HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008/09/08 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:30 P.M.
SEPTEMBER 8, 2008
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning
2. 6:35 p.m. Communication Towers
3. 7:20 p.m. Proposed Ordinance – Dangerous Dogs
4. 8:05 p.m. Vision Strategic Directions Update – Evaluating and Investigating Additional
North/South Transportation Options
5. 8:50 p.m. Highway 7 Corporate Center Project – Request for Additional TIF Assistance
6. 9:20 p.m. Japs-Olson Printing Expansion
7. 9:40 p.m. Communications (Verbal)
Written Reports
8. Planning Commission Mid-Year Update
9. Board of Zoning Appeals Mid-Year Update
10. I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study
9:50 p.m. Adjourn
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.
Meeting Date: September 8, 2008
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – September 22, 2008.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the study session planned for Monday,
September 22, 2008.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion items
for the regularly scheduled study session on September 22, 2008.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for September 22, 2008
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Tentative Discussion Items
Study Session, Monday, September 22, 2008
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Twin Cities & Western Railroad Officials – Administrative Services (45 minutes)
Twin Cities & Western Railroad Officials will provide the Council with an overview of
existing and future rail operations, including plans for the Glencoe Railroad Mitigation
Project.
3. Discuss SW Transit Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Scoping
Meetings – Community Development (45 minutes)
The Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) has been given permission by the
Federal Transportation Administration to move forward with the DEIS process. The
HCRRA has scheduled public meetings (scoping meetings) in October to allow the public to
comment on what should be studied as part of the DEIS (what should be the “scope” of the
environmental study). This discussion will provide the opportunity to discuss what the
City’s comments/recommendations might be relative to this environmental study.
4. Vision Strategic Directions Update – Environmental Education for Staff and the Public –
Information Resources (20 minutes)
Staff will provide the Council with an update on the following Vision Strategic Direction:
“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…Educating staff and the public on environmental consciousness, stewardship and
best practices.”
5. Vision Strategic Directions Update – Working in Areas such as the Rehab Loan Program –
Inspections/Community Development (20 minutes)
Staff will provide the Council with an update on the following Vision Strategic Direction:
“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…Working in areas such as the rehab loan program, development projects, permits
etc., encourage (and provide incentives where appropriate) green building design (LEED),
creation of open spaces, environmental innovations, etc.”
6. Communications – Administrative Services (10 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
for the purposes of information sharing.
End of Meeting 8:55 p.m.
Meeting Date: September 8, 2008
Agenda Item #: 2
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Communication Towers.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City Council is requested to provide direction to staff on how it should proceed with a
proposed ordinance amendment relating to communication towers.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
What are the appropriate regulations, including height limits, for communication towers in the
zoning ordinance?
BACKGROUND:
On August 18, 2008 the City Council discussed the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance
provisions for communication towers. The City Council asked Staff to provide some alternatives to
the proposed zoning changes, including flexibility in the industrial zoning district.
Staff researched the tower ordinances of surrounding communities and found that, compared to St.
Louis Park, the surrounding communities’ generally address cell towers vs. radio towers and are more
restrictive in terms of height, have comparable setbacks from residential, are more specific in terms of
impacts on the neighborhood, and have additional general provisions which are discussed below.
Attached is a table summarizing the comparison of these regulations.
The research shows that the standards in the tower section of each zoning district are appropriate.
For those allowed by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) it is reasonable and justifiable for the process to
include such conditions as are currently in the height section: to determine that the structure would
not be dangerous and would not adversely affect adjoining, adjacent and surrounding properties,
distance from abutting residential property, tower design and collapse radius, aesthetic
considerations such as color and design.
Attached is a table with some suggestions for alternatives in the various zoning districts.
• The “current” category includes making revisions to clarify staff’s interpretation of the
height limitations, as previously proposed.
• Alternative A provides additional flexibility in the industrial district, while keeping the
other districts the same as they are now.
• Alternative B keeps the height regulations in the residential districts, reduces them in the
office district, and increases allowable height in the commercial and industrial areas.
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Communication Towers
Additional performance standards may be appropriate as well for such items as interference with
nearby properties, aesthetics, impacts to surrounding neighborhoods, FCC guidelines, co-locating,
lighting, and removal of discontinued towers/antenna. The following are sample regulations pulled
from surrounding communities.
Sample Regulations:
Interference:
Subd. 9. Interference with Public Safety Telecommunications. No new or existing commercial
wireless telecommunications services shall interfere with public safety wireless telecommunications.
(Eden Prairie/Edina)
The placement, design, use and operation of the telecommunications facilities shall comply with the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the rules of the Federal Communications Commission.
(Golden Valley)
Aesthetics/neighborhood impact:
Subd. 8. Tower and Antenna Design Requirements. Proposed or modified towers and antennas
shall meet the following design requirements:
A. Towers and antennas shall be designed to blend into the surrounding environment to the
maximum extent possible through the use of color and camouflaging architectural treatment,
except in instances where the color is dictated by federal or state authorities such as the
Federal Aviation Administration.
B. Commercial wireless telecommunication service towers, except those which are public utility
structures, shall be of a monopole design unless the City Manager or his designee determines
that an alternative design would better blend in to the surrounding environment.
C. Towers shall not be illuminated by artificial means and shall not display strobe lights unless
such lighting is specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other federal
or state authority for a particular tower and then only at such time or times required. Strobe
lights shall not be permitted during the hours between sundown and sunrise. When
incorporated into the approved design of the tower, light fixtures used to illuminate ball
fields, parking lots, or similar areas may be attached to the tower.
D. Metal towers shall be constructed of, or treated with, corrosive resistant material. Wood
poles shall be impregnated with rot resistant substances.
E. No antenna or tower shall have affixed or attached to it in any way, except during time of
repair or installation, any lights, reflectors, flashers, or other illuminating device, except as
required by the Federal Aviation Administration or the Federal Communications
Commission, nor shall any tower have constructed thereon, or attached thereto, in any way,
any platform, catwalk, crow's nest, or like structure, except during periods of construction or
repair.
F. The face of an antenna having one face shall not exceed 30 square feet. No face of an
antenna having more than one face shall exceed 24 square feet per face. (Eden Prairie)
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Communication Towers
Co-locating:
Co-Location Requirements. All commercial wireless telecommunication towers erected,
constructed, or located within the City shall comply with the following requirements:
(1) A proposal for a new commercial wireless telecommunication service tower shall not be
approved unless the City Council finds that the telecommunications equipment planned for
the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building
within a one mile search radius (one half mile search radius for towers under 120 feet in
height, one quarter mile search radius for towers under 80 feet in height) of the proposed
tower due to one or more of the following reasons:
(a) The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved
tower or building, as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer, and
the existing or approved tower cannot be reinforced, modified, or replaced to
accommodate planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost.
(b) The planned equipment would cause interference materially impacting the usability of
other existing or planned equipment at the tower or building as documented by a qualified
and licensed professional engineer and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable
cost.
(c) Existing or approved towers and buildings within the search radius cannot accommodate
the planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably as documented by a
qualified and licensed professional engineer.
(d) Other unforeseen reasons that make it infeasible to locate the planned telecommunications
equipment upon an existing or approved tower or building.
(2) Any proposed commercial wireless telecommunication service tower shall be designed,
structurally, electrically, and in all respects, to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and
comparable antennas for at least two additional users if the tower is over 100 feet in height or
for at least one additional user if the tower is over 60 feet in height. Towers must be designed
to allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted
at varying heights. (Bloomington)
Lighting:
Tower Lighting. Towers shall not be illuminated by artificial means and shall not display strobe
lights unless such lighting is specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other
federal or state authority for a particular tower. When incorporated into the approved design of the
tower, light fixtures used to illuminate ball fields, parking lots, or similar areas may be attached to
the tower. (Bloomington)
Removal of discontinued towers and antennas:
Discontinued or Unused Towers or Portions of Towers. Discontinued or unused towers or
portions of towers shall be removed as follows:
(1) All discontinued or unused towers and associated facilities shall be removed within 12 months
of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the Planning
Manager. A copy of the relevant portions of a signed lease which requires the applicant to
remove the tower and associated facilities upon cessation of operations at the site shall be
submitted at the time of application. In the event that a tower is not removed within 12
months of the cessation of operations at a site, the tower and associated facilities may be
removed by the City and the costs of removal assessed against the property.
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Communication Towers
(2) Unused portions of towers above a manufactured connection shall be removed within six
months of the time of antenna relocation. The replacement of portions of a tower previously
removed requires the issuance of a new conditional use permit. (Bloomington)
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Table of Ordinance Alternatives
Official Study Session Minutes of August 18, 2008
Table comparing regulations of surrounding communities
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: Communication Towers
Tower Ordinance – Alternatives for Height Requirements
Current Alternate A Alternate B
SF – Single family
Permitted
CUP
45’
68’
45’
68’
45’
68’
MF – Multi-family
Permitted
CUP
112’
168’
112’
168’
112’
168’
COM – Commercial
Permitted
CUP
112’
168’
112’
168’
150’
200’
OFF – Office
Permitted
CUP
360’
540’
360’
540’
200’
n/a
IND – Industrial
Permitted
CUP
112’
168’
112’
400’
200’
400’
Bold= changes from current
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Subject: Communication Towers
OFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
AUGUST 18, 2008
1. Communications Tower Height – Council Chambers, City Hall
Mr. Locke presented the staff report.
Councilmember Sanger said she was in support of the new language and she also suggested adding a
few more conditions for clarification, such as 1) take into consideration environmental factors, 2)
view or aesthetic impacts on the neighborhood or more distance from houses, not just the immediate
properties, 3) some type of stipulation so the applicants couldn’t come back at a later date requesting
variances, and 4) signal interference; impact, if any, on residents’ reception.
Councilmember Paprocki and Councilmember Basill agreed with the Planning Commission’s
recommendations.
Councilmember Basill asked if Council grants the CUP to allow the antenna would it obligate them
to allow them in a residential area too. Mr. Scott stated it wouldn’t legally bind the City. He
further stated that a CUP is recognition that it is an allowable zoning ordinance if it meets the
criteria. Councilmember Basill stated his concern about putting too many controls in place at this
point in time considering technology is always changing.
Councilmember Carver asked for staff’s recommendation. Mr. Locke suggested allowing flexibility
in industrial areas maybe appropriate. Councilmember Carver further asked if the request was to
clarify language. Mr. Scott stated yes.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated concern with the timing of the motion, further stating he agreed
with the Planning Commission language.
It was the consensus of Council to have staff bring back more options and alternatives to the
September 8th study session.
Mr. Gandrud stated he felt the communication between staff and the applicant was poor and
requested they arrange a meeting to open the lines of communication.
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Subject: Communication Towers
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Subject: Communication Towers
Meeting Date: September 8, 2008
Agenda Item #: 3
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Proposed Ordinance – Dangerous Dogs.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff would like to update Council on changes contained in the attached draft ordinance since the
last study session discussion, answer questions and receive Council direction on whether to revise the
ordinance and bring it back for further discussion, or proceed to first reading. Some minor changes
to the Dangerous Dog Statute were made by the legislature during the session which ended in May
of this year. These changes are incorporated in the attached draft.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the draft ordinance acceptable to the Council such that staff can bring this forward for formal
adoption?
Does the Council wish to add any provisions for either a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog?
Does the Council wish to include language in the ordinance that allows dogs to be off leash and
controlled by voice command in St. Louis Park?
WHAT ACTION HAS STAFF TAKEN SINCE THE LAST MEETING?
At the June 2nd study session, Council requested the City Attorney provide optional language which
would define “under control” based upon voice command as an alternative to the leash requirement.
Council also requested the City Attorney evaluate the appropriate description for dogs used by blind
persons. Those possible changes are contained in Sec. 4-84 of the ordinance.
In addition, Council requested that staff survey neighboring communities for the existence of off
leash voice command ordinances for keeping dogs under control. Cindy Walsh and Kirk DiLorenzo
worked cooperatively on gathering the information. The results of this survey indicated that two
cities (Minnetonka and Golden Valley) have off leash voice command ordinances in “natural areas.”
Cindy Walsh indicates St. Louis Park has nothing comparable to these natural areas, and it also
appears that the assessment and enforcement of this form of “under control” may be problematic.
Meeting Date: September 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Proposed Ordinance – Dangerous Dogs
We were only able to identify one metro area city where “under control by voice command” is
allowed in parks, trails and public places. The City of Lakeville permits this for dogs that have
passed the canine good citizen test certification program or its approved equivalent. The canine
good citizen certification is sponsored by the American Kennel Club (AKC). Lakeville staff indicate
the police view it as difficult to enforce and that residents generally do not like the unknowns
associated with dogs who are observed off leash in public places. However, Lakeville staff also
indicate only a handful of residents utilize this option and do so primarily in open and low density
areas of the city.
Excerpts of these ordinances are attached
BACKGROUND ON DANGEROUS AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOGS:
The current City ordinance concerning dogs is not in compliance or alignment with state statutes
and is cumbersome and awkward in its application to dangerous behavior by dogs. The proposed
amendments focus primarily on three issues:
1. Compliance with state statute regarding “dangerous dog” procedures.
2. Add an optional section regarding registration of “potentially dangerous dogs.”
3. Clarify existing code provisions dealing with dog impoundment procedures.
Minnesota law defines “dangerous dogs” and sets forth minimum requirements that a local
ordinance must contain. Under Minnesota Statutes Section 345.50, a dangerous dog is any dog that
has:
1. Without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public or private
property;
2. Killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner’s property; or
3. Been found to be potentially dangerous and, after the owner has noticed that the dog is
potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively bites, attacks or endangers the safety of humans or
domestic animals.
Minimum Requirements
The attached draft ordinance includes a listing of the minimum requirements state law imposes on
the owner of a dog that is determined to be dangerous. The draft ordinance also contains language
outlining the procedure declaring a dog “dangerous” and for the determination that a dog should be
destroyed. It should be noted that the “dangerous dog” determination may be appealed to the City
Manager or designee and the determination that a “dangerous dog” should be destroyed is subject to
an automatic hearing by the City Manager or designee.
Minnesota law defines “potentially dangerous dog” and sets forth a requirement and a number of
options the City can impose on potentially dangerous dogs.
Meeting Date: September 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Proposed Ordinance – Dangerous Dogs
A potentially dangerous dog is any dog that:
1. When unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private property;
2. When unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on a bicycle, upon the
streets, sidewalks or any public or private property other than the dog owner’s property, in an
apparent attitude of attack; or
3. Has known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or
otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals.
The only requirement in state law for owning a potentially dangerous dog is that the owner must
implant the dog with a micro chip for identification. The City can impose all or some of the same
restrictions on potentially dangerous dogs that it does on dangerous dogs. As stated earlier, the
minimum list of requirements imposed by state law on owners of “dangerous dogs” can be found in
the draft ordinance.
As outlined in the draft ordinance, the determination that a dog is potentially dangerous may be
appealed to the City Manager or designee.
The following table shows the number of animal calls that the police department has responded to
during the past 3 years:
2005 2006 2007
Animal Call ** 547 602 446
Barking Dog 177 141 191
Animal Bite 16 18 29
Animal at Large 157 174 228
** Includes found, injured or dead animals, nuisance calls, mistreatment of animals, and
aggressive/potentially dangerous animals. Also includes some barking dogs and animals at large.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments:
• Proposed Ordinance
• Excerpts from City of Golden Valley Ordinance relating to Leashing & Voice
Commands
• Excerpts from City of Lakeville Ordinance relating to Leashing and Voice Control
• Excerpts from City of Minnetonka Ordinance relating to Leashing and Voice
Commands
Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: September 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Subject: Proposed Ordinance – Dangerous Dogs
ORDINANCE NO. _____-08
ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE III, CHAPTER 4
OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA,
CONCERNING DOGS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Sections 4-81 through 4-89 are hereby amended by deleting and adding the
language as follows:
Sec. 4-81. Purpose.
The purpose of this Article is to enact regulations governing dogs, dangerous dogs,
potentially dangerous dogs, and to provide for dog enforcement procedures.
Sec. 4-82. Findings of the City Council.
The City Council of the City makes the following findings of fact regarding the need to
regulate and license dogs:
(a) The regulation of dogs is found by the City Council to be necessary in order to protect the
health and safety of the community. Dogs at large can expose human beings and other
animals to danger; can cause damage to public and private property; can exacerbate the
existing overpopulation of dogs; can disrupt the quiet enjoyment of residential areas and
parks; and can expose human beings and other animals to unsanitary and unhealthy
conditions.
(b) The improper impoundment or enclosure of dogs can constitute a public health nuisance.
Nuisances can be created by site, odor, noise, and sanitation problems associated with
improper dog enclosures and impound facilities.
(c) The regulation of dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs is deemed necessary by the City
in light of the threat such dogs pose to the safety of human beings and other animals in the
community. Dogs deemed to be dangerous or potentially dangerous pose a serious risk to
the health and safety of the community.
(d) Procedures for determining whether a dog is dangerous or potentially dangerous to the
community are warranted. The procedures prescribed herein balance the interest in
immediate public protection from dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs with reasonable
due process rights of dog owners.
Sec. 4-83. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Animal Control Authority means the city police officers, community service officers, and the
animal control officer.
Meeting Date: September 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Subject: Proposed Ordinance – Dangerous Dogs
At large means when a dog is off the premises of the person who owns, harbors or keeps the
dog, and not under control of that person or a designee, either by leash, cord, or chain.
Dangerous dog means any dog that has:
without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public or
private property;
killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner’s property; or
been found to be potentially dangerous, and after the owner has notice that the dog is
potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of
humans or domestic animals.
Dog means any male or female of any breed of a domesticated dog.
Great bodily harm has the meaning given to it under Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 8.
Own means to keep, harbor, or have control, charge, or custody of a dog.
Owner means any person, firm, corporation, organization, or department possessing,
harboring, keeping, having an interest in, or having care, custody, or control of a dog.
Potentially dangerous dog means any dog that:
when unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private
property;
when unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on a bicycle, upon the
streets, sidewalks, or any public or private property, other than the dog owner’s
property, in an apparent attitude of attack;
has a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or
otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals.
Proper enclosure means securely confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen
or structure suitable to prevent the animal from escaping and providing protection from the
elements for the dog. A proper enclosure does not include a porch, patio, or any part of a house,
garage, or other structure that would allow the dog to exit of its own volition, or any house or
structure in which windows are open or in which door or window screens are the only obstacles that
prevent the dog from exiting.
Provocation means an act that an adult could reasonably expect may cause a dog to attack or
bite.
Meeting Date: September 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Subject: Proposed Ordinance – Dangerous Dogs
Substantial bodily harm means bodily injury that involves a temporary or permanent but
substantial disfigurement, or which causes temporary or permanent but substantial loss or
impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or which causes a fracture of any bodily
member.
Sec. 4-84. General dog regulations.
(a) License. All dogs shall be licensed in compliance with section 8-626. The license tag must
be displayed on the dog at all times.
(b) Dogs running at large.
(1) No person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog shall allow the dog to run at large
within the corporate limits of the city except in a designated off-leash dog area after
obtaining a permit in accordance with section 20-6 of this ordinance.
(2) A dog shall be deemed to be running at large if the dog is off the premises of the
person who owns, harbors or keeps the dog, and not under the control of that person
or a designee, either by. “Under control” means the dog is controlled by a leash,
cord or chain not no more than twenty (20) feet long., which is shortened to six (6)
feet when another person or animal is within twenty (20) feet, or at heel beside the
person having custody of the dog and obedient to that person’s commands.
(3) The term "premises," when used in this chapter, means the usual place of residence,
including a building, structure or shelter and any land appurtenant thereto, of a
person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog, whether domesticated or non-
domesticated; or the dog owned, harbored or kept by such a person.
(c) Barking dogs. No person shall own, harbor, keep or possess any dog that by loud and
frequent barking, howling or yelping, causes noise, disturbance or annoyance to persons
residing in the vicinity of the dog.
(d) Certain dogs declared a public nuisance. Every dog that runs at large or barks or causes
disturbance, annoyance or noise in violation of any provision of subsections (b) or (c) of this
section is hereby declared a public nuisance, and it is unlawful to own, harbor or keep such a
dog.
(e) Removal of excrement.
(1) It is unlawful for any person to cause or permit a dog to be on any property, public
or private, not owned or possessed by that person, unless that person is carrying at
the time a device for the removal of excrement and a depository for the transmission
of excrement to a proper receptacle located upon property owned or possessed by
that person.
Meeting Date: September 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 7
Subject: Proposed Ordinance – Dangerous Dogs
(2) It is unlawful for any person who causes or permits any dog to be on any property,
public or private, not owned or possessed by that person, to fail to remove excrement
left by that dog to a proper receptacle located on property owned or possessed by that
person.
(3) The provisions of this section do not apply to the ownership or use of Seeing Eye
dogsservice dogs by blind persons, dogs when used by the city in connection with
police activities, or tracking dogs when used by or with the permission of the city.
(f) General duty of owners. Every owner of a dog must exercise reasonable care and take all
necessary steps and precautions to protect other people, property and animals from injuries
or damage that might result from the dog’s behavior, regardless of whether such behavior is
motivated by playfulness or ferocity.
Sec. 4-85. Animal boarding facility.
The city council shall from time to time designate a place as the city animal boarding facility
where suitable arrangements are made for keeping and maintaining any domesticated animals that
may be seized or taken into custody by any officer of the city pursuant to this article.
Sec. 4-86. Dog impoundment procedures.
Impoundment of dogs. The Animal Control Authority may impound any dogs found in the city
without a tag or found running at large, harbored or kept contrary to any provisions of this
article.
(b) Notice. The Animal Control Authority shall, without delay, notify the owner,
personally or through the United States mail, if the owner is known to the Animal
Control Authority or can be ascertained with reasonable effort.
(c) Redemption of impounded dogs. Any impounded dog shall be kept for five (5) regular
business days by the city. For the purpose of this section, “regular business day” means a
day during which the Animal Control Authority having custody of the dog is open to
the public at least four consecutive hours between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. The owner
may redeem the dog by payment to the city treasurer of the current dog license fee, plus a
penalty of an amount set from time to time by the city by resolution or ordinance, and an
impounding fee according to the following schedule:
(1) When any one person has had a dog picked up and impounded one or more times
during any consecutive 12-month period, the impounding charges shall be as set
from time to time by the city by resolution or ordinance.
Meeting Date: September 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 8
Subject: Proposed Ordinance – Dangerous Dogs
(2) In addition to the charges required under subsection (1) of this section, a sum for
each day, as set from time to time by the city by resolution or ordinance, will be
charged for board for each day or part thereof during the time the dog is impounded.
The boarding fees may be paid on authorization of the city council to its agent,
pursuant to any contract currently in effect providing for the impounding of dogs
within the city and its kennels.
(d) Impounded dogs not reclaimed. If the owner does not reclaim the dog impounded under
this section within five (5) regular business days after impounding, the dog will be disposed
of pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 35.71, subd. 3. The owner will be responsible for the costs of
confiscation, boarding, and destruction.
(e) Records. The Animal Control Authority must maintain the following records of the dogs
in custody and preserve the records for at least six (6) months:
(1) the description of the breed, sex, approximate age, and other distinguishing
traits;
(2) the location at which the animal was seized;
(3) the date of seizure;
(4) the name and address of the person from whom any animal three months of age
or over was received; and
(5) the name and address of the person to whom any animal three months of age or
over was transferred.
Sec. 4-87. Destruction of Dogs in Certain Circumstances.
(a) Certain dogs may be destroyed. Upon notice to the owner and an opportunity for a hearing,
a dog may be seized and destroyed in a proper and humane manner upon a finding of any of
the following:
(1) the dog has destroyed property or habitually trespassed in a damaging manner on
property of persons other than the owner;
(2) the dog is a public nuisance as defined by section 4-84(d); or
(3) if the owner is in violation of quarantine under section 4-2, the dog may be seized
and impounded, and destroyed at the end of the quarantine period.
(b) Request for hearing. Within fourteen (14) days of the notice that the Animal Control
Authority seeks to destroy the dog, the owner of the dog may request a hearing on the
destruction. Failure to do so within fourteen (14) days of the date of the notice will
terminate the owner’s right to a hearing under this section.
Meeting Date: September 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 9
Subject: Proposed Ordinance – Dangerous Dogs
(c) Hearing procedure.
(1) A hearing must be held fourteen (14) days after receipt of the request.
(2) The hearing officer shall be the City Manager or other impartial city employee or
person designated by the City Manager to conduct the hearing. “Impartial” means
that the hearing officer did not have any direct involvement in the original
determination that the dog is a dangerous dog or that the dog should be destroyed.
(3) At the hearing, the parties shall have the opportunity to present evidence in the form
of exhibits and testimony. Each party may question the other party’s witnesses. The
strict rules of evidence do not apply and the records of the Animal Control Authority
officer are admissible without further foundation.
(4) The City Manager or designee shall make a determination whether the dog shall be
destroyed. The decision is final and there is no right to further administrative appeal.
Sec. 4-88. Regulations regarding dangerous dogs.
(a) Determination of dangerous dog by city. An Animal Control Authority officer shall
determine that a dog is a dangerous dog if the officer believes, based upon the officer's
professional judgment that the dog has:
(1) without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public
or private property;
(2) killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner's property; or
(3) been determined to be a potentially dangerous dog, and after the owner has notice
that the dog is potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers
the safety of humans or domestic animals.
(b) Exemption. Dogs may not be declared dangerous if the threat, injury, or damage was
sustained by a person:
(1) who was committing, at the time, a willful trespass or other tort upon the premises
occupied by the owner of the dog;
(2) who was provoking, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog or who can be shown
to have repeatedly, in the past, provoked, tormented, abused, or assaulted the dog; or
(3) who was committing or attempting to commit a crime.
(c) Destruction of dangerous dog. Upon a declaration by an Animal Control Authority officer
that a dog is dangerous pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 347, the dog shall be
impounded immediately if the Authority intends to seek the dog’s destruction pursuant to
this subsection and Minn. Stat. § 347.56.
(1) Circumstances. A dog may be destroyed in a proper and humane manner by the
Animal Control Authority if the dog:
(a) inflicted substantial or great bodily harm on a human on public or private
property without provocation;
(b) inflicted multiple bites on a human on public or private property in the same
attack without provocation;
(c) bit multiple human victims on public or private property in the same attack
without provocation; or
Meeting Date: September 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 10
Subject: Proposed Ordinance – Dangerous Dogs
(d) bit a human on public or private property without provocation in an attack
where more than one dog participated in the attack.
(2) Notice. The Animal Control Authority must provide notice of its intention to
destroy a dangerous dog pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.
(3) Appeal and hearing procedure. The appeal and hearing procedure shall be as set
forth in subsections (f) and (g) of this section.
(d) Notice of dangerous dog. Upon a determination by an Animal Control Authority officer
that a dog is dangerous pursuant to this chapter, the Animal Control Authority shall provide
a notice of this section by delivering or mailing it to the owner of the dog, or by posting a
copy of it at the place where the dog is kept, or by delivering it to a person residing on the
property, and telephoning, if possible. The notice must include:
(1) a description of the dog deemed to be dangerous; the authority for and purpose of
the dangerous dog declaration and seizure, if applicable; the time, place, and
circumstances under which the dog was declared dangerous; and if seized, the
telephone number and contact person where the dog is kept, if seized;
(2) the name of the officer making the determination;
(3) a statement as to whether the dog’s destruction is being sought by the City pursuant
to subsection (c) of this section and Minn. Stat. § 347.56;
(4) a description of the requirements with which the owner must comply under
subsection (e) of this section;
(5) a statement of the criminal penalties for violating requirements pertaining to
dangerous dogs;
(6) a statement that the owner of the dog may request a hearing concerning the
dangerous dog declaration and, if applicable, prior potentially dangerous dog
declarations for the dog, and that failure to do so within fourteen (14) days of the
date of the notice will terminate the owner’s right to a hearing under this subsection;
(7) a statement that if an appeal request is made within fourteen (14) days of the notice,
the owners must immediately comply with the requirements of subsections (e) (3)
and (8) and until such time as the hearing officer issues an opinion;
(8) a statement that if the hearing officer affirms the dangerous dog declaration, the
owner will have fourteen (14) days from receipt of that decision to comply with
subsection (e) and all other requirements of Minnesota Statutes, sections 347.51,
347.515, and 347.52;
(9) a form to request a hearing under this section; and
(10) a statement that all actual costs of the care, keeping, and disposition of the seized dog
are the responsibility of the person claiming an interest in the dog, except to the
extent that a court or hearing officer finds that the seizure or impoundment was not
substantially justified by law.
(e) Dangerous dog requirements. If an Animal Control Authority officer does not order the
destruction of the dog pursuant to subsection (c), within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the
notice that the dog has been declared dangerous, the owner must:
(1) register the dog as a dangerous dog, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 347.51 in the city and
renew the registration annually until the dog is deceased. The owner shall pay the fee
set from time to time by the city by resolution or ordinance;
Meeting Date: September 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 11
Subject: Proposed Ordinance – Dangerous Dogs
(2) license the dog as a dangerous dog and photograph the dog on an annual basis;
(3) keep the dog at all times, while on the owner’s property, in a proper enclosure;
(4) secure surety coverage or liability insurance as required by Minn. Stat. § 347.51,
subd. 2(2), insuring the owner for any personal injuries inflicted by the dangerous
dog;
(5) if the dog is outside the proper enclosure, keep the dog muzzled and restrained by a
substantial leash or chain and under the physical restraint of a responsible person.
The muzzle must be made in a manner that will prevent the dog from biting any
person or animal, but that will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision
or respiration;
(6) have a microchip implanted in the dog for identification and provide the City with
the name of the microchip manufacturer and the serial identification number;
(7) have the dog sterilized at the owner’s expense. If the owner does not have the animal
sterilized within 30 days, the Animal Control Authority shall seize the dog and have
it sterilized at the owner’s expense;
(8) notify the Animal Control Authority in writing of the death of the dog or its transfer
to a new location where the dog will reside within 30 days of the death or transfer
and execute an affidavit under oath setting forth either the circumstances of the dog’s
death and disposition or the complete name, address, and telephone number of the
person to whom the dog has been transferred or the address where the dog has been
relocated;
(9) for a person who transfers ownership of a dangerous dog, notify the new owner that
the Animal Control Authority has identified the dog as dangerous. The current
owner must also notify the Animal Control Authority in writing of the transfer or
ownership and provide the Animal Control Authority with the new owner’s name,
address, and telephone number;
(10) for a person who owns a dangerous dog and who rents property from another where
the dog will reside, disclose to the property owner prior to entering a lease agreement
and at the time of any lease renewal that the person owns a dangerous dog that will
reside at the property;
(11) post a clearly visible warning sign that there is a dangerous dog on the property,
including a warning symbol to inform children; and
(12) affix to the dog’s collar at all times, a standardized, easily identifiable tag identifying
the dog as dangerous and containing the uniform dangerous dog symbol.
(f) Appeal of the dangerous dog designation or destruction of dog. The owner of any dog
declared dangerous has the right to a hearing by an impartial hearing officer. The owner of
the dog may request in writing a hearing on the designation or on the destruction within
fourteen (14) days of the date of the notice. Failure to timely appeal the determination will
terminate the owner’s right to a hearing under subsection (g).
Meeting Date: September 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 12
Subject: Proposed Ordinance – Dangerous Dogs
The owner’s request for a hearing must be submitted on a form to the City Clerk. The form
will be provided by the City Clerk. The form must contain the following information:
the full name, address, daytime and evening telephone numbers of the person
requesting an appeal;
the full name and address of all of the dog’s owners;
the ownership interest of the person requesting the appeal;
the names of any witnesses to be called at the hearing;
a list and copies of all exhibits to be presented at the hearing; and
a summary statement as to why the dog should not be declared dangerous.
(g) Hearing procedure.
(1) Any hearing must be held within fourteen (14) days of the request to determine the
validity of the dangerous dog declaration or destruction of a dangerous dog. The city
shall mail written notice of the hearing to the owner requesting the hearing to the
address provided on the request and to any person who was in the past a victim of
the actions of the dog that is the subject of the hearing.
(2) The hearing officer shall be the City Manager or designee or other impartial city
employee or an impartial person designated by the City Manager to conduct the
hearing. “Impartial” means that the hearing officer did not have any direct
involvement in the original determination that the dog is a dangerous dog or that the
dog should be destroyed.
(3) At the hearing, the parties shall have the opportunity to present evidence in the form
of exhibits and testimony. Each party may question the other party’s witnesses. The
strict rules of evidence do not apply and the records of the Animal Control Authority
officer are admissible without further foundation.
(4) The City Manager or designee shall make written findings of fact and reach a written
conclusion as to whether the dog is a dangerous dog pursuant to subsection (a) of
this section or whether the dog is subject to destruction under subsection (c) and
Minn. Stat. § 347.56 within ten (10) days after the hearing. The decision must be
delivered to the dog’s owner by hand delivery or registered mail as soon as practical
and a copy must be provided to the Animal Control Authority.
(5) The decision of the City Manager or designee is final without any further right of
administrative appeal. An aggrieved party may obtain review thereof by petitioning
the Minnesota Court of Appeals for a Writ of Certiorari not more than thirty (30)
days after service of the City Manager or designee’s written decision.
(6) In the event that the dangerous dog declaration is upheld by the hearing officer,
actual expenses of the hearing up to a maximum of $1,000 will be the responsibility
of the dog’s owner.
(h) Annual review of dangerous dog designation.
Beginning six months after a dog is declared dangerous, the owner may request annually that
the city review the designation by serving upon the city a written request for review that
includes the full name, address and telephone numbers of the requestor, a list of the names
and addresses of all owners of the dog, and a summary of the basis for the claimed change in
the dog’s behavior. The owner must submit the fee as set from time to time by the city by
resolution or ordinance along with the request for review.
Meeting Date: September 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 13
Subject: Proposed Ordinance – Dangerous Dogs
(2) If the Animal Control Authority finds sufficient evidence that the dog’s behavior has
changed, the Authority may rescind the dangerous dog designation.
(i) Violation of dangerous dog requirements.
(1) The Animal Control Authority shall immediately seize any dangerous dog if:
(a) after fourteen (14) days the owner has notice that the dog is dangerous, the
dog is not validly registered pursuant to subsection (e)(1) and Minn. Stat. §
347.51;
(b) after fourteen (14) days after the owner has notice the dog is dangerous, the
owner does not secure the proper liability insurance or surety coverage
pursuant to subsection (e)(4) and Minn. Stat. § 347.51, subd. 2;
(c) the dog is not maintained in a proper enclosure pursuant to subsection (e)(3)
and Minn. Stat. § 347.52;
(d) the dog is outside the proper enclosure and not under physical restraint of a
responsible person pursuant to subsection (e)(5) and Minn. Stat. § 347.52;
or
(e) the dog is not sterilized within thirty (30) days pursuant to subsection (e)(7)
and Minn. Stat. § 347.52(d)
(2) If the owner of the dog is convicted of a crime for which the dog was originally
seized, the court may order that the dog be confiscated and destroyed in a proper and
humane manner and the owner pay the costs incurred in confiscating, confining, and
destroying the dog.
(3) The dangerous dog may be reclaimed by the owner upon payment of impounding
and boarding fees as set from time to time by the city by resolution or ordinance and
presenting proof to the Animal Control Authority that the dangerous dog
requirements will be met. A dangerous dog not reclaimed within seven (7) days may
be disposed of pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 35.71, subd. 3, and the owner is liable for
all costs incurred in confining and disposing of the dog.
(4) If the owner has been convicted for violating dangerous dog requirements and the
owner is charged with a subsequent violation relating to the same dog, the dog must
be seized by the Animal Control Authority. If the owner is convicted for the crime
for which the dog was seized, the court shall order that the dog be destroyed in a
proper and humane manner and the owner pay the costs of confining and destroying
the dog. If the owner is not convicted and the dog is not reclaimed within seven (7)
days after the owner has been notified that the dog may be reclaimed, the dog may be
disposed of pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 35.71, subd. 3.
(j) Ownership restrictions.
(1) Dog ownership prohibited. Except as provided for in subsection (3), no person may
own a dog if the person has:
(a) been convicted of a third or subsequent violation of Minnesota Statutes,
sections 347.51, 347.515, or 347.52;
(b) been convicted of a violation under Minn. Stat. § 609.205(4);
Meeting Date: September 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 14
Subject: Proposed Ordinance – Dangerous Dogs
(c) been convicted of a gross misdemeanor under Minn. Stat. § 609.226, subd.
1;
(d) been convicted of a violation under Minn. Stat. § 609.226, subd. 2; or
(e) had a dog ordered destroyed under Minn. Stat. § 347.56 and been convicted
of one or more violations of Minnesota Statutes, sections 347.51, 347.515,
347.52, or 609.226, subd. 2
(2) Household members. If any member of a household is prohibited from owning a
dog in subsection (1), unless specifically approved with or without restrictions by an
Animal Control Authority, no person in the household is permitted to own a dog.
For purposes of this section, a “household” means any group of persons living
together as one housekeeping unit.
(3) Dog ownership prohibition review. Beginning three (3) years after a conviction
under subsection (1) that prohibits a person from owning a dog, and annually
thereafter, the person may request that the animal control authority review the
prohibition. The Animal Control Authority may consider such facts as the
seriousness of the violation or violations that led to the prohibition, any criminal
convictions, or other facts that the Animal Control Authority deems appropriate.
The Animal Control Authority may rescind the prohibition entirely or rescind it
with limitations. The Animal Control Authority also may establish conditions a
person must meet before the prohibition is rescinded, including, but not limited to,
successfully completing dog training or dog handling courses. If the Animal Control
Authority rescinds a person's prohibition and the person subsequently fails to comply
with any limitations imposed by the Animal Control Authority or the person is
convicted of any animal violation involving unprovoked bites or dog attacks, the
Animal Control Authority may permanently prohibit the person from owning a dog
in this state.
Sec. 4-89. Regulations regarding potentially dangerous dogs.
(a) Determination of potentially dangerous dog by city. An Animal Control Authority officer
shall determine that a dog is a potentially dangerous dog if the officer believes, based upon
the officer's professional judgment that a dog has:
(1) when unprovoked, inflicted bites on a human or domestic animal on public or
private property;
(2) when unprovoked, chased or approached a person, including a person on a bicycle,
upon the streets, sidewalks or any public or private property, other than the dog
owner's property, in an apparent attitude of attack; or
(3) a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or
otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals.
(b) Notice of potentially dangerous dog. Upon a determination by an Animal Control
Authority officer that a dog is potentially dangerous pursuant to this chapter, the Authority
shall provide a notice of this section by delivering or mailing it to the owner of the dog, or by
posting a copy of it at the place where the dog is kept, or by delivering it to a person residing
on the property, and telephoning, if possible. The notice must include:
Meeting Date: September 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 15
Subject: Proposed Ordinance – Dangerous Dogs
(1) a description of the dog deemed to be potentially dangerous; the authority for and
purpose of the potentially dangerous dog declaration; the time, place, and
circumstances under which the dog was declared potentially dangerous;
(2) the identity of officer who has made the determination;
(3) a description of the requirements with which the owner must comply under
subsection (c) of this section;
(4) a notice that if the dog endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals again, it
will be considered a dangerous dog;
(5) the criminal penalties for violation of the requirements pertaining to potentially
dangerous dogs; and
(6) a statement the owner of the dog may request a hearing concerning the potentially
dangerous dog declaration and that failure to do so within fourteen (14) days of the
date of the notice will terminate the owner’s right to a hearing under this subsection.
(c) Potentially dangerous dog requirements. Within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the notice
that the dog has been declared potentially dangerous, the owner must:
(1) have a microchip implanted in the dog for identification, and the name of the
manufacturer and identification number of the microchip must be provided to the
Animal Control Authority within fourteen (14) days of the designation; and
(2) register and license the dog as a potentially dangerous dog and photograph the dog
on an annual basis.
(d) Appeal and Hearing Procedure. The appeal and hearing procedure for a potentially
dangerous dog shall be as set forth in section 4-88(f) and (g) relating to dangerous dogs.
Sec. 4-90. Complaint procedures.
Any person may file a complaint of a dangerous dog or potentially dangerous dog as defined
in this chapter with the Animal Control Authority.
SECTION 2. Effective Date: This ordinance becomes effective on the date of its
publication.
ADOPTED by this Council this ___ day of ________________, 200_.
________________________________
Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Proposed Ordinance – Dangerous Dogs Page 16
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Proposed Ordinance – Dangerous Dogs Page 17
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Proposed Ordinance – Dangerous Dogs Page 18
Meeting Date: September 8, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Direction/Focus Area Update.
Focus Area:
• Evaluating and Investigating North-South Transportation Options.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this discussion will be to provide the City Council information and an update
regarding staff’s evaluation and investigation of improving north-south transportation options as
identified in the Vision St. Louis Park process. More specifically, this update deals primarily with
traffic studies related to Highway 100. Staff is seeking comments and feedback from Council.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Should staff continue evaluating north/south transportation options which could lead to specific
future roadway improvements?
BACKGROUND:
History and Recent Activities
One of the strategic directions adopted as part of Vision St. Louis Park is further strengthening St.
Louis Park as a connected and engaged community. A focus area of that strategic direction is
evaluating and investigating north-south transportation options.
As part of that investigation, several elements of transportation planning have been evaluated further
over the past couple of years. These evaluations have generally focused on increasing mobility in the
north-south direction within the City, largely as a result of the relative lack of through connections.
These efforts have included the following:
1) Further evaluation of local traffic impacts as a result of an improved Highway 100 (full-
build). This effort has also included identifying potential future capital projects in
conjunction with Highway 100 improvements.
2) Consideration of non-motorized transportation options as part of the north-south
evaluation. This includes transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. As part of this effort, a revised
comprehensive sidewalk and trail plan is in the process of moving toward adoption.
3) Implementation and delivery of key capital improvement projects essential to north-south
mobility. This has included the development and design of separated grade interchange
projects on Highway 7 at Wooddale Avenue and at Louisiana Avenue.
Meeting of September 8. 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Vision Update Evaluating and Investigating North-South Transportation Options
Considerable effort over the past year has focused on evaluating the impact of an improved Highway
100 (full build). This has included trying to predict impacts on the local system, and how future
traffic congestion and mobility issues can be further addressed. Highway 100 reconstruction (full
build) updates were provided to the City Council in May and September of 2007.
In addition to Highway 100 itself, north-south mobility in other local corridors and streets are being
evaluated, based on future traffic level forecasts, and how a Highway 100 improvement would
impact those corridors. These other local north-south corridors include among others, Louisiana
Avenue, Dakota and Edgewood Avenues, and the Highway 100 frontage roads. Although the
strategic direction is focused primarily on north-south mobility, the Highway 100 Improvement also
has impacts to east-west connections (Minnetonka Boulevard and Cedar Lake Road for example).
The inter-relation of all of these impacted streets is therefore taken into account as part of the
evaluation.
The Highway 7 capital improvement projects (at Wooddale and Louisiana Ave), and the updated
Sidewalk and Trail Plan are moving forward through their respective processes. Therefore, the
report provided herein focuses primarily on the evaluation work related to Highway 100.
Highway 100 Evaluation
On May 14, 2007, staff presented Council an update on the Highway 100 project and was directed
to implement Phase 1 of a traffic study aimed at understanding what neighborhood traffic patterns
and volumes may result depending on underpass and ramp locations being offered at the time by
Mn/DOT. Staff contracted with Short Elliott Hendrickson (S.E.H.) to perform the Phase 1 work,
which essentially provided base traffic information.
On September 24, 2007, staff provided an update to Council on the Phase 1 work which also
included information on observed changes/shifts with regards to the Highway 100 interim
improvement. Staff also provided Council an opportunity to provide input on pending Phase 2
traffic study tasks. As part of the September 24 Study Session update, S.E.H. provided a
presentation that outlined the following:
1) Transportation Sketch Planning (system possibilities)
2) Future System(s) Evaluation.
As a result, S.E.H. moved forward with a Phase 2 traffic study which focused largely on the impacts
of an underpass and ramps in the area of 26th Street. At the time, Mn/DOT provided the City with
4 underpass/ramp design alternatives for the City to further review and evaluate. However, earlier
this year staff informed Council that, as a cost saving measure, Mn/DOT was now likely to program
and propose a “rescoped” or “scaled back” version of the full-build project. This “scaled back”
version would not include an underpass as had been offered.
At this time, Mn/DOT has not presented any kind of preliminary design or even a sketch of what a
“scaled back” Highway 100 project would look like. However, City staff is of the understanding
that such an improvement would essentially involve replacement of the bridges (Minnetonka
Boulevard, Highway 7, and C.P. Rail), and an improvement/upgrade of the recent “temporary”
Meeting of September 8. 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: Vision Update Evaluating and Investigating North-South Transportation Options
improvements into a more permanent type of construction. The project limits (particularly at the
north end of the project) would shorten significantly. This would result in minimal or no
grade/elevation changes to the Highway 100 mainline, thus providing no opportunity for an
underpass.
As a result of the “scaled-back” approach now proposed by Mn/DOT, staff directed S.E.H. to
further refine the traffic study and system evaluation. This effort better defines and provides a
general understanding of anticipated future traffic levels, potential impacts to the local system, and
what level of benefit (if any) other potential local improvements could have on the system.
The S.E.H. evaluation and report is attached to this report and will be discussed and explained
further at the Study Session on September 8. Very briefly, the S.E.H. report can be summarized as
follows:
1) Without a Highway 100 underpass near the 26th Street area, Minnetonka Boulevard and
Cedar Lake Road are likely to see increased volumes and congestion. However, streets near
the location of the proposed underpass near 26th Street (such as the east and west frontage
roads, 26th Street, 28th Street, etc.) would predictably see more traffic with an underpass.
2) Other potential north-south mobility “improvements” for the City (other than Highway
100) were also included in the evaluation. It should be noted that the improvements noted
below are not specific roadway proposals, but concepts to assist in evaluating traffic
distribution improvement possibilities.
a) A “through” connection between Edgewood and Dakota Avenue at the BN Railroad,
providing a second north-south link between Minnetonka boulevard and Cedar Lake
Road.
b) Extending Park Place Boulevard south across the BN railroad and linking with the
west frontage road of T.H. 100. However, a location for such an extension was not
identified.
c) Extending Ottawa and France Avenues as through streets, and maintaining and
improving Texas and Louisiana Avenues as through streets.
d) Constructing other improvements further south, including Park Center Boulevard
near Excelsior Boulevard, extending Wooddale Avenue to the east side of Highway
100 near Park Center Blvd (a new bridge over TH 100 would be needed), and other
improvements as mentioned in the S.E.H. report.
Essentially, these additional linkages would improve north-south connectivity and traffic
flow while somewhat relieving traffic volumes on some existing north-south and east-west
segments. In general, some segments would see increased traffic while others would see less.
Overall however, the system as a whole would improve as traffic would be better distributed
more evenly over an improved grid system. Specific volume increase and decrease levels for
specific streets can be explained further at the Study Session.
Meeting of September 8. 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Subject: Vision Update Evaluating and Investigating North-South Transportation Options
Next Steps and Schedule
At this time, no further evaluation is proposed unless Council wishes to direct staff to evaluate
specific improvement options further. Staff is also awaiting further specifics and direction from
Mn/DOT with regards to the “scaled back” Highway 100 improvement.
Questions for the Council to possibly consider further are: Should certain north-south improvement
concepts be considered for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan? How does the Council feel with
regards to the possibility of discussing these concepts further with the larger community?
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This entire study to date has exceeded $60,000. Specific funds for this work / project have been
expended.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This traffic study and proposed highway project complement the following areas of the recently
completed Vision process:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus areas:
• Developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails.
• Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding
sources affecting St. Louis Park including but not limited to Hwy. 100 and
SWLRT.
• Evaluating and investigating additional north/south transportation options
for the community.
• Increasing use of new and existing gathering places and ensuring accessibility
throughout the community.
Attachments: S.E.H. Technical Memorandum, St. Louis Park TH 100 Underpass Study –
Forecasting Methodology – Draft dated August 11, 2008.
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 1200 25th Avenue South, P.O. Box 1717, St. Cloud, MN 56302-1717
SEH is an equal opportunity employer | www.sehinc.com | 320.229.4300 | 800.572.0617 | 320.229.4301 fax
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mike Rardin, City of St. Louis Park
FROM: Heather Kienitz
Jerilyn Swenson
DATE: August 11, 2008
RE: St. Louis Park TH 100 Underpass Study - Forecasting Methodology - DRAFT
SEH No. ASTLOU0702.00
OVERVIEW
The initial purpose of this study was to evaluate traffic impacts in the City of St. Louis Park
due to a potential new Trunk Highway (TH) 100 underpass proposed by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT). The new underpass was to be located near the 25th
½ Street and 26th Street area north of Minnetonka Boulevard. In conjunction with studying
the impacts of the underpass, the City also reviewed the impacts of potential future
improvements to the local transportation system.
During the TH 100 Underpass Study, Mn/DOT has reconsidered its plan for TH 100.
Mn/DOT scaled back, or “rescoped” the initially proposed “TH 100 Version 6”, which
included revised access with ramp braiding, new CD roadways and a new underpass. As a
cost saving measure, the Mn/DOT rescope of TH 100 will include base improvements to the
existing infrastructure such as increased lane widths and all existing access will remain.
Under the TH 100 Rescope alternative there is no change in the vertical alignment of TH 100
and also no new underpass in the City of St. Louis Park. Thus the City requested that SEH
also produce forecasts for the potential local improvements with the new TH 100 Rescope
alternative.
The Twin Cities regional model (TCRM) was used to complete this task. The model provided
forecast traffic volumes and helped identify potential traffic trends with and without a new
underpass. Five roadway scenarios were included in the first set of analyses and three
roadway scenarios were included in the second set of analyses. This memorandum will
provide information regarding the forecasting process and the resulting demand trends.
Figure 1 shows the study area and the existing transportation system.
TWIN CITIES REGIONAL MODEL OVERVIEW (TCRM)
Traffic forecasts for the study were prepared largely based on the Twin Cities regional
demand model (TRCM) which has been developed to run in the TP+ modeling system
produced by Citilabs.
The TCRM model uses information such as population, households, and employment data to
generate an estimated number of trips for each Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ). TAZs are
geographic areas that divide the planning region. TAZs typically included similar land uses
and land activities and represent the origin and destinations of travel activity in the model.
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Vision Update Evaluating and Investigating North-South Transportation Options Page 5
St. Louis Park TH 100 Underpass Study - Forecasting Methodology - DRAFT
August 11, 2008
Page 2
Figure 7 provides the TAZ structure and Table 1 provides the model input socioeconomic
data for the City of St. Louis Park.
The TCRM utilizes the four step modeling process which includes trip generation, trip
distribution, mode choice, and trip assignment.
Trip Generation is the determination of the amount of trips estimated within the study area.
It uses static equations to estimate the number of trips based upon the type of socioeconomic
activity (i.e. households, population, employment, etc.) to generate the number of trips
produced by or attracted to each TAZ.
Trip Distribution assigns the productions and attractions generated during the trip
generation step to their proper origin-destination TAZ location. The trips are distributed
based on the amount of travel activity and the travel time between origin and destination
TAZs.
Mode Choice distributes the trips between each origin and destination and separates the trips
into different forms of travel, either single-occupant vehicles, carpools, and transit.
Trip Assignment distributes the trips to the network links while trying to minimize travel
time or trip distance. Trips for each of the 24-hour periods are routed from each origin zone
to a destination zone onto the highway network using an equilibrium traffic assignment
method. Each of the hourly assignments are added together to produce a daily traffic volume
for each roadway segment being modeled.
FORECAST METHODOLOGY
The methodology for the traffic forecasts is based on methods and procedures as described in
the Mn/DOT Metro District guidelines, “Twins City Travel Demand Forecast prepared for
Mn/DOT Metro”. These guidelines cover the following:
• Model Requirements: The current version (August 2006) of the Twins Cities regional
model (TCRM) from the Metropolitan Council is to be used. For this study, the 2030
regional model was used.
• Model and Parameter Adjustments to Model Inputs: Revised on March 24, 2003.
• Model Output Checks for Reasonableness and Post-Processing Adjustments: Revised
on October 21, 2003.
• Documentation of Forecasts: Revised on July 29, 2003.
The most recent version release of the TCRM was used to develop the traffic forecasts for the
modeled roadways within the study area. The specific process used in developing the traffic
forecasts for the four scenarios utilized the following steps:
1. The base model was reviewed, and obvious network discrepancies were identified
and corrected.
2. Relevant network modifications were identified in the base year model and were
made to the 2030 network.
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Vision Update Evaluating and Investigating North-South Transportation Options Page 6
St. Louis Park TH 100 Underpass Study - Forecasting Methodology - DRAFT
August 11, 2008
Page 3
3. Network scenarios were updated with the appropriate changes identified in the
scenario description section.
4. 2030 transit network was reviewed in the regional model and no change was made
since the proposed Southwest Corridor Transitway was already included.
5. The land use and socio-economic data for 2030 was reviewed.
6. Model trips in TAZ 587 were adjusted to account for the Duke Development.
7. 2030 model outputs were adjusted using post-processing guidelines.
8. Traffic forecasts were evaluated for reasonableness.
9. Traffic forecasts were compared for reasonableness with traffic forecasts included in
the TH 7/Wooddatle Avenue/36th Street Traffic Study memorandum dated March 15,
2007 and the Mn/DOT TH 100 CORSIM Modeling Project forecasts dated
September 25, 2006.
The model does account for the proposed Southwest Corridor Transitway, which includes
plans to extend a new light rail transit line through the City of St. Louis Park. The forecast
results shown in Figure 3 through Figure 6 and Figure 13 through Figure 15 include the
transition of some trips to the new light rail transit stations surrounding the City.
SCENARIO DESCRIPTIONS – Mn/DOT TH 100 Version 6
Four forecasts scenarios that include Mn/DOT TH 100 Version 6 were examined using the
TCRM. These scenarios were developed by City of St. Louis Park staff and SEH in
November 2007 to better understand the potential traffic impacts to the City’s future
transportation system with and without the TH 100 underpass relocated from West 23rd Street
to the West 26th Street area. In addition to the underpass, the City identified other potential
improvements to its transportation system to provide better multi-modal connectivity between
neighborhoods and improved links to the future Southwest Corridor Transitway. Some of
these improvements are already planned and others were developed as part of this study. The
following description provides detail regarding the improvements and related scenarios.
Scenario 1: 2030 Minimum Improvements – This scenario is intended as a base scenario to
include only committed projects. This scenario includes Mn/DOT future TH 100 reconstruction.
The TH 100 project maintains the existing entrance ramp to southbound TH 100 near 23rd Street
and does not include a new underpass location in St. Louis Park. Other assumptions for the model
include interchanges at TH 7 and Louisiana and Wooddale Avenues, respectively, as well as the
Duke development (Figure 3).
Scenario 2: 2030 Minimum Improvements with new Underpass location – This scenario is
essentially Scenario 1 with three exceptions. Specifically, the scenario includes Mn/DOT future
TH 100 reconstruction with a new underpass in St. Louis Park in the West 26th Street area, a two-
way frontage roadway west of TH 100 and relocation of the existing southbound TH 100 entrance
ramp from West 23rd Street to the 26th Street area (Mn/DOT Option 2). Other assumptions for the
model include interchanges at TH 7 and Louisiana and Wooddale Avenues, respectively, as well
as the Duke development (Figure 4).
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Vision Update Evaluating and Investigating North-South Transportation Options Page 7
St. Louis Park TH 100 Underpass Study - Forecasting Methodology - DRAFT
August 11, 2008
Page 4
Scenario 2a: 2030 Minimum Improvements with Underpass location and the existing SB
TH 100 entrance ramp – The only difference between Scenario 2 and Scenario 2a is that
Scenario 2a was modeled with the existing southbound TH 100 entrance ramp at West 23rd Street
remaining in place rather than being relocated to the 26th Street area (Figure 4a).
Scenario 3: 2030 Maximum Improvements – This scenario includes Scenario 2 improvements
and several improved existing facilities and new roadway connections as shown in Figure 5 and
detailed below.
• Louisiana Avenue: assumed existing cross section, base intersection level
improvements and potential for trail/bike lanes extending to future Southwest
Corridor station.
• Dakota Avenue/Wooddale Avenue: assumed existing cross section, extension
across railroad to Edgewood Avenue, base intersection level improvements.
• Texas Avenue: assumed existing cross section and base intersection level
improvements.
• Park Center Boulevard: Connection to Excelsior Boulevard through commercial
area near Quentin Avenue/Excelsior Boulevard intersection. This specific
improvement could serve to relieve the Excelsior Boulevard intersection with the
east TH 100 ramp and two-way frontage road by providing an alternate
circulation pattern and potential separation of local circulation from TH 100
traffic.
• Wooddale Avenue/39th Street: Connection between Wooddale Avenue west of
TH 100 and 39th Street east of TH 100 via a new TH 100 overpass. This specific
improvement could serve local circulation west and east of TH 100 and reduce
demand at the Excelsior Boulevard ramp terminal intersections.
• West Lake Street – Louisiana Avenue to Wooddale Avenue: Enhanced frontage
road linking future LRT station/TOD areas.
• Ottawa Avenue: assumed existing cross section, base intersection level
improvements and direct connection to West 26th Street.
• France Avenue: Extension of France Avenue across railroad to connect between
Excelsior Boulevard and County Road 25.
• West 28th Street: improved continuous connection to TH 100 West Frontage
Road/Utica Avenue.
Scenario 4: 2030 Maximum Improvements with Park Place Boulevard Connection – This
scenario includes all Scenario 3 improvements and a new connection between Park Place
Boulevard and the new underpass location in the West 26th Street area (Figure 6).
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Vision Update Evaluating and Investigating North-South Transportation Options Page 8
St. Louis Park TH 100 Underpass Study - Forecasting Methodology - DRAFT
August 11, 2008
Page 5
FORECAST RESULTS – Mn/DOT TH 100 Version 6
In general forecast volumes for the City increased only slightly due the maturity of development
of St. Louis Park. The background growth rate was determined to be somewhere in the range of
0.5% to 1.0% per year. In the area of the new underpass the growth rate was significantly higher
due the traffic demand attributed to the underpass by the TCRM.
Figure 3 through Figure 6 provide the forecast results for each of the four modeled scenarios for
the entire City of St. Louis Park. It is important to note, the demand east and west of the 26th
Street underpass is represented by arrows on the attached Figure 3 through Figure 6. The
assumption can be made that this demand would disperse on parallel routes with preference given
to those routes with improved capacity and continuity.
To assist in comparison of the forecast results, schematic graphics were also created. These
graphics are simple diagrams of TH 100 ramp exits and entrances and the frontage road/local
street interaction with TH 100 under the Mn/DOT reconstruction project. These schematic figures
are Figures 8 through 12 and also provide detailed forecasts for the area adjacent to TH 100
between Cedar Lake Road and Minnetonka Boulevard.
Scenario 2
The Scenario 2 (Minimum Improvements with new Underpass location) model results show that
the underpass relocated to the West 26th Street area provides relief of the east-west demand on
Minnetonka Boulevard and Cedar Lake Road. A comparison of Figures 3 and 4 shows that
demand volume on Minnetonka Boulevard and Cedar Lake Road decreases as a result of the new
underpass.
Scenario 2a
The Scenario 2a (2030 Minimum Improvements with new Underpass location and the existing
SB TH 100 entrance ramp) model results are best explained by comparison of Figures 9 and 10
which represent Scenario 2 and Scenario 2a, respectively. Figures 9 and 10 show that maintaining
the existing West 23rd Street southbound TH 100 entrance ramp results in decreased volume on
the frontage road west of TH 100. Traffic destined to southbound TH 100 exits the frontage
system at the West 23rd Street ramp north of West Side Drive/Stephens Drive.
The demand at the new underpass location decreases by 1,500 vehicles with the ramp located at
the existing West 23rd Street location as compared to the West 26th Street area location. A similar
decrease is also experienced on the east/west local streets in the neighborhoods adjacent to TH
100. The demand on the ramps in Scenario 2 and Scenario 2a is similar (6,900 in Scenario 2 and
7,000 in Scenario 2a).
Scenario 3
Scenario 3 (2030 Maximum Improvements) includes the connection between Dakota Avenue and
Edgewood Avenue. The connection provides an alternate link between demand from the zones
north and south of Cedar Lake Road (commercial to/from residential trips). This decreases
demand significantly on Louisiana Avenue and Cedar Lake Road in the immediate area and also
decreases demand along the Louisiana Avenue corridor. Also the new France Avenue connection
between Excelsior Boulevard and TH 7 in Scenario 3 draws demand from TH 7 and increases
demand on France Avenue north of Minnetonka Boulevard slightly. The demand to continue
northward on France Avenue north of Minnetonka Boulevard toward the Penn Avenue/I-394
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Vision Update Evaluating and Investigating North-South Transportation Options Page 9
St. Louis Park TH 100 Underpass Study - Forecasting Methodology - DRAFT
August 11, 2008
Page 6
interchange is not significant compared to the demand to continue eastward into Minneapolis via
the Minnetonka Boulevard/TH 7 common section.
Scenario 4
Scenario 4 (2030 Maximum Improvements with Park Place Boulevard Connection) includes the
connection between Park Place Boulevard and the new West 26th Street area underpass. This
connection increases the demand on the West 26th Street area underpass due to movements
between the northbound TH 100 exit and southbound TH 100 entrance and the commercial
development in the southwest quadrant of the I-394/TH 100 interchange. Demand from this area
that had used the west and east frontage roads under Scenarios 2 and 3 has shifted to the
connection. The connection also decreased demand on the Dakota Avenue extension. The Park
Place Boulevard connection provides another option for travel across the City and over the
railroad tracks.
SCENARIO DESCRIPTIONS – Mn/DOT TH 100 Rescope
Three forecasts scenarios that include the TH 100 Rescope project were examined using the
TCRM. These scenarios are similar to three of those outlined above with respect to
improvements to the local transportation system; however, they were modified to reflect the
new plan for TH 100 under the Rescope effort. The scenarios closely mirror Scenario 1,
Scenario 3 and Scenario 4. The scenarios have been renamed as follows to reflect the TH 100
Rescope effort while maintaining the connection to the previous work completed: Scenario
1R, Scenario 3R and Scenario 4R.
The potential improvements to the St. Louis Park transportation system shown in these three
scenarios provide better multi-modal connectivity between neighborhoods and improved
links to the future Southwest Corridor Transitway. Some of these improvements are already
planned and others were developed as part of this study. The following description provides
detail regarding the improvements and related scenarios.
Scenario 1R: 2030 Minimum Improvements – This scenario is intended as a base scenario to
include only committed projects. Assumptions for the model include interchanges at TH 7 and
Louisiana and Wooddale Avenues, respectively, as well as the Duke development (Figure 13).
Scenario 3R: 2030 Maximum Improvements – This scenario includes Scenario 1R
improvements and several improved existing facilities and new roadway connections as shown in
Figure 14 and detailed below.
• Louisiana Avenue: assumed existing cross section, base intersection level
improvements and potential for trail/bike lanes extending to future Southwest
Corridor station.
• Dakota Avenue/Wooddale Avenue: assumed existing cross section, extension
across railroad to Edgewood Avenue, base intersection level improvements.
• Texas Avenue: assumed existing cross section and base intersection level
improvements.
• Park Center Boulevard: Connection to Excelsior Boulevard through commercial
area near Quentin Avenue/Excelsior Boulevard intersection. This specific
improvement could serve to relieve the Excelsior Boulevard intersection with the
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Vision Update Evaluating and Investigating North-South Transportation Options Page 10
St. Louis Park TH 100 Underpass Study - Forecasting Methodology - DRAFT
August 11, 2008
Page 7
east TH 100 ramp and two-way frontage road by providing an alternate
circulation pattern and potential separation of local circulation from TH 100
traffic.
• Wooddale Avenue/39th Street: Connection between Wooddale Avenue west of
TH 100 and 39th Street east of TH 100 via a new TH 100 overpass. This specific
improvement could serve local circulation west and east of TH 100 and reduce
demand at the Excelsior Boulevard ramp terminal intersections.
• West Lake Street – Louisiana Avenue to Wooddale Avenue: Enhanced frontage
road linking future LRT station/TOD areas.
• Ottawa Avenue: assumed existing cross section, base intersection level
improvements and direct connection to West 26th Street.
• France Avenue: Extension of France Avenue across railroad to connect between
Excelsior Boulevard and County Road 25.
• West 28th Street: improved continuous connection to TH 100 West Frontage
Road/Utica Avenue.
Scenario 4R: 2030 Maximum Improvements with Park Place Boulevard Connection – This
scenario includes all Scenario 3R improvements and a new connection between Park Place
Boulevard and the West 27th Street SB TH 100 entrance ramp (Figure 15).
FORECAST RESULTS – Mn/DOT TH 100 Rescope
Figures 13 through 15 provide the forecast results for the entire City of St. Louis Park under each
of the three modeled scenarios that include the Mn/DOT TH 100 Rescope plan. It is important to
note, the east and west neighborhood traffic demand is represented by arrows on these figures.
The assumption can be made that this demand would disperse on parallel routes with preference
given to those routes with improved capacity and continuity.
To assist in comparison of the forecast results, schematic graphics were also created. These
graphics are simple diagrams of TH 100 ramp exits and entrances and the frontage road/local
street interaction with TH 100 under the Mn/DOT TH 100 Rescope plan. These schematic figures
are Figures 16 through 18 and also provide detailed forecasts for the area adjacent to TH 100
between Cedar Lake Road and Minnetonka Boulevard.
Scenario 3R
Scenario 3R (2030 Maximum Improvements) which is represented by Figure 14, includes a
connection across the railroad between Dakota Avenue and Edgewood Avenue as well as an
improved continuous connection between Louisiana Avenue and the TH 100 West Frontage
Road/Utica Avenue along West 28th Street. A comparison of Figure 13, which represents the
Minimum Improvements and Figure 14, shows a significant decrease on Minnetonka Boulevard
west of TH 100 and on Louisiana Avenue south of Cedar Lake Road due to these new roadway
connections. The connections provide alternate local links for TH 100 demand and for demand
between the zones north and south of the railroad (commercial to/from residential trips).
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Vision Update Evaluating and Investigating North-South Transportation Options Page 11
St. Louis Park TH 100 Underpass Study - Forecasting Methodology - DRAFT
August 11, 2008
Page 8
The France Avenue connection between Excelsior Boulevard and TH 7 in Scenario 3R draws
demand from Beltline Boulevard/Monterey Drive and TH 7 and slightly increases demand on
France Avenue north of Minnetonka Boulevard.
Scenario 4R
Scenario 4R (2030 Maximum Improvements with Park Place Boulevard Connection) which is
represented by Figure 15, includes a north-south connection between Park Place Boulevard and
West 28th Street. The forecast ADT for this connection is 8,600. A comparison of Figure 14 and
Figure 15 model results show that due to the demand on the new connection there is a slight
decrease in Louisiana Avenue traffic in the study area. Also, Minnetonka Boulevard west of TH
100 also exhibits a decrease in traffic. The Park Place Boulevard connection also increases the
demand on the West Frontage Road/Utica Avenue south of the Park Place Boulevard intersection
significantly as shown in a comparison of Figures 17 and 18 (5,400 and 11,900 respectively).
This connection provides a desirable alternate to the circulation that currently occurs on the
Frontage Roads in the area.
Comparison of Mn/DOT TH 100 Version 6 and Mn/DOT TH 100 Rescope
Without a TH 100 underpass near the 26th Street area, Cedar Lake Road and Minnetonka
Boulevard show an increase in traffic. On the contrary, the east and west frontage roadways, West
28th Street and 26th Street east of TH 100 all experienced lower traffic volumes without the 26th
Street area underpass. The Mn/DOT Version 6 underpass provided relief to the existing TH 100
underpasses and Minnetonka Boulevard; however, it did increase traffic along local east-west
roadways that had a direct connection to the 26th Street underpass.
In addition, the maintaining of the three entrance ramps to southbound TH 100 under the TH 100
Rescope effort spreads this ramp demand out, decreasing the forecast volumes along the frontage
roads and along the potential Park Place Boulevard connection.
s:\pt\s\stlou\070200\memo\august update\th100 underpass forecast memorandum 081108.doc
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Vision Update Evaluating and Investigating North-South Transportation Options Page 12
St. Louis Park TH 100 Underpass Study - Forecasting Methodology - DRAFT
August 11, 2008
Page 1
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
Figures 1 – 18
Table 1
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Vision Update Evaluating and Investigating North-South Transportation Options Page 13
2005 2030 Annual Growth 2005 2030 Annual Growth 2005 2030 Annual Growth 2005 2030 Annual Growth
523 5,011 5,144 0.09% 1,995 2,053 0.10% 251 255 0.05% 1,383 1,395 0.03%
565 1,759 1,717 -0.08%851 867 0.06% 109 112 0.09% 210 540 3.20%
572 2,017 2,055 0.06% 789 822 0.14% 155 160 0.11% 303 317 0.15%
573 1,657 1,805 0.29% 802 863 0.24% 1,246 1,315 0.18% 812 744 -0.29%
574 1,725 1,716 -0.02%823 844 0.08% 103 168 1.64% 541 1,002 2.08%
575 474 530 0.37% 202 230 0.43% 1,538 1,570 0.07% 351 320 -0.31%
576 4,169 4,420 0.20% 1,836 1,920 0.15% 42 45 0.23% 496 605 0.66%
577 2,562 2,995 0.52% 1,206 1,360 0.40% 23 25 0.28% 131 335 3.18%
578 2,685 2,955 0.32% 1,104 1,230 0.36% 57 60 0.17% 1,957 1,955 0.00%
579 1,054 1,045 -0.03%552 580 0.17% 96 100 0.14% 368 470 0.82%
580 392 400 0.07% 169 180 0.21% 544 605 0.35% 3,124 6,687 2.57%
581 1,118 1,230 0.32% 512 535 0.15% 404 430 0.21% 1,115 1,680 1.38%
582 1,270 2,730 2.58% 599 1,300 2.62% 717 760 0.19% 5,959 6,270 0.17%
583 1,901 2,830 1.34% 1,195 1,450 0.65% 340 360 0.19% 1,319 1,300 -0.05%
584 1,278 1,505 0.55% 888 940 0.19% 38 40 0.17% 652 650 -0.01%
585 3,573 3,600 0.03% 1,524 1,600 0.16% 53 55 0.12% 640 795 0.73%
586 1,155 1,272 0.32% 630 700 0.35% 107 110 0.09% 175 240 1.06%
587 0 0 --0 0 -- 221 240 0.28% 6,324 7,760 0.68%
588 762 1,330 1.87% 528 950 1.98% 380 395 0.13% 4,899 4,885 -0.01%
589 2,745 2,940 0.23% 1,276 1,350 0.19% 233 245 0.17% 1,716 1,705 -0.02%
590 4,626 4,945 0.22% 2,070 2,149 0.12% 223 240 0.25% 236 660 3.49%
591 2,386 2,760 0.49% 1,001 1,150 0.46% 58 60 0.11% 1,096 1,100 0.01%
592 2,703 2,835 0.16% 1,306 1,350 0.11% 78 80 0.08% 436 435 -0.01%
593 2,743 2,780 0.04% 1,109 1,160 0.15% 332 345 0.13% 1,963 2,270 0.49%
614 5,680 5,599 -0.05%3,000 3,015 0.02% 266 287 0.25% 2,685 2,866 0.22%
657 3,025 3,718 0.69% 1,527 1,755 0.46% 288 430 1.35% 5,897 7,365 0.74%
Total 58,470 64,856 0.35% 27,494 30,353 0.33% 7,902 8,492 0.24% 44,788 54,351 0.65%
Table 1
Population Non-Retail EmploymentHouseholdRetail Empolyment
3. 2005 and 2030 Data for TAZ 523, 565, 572, 573, 574, 586, 593, 614, and 657 does include portions outside St. Louis Park city limits
2. Only portions of TAZ 523, 565, 572, 573, 574, 586, 593, 614, and 657 are within St. Louis Park.
4. Grey highlighted if negative growth
Socio-Economic Data by TAZ from Twin Cities Regional Model
City of St. Louis Park, MN
TAZ Number
Note:
1. TAZ 575, 576, 577, 578, 579, 580, 581, 582, 583, 584, 585, 587, 588, 589, 590, 591, and 592 are entirely within St. Louis Park.
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Vision Update Evaluating and Investigating North-South Transportation Options Page 14
Meeting Date: September 8, 2008
Agenda Item #: 5
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Highway 7 Corporate Center Project – Request for Additional TIF Assistance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Paul Hyde wishes to discuss Real Estate Recycling’s (RER) request for up to $280,000 in additional
tax increment to finance greater than anticipated environmental and redevelopment costs associated
with the Highway 7 Corporate Center project. Mr. Hyde will be in attendance Monday evening to
provide a project update and answer questions related to his firm’s funding request.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA wish to consider Real Estate Recycling’s request for up to $280,000 in additional tax
increment related to the Highway 7 Corporate Center project?
BACKGROUND:
On May 15, 2006 the EDA approved a Redevelopment Contract with RER. Pursuant to that
agreement RER agreed to demolish the blighted buildings on the former National Lead/Golden
Auto property at 7003 Lake Street, cleanup the site according to the MPCA- approved Response
Action Plan and construct a 79,000 square foot office/showroom called the Highway 7 Corporate
Center. In return the EDA agreed to provide RER a total of $2,460,000 in pay-as-you-go tax
increment over approximately 20 years. Of this amount, $2.1 million was to be applied toward
environmental costs (specifically building demolition, soil remediation, relocation of municipal
utilities and site capping) and $360,000 was to be applied toward business relocation and
reestablishment costs.
As agreed, RER completed the Highway 7 Corporate Center project last year. The new building is
currently 70% leased and occupied by the following tenants: Ciprico, Synergy Products,
QuadGraphics, and Benco Dental Supply.
Recently, RER submitted documentation to the EDA detailing its expenditures related to the
cleanup and redevelopment of the former Superfund site. The project’s overall budget was
approximately $19.5 million and, upon completion, the project’s actual expenses totaled
approximately $21.1 million due largely to the project’s complexity. Thus the Redeveloper incurred
a total budget overrun of approximately $1.6 million. Of this amount, approximately $1.3 million
was attributable to building construction costs which RER has covered. The remaining $280,000 in
expenditures was attributable to greater than anticipated environmental cleanup, legal fees and
business relocation costs. It is this amount for which RER is seeking relief and which is examined
below.
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: Highway 7 Corporate Center Project – Request for Additional TIF Assistance
Total demolition, environmental investigation/cleanup, and site cap costs for the project totaled
$5,343,401; this was about $72,000 more than budgeted.
Legal costs associated with the four property acquisitions, the redevelopment contract and its
amendments, and creation of the TIF district, was nearly $46,000 more than anticipated.
Total relocation and reestablishment costs associated with five former businesses on the site could
come to $423,000; this is nearly $163,000 or about 63% more than budgeted. Much of these costs
were attributable to moving LBF Photo Studio and All Hours Towing (the City’s towing
contractor). The relocation claim for All Hours in particular has proven more than anticipated and
could end up costing more depending on final settlement. This is the reason RER is requesting “up
to” $280,000 in additional tax increment as the final costs have yet to be settled. If All Hours’ claim
proves less costly, RER’s request could be reduced accordingly.
The Redeveloper understands it took some risk in undertaking the Highway 7 Corporate Center
project and that it was responsible for cost overruns. However costs such as business relocation and
reestablishment are often difficult to estimate precisely and were, in fact, out of the Redeveloper’s
control as the final costs were ultimately determined by application of relocation regulations. The
EDA’s legal counsel has indicated the EDA has no legal obligation to provide the Redeveloper with
additional compensation beyond what it has committed in the Contract.
The additional $280,000 would bring Real Estate Recycling’s total financial assistance for the
subject project to $2,740,000. Staff requested Ehlers & Associates to prepare updated TIF runs for
the Highway 7 TIF District taking into account current property values, tax rates, fiscal disparity
rate and TIF received by the City to date. Ehlers estimated that the District will generate
approximately $2,575,000 in present value TIF over 26 years (the entire term of the district) with
1% inflation. This is $165,000 less then what RER is requesting in additional assistance. With an
inflation rate of 2% however, the District generates the entire amount of requested assistance.
If the EDA were to agree to increase RER’s TIF Note to $2,740,000, it would require that: (1) the
District remain open for the entire 26 year term; and (2) the EDA would not guarantee that RER
would be repaid the full $2,740,000. RER would be paid in full only to the extent that adequate tax
increment is generated. That would require inflation on value greater than 1% and the City’s tax
rate and fiscal disparities rate do not decrease or increase respectively over the duration of the
District. The Redeveloper would also remain subject to the look-back provision within the Contract
allowing the EDA to review the entire amount of assistance provided. The look-back applies if RER
transfers the property to another entity within the next four years.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Real Estate Recycling has requested an additional $280,000 in tax increment to finance greater than
anticipated environmental and redevelopment costs associated with the Highway 7 Corporate
Center project.
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Subject: Highway 7 Corporate Center Project – Request for Additional TIF Assistance
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Commitment to the Highway 7 Corporate Center project is consistent with St. Louis Park’s vision
for protecting the environment and creating the jobs and tax base necessary to support our diverse
population as well as fund infrastructure like trails, sidewalks, and other transportation.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Meeting Date: September 8, 2008
Agenda Item #: 6
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Japs-Olson Printing Expansion.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this discussion item is to update the Council on Japs-Olson’s expansion plans and
possible City actions needed to make that expansion possible.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Staff is requesting Council feedback on how best to support Japs-Olson’s plans to expand.
BACKGROUND:
Japs-Olson is one of our largest employers with 750 employees. There existing 512,000 square foot
building is at the western border of the City at 7500 Excelsior Blvd. It sits on approximately 20 acres
of land. Jap’s Olson would like to expand their operations by adding a 150-160,000 square foot
addition on the west side of their building. The addition would be built on their existing parking lot.
To accommodate the proposed expansion, they would need to replace the lost parking spaces and
provide space to serve the building addition. There is no room on Japs-Olson’s existing property to
build new parking. Jap’s Olson has secured the Kunz Oil Company property on the west side of
Powell Road, across the street from Japs-Olson existing plant for a new parking lot. However most
of the 9+ acre Kunz property is in Hopkins, not St. Louis Park which means Japs-Olson will need
Hopkins approval as well as ours to proceed with its expansion.
Hopkins’s long range plans for the properties directly west of St. Louis Park along Excelsior Blvd are
for corporate offices. They would like to see the Kunz property (7900 Excelsior Blvd) as well as the
next property west of the Kunz site (8098 Excelsior Blvd), redeveloped primarily as offices. The
zoning for these parcels reflects the long range plan and does not currently allow stand alone surface
parking lots. Because Japs-Olson is such an important employer in our area, employing people that
live in both cities, Hopkins has expressed willingness to pursue some way to accommodate Jap’s-
Olson’s parking needs.
Hopkins has asked if St. Louis Park would be willing to share the real estate taxes generated from the
Japs-Olson expansion in recognition of Hopkins’s willingness to accommodate Japs-Olson’s parking
needs in their community. The building expansion would be completely in St. Louis Park and
would generate the bulk of the new real estate taxes. The new parking itself would generate very
little taxes and would reduce the opportunity for new development in Hopkins. The new parking
would mean most likely, that the Kunz property would not fully develop in a manner consistent
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: Japs-Olson Printing Expansion
with Hopkins’s plans. The type of development envisioned by the Hopkins plan would generate
more substantial tax base then either the parking lot or the Japs-Olson expansion.
Discussions between Japs-Olson and Hopkins are on going as are conversations between Hopkins
and St. Louis Park. If the basic approach is acceptable to all parties, it will take some time to work
out the details. Tax sharing between St. Louis Park and Hopkins would require a Joint Powers
Agreement between the communities or some other contractual arrangement with Japs-Olson and
Hopkins. An idea under consideration is a split of the municipal property taxes, 1/3 St. Louis Park
and 2/3 Hopkins, based roughly on how much of the building expansion and parking is located in
each city. It is the Kunz property that would enable Japs-Olson to expand.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The current estimated market value of the Japs-Olson property is about $16 million. The proposed
addition likely would be worth about $8.0 million. During the study session on Monday night,
staff will provide a calculation on what this would mean in terms of new tax capacity and related
property taxes for the city.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Maintaining and expanding our jobs and tax base supports our vision by providing employment
opportunities for a diverse community and funding support for transportation, sidewalks & trails,
our commitment to the environment and other activities.
Attachments: Aerial of Japs-Olson Site
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Subject: Japs-Olson Printing Expansion
Aerial Photo of Japs-Olson Printing Site
(3964 Powell Rd & 7500 Excelsior Blvd)
Note: orange line denotes the municipal boundary.
Meeting Date: September 8, 2008
Agenda Item #: 7
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Communications (Verbal).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Not Applicable.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
At every Study Session, verbal communications will take place between staff and Council for the
purpose of information sharing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None.
Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: September 8, 2008
Agenda Item #: 8
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Planning Commission Mid-Year Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action necessary.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The Planning Commission is the primary entity responsible for reviewing, holding hearings and
making recommendations on site plans, development projects, zoning amendments, and updates to
the Comprehensive Plan.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission met 11 times in the first half of 2008. Hearings were held on the
following topics:
4 Conditional Use Permits
3 Planned Unit Developments
3 Zoning Text Amendments
2 Plats
2 Variances
1 Rezoning
Several study sessions were held to discuss the Comprehensive Plan, upcoming development items,
and proposed zoning amendments.
New developments/redevelopments recommended for approval include Isabelle Estates, the West
End, Kamberg Condominiums, and Walgreens store.
Zoning text amendments considered included language related to temporary uses, architectural
design standards, pawnshops, advertising signage at athletic fields, educational and religious
institutions, currency exchanges, pay day loan agencies, firearms sales, and height limits.
The Commission held a joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission to
discuss the Comprehensive Plan for Parks and Open Space. The Commission also met with the
City Council on March 24th.
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission Mid-Year Update
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
A significant portion of Community Development resources are dedicated to development projects,
studies and plans that are reviewed and processed by the Planning Commission. Fees for planning
applications help fund this work.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The work of the Planning Commission is vital to most of the City’s Vision elements. Through the
updating of the Comprehensive Plan, the Commission is incorporating each vision element into the
topic areas and policies it relates to; the city’s long range plans/Comprehensive Plan will be in
concert with Vision.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: September , 2008
Agenda Item #: 9
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Board of Zoning Appeals Mid-Year Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) is to review and act on requests for variances
to the zoning ordinance and to hear appeals to staff interpretations and decisions based on the
zoning ordinance.
Through July 31, 2008, the BOZA heard the following variances:
Rear yard setback variance for existing garage.
Location: 4000 Cedarwood Road
Applicant: Tieszen, John & Lesa
Action taken: Variance was approved.
Rear yard setback variance for an attached garage.
Location: 3700 Glenhurst Avenue South
Applicant: Bischel, Paul/Blocher, Diane
Action taken: Variance was denied.
Variances to expand a non-conformity and to the side yard abutting the street for the
expansion of a parking lot.
Location: 5810-14 Excelsior Blvd.
Applicant: 5812 Excelsior Blvd. LLC
Action taken: Variance was approved.
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals Mid-Year Update
One variance to the rear yard and three variances to the side yard abutting the street.
Location: 5700 39th Street W.
Applicant: DeGonda, Mark & Sandy
Action taken: Two variances were approved to allow a living space and a two car
garage addition.
Two variances were denied to allow the proposed two car garage to be
expanded to a three car garage.
Variances to interior side yard and side yard abutting the street.
Location: 5101 28th Street W.
Applicant: Minder, Tracey
Action taken: Variances were approved.
Through July 31, 2008, no appeals were made to the BOZA:
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date:
Agenda Item #: 10
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is required at this time. MnDOT staff will provide additional information and a
presentation to City Council during a presentation on September 15, 2008. This report is intended
to prepare the Council for that presentation
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
At a future regular meeting in October, the City Council may be asked to accept the study and its
recommendations.
BACKGROUND:
The I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study was a multi-agency collaboration that evaluated transit,
land use, infrastructure and telecommuting in the I-394 corridor. A foundation for this work was
the understanding that high-cost capacity expansions were not likely to occur in the corridor for 25
to 30 years, despite forecasts of increasing congestion that may threaten efficiency gains achieved
with conversion of the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane
operation.
Transportation authorities will use the recommendations identified in this study to guide
investments in corridor facilities and services. Communities adjacent to the corridor may use the
transit supportive land use recommendations. While specific funding for implementation of these
recommendations was not identified prior to the planning process, several compelling transit, land
use and telecommuting recommendations are currently being advanced for programming.
City staff attended Technical Advisory Group meetings for the planning study in 2007-2008.
MnDOT used these meetings to update the group on the study progress, initial findings, and initial
recommendations and were allowed to ask questions and comment during the process.
The study recommendations for the corridor include:
Capital improvements to the HOT lanes provide two lanes in the peak direction and one lane in
the opposite direction (reversible, based on peak direction)
Capital and operational improvements to improve transit service in the corridor
Transit supportive land use concepts
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Subject: I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study
For the purpose of this introductory report, a few transit recommendations specific to St. Louis Park
are highlighted below and in the attachments:
Providing a limited stop commuter bus route Wayzata Boulevard and using a “feeder” bus
system to bring riders to the new main route
Giving buses signal preemption as they travel along Wayzata Boulevard
Building an underpass, for transit use only, under Park Place Boulevard to connect Wayzata
Boulevard through this area (eliminates the existing park and ride).
Heated Bus Shelters
City staff provided written comments to MnDOT in August regarding the study recommendations
(see attached).
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to be a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: Staff Comments to MnDOT
[Current] Travel Times For Local Transit Service in the I-394 Corridor
(Routes 9, 675)
Recommended South Frontage Limited Stop Service with Feeder Bus Routes
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 10) Page 3
Subject: I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study
City Staff Comments to MnDOT
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study. The
City of St. Louis Park staff reviewed the document and we have the following comments.
1. Please review the attached recommendations from a recent CORSIM study prepared at the
request of MN DOT as part of the AUAR process for the West End Redevelopment
project. SRF Consulting Group prepared the recommendations for both studies, and should
have coordinated the recommendations to some degree. We ask that MN DOT review and
confirm that recommendations from both studies are consistent and complementary.
2. The transit recommendations include signal preemption by Metro Transit buses along
Wayzata Boulevard. Many of the intersections along the I-394 corridor, and extending
north and south from I-394, are controlled by MN DOT in order to coordinate and
optimize the timing of the signals. It is not clear if MN DOT is communicating this
information internally. Has the study adequately accounted for the effect of this
recommendation may have on traffic and optimization efforts? Of note, City of St. Louis
Park is in process of approving a cooperative agreement with MN DOT that provides for
City construction, and MN DOT long-term maintenance and operation of the signals on
Park Place Boulevard south of 1-394.
3. The transit improvements plan recommends a new transit-only underpass of Park Place
Boulevard north of Wayzata Boulevard. This plan seems to be an important element to the
plan, but also relatively expensive. There are several questions and comments regarding this
recommendation.
a. The expense of tunneling under Park Place Boulevard may be better justified if it
served all traffic, instead of transit-only.
b. The proposed underpass impacts parking and access to existing sites. These
properties were significantly impacted by the construction of I-394. The loss of
parking may be offset if all traffic can use the underpass and direct access to the new
frontage road is provided/maintained.
c. Maintaining access to in this quadrant of the City to/from I-394 via Park Place
Boulevard throughout construction of an underpass/tunnel would be essential.
d. The proposed roadway would essentially eliminate the existing park and ride on the
northeast corner of Park Place Boulevard and Wayzata Boulevard. This site is
relatively small, but it is used by Golden Valley and St. Louis Park residents. A
suitable replacement or alternative should be identified, perhaps coordinated with the
bus circulator system recommended to accompany the new bus route.
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 10) Page 4
Subject: I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study
e. Has there been any review of the door-to-door service improvements (time) for riders
of this corridor? The transit improvements proposed will benefit riders from further
out in the system, but may not improve travel times when considering the transfers
and time on the circulator buses for riders from/to important employment
destinations along the corridor, especially in Golden Valley.
4. The land use recommendations in the report offer creative ideas for future development in
the corridor. City of St. Louis Park does not necessarily support all the recommendations.
Many of the proposed redevelopment projects may not be feasible until significant
improvements to transit service and ridership are realized due to potential impacts on the
road systems. However, we appreciate the opportunity to refer to these ideas during the
City’s comprehensive and neighborhood planning processes.
5. The City of St. Louis Park has placed this item on the City Council’s September 8, 2008
Study Session agenda. This will be a good opportunity to receive City Officials’ questions
and comments regarding the study.
6. It is unlikely the City of St. Louis Park City Council would “endorse” the study. It is more
likely it would “accept” the study and provide formal comments.
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 10)
Subject: I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study Page 5
Meeting of September 8, 2008 (Item No. 10)
Subject: I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study Page 6