Lead Drawn By Checked By Loucks Project No. 07/10/2015 15186A MJS PJD PJD SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Page 26 RAIN GARDEN BOTTOM ELEV=918.5 RAIN GARDEN BOTTOM ELEV=918.5 RAIN GARDEN BOTTOM ELEV=918.5 RAIN GARDEN BOTTOM ELEV=918.5 RAIN GARDEN BOTTOM ELEV=918.5 TW=920.00 GW=920.00 TW=926.00 GW=920.00 TW=925.50 GW=920.00 TW=920.00 GW=920.00 TW=920.00 GW=920.00 TW=927.50 GW=921.00 TW=926.50 GW=920.00 TW=923.00 GW=920.00 TW=920.00 GW=920.00  918.20 TW=923.00 GW=920.00 LOUCKS W:\2015\15186.0A\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Sheet Files\C3-1 GRADINGPlotted: 09 /08 / 2015 12:25 PM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. CADD QUALIFICATION SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE QUALITY CONTROL Arlington Row Apartments West St. Louis Park, MN Melrose Company 22375 Murray Street Excelsior, MN 55331 07/10/15 CITY SUBMITTAL 08/10/15 CITY RE-SUBMITTAL 08/19/15 CITY RE-SUBMITTAL 09/08/15 CITY RE-SUBMITTAL C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1-2 PRELIMINARY PLAT C1-3 PRELIMINARY PLAT C2-1 SITE PLAN C3-1 GRADING PLAN C3-2 SWPPP C4-1 SANITARY & WATERMAIN C4-2 STORM SEWER C8-1 DETAILS C8-2 CITY DETAILS L1-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L2-1 TREE INVENTORY PLAN N  WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF BUILDINGS, VESTIBULES, SLOPED PAVING, EXIT PORCHES, RAMPS, TRUCK DOCKS, ENTRY LOCATIONS AND LOCATIONS OF DOWNSPOUTS. 2. ALL DISTURBED UNPAVED AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES OF TOP SOIL AND SOD OR SEED. THESE AREAS SHALL BE WATERED BY THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL THE SOD OR SEED IS GROWING IN A HEALTHY MANNER. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT. 4. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGMEN AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO THE APPROPRIATE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS. 5. IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THIS REQUIREMENT WILL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. 6. THE DUTY OF THE ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER TO CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION REVIEW OF THE CONTRACTORS PERFORMANCE IS NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE CONTRACTORS SAFETY MEASURES IN, OR NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. 7. BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL A TEMPORARY ROCK ENTRANCE PAD AT ALL POINTS OF VEHICLE EXIT FROM THE PROJECT SITE. SAID ROCK ENTRANCE PAD SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. SEE DETAILS SHOWN ON SHEET C8-1 OF THE PROJECT PLANS. 8. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AROUND THE ENTIRE SITE PERIMETER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, CITY REQUIREMENTS AND THE DETAILS SHOWN ON SHEET C8-1 OF THE PROJECT PLANS. 9. ALL ENTRANCES AND CONNECTIONS TO CITY STREETS SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PERMITS AND NOTIFICATIONS AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY. 10. SEE UTILITY PLAN AND STORM SEWER PROFILES FOR FURTHER DETAIL REGARDING THE STORM SEWER. GRADING PLAN C3-1 Review Date SHEET INDEX License No. Date I hereby certify that this plan, specification or 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. PJ Disch - PE 49933 Project Lead Drawn By Checked By Loucks Project No. 07/10/2015 15186A MJS PJD PJD SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Page 27 ROCK ENTRANCE PAD INLET PROTECTION TYP INLET PROTECTION TYP  918.20LOUCKS W:\2015\15186.0A\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Sheet Files\C3-2 SWPPPPlotted: 09 /08 / 2015 12:26 PM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. CADD QUALIFICATION SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE QUALITY CONTROL Arlington Row Apartments West St. Louis Park, MN Melrose Company 22375 Murray Street Excelsior, MN 55331 07/10/15 CITY SUBMITTAL 08/10/15 CITY RE-SUBMITTAL 08/19/15 CITY RE-SUBMITTAL 09/08/15 CITY RE-SUBMITTAL C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1-2 PRELIMINARY PLAT C1-3 PRELIMINARY PLAT C2-1 SITE PLAN C3-1 GRADING PLAN C3-2 SWPPP C4-1 SANITARY & WATERMAIN C4-2 STORM SEWER C8-1 DETAILS C8-2 CITY DETAILS L1-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L2-1 TREE INVENTORY PLAN NWARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN C3-2 INLET PROTECTION ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SWPPP LEGEND EXISTING INLET PROTECTION SILT FENCE 1. THE NATURE OF THIS PROJECT WILL CONSIST OF CONSTRUCTING TWO APARTMENT BUILDINGS WITH ADJACENT PARKING. 2. THE INTENDED SEQUENCING OF MAJOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. INSTALL VEHICLE TRACKING BMP 2. INSTALL SILT FENCE AROUND SITE 3. CLEAR AND GRUB SITE 4. STRIP AND STOCKPILE TOPSOIL 5. REMOVE PAVEMENTS AND UTILITIES 6. ROUGH GRADE SITE 7. IMPORT CLEAN FILL FOR REPLACEMENT AND BALANCE 8. INSTALL UTILITIES 9. INSTALL BUILDING FOUNDATIONS 10. INSTALL CURB AND GUTTER 11. INSTALL PAVEMENTS AND WALKS 12. FINAL GRADE SITE 13. SEED AND MULCH 14. WHEN ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS COMPLETE AND THE SITE IS STABILIZED, REMOVE SILT FENCE AND RESEED ANY AREAS DISTURBED BY THE REMOVAL. 3. SITE DATA: AREA OF DISTURBANCE:!!%13 PRE-CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS AREA: 0.00 AC POST-CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS AREA: 0.80 AC GENERAL SOIL TYPE: SEE GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT FOR DETAILED INFORMATION 4. THE LOCATION OF AREAS NOT TO BE DISTURBED MUST BE IDENTIFIED WITH FLAGS, STAKES, SIGNS, SILT FENCE, ETC. BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. 5. ALL DISTURBED GROUND LEFT INACTIVE FOR FOURTEEN (14) OR MORE DAYS SHALL BE STABILIZED BY SEEDING OR SODDING (ONLY AVAILABLE PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 15) OR BY MULCHING OR COVERING OR OTHER EQUIVALENT CONTROL MEASURE. 6. ON SLOPES 3:1 OR GREATER MAINTAIN SHEET FLOW AND MINIMIZE RILLS AND/OR GULLIES, SLOPE LENGTHS CAN NOT BE GREATER THAN 75 FEET. DENOTES SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:1. ALL 3:1 SLOPES TO BE STABILIZED WITH EROSION CONTROL BLANKET 7. ALL STORM DRAINS AND INLETS MUST BE PROTECTED UNTIL ALL SOURCES OF POTENTIAL DISCHARGE ARE STABILIZED. 8. TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILES MUST HAVE EFFECTIVE SEDIMENT CONTROL AND CAN NOT BE PLACED IN SURFACE WATERS OR STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS. TEMPORARY STOCKPILES WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF SILT, CLAY, OR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ARE EXEPMT EX: CLEAN AGGREGATE STOCK PILES, DEMOLITION CONCRETE STOCKPILES, SAND STOCKPILES. 9. SEDIMENT LADEN WATER MUST BE DISCHARGED TO A SEDIMENTATION BASIN WHENEVER POSSIBLE. IF NOT POSSIBLE, IT MUST BE TREATED WITH THE APPROPRIATE BMP'S. 10. SOLID WASTE MUST BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND MUST COMPLY WITH MPCA DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS. 11. EXTERNAL WASHING OF CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES MUST BE LIMITED TO A DEFINED AREA OF THE SITE. RUNOFF MUST BE PROPERLY CONTAINED. 12. NO ENGINE DEGREASING IS ALLOWED ON SITE. 13. THE OWNER WHO SIGNS THE NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION IS A PERMITTEE AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT. THE OPERATOR (CONTRACTOR) WHO SIGNS THE NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION IS A PERMITTEE FOR PARTS II.B., PART II.C, PART II.B-F, PART V, PART IV AND APPLICABLE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY REQUIREMENTS FOUND IN APPENDIX A, PART C. OF THE NPDES PERMIT AND IS JOINTLY RESPONSIBLE WITH THE OWNER FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE PORTIONS OF THE PERMIT. 14.TERMINATION OF COVERAGE-PERMITTEE(S) WISHING TO TERMINATE COVERAGE MUST SUBMIT A NOTICE OF TERMINATION (NOT) TO THE MPCA. ALL PERMITTEE(S) MUST SUBMIT A NOT WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN MET: A. FINAL STABILIZATION, PER NPDES PERMIT PART IV.G. HAS BEEN ACHIEVED ON ALL PORTIONS OF THE SITE FOR WHICH THE PERMITTEE IS RESPONSIBLE. B. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP AS DESCRIBED IN THE PERMIT. 15. INSPECTIONS A. INITIAL INSPECTION FOLLOWING SILT FENCE INSTALLATION BY CITY REPRESENTATIVE IS REQUIRED. B. EXPOSED SOIL AREAS: ONCE EVERY 7 DAYS AND WITHIN 24 HOURS FOLLOWING A 0.5" OVER 24 HOUR RAIN EVENT. C. STABILIZED AREAS: ONCE EVERY 30 DAYS D. FROZEN GROUND: AS SOON AS RUNOFF OCCURS OR PRIOR TO RESUMING CONSTRUCTION. E. INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE RECORDS MUST BE RETAINED FOR 3 YEARS AFTER FILING OF THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION AND MUST INCLUDE: DATE AND TIME OF ACTION, NAME OF PERSON(S) CONDUCTING WORK, FINDING OF INSPECTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION, DATE AND AMOUNT OF RAINFALL EVENTS GREATER THAN 0.5 INCHES IN A 24 HOUR PERIOD. SWPPP NOTES 16. MINIMUM MAINTENANCE A. SILT FENCE TO BE REPAIRED, REPLACED, SUPPLEMENTED WHEN NONFUNCTIONAL, OR 1/3 FULL; WITHIN 24 HOURS B. SEDIMENT BASINS DRAINED AND SEDIMENT REMOVED WHEN REACHES 1/2 STORAGE VOLUME. REMOVAL MUST BE COMPLETE WITHIN 72 HOURS OF DISCOVERY. C. SEDIMENT REMOVED FROM SURFACE WATERS WITHIN (7)SEVEN DAYS D. CONSTRUCTION SITE EXITS INSPECTED, TRACKED SEDIMENT REMOVED WITH 24 HOURS. E. PROVIDE COPIES OF EROSION INSPECTION RESULTS TO CITY ENGINEER FOR ALL EVENTS GREATER THAN 12" IN 24 HOURS 17. THE SWPPP, INCLUDING ALL CHANGES TO IT, AND INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE RECORDS MUST BE KEPT AT THE SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BY THE PERMITTEE(S) WHO HAVE OPERATIONAL CONTROL OF THE SITE. 18. OWNER MUST KEEP RECORDS OF ALL PERMITS REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT, THE SWPPP, ALL INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE, PERMANENT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS, AND REQUIRED CALCULATIONS FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS. THESE RECORDS MUST BE RETAINED FOR THREE YEARS AFTER FILING NPDES NOTICE OF TERMINATION. 19. SWPPP MUST BE AMENDED WHEN: A. THERE IS A CHANGE IN DESIGN, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, WEATHER OR SEASONAL CONDITIONS THAT HAS A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON DISCHARGE B. INSPECTIONS INDICATE THAT THE SWPPP IS NOT EFFECTIVE AND DISCHARGE IS EXCEEDING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. C. THE BMP'S IN THE SWPPP ARE NOT CONTROLLING POLLUTANTS IN DISCHARGES OR IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT. 19. CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA A. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE PREFABRICATED CONCRETE WASH-OUT CONTAINER WITH RAIN PROTECTION PER PLAN. B. CONCRETE WASH-OUT TO BE IDENTIFIED WITH SIGNAGE STATING "CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA DO NOT OVERFILL". C. CONCRETE WASHOUT WATER NEEDS TO BE PUMPED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF STANDING WATER IN WASHOUT AREA. 20. IN THE EVENT OF ENCOUNTERING A WELL OR SPRING DURING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR TO CEASE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND NOTIFY ENGINEER. 21. PIPE OULTETS MUST BE PROVIDED WITH TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT ENERGY DISSIPATION WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER CONNECTION TO A SURFACE WATER. 22. FINAL STABILIZATION FINAL STABILIZATION REQUIRES THAT ALL SOIL DISTURBING ACVTIVITIES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND THAT DISTURBED AREAS ARE STABILIZED BY A UNIFORM PERENNIAL VEGETATIVE COVER WITH 70% OF THE EXPECTED FINAL DENSITY, AND THAT ALL PERMANENT PAVEMENTS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED. ALL TEMPORARY BMP'S SHALL BE REMOVED, DITCHES STABILIZED, AND SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM PERMANENT CONVEYANCES AND SEDIMENTATION BASINS IN ORDER TO RETURN THE POND TO DESIGN CAPACITY. 23. RESPONSIBILITIES A. THE OWNER MUST IDENTIFY A PERSON WHO WILL OVERSEE THE SWPPP IMPLEMENTATION AND THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE: CONTACT: __________________________________ COMPANY: __________________________________ PHONE: __________________________________ B. THE OWNER MUST IDENTIFY THE A PERSON WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LONG TERM OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PERMANENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: CONTACT: __________________________________ COMPANY: __________________________________ PHONE: __________________________________ 24. THE WATERSHED DISTRICT OR THE CITY MAY HAVE REQUIREMENTS FOR INSPECTIONS OR AS-BUILT DRAWINGS VERIFYING PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE BMPS. Review Date SHEET INDEX License No. Date I hereby certify that this plan, specification or 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. PJ Disch - PE 49933 Project Lead Drawn By Checked By Loucks Project No. 07/10/2015 15186A MJS PJD PJD SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Page 28   2 AH 4 FD 4 DW 4 DH 4 FD 3 GF 6 SD 6 FD 6 DH 6 DW 6 FD 3 TY 6 KG 5 LL 4 AH 5 KG 7 AH 8 KG 9 AH 6 KG 2 SH 3 AH 3 AP 1 IL 2 GS 3 BS 3 VE 13 SJ 2 BO 7 GS 3 SH 4 GS 7 SD 9 FD 1 IL 1 BO 3 BS 2 TH 3 PC 3 AH 5 AP 1 VE 5 GF 8 KG 3 GF 12 SD 4 GS 1 BO 8 SD 10 DW 9 AH 17 SD 3 AH 10 GF 11 SD 9 BH 4 DH 2 GS 3 GS 7 DH 8 BH 3 GS 6 DH 3 BH LOUCKS W:\2015\15186.0A\CADD DATA\LANDSCAPE\_dwg Sheet Files\L1-1Plotted: 10 /09 / 2015 10:21 AM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. CADD QUALIFICATION SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE QUALITY CONTROL Arlington Row Apartments West St. Louis Park, MN Melrose Company 22375 Murray Street Excelsior, MN 55331 07/10/15 CITY SUBMITTAL 08/10/15 CITY RE-SUBMITTAL 08/19/15 CITY RE-SUBMITTAL 09/08/15 CITY RE-SUBMITTAL 09/25/15 CITY RE-SUBMITTAL 10/06/15 CITY COMMENTS 10/09/15 CITY COMMENTS C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1-2 PRELIMINARY PLAT C1-3 PRELIMINARY PLAT C2-1 SITE PLAN C3-1 GRADING PLAN C3-2 SWPPP C4-1 SANITARY & WATERMAIN C4-2 STORM SEWER C8-1 DETAILS C8-2 CITY DETAILS L1-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L2-1 TREE INVENTORY PLAN GENERAL NOTES CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT SITE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID. HE SHALL INSPECT SITE AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF WORK. VERIFY LAYOUT AND ANY DIMENSIONS SHOWN AND BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ANY DISCREPANCIES WHICH MAY COMPROMISE THE DESIGN AND/OR INTENT OF THE PROJECT'S LAYOUT. ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE WORK OR MATERIALS SUPPLIED. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING ROADS, CURBS/GUTTERS, TRAILS, TREES, LAWNS AND SITE ELEMENTS DURING PLANTING OPERATIONS. ANY DAMAGE TO SAME SHALL BE REPAIRED AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALIGNMENT AND LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND AND ABOVE GRADE UTILITIES AND PROVIDE THE NECESSARY PROTECTION FOR SAME BEFORE CONSTRUCTION / MATERIAL INSTALLATION BEGINS (MINIMUM 10' - 0" CLEARANCE). ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE LAID SO THAT TRENCHES DO NOT CUT THROUGH ROOT SYSTEMS OF ANY EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN. EXISTING CONTOURS, TRAILS, VEGETATION, CURB/GUTTER AND OTHER EXISTING ELEMENTS BASED UPON INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY OTHERS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ANY AND ALL DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF SAME. THE ALIGNMENT AND GRADES OF THE PROPOSED WALKS, TRAILS AND/OR ROADWAYS ARE SUBJECT TO FIELD ADJUSTMENT REQUIRED TO CONFORM TO LOCALIZED TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS AND TO MINIMIZE TREE REMOVAL AND GRADING. ANY CHANGE IN ALIGNMENT MUST BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION: COORDINATE THE PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING INSTALLATION WITH OTHER CONTRACTORS WORKING ON SITE. NO PLANTING WILL BE INSTALLED UNTIL COMPLETE GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. WHERE SOD/SEED ABUTS PAVED SURFACES, FINISHED GRADE OF SOD/SEED SHALL BE HELD 1" BELOW SURFACE ELEVATION OF TRAIL, SLAB, CURB, ETC. SEED ALL AREAS DISTURBED DUE TO GRADING OTHER THAN THOSE AREAS NOTED TO RECEIVE SOD. SEED SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MULCHED AS PER MNDOT SPECS. SOD ALL DESIGNATED AREAS DISTURBED DUE TO GRADING. SOD SHALL BE LAID PARALLEL TO THE CONTOURS AND SHALL HAVE STAGGERED JOINTS. ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 OR IN DRAINAGE SWALES, THE SOD SHALL BE STAKED TO THE GROUND. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL SHRUBS SHALL HAVE AT LEAST 5 CANES AT THE SPECIFIED MINIMUM SHRUB HEIGHT OR WIDTH. ORNAMENTAL TREES SHALL HAVE NO V CROTCHES AND SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 3' ABOVE ROOT BALL. STREET AND BOULEVARD TREES SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 5' ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. ANY CONIFEROUS TREE PREVIOUSLY PRUNED FOR CHRISTMAS TREE SALES SHALL NOT BE USED. ALL CONIFEROUS TREES SHALL BE FULL FORM, NATURAL TO THE SPECIES, WITHOUT PRUNING. PLAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER PLANT SCHEDULE IF DISCREPANCIES IN QUANTITIES EXIST. SPECIFICATIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER NOTES. NO PLANT MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS APPROVAL IS REQUESTED OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF A BID AND/OR QUOTATION. ALL PROPOSED PLANTS SHALL BE LOCATED AND STAKED AS SHOWN ON PLAN. ADJUSTMENTS IN LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLANT MATERIALS MAY BE NEEDED IN FIELD. SHOULD AN ADJUSTMENT BE ADVISED, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST BE NOTIFIED. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE FERTILIZED UPON INSTALLATION WITH A 27-3-3 SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER MIXED IN WITH THE PLANTING SOIL PER THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. PLANTS MAY BE TREATED FOR SUMMER AND FALL INSTALLATION WITH AN APPLICATION OF GRANULAR 27-3-3 AT 6 OZ PER 2.5" CALIPER PER TREE AND 3 OZ PER SHRUB WITH AN ADDITIONAL APPLICATION OF 27-3-3 THE FOLLOWING SPRING IN THE TREE SAUCER. ALL PLANTING AREAS RECEIVING GROUND COVER, PERENNIALS, ANNUALS, AND/OR VINES SHALL RECEIVE A MINIMUM OF 12" DEPTH OF PLANTING SOIL CONSISTING OF AT LEAST 45 PARTS TOPSOIL, 45 PARTS PEAT OR MANURE AND 10 PARTS SAND. ALL PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED AS PER PLANTING DETAILS. REMOVE ALL FLAGGING AND LABELS FROM PLANTS. WRAPPING MATERIAL SHALL BE CORRUGATED PVC PIPING 1" GREATER IN CALIPER THAN THE TREE BEING PROTECTED OR QUALITY, HEAVY, WATERPROOF CREPE PAPER MANUFACTURED FOR THIS PURPOSE. WRAP ALL DECIDUOUS TREES PLANTED IN THE FALL PRIOR TO 12-1 AND REMOVE ALL WRAPPING AFTER 5-1. BLACK METAL EDGER TO BE USED TO CONTAIN SHRUBS, PERENNIALS, AND ANNUALS WHERE BED MEETS SOD/SEED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. ALL ANNUAL AND PERENNIAL PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE 3" DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH WITH NO WEED BARRIER. ALL SHRUB BED MASSINGS TO RECEIVE 3" DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH AND FIBER MAT WEED BARRIER. ALL TREES TO RECEIVE 4" DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH WITH NO MULCH IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK. SPREAD GRANULAR PRE EMERGENT HERBICIDE (PREEN OR EQUAL) PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS UNDER ALL MULCHED AREAS. MAINTENANCE STRIPS TO HAVE EDGER AND MULCH AS SPECIFIED/INDICATED ON DRAWING OR IN SPECIFICATION. IF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS CONCERNED OR PERCEIVES ANY DEFICIENCIES IN THE PLANT SELECTIONS, SOIL CONDITIONS OR ANY OTHER SITE CONDITION WHICH MIGHT NEGATIVELY AFFECT PLANT ESTABLISHMENT, SURVIVAL OR GUARANTEE, HE MUST BRING THESE DEFICIENCIES TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PROCUREMENT AND/OR INSTALLATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR THE OWNER ACCEPTANCE INSPECTION OF ALL LANDSCAPE AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ON-GOING MAINTENANCE OF ALL NEWLY INSTALLED MATERIALS UNTIL TIME OF OWNER ACCEPTANCE. ANY ACTS OF VANDALISM OR DAMAGE WHICH MAY OCCUR PRIOR TO OWNER ACCEPTANCE SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH A MAINTENANCE PROGRAM INCLUDING, BUT NOT NECESSARILY LIMITED TO, PRUNING, FERTILIZATION AND DISEASE/PEST CONTROL. CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE NEW PLANT MATERIAL THROUGH ONE CALENDAR YEAR FROM THE DATE OF OWNER ACCEPTANCE. WARRANTY (ONE FULL GROWING SEASON) FOR LANDSCAPE MATERIALS SHALL BEGIN ON THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AFTER THE COMPLETION OF PLANTING OF ALL LANDSCAPE MATERIALS. NO PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE WILL BE CONSIDERED. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE THE APPROPRIATE DATES FOR SPRING PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION AND SEED/SOD PLACEMENT IS FROM THE TIME GROUND HAS THAWED TO JUNE 15. FALL SODDING IS GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE FROM AUGUST 15 - NOVEMBER 1. FALL SEEDING FROM AUGUST 15 - SEPTEMBER 15; DORMANT SEEDING IN THE FALL SHALL NOT OCCUR PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1. FALL CONIFEROUS PLANTING MAY OCCUR FROM AUGUST 15 - OCTOBER 1 AND DECIDUOUS PLANTING FROM THE FIRST FROST UNTIL NOVEMBER 15. PLANTING OUTSIDE THESE DATES IS NOT RECOMMENDED. ANY ADJUSTMENT MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. PROTECT ALL EXISTING OAKS ON SITE SCHEDULED TO REMAIN. IF EXISTING OAKS ARE DAMAGED IN ANY MANNER, ABOVE OR BELOW GROUND IN THE ROOT SYSTEM, AN ASPHALTIC TREE PRUNING PAINT SHOULD BE APPLIED IMMEDIATELY AFTER WOUNDING. OAKS ARE NOT TO BE PRUNED, REMOVED OR TRANSPLANTED BETWEEN APRIL 15 AND JULY 1. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IF THESE DATES ARE UNAVOIDABLE. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL ESTABLISH TO HIS SATISFACTION THAT SOIL AND COMPACTION CONDITIONS ARE ADEQUATE TO ALLOW FOR PROPER DRAINAGE AT AND AROUND THE BUILDING SITE. IRRIGATION NOTES: VERIFY EXISTING/PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM LAYOUT AND CONFIRM COMPLETE LIMITS OF IRRIGATION PRIOR TO SUPPLYING SHOP DRAWINGS. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AN IRRIGATION LAYOUT PLAN AND SPECIFICATION AS A PART OF THE SCOPE OF WORK WHEN BIDDING. THESE SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ORDER AND/OR INSTALLATION. IT SHALL BE THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO INSURE THAT ALL SODDED/SEEDED AND PLANTED AREAS ARE IRRIGATED PROPERLY, INCLUDING THOSE AREAS DIRECTLY AROUND AND ABUTTING BUILDING FOUNDATION. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH AN IRRIGATION SCHEDULE APPROPRIATE TO THE PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS AND TO PLANT MATERIAL GROWTH REQUIREMENTS. IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS NOT TO SPRINKLE ACROSS PAVEMENT. THE SYSTEM SHALL INCORPORATE A RAIN SENSOR INTO IRRIGATION SYSTEM. PLANTINGS OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF IRRIGATION ARE TO BE WATERED REGULARLY UNTIL PLANTING/SOD/SEED HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. N Review Date SHEET INDEX License No. Date I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Timothy J. Fedie - LA 48303 Project Lead Drawn By Checked By Loucks Project No.15186A MJS TJF TJF LANDSCAPE PLAN L1-1 PLANT SCHEDULE: LANDSCAPE PLAN: LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: 1 TREE PER UNIT (25% MUST BE DECIDUOUS AND 25% MUST BE CONIFEROUS) 6 SHRUBS PER 1,000 SF OF GROSS FLOOR AREA PROPOSED UNITS = 34 GROSS FLOOR AREA = 29,600 SF TREES REQUIRED = 34 TREES PROPOSED = 18 OVERSTORY, 14 CONIFEROUS, 7 ORNAMENTAL EXISTING TREES = 15 TOTAL TREES ON-SITE IN AFTER CONDITION= 54 SHRUBS REQUIRED = 178 SHRUBS PROPOSED = 178 TREE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS = 129 CALIPER INCHES DECIDUOUS TREES PROPOSED = 85 CALIPER INCHES CONIFEROUS TREES PROPOSED = 46 CALIPER INCHES (8'x.415) TOTAL PROPOSED = 130 CALIPER INCHES DORA CALCULATIONS: SITE AREA = 60,871 SQ.FT. DORA REQUIRED (12% OF SITE AREA) = 7,305 SQ.FT. DORA PROPOSED = 7,350 SQ.FT. OR 12% (MARKED ON PLAN WITH HATCH) PLANTING DETAILS: City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Page 29 Designer Date Scale Drawing No. AM Jul 14 2015 As Noted 1 of 1 Arlington Row Townhomes Exterior LightingLUMINAIRE SCHEDULESymbol Label QtyFile Lumens LLF WattsCatalog Number DescriptionLampA 5KAD_250M_R4_(PULSE_START).ies22500 0.72 288KAD 250M R4(PULSE START)20' POLEArea Luminaire, 250WMH, R4 Reflector, FullCutoff MEETS THE'NIGHTTIME FRIENDLY'CRITERIAONE (1) 250 WATTCLEAR BT28 PULSESTART METAL HALIDELAMP IN HORIZONTALPOSITIONSTATISTICSDescription Symbol AvgMaxMin Max/Min Avg/MinArea @ Grade2.3 fc5.2 fc0.7 fc7.4:13.3:1NOTES 1. Davis and Associates, Inc does not assume responsibility for the interpretation of this calculation, or compliance to local or state lighting codes and ordinances. 2. Lighting layout provided is not intended for construction documents but only to illustrate the performance of the product. 3. All readings/calculations are shown @ grade. 4. Fixtures are on a 20' pole with a 3' base. 1.11.11.21.72.32.92.50.81.41.93.04.74.60.81.52.03.14.74.60.81.41.92.53.02.60.81.31.51.51.61.30.91.31.41.41.41.10.91.41.82.02.32.00.91.52.02.94.34.00.91.62.13.14.94.90.91.52.02.83.93.50.91.41.71.82.11.70.91.41.41.41.41.11.01.41.61.71.91.61.21.72.22.83.73.21.72.32.63.55.15.01.61.61.71.71.71.71.92.32.62.83.54.84.51.82.11.81.71.62.02.32.62.82.62.62.72.23.83.93.72.21.93.03.84.03.52.11.51.44.35.03.62.01.93.14.93.41.81.00.75.2AAAAAPlan ViewScale 1/16" = 1'City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUDPage 30 1 A3.3 1 A3.1 2 A3.3 1 A3.2 X1 2 BED 1A -- 3 2 BED 1A -- 8 2 BED (2 STORY) 1B 2/A8.1 7 1 BED 1C 2/A8.2 (TYPE B) 6 1 BED 1C 2/A8.2 (TYPE B) 4 2 BED (2 STORY) 1B 2/A8.1 102 COMMON - ACCESIBLE 2 1 BED 1C 2/A8.2 (TYPE B) 5 1 BED 1C 2/A8.2 (TYPE B) FROST PROTECTED CIP STOOP FROST PROTECTED CIP STOOP 4' - 0"NOTE: •TYPICAL LAYOUT TO BE "TYPE B" •ONE 1A UNIT PER SITE TO BE "TYPE A" REF ALTERNATE UNIT PLAN Fw4 1 Fw4 1Fw4 1 DW4 2 B 1 8 DW4 2 B 1 8 DW4 2 B 1 8 4' - 6 5/8" 24' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0" A B C D EW6 B b6 DW4 2 B 1 8 100 VESTIBULE 101 VESTIBULE 2 1 "X" TO BE REPLACED WITH BUILDING DW4 2 B 1 8 DW4 2 B 1 8 DW4 2 B 1 8 DW4 2 B 1 8 DW4 2 B 1 8 DW4 2 B 1 8 A A3.1 C A3.1 B A3.1 21' - 2 3/8"20' - 5 1/8"5' - 1 1/4"19' - 1 1/8"DW4 2 B 1 8 DW4 2 B 1 8 122' - 6 1/2"44' - 7 1/2"5' - 2 3/4" 118' - 6 1/2" A B 2 X1 2 BED 1A -- FROST PROTECTED CIP STOOP NOTE: •TYPICAL LAYOUT TO BE "TYPE B" •ONE 1A UNIT PER SITE TO BE "TYPE A" REF ALTERNATE UNIT PLAN Fw4 1 Fw4 1 DW4 2 B 1 8 DW4 2 B 1 8 EW6 B b6 100 VESTIBULE 3' - 6"elness swenson graham architects 500 washington avenue south m inneapolis m innesota 55415 p. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 5 0 8 f. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 3 8 2 w w w . e s g a r c h . c o m I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or r e port was prepared by m e or under m y direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect under the laws of the State of M innesota Signature Typed or Printed Nam e License # D ate PROJECT NUM BER D RAW N BY CHECKED BY O RIGINAL ISSUE: REVISIO NS KEY PLAN N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N **D R A F T **7/8/2015 2:29:38 PMA1.1 FLOOR PLAN 215515 ESG ESG ARLINGTON ROW ARLINGTON ROW PUD / COM P PLAN - 7/10/2015 3/16" = 1'-0"A1.1 A FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 3/16" = 1'-0"A1.1 1 FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN No.Description Date City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Page 31 UP 1 A3.3 1 A3.1 2 A3.3 1 A3.2 X13 2 BED (2 STORY) 2B 1/A8.5X11 2 BED (2 STORY) 2A 1/A8.4 X10 2 BED (2 STORY) 2A 1/A8.4X9 2 BED (2 STORY) 2B 1/A8.5 X17 1 BED (2 STORY) 2C 1/A8.3 X16 1 BED (2 STORY) 2C 1/A8.3 X15 1 BED (2 STORY) 2C 1/A8.3 2 BED (2 STORY) 1B 2/A8.1 2 BED (2 STORY) 1B 2/A8.1 CIRCULATIONDETAIL OCCOURS AT ALL INTERIOR UNIT ENTRY DOORS X12 2 BED (2 STORY) 2A 1/A8.4 X14 1 BED (2 STORY) 2C 1/A8.3 13' - 6"13' - 6"13' - 6" 4' - 0"5' - 6"4' - 0"4' - 0"5' - 6"4' - 0"4' - 0"5' - 6"4' - 0" A B C D 2 1 DW4 2 B 8 DW4 2 B 1 8 DW4 2 B 1 8 DW4 2 B 1 8 DW4 2 B 1 8 DW4 2 B 1 8 DW4 2 B 1 8 DW4 2 B 1 8 DW4 2 B 1 8 DW4 2 B 1 81" / 12"1" / 12"A A3.1 C A3.1 B A3.1 DW4 2 B 1 8 DW4 2 B 1 8 DW4 2 B 1 8 W6 4 B 122' - 6 1/2"46' - 1 1/2"118' - 6 1/2" elness swenson graham architects 500 washington avenue south m inneapolis m innesota 55415 p. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 5 0 8 f. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 3 8 2 w w w . e s g a r c h . c o m I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or r e p o r t was prepared by m e or under m y direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect under the laws of the State of M innesota Signature Typed or Printed Nam e License # D ate PROJECT NUM BER D RAW N BY CHECKED BY O RIGINAL ISSUE: REVISIO NS KEY PL A N N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N **D R A F T **7/8/2015 2:29:39 PMA1.2 FLOOR PLAN 215515 Author Checker 04/07/15 ARLINGTON ROW ARLINGTON ROW PUD / COM P PLAN - 7/10/2015 3/16" = 1'-0"A1.2 1 SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN No.Descri p tion Date City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Page 32 DN 1 A3.3 1 A3.1 2 A3.3 1 A3.2 1 BED (2 STORY) 2C 1/A8.3 1 BED (2 STORY) 2C 1/A8.3 1 BED (2 STORY) 2C 1/A8.3 2 BED (2 STORY) 2B 1/A8.5 2 BED (2 STORY) 2A 1/A8.4 2 BED (2 STORY) 2A 1/A8.4 2 BED (2 STORY) 2B 1/A8.5 11' - 6 5/8"3' - 0" 18' - 4 5/8"18' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 2 1/8" A B C D 2 1 A A3.1 C A3.1 B A3.1 EQ EQ EQ 118' - 6 1/2" 72' - 4 1/4"25' - 4 1/2"elness swenson graham architects 500 washington avenue south m inneapolis m innesota 55415 p. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 5 0 8 f. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 3 8 2 w w w . e s g a r c h . c o m I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or r e p o r t was prepared by m e or under m y direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect under the laws of the State of M innesota Signature Typed or Printed Nam e License # D ate PROJECT NUM BER D RAW N BY CHECKED BY O RIGINAL ISSUE: REVISIO NS KEY PL A N N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N **D R A F T **7/8/2015 2:29:40 PMA1.3 FLOOR PLAN 215515 Author Checker 04/07/15 ARLINGTON ROW ARLINGTON ROW PUD / COM P PLAN - 7/10/2015 3/16" = 1'-0"A1.3 1 BP-03 - LEVEL 3 No.Descri p tion Date City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Page 33 LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 109' - 11" LEVEL 0 - TOP OF FTG 95' - 0" LEVEL 3 119' - 10" LEVEL 4 - TOP PLT 128' - 5 1/4"8' - 7 1/4"9' - 11"9' - 11"8' - 7 1/4"9' - 11"9' - 11"5' - 0"36' - 0 1/2"BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 11A 7' - 7 1/4"BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 11A BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 21B CEMENT PLASTER / STUCCO7 BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 21B B2 B6B6 B5 B5 LV LV B5 B5 B6B6 B4B4 B4 B4 B2 B6B6 B5 B5 D1 D1 B5 B5 B6B6 LV LV D1 B4B4B2 8/4 TRIM BOARD (HEAD) 8/4 TRIM BOARD (SLOPED SILL)6"1 1/2"BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 21B C1 B4 B4 B4B4 D1 LV 15' - 5"CEMENT PLASTER / STUCCO7 FIBERCEMENT LAP SIDING 4"6A FIBERGLASS / COMPOSIT WINDOW FRAME 9A SOLDIER COURSE (HEAD) B4 B4 C1 D1 B4B4 LV FIBERCEMENT LAP SIDING 6"6B EQEQ30 YR ARCHITECTURAL LAMINATED SHINGLES10A ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 21BCIP CONCRETE1C CLASS 1 MATERIAL 3073sf 82% CLASS 2 MATERIAL 635 sf CLASS 1 MATERIAL 2765 sf 70% CLASS 2 MATERIAL 1197 sf CLASS 2 MATERIAL 248 CLASS 1 MATERIAL 1181 sf 82% elness swenson graham architects 500 washington avenue south m inneapolis m innesota 55415 p. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 5 0 8 f. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 3 8 2 w w w . e s g a r c h . c o m I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or r e p o r t was prepared by m e or under m y direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect under the laws of the State of M innesota Signature Typed or Printed Nam e License # D ate PROJECT NUM BER D RAW N BY CHECKED BY O RIGINAL ISSUE: REVISIO NS KEY PL A N N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N **D R A F T **7/8/2015 2:30:48 PMA3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 215515 ESG ESG ARLINGTON ROW ARLINGTON ROW PUD / COM P PLAN - 7/10/2015 3/16" = 1'-0"A3.1 1 SOUTH ELEVATION MATERIALS LIST - EXTERIOR Material: Mark Material: Description GLASS - REF OPENING SCHEDEULE(S) 1A BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 1 1A.1 BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 1 - SOLDIER 1B BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 2 1C CIP CONCRETE 6A FIBERCEMENT LAP SIDING 4" 6B FIBERCEMENT LAP SIDING 6" 7 CEMENT PLASTER / STUCCO 9A FIBERGLASS / COMPOSIT WINDOW FRAME 9B ALUMINUM - REF OPENING SCHEDULE 9C HOLLOW METAL OPENING - REF OPENING SCHEDULE 10A 30 YR ARCHITECTURAL LAMINATED SHINGLES 10B ROOFING - STANDING SEAM METAL 12 CEDAR FRAMING 1/16" = 1'-0"A3.1 A SOUTH ELEVATION - Material Area 1/16" = 1'-0"A3.1 B NORTH ELEVATION - Material Area 1/16" = 1'-0"A3.1 C EAST ELEVATION (WEST MIRRORED) - Material Area No.Descri p tion Date City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Page 34 LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 109' - 11" LEVEL 0 - TOP OF FTG 95' - 0" LEVEL 3 119' - 10" LEVEL 4 - TOP PLT 128' - 5 1/4" ATTIC VENT RIDGE VENT KICK OUT FLASHINGKICK OUT FLASHING RIDGE VENT CEMENT PLASTER / STUCCO7 BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 11A BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 1 - SOLDIER1A.1 ROOFING - STANDING SEAM METAL10B FIBERCEMENT LAP SIDING 4"6A FIBERCEMENT LAP SIDING 4"6A CEMENT PLASTER / STUCCO7 2' - 1"2' - 1" 30 YR ARCHITECTURAL LAMINATED SHINGLES10A FIBERCEMENT LAP SIDING 4"6A BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 11A CEMENT PLASTER / STUCCO7 CEMENT PLASTER / STUCCO7 ROW LOCK (SILL) SOLDIER COURSE (HEAD) DOWNSPOUT REF ROOF PLAN & SITE GRADING ALUMINUM - REF OPENING SCHEDULE9B elness swenson graham architects 500 washington avenue south m inneapolis m innesota 55415 p. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 5 0 8 f. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 3 8 2 w w w . e s g a r c h . c o m I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or r e p o r t was prepared by m e or under m y direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect under the laws of the State of M innesota Signature Typed or Printed Nam e License # D ate PROJECT NUM BER D RAW N BY CHECKED BY O RIGINAL ISSUE: REVISIO NS KEY PL A N N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N **D R A F T **7/8/2015 2:32:07 PMA3.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 215515 Author Checker 04/09/15 ARLINGTON ROW ARLINGTON ROW PUD / COM P PLAN - 7/10/2015 3/16" = 1'-0"A3.2 1 NORTH ELEVATION No.Descri p tion Date City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Page 35 LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 109' - 11" LEVEL 0 - TOP OF FTG 95' - 0" LEVEL 3 119' - 10" LEVEL 4 - TOP PLT 128' - 5 1/4" PEDESTAL MOUNTED MAIL BOX 1 PER BUILDING, REF SITE PLAN FOR LOCATION BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 1 - SOLDIER1A.1 100' - 0" 101' - 0" 20 1" 12"8' - 7 1/4"9' - 11"9' - 11"5' - 0"ABOVE ROOF FINISHHOLD SILL 8"SOLDIER COURSE (HEAD) ROW LOCK (SILL) BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 11A FIBERCEMENT LAP SIDING 4"6A CEMENT PLASTER / STUCCO7 FIBERCEMENT LAP SIDING 4"6A CEMENT PLASTER / STUCCO7 8/4 TRIM BOARD (HEAD) 8/4 TRIM BOARD (SLOPED SILL) ATTIC VENT B4 B6 B6 B4 B6 B6 B4B4 B3 B3 C2 A2STUCCO HEAD TRIM BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 21B LEVEL 1 100' - 0" elness swenson graham architects 500 washington avenue south m inneapolis m innesota 55415 p. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 5 0 8 f. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 3 8 2 w w w . e s g a r c h . c o m I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or r e p o r t was prepared by m e or under m y direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect under the laws of the State of M innesota Signature Typed or Printed Nam e License # D ate PROJECT NUM BER D RAW N BY CHECKED BY O RIGINAL ISSUE: REVISIO NS KEY PL A N N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N **D R A F T **7/8/2015 2:33:49 PMA3.3 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 215515 Author Checker 04/09/15 ARLINGTON ROW ARLINGTON ROW PUD / COM P PLAN - 7/10/2015 3/16" = 1'-0"A3.3 1 EAST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"A3.3 2 WEST ELEVATION No.Descri p tion Date City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Page 36 Memorandum SRF No. 0158985 To: Ryan P. Kelley, CNU-A, Associate Planner City of St. Louis Park From: Matt Pacyna, PE, Senior Associate Tom Sachi, EIT, Engineer Date: September 15, 2015 Subject: Arlington Row Apartments West and East Traffic Study Introduction SRF has completed a traffic study for the two Arlington Row Apartment developments located along Wayzata Boulevard in St. Louis Park, MN (see Figure 1: Project Location). One development is located in the southwest quadrant of the Wayzata Boulevard/Texas Avenue intersection, while the other development is located along Wayzata Boulevard between Texas Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue. The main objectives of this study are to review existing operations within the study area, evaluate development traffic impacts to the adjacent roadway network, including the proposed access and circulation, and recommend any necessary improvements to accommodate the proposed developments. The following information provides the assumptions, analysis, and recommendations offered for consideration. Existing Conditions The existing conditions were reviewed to establish a baseline in order to identify any future impacts associated with the developments. The evaluation of existing conditions includes turning movement and pedestrian/bicyclist counts, field observations, and an intersection capacity analysis. Data Collection Peak hour turning movement and pedestrian/bicyclist counts were collected by SRF during the week of August 17, 2015 at the following study intersections: x Wayzata Boulevard and Texas Avenue x Wayzata Boulevard and Pennsylvania Avenue x Texas Avenue and 13th Lane/Westwood Hills Road At the Texas Avenue and 13th Lane/Westwood Hills Road intersection, a 15-minute pulse count was conducted in order to establish general travel patterns and magnitude. Additional driveway pulse counts were completed along Wayzata Boulevard within the immediate study area. ONE CARLSON PARKWAY, SUITE 150 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55447 | 763.475.0010 | WWW.SRFCONSULTING.COM City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Page 37 !"#$%& !"City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUDPage 38 Ryan P. Kelley September 15, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Arlington Row Apartments West and East Traffic Study Historical and existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were provided by the City of St. Louis Park. Based on discussion with City staff, concerns were expressed that current traffic volumes may be impacted by area roadway construction, particularly along I-394 and TH 100. To address this concern, a daily traffic volume comparison between historical (year 2013) and current (year 2015) volumes was completed. The current traffic volumes were collected by City staff the weeks of August 10 and August 17. However, it should be noted that the I-394 construction was completed on August 14, 2014. Therefore the comparison focused on the historical year 2013 and the non- construction data from the week of August 17. Results of the comparison indicate that the existing traffic volumes have returned to near non-construction conditions and are consistent with the historical daily traffic volumes with the study area. Although TH 100 construction impacts continue to impact north/south corridors within St Louis Park, the impact to the study area appears to be minimal. It should be noted that school was not in session at the time of these traffic counts. The middle school hours of operation are from 7:30 a.m. to 2:15 p.m., which are outside of the a.m. and p.m. peak hours within the study area. Although the school a.m. peak hour is near the a.m. peak hour of the adjacent roadway, the a.m. peak hour volumes at the Wayzata Boulevard/Texas Avenue intersection are approximately 25 percent lower than the p.m. peak hour volumes. Therefore, the school does not have a significant impact to traffic operations within the study area. A cursory review of the crash data in the area for years 2010 through 2014 indicate that only one crash has occurred within the study area over the previous five years. Based on the minimal amount of reported crashes the study area does not appear to have a crash issue. Crash data was obtained from the Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT). In addition to the intersection turning movement and pedestrian/bicyclist counts, observations were completed to identify roadway characteristics within the study area (i.e. roadway geometry, posted speed limits, and traffic controls). All study roadways are two-lane undivided roadways with 30 mile per hour (mph) posted speed limits. All study intersections are side-street stop controlled. Existing geometrics, traffic controls, and volumes in the study area are shown in Figure 2. It should be noted that minimal pedestrians and bicyclist activity was observed at the study intersections. Intersection Capacity Analysis An existing intersection capacity analysis was completed for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours to establish baseline conditions to which future traffic operations can be compared. The study intersections were analyzed using Synchro/SimTraffic (V8). Capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS), which indicates the quality of traffic flow through an intersection. Intersections are given a ranking from LOS A through LOS F. The LOS results are based on average delay per vehicle, which correspond to the delay threshold values shown in Table 1. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation, with vehicles experiencing minimal delays. LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity, or a breakdown of traffic flow. Overall intersection LOS A though LOS D is generally considered acceptable in the Twin Cities Metro Area. Page 3 City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Page 39 !!!"#$ ! !"# !"# $%&!!'"(')!!'*)$$%&"$'$ !#!( ) * + + City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUDPage 40 Ryan P. Kelley September 15, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Arlington Row Apartments West and East Traffic Study Table 1 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections LOS Designation Signalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds) Unsignalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds) A B !- !- C !- !- D !- !- E !- !- F ! ! For side-street stop controlled intersections, special emphasis is given to providing an estimate for the level of service of the side-street approach. Traffic operations at an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control can be described in two ways. First, consideration is given to the overall intersection level of service. This takes into account the total number of vehicles entering the intersection and the capability of the intersection to support these volumes. Second, it is important to consider the delay on the minor approach. Since the mainline does not have to stop, the majority of delay is attributed to the side-street approaches. It is typical of intersections with higher mainline traffic volumes to experience high levels of delay (i.e. poor levels of service) on the side-street approaches, but an acceptable overall intersection level of service during peak hour conditions. Results of the existing intersection capacity analysis shown in Table 2 indicate that all study intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. However during the p.m. peak hour, northbound vehicles at the Wayzata Boulevard/Texas Avenue intersection experience approximately 40 seconds of delay on average accessing Wayzata Boulevard, which corresponds to LOS E. This led to queues extending approximately 140 feet (five to six vehicles), which were confirmed based on field observations. This delay is primarily for northbound left-turning vehicles and results from limited gaps in the traffic flow along Wayzata Boulevard. Northbound right-turning vehicles were observed utilizing the shoulder area to avoid waiting behind left-turning vehicles. No other significant operation issues were identified. Table 2 Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay Wayzata Boulevard and Texas Avenue() A/B sec. A/EE VHF Wayzata Boulevard and Pennsylvania Avenue() A/B sec. A/B sec. 7H[DV$YHQXHDQGWK/DQH:HVWZRRG+LOOV5RDG() A/B sec. A/B sec. Indicates an unsignalized LQWHUVHFWLRQZLWKVLGH-VWUHHWVWRSFRQWUROZKHUHWKHRYHUDOO/26LVVKRZQIROORZHGE\WKHZRUVW DSSURDFK/267KHGHOD\VKRZQUHSUHVHQWVWKHZRUVWVLGH-VWUHHWDSSURDFKGHOD\ Page 5 City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Page 41 Ryan P. Kelley September 15, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Arlington Row Apartments West and East Traffic Study Proposed Development The proposed Arlington Row apartment developments (West and East), shown in Figures 3A and 3B, are located in the southwest quadrant of the Wayzata Boulevard/Texas Avenue intersection and along Wayzata Boulevard between Texas Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue, respectively. The West apartment development is expected to have 34 dwelling units and the East apartment development is expected to have 30 dwelling units. Access to the apartments is proposed at the following locations: x West Apartments: Texas Avenue, 125 feet south of Wayzata Boulevard x East Apartments: Wayzata Boulevard, 500 feet west of Pennsylvania Avenue Further discussion regarding site access is documented later in this study. Year 2017 Conditions To identify potential impacts associated with the proposed apartment developments, traffic forecasts for year 2017 conditions (i.e. one year after opening) were reviewed. The year 2017 conditions take into account general area background growth and traffic generated by the two proposed developments. The following sections provide details on the background traffic forecasts, estimated trip generation, and intersection capacity analysis for year 2017 conditions. Background Traffic Growth To account for general background growth in the area, an annual growth rate of one-half percent was applied to the existing peak hour traffic volumes to develop year 2017 background traffic forecasts. This growth rate is consistent with historical growth rates in the study area and other traffic studies completed in St. Louis Park. Trip Generation To account for traffic impacts associated with the proposed apartment developments, trip generation estimates for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours as well as a daily basis were developed. These trip generation estimates, shown in Table 3, were developed using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition. Table 3 Trip Generation Estimates Land Use Type (ITE Code) Size A.M. Peak Hour Trips P.M. Peak Hour Trips Daily Trips In Out In Out West Apartments (220) 'ZHOOLQJ8QLWV 3 7 226 East Apartments (220) 'ZHOOLQJ8QLWV 3 7 TTotal PProposed Development TTrips 66 226 226 4426 Page 6 City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Page 42 !"# !"City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUDPage 43 !"#$ !" City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUDPage 44 Ryan P. Kelley September 15, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Arlington Row Apartments West and East Traffic Study Results of the trip generation estimates indicate the two proposed apartment developments are expected to generate a total of approximately 32 a.m. peak hour, 40 p.m. peak hour, and 426 daily trips. The trips generated were distributed throughout the area based on the directional distribution shown in Figure 4, which was developed based on existing travel patterns and engineering judgment. The resultant year 2017 traffic forecasts, which include general background growth and trips generated by the proposed apartment developments, are shown in Figure 5. Year 2017 Intersection Capacity Analysis To determine if the existing roadway network can accommodate the year 2017 traffic forecasts, a detailed intersection capacity analysis was completed using Synchro/SimTraffic software. In addition to the study intersections, both apartment development driveways were analyzed to identify any site access issues. Results of the year 2017 intersection capacity analysis shown in Table 4 indicate that all study intersections and proposed site access locations are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS B or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the existing roadway geometry and traffic control. It should be noted that the minor delay issues during the p.m. peak hour for northbound vehicles at the Wayzata Boulevard/Texas Avenue intersection are expected to continue. However, the addition of the proposed apartment developments does not significantly impact area traffic operations. Side-street delays of this magnitude are common and do not typically warrant mitigation. In other words, no change in traffic control (i.e. all-way stop control or signalization) is needed under either existing or future year 2017 conditions. No other delay or queuing issues are expected. Table 4 Year 2017 Build Intersection Capacity Analysis Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay Wayzata Boulevard and Texas Avenue() A/B sec. B/EE 4466 ssec. Wayzata Boulevard and Pennsylvania Avenue() A/B sec. A/B sec. 7H[DV$YHQXHDQGWK/DQH:HVWZRRG+LOOV5RDG() A/B sec. A/B sec. Texas Avenue and West $SDUWPHQW'ULYHZD\() A/B sec. A/B sec. Wayzata Boulevard and East $SDUWPHQW'ULYHZD\() A/B sec. A/B sec. Indicates an unsignalized LQWHUVHFWLRQZLWKVLGH-VWUHHWVWRSFRQWUROZKHUHWKHRYHUDOO/26LVVKRZQIROORZHGE\WKHZRUVW DSSURDFK/267KHGHOD\VKRZQUHSUHVHQWVWKHZRUVWVLGH-VWUHHWDSSURDFKGHOD\ Page 9 City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Page 45 !"#"$"%$ ! !" City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUDPage 46 !!!"#$ ! " # $ !"# !"# $%& '#!()*+)!!+,)$$%&"$'$ !#!( ) * - - City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUDPage 47 Ryan P. Kelley September 15, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Arlington Row Apartments West and East Traffic Study Site Plan/Access Review A review of the proposed site plans was completed to identify any issues and recommend potential improvements with regard to site access, circulation, and parking. The follow improvements are offered for consideration. x West Development: Ensure garbage truck maneuverability or modify the dumpster location. x West Development: Align site access directly across from The Maids Home Services driveway to reduce potential conflicts. x East Development: Provide adequate maneuverability for motorists to access all parking spaces, including the parallel spaces. x East Development: Install signage to ensure all parallel parking occurs in the same direction. x East Development: Consider revising the site plan to add a new access along Wayzata Boulevard to the east and convert operations to one-way with angled parking. Site plan recommendations for the West and East developments are shown in Figures 6A and 6B, respectively. Page 12 City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Page 48 !"#"$! "%$ !" # ! $ $ % # ! City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUDPage 49 !"#$ !" # $ #% & ' City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUDPage 50 Ryan P. Kelley September 15, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Arlington Row Apartments West and East Traffic Study Summary and Conclusions The following study conclusions and recommendations are offered for your consideration: x Results of the existing intersection capacity analysis indicate that all study intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. o During the p.m. peak hour, northbound vehicles at the Wayzata Boulevard/Texas Avenue intersection experience approximately 40 seconds of delay on average accessing Wayzata Boulevard, which corresponds to LOS E. x The West apartment development is expected to have 34 dwelling units and the East apartment development is expected to have 30 dwelling units. x The proposed developments are expected to generate a total of approximately 32 a.m. peak hour, 40 p.m. peak hour, and 426 daily trips. x Results of the year 2017 (i.e. one year after opening) intersection capacity analysis indicate that all study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS B or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. o The minor delay issue during the p.m. peak hour for northbound vehicles at the Wayzata Boulevard/Texas Avenue intersection are expected to continue. x The addition of the proposed apartment developments does not significantly impact area traffic operations. No change in traffic control (i.e. all-way stop control or signalization) is needed under either existing or future year 2017 conditions. x The follow site plan improvements are offered for consideration. o West Development: Ensure garbage truck maneuverability or modify the dumpster location. o West Development: Align site access directly across from The Maids Home Services driveway to reduce potential conflicts. o East Development: Provide adequate maneuverability for motorists to access all parking spaces, including the parallel spaces. o East Development: Install signage to ensure all parallel parking occurs in the same direction. o East Development: Consider revising the site plan to add a new access along Wayzata Boulevard to the east and convert operations to one-way with angled parking. H:\Projects\8985\TS\Report\8985_FINAL_ArlingtonRowApartmentsTrafficStudy_150915.docx Page 15 City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD Page 51 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Action Agenda Item: 8b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: CUP - Sherwin Williams Retail Store, 4911 Excelsior Blvd. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a new retail building and parking lot with a total impervious surface area exceeding 70% of the total lot area, subject to conditions recommended by staff. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the proposed CUP meet the conditions of the Zoning Ordinance? SUMMARY: Requested is a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new retail building and parking lot with a total impervious surface area of approximately 78%. A CUP is required when the total impervious surface area of a development in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district exceeds 70% of the total lot area. The building is intended to be occupied by a Sherwin Williams store. The property is a corner lot with frontage on both Excelsior Blvd and Quentin Ave. The site plan is designed to meet the city code requirements and the recommendations of the South Side of Excelsior Blvd Design Guidelines. A neighborhood meeting was conducted. There was discussion about traffic and parking. The site meets the parking requirements, and a Sherwin Williams store is expected to have minimal traffic compared to other retailers. The CUP was presented to the Planning Commission where a public hearing was conducted. The owner of the adjacent commercial building expressed concern that the new building will be constructed closer to the street than the current building, and therefore, block visibility to his store on eastbound Excelsior Blvd. The Planning Commission recommended approval. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Resolution Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes Aerial Photo Development Plans Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 2 Title: CUP - Sherwin Williams Retail Store, 4911 Excelsior Blvd. DISCUSSION Description of Request: Requested is a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new retail building and parking lot with a total impervious surface area of approximately 78%. A CUP is required when the total impervious surface area of a development in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district exceeds 70% of the total lot area. Location: City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 3 Title: CUP - Sherwin Williams Retail Store, 4911 Excelsior Blvd. Zoning Analysis: Comprehensive Plan: Commercial Zoning: C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood: Minikahda Vista Proposal: The Applicant is proposing to remove the existing building and parking lot and construct a new retail building and parking lot. The building is intended to be occupied by a Sherwin Williams store. In the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial district, a CUP is required when the proposed development exceeds 70% impervious surface. The applicant is proposing approximately 78% impervious surface. The store will be 3,329 sf in area, and will consist of: • 1,928 sf of retail floor area • 108 sf of office floor area • 1,293 sf of storage floor area Site Plan: The property is a corner lot with frontage on both Excelsior Blvd and Quentin Ave. The site plan is designed to meet the city code requirements and the recommendations of the South Side of Excelsior Blvd Guidelines. A summary of the zoning regulations follows: Setbacks - Building: The building is proposed to be located at the minimum allowed front and side setbacks. Minimum allowed Proposed Front yard (Excelsior Blvd) 5.0 feet 5.0 feet Side yard abutting a street (Quentin Ave) 5.0 feet 5.0 feet Interior side yard (east side) 0.0 feet 0.0 feet Rear yard 20.0 feet 48.0 feet Setbacks – Parking Lot: The parking lot is proposed to be located behind the building, and at the minimum allowed side and rear setbacks. Minimum allowed Proposed Side yard abutting a street (Quentin Ave) 5.0 feet 5.0 feet Interior side yard (east side) 0.0 feet 0.0 feet Rear yard (south side) 8.0 feet 8.0 feet City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 4 Title: CUP - Sherwin Williams Retail Store, 4911 Excelsior Blvd. Parking: The proposed use requires a minimum of eight parking spaces. This includes the 10% transit reduction which reduced the required parking from nine spaces to eight. Parking will be provided by seven parking spaces in the parking lot, and one parking space on Excelsior Blvd for a total of eight spaces. On-street parking is not allowed on Quentin Ave adjacent to the site, and the no parking zone extends from Excelsior Blvd to Vallacher Ave. One bicycle parking space is required, and is located near the building entrance at the corner of Quentin Ave and Excelsior Blvd. Access: Access to the parking lot will be provided from Quentin Ave. As part of the long range planning for the south side of Excelsior Blvd, the city encourages property owners to provide cross access easements for adjacent commercial properties. The purpose of the easement is to provide a common driveway that extends across the rear portion of the properties from one side street to the other. This common driveway will help to achieve the goals of the South Side of Excelsior Guidelines by allowing all of the buildings to be located in close proximity to Excelsior Blvd with parking in the back, and it will limit driveway access directly to Excelsior Blvd, with fewer interruptions of the sidewalk corridor. The property owner is willing to grant an access easement that will allow the adjacent commercial properties to use his driveway to access their properties. The easement does not extend to shared parking spaces, so the parking spaces shown on the site plan will continue to be for Sherwin Williams’s exclusive use. Landscaping: The applicant is proposing foundation landscaping along Excelsior Blvd and Quentin Ave. Additional landscaping in the form of shrubs and perennials are proposed between the parking lot and Quentin Ave and between the parking lot and the rear property line. Seven trees are required by the landscaping ordinance for this site. Comments were received from the Neighborhood meeting requesting trees to be located in the buffer area between the parking lot and the rear property line. As a result, five trees will be located along the rear property line and two trees along Quentin Ave. The trees along the rear property line will be ornamental trees, similar to the three pictured below due to the overhead power lines. The three trees pictured below are located along the rear property line, but on the neighbor’s property. So while they provide screening, they do not count toward the landscaping requirements because they are located on the neighbor’s property. The Planning Commission made it a condition of their recommendation that the applicant replace these trees on the applicant’s property, if the existing trees on the neighboring property are removed in the future. The five proposed trees will be located along the property line, but to the east of the three trees pictured below. In addition to the trees, an eight foot tall wood privacy fence will be constructed along the rear property line. The fence is required by the zoning ordinance, and its intent is to provide screening between the commercial and residential properties. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 5 Title: CUP - Sherwin Williams Retail Store, 4911 Excelsior Blvd. Lighting: For safety and security purposes, city code requires parking lots to be lit with an average horizontal illumination between 0.4 and one foot-candle. City code also requires a maximum illumination level of 0.5 foot-candle at the property line when adjacent to residential. Lighting will be provided by light packs attached to the wall of the structure. One pack will be installed on the rear building wall to illuminate the parking lot, and it will be screened so that it will not impact the adjacent residential property. The proposed plan meets the average illumination range, and will be 0.0 footcandles at the rear property line. Stormwater: The parking lot will drain to the rear property line where a landscaped raingarden will be constructed in the required buffer area. The raingarden will allow for some infiltration, and will direct overflow water to Quentin Ave where it will be captured in catch basins. Architecture: The new building is required to provide at least 60% class 1 material on each elevation. The applicant is proposing to meet this requirement through the use of a combination of glass, brick and stone. Two of the three glass windows along Excelsior Blvd are proposed to be spandrel glass instead of transparent glass. Spandrel glass is proposed because the windows look directly at the back side of shelving in the warehouse and retail area. The Guidelines recommend that sections of wall along Excelsior Blvd not exceed 24 feet between transparent windows. This recommendation is met by having the central window transparent. Additional transparent windows providing views into the store are located along Quentin Ave. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 6 Title: CUP - Sherwin Williams Retail Store, 4911 Excelsior Blvd. A main entrance is proposed at the corner of Excelsior Blvd and Quentin Ave. The entrance is enhanced with a higher roofline, stone veneer, and an awning. South Side of Excelsior Blvd Guidelines (Guidelines): The Guidelines were accepted by the City Council on May 4, 2015. The document addresses six key areas: Boulevard experience; Public realm; Neighborhood interface; Site design; Building design; and Traffic, access and parking. The Task Force developed the Guidelines to encourage a pattern of development for new buildings and reuse of existing sites. There are seven key goals that emerged from the study: • Place buildings near the sidewalk at Excelsior Blvd. • Establish a zone for parking, generally behind the buildings. • Create separation from the neighborhood to limit intrusion of light, noise, pollution, and people. • Continue patterns of land use as directed by underlying zoning. • Reinforcement of streetscape of Excelsior Blvd that support an active pedestrian realm. • Create highlights at key intersections. • Maintain a definitive and continuous interface between parcels and the single family neighborhood to the south. The proposed Sherwin Williams redevelopment was designed to meet these goals by placing the building along Excelsior Blvd and Quentin Ave with the parking lot located behind the building. There is an eight foot wide landscaped buffer, with an eight foot tall fence located between the parking lot and the residential properties to the south. At the request of staff and the planning commission, a bench has been added to the front of the store to enhance the pedestrian realm along Excelsior Blvd. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was conducted on Wednesday, September 9. Comments were received regarding lighting, traffic, parking, and the buffer area along the rear property line. Concerns were expressed about the potential for customers and employees to park in the neighborhood. The applicant explained that the traffic generated by a typical Sherwin Williams store is very light with 1 to 2 customers at a time and 1 to 2 employees at a time. The applicant also explained that the lighting will be diminished to 0.0 footcandles at the property line. Planning Commission Review: The Planning Commission conducted the public hearing. The following comment was received: Bill Quirk, 4907 Excelsior Blvd, said he is a co-owner of the adjacent building which is occupied. He said his wife runs a home goods store at that location. He said they do appreciate the new development. They are concerned about the Excelsior facing side of the building which has a 5 ft. setback. He said the new development will impair the eastbound traffic view of his wife’s store which has been open for less than one year. Line of sight traffic is very important to the store. They’ve had a lot of positive feedback from residents about the store and he said he wants to stress the impact of window shopping to a small business. He spoke about a safety issue and the easement with a car cutting through behind the building because the back door has a two foot drop which would prohibit a vehicle from going back there. He said he recognizes the plan is consistent with the Design Guidelines. But it would likely have a detrimental effect on their small business. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 7 Title: CUP - Sherwin Williams Retail Store, 4911 Excelsior Blvd. The Planning Commission discussed the shielding problem. Staff reviewed past experiences along Excelsior Blvd, specifically the Judith McGrann building (4615 Excelsior Blvd). This building had an addition constructed to the front setback, thereby shielding the building to the east. The City amended the sign ordinance shortly thereafter, to allow signs with a 5.0 foot setback in the C-1 and C-2 Commercial Districts instead of the previously allowed 10.0 feet. The 5.0 foot sign setback is consistent with the 5.0 foot front building setback. Staff also suggested that cars may not be able to pass to the east at this time, but the easement would allow for this to occur in the future if the physical impediments on the neighboring lot are removed. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the CUP on a 7-0 vote. A copy of the unofficial meeting minutes is attached. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 8 Title: CUP - Sherwin Williams Retail Store, 4911 Excelsior Blvd. RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 36-193(d)(2) OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT A RETAIL DEVELOPMENT WITH AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA THAT EXCEEDS 70% OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4911 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. TJL Development, LLC, has made application to the City Council for a Conditional Use Permit under Section 36-193(d)(2) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of constructing a retail development with an impervious surface area that exceeds 70% of the total lot area. 2. The subject property is zoned C-1 Neighborhood Commercial, and is located at 4911 Excelsior Boulevard. It is legally described as follows, to-wit: Lot 3 Block 5 “Minikahda Vista, St. Louis Park, Minn.”, Hennepin County, Minnesota 3. The City Council considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 15-38-CUP) and the effect of the proposed development on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The Council determined that the proposed development will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards, and will not depreciate surrounding property values. The Council also determined that the proposed development is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The contents of Planning Case File 15-38-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Conclusion The Conditional Use Permit to allow a redevelopment of property at the location described is granted based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in accordance to the following exhibits: a. Exhibit A: Site Plan b. Exhibit B: Grading & Drainage Plan c. Exhibit C: Landscaping Plan (as amended) d. Exhibit D: Exterior Elevations e. Exhibit E: Lighting City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 9 Title: CUP - Sherwin Williams Retail Store, 4911 Excelsior Blvd. 2. The door at the intersection of Excelsior Blvd and Quentin Ave shall remain accessible (open) during regular business hours. 3. The middle window along Excelsior Blvd shall be transparent glass, and be kept visible into the building. 4. Five trees shall be planted along the rear property line and two trees along Quentin Ave. If the neighbor to the south removes any of the three trees located along the property line and adjacent to the driveway, then the owner of the subject property located at 4911 Excelsior Blvd, shall replace the trees in the same vicinity, but on the property of 4911 Excelsior Blvd. 5. The following shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit, land disturbing activity or building demolition: a. An access agreement or easement be submitted to the City providing public access across the driveway and drive aisle portion of the parking lot. The easement shall extend from the west property line to the east property line and be at least 22 feet wide. The form of the document must be approved by the City Attorney. b. A financial guarantee sufficient to cover 125% of the cost of landscaping, stormwater, and sidewalk construction. c. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of a building permit. d. All required permits shall be obtained. 6. The proposed work within Hennepin County right-of-way requires an approved County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to parking, drainage, and utility construction and landscaping. 6. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. 7. This permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 10 Title: CUP - Sherwin Williams Retail Store, 4911 Excelsior Blvd. EXCERPT OF UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer, Lisa Peilen, Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich, Ethan Rickert (youth member) MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Ryan Kelley, Gary Morrison, Sean Walther, Phil Elkin 3. Public Hearings C. Sherwin Williams Retail Store – Conditional Use Permit Location: 4911 Excelsior Boulevard Applicant: TJL Development, LLC Case No.: 15-38-CUP Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. The request for a conditional use permit is to construct a new retail building and parking lot with a total impervious surface area of approximately 78%. A CUP is required when the total impervious surface area of a development in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district exceeds 70% of the total lot area. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked how the landscaping and fence would look in the back of the other building. She asked if the easement is granted can the applicant and the other building owner take a look at screening. Mr. Morrison said when discussing the easement it will be an opportunity to negotiate screening. Commissioner Carper asked about the current building on the lot. Mr. Morrison said the building is vacant and was Reddy Rents and has been for a very long time an antiquity store. Commissioner Carper asked about the three trees in the neighboring lot that are considered screening. He asked if the applicant would replace those trees if they were ever removed. Mr. Morrison stated that could be added as a condition of approval if the Commission desired. Jim Lavalle, TJL Development, LLC said the site plan was designed to meet the recommendations of the South Side of Excelsior Blvd. Guidelines. The Chair opened the public hearing. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 11 Title: CUP - Sherwin Williams Retail Store, 4911 Excelsior Blvd. Bill Quirk, 4907 Excelsior Blvd, said he is a co-owner of the adjacent building which is occupied. He said his wife runs a home goods store at that location. He said they do appreciate the new development. They are concerned about the Excelsior facing side of the building which has a 5 ft. setback from the sidewalk. He said the new development will impair the eastbound traffic view of his wife’s store which has been open for less than one year. Line of sight traffic is very important to the store. They’ve had a lot of positive feedback from residents about the store and he said he wants to stress the impact of window shopping to a small business. He spoke about a safety issue and the easement with a car cutting through behind the building because the back door has a two foot drop which would prohibit a vehicle from going back there. He said he recognizes the plan is consistent with the Design Guidelines. But it would likely have a detrimental effect on their small business. As no one else was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tatalovich asked if there are other situations where the setback shielded the visibility of other businesses. Staff reviewed past experiences along Excelsior Blvd, specifically the Judith McGrann building (4615 Excelsior Blvd). This building had an addition constructed to the front setback, thereby shielding the building to the east. The City amended the sign ordinance shortly thereafter, to allow signs with a 5.0 foot setback in the C-1 and C-2 Commercial Districts instead of the previously allowed 10.0 feet. The 5.0 foot sign setback is consistent with the 5.0 foot front building setback. Commissioner Robertson said he supported the project until he heard about the shielding issue. Signage, though an expense for a small business, would help. He said the proposal is a huge improvement for the corner and he supports it completely. He said in the interim we have to make sure adjacent buildings don’t get hurt. Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said the intention of the easement is for longer term on what could happen on this block. We haven’t designed the connection to the neighboring property owner for a potential future connection through the backs of these properties for that access easement. He said the idea is that over time if blocks change that this is an opportunity to have fewer driveways and fewer interruptions for pedestrians on the sidewalk. The applicant has graciously been open to granting an easement, this is seen as a long term issue. Commissioner Peilen said it would be a great addition to the city but she doesn’t want it to come at the expense of another small business. She said she hopes the applicant and the adjacent property owner can work something out regarding visibility. She made a motion recommending approval of the request. Commissioner Carper seconded the motion with an amendment that the applicant will provide adequate screening along the entire barrier if the existing tree screening is removed. Commissioner Peilen accepted the amendment. The motion, as amended, passed on a vote of 7-0. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 12 Title: CUP - Sherwin Williams Retail Store, 4911 Excelsior Blvd. AERIAL PHOTO City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Title: CUP - Sherwin Williams Retail Store, 4911 Excelsior Blvd.Page 13 City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Title: CUP - Sherwin Williams Retail Store, 4911 Excelsior Blvd.Page 14 REMOVE EXISTING LANDSCAPE BLOCK REMOVE EXISTING LANDSCAPE BLOCK REMOVE EXISTING BUILDING REMOVE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE APRON REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN REMOVE EXISTING BITUMINOUS REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE REMOVE EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL REMOVE EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITYREMOVE EXISTING FENCE POSTS REMOVE EXISTING FENCE POSTS REMOVE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER REMOVE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK REMOVE TREE GRATE REMOVE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER FOUND IRON MONUMENT NO. 18425 CATCH BASIN ELECTRIC METER WATER VALVE SET BRASS PLUG W/ WASHER SANITARY MANHOLE SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER WATERMAIN OVERHEAD ELECTRIC GAS WOOD FENCE POWER POLE OVERHEAD UTILITY WATER MANHOLE ELECTRIC MANHOLE TRAFFIC LIGHT BOLLARD SPOT ELEVATION CONCRETE BITUMINOUS SURVEY RELATED ITEM PER SCH. B, SEC. 2 OF TITLE COMMITMENT UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE AIR-CONDITIONER UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC CADD USER: Randal FILE: C:\USERS\RANDAL\DROPBOX\PROJECTS\150801 - SHERWIN WILLIAMS STORE - TJL DEVELOPMENT\WORKING FILES\CAD\DWG\PLAN SHEETS\REMOVALS-EC.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:1 PLOT DATE: 9/11/2015 11:22 AM DRAWN BY CHECKED BY JOB NO. DATE REVISIONS BY SHEET LMM RAT 08/17/2015 150801I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN OR SPECIFICATION WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT IAM A DULY REGISTERED CIVILENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OFTHE STATE OF MINNESOTAREMOVALS & EROSIONCONTROL PLANSHERWIN WILLIAMS PAINTSST. LOUIS PARK, MNC1.0 ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE LEGEND TJL DEVELOPMENT LLCREV PARKING AREA 09/04/15 REV BUILDING 09/09/15 REV CITY 09/11/15 City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Title: CUP - Sherwin Williams Retail Store, 4911 Excelsior Blvd.Page 15 PROPOSED BUILDING 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 7 EMPLOYEEPARKINGLEGEND DENOTES BITUMINOUS DENOTES CONCRETE DENOTES CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER CADD USER: Randal FILE: C:\USERS\RANDAL\DROPBOX\PROJECTS\150801 - SHERWIN WILLIAMS STORE - TJL DEVELOPMENT\WORKING FILES\CAD\DWG\PLAN SHEETS\SITE PLAN C.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:1 PLOT DATE: 9/11/2015 11:22 AM DRAWN BY CHECKED BY JOB NO. DATE REVISIONS BY SHEET LMM RAT 08/17/2015 150801I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN OR SPECIFICATION WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT IAM A DULY REGISTERED CIVILENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OFTHE STATE OF MINNESOTASITE PLANSHERWIN WILLIAMS PAINTSST. LOUIS PARK, MNC2.0 ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE TJL DEVELOPMENT LLCREV PARKING AREA 09/04/15 REV BUILDING 09/09/15 REV CITY 09/11/15 City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Title: CUP - Sherwin Williams Retail Store, 4911 Excelsior Blvd.Page 16 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SERVICE CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER SERVICE TRANSFORMER PAD PROPOSED BUILDING LEGEND DENOTES BITUMINOUS DENOTES CONCRETE DENOTES CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER CADD USER: Randal FILE: C:\USERS\RANDAL\DROPBOX\PROJECTS\150801 - SHERWIN WILLIAMS STORE - TJL DEVELOPMENT\WORKING FILES\CAD\DWG\PLAN SHEETS\UTILITY PLAN C.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:1 PLOT DATE: 9/11/2015 11:22 AM DRAWN BY CHECKED BY JOB NO. DATE REVISIONS BY SHEET LMM RAT 08/17/2015 150801I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN OR SPECIFICATION WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT IAM A DULY REGISTERED CIVILENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OFTHE STATE OF MINNESOTAUTILITY PLANSHERWIN WILLIAMS PAINTSST. LOUIS PARK, MNC3.0 ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE NOTE: 1. EXISTING SANITARY SEWER TO BE RE-USED AFTER PERFORMING A TELEVISED INSPECTION FOR CITY APPROVAL. IF EXISTING SANITARY SEWER IS DAMAGED OR INADEQUATE FOR CITY APPROVAL, THEN INSTALL A NEW SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE PER CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK REGULATIONS.TJL DEVELOPMENT LLCREV PARKING AREA 09/04/15 REV BUILDING 09/09/15 REV CITY 09/11/15 City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Title: CUP - Sherwin Williams Retail Store, 4911 Excelsior Blvd.Page 17 911.80 911.68 910.83 G 911.18 911.30 911.48 911.88 912.38 912.60 911.79 TC 911.29 G 2.0%1.40%2.0 % FFE = 912.60' 912.60 912.00 1.24% 911.10 1.24%911.78 910.75 STORMWATER DRAINAGE BMP SWALE PROPOSED BUILDING 912.60 1.18% 1.24%911.53911.28 910.86 910.74 MATCH (910.30) 912.48 912.36 910.34 1.73%1.40%1.76%2.0%911.58 911.72 912.07 1.10%1.95%911.96 1.50%3.24%911.85 912.03 912.56 912.37 912.47 912.53 912.50 MATCH (912.34) MATCH (911.71) MATCH (911.80)911.77 MATCH (912.08)MATCH (912.23) MATCH (912.18) 912.46 MATCH (911.85) MATCH (911.42) 912.23 912.50 912.50 MATCH (911.80) 912.23 MATCH (911.58) 912.44 912.36 1.53 % 0.93 %1.0%1.0 % 912.48 912.11 LEGEND DENOTES BITUMINOUS DENOTES CONCRETE DENOTES CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 911.45 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION DRAINAGE FLOW ARROWX.X% PROPOSED CONTOUR911 CADD USER: Randal FILE: C:\USERS\RANDAL\DROPBOX\PROJECTS\150801 - SHERWIN WILLIAMS STORE - TJL DEVELOPMENT\WORKING FILES\CAD\DWG\PLAN SHEETS\GRAD DRAIN PLAN C.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:1 PLOT DATE: 9/11/2015 11:23 AM DRAWN BY CHECKED BY JOB NO. DATE REVISIONS BY SHEET LMM RAT 08/17/2015 150801I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN OR SPECIFICATION WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT IAM A DULY REGISTERED CIVILENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OFTHE STATE OF MINNESOTAGRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANSHERWIN WILLIAMS PAINTSST. LOUIS PARK, MNC4.0 ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE TJL DEVELOPMENT LLCREV PARKING AREA 09/04/15 REV BUILDING 09/09/15 REV CITY 09/11/15 City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Title: CUP - Sherwin Williams Retail Store, 4911 Excelsior Blvd.Page 18 Proposed Tree Revised Landscaping Plan City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Title: CUP - Sherwin Williams Retail Store, 4911 Excelsior Blvd.Page 19 TJL Development LLC 2416 Edgcumbe Road St Paul MN 55116 612-751-1919 (f) 651-340-0049 8/17/15 Mr. Gary Morrison Ms. Julie Grove City of St Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd St Louis Park, MN 55416 Re: Sherwin Williams Retail Redevelopment 4911 Excelsior Blvd St Louis Park, MN Gary and Julie, Please accept this letter, completed application, mailing labels, architectural, civil plans, and project review fees for the redevelopment of 4911 Excelsior Blvd in to new single tenant building for Sherwin Williams. The proposed redevelopment will consist of demolishing the existing structures and building a new facility to house the retail, office and storage functions for the Sherwin Williams retail chain. The location will serve the local communities retail needs for home improvements and new construction specifically geared towards paints, stains, wall coverings and associated products. The store layout is proposed to consist of approximately 1800 square feet of retail sales floor with the remaining area dedicated to an office, staging and storage areas and restrooms. We have attempted to design the site and building to be consistent with the goals and objectives that are the product and the outcome of the redevelopment district study recently undertaken by the task force for the south side of Excelsior Boulevard. We are proposing a mixture of high quality class one exterior materials on all facades as suggested by the planning staff. We have been advised by the planning staff that the proposed project meets all the requirements of the code regarding site plans with the exception of impervious surface coverage. Therefore the project requires a conditional use permit. The existing conditions regarding impervious surface will be improved with the proposed redevelopment. Findings for the Conditional Use Permit: 1. The effect of the proposed use on the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands will be significantly improved. The negative impacts of a dilapidated vacant building will be mitigated by developing a new facility that will provide a quiet retail use that will provide products for home improvements. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Title: CUP - Sherwin Williams Retail Store, 4911 Excelsior Blvd.Page 20 2. The effect on existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets: The proposal includes a total of eight parking stalls that meets the city code and meet the forecasted demand for employees and patrons forecasted to make purchases at the property. The building is also walking distance to many residences that will frequent the retailer. The loading and delivery of the store is planned to be via a UPS type step van vehicle that is similar to what delivers packages to both commercial and residential uses. Therefore the demand and parking conditions on neighboring properties will not be negatively impacted. 3. The effect on property values in the surrounding areas will certainly be improved by the investment of a new building with high quality materials, new site improvements and quiet retail use. 4. The consistency of the proposed use with the principles, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan is met. The zoning district allows within the Comprehensive Plan allows the proposed use. The goals and objectives of the Comprehensive plan are met by recycling vacant worn out buildings with a new retail use that is not currently in the trade area. I am excited to be a part of the team to bring a new retail use that will be a benefit to the community, create additional tax base and provide additional professional jobs. Should you need additional information regarding our proposal, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Jim LaValle City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Title: CUP - Sherwin Williams Retail Store, 4911 Excelsior Blvd.Page 21 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Public Hearing Agenda Item: 8c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: City of SLP/City of Hopkins Municipal Boundary Adjustment - Japs Olson RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Motion to Adopt Resolution for concurrent detachment and annexation of land to and from the Cities of St. Louis Park and Hopkins. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree to the concurrent detachment and annexation of certain lands to and from the Cities of St. Louis Park and Hopkins? SUMMARY: Japs-Olson would like to build an addition that would increase its warehouse and production space at its 7500 Excelsior Blvd location in the southwest corner of the city. The total addition would equal 192,000 sf, bringing the total building footage to 704,850 sf. Approximately 150 employees across three shifts would be added. The proposed addition extends into property that is currently within the City of Hopkins. Adjusting the municipal boundary will result in the entire Japs-Olson building being located entirely in St. Louis Park. The adjustment essentially trades land between the two cities whereby the City of Hopkins releases the entire property necessary for the Japs-Olson expansion, and the City of St. Louis Park releases certain property in the area to the City of Hopkins. The proposed municipal boundary adjustment is illustrated in the attachments. It was presented to the City Council in a study session in January of 2015. At that meeting, the City Council directed staff to proceed with the adjustment to facilitate the addition to the Japs-Olson building. At the same time, it was also presented to the City of Hopkins Council, and they likewise directed their staff to proceed. Next Step: To accomplish a boundary change, a resolution must be passed by each city and filed with the chief administrative law judge. A hearing is then held and the judge issues an order on the request. A proposed Resolution was prepared by our city attorney, and is attached for your consideration. A similar Resolution is being considered by the City of Hopkins on October 20, 2015. The St. Louis Park staff is taking the lead on the adjustment, and will file both Resolutions. The process will take up to 60 days before a decision is made. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Resolution Excerpt of January 26, 2015 Study Session Minutes Exhibits Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 2 Title: City of SLP/City of Hopkins Municipal Boundary Adjustment - Japs Olson DISCUSSION Location: Japs-Olson owns three properties along Excelsior Blvd. 1. The production facility is located on the northwest corner of Excelsior Blvd and Meadowbrook Road. 2. Japs-Olson recently purchased the Appliancesmart property located on the northeast corner of Excelsior Blvd and Meadowbrook Road for the purpose of removing the building and constructing a new parking lot. 3. Japs-Olson also purchased a property at the northeast corner of Excelsior Blvd and Powell Road with the intent of removing the existing building and adding onto their production facility. The properties are illustrated below. Analysis: Japs-Olson is a direct mail and commercial printing facility located on the northwest corner of Excelsior Blvd and Meadowbrook Road. Japs-Olson has been in business for 107 years, and has operated at this location since 1997. They would like to expand their building; however, the proposed expansion requires the following actions: 1. Relocation of the municipal boundary so the production facility can be expanded to the west and south. 2. Relocation of their parking lot to the Appliancesmart property. 3. Guide and zone the property for Industrial 4. Platting the two parcels between Powell Road and Meadowbrook Road and combining them into one lot. 5. Construction of the expansion. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 3 Title: City of SLP/City of Hopkins Municipal Boundary Adjustment - Japs Olson Relocation of the municipal boundary: On January 26, 2015, the City Council reviewed the proposal to adjust the municipal boundary to accommodate the proposed expansion to the production facility. Discussed was the opportunity for Japs-Olson to construct a 190,000 square foot addition to the existing building that would add over 150 employees to a major employer located in St. Louis Park. The Council directed staff to proceed with the adjustment. The proposal was also reviewed by the City Council of the City of Hopkins, and they likewise directed their staff to proceed. The boundary adjustment is required because the property that Japs-Olson will expand into is located partially in the City of Hopkins. Relocating the municipal boundary will allow the entire Japs-Olson production facility to be located in St. Louis Park, and will avoid problems with the building code, and jurisdictional issues involving taxation, valuation and essential services that result from having a building straddling a municipal boundary. The proposed municipal adjustment is illustrated below. A copy of the survey that will be submitted to the administrative law judge is attached. Relocation of parking lot: As a result of the discussion with the City Council and staff, Japs Olson decided to proceed with the first phase of their expansion project, and on June 15, 2015, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit to export more than 400 cubic yards of material from the Appliancesmart property. The excavation is necessary to construct the new parking lot. Since then, staff approved the demolition permit to remove the Appliancesmart building, and approved the parking lot permit. The parking lot is currently under construction. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 4 Title: City of SLP/City of Hopkins Municipal Boundary Adjustment - Japs Olson Platting the two parcels between Powell Road and Meadowbrook Road into one. After the municipal boundary has been adjusted, the property that was in Hopkins must be combined with the property occupied by the production facility. The combination is necessary because the building cannot expand over the property line. Construction of the expansion: A site plan showing the proposed expansion is attached to the report. As noted earlier, the existing building is 512,850 square feet in area. The addition is 192,000 square feet, and will result in a total building size of 704,850 square feet. Approximately 150 employees across three shifts would be added. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 5 Title: City of SLP/City of Hopkins Municipal Boundary Adjustment - Japs Olson RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ A RESOLUTION FOR CONCURRENT DETACHMENT AND ANNEXATION OF LAND TO AND FROM THE CITIES OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND HOPKINS WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park and the City of Hopkins desire to adjust the boundary between the two cities in the vicinity of Excelsior Boulevard and Powell Road as depicted on the attached Exhibit A hereto and as legally described herein; and WHEREAS, the municipal boundary line adjustment will facilitate the physical expansion of a business located on one of the parcels subject to the adjustment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: Per Certificate of Title Number 1130735 1. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 414.061, Subd. 1 (1), the following described lands shall be concurrently detached from the City of Hopkins and annexed to the City of St. Louis Park: Parcel 1: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section 20, Township 117, Range 21 described as beginning at a point on the North line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter distant 700 feet West from the Northeast corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence West along said North line 185.3 feet; thence South deflecting to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 29 seconds to the center line of Excelsior Boulevard; thence easterly along said center line to its intersection with a line drawn South, parallel with the West line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter from the point of beginning; thence North along said parallel line to the point of beginning; except that part thereof lying Northerly of a line drawn Westerly, parallel with the center line of Excelsior Boulevard from a point on the East line of said above described tract distant 461 feet North along said East line from the center line of Excelsior Boulevard. Per Certificate of Title Number 1000617 Parcel 2: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter lying South and East of the center line of Powell Road; That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter described as follows: Commencing at a point on the North line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, 700 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof; thence South along a line parallel with the West line thereof to a point 461 feet North of the center line of Excelsior Boulevard as measured along said parallel line, which is the actual point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence North along said parallel line to the North line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence West along said North line 185.3 feet; thence South along a line deflecting to the left 90.008 degrees to a point of intersection with a line running parallel with the center line of City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 6 Title: City of SLP/City of Hopkins Municipal Boundary Adjustment - Japs Olson Excelsior Boulevard from the point of beginning; thence Easterly to the point of beginning; the Southerly boundary of said tract is marked by Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 12986, all in Section 20, Township 117, Range 21, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 414.061, Subd. 1 (1), the following described lands shall be concurrently detached from the City of St. Louis Park and annexed to the City of Hopkins: Per Quit Claim Deed A10117880 Parcel A: That part of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW1/4) of Section Twenty (20), Township One Hundred Seventeen (117), Range Twenty-one (21), described as follows: Beginning at a point on the West line of said SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 where said line intersects the southerly right-of-way line a distance of one hundred and fifty five and two tenths (155.2} feet, thence southwesterly on an eleven (11) degree curve to the left a distance of two hundred and twenty-six: (226) feet more or less to a point in the west line of said SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4, thence north one hundred and eight and eight tenths feet (108.8) to the place of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Per Certificate of Title Number 624053 Lot 3, Block 1, Morse Industrial Subdivision. Per Certificate of Title Number 1301393 Parcel 2: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 20, Township 117, Range 21 described as beginning at the Southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence East along the South line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 67.4 feet: thence North parallel with the West line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 279.5 feet; thence Northerly along a tangential curve to the right, having a radius of 1206.94 feet, a distance of 136.57 feet; thence Northeasterly along a compound curve, having a radius of 491.67 feet, a distance of 375.86 feet; thence Northeasterly along a compound curve having a radius of 547.71 feet, a distance of 147.66 feet; thence North 25 degrees, 23 minutes West (assuming the West line of Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter as bearing North and South) a distance of 8 feet more or less to the Southeasterly right-of-way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company; thence South 64 degrees, 37 minutes West along said Southeasterly right-of-way line a distance of 255.35 feet more or less to a point 155.2 feet Northeasterly along said Southeasterly right-of-way line from the West line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence Southwesterly along a curve concave to the Southeast having a radius of 521.67 feet to a point on the West line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, distant 108.8 feet South along said West line from said Southeasterly right-of-way line; thence South along said West line to the point of beginning. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 7 Title: City of SLP/City of Hopkins Municipal Boundary Adjustment - Japs Olson Parcel 3: That a part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 20, Township 117, Range 21 described as beginning at a point on the South line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, distant 67.4 feet East from the Southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence North parallel with the West line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 262.5 feet; thence East parallel with said South line to the center line of Powell Road; thence South along said center line to said South line; thence West along said South line to the point of beginning. 3. This resolution shall be submitted concurrently with a resolution from the City of Hopkins to the Municipal Boundary Adjustment Unit of the Office of Administrative Hearings for approval pursuant to Minn. Stat. 414.061, Subd. 2. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 8 Title: City of SLP/City of Hopkins Municipal Boundary Adjustment - Japs Olson EXCERPT OF OFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA JANUARY 26, 2015 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Director of Human Resources (Ms. Deno), City Clerk (Ms. Stroth), Director of Operations & Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Planning & Economic Development Assistant (Ms. Grove), Communications & Marketing Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), Rec Center Manager (Mr. Eisold), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). Guests: Mr. John Basill and Mr. Joe Arko (St. Louis Park Hockey Association), Mr. Steve Morelli (RSP Architects), and Mr. Bob Murphy (Japs-Olson). 4. Municipal Boundary Change with the City of Hopkins/Japs-Olson Building Expansion Mr. Harmening introduced Mr. Bob Murphy from Japs-Olson. Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and a map depicting the proposed adjustment to the boundary between Hopkins and St. Louis Park. She advised that each city must pass a resolution that is filed with the chief administrative law judge and the process would take 30-60 days. It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to pursue a boundary change to allow for a significant addition to the Japs-Olson building. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Title: City of SLP/City of Hopkins Municipal Boundary Adjustment - Japs Olson Page 9 NREVISIONSPAGEDRAWING NAME:JOB NO.FILE NO.FIELD BOOKJaps-OlsonSURVEY FOR:PROPERTY ADDRESS:7630 Excelsior BoulevardHopkins, Minnesota 55343St. Louis Park / HopkinsMunicipal Boundary AdjustmentSHEET 1 OF 4DRAWN BY:BY:CHECKEDFIELDWORKCHIEF:WWW.EFNSURVEY.COM Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413PHONE: (612) 466-33001229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 100FAX: (612) 466-33838050 & 8000 Powell Road4103 & 4101 Texas Avenue SouthSt. Louis Park, Minnesota 55426City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Title: City of SLP/City of Hopkins Municipal Boundary Adjustment - Japs OlsonPage 10 NREVISIONSPAGEDRAWING NAME:JOB NO.FILE NO.FIELD BOOKJaps-OlsonSURVEY FOR:PROPERTY ADDRESS:7630 Excelsior BoulevardHopkins, Minnesota 55343SHEET 2 OF 4DRAWN BY:BY:CHECKEDFIELDWORKCHIEF:WWW.EFNSURVEY.COM Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413PHONE: (612) 466-33001229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 100FAX: (612) 466-3383St. Louis Park / HopkinsMunicipal Boundary AdjustmentCity Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Title: City of SLP/City of Hopkins Municipal Boundary Adjustment - Japs OlsonPage 11 NREVISIONSPAGEDRAWING NAME:JOB NO.FILE NO.FIELD BOOKJaps-OlsonSURVEY FOR:PROPERTY ADDRESS:4103 & 4101 Texas Avenue SouthSt. Louis Park, Minnesota 55426SHEET 3 OF 4DRAWN BY:BY:CHECKEDFIELDWORKCHIEF:WWW.EFNSURVEY.COM Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413PHONE: (612) 466-33001229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 100FAX: (612) 466-3383St. Louis Park / HopkinsMunicipal Boundary Adjustment8050 & 8000 Powell RoadCity Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Title: City of SLP/City of Hopkins Municipal Boundary Adjustment - Japs OlsonPage 12 REVISIONSPAGEDRAWING NAME:JOB NO.FILE NO.FIELD BOOKJaps-OlsonSURVEY FOR:PROPERTY ADDRESS:7630 Excelsior BoulevardHopkins, Minnesota 55343St. Louis Park / HopkinsMunicipal Boundary AdjustmentSHEET 4 OF 4DRAWN BY:BY:CHECKEDFIELDWORKCHIEF:NWWW.EFNSURVEY.COM Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413PHONE: (612) 466-33001229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 100FAX: (612) 466-33838050 & 8000 Powell Road4103 & 4101 Texas Avenue SouthSt. Louis Park, Minnesota 55426City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Title: City of SLP/City of Hopkins Municipal Boundary Adjustment - Japs OlsonPage 13 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Action Agenda Item: 8d EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Second Reading of Ordinance Modifying Salaries for the Mayor and Councilmembers RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Motion to approve the second reading and Adopt Ordinance modifying salaries for the Mayor and Councilmembers and authorize publication. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to increase Mayor and Council salaries by 2.5%, for officials elected to serve for the 2016 calendar year, and adopt a policy that creates bi-annual automatic salary increases? SUMMARY: As discussed at the August 24, 2015 Study Session, Council directed an increase to salaries for Mayor and Councilmembers by 2.5% effective in 2016, and adopt a policy that future annual increases would occur automatically bi-annually commensurate with the general increase for non-union staff. City Charter requires changes to Mayor and Council salaries to be set by ordinance following a public hearing and 1st and 2nd readings. MN Statute 415.11 states increases must take effect after next municipal election but decreases can take effect anytime. Current (Ordinance 2376-09) Proposed (2.5% increase) Mayor $11,796 $12,091 Councilmembers $6,807 $6,977 FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Funds will be included in the 2016 budget. Mayor/Council salaries are in the general fund. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Ordinance Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 2 Title: Second Reading of Ordinance Modifying Salaries for the Mayor and Councilmembers ORDINANCE NO. ____-15 ORDINANCE SETTING SALARIES FOR THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Effective for officials elected to serve for the 2016 calendar year, the annual salary of the Mayor shall be $12,091 and the annual salary of each Councilmember shall be $6,977. Effective in 2018 and thereafter for calendar years after each succeeding municipal election, the salaries of the Mayor and Councilmembers shall be adjusted in an amount equal to the cumulative adjustments for non-organized City employees since the last adjustment in the Mayor and Councilmembers salaries. For Mayor and Councilmembers who serve less than a full year, the annual salary shall be pro-rated. SECTION 2. Effective Date: This ordinance shall be effective as follows: First Reading October 5, 2015 Second Reading October 19, 2015 Date of Publication October 29, 2015 Date Ordinance takes effect January 1, 2016 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Action Agenda Item: 8e EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action Plan RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt the 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action Plan. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The action requested of the Council is consistent with its previous discussions regarding this matter. These Goals and Priorities will be revisited at the City Council Workshop scheduled for January, 2016 SUMMARY: On January 15/16, 2015 the City Council held its annual workshop with the primary intent of reaching consensus on “Big Bowl” goals and priorities for the next ten years. A great deal was accomplished and the Council came to general agreement on five goals/priorities. On February 9 staff reviewed with and the Council confirmed that the five goals/priorities were in keeping with the Councils intent from the Workshop. Attached is the document reviewed with the Council at the study session. At that same February 9 meeting staff indicated it would take about 90 days to develop specific strategies and a two year action plan to begin to address the Council’s goals/priorities. On May 26 and June 8 the City Council reviewed and commented on the draft strategies and 2 year action plan as prepared by staff. Staff has modified the documents to reflect the changes the Council directed at those meetings. At that time staff indicated it would bring back the goals/strategies and action plan for City Council adoption, which is the action now recommended. Attached are the minutes of those two Council meetings. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: All areas of the City Councils four original Strategic Directions are impacted by the priorities/goals developed at the 2015 Council Workshop. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 2/9/15 Outline of Goals & Priorities Reviewed w/ Council Draft Strategies & 2-Year Action Plan for Each of 5 Goals & Priorities Excerpt of Minutes from May 26 & June 8 Council Meetings Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Priorities/Goals – 2015 to 2025 Priority/Goal - Redevelopment around the three SWLRT Stations is maximized to the fullest extent possible. Why is this important? – The SWLRT project presents an incredible opportunity not afforded to most other cities. If implemented correctly, St. Louis Park will experience significant economic growth and vitality while providing additional transportation options to those that live or work here. It is imperative that we take advantage of this unique opportunity through a thoughtful and collaborative planning and implementation process. Strategies to Achieve Goal – See attached Two Year Action Plan – See Attached Priority/Goal – St. Louis Park is a leader in environmental stewardship, sustainability and resiliency. Why is this important? – Because it’s the necessary and smart thing to do. Being stewards of the environment is the responsibility of everybody. Preventing or limiting the impact of climate change, the depletion of natural resources and the degradation of our water and air require constant attention and a commitment to change. The City is uniquely positioned to effect positive change at the local level through programs, initiatives and community education. Strategies to Achieve Goal – See attached Two Year Action Plan – See attached Priority/Goal – St. Louis Park is a technology connected community Why is this important? – Broadband speed and capacity requirements continue to grow as technology and the Internet continue to evolve. A community that is connected by a very robust and comprehensive Broadband system will set itself apart and be better able to promote economic growth, innovation and community development. High speed Broadband enables the exchange of information in many different forms and is vital to high-tech and medical industry growth, and to the delivery of services in education, health, government, public safety, and for overall quality of life. Given the significant amount of fiber infrastructure in place that is owned by the City, we are uniquely situated to take advantage of the digital economy. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Title: 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action Plan Page 2 Strategies to Achieve Goal – See attached Two Year Action Plan – See attached Priority/Goal – St. Louis Park has top ranked schools, a well maintained and diverse housing stock, and strong, vibrant neighborhoods. Why is this important? – These items are critical ingredients for insuring that St. Louis Park continues to be a highly desirable place for people to live and invest themselves in the community. Strategies to Achieve Goal – (to be developed by staff) Two Year Action Plan – (to be developed by staff) Priority/Goal – St. Louis Park has high quality community amenities and facilities Why is this important? – High quality parks, open space and other community facilities and amenities are building blocks for insuring a high quality of life and making St. Louis Park competitive in the marketplace as a great place to live. Strategies to Achieve Goal – See attached Two Year Action Plan – See attached Important Note - The five priorities and goals noted above are intended to articulate and provide direction to staff on those things the Council feels will have the most powerful/positive impact on the St. Louis Park community by 2025. This will allow staff to orient work plans and resources accordingly. These five priorities/goals will be reviewed annually to make sure they are still relevant, and course corrections will be made by the Council as necessary. Finally – Staff should recognize that above all else it must continue to provide collaborative, high quality and responsive services to insure that St. Louis Park is the most desirable place to live, work and do business. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Title: 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action Plan Page 3 City Council Priorities/Goals 2015 to 2025: Strategies and Work Plan for 2015-2017 Leader: Kevin Locke and Meg McMonigal Goal: Redevelopment around the three SWLRT stations is maximized to the fullest extent possible. Why is this important? The SWLRT project presents an incredible opportunity not afforded to most other cities. If implemented correctly, St. Louis Park will experience significant economic growth and vitality while providing additional transportation options to those that live or work here. It is imperative that we take advantage of on this unique opportunity through a thoughtful and collaborative planning and implementation process. Vision Consideration: • St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. Strategies: (What are the methods and means you will take to achieve this goal?) Two Year Action Plan: (What steps, tools or tactics are you going to take to achieve this strategy?) Timeline: Resources: 1. Encourage and facilitate high quality redevelopment, re- investment and new investment in the SWLRT station areas consistent with the principles of Livable Communities, TOD, the City’s station area plans, corridor master plan and design guidelines. Tools & Programs • Strategic acquisitions • TIF policy • Small business assistance & support • Redevelopment Projects • Community & Development Opportunity Marketing • Adopt Form Based Code On-going activity Financial TIF, abatements, grants, land sales, special assess-ments & special service districts People SWLRT Team Leader SWLRT Team CD Dept Engineering Consultants Hennepin County SPO/Met Council Current Development projects • Beltline Station Joint Development project, CMAQ Grant • Wooddale Station Redevelopment projects (PLACE/EDA , EDA/Hennepin Co. sites) • Other Corridor locations (exam: Shoreham) ’15-‘18 Future Development Projects Redevelopment opportunities throughout the corridor near our stations and the stations in neighboring cities. On-going City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Title: 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action Plan Page 4 Removal of barriers to redevelopment/investment in particular in the Louisiana Station Area – removal of Switching Wye, land for connection from station to Methodist Hospital ’16-‘18 MCWD Three Rivers Park District Hsg Agencies Developers, businesses, non-profits 2. Construction of infrastructure in support of SWLRT and Station Area Development. LRCIs • Beltline Station area improvements (“backage road”, Lynn intersection & signal, CSAH 25/Beltline intersection improvements, P&R access). • Xenwood Extension • “Sullivan trail” Eng/CD Design of LRCIs ’15-‘16 Eng/CD Construction of LRCIs ’17-‘19 Eng/PW CSAH 25 Redesign as blvd. Conceptual to final design Phased construction ’15-’17? ’17-‘27 Eng/CD Infrastructure capacity needs Evaluation of public improvement needed to accommodate new development – including utilities, streets, parking, storm water management (including regional ponds), Wi-Fi and fiber optic cabling ’15-16 Eng/CD Connectivity Improvements • Pedestrian, transit and bicycle connectivity improvements aimed - • at maximizing walkability, connectivity and reduction in need for cars in station areas, • connecting the land uses to one another, the station platforms, the broader community, open space and other area amenities. See Connect the Park schedule Eng/CD/PR Amenity improvements - streetscapes, plazas, gathering places, public art, open/green space, water features, recreational facilities, On-going CD/PR/Eng City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Title: 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action Plan Page 5 3. Work cooperatively in partnership with the SPO and SW Corridor Community Works, sister SW Corridor Cities and participating agencies on the design and implementation of the SWLRT project itself and related projects. Technical design support Timely response to SPO proposed SWLRT designs and requests for input ’15-‘19 CD/Eng/SLP Project Management • Participation in TPAC, Advanced Design Process, TIC, TIC Principles, Housing Subcommittee, Funding Committee, ad hoc issue related meetings and discussions. • Participation in CAC and BAC. • Work with public art committee for art at the station. • Participation in CMC and SW Corridor Community Works Steering Committee ’15-‘19 Staff/CC/Residents & Businesses City Support • City sign off on SWLRT and LRCI designs at 60% and 90% completion • commitment to fund and construction ’15-‘19 SLP West Lake Mobility Plan SLP participation in Mpls planning effort ’15-16 Eng/CD Housing Gaps Analysis ’14-16 CD Bicycle Facilities Plan ’14-16 CD/Eng Joint Marketing Plan ’15-‘25 CD/IR 4. Prepare an overall master plan for the SWLRT Station Areas to guide development, infrastructure investments and amenity improvements, evaluate and establish future infrastructure needs • Prepare Scope of work and schedule for Master Plan with a particular focus on the “Public Realm”, the connections between the various elements and development projects within the corridor. • Prepare RFP, solicit proposals and select consultant to preparing the SW Corridor Master Plan • Prepare Master Plan • Incorporate Master Plan into the City’s ‘15 ‘15 ’15-‘16 CD/Eng City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Title: 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action Plan Page 6 • 2040 Comprehensive Plan. • Adopt Form Based Code 5. Market SLP’s SWLRT Corridor Development opportunities and small business support and assistance programs. • Prepare marketing materials highlighting potential redevelopment opportunities. • Solicit development proposals for sites under direct SLP control or sites where SLP partners with other public entities or private property owners. • Market the City’s Small Business Assistance programs to existing businesses ‘15 ’15 and beyond On-going CD 6. Pursue a robust community outreach program to garner input, support and understanding from the neighborhoods, property owners, residents and business owners in the SW Corridor specifically and the Community in general. • Coordinate with and Support SPO Outreach • Prepare a communication plan • Prepare a community outreach/input plan • Identify key CC/EDA decision milestones ’15 – ‘19 On-going ’15 and beyond IR/CD/Eng CD/IR IR/CD/Eng CD/Eng/City Manager/CC 7. Aggressively pursue funding opportunities for infrastructure, redevelopment, affordable housing, environmental remediation, pre- development planning and analysis • Prepare cost estimates and budgets for key project elements. • Maintain and cultivate relationships with funding partners. • Develop partnerships and commitments from other public and private entities to assist in funding SWLRT related projects. On-going CD/ENG City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Title: 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action Plan Page 7 City Council Priorities/Goals 2015 to 2025: Strategies and Work Plan for 2015-2017 Leader: Jim Vaughan Goal: St. Louis Park is a leader in the environmental stewardship, sustainability, and resiliency. Why is this important? Because it’s the right thing and smart thing to do. Being stewards of the environment is the responsibility of everybody. Preventing or limiting the impact of climate change, the depletion of natural resources and degradation of our water and air require constant attention and a commitment to change. The City is uniquely positioned to effect positive change at the local level through programs, initiative and community education. Vision Consideration: • St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. Strategies: (What are the method and means you will take to achieve this goal?) Two Year Action Plan: (What steps, tools or tactics are you going to take to achieve this strategy?) Timeline: Resources: Establish Business/Multi-family Recycling Program • Define Metrics for Business/Multi-family Recycling Goals • Communication Plan • Research other similar programs • Partner with Hennepin County 2015 Staff / Henn County/MPCA Increase Residential Organics Program participation to 30% of City (100% growth from today) • Education/promotion • Communications plan • Research fee structure to determine if change needed 2015-2016 Staff Increase Tree Canopy by 20% • Attain Grants • CIP tree Planting • EAB, DED control and other invasive pest control • Tree Sale • Partnership with Tree Trust 2015-2024 Staff Create a Zero Waste Policy for City (Solid waste moving toward zero) • Compile sample plans • ID City Events for 2025 Staff/ ESC City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Title: 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action Plan Page 8 implementation • Create timeline for research, policy development, and phased implementation • Protocol to follow Multifamily Move Out Recycling/Reuse program • Work with Hennepin County to promote their pilot program and identify properties/candidates for pilots • Determine pilot’s viability for permanent program in SLP • Identify City role in program (promotion or coordination) • Partner with Goodwill, local recyclers and others 2019 Staff/ Henn Cty Implement using renewable energy sources for City organization • Partnerships with renewable providers , such as Solar Gardens and Windsource • Hybrid and electric vehicles – Leaf or E-golf vehicles; increase fleet efficiency 2016 Staff & E & S Commission Take advantage of opportunities to decrease impervious surface in SLP • Purchase key land for green corridor or stormwater function • Continue to promote high-density building • Living Streets • MIDs (minimal impact design) • Focus density building with large green space around or nearby or increase green space with each new development • Work with Community Development to achieve 2025 Staff & Engineering and CD City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Title: 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action Plan Page 9 goals • Continue green building initiatives – increase # of green roofs Education of past, current and future environmental City stewardship initiatives and programs • Create communications plan with IR Department for any old, existing and new initiative • Environmental conscious proposals for public disucssions • Leadership with education; explain why doing what we are doing 2016 Staff Create 2 additional Community Gardens and strive for one in every neighborhood • Identify park/open space for gardens • Budget as CIP item • Plan for increased Maintenance 2015-2017 Staff City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Title: 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action Plan Page 10 City Council Priorities/Goals 2015 to 2025: Work Plan for 2015-2017 Name: Clint Pires 4.2 (including Council feedback) Goal: St. Louis Park is a technology connected community. Why is this important? Broadband speed and capacity requirements continue to grow as technology and the Internet continue to evolve. A community that is connected by a very robust and comprehensive Broadband system will set itself apart and be better able to promote economic growth, innovation and community development. High speed Broadband enables the exchange of information in many different forms and is vital to high-tech and medical industry growth, and to the delivery of services in education, health, government, public safety and for overall quality of life. Given the significant amount of fiber infrastructure in place that is owned by the City, we are uniquely situated to take advantage of the digital economy. Vision Consideration: • St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. Strategies: (What are the method and means you will take to achieve this goal?) Two Year Action Plan: (What steps, tools or tactics are you going to take to achieve this strategy?) Timeline: Resources: 1. Research Strategic Options (since this is a new initiative) • Learn from other existing efforts • Engage consultant • Develop baseline of existing SLP Broadband capabilities September 2015 – February 2016 CIO, consultant, city staff* 2. Support School / Community Education Initiatives • Understand public and private school strategic plans and initiatives; • City and school staff and officials meet and confer on potential collaborations using technology; • City and schools draft proposals to support learning and other school initiatives; • City, schools, Community Ed jointly support additional classes to help public make September 2015 – December 2017 CIO, school, Community Ed and city staff* and officials, facilitated process, financial and human resources City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Title: 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action Plan Page 11 best uses of technology; • Identify resource needs and sources to implement. 3. Encourage More Private Market Consumer Choices • Facilitate process, opportunities for providers; • Seek out interested providers; • Level playing field partnerships; • Lead through encouraging, courting providers (CenturyLink, Comcast, USI, Google, etc.). September 2015 – December 2017 CIO, streamlined processes, consultant, city staff* 4. Integrate New Private Carrier Technology Infrastructure (e.g., mini-cell towers) into Community • Learn about evolving design of wired and wireless infrastructure; • Review impacts on existing infrastructure, zoning, and neighborhoods; • With stakeholder input, propose modifications to codes to integrate new designs in an acceptable fashion. September 2015 – December 2017 CIO, city staff, private carriers, consultant, community stakeholders 5. Support or Build Broadband Public Related Infrastructure / Target Private Development Opportunities • Collaborate with Engineering, O&R, CD to identify CIP projects and other related public plans / opportunities to co-build broadband infrastructure; • Identify likely private development projects and areas, and plan related infrastructure accordingly. September 2015 – December 2017 CIO, city staff*, planning crystal ball, funds, interagency collaboration 6. Support Community Technology Applications for Enhanced Livability of All Age Groups from Youth to • Identify how residents, businesses, guests want to use September 2015 – December 2017 CIO, futurists, community input process, EDA, city staff*, City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Title: 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action Plan Page 12 * city staff usually includes some combination of IR, CD, Engineering, O&R, and Inspections. Seniors technology to improve livability (e.g., health and safety, resiliency, education, travel, leisure, telemedicine); • Employ surveys, focus groups, social media, next City web platform • Engage futurists to forecast technologies and uses; • Consider desirable economic development and uses; focus a study on Louisiana / 7 for possible regional tech/medical/incub ator hub; • From identified uses, support development of aligned technology infrastructure and applications. Greater MSP 7. Maximize Speed of Broadband Deployment • Establish lease document to make available public broadband related facilities (e.g., fiber buildings). September 2015 – May 2016 CIO, Admin Services, City Attorney 8. Enhance Private Development Broadband Readiness • Establish formal requirements to make new development / significant redevelopment ready for latest broadband technologies. September 2015 – May 2016 CIO, city staff*, City Council, regulatory agencies, private stakeholders City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Title: 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action Plan Page 13 City Council Priorities/Goals 2015 to 2025: Strategies and Work Plan for 2015-2017 Leader: Marney Olson Goal: St. Louis Park has top ranked schools, a well maintained and diverse housing stock, and strong, vibrant neighborhoods. Why is this important? These items are critical ingredients for ensuring that St. Louis Park continues to be a highly desirable place for people to live and invest themselves in the community. Vision Consideration: • St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. • St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. Strategies: (What are the method and means you will take to achieve this goal?) Two Year Action Plan: (What steps, tools or tactics are you going to take to achieve this strategy?) Timeline: Resources: Goal/Priority: St. Louis Park has top ranked schools Promote Safe Schools through partnership with the School District School Liaison Positions - New School Liaison position focusing on school safety and lockdown procedures - Existing School Liaisons including DARE (elementary), Middle School and High School - Police Sergeant meet with School Liaisons and Principals to determine what support they need to be successful - Police Department work with Schools to determine safety needs and respond as needed - Safe Routes to School: promote bike/walk days - Safety Camp 2015 Ongoing 2015 Ongoing Grant funded position Police Department School Liaisons Recreation Staff Continue to work cooperatively with the School District and support joint community efforts and programs - Children First - Meadowbrook Collaborative - Joint Facilities and programs - Summer programs - Community Education partnership - Family Services Collaborative - Friends of the Arts - Partner on events with the School District that support our young people, immigrant population, and other community members such as the New Americans Academy. Ongoing City Staff are the primary resources for these ongoing partnerships and collaborations. In some instances such funds are also allocated to these City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Title: 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action Plan Page 14 Continue to keep lines of communication open so we continue to have strong partnerships as new opportunities arise. community efforts. Collaborate with the School District on community communication and coordination efforts - Boards and Commissions: School District appoints member to City boards and commissions and City representation on the Community Education Advisory Council - Hold Annual City and School Board joint meeting - City runs the School Board elections - Joint Marketing including the City/School Calendar - Explore more comprehensive marketing effort with School District - Share information and work together to address City and School population growth - Real Estate Forum (biannual) - Community Residential Survey: include questions from School District on City survey and vice versa. Ongoing 2016 2016 Staff time is the primary resource along with appropriate budgeting. Goal/Priority: St. Louis Park has a well maintained and diverse housing stock Preserve, maintain and improve existing housing stock in St. Louis Park - Update International Property Maintenance Code - City Wide Housing Survey - Point of Sale Inspection - Rental Inspections and Licensing - Hold Annual Clean Up days for SLP Residents - Explore opportunities for a new recycling drop off program - Commercial Property Surveys (including apartments) - Continue to promote housing rehab programs such as Move up in the Park, low interest rate loans, and low income programs - Evaluate effectiveness of existing programs 2015 2016 Ongoing 2015 2017 Ongoing Resources include Inspections, Housing and Operations & Recreation Staff. Housing rehab programs are funded through the Housing Rehab budget and low income programs through CDBG. Promote and facilitate a balanced and enduring housing stock through Policy - Adoption of Inclusionary Housing Policy - Adoption of SWLRT Regional Housing Plan - Housing Goals - Develop inventory of potential opportunities for adding SF Homes 2015 Staff Support housing programs that have a positive impact on the rental and owner - SPARC (rental coalition for owners and managers) - Crime Free Housing - Construction Management Plan Ongoing, quarterly Ongoing Staff City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Title: 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action Plan Page 15 residents in St. Louis Park (CMP) - Evaluate CMP for non- Single Family projects 2015 Continue to utilize Rental Assistance Programs to offer housing options for low income renters in our community - Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program - Public Housing - Shelter Plus Care Staff and Housing Authority Budget Goals/Priorities: St. Louis Park has strong, vibrant neighborhoods Strengthen neighborhoods by engaging residents through Community Outreach and Volunteering Community Outreach - Citywide - Neighborhood Meetings with the Police Department and each neighborhood - Increase outreach to the rental community and multi-family residents (condos and rental) to build better connections at the Neighborhood and City level utilizing SPARC, Neighborhood Associations, and Community Liaison - National Night Out - Joint Community Police Partnership position and outreach - Address neighborhood issues related to Hwy 100 reconstruction as they arise - Engage residents in Public Process for various projects, developments, etc. - Health in the Park Community Outreach – Neighborhoods - Plan by Neighborhood as part of City’s Comprehensive Plan - Block Captain/Neighborhood Watch Program - Promote and utilize Nextdoor and Social Media - Neighborhood Associations: Actively support formation of Neighborhood Associations - Neighborhood Grant - Analyze effectiveness of current neighborhood grant program Volunteering - Adopt a Spot, Park, Garden - Pick up the Park - Hydrant Heroes - CERT - Police Reserves - Block Captains and Neighborhood Leaders 2015-2016 2015-2017 and beyond Annually Ongoing 2015-2016 (throughout project) Ongoing 2015-2016 2017 and beyond Ongoing Ongoing 2015 Police Department Staff efforts Hennepin Co. Position City staff MNDOT Staff CD and Comm. Liaison PD Communications Staff Housing Rehab Budget City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Title: 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action Plan Page 16 - Community Events - Other volunteer opportunities as they arise Maintain Public Infrastructure and Address Issues in order to keep neighborhoods safe and vibrant - Pavement Management - Graffiti abatement and prevention program - Connect the Park (sidewalks & trails) - Utilize traffic committee to address neighborhood traffic and parking concerns - Proactively address specific neighborhood issues affecting residents such as the flooding in 2014 Ongoing As needed Staff and budgeting for these projects Utilize community events and gathering spaces to encourage citizen engagement which strengthens our neighborhoods - Park the Street 2015 and evaluate future Park the Street Events - Health in the Park Initiative: Implement measures to sustain the initiative of HIP once grant ends - Parks & Open Spaces - Promote, plan, partner, and participate in Community Events such as Parktacular, Fire Department Open House, Children First Ice Cream Social, etc. - Community Gardens - Explore new opportunities with Discover St. Louis Park - Explore creation of a public art policy 2015 and beyond? 2015-2016 Ongoing Health in the Park BCBS Grant Parks Dept. Staff and budget City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Title: 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action Plan Page 17 City Council Priorities/Goals 2015 to 2025: Work Plan for 2015-2017 Name: Cindy Walsh Goal: St. Louis Park has high quality community amenities and facilities. Why is this important? High quality parks, open spaces and other community facilities and amenities are building blocks for insuring a high quality of life and making St. Louis Park in the marketplace as a great place to live. Vision Consideration: • St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. • St. Louis Park is committed to promoting an integrating arts, culture and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate. Strategies: (What are the method and means you will take to achieve this goal?) Two Year Action Plan: (What steps, tools or tactics are you going to take to achieve this strategy?) Timeline: Resources: Health and Wellness • Adding shade amenities to park areas • water sources to parks for people and pet usage • community gardens • inventory park areas for additional opportunities • talk to neighborhoods about priorities • partner with youth associations at our annual meetings with them. • 2105 plan and discussions • 2016 input into CIP • CIP • partnerships with youth associations Extending Park Usage • Adding lights • Installing turf • Running water to buildings for drinking fountains • Expand bathroom accessibility with extended hours • Enhancing partnerships with public & private schools and agencies • Assess which park areas could benefit from lights (athletic areas, trails, dog parks) • Coordinate with IT and Engineering on projects in the area • 2015 Work with users & staff on desired areas • CIP • Youth Associations • Hennepin County youth sports grant Additional Park Amenities • WHNC Master Plan • Disc Golf • Larger Dog Park • Outdoor aquatic park • 2015 consultant for WHNC master plan • Assess park & open space areas that could include *2015 Assessment of spaces *2016 work with planners/architects to see if possible • CIP • Donations • Hennepin County youth sports grant City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Title: 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action Plan Page 18 entrance • Expand Community gardens • Outdoor Refrigerated ice additional amenities • Neighborhood & Community meetings for park improvements • • Community Center check-in *Further conversation with school district about facility needs City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Title: 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action Plan Page 19 Excerpt of Minutes from May 26, 2015 Study Session Meeting Draft Strategies/Two Year Action Plan for a 2015-2025 City Council Goals and Priorities Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and draft strategies for Council consideration. He recited the five goals developed by Council at its annual workshop in January and stated that staff developed specific strategies to deliver on the goals over the next ten years as well as action steps over the next two years. Redevelopment around the three SWLRT stations is maximized to the fullest extent possible. Mr. Locke presented seven strategies and the two-year action plan to accomplish redevelopment around the three light rail stations. Councilmember Brausen stated he fully supported the strategies and two-year action plan. He requested that staff provide cost summaries on a regular basis that outlined the City’s financial commitments in order to understand both current and anticipated costs in the context of the City’s overall commitments. Councilmember Mavity noted it would be important to also include information on anticipated revenue from the redevelopment. She stated that Ms. McMonigal and Mr. Hunt recently gave an informative presentation at the Southwest LRT Community Works Committee meeting regarding all the development going on in St. Louis Park, particularly around the light rail stations, and suggested that the presentation be provided to Council. She stated she noticed that a lot of the new projects being built had a lot of windows at the street level that made it look like a department store type of business and was hopeful that the form based code would address the idea of having more doors on these developments. Councilmember Sanger stated she was generally okay with the proposed strategies and action plan. She stated the strategies did not include a contingency if the park and ride was moved to the County site. She also questioned if additional zoning ordinance changes were required beyond the form based code and whether to consider limiting the amount of square footage for retail in general to avoid big box projects in the City. It was the consensus of the City Council that the draft strategies and action plan related to Goal #1 is in keeping with Council’s expectations. St. Louis Park is a leader in environmental stewardship, sustainability and resiliency Mr. Vaughan presented the strategies and two-year action plan related to Goal #2. Councilmember Spano felt that the goal to increase participation in the curbside organics program was too low and would like to see this goal at 30%. He stated he did not see anything in the report about challenges to reaching any of these goals. Councilmember Mavity noted the City of Paris recently passed a law that all new buildings must have a green roof and suggested the City consider that as it looked at green building codes and what other incentives or directives might be implemented. Councilmember Sanger agreed with finding ways to encourage recycling and to make it easier to recycle, but questioned whether there was a need to start another recycling center when there are City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Title: 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action Plan Page 20 already private recycling companies in existence. She agreed with the strategy to decrease impervious surfaces but was concerned that Council had approved projects with little green space and zero setbacks and this was contributing to the problem. She was hopeful that staff would work with Community Development staff to increase the amount of pervious surfaces and find ways to protect green space. Councilmember Hallfin stated he would like to see further information about a possible recycling/reuse center. Councilmember Lindberg stated as the City encouraged more single family remodeling, there was a lot of waste generated that could possibly be used by other St. Louis Park residents. He stated he would like to see more emphasis on providing all neighborhoods with access to community gardens and to have the City actively facilitate this rather than the neighborhoods. He felt there was also an opportunity for the City to engage in more strategic planning around these goals and to put some metrics around the goals as a way of measuring results. Councilmember Brausen spoke in favor of the proposed strategies and action plan. He stated the plastic bag and polystyrene issue had taken on a high level of public interest and suggested the City consider promoting environmentally conscious proposals for public discussion. It was the consensus of the City Council that the draft strategies and action plan related to Goal #2 is in keeping with Council’s expectations. St. Louis Park is a technology-connected community Mr. Harmening advised that this item would be presented to Council in June. St. Louis Park has top ranked schools, a well maintained and diverse housing stock, and strong, vibrant neighborhoods Ms. Olson presented the strategies and two-year action plan related to Goal #4. Councilmember Mavity stated that public art had been an important part of the City’s development approach and suggested the City have an inclusionary art policy. Councilmember Sanger stated there were a number of neighborhoods that were not currently organized and suggested the City focus on actively organizing those neighborhoods. She felt the City needed to put more emphasis on improving architectural design guidelines. She requested that Council have a discussion about how to promote single family homes and move-up housing. Councilmember Hallfin stated he would also like to have a discussion about increasing the amount of single family housing in the City. He urged the City to utilize its various boards and commissions in any way possible as it related to these goals. Councilmember Lindberg stated he would like to have a more robust conversation about move- up housing and what the City might do to increase or provide further resources for move-up expansions. Councilmember Sanger stated that any move-up housing needed to be in scale with the neighborhood around it and that should be part of the architectural design guidelines. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Title: 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action Plan Page 21 Councilmember Lindberg encouraged staff to continue to reach out and engage the rental community. He discussed an initiative at Meadowbrook about the importance of partnerships among all the players and suggested having Ms. Trummer talk with Council about that initiative. It was the consensus of the City Council that the draft strategies and action plan related to Goal #4 is in keeping with Council’s expectations. St. Louis Park has high quality community amenities and facilities Ms. Walsh presented the strategies and two-year action plan related to Goal #5. Councilmember Mavity questioned whether there was community support for an archery range. She encouraged the City to remain mindful of gender equity in sports. Councilmember Sanger felt that a possible community center should be added to the list and urged staff to give more thought to the growing senior population and whether to have more focus on one or more facilities for this demographic. It was the consensus of the City Council that the draft strategies and action plan related to Goal #5 is in keeping with Council’s expectations. Mr. Harmening advised that staff would continue to revise this document following the technology presentation in June and bring it back to Council for review and formal approval this summer. Excerpt of Minutes from June 8, 2015 Study Session Meeting Draft Strategies/Two Year Action Plan for 2015-2025 City Council Goals and Priorities – Technology Connected Community Mr. Pires presented the staff report and draft strategies for Council consideration and provided a brief description of each of the proposed strategies. Councilmember Mavity stated she would support any ordinance that provides mandates and directives for requiring new development to provide the latest broadband technologies. Councilmember Sanger requested that staff provide tutorial information about the technology referred to in the action plan. Councilmember Spano requested that the City make sure it is having a robust discussion with the senior population about how they are using technology. He also requested that staff include a representative(s) from the small business community to participate in the community input process. Councilmember Sanger suggested having someone from the library as well. It was the consensus of the City Council that the draft strategies and action plan related to Goal #3 is in keeping with Council’s expectations. City Council Meeting of October 19, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Title: 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action Plan Page 22