Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022/04/11 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study Session AGENDA APRIL 11, 2022 The St. Louis Park City Council is meeting in person to convene the local board of appeal and equalization (LBAE) at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd . Members of the public can attend in person or watch on local cable (Comcast SD channel 17 and HD channel 859) or via webstream at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil. Visit bit.ly/slpccagendas to view the agenda and reports. 6:15 p.m. CONVENE 2022 ST. LOUIS PARK LOCAL BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION council chambers STUDY SESSION (written reports only) 1. Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project 2. Bridgewalk Housing Improvement Area (HIA) update 3. Application for AHTF assistance – Rise on 7 Development The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of city hall and on the text display on civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available after noon on Friday on the city’s website. If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952.924 .2525. Meeting: Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting date: April 11, 2022 Executive summary Title: 2022 St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Recommended action: Convene the meeting, following agenda is suggested. 1.Convene the St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization 2.Roll call of board members – declaration of quorum 3.Motion to appoint chair 4.Acknowledgement of trained members (Kraft & Rog) 5.Accept roster of appellants and call for any additional appellants 6.If necessary – motion to set date and time for continued proceedings (Recon vene) a.Suggested as April 25, 2022 prior to study session 7.Instruct Assessor to: a.Inform appellants of reconvene date & board process via telephone and mail b.Inform appellants of the county board requested application date (May 18) c.Re -inspect and re -appraise parcels under appeal 8.Completion of the local board certification form 9.Motion to recess Policy consideration: Local Boards and/or Open Book Meetings are required by law. The Board must complete its business within 20 days (April 11 is day on e, April 30 is therefore the deadline). Summary: Minnesota statute requires that all properties are valued at full market value. All property owners, tenants and those having an interest in real property are entitled to appeal their classification and market value. The property classification is determined by the actual use of the property. The market value is an opinion based on records maintained for every property and the market conditions as of the date of assessment (January 2). Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable for budgeting from the perspective of the taxing jurisdictions. Changes made by the Board may affect the property owner’s share of the total property tax budgets as levied for the Payable 2023 tax period. Strategic Priority Consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Summary of duties and responsibilities Sample letter – to be sent to each appellant by April 13 Board of Appeal and Equalization Training (state.mn.us) Prepared by: Cory Bultema, city assessor Reviewed by: Melanie Schmitt, finance director Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager Local Board of Appeal and Equalization of April 11, 2022 Page 2 Title: 2022 St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization SUMMARY OF DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Most of the responsibilities listed under the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization are statutory, primarily found in Minnesota Statutes 274.01. Additional reference is provided by the MN Department of Revenue Board Training Manual (updated 12-2021 – dire ct link on page 1). •The valuation notices shall be in writing and sent by ordinary mail at least ten calendar days before the meeting. The valuation notice will include the date, place and time set for the meetings of the Local Board of Appeal & Equalization as well as the County Board of Appeal & Equalization. •The city clerk shall give published notice and posted notice of the meeting. The meetings must be held between April 1 and May 31 including reconvene meetings. Additionally, the board must comp lete its work and adjourn within 20 calendar days – convene date is day one. In terms of practical compliance, the Local Board should not run later than early May in order for the County Board to effectively operate within its statutory time window (June). •The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization is an official public meeting similar to a city council public hearing and cannot convene without a quorum. The city assessor, the county assessor, or one of their assistants are required to attend. •At least one member present at each meeting of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization must be certified as having completed the Minnesota Department of Revenue (MN DOR) Board of Appeal and Equalization training. Training is good for four board years as listed on the MN DOR record. •The board should run the meeting as a fair and impartial review of the appeals. The property owner is the appellant and assessing staff are the respondent. The board may ask questions to clarify facts and background. It is suggested all appeals are heard before the Board begins deliberations on each. •Local Boards of Appeal and Equalization must see that all taxable property is properly valued and classified for the current assessment year only. The board does not have the authority to reopen prior assessments on which taxes are due and payable (taxes may not be appealed). The board may add a property to the assessment roll if it has been omitted. •Individual board members cannot participate in actions or discussions of appeals involving their own property, property of relatives, or property in which they have a financial interest. •The Local Board may not increase or decrease all assessments in a district of a given class of property. Changes by class may be made by the County Board of Equalization. •The Local Board may not make a market value or classification change that would benefit the property in cases where the owner or other person having control over the property will not permit the assessor to inspect the property and the interior of any buildings or structures. •Although the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization has the authority to increase or decrease individual assessments, the total of such adjustment must not reduce the aggregate assessment by more than one percent. If the total reductions would exceed one percent, none of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization of April 11, 2022 Page 3 Title: 2022 St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization adjustments may be made. The assessor shall correct any clerical errors or double assessments discovered by the board without regard to the one percent limitation. •If an assessment was made after the local board meeting or if a taxpayer can establish not having received the notice of market value at least five days before the meeting, they can appeal to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization. •The board may find instances of undervalued properties. The board must notify the owner of the property that the value is going to be raised. The property owner must have the opportunity to appear before the board if they so wish. •The local boards do not have the authority to address exemption issues. Only the county assessor (and the tax court) has the authority to exempt property. They also have no jurisdiction over special programs for which an application process is required (Veterans Exclusion, Market Value Homestead Exclusion, Blind/Disabled, Low Income Rental Classification, Green Acres, etc.). •A taxpayer may appear in person, by council, or written communication to present his or her objection to the board. The focus of the appeal should center on the factors influencing the estimated market value or classification placed on the property. •All changes will be entered into the record as required by the MN Department of Revenue. •Before adjourning, the local board should prepare an official list of the changes. The law requires that the changes be listed on a separate form. All assessments that have been increased or decreased should be shown on the form along with their market values. •Administrative Rules from the Department of Revenue (2013): The Assessor may not make administrative changes to the valuation or classification less than 10 days prior to the Board. All contemplated changes should be brought to the Board for review and approval. •Directive from the Department of Revenue (2015): Assessing staff from Hennepin County will attend Local Board meetings. The purpose of attendance is to assure legal compliance. •Directive from the Department of Revenue (2017): The Board is required to hear appeals from date of the published meeting through adjournment. Note: It had been the practice of the St. Louis Park Board to close the roster at the completion of the initial convene meeting date as formally published – the directive effectively eliminates roster closure until adjourned. To comply, it is recommended that the Board decide last moment appeals on a case-by-case basis as best possible. Action may include resolving the appeal or simply accepting the appeal with no change to preserve the owner’s right to be eligible for the County Board. •Following each board meeting, a letter is sent to the owner of each property in appeal. The sample letter following the initial convene meeting is attached. •At the convene meeting on April 11, the Board will be given two outlines to assist in conducting an efficient and productive meeting. One will be the Agenda as the Board process is quite specific in format. The other will be the Board appellant roster which is updated at 4:30 pm. that day. Local Board of Appeal and Equalization of April 11, 2022 Page 4 Title: 2022 St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization SAMPLE LETTER TO ALL BOARD ROSTER PROPERTIES Address line 1 April 13, 2022 Address line 2 Address line 3 Re : St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal & Equalization Subject Address (generally three lines) Property ID #: xx -xxx-xx -xx-xxxx De ar : We are reaching out about your 2022 property valuation appeal. The Board met on April 11 and entered the property referenced above onto the appeal roster. You are receiving both a telephone call and this written communication to inform you that the a meeting for the Board to review your appeal has been scheduled for x:xx pm on April 25, 2022. The meeting will be at city hall in the Council Chambers. Should the meeting format need to shift to remote due to pandemic protocol change, we will inform you as soon as possible and also send you the log-in directions when they are available. Appeals will be reviewed at this meeting. The following are important for you to know: •The Board encourages assessing staff and owners to discuss the valuation questions and attempt to resolve them ahead of time to mutual agreement. This is an important part of the Local Board process. If an agree ment is made it will be reported to the Board. While it is common that that the Board ratifies the mutual agreement, the Board is the final decision maker on the issue. This method of resolution is often preferred by property owners as it is not necessary to prepare presentation materials or to provide testimony before the board. •For the cases that are not resolved, the following format and process are outlined to assist you in the next steps on how the Local Board functions. There are a number of important details; please reach out to me with any questions during the process. o I f your property is income producing (i.e. rental), please submit a building floorplan showing gross and net rentable square footages, rent roll as of the assessment date, complete copy of the executed lease(s), annual income & expense statement for the prior year and the budget forecasted for the current year. This information will be reviewed for valuation via the Income Approach. The information submitted will be held confidential and not released to the public. Failure to provide the information will result in my formal request to the Board to sustain the value due to the refusal to provide information that is highly relevant. o The Board has directed that they will review written information regarding your opinion of the market value before the meeting. We strongly recommend factual transactions (sales, rents, construction costs) that relate directly to your property. The initial assessed market values for all property types are set using market information in the time period just before the assessment date (January 2, 2022). This is very important in setting the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization of April 11, 2022 Page 5 Title: 2022 St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization assessment as the value influences are equalized relative to the market at that point in time. The potential value influences arising from the Covid -19 pandemic have been viewed from the perspective of the market in setting the 2022 assessment. o Assessing staff likewise prepares written information on each open appeal and submits it to the Board prior to the meeting. You will be notified ahead of time if this review results in a recommendation to increase the value. If you would like your materials to be included in the Board packet, please provide it to me by e-mail attachment by 12:00 Noon on Tuesday April 19 to allow time for addition to the Board packet. •The Board has directed that they will hear testimony during the meeting. When mutual agreement cannot be reached ahead of time , the Board hears the case. You, as the appellant, are allowed 5-10 minutes to present written and verbal information on the market value. The assessing staff, as the respondent, are allowed 3-5 minutes to review their information and value conclusion. The Board hears the information and decides the market value and/or classification as of January 2, 2022. •The Board has full authority to sustain, increase, or decrease individual assessments. •The Board does not have authority to reopen prior assessments. The Board does not have authority to change current and past real estate taxes. •If the Assessing staff has not already inspected your property within the last year, they must complete an interior and exterior inspection to form the basis of a revaluation. Important: Refusing access precludes the Board from taking action that would benefit the owner (MN statute 274.01). •You will be notified via letter of the Board action. If you do not agree with the Local Board decision, you are eligible to attend the Hennepin County Board of Appeal & Equalization which convenes in June. An application to appear before the County Board is requested by May 18, 2022. If you have any further questions on the Local Board process, do not hesitate to contact me directly. Cory Bultema, City Assessor Assessing Office | City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Direct: 952-924-2536 | Fax: 952-924-2170 www.stlouispark.org Experience LIFE in the Park 4 Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 11, 2022 Written report: 1 Executive summary Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Recommended action: No action at this time . If the council would like to discuss this topic, it can be a part of the Connected Infrastructure study session system. It is anticipated that this system of study sessions will be in June/July. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to consider permanent installation of bollards on buffered bike lanes? Summary: The Dakota Avenue bike way project was approved by council in late 2019 and included buffered bike lanes between Lake Street and Minnetonka Boulevard. Council asked staff to explore creating additional delineation between vehicle s and bicyclist s on the buffered bike lane segment from Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard. A seasonal pilot project was implemented using flexible delineator posts (referred to as bollards) in the bike lane buffer. The pilot project was intended to be installed on a trial basis to gather feedback and data related to this type of bikeway. The buffered bike lane pavement markings were installed in the fall of 2020. The bollards were installed in the spring of 2021 and removed in the fall of 2021. The city engaged the consultant firm of SEH to gather data for the pilot project, engage stakeholders and understand how it functions. Stakeholders include bicyclists, pedestrians, adjacent property owners, the traveling public and city operations and maintenance. The discussion section of this report includes a summary of the findings of the pilot project and the stakeholder feedback. In addition, the report provides information on staff time necessary to perform maintenance and discusses the methods needed to maintain this type of bicycle facility. Financial or budget considerations: The discussion section provides information related to installation and maintenance costs during the pilot project. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Dakota Avenue South bike demonstration project report Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, e ngineering project manager Jeff Stevens, public works operations manager Reviewed by: Deb Heiser, engineering director Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Discussion Background: The buffered bike lane pavement markings were installed in September 2020. The bollards were installed in mid -April 2021 (Figure s 1 and 2) after the snow had melted and spring street sweeping was completed. The bollards were removed from the corridor on Oct. 12, 2021, prior to winter weather. Vehicle and bike data was collected numerous times: •Fall 2020: before the buffered bike lane pavement markings were installed •Spring 2021: prior to bollard installation •Three times during the summer of 2021, while the bollards were installed In addition, public feedback was gathered throughout the pilot project through an online survey, conversations with the residents and businesses, and pop-up events. Approximately 500 individuals participated in various outreach activities and provided input about the demonstration project. Intent of pilot project: The intent of the pilot project was t o understand how increasing the level of delineation of on-road separation between bicyclists and vehicles would be received by corridor users. This was done through collecting data on bicyclists and vehicles and asking for stakeholder feedback. In addition, staff monitored maintenance activities to develop methods and costs to maintain the facility . Findings of pilot project: The full pilot project report is attached. What follows is an overview of the findings: Bike volumes Seasonal factors such as weather conditions and the school calendar can have a large effect on the number of cyclists using this corridor. The usage during the study ranged from 30 to 173 cyclists in a 16-hour count (daylight segment of the day). This compared to a range of 18 to 134 cyclists in a 16-hour count prior to the bike lane installation. While there were higher volumes of bicyclists after the bollards were installed, it is not clear if this was the F igure 1 – Freestanding bollard with on-street parking F igure 2 – Bollards with “curb” connectors with on-street parking City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project result of seasonal factors or the bollards. These large swings in volumes indicated longer duration counts should be considered to provide additional data. Before bike lanes were installed, approximately 55% of the bicyclists used the sidewalk and 45% of bicyclists used the road. The installation of bike lanes resulted in a 25% reduction of bicycles on the sidewalk. The addition of the bollards did not further decrease bicyclists using the sidewalk. Users of the buffered bike lane During the pilot project, an online survey was made available to the public to better understand the demographics of the individuals using Dakota Avenue . • Users o 86% are frequent users of the roadway (driving, biking, walking, etc.) o 12% live on Dakota Avenue o 12% are students, staff, or parents at SLP High School or Central Community Center o 5% are students, staff, or parents at Peter Hobart Elementary School • 94% are homeowners • 8% BIPOC - neighborhood demographics within 1/2 mile of Dakota Avenue show 18% BIPOC • 50% male and 50% female bicyclist s • Age breakdown o 60% 18-55 years of age o 40% over 55 Community feedback During the pilot project, there were in -person conversations with businesse s and residents, two informal pop-up events and an online survey. These gave community members an ability to provide feedback and helped staff to understand how these changes meet the needs of the community. The benefits expressed by the community’s feedback were: • Perceived decrease in vehicle speeds • Perceived increase in motorist awareness of bicyclists and pedestrians • Improved comfort for bicyclists The concerns expressed by the community’s feedback were: • Roadway feels too narrow • The bollards are not aesthetically pleasing • If left up year-round, maintenance during winter would be difficult • Bike lanes (of any kind) meant loss in on -street parking Vehicle s peeds Vehicle speeds on Dakota Avenue decreased an average of approximately 1 MPH with the installation of buffered bike lane pavement markings. Vehicle speeds decreased another 1-3 MPH with the installation of the bollards. This created an overall speed reduction of approxim ately 2-4 MPH with the buffered bike lanes and bollards. City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Page 4 Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project The speed limit of Dakota Avenue between Lake Street and Minnetonka Boulevard was reduced from 30 mph to 25 mph in late November of 2021 (after the study was complete) as part of the city’s speed limit revisions and was not a factor in this pilot project. Vehicle volumes This pilot project was completed during the pandemic. Comparing the number of vehicles on this segment of Dakota Avenue to prev ious years was difficult to do based on the large swings in vehicle volumes across our community in 2020 and 2021. The public engagement feedback did not indicate that drivers avoided this segment of Dakota Avenue because of the bike lanes or bollards. Accidents There were no reported accidents that were attributed to the bike lanes or the bollards during the study duration of April to November of 2021 w hile the bollards were in place. Parking utilization The approval of the buffered bike lanes in 2019 reduced the on-street parking along Dakota Avenue between Lake Street and Minnetonka Boulevard by 95 stalls, from 175 stalls to 80 stalls . The data collected during the pilot project included parking counts and utilization rates. Parking was allowed from 31st Street to just south of Minnetonka Boulevard in designated locations. Generally , parking occupancy was below 50% for most of the corridor. Only the area near the High School and near the businesses at Minnetonka Boulevard had parking utilization rates that exceeded 75% during after-school events and during peak business hours. However, the study never saw parking rates on the corridor that approached 100%. Bollard maintenance It was anticipated that there would be damaged bollards that would need replacing during the pilot project. Three bollards needed to be replaced during the approximately seven months that the bollards were installed (April – October 2021). Typically, these bollards were near intersections and were impacted by turning vehicles. This indicated that the bollards needed to be set back further from the intersection. In one location, the bollards and curb connections were carefully removed and set in the boulevard. The assumption was that the bollards were also too close to the intersection and would cause issues for turning vehicles. Operations staff reinstalled the bollards further away from the in tersection and no additional impacts were observed. There were several bollards that showed indications of being hit or run over but would spring back up as designed and did not have to be replaced. The only time bollards were replaced was if they leaned into the travel lane of the bikes or vehicles. Replacement took about an hour for the city’s operations staff to complete . Operations and maintenance: As part of past projects, the city has installed various bikeway types, including share the road, bike lanes, buffered bike lanes and cycle tracks. This is the first City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Page 5 Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project installation that included bollards in th e bike lane buffer. Bollards create a new set of installation and maintenance considerations for the operations staff . The cost of initial installation, time and materials needed to address the replacement of damaged bollards, staff time and equipment for street sweeping, and snow removal are all factors that were evaluated. Installation costs The bollards were installed as part of the bikeway construction contract. The cost to procure the bollards, install them in the spring and remove them in the fall is approximately $18,000 per bike lane mile. It took a dedicated crew approximately two full days to install the bollards. Removal took about a day. Bollard maintenance As previously mentioned, a few bollards were knocked down by turning vehicles. Bollards are attached to the pavement using large lag screws. Operations staff were able to reinstall the bollards further away from the intersection to prevent this from occurring again. Bollards that were no longer usable were replaced with spare bollards that were purchased as part of the initial project. Overall, there was a lot less damage and replacement than expected as part of this pilot project. These bollards were only in place during warm weather months and did not have to incur impacts due to snow plowing. Municipalities that have bollards installed year-round experience approximately 1/3 of the bollards needing to be replaced every year due to damage. It is expected that over time bollards will start to show wear and tear that will require replacement. This study was not in place long enough to collect data on a typical lifespan of a bollard. Street sweeping This retrofit project of Dakota Avenue result ed in a bike lane that is 5 feet wide and a 2-foot-wide buffer area adjacent to the travel lane . The bollards were placed in the center of the buffer area, providing a 6-foot-wide space from the bollards to the face of the curb where parking is prohibited (Figure 3). This 6-foot-wide area is too narrow to fit the city’s current street-sweeping equipment. A crew of six staff was needed to complete the sweeping of this segment of roadway. Staff used backpack leaf blowers to blow debris Figure 3 – 6 f oot distance from bollard to curb City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Page 6 Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project from the curb and bike lane area into the street so it could be collected with the street sweeper. In addition, it required crew members to flag traffic since all debris pick up occurs in the travel lane. Operations staff was able to quantify the costs associated with this method of street sweeping. They compared the effort needed to maintain a similar distance of Dakota Avenue north of Minnetonka to this pilot project section south of Minnetonka. This allowed them to calculate the effort required for each segment. Th ere was an increase in four additional staff members and a cost that was approximately $600 per roadway mile per sweeping, which is 4.7 times more to maintain than a roadway without bollards. In the fall, leaf pick -up increased the level of effort for operations staff due to the volume of material. It require d a total of eight staff to remove the debris from the bike lane. This resulted in an increase of five staff members and a cost that was approximately $3,000 per roadway mile per pick -up, which is 24.5 times more to maintain than a roadway without bollards. A smaller street sweeper could be purchased to remove debris from the bike lane but would still require the use of staff using backpack blowers to clean the spaces near the bollards. This equipment would not be effective at picking up the large volume of leaves in the fall and would require the more labor-intensive method described above. Snow removal The pilot project did not run over the winter; therefore , staff was unable to compile actual labor and cost data for snow removal. Operations brought a snowplow to do a dry run to determine how this operation would be conducted with the configuration of the bollards. Using the knowledge from the summer sweeping, dry run with the plow, and operation’s experience with snow removal, they developed the following approach to remov e snow from the travel lane and bike lane with bollard s. • A plow truck would plow the drive lane and deposit the snow on the lane side of the bollards . o The plow truck and wing plow are wider than the travel lane and would be required to ride over the center of the road to not impact the bollards. This would impede oncoming traffic at most locations along the road. o The truck would have to travel at a slow rate to not damage the bollards from the weight of the snow coming off the plow. o The bollards would limit how far the snow can be pushed off the drive lanes. This would cause the drive lanes to become narrower than normal until the next step. • A trackless sidewalk machine would then be used to begin to remove the snow to the curb. Due to the width of the trackless sidewalk machine (50 inches), it would take multiple passes to remove the snow. o The first few passes would focus on removing the snow from the lane side of the bollards pushing snow into the bike lane and adjacent sidewalk. These passes would be in the drive lane, hindering traffic and may require an operations vehicle to travel behind to alert drivers of the snow removal operation. o The next few passes would focus on removing the snow between the bollards and the curb in a serpentine pattern to prevent the creation of a berm of snow. City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Page 7 Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project o The final pass would then clear the snow from the sidewalk as it does today. This approach would be required for any snowfall event above 1-inch . Larger snow events would require additional passes with the trackless sidewalk machine due to the large quantity of snow coming from the snowplow removing snow in the travel lane. It is estimated that this snow removal approach would cost approximately $1,500 per roadway mile per snow event, which is 36 times more to maintain than a roadway without bollards. Summary: This is the first bollard -protected bikeway pilot project that the city has completed. The ability to test out the bollards for seven months on a half -mile stretch of roadway produced significant amount of data to help staff to understand the viability of bollards to delineate lo ng stretches of bike lanes. A summary of the findings are : • The narrowing of the travel lanes with the bollards resulted in a speed reduction of 2-4 miles per hour for motor vehicles. • Bicyclists felt more comfortable using the road to cycle on with the installation of the bike lanes and the bollards. • Use of the roadway for biking instead of the sidewalk increased with the installation of bike lanes. The addition of the bollards did not further decrease bicyclists using the sidewalk . • Consideration of bollard placement near intersections needs additional evaluation prior to installation to ensure clearance for turn vehicles. • Operations staff efforts to maintain a street and bike lane with bollards that is free of debris, leaf litter and snow are exponentially higher than a street and bike lane without bollards . • The bollards required some ongoing tending to ensure knockdowns and bent posts were addressed in a timely manner to minimize impacts to the bike lane and travel lane. • Drivers gave feedback that the bollards make the road feel too narrow and they felt less comfortable driving after the bollards were installed . • Feedback that the bollards don’t fit the aesthetics of the street, especially after being damaged. • In general, parking occupancy was below 50% for most of the corridor. Parking at the high school and near Minnetonka Boulevard saw rates over 75%. The information gathered from this pilot project will be beneficial in evaluating future Connect the Park bikeway designs for the community. The complete report is attached for reference. Recommendation: After analysis of the data and community feedback, staff do not recommend installation of bollards on the buffered bike lanes in our current bicycle network. If the council would like to discuss this further, along with the necessary resources to implement and maintain a bollard system, staff could bring this report to a study session as part of the Connected Infrastructure study session system. `` Demonstration Project Summary Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility cSTLOU 155637 St. Louis Park, Minnesota | March 11, 2022 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 8 Engineers | Architects | Planners | Scientists Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, St. Paul, MN 55110-3507 651.490.2000 | 800.325.2055 | 888.908.8166 fax | sehinc.com SEH is 100% employee-owned | Affirmative Action–Equal Opportunity Employer March 11, 2022 RE: Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility Demonstration Project Summary St. Louis Park, Minnesota SEH No. STLOU 155637 4.00 Jack Sullivan, PE City of St. Louis Park Senior Engineering Project Manager City of St Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Dear Mr. Sullivan: The report summarizing the study for the demonstration project of the Dakota Avenue Bikeway is enclosed. Sincerely, Heather Kienitz, PE Project Manager (Lic. MN) ah document3 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 9 Demonstration Project Summary Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility St. Louis Park, Minnesota SEH No. STLOU 155637 March 11, 2022 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Heather Kienitz, PE Date: November 17, 2021 License No.: 42804 Reviewed By: Erin Jordan, PE Date: November 16, 2021 Reviewed By: Chelsea Moore-Ritchie, AICP Date: March 11, 2021 Revised Date: March 11, 2022 Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. 3535 Vadnais Center Drive St. Paul, MN 55110-3507 651.490.2000 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 10 Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 ES-1 Executive Summary The City of St. Louis Park constructed improvements to Dakota Avenue S in 2020 including the implementation of an on-street bicycle facility between Lake Street and 26th Street in alignment with the City’s Connect the Park Plan. Dakota Avenue S was restriped to add buffered bike lanes on both sides of the road from Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard and shared-use bikeway north to 26th Street. This also included modifications to on-street parking and curb extensions. The project extends between two schools within the city, between St. Louis Park High School on the southern end to Peter Hobart Primary Center on the north end. Figure 1 shows the project location. Figure 1 – Project Location In the Spring of 2021, a demonstration project was implemented that included the addition of flexible delineators or bollards to the buffer space between the auto lane and bicycle lane for the segment south of Minnetonka Boulevard. Data collection occurred before the installation and while the demonstration project was in place to understand the impacts on travel along the corridor. This data included feedback from public engagement activities and traffic data for people driving, biking and walking. The traffic data were collected at different intervals for City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 11 Executive Summary (continued) Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 ES-2 comparison of results at different stages of the project implementation – no bike lanes, the addition of the buffered bike lanes and the addition of bollards. This study focuses on multimodal traffic data and does not address operations and maintenance costs associated with this implementation. The city is tracking this data independently. Bicyclist Behavior Figure 2 shows the percentage of bicyclists using the bike lanes 1 versus sidewalks on Dakota Avenue S at 33rd Street near the High School. Figure 2 – Dakota Avenue S at 33rd St., Bike Lane Usage The data collected show that despite seasonal impacts that can affect bicycling such as weather and school being in session, there was not a significant impact to the overall number of bicyclists using Dakota Avenue S due to the addition of buffered bike lanes and bollards to the roadway. However, the data collected do show that the percentage of bicyclists who chose to use the roadway rather than the sidewalk did increase with the addition of the buffered bike lane. Based on the data collected, the addition of the protective bollards to the buffered bike lane does not appear to have impacted the percentage of bicyclists who used the bike lane or auto lane verses the sidewalk. 1 "Bike lane usage includes bicyclists using either the buffered bike lane or the roadway" City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 12 Executive Summary (continued) Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 ES-3 Flexible bollards were added to the buffer space between the auto lane and bike lane in April 2021 as part of the demonstration project. Auto Speeds Figure 3 shows the changes in average and 85th percentile vehicle speeds on Dakota Avenue S north of 32nd Street as the bike lane treatments were added to the facility. Before and during this study, Dakota Avenue had a speed limit of 30 miles per hour (MPH). After this study, in November 2021, the speed limit was reduced to 25 MPH. Figure 3 – Vehicle Speeds on Dakota Avenue S north of 32nd St City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 13 Executive Summary (continued) Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 ES-4 The addition of buffered bike lanes reduced vehicle speeds by 1 MPH and the addition of bollards further reduced speeds by an additional 1-3 MPH, resulting in a 2-4 MPH decrease in vehicle speeds overall. Parking occupancy data collected showed that overall parking was not occupied more than 50% during any study period and no location was 100% occupied. Generally, parking occupancy was below 50% for most parking bays and time periods. Peaks occurred in the bays near Parkway Pizza and the High School during an event. Public Feedback Public feedback plays a critical role in designing facilities and infrastructure that meet the needs of community members. Public feedback received through the online survey and conversations with residents showed varied support for the protected bicycle lanes with bollards. Approximately the same percentage of corridor users were in support for the project (35%) as were opposed to the project (34%). Another 15% mentioned they were interested to see how the demonstration project worked. Perceived benefits of the demonstration project included perceived reductions in vehicle speeds, increased driver awareness for pedestrians and bicyclists, and improved comfort for bicyclists. The majority of people who biked on Dakota Avenue before and after the bollards were installed reported an increase in user comfort (61%). City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 14 Executive Summary (continued) Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 ES-5 The top concerns highlighted included the narrow feel of the road, the bollards not being aesthetically pleasing, winter maintenance difficulties and parking removal. About 58% of survey participants responded feeling less comfortable driving after the bollards were installed. Survey respondents were asked to provide demographic information to understand if the demographics of respondents were similar to the general population of the nearby community. Survey responses highlighted an underrepresentation in responses by Black, Asian, Native American/Indigenous/First Nation, Hispanic, or multiracial respondents (8%) compared to the same demographics of neighborhood residents (18%). Demographic data also showed differences in gender identity for those who biked during the demonstration project verses the general survey population. Bicyclists were more likely to identify as male (50.8) and non-binary/cisgender (5.6%) than the general survey population. City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 15 SEH is a registered trademark of Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 i Contents Letter of Transmittal Certification Page Executive Summary Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................ 1 2 Bicycle Facilities ......................................................... 2 3 Data collection ............................................................ 5 3.1 16-Hour Pedestrian and Bicyclist Volumes ............................................. 5 3.2 Bicyclist Data .......................................................................................... 6 3.3 Pedestrian Data ...................................................................................... 9 3.4 Motor Vehicle Data ............................................................................... 11 4 Public Engagement .................................................. 17 4.1 What we heard from the community ..................................................... 18 5 Summary .................................................................. 21 List of Tables Table 1 – Data Collection Schedule ........................................................................... 5 Table 2 – Vehicle Speeds, Dakota Avenue S north of 32nd St .................................. 14 Table 3 – Vehicle Speeds, Dakota Avenue S south of 29th St ................................. 14 Table 4 – Table 4 – Overall Parking Occupancy ...................................................... 15 Executive Summary Figures Figure 1 – Project Location ........................................................................................ 1 Figure 2 – Dakota Avenue S at 33rd St, Bike Lane Usage .......................................... 2 Figure 3 – Vehicle Speeds on Dakota Avenue S north of 32nd St .............................. 3 List of Figures in Report Figure 1-1 – Project Location ..................................................................................... 1 Figure 1-2 – Dakota Avenue S Cross Section – South Segment Before Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................. 2 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 16 Contents (continued) Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 ii Figure 2-1 – Dakota Avenue S Buffered Bike Lanes and Parking Bays ..................... 3 Figure 2-2 – Shared-use Bikeway on Dakota Avenue north of Minnetonka Blvd ....... 3 Figure 2-3 – Dakota Avenue at Minnetonka Blvd, Green Bike Lane Conflict Markings4 Figure 2-4 – Dakota Avenue S Bike Lanes with Bollards ........................................... 4 Figure 2-5 – Dakota Avenue S Cross Section with Bike Lanes and Bollards ............. 5 Figure 3-1 – Bike Counts: Dakota Avenue S at 33rd St .............................................. 7 Figure 3-2 – Bike Lane Usage: Dakota Avenue S at 33rd St ...................................... 7 Figure 3-3 – Bike Counts: Dakota Avenue S south of 29th St ..................................... 8 Figure 3-4 – Bike Facility Usage: Dakota Avenue S south of 29th St .......................... 9 Figure 3-5 – Pedestrian Counts: Dakota Avenue S at 33rd St .................................. 10 Figure 3-6 – Pedestrian Counts: Dakota Avenue S south of 29th St ......................... 10 Figure 3-7 – ADT of Dakota Avenue S north of 32nd St ............................................ 12 Figure 3-8 – ADT of Dakota Avenue S south of 29th St ............................................ 13 List of Appendices Appendix A Peak hour vehicle turning movement counts and daily pedestrian and bicycle movements Appendix B Public Engagement Survey Results Appendix C Traffic Speed Data and Turning Movement Count City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 17 STLOU 155637 Page 1 Date Collection Report Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility Prepared for City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota 1 Introduction The City of St. Louis Park constructed improvements to Dakota Avenue S in 2020 including the implementation of an on-street bicycle facility between Lake Street and 26th Street in alignment with the City’s Connect the Park Plan. Dakota Avenue S was restriped to add buffered bike lanes on both sides of the road from Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard and shared-use bikeway north to 26th Street. The project extends from Lake Street near St. Louis Park High School to 26th Street near Peter Hobart Primary Center. Figure 1-1 shows the project location. Figure 1-1 – Project Location City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 18 Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 Page 2 In the Spring of 2021, a demonstration project was implemented that included the addition of flexible delineators or bollards to the buffer space between the auto lane and bicycle lane for the segment south of Minnetonka Boulevard. Data collection occurred before the installation and while the demonstration project was in place to understand the impacts on travel along the corridor. This data included feedback from public engagement activities and traffic data for people driving, biking and walking. The traffic data were collected at different intervals for comparison of results at different stages of the project implementation – no bike lanes, the addition of the buffered bike lanes and the addition of bollards. This study focuses on multimodal traffic data and does not address operations and maintenance costs associated with this implementation. The city is tracking this data independently. Dakota Avenue S is a two-lane undivided roadway. Before and during this study the roadway had a posted speed limit of 30 MPH. After the study, in November 2021, the speed limit was reduced to 25 MPH. Dakota Avenue S is classified as a Major Collector from Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard and is classified as a Minor Collector north of Minnetonka Boulevard. According to data collected by MnDOT in 2017, Dakota Avenue S from Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard had an Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) of 5,600 vehicles per day (vpd). North of Minnetonka Boulevard, Dakota Avenue S had a 2017 AADT of 1,800 vpd. Figure 1-2 shows the typical cross section for the southern end of Dakota Avenue S before buffered bike lanes were added in the fall of 2020. Figure 1-2 – Dakota Avenue S Cross Section – South Segment Before Bicycle Facilities There were previously no existing bicycle facilities on Dakota Avenue S before the 2020 improvement project. Bicyclists who wanted to bike in the roadway would have to use the vehicle lanes or the shoulder in areas where there were no vehicles parked. There are sidewalks on both sides of Dakota Avenue S. 2 Bicycle Facilities In October 2020, Dakota Avenue S was restriped to add buffered bike lanes on both sides of the road from Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard. The roadway restriping reduced available parking to seven different parking bays. Figure 2-1 shows the striped bike lanes and one of the parking bays on Dakota Avenue S. City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 19 Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 Page 3 Figure 2-1 – Dakota Avenue S Buffered Bike Lanes and Parking Bays Dedicated bike lanes were not striped north of Minnetonka Boulevard, but rather shared-use pavement marking symbols (‘sharrows’) and shared-use signs were added to this segment of the road. Figure 2-2 shows the ‘sharrow’ and signs on Dakota Avenue S north of Minnetonka Boulevard. Figure 2-2 – Shared-use Bikeway on Dakota Avenue north of Minnetonka Blvd At the intersection of Dakota Avenue S and Minnetonka Boulevard, pavement markings were updated to indicate conflict for motorists and bicyclists, guiding bicyclists through the intersection. Minnetonka Boulevard already had existing bike lanes, but did not previously include the green conflict markings east-west across the intersection. Figure 2-3 shows the conflict markings added for all directions through the intersection of Dakota Avenue S at Minnetonka Boulevard. City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 20 Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 Page 4 Figure 2-3 – Dakota Avenue at Minnetonka Blvd, Green Bike Lane Conflict Markings From May 2021 to October 2021, bollards were added to Dakota Avenue S from Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard to separate the bike lanes from the vehicle lanes. Bollards were not added north of Minnetonka Boulevard. Figure 2-4 shows the buffered bike lanes on Dakota Avenue S with the bollards added to the roadway. Figure 2-4 – Dakota Avenue S Bike Lanes with Bollards A new typical cross section of Dakota Avenue S for the segment south of Minnetonka Boulevard is provided in Figure 2-4. In this layout there are buffered bike lanes on both sides of the street and parking is limited to one side of the street. Bollards separate the bike lanes from the motor vehicle lanes except in locations where parking is allowed so vehicles can move through the bike lane to park. Showing buffered bike lane consisting of a 2ft buffer with vertical bollards and a 5 foot bike lane including gutter. City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 21 Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 Page 5 Figure 2-5 – Dakota Avenue S Cross Section with Bike Lanes and Bollards 3 Data collection Several data collection efforts were performed to understand the impact the buffered bike lanes and bollards had on the variety of traffic modes using the street. Table 1 summarizes the data collection schedule, the bikeway condition, the data collection types, and when each data collection effort occurred during the project. Table 1 – Data Collection Schedule Schedule September 2020 April 2021 May 2021 July 2021 September 2021 Bikeway Condition No Bike Lanes Bike Lanes Bike Lanes + Bollards Bike Lanes + Bollards Bike Lanes + Bollards 16-Hour Pedestrian and Bicyclist Counts X X X X X Vehicle Speeds and Volumes X X X X Parking Occupancy X X X Dakota Avenue at Minnetonka Blvd Turning Movement Count X 3.1 16-Hour Pedestrian and Bicyclist Volumes Pedestrian and bicyclist volumes were recorded on five different occasions during the study. The goal was to understand the effect of bicycle facility improvements on the number of bicyclists as well as the percentage of bicyclists who chose to bike on the road versus on the sidewalk. Data was collected at two locations: • Dakota Avenue S at the west leg of 33rd Street • Dakota Avenue S just south of 29th Street Dakota Avenue S at 33rd Street was selected because St. Louis Park High School is located in the southwest corner of the intersection. Travel to and from school is a generator of pedestrian City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 22 Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 Page 6 and bicycle activity on Dakota Avenue S. This intersection is in the section of Dakota Avenue S where striped buffered bike lanes and later bollards were added. Dakota Avenue S just south of 29th Street was selected because there is a change in bike facility type north of Minnetonka Boulevard. Shared-use bike markings (‘sharrow’) exist on Dakota Avenue S north of Minnetonka Boulevard, which indicate that the roadway offers a shared environment for bicycles and vehicles. Bollards were not added north of Minnetonka Boulevard during the study. Data was collected on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, or Thursdays from 6 AM to 10 PM using video cameras set at each location. The direction of each pedestrian and bicyclist was recorded. The data separated bicyclists using the roadway and bicyclists using the sidewalk. 16-Hour pedestrian and bicyclist counts were collected on five different dates: • September 2nd, 2020 – Before bike lanes were added • April 7, 2021 – After buffered bike lanes were added (in-person school was in session) • May 12, 2021 – After the bollards were added (in-person school was in session) • July 13, 2021 – After the bollards were added (school was not in session) • September 23, 2021 – After the bollards were added (in-person school was in session) In the Appendix, Figures A1-1 to A1-5 show the 16-hour pedestrian and bicyclist volumes on Dakota Avenue S at 33rd Street. Figures A2-1 to A2-5 show the 16-hour pedestrian and bicyclist volumes on Dakota Avenue S just south of 29th Street. 3.2 Bicyclist Data Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2 show the total 16-hour bicyclist counts and the bike lane usage percentage over the five collected data sets. Raw bicyclist volumes have not been factored to account for COVID-19 or seasonal factors due to a lack of available resources from which to obtain a basis to factor this data. MnDOT states in the Demonstration Project Implementation Guide (2019) that, “pedestrian and bicycle volumes are much more affected by weather than driving volumes”2. As such, the weather conditions from each period have been added below each data set for reference to provide additional context for comparison of each data point. 2 The data collection process generally follows the approach outlined in the MnDOT Demonstration Project Implementation Guide, page 36, published November 2019. https://www.dot.state.mn.us/saferoutes/documents/mndot-demonstration-project-implementation- guide-final.pdf City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 23 Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 Page 7 Figure 3-1 – 16-hour Bicyclist Counts: Dakota Avenue S at 33rd St There was a substantial increase (116 bicyclists) in daily bicyclist volumes when comparing data from the 2018 Dakota-Edgewood Bridge Transportation and Parking Study to the September 2020 volumes collected in this study. Dakota Avenue S had no bike lanes in both September 2018 and September 2020 yet there was an over 7 times increase in the number of bicyclists. This large increase is likely due to changes in behaviors as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. There was not a noticeable trend in the number of bicyclists increasing or decreasing due to the addition of buffered bike lanes and bollards to the roadway. Rather the number of bicyclists using Dakota Avenue S fluctuates due to the weather, season, and whether school is in session or not. Figure 3-2 – Bike Lane Usage: Dakota Avenue S at 33rd St City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 24 Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 Page 8 The addition of buffered bike lanes in October 2020 resulted in an increase in the percentage of bicyclists who chose to bike in the street rather than on the sidewalk. From September 2020 to April 2021 the percentage of bicyclists using the roadway increased from 46% to 77%. The data does not indicate that the addition of bollards to the roadway in May 2021 further increased the percentage of bicyclists using the roadway. From September 2020 to September 2021 the percentage of bicyclists using the roadway increased from 46% to 73%. The location of bicyclists (sidewalk vs. street) was not collected during the 2018 Dakota- Edgewood Bridge Transportation and Parking Study, therefore the data could not be compared in Figures 3-2 and 3-4. Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4 show the 16-hour bicyclist counts at Dakota Avenue S south of 29th St and the percentage of bicyclists who chose to bike in the street rather than on the sidewalk. Figure 3-3 – 16-hour Bicyclist Counts: Dakota Avenue S south of 29th St There was a substantial increase (93 bicyclists) in daily bicyclists when comparing the September 2018 data from the Dakota-Edgewood Bridge Transportation and Parking Study to the September 2020 volumes collected in this study. This large increase is likely due to changes in behavior as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Within the demonstration project timeframe, there was not a noticeable trend in the number of bicyclists increasing or decreasing due to the addition of "sharrows". Rather the number of bicyclists using Dakota Avenue S appears to fluctuate due to the weather, season, and whether City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 25 Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 Page 9 school is in session or not. This is demonstrated by comparing the data at the two locations showing a similar profile despite two different facility types. The number of bicyclists using Dakota Avenue S south of 29th Street is approximately 15% fewer than the number of bicyclists using Dakota Avenue S at 33rd Street. Figure 3-4 – Bike Facility Usage: Dakota Avenue S south of 29th St Based on the limited data collected in this study, the conversion of Dakota Avenue S to a “sharrow” north of Minnetonka Boulevard and the addition of buffered bike lanes to the south of Minnetonka Boulevard resulted in a slight increase in bicyclist use of the street rather than the sidewalk south of 29th Street. The data show a reduction in sidewalk bicycling in three of the four periods counted after the “sharrows” were added. Between September 2020 and April 2021, the percentage of on-street bicyclists increased from 71% to 78%. The average percentage of on-street bicyclists for April 2021 through September 2021 was 81%, meaning that 10% of bicyclists on average switched to biking in the street after the ‘sharrows’ were added. 3.3 Pedestrian Data Figure 3-5 and Figure 3-6 show the 16-hour pedestrian counts at 33rd Street and south of 29th Street. Raw pedestrian volumes have not been factored to account for COVID-19 or Seasonal factors due to a lack of available outside data to factor with. MnDOT states in the Demonstration Project Implementation Guide (2019) that, “pedestrian and bicycle volumes are much more affected by weather than driving volumes”. As such, the weather conditions have been added below each data set for reference. City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 26 Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 Page 10 Figure 3-5 – Pedestrian Counts: Dakota Avenue S at 33rd St There was a substantial increase (252 pedestrians) in daily pedestrians when comparing the September 2018 data to the September 2020 volumes collected in this study. This increase is likely due to changes in behavior as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The data collected at 33rd Street shows a higher pedestrian demand during the school year when pedestrians are walking to and from school, especially in September when the weather is more favorable. The addition of bicycle infrastructure to the roadway did not necessarily correlate with pedestrian use of the corridor. Figure 3-6 – Pedestrian Counts: Dakota Avenue S south of 29th St City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 27 Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 Page 11 There was an increase in daily pedestrians (75 pedestrians) when comparing the September 2018 data to the September 2020 volumes collected in this study. This increase is likely due to changes in behaviors as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The data collected south of 29th Street shows that pedestrian demand at this location is not necessarily correlated to the addition of the bicycle facility and decreased sidewalk bicycling at this location. 3.4 Additional Video Observations To conduct the counts for bicyclists and pedestrians, cameras were deployed and video was captured. These recordings were observed to count bicyclists and pedestrians as well as to note the location they used in the right-of-way and note any unusual behaviors. At Dakota Avenue S and 33rd Street, no bicyclists were observed using the vehicle travel lanes instead of the buffered bike lanes. No other concerning bicyclist behavior was observed. Pedestrians were only observed walking on the sidewalks and did not walk in the bike lanes or vehicle lanes. Each date of observation approximately 5 to 10 pedestrians and 0 to 5 bicyclists were observed crossing the north leg of Dakota Avenue at 33rd Street where there is no crosswalk, rather than crossing the south leg of the intersection where there is a crosswalk. At Dakota Avenue S at 29th Street no unusual behavior was observed. Bicyclists used either the sidewalk or the roadway. Pedestrians were not observed walking in the street. 3.5 Motor Vehicle Data The goal of the motor vehicle data collection effort was to understand the impact the presence of buffered bike lanes and bollards have on daily volume and speed. Data was collected at two locations along Dakota Avenue S, with one location on Dakota Avenue S north of 32nd Street and the other location on Dakota Avenue S south of 29th Street. The data was collected using either road tubes or radar. The volume data were not factored to account for daily nor seasonal variations. As is typical of traffic engineering studies, these volumes represent the average daily count from 48-hours of traffic volume data collected from weekdays between Tuesday and Thursday during the periods below except where noted otherwise. Motor vehicle volumes and speeds were measured on the following dates: • September 2, 2020: Before buffered bike lanes were added • April 6-7, 2021: After buffered bike lanes were added (in person school was in session) • July 13-14, 2021: After the bollards were added (school was not in session) • September 22-23, 2021: After the bollards were added (in person school was in session) In the Appendix, Figures A3-1 to A3-4 show the directional traffic volumes and vehicle speeds on Dakota Avenue S south of 29th Street and north of 32nd Street. City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 28 Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 Page 12 3.5.1 Traffic Volumes Figure 3-7 shows the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of Dakota Avenue S north of 32nd Street. Figure 3-7 – ADT of Dakota Avenue S north of 32nd Street Overall, the data shows an increase in daily traffic volumes between September 2020 and September 2021. The daily traffic along Dakota Avenue S from September 2021 is 26% higher than September 2020, which may be an effect of the easing of the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and increased activity during this period. MnDOT’s Traffic Mapping Application was reviewed for historical AADT data on Dakota Avenue S. A summary of historical AADT data of Dakota Avenue S north of Lake Street is provided to the right. This study’s ADT counts were below the AADTs seen before the COVID-19 pandemic but appear to trend upward toward the end of the study closer to pre-pandemic levels. Historical AADT for Dakota Avenue S, north of Lake Street West Year AADT 2009 4500 2013 4500 2017 5600 2020 3900 Source: MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application 3481 3436 3804 4394 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 Sept 2020 April 2021 July 2021 Sept 2021ADTBike Lanes Added Bollards Added City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 29 Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 Page 13 Figure 3-8 shows the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Dakota Avenue S south of 29th Street. Figure 3-8 – ADT of Dakota Avenue S south of 29th St The daily traffic from September 2021 is 12% higher than September 2020, which may be an effect of the easing of the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and increased activity during this period. Traffic volumes on Dakota Ave S south of 29th Street varied substantially throughout the study making it unclear the effect of the addition of “sharrows” to the roadway. MnDOT’s Traffic Mapping Application was reviewed for historical AADT data on Dakota Avenue S. A summary of historical AADT data of Dakota Avenue S north of 28th Street is provided to the right. This study’s ADTs were collected south of 29th Street and were higher than the volumes at the MnDOT collection point north of 28th Street. The differences in AADTs are likely due to Dakota Avenue S experiencing higher demand as it approaches Minnetonka Boulevard. 3.5.2 Traffic Speeds Before and during this study, Dakota Avenue had a speed limit of 30 MPH. After this study, in November 2021, the speed limit was reduced to 25 MPH. Average speed and median speed are useful in understanding the average speed of motorists and the speed at which half the motorists are traveling above and below and thus a typical experience of a motorist on the street. 2142 1525 1956 2392 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Sept 2020 April 2021 July 2021 Sept 2021ADT Data Set Sharrows Added Historical AADT for Dakota Avenue S, north of 28th Street West Year AADT 2009 1600 2013 1650 2017 1800 2020 950 Source: MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 30 Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 Page 14 Table 2 shows the vehicle speeds on Dakota Avenue S north of 32nd Street. Table 2 – Vehicle Speeds, Dakota Avenue S north of 32nd St Sept 2020 April 2021 July 2021 Sept 2021 No Bike Lanes/ No Bollards Bike Lanes/ No Bollards Bike Lanes/ Bollards Bike Lanes/ Bollards NB Average Speed (MPH) *malfunction 34 32 33 NB Median Speed (MPH) *malfunction 33 32 32 SB Average Speed (MPH) 35 34 31 33 SB Median Speed (MPH) 34 33 31 32 *There was an equipment malfunction that resulted in the loss of data for this direction A summary of the traffic speed data is provided below: • The addition of buffered bike lanes in October 2020 resulted in a 1 MPH decrease in average speeds in April 2021. • The addition of bollards to the roadway decreased speeds by an additional 1-3 MPH compared to the road with buffered bike lanes. • The combination of buffered bike lanes and bollards resulted in a decrease of 2-4 MPH in the July and September 2021 data compared to the September 2020 data. • There was an increase in speeds of 1-2 MPH from July 2021 to September 2021, although there was no bikeway infrastructure change. This change may be the result of increased use of the roadway due to school being in session and pandemic restrictions easing. Drivers may have also become more comfortable driving the roadway with bollards. • Both the median and average speeds exceed the 30 MPH speed limit. Table 3 shows the Vehicle Speeds on Dakota Avenue S south of 29th Street. Table 3 – Vehicle Speeds, Dakota Avenue S south of 29th St Sept 2020 April 2021 July 2021 Sept 2021 No Shared-Use Marking Shared-Use Marking Shared-Use Marking Shared-Use Marking NB Average Speed (MPH) 21 26 26 26 NB Median Speed (MPH) 21 25 26 25 SB Average Speed (MPH) 24 21 27 26 SB Median Speed (MPH) 23 21 26 25 All speed categories collected were at or below the speed limit of 30 MPH. Speed data shows a slight increase in speeds since the implementation of the ‘sharrow’ markings from September 2020. The northbound speeds remained consistent April 2021 through September 2021. However, the southbound speeds increased in July and September 2021. City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 31 Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 Page 15 3.5.3 Parking Occupancy Before the buffered bike lanes were added to Dakota Avenue S, parking was allowed on both sides of the street from Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard. With the addition of the buffered bike lanes, parking was limited to seven parking bays of various sizes which generally limited parking to one side of the street. The goal of the parking data collection was to understand the parking occupancy after the buffered bike lanes were added. Parking occupancy data was collected in April 2021, July 2021, and September 2021. The number of vehicles in each parking bay was collected on a weekday during the hours of 5-6 AM, 1-2 PM, and 6-7 PM, as well during the 1-2 PM hour on the corresponding Saturdays. In the Appendix, Figures A4-1 to A4-3 show the parking occupancy during the three rounds of parking data collection. Generally, parking occupancy was below 50% for most parking bays and time periods. The parking bay from 31st Street to Minnetonka Boulevard had some periods that experienced 50- 75% occupancy and had greater than 75% occupancy during the weekend mid-day hour in April 2021. This parking bay serves customers of Parkway Pizza on the corner of Dakota Avenue S and Minnetonka Boulevard as well as homes on Dakota Avenue S. The parking bay south of 33rd Street had greater than 75% occupancy during the Weekday 6-7 PM hour of September 2021. This was likely due to an after-school event. Table 4 shows the total occupied parking spaces and the overall parking occupancy for each time period. Table 4 – Overall Parking Occupancy Data Set Available Spaces Weekday 5AM-6AM Weekday 1PM-2PM Weekday 6PM-7PM Weekend 1PM-2PM Occupied Spaces / Percent Occupancy April 2021 80 17 / 21% 10 / 13% 12 / 15% 23 / 29% July 2021 18 / 23% 12 / 15% 18 / 23% 25 / 31% September 2021 24 / 30% 17 / 21% 36 / 45% 19 / 24% City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 32 Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 Page 16 The new parking layout and buffered bike lanes do not appear to have a significant impact on parking supply along Dakota Avenue S as overall parking occupancy for Dakota Avenue S never exceeded 50%. Most homes along Dakota Avenue S utilize alleyway garages and alley parking spaces as their primary parking locations, so the amount of street parking demand from the residential homes is limited. No individual parking bay ever reached 100% occupancy. 3.5.4 Dakota Avenue S at Minnetonka Boulevard Turning Movement Count On Wednesday May 12, 2021, 16-hour vehicle turning movement counts were collected from 6 AM to 10 PM. In addition to vehicle turning movements, directional pedestrian and bicyclist counts were collected at the crosswalks and on-street bicycle turning movements were collected in the intersection and are summarized in previous sections of this memo. Turning movement counts at Dakota Avenue S and Minnetonka Boulevard were primarily collected for reference in future City projects. The peak hours of vehicle traffic were found to be 7:15-8:15 AM and 5:00-6:00 PM. In Appendix A, Figure A5 shows the peak hour vehicle turning movement counts as well as the daily pedestrian and bicycle movements at the intersection. The full turning movement count is provided in Appendix C. Parking comparison to 2018 Dakota- Edgewood Bridge Study Data collected from this study was compared to the September 2018 ‘Dakota-Edgewood Bridge Transportation and Parking Study’ along this corridor. This study occurred prior to the installation of the buffered bike lanes and designated parking bays. The following conclusions were drawn from this comparison: Available spaces were reduced from 175 to 80 with the addition of buffered bike lanes, curb extensions and parking bays. Overall parking demand on Dakota Avenue has decreased with the addition of buffered bike lanes and designated parking bays. Peak parking demand decreased from 75 to 40. Peak parking occupancy is less than 50% of the available spaces under both conditions. City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 33 Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 Page 17 3.5.5 High Level Review of Crash Data During Demonstration Crash data was obtained using MnDOT’s Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool 2 (MnCMAT2) from February 1st, 2021, through November 1st, 2021. During this time period the buffered bike lanes were added to Dakota Avenue S and bollards were added to the roadway. ‘Sharrows’ were added to Dakota Ave S north of Minnetonka Boulevard. Observations • There were 8 crashes within the project area. There were no crashes involving pedestrians or bicyclists. • There were no vehicle crashes that mentioned the bike lanes nor the bollards. • There was one crash that involved a parked vehicle. A vehicle was southbound on Dakota Avenue S approaching Minnetonka Boulevard. The driver was distracted and hit a parked car. This section of roadway has ‘sharrows’. • There was one ‘Severity B’ minor injury crash that occurred at Dakota Avenue S and Lake Street West. The crash was a right-angle crash. • All other crashes were property damage only crashes. 4 Public Engagement Throughout the summer of 2021, the project team held in- person conversations with dozens of residents and business representatives, held two informational pop-up sessions, and hosted an online survey. The City of St. Louis Park used their website, and social media (Next Door, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter) to inform the community about this project and request feedback. Fliers, newspaper ads, and yard signs were also used to further reach the community for feedback and drive participation in community surveys. Approximately 500 individuals participated in various outreach activities and provided input about the bikeway demonstration project. Survey participants included residents who live on Dakota Avenue (between 26th Street and Lake Street), staff, parents and students from nearby schools, people who work or own nearby businesses, frequent users of Dakota Avenue, and individuals who were interested in the project. The majority of survey participants (93%) had biked, walked, driven, rolled along or used Dakota Avenue since the flexible bollards were installed. Public feedback received helps the City of St Louis Park provide facilities and infrastructure that better meet community needs and demands. The summary below highlights the main themes heard from the community. City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 34 Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 Page 18 4.1 What we heard from the community Public outreach gauged opinions on the bikeway demonstration project installed on Dakota Avenue S. Feedback indicated there were mixed feelings towards the project. Many residents expressed their support for the protected bike lanes with bollards, while other residents mentioned they had concerns with the buffered bike lanes and bollards on Dakota Avenue S. • 35% of survey participants mentioned they were excited about the protected bike lanes. • 15% mentioned they were interested to see how the protected bike lanes on Dakota Avenue work. • 34% of survey participants responded that they do not like the protected bikeway concept. Perceived Benefits When the public was asked questions about the demonstration project, many survey respondents noted the following three benefits: 1. Perceived decrease in vehicle speeds 2. Perceived increase in motorist awareness for bicyclists and pedestrians 3. Improved comfort for bicyclists These benefits are supported by the following survey data: • 29% of users perceived a decrease in driver speed while 50% reported no change and 18% were unsure. Only 3% of respondents reported an increase perception of vehicle speeds. • Out of 183 survey respondents who biked before and after the bollards were installed, approximately 61% reported an increase in comfort while biking on Dakota Avenue. Additionally, 12% reported no change in comfort while 27% reported some level of decrease in comfort. • Of survey respondents who biked or used a scooter on Dakota Avenue after the installation, 28% reported an increase in usage, while 67% reported no change in how often they bike on Dakota Avenue. • Nearly 85% of survey participants who biked on Dakota Avenue after the bollards were installed responded that they used the bicycle lane when biking. City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 35 Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 Page 19 • Many write-in comments highlighted the increased driver awareness for bicyclists and pedestrians after the installation of the demonstration project. Top Concerns The top concerns included the following: 1. The road feels too narrow 2. The bollards are not aesthetically pleasing 3. Maintenance will be difficult during the winter months 4. The removal of street parking Further it was noted from the survey results that: • 58% of survey participants felt less comfortable driving after the bollards were installed. • 30% of survey participants expressed concerns about impacts to parking on Dakota Avenue. Select quotes from a range of survey participants and community members: “I think the bollards are a great way to make bikers feel safer as they are using the bike lane. It also helps redirect traffic from the sidewalk.” “I do not like parking spots taken away from residents who live on Dakota. I don't like the pylons [bollards] - feel like they make the driving lanes too small and dangerous.” “What impacts me the most on Dakota bikeway has been parked cars or snow. [Winter] Maintenance is my biggest concern.” “I'm very excited and thankful that SLP will now have a North/South way for peds/cyclists to get to various parts of the city more easily and conveniently. Thank you.” “Dakota Avenue is now too narrow to drive safely. There is no need for bike lanes on each side. Get rid of the bollards - very distracting “I think these are great. St Louis Park residents rarely, if ever, slow down or give enough space to cyclist. These are a great step towards keeping drivers away from cyclist.” “Protected bikeways have narrowed auto lanes allowing fewer options for motorists to navigate. Snow removal will be complicated” City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 36 Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 Page 20 Residents vs. General Public In addition to the public survey that was widely advertised, a resident survey was mailed to Dakota Avenue residents and businesses in the spring of 2021 before the bollards were installed. Responses from residents who live on Dakota Avenue, between 26th Street and Lake Street, were comparable to input from the general public. For example, the level of support and concern, as well as the top benefits and barriers highlighted by Dakota Avenue residents were consistent to the general public’s input. Full results from the public survey are provided in Appendix B. 4.2 Who participated in the survey The online survey asked a series of questions to help understand how well this project engaged a cross-section of the community. Results are as follows. Figure 4-1 – Survey question to identify users’ connection to Dakota Avenue Survey participants were asked to identify their connection to Dakota Avenue. Of the 290 respondents who used the corridor during the study and responded to the question, the majority (87%) reported being frequent users of the corridor. In addition, 16% were a student, parent or staff at one of the three schools within the project area, 12% live on Dakota Avenue through the project area, and 2% owned or managed a nearby business. Self-reported race/ethnicity Survey respondents were asked about their race/ethnicity to understand if the demographics of respondents were similar to the general population of the nearby community. Within ½ mile of the project corridor, 18% of residents identified as Black, Asian, Native American/Indigenous/First Nation, Hispanic, or multiracial (according to 2015-2019 American Community Survey estimates). In comparison, only 8% of survey respondents identified with one of these race/ethnicities, City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 37 Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility STLOU 155637 Page 21 highlighting underrepresentation in the survey results. Race/ethnicity data was also reviewed for bicyclists (bicyclists who reported biking the corridor after the bollards were installed). The proportion of bicyclists identifying as Black, Asian, Native American/Indigenous/First Nation, Hispanic, or multiracial was within range of the overall survey participation at 10.7% of the total bicyclists reporting their race/ethnicity (16 of 149). There were thirteen bicyclists who declined to provide race/ethnicity information. Gender Identity The general population in the area and make-up of survey respondents reported a relatively even gender split, while reported bicycle users on the corridor were more likely to identify as male (50.8% male, 43.6% female, 5.6% non-binary or cisgender). Group Male Female Non-binary Cisgender Local residents within ½ mile 49.2% 50.8% Data not available Data not available All survey respondents 47.2% 47.6% 1.1% 4.1% Survey respondents who biked on Dakota Avenue during the demonstration project 50.8% 43.6% 1.1% 4.5% 5 Summary Based on the limited traffic data collected for this study, a significant change in bicycling activity was not recorded on Dakota Avenue S due to the addition of buffered bike lanes and bollards to the roadway. However, the data does indicate that the addition of buffered bike lanes resulted in an increase in the percentage of bicyclists who chose to use the roadway rather than the sidewalks. The percentage of bicyclists who chose to use the bike lane remained relatively unchanged with the addition of bollards. The data also indicates that the addition of ‘sharrows’ reduced the use of the sidewalk for bicycling on the northern segment. The speed data collected as part of this study showed that the addition of buffered bike lanes reduced vehicle speeds by 1 MPH and the addition of bollards further reduced speeds by an additional 1-3 MPH, resulting in a 2-4 MPH decrease in vehicle speeds overall. While the total available parking spaces were reduced during the reconfiguration of Dakota Avenue S, parking supply does not appear to be an issue on the roadway, as the average occupancy did not exceed 50% overall for any of the times surveyed and at no time did any location experience 100% occupancy. Public engagement activities found that there was varied support for the protected bike lanes. Approximately 35% of survey participants reported they were excited about the protected bike lanes and 15% that they were interested to see how the protected bike lanes on Dakota Avenue work. Approximately 34% of survey participants responded that they do not like the protected bikeways. Parking and winter maintenance continue to be concerns for corridor users. For those who biked Dakota Avenue before and after the bollards were installed, the majority reported an increase in user comfort (61%) with the addition of the bollards. City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 38 Appendix A Peak hour vehicle turning movement counts and daily pedestrian and bicycle movements City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 39 Dakota Ave S33rd St 33rd St Project: STLOU 155637 Figure A1-1Dakota Avenue South Bike FacilityMap by: ljohnson Projection: NAD 1983 HARN Adj Hennepin Source: ESRI Print Date: 11/12/2021 St Louis Park, MNPath: X:\PT\S\STLOU\155637\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Figure A1-1 - September 2020, Dakota Ave S at 33rd St, Directional Pedestrian and Bicyclist Counts.mxdI September 2020, Dakota Ave S at 33rd StPedestrian and Bicyclist Counts³m l³ 5 23 34 58 ³³³m l³ 0 1 0 1 ³³ South Crossing North Crossing³m l³13 3749 96 ³³l 32 mll 30 W. Sidewalk E. SidewalkSB Dakota NB Dakota CL ³³³³70 5615 7 ³³Pedestrian Count, 9-2-20, 6am-10pm Direction of Pedestrian or Bicyclist ³Bicyclist Count, 9-2-20, 6am-10pmml Count Location Weather: Mostly Sunny, High 81° m271 l134 Totals !( City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 40 Dakota Ave S33rd St 33rd St Project: STLOU 155637 Figure A1-2Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility Map by: ljohnson Projection: NAD 1983 HARN Adj Hennepin Source: ESRI Print Date: 11/12/2021 St Louis Park, MNPath: X:\PT\S\STLOU\155637\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Figure A1-2 - April 2021, Dakota Ave S at 33rd St, Directional Pedestrian and Bicyclist Counts.mxdI April 2021, Dakota Ave S at 33rd StPedestrian and Bicyclist Counts³m l³ 8 1 64 26 ³³³m l³ 0 0 4 5 ³³ South Crossing North Crossing Pedestrian Count, 4-15-21, 6am-10pm Direction of Pedestrian or Bicyclist ³Bicyclist Count, 4-15-21, 6am-10pmml Count Location³m l³4 272 37 ³³l 9 mll 14 W. Sidewalk E. SidewalkSB Dakota NB Dakota CL ³³³³40 401 0 ³³m189 l30 Totals !( Weather: Cloudy, High 51° City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 41 Dakota Ave S33rd St 33rd St Project: STLOU 155637 Figure A1-3Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility Map by: ljohnson Projection: NAD 1983 HARN Adj Hennepin Source: ESRI Print Date: 6/8/2021 St Louis Park, MNPath: X:\PT\S\STLOU\155637\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Figure A1-3 - May 2021, Dakota Ave S at 33rd St, Directional Pedestrian and Bicyclist Counts.mxdI May 2021, Dakota Ave S at 33rd StPedestrian and Bicyclist Counts³m l³ 9 21 34 38 ³³³m l³ 2 2 3 4 ³³ South Crossing North Crossing Pedestrian Count, 5-12-21, 6am-10pm Direction of Pedestrian or Bicyclist ³Bicyclist Count, 5-12-21, 6am-10pmml Count Location³m l³6 862 49 ³³l 41 mll 31 W. Sidewalk E. SidewalkSB Dakota NB Dakota CL ³³³³49 3913 17 ³³!( Weather: Mostly Sunny, High 69° m199 l116 Totals City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 42 Dakota Ave S33rd St 33rd St Project: STLOU 155637 Figure A1-4Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility Map by: ljohnson Projection: NAD 1983 HARN Adj Hennepin Source: ESRI Print Date: 11/12/2021 St Louis Park, MNPath: X:\PT\S\STLOU\155637\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Figure A1-4 - July 2021, Dakota Ave S at 33rd St, Directional Pedestrian and Bicyclist Counts.mxdI July 2021, Dakota Ave S at 33rd StPedestrian and Bicyclist Counts³m l³ 6 4 26 24 ³³³m l³ 1 3 2 3 ³³ South Crossing North Crossing Pedestrian Count, 7-13-21, 6am-10pm Direction of Pedestrian or Bicyclist ³Bicyclist Count, 7-13-21, 6am-10pmml Count Location³m l³18 1459 43 ³³l 58 mll 73 W. Sidewalk E. SidewalkSB Dakota NB Dakota CL ³³³³28 459 1 ³³!( Weather: Mostly Sunny, High 87° m175 l173 Totals City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 43 Dakota Ave S33rd St 33rd St Project: STLOU 155637 Figure A1-5Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility Map by: ljohnson Projection: NAD 1983 HARN Adj Hennepin Source: ESRI Print Date: 11/12/2021 St Louis Park, MNPath: X:\PT\S\STLOU\155637\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Figure A1-5 - September 2021, Dakota Ave S at 33rd St, Directional Pedestrian and Bicyclist Counts.mxdI Sept 2021, Dakota Ave S at 33rd StPedestrian and Bicyclist Counts³m l³ 9 9 61 65 ³³³m l³ 0 0 1 2 ³³ South Crossing North Crossing Pedestrian Count, 9-23-21, 6am-10pm Direction of Pedestrian or Bicyclist ³Bicyclist Count, 9-23-21, 6am-10pmml Count Location³m l³6 581 67 ³³l 28 mll 38 W. Sidewalk E. SidewalkSB Dakota NB Dakota CL ³³³³52 568 6 ³³!( Weather: Mostly Sunny, High 73° m256 l91 Totals City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 44 Minnetonka Blvd 29th St Dakota Ave SProject: STLOU 155637 Figure A2-1Dakota Avenue South Bike FacilityMap by: ljohnson Projection: NAD 1983 HARN Adj Hennepin Source: ESRI Print Date: 6/8/2021 St Louis Park, MNPath: X:\PT\S\STLOU\155637\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Figure A2-1 - September 2020, Dakota Ave S south of 29th St, Directional Pedestrian and Bicyclist Counts.mxdI Sept 2020, Dakota Ave S south of 29th StPedestrian and Bicyclist Counts³m l³6 729 29 ³³l 35 mll 38 W. Sidewalk E. SidewalkSB Dakota NB Dakota CL ³³³³41 387 10 ³³Pedestrian Count, 9-2-20, 6am-10pm Direction of Pedestrian or Bicyclist ³Bicyclist Count, 9-2-20, 6am-10pmml Count Location Weather: Mostly Sunny, High 81° !( m137 l103 Totals City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 45 Minnetonka Blvd 29th St Dakota Ave SProject: STLOU 155637 Figure A2-2Dakota Avenue South Bike FacilityMap by: ljohnson Projection: NAD 1983 HARN Adj Hennepin Source: ESRI Print Date: 11/12/2021 St Louis Park, MNPath: X:\PT\S\STLOU\155637\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Figure A2-2 - April 2021, Dakota Ave S south of 29th St, Directional Pedestrian and Bicyclist Counts.mxdI April 2021, Dakota Ave S south of 29th StPedestrian and Bicyclist Counts Pedestrian Count, 4-7-21, 6am-10pm Direction of Pedestrian or Bicyclist ³Bicyclist Count, 4-7-21, 6am-10pmml Count Location³m l³2 119 24 ³³l 11 mll 7 W. Sidewalk E. SidewalkSB Dakota NB Dakota CL ³³³³32 261 1 ³³m101 l23 Totals !( Weather: Cloudy, Some Rain, High 73° City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 46 Minnetonka Blvd 29th St Dakota Ave SProject: STLOU 155637 Figure A2-3Dakota Avenue South Bike FacilityMap by: ljohnson Projection: NAD 1983 HARN Adj Hennepin Source: ESRI Print Date: 11/12/2021 St Louis Park, MNPath: X:\PT\S\STLOU\155637\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Figure A2-3 - May 2021, Dakota Ave S south of 29th St, Directional Pedestrian and Bicyclist Counts.mxdI May 2021, Dakota Ave S south of 29th StPedestrian and Bicyclist Counts Pedestrian Count, 5-12-21, 6am-10pm Direction of Pedestrian or Bicyclist ³Bicyclist Count, 5-12-21, 6am-10pmml Count Location³m l³6 653 55 ³³l 48 mll 26 W. Sidewalk E. SidewalkSB Dakota NB Dakota CL ³³³³44 4912 10 ³³!( Weather: Mostly Sunny, High 69° m201 l108 Totals City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 47 Minnetonka Blvd 29th St Dakota Ave SProject: STLOU 155637 Figure A2-4Dakota Avenue South Bike FacilityMap by: ljohnson Projection: NAD 1983 HARN Adj Hennepin Source: ESRI Print Date: 11/12/2021 St Louis Park, MNPath: X:\PT\S\STLOU\155637\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Figure A2-4 - July 2021, Dakota Ave S south of 29th St, Directional Pedestrian and Bicyclist Counts.mxdI July 2021, Dakota Ave S south of 29th StPedestrian and Bicyclist Counts Pedestrian Count, 7-13-21, 6am-10pm Direction of Pedestrian or Bicyclist ³Bicyclist Count, 7-13-21, 6am-10pmml Count Location³m l³3 533 26 ³³l 62 mll 77 W. Sidewalk E. SidewalkSB Dakota NB Dakota CL ³³³³29 373 2 ³³!( m125 l152 Totals Weather: Mostly Sunny, High 87° City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 48 Minnetonka Blvd 29th St Dakota Ave SProject: STLOU 155637 Figure A2-5Dakota Avenue South Bike FacilityMap by: ljohnson Projection: NAD 1983 HARN Adj Hennepin Source: ESRI Print Date: 11/12/2021 St Louis Park, MNPath: X:\PT\S\STLOU\155637\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Figure A2-5 - September 2021, Dakota Ave S south of 29th St, Directional Pedestrian and Bicyclist Counts.mxdI Sept 2021, Dakota Ave S south of 29th StPedestrian and Bicyclist Counts Pedestrian Count, 9-23-21, 6am-10pm Direction of Pedestrian or Bicyclist ³Bicyclist Count, 9-23-21, 6am-10pmml Count Location³m l³2 626 28 ³³l 29 mll 37 W. Sidewalk E. SidewalkSB Dakota NB Dakota CL ³³³³33 211 3 ³³!( m108 l78 Totals Weather: Mostly Sunny, High 73° City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 49 Dakota Ave SMinnetonka Blvd 33rd St 33rd St 32nd St 32nd St 31st St 31st St 29th St Project: STLOU 155637 Figure A3-1Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility Map by: ljohnson Projection: NAD 1983 HARN Adj Hennepin Source: ESRI Print Date: 11/12/2021 St Louis Park, MNPath: X:\PT\S\STLOU\155637\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Figure A3-1 - September 2020, Dakota Ave S, Speeds and Volumes.mxdI September 2020, Dakota Ave SSpeeds and Volumes !(Tube Count Locations 1238 ³SB ADT 1,693 SB Speeds 85th: 39 MPH Avg: 35 MPH 10 mph Pace: 31-40 ³NB Speeds *No speed data due to equipment errorNB ADT 1,788³SB ADT 1,078 SB Speeds 85th: 28 MPH Avg: 24 MPH 10 mph Pace: 21-30 ³NB Speeds 85th: 34 MPH Avg: 28 MPH 10 mph Pace: 26-35 NB ADT 1,064 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 50 Dakota Ave SMinnetonka Blvd 33rd St 33rd St 32nd St 32nd St 31st St 31st St 29th St Project: STLOU 155637 Figure A3-2Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility Map by: ljohnson Projection: NAD 1983 HARN Adj Hennepin Source: ESRI Print Date: 11/12/2021 St Louis Park, MNPath: X:\PT\S\STLOU\155637\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Figure A3-2 - April 2021 Dakota Ave S, Speeds and Volumes.mxdI April 2021, Dakota Ave SSpeeds and Volumes 1238 ³SB ADT 1,721 ³NB ADT 1,715³SB ADT 579 ³NB ADT 946 SB Speeds 85th: 38 MPH Avg: 34 MPH 10 mph Pace: 31-40 NB Speeds 85th: 38 MPH Avg: 34 MPH 10 mph Pace: 31-40 NB Speeds 85th: 29 MPH Avg: 26 MPH 10 mph Pace: 21-30 SB Speeds 85th: 25 MPH Avg: 21 MPH 10 mph Pace: 16-25 !(Tube Count Locations City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 51 Dakota Ave SMinnetonka Blvd 33rd St 33rd St 32nd St 32nd St 31st St 31st St 29th St Project: STLOU 155637 Figure A3-3Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility Map by: ljohnson Projection: NAD 1983 HARN Adj Hennepin Source: ESRI Print Date: 11/12/2021 St Louis Park, MNPath: X:\PT\S\STLOU\155637\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Figure A3-3 - July 2021 Dakota Ave S, Speeds and Volumes.mxdI July 2021, Dakota Ave SSpeeds and Volumes 1238 ³SB ADT 1,888 ³NB ADT 1,916³SB ADT 1065 ³NB ADT 1028 SB Speeds 85th: 35 MPH Avg: 31 MPH 10 mph Pace: 26-35 NB Speeds 85th: 36 MPH Avg: 32 MPH 10 mph Pace: 26-35 NB Speeds 85th: 29 MPH Avg: 26 MPH 10 mph Pace: 21-30 SB Speeds 85th: 31 MPH Avg: 27 MPH 10 mph Pace: 21-30 !(Tube Count Locations City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 52 Dakota Ave SMinnetonka Blvd 33rd St 33rd St 32nd St 32nd St 31st St 31st St 29th St Project: STLOU 155637 Figure A3-4Dakota Avenue South Bike Facility Map by: ljohnson Projection: NAD 1983 HARN Adj Hennepin Source: ESRI Print Date: 11/12/2021 St Louis Park, MNPath: X:\PT\S\STLOU\155637\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Figure A3-4 - September 2021 Dakota Ave S, Speeds and Volumes.mxdI September 2021, Dakota Ave SSpeeds and Volumes 1238 ³SB ADT 2,268 ³2,126³SB ADT 1,183 ³NB ADT 1,209 SB Speeds 85th: 37 MPH Avg: 33 MPH 10 mph Pace: 26-35 NB Speeds 85th: 37 MPH Avg: 33 MPH 10 mph Pace: 26-35 NB Speeds 85th: 29 MPH Avg: 26 MPH 10 mph Pace: 21-30 SB Speeds 85th: 30 MPH Avg: 26 MPH 10 mph Pace: 21-30 !(Tube Count Locations City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 53 Dakota Ave SMinnetonka Blvd 33rd St 33rd St 32nd St 32nd St 31st St 31st St 0 / 40 / 52 / 77 / 150 / 164 / 124 / 21Project: STLOU 155637 Figure A4-1Dakota Avenue S Bike FacilityMap by: ljohnson Projection: NAD 1983 HARN Adj Hennepin Source: ESRI Print Date: 11/12/2021 St Louis Park, MNPath: X:\PT\S\STLOU\155637\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Figure A4-1 - April 2021 Parking Study.mxdApril 2021 Parking Study0 - 49%50 - 74% 75 - 100% Weekday5AM - 6AM Dakota Ave SMinnetonka Blvd 33rd St 33rd St 32nd St 32nd St 31st St 31st St 0 / 40 / 51 / 74 / 150 / 162 / 123 / 21Dakota Ave SMinnetonka Blvd 33rd St 33rd St 32nd St 32nd St 31st St 31st St 0 / 40 / 51 / 76 / 150 / 161 / 124 / 21Dakota Ave SMinnetonka Blvd 33rd St 33rd St 32nd St 32nd St 31st St 31st St 0 / 40 / 54 / 713 / 150 / 163 / 123 / 21Weekday1PM - 2PM Weekday6PM - 7PM Weekend1PM - 2PM Parking Occupancy !INote: Parking is prohibited in areas where no line is shown City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 54 Dakota Ave SMinnetonka Blvd 33rd St 33rd St 32nd St 32nd St 31st St 31st St 1 / 42 / 52 / 70 / 154 / 163 / 126 / 21Project: STLOU 155637 Figure A4-2Dakota Avenue S Bike FacilityMap by: ljohnson Projection: NAD 1983 HARN Adj Hennepin Source: ESRI Print Date: 11/12/2021 St Louis Park, MNPath: X:\PT\S\STLOU\155637\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Figure A4-2 - July 2021 Parking Study.mxdJuly 2021 Parking Study Weekday5AM - 6AM Dakota Ave SMinnetonka Blvd 33rd St 33rd St 32nd St 32nd St 31st St 31st St 0 / 40 / 51 / 71 / 153 / 165 / 122 / 21Dakota Ave SMinnetonka Blvd 33rd St 33rd St 32nd St 32nd St 31st St 31st St 0 / 40 / 52 / 79 / 151 / 163 / 123 / 21Dakota Ave SMinnetonka Blvd 33rd St 33rd St 32nd St 32nd St 31st St 31st St 1 / 41 / 53 / 75 / 156 / 163 / 126 / 21Weekday1PM - 2PM Weekday6PM - 7PM Weekend1PM - 2PM !I Parking Occupancy Note: Parking is prohibited in areas where no line is shown 0 - 49% 50 - 74% 75 - 100% City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 55 Dakota Ave SMinnetonka Blvd 33rd St 33rd St 32nd St 32nd St 31st St 31st St 0 / 42 / 54 / 76 / 151 / 163 / 128 / 21Project: STLOU 155637 Figure A4-3Dakota Avenue S Bike FacilityMap by: ljohnson Projection: NAD 1983 HARN Adj Hennepin Source: ESRI Print Date: 11/12/2021 St Louis Park, MNPath: X:\PT\S\STLOU\155637\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Figure A4-3 - September 2021 Parking Study.mxdSept 2021 Parking Study Weekday5AM - 6AM Dakota Ave SMinnetonka Blvd 33rd St 33rd St 32nd St 32nd St 31st St 31st St 0 / 41 / 53 / 79 / 150 / 162 / 122 / 21Dakota Ave SMinnetonka Blvd 33rd St 33rd St 32nd St 32nd St 31st St 31st St 0 / 41 / 55 / 79 / 1513 / 160 / 128 / 21Dakota Ave SMinnetonka Blvd 33rd St 33rd St 32nd St 32nd St 31st St 31st St 0 / 42 / 50 / 75 / 152 / 167 / 123 / 21Weekday1PM - 2PM Weekday6PM - 7PM Weekend1PM - 2PM !I Parking Occupancy Note: Parking is prohibited in areas where no line is shown 0 - 49% 50 - 74% 75 - 100% City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 56 Minnetonka Blvd 31st StDakota Ave S1 Project: STLOU 155637 Figure A5Dakota Avenue South Bike FacilityMap by: ljohnson Projection: NAD 1983 HARN Adj Hennepin Source: ESRI Print Date: 11/12/2021 St Louis Park, MNPath: X:\PT\S\STLOU\155637\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Figure A5 - May 2021, Dakota Ave S at Minnetonka Blvd, Intersection Volumes.mxdI May 2021, Dakota Ave at Minnetonka BlvdIntersection Volumes Pedestrian Count, 5-12-21, 6am-10pm Bicyclist Count, 5-12-21, 6am-10pmml Intersection ID Intersection GeometricsOP X !"$Minor Street Stop Control XX / (XX)AM Peak Hour Traffic VolumesPM Peak Hour Traffic VolumesWeather: Mostly Sunny, High 69° èéMinnetonka Blvd Dakota Ave S1 0654 127512610453 Daily Street Biker Turning MovementsPeak Hour Vehicle Turning Movements èéMinnetonka Blvd Dakota Ave S1 >P63 / (51)288 / (518)39 / (49)53 / (96)51 / (70)42 / (55)15 / (22)49 / (48)70 / (35)18 / (35)363 / (481)83 / (78)P>O=OP>PP>O=OPmlEast Crossing ³³40 6921 9 ³³³m l³ 5 14 17 32 ³³ North Crossing ³m l³ 11 4 36 31 ³³ South Crossing³m³8 3653 58 ³³lWest Crossing Direction of Pedestrian or Bicyclist ³City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 57 Appendix B Public Engagement Survey Results City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 58 Report for Dakota Avenue protected bikeway - Public survey Completion Rate:70.5% Complete 328 Partial 64 Disqualified 73 Totals: 465 Response Counts 1 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 59 The first and second question of the survey ask contact information. This information is not available to the public to maintain confidentiality of survey respondents. City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 60 3. Have you biked, walked, driven, ridden or used Dakota Avenue in any way since the protective bollards were installed? 93% Yes93% Yes 7% No7% No Value Percent Responses Yes 93.0%343 No 7.0%26 Totals: 369 16 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 61 4. How would you describe your feelings about the Dakota Avenue bikeway demonstration project? (Check all that apply) 28% I’m excited about the protected bike facility on Dakota Avenue 28% I’m excited about the protected bike facility on Dakota Avenue 17% I’m interested to see how the protected bikeway works on our street 17% I’m interested to see how the protected bikeway works on our street 11% I’m concerned about impacts to driving/parking on Dakota Avenue 11% I’m concerned about impacts to driving/parking on Dakota Avenue 28% I don’t like the protected bikeway concept 28% I don’t like the protected bikeway concept 17% Other - Write In (Required)17% Other - Write In (Required) Value Percent Responses I’m excited about the protected bike facility on Dakota Avenue 27.8%5 I’m interested to see how the protected bikeway works on our street 16.7%3 I’m concerned about impacts to driving/parking on Dakota Avenue 11.1%2 I don’t like the protected bikeway concept 27.8%5 Other - Write In (Required)16.7%3 Totals: 18 17 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 62 Other - Write In (Required)Count Bikers dont follow rules.sb on sidewalks.1 I think it is a waste of time and money and looks hideous. I have not even seen it being used by bikers! 1 The bollards are dangerous and intimidating for motorists; they're like driving close to a concrete wall 1 Totals 3 18 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 63 5. Please select all that apply.PercentI live on Dakota Avenue between 26th Street and Lake Street I'm a student, staff, or parent at Peter Hobart I'm a student, staff, or parent at SLP High School or Central Community Center I manage, own or work at a business near the Dakota Avenue project I'm a frequent Dakota Avenue user (i.e. driving, biking, or walking) I don't use Dakota Avenue often, but I'm interested in the project Other - Write In 0 100 25 50 75 Value Percent Responses I live on Dakota Avenue between 26th Street and Lake Street 12.4%36 I'm a student, staff, or parent at Peter Hobart 4.5%13 I'm a student, staff, or parent at SLP High School or Central Community Center 11.7%34 I manage, own or work at a business near the Dakota Avenue project 2.8%8 I'm a frequent Dakota Avenue user (i.e. driving, biking, or walking) 86.2%250 I don't use Dakota Avenue often, but I'm interested in the project 5.9%17 Other - Write In 5.2%15 19 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 64 Other - Write In Count As a resident, I watch idiots go 90 down Dakota regularly. I also see non patrol cars exceeding 60mph with regularity. 1 I bike to work and use Dakota as part of my commute.1 I drive between the High School and Mtka Blvd, once or twice a week.1 I have lived in St. Louis Park all of my life and have ridden Dakota by bike for decades 1 I live 2 blocks off Dakota 1 I live on 32nd & Edgewood, and we have to cope with the Dakota abortion on a daily basis. 1 I live on 32nd Edgewood and drive Dakota Ave everyday 1 I live on Colorado Ave S, not Dakota - but use it every single day!1 I live on Colorado and 32nd. Take Dakota constantly.1 Life-long SLP resident and cyclist 1 The upcoming bridge will be a shortcut for me.1 Use on bike to get to Minnetonka Blvd 1 We want these bollards removed. They are an eyesore and do not serve a helpful purpose since the bike lane that was NOT wanted isn't even used much. 1 line in the sorenson neighborhood and frequent lake st. businesses near dakota ave 1 Totals 14 20 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 65 Walk* Bike or scooter Drive Ride in a vehicle or bus Total Checks Almost every day Checks Row Check % 60 23.9% 22 8.8% 152 60.6% 17 6.8% 251 A few times a week Checks Row Check % 55 22.6% 57 23.5% 113 46.5% 18 7.4% 243 Once a week Checks Row Check % 44 29.3% 43 28.7% 50 33.3% 13 8.7% 150 Once a month Checks Row Check % 24 25.3% 37 38.9% 22 23.2% 12 12.6% 95 A few times a year Checks Row Check % 41 36.6% 48 42.9% 15 13.4% 8 7.1% 112 Rarely or never Checks Row Check % 35 24.0% 41 28.1% 1 0.7% 69 47.3% 146 Total Checks Checks % of Total Checks 259 26.0% 248 24.9% 353 35.4% 137 13.7% 997 100.0% 6. How often did you do the following on or along Dakota Avenue BEFORE the bollards were installed? 21 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 66 Walk* Bike or scooter Drive Ride in a vehicle or bus Total Checks NO , I do this the same amount as before Checks Row Check % 124 26.6% 108 23.2% 176 37.8% 58 12.4% 466 I have done the following MORE frequently Checks Row Check % 75 50.7% 52 35.1% 21 14.2% 0 0.0% 148 I have done the following LESS frequently Checks Row Check % 12 8.3% 19 13.2% 84 58.3% 29 20.1% 144 N/A Checks Row Check % 13 13.5% 26 27.1% 6 6.3% 51 53.1% 96 Total Checks Checks % of Total Checks 224 26.2% 205 24.0% 287 33.6% 138 16.2% 854 100.0% 7. Do you think the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted how frequently you have done the following on or along Dakota Avenue in the past year? 22 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 67 Walk* Bike or scooter Drive Ride in a vehicle or bus Total Checks About the SAME as before Checks Row Check % 161 27.1% 118 19.8% 245 41.2% 71 11.9% 595 I have done the following MORE frequently Checks Row Check % 25 29.1% 50 58.1% 10 11.6% 1 1.2% 86 I have done the following LESS frequently Checks Row Check % 11 20.8% 9 17.0% 25 47.2% 8 15.1% 53 N/A Checks Row Check % 17 18.7% 26 28.6% 2 2.2% 46 50.5% 91 Total Checks Checks % of Total Checks 214 25.9% 203 24.6% 282 34.2% 126 15.3% 825 100.0% 8. How often have you done the following on or along Dakota Avenue since the bollards were installed? 23 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 68 9. When biking on Dakota Avenue, I am ___________ now that the bollards have been installed 30% more comfortable30% more comfortable 8% slightly more comfortable8% slightly more comfortable 8% just as comfortable8% just as comfortable 4% slightly less comfortable4% slightly less comfortable13% less comfortable13% less comfortable 38% N/A- I did not bike on Dakota Avenue before and after the bollards were installed, so I can't compare the two experiences 38% N/A- I did not bike on Dakota Avenue before and after the bollards were installed, so I can't compare the two experiences Value Percent Responses more comfortable 29.5%87 slightly more comfortable 8.1%24 just as comfortable 7.5%22 slightly less comfortable 4.4%13 less comfortable 12.5%37 N/A- I did not bike on Dakota Avenue before and after the bollards were installed, so I can't compare the two experiences 38.0%112 Totals: 295 24 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 69 10. When walking* on Dakota Avenue, I am ___________ now that the bollards have been installed. * Walking includes using a mobility aid such as a walker, rascal, wheelchair, etc. 15% more comfortable15% more comfortable 7% slightly more comfortable7% slightly more comfortable 33% just as comfortable33% just as comfortable 3% slightly less comfortable3% slightly less comfortable 12% less comfortable12% less comfortable 31% N/A- I did not walk on Dakota Avenue before and after the bollards were installed, so I can't compare the two experiences 31% N/A- I did not walk on Dakota Avenue before and after the bollards were installed, so I can't compare the two experiences Value Percent Responses more comfortable 14.6%43 slightly more comfortable 6.5%19 just as comfortable 33.0%97 slightly less comfortable 2.7%8 less comfortable 11.9%35 N/A- I did not walk on Dakota Avenue before and after the bollards were installed, so I can't compare the two experiences 31.3%92 Totals: 294 25 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 70 11. When driving on Dakota Avenue, I am ___________ now that the bollards have been installed 12% more comfortable12% more comfortable 7% slightly more comfortable7% slightly more comfortable 20% just as comfortable20% just as comfortable 12% slightly less comfortable12% slightly less comfortable 46% less comfortable46% less comfortable 3% NA- I did not drive on Dakota Avenue before and after the bollards were installed, so I can't compare the two experiences 3% NA- I did not drive on Dakota Avenue before and after the bollards were installed, so I can't compare the two experiences Value Percent Responses more comfortable 11.8%36 slightly more comfortable 6.9%21 just as comfortable 20.1%61 slightly less comfortable 11.8%36 less comfortable 46.4%141 NA- I did not drive on Dakota Avenue before and after the bollards were installed, so I can't compare the two experiences 3.0%9 Totals: 304 26 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 71 12. If you biked on Dakota Avenue after the bollards were installed, where did you bike? 48% In the bike lane48% In the bike lane 8% On the sidewalk8% On the sidewalk 2% Other - Write In2% Other - Write In 43% N/A- I did not bike on Dakota Avenue after the bollards were installed 43% N/A- I did not bike on Dakota Avenue after the bollards were installed Value Percent Responses In the bike lane 48.0%134 On the sidewalk 7.5%21 Other - Write In 1.8%5 N/A- I did not bike on Dakota Avenue after the bollards were installed 42.7%119 Totals: 279 27 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 72 Other - Write In Count Both the bike lane and sidewalk 1 I normally ride in the bike lane on Dakota, however, I do move over one block to Colorado Ave as soon as I can to avoid the excessive traffic on Dakota. The bollards help with me feeling safer on Dakota, but I still prefer to use streets and trails that don't have as much vehicle traffic/rush hour traffic. 1 I was FORCED to use the bike lane because of the bollards - if a biker prefers to bike in the street, they can't get over to safety if a large vehicle is coming due to the bollards. Or, if a biker likes bike lanes, the bollards are in the way of getting around the slower bikers. So either way, the bollards are a fail. 1 Usually in the bike lane. However, I'm an avid cyclist and if slower bikes are in the lane, I'll pop into the road if it's clear. 1 depended on where people were because of Covid concerns and how easy it was to access lanes based on those concerns (not wanting to get too close to others) 1 Totals 5 28 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 73 13. How do you think the bollards have impacted driver speed? 3% Increased driver speeds3% Increased driver speeds 29% Decreased driver speeds29% Decreased driver speeds 50% No change in driver speeds50% No change in driver speeds 18% I'm not sure18% I'm not sure Value Percent Responses Increased driver speeds 3.3%10 Decreased driver speeds 28.5%86 No change in driver speeds 50.0%151 I'm not sure 18.2%55 Totals: 302 29 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 74 14. What best describes you?PercentI love biking and I'mcomfortable riding almostanywhereI enjoy biking and I'm comfortable on mostbike facilitiesI like biking, but only on certain facilities such as off-street trailsI'm interested, but something other than bike facilities is keeping me from biking (i.e.access to a bike, physical ability, etc.)I do not like biking, but I think there's a need for better facilities for other peopleI don't care either wayI don't like biking and I don't think the city should be investing in bike facilitiesOther - Write In0 10 20 30 Value Percent Responses I love biking and I'm comfortable riding almost anywhere 24.0%71 I enjoy biking and I'm comfortable on most bike facilities 28.0%83 I like biking, but only on certain facilities such as off-street trails 22.6%67 I'm interested, but something other than bike facilities is keeping me from biking (i.e. access to a bike, physical ability, etc.) 5.4%16 I do not like biking, but I think there's a need for better facilities for other people 3.4%10 I don't care either way 4.7%14 I don't like biking and I don't think the city should be investing in bike facilities 9.5%28 Other - Write In 8.8%26 Other - Write In Count Totals 26 30 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 75 Bikers are outlaws.1 Bikers should not be given the same rights as drivers nor should they be excused for not following the rules of the road (ie. running a stop sign) 1 Bikers should observe road rules and this would not be necessay..1 I biked over 45,000 miles since 1988, and now that I am old, I perfer trails and designated bike lanes for my saftey... 1 I do like biking, but I don't feel like narrowing roads is an effective use of the roads. Bicycle lanes have reduced the ability to move traffic efficiently and effectively while apartment and condo complexes have increased residents. More traffic due to more population density slows things down. 1 I don't bike frequently on city streets and neither do most people bc we live in Minnesota and we can't bike 8 months out of the year!! 1 I don't bike, but understand that many people do. It's hard to support the bollards, when the city keeps adding high density housing, which just increases traffic...something that isn't safe for our biking community. So SLP seems to want quick fixes and appear concerned, but the overall goal is always make more money. 1 I enjoy biking and think the city likes to waste way too many resources on reconstructing city streets 1 I enjoy biking but do not agree with bike facilities.1 I gave up biking because I'm uncomfortable riding on the streets with all the traffic 1 I like biking and I don't think the city should be investing in grade level bike facilities 1 I like biking but disagree with the huge investments abs changes regarding bikes. The roads are less safe because this bike nonsense. 1 I like biking, something other than bollards keep me from it. I the serious bikers are used to the risks associated with biking on unmarked/unbolted streets, leisure bikers/families will take less busy roads over busy bollarded/marked streets. 1 I think the city should have charges for bike licenses since so many streets have been upgraded for bikers 1 I think there is a place bikes as long as the bikers pay the cost. I also think it is absurd to put bike lanes on an emergency route. 1 Other - Write In Count Totals 26 31 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 76 I'm an avid cyclist. I love to find new routes to keep my commute interesting. I've found my most direct route is using Dakota Ave, but again, I prefer to ride on Colorado in order to avoid the traffic on Dakota. 1 It is absurd to greatly inconvenience the vast majority in order to accomdate. a very small minority and make me pay for it through property taxes and gas and vehicle taxes while the beneficiaries pay nothing. This 1 Love biking, comfortable almost anywhere, but will not bike in bike lanes on major arterial roads like Minnetonka or Walker. A white stripe doesnt protect me from speeders and distracted drivers or haters. 1 Love biking. Trails safer than road but will ride some roads 1 Most cyclists are assholes who don't follow the rules.1 The City should not take away street parking or narrow streets to accomodate bikes 1 These bollards are terrible. They keep getting hit and look awful. People are NOT using these bike lanes that you took away parking for residents for!!! 1 Waste of money, took away my parking and I barely see people use it. So thank you for spending tax dollars on something that seems so meaningless. 1 excessive catering to biking 1 my daughter wants to bikes to school and the protected lanes make us feel more comfortable about it. 1 the bollards are a huge waste of tax money 1 Totals 26 Other - Write In Count 32 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 77 15. How would you describe your feelings about the Dakota Avenue bikeway demonstration project? (Check all that apply)PercentI'm excited about protected bike facility on Dakota Avenue I'm interested to see how the protected bikeway works on our street I'm concerned about impacts to driving/ parking on Dakota Avenue I don't care either way I don't like the protected bikeway concept Other - Write In 0 10 20 30 40 Value Percent Responses I'm excited about protected bike facility on Dakota Avenue 35.2%105 I'm interested to see how the protected bikeway works on our street 15.4%46 I'm concerned about impacts to driving/ parking on Dakota Avenue 31.2%93 I don't care either way 0.7%2 I don't like the protected bikeway concept 34.2%102 Other - Write In 10.7%32 Other - Write In Count I never see bikers or very very seldom on these bike lanesldom 1 Asshole cyclists don't deserve protection. They deserve to be struck by vehicles when they don't follow the rules, which is often. 1 Totals 31 33 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 78 Feels so much safer both biking and driving. Forces other drivers to pay attention.1 Hate it, think it's a safety hazzard 1 I don't believe the amount of bicycle commuting warrants the expense to taxpayers of this project 1 I feel it's unnecessary. I am an avid biker and feel that it is a very tight bike lane but that it has impacted the drivers lane - they are too small also. Maybe Dakota isn't the best road choice or maybe how it is set up is not going to work. 1 I hate the project and it has made the street look ugly 1 I like a protected bikeway concept, but Dakota is already or was rather a wide street and I never ever had any concerns biking on it. Now it feels cumbersome. 1 I like that it protects cyclists, but it has made driving a bit more nerve-racking because the driving lane in tighter. That said, the potential to decrease traffic because of this is potentially apositive. It's tricky. 1 I like the visual separation, and I think it helps, there is always room for improvement though to move foot/bike traffic away from vehicle traffic. 1 I love the development of bicycle infrastructure in the neighborhood, but what has been done to Dakota is the bare minimum. Plastic doesn't stop cars. 1 I see very few bikers on almost all bikeways 1 I think a Share the Road with street markings and overall awareness campaign would've achieved similar goals. 1 I think it is wrong to endanger (if you meet an oncoming truck you had better play close attention and hope the other driver is too) and inconvenience the vast majority to accommodate a very small minority. 1 I'm down for bikes 1 I'm very excited that SLP is working to protect cyclists on the higher traffic streets. I'm curious to see if the project is successful on various levels. Thank you! 1 Is this prudent spending?1 It is the most unsafe feeling driving down Dakota Blvd since the bollards were installed. I can hardly see the bikers and driving around the high school is just plain dangerous now. 1 Other - Write In Count Totals 31 34 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 79 It's clear that the city has too much money to waste.1 Remove them. They are a failed project. Not many bikers are using the bike lanes, some ride in the street. Cars are still driving WAY TOO FAST! 1 See input on #15 1 The bikeways should be on lesser used streets 1 The pylons are a traffic hazard. People are now driving in the middle of the road or hitting the pylons. During the brief time without them, I thought this was better for bikers and drivers. 1 Unsightly/disorganized 1 Very much against this terrible bike lane that took away our parking. The pavement was ripped up and the street moved over by three feet— what a terrible waste of time and money!! No one is using this bike lane!! They bike in the middle of the street anyway when bikers actually do use our street!!! 1 Very very concerned - it's negatively impacting driving and is a distraction. I've seen people almost hit due to the much smaller area. 1 While protected bike ways using bollards is a step in the right direction, having both bike lanes on the same side of the street with curb or grade separation is the ideal setup for streets long-term. Further, smart improvements to the corridor could truly make it great. 1 Will be more dangerous for bikers and cars, as cars still go into bike lanes to go around turning cars. Plus the white ballard are unsightly and the lack of street parking is horrible 1 bike lane surface is in tough shape and is hard to ride on 1 frankly, they scare me! VERY hard to see on overcast, rainy or bright sunny days & cars veer closer to the middle line! 1 silly and dangerous, it ruined MPLS streets,1 Totals 31 Other - Write In Count 35 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 80 ResponseID Response 18 Cyclists should be reminded that bike lanes are for single file use, not side by side riding. 20 I think the bollards are a great way to make bikers feel safer as they are using the bike lane. It also helps redirect traffic from the sidewalk. 21 I am concerned about how winter plowing will be impacted by these changes. Will both lanes be fully plowed? Will plows be able avoid these bollards and still clear both pathways effectively? I spend time driving and riding throughout south Minneapolis and noticed these where major issues with similar systems there. 22 Is white the best color for the bollards in terms of safety and visibility throughout the year? 23 I'm very excited and thankful that SLP will now have a North/South way for peds/cyclists to get to various parts of the city more easily and conveniently. Thank you. 25 I think drivers and bikers are confused. There is no clear direction on driving or biking lanes. The decreased parking is extremely frustrating for us homeowners. Noticing very few bikers and many are still biking on the sidewalk. 16. Do you have any other thoughts or questions to share with the city about the Dakota Avenue protected bikeway demonstration project? bikebollards dakotalanesstreet bikers drivers laneroad driving cars city or traffic feel parking driversidebikingbikes turn avoid car peoplelake 36 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 81 28 Please work to keep things in perspective - bikes are great, but cars are still vital for a 1000 tasks, especially for families and senior citizens. SLP is NOT a "Walk first, bike second, drive third city" - that's a total joke. 29 What impacts me the most on Dakota bikeway has been parked cars or snow. Maintenance is my biggest concern. Can I use the bike lane when there is snow not plowed to the curb, typical not. When snow emergencies aren't declared there is now longer a bike lane with cars parked over it. Can this be solved? How is it intended to be maintained during the winter? 33 The bollard right on the corner of 31st and Dakota make it hard to turn onto 31st. It is right on the corner so you have to turn really wide to go around it, which is hard if there's a vehicle already on 31st waiting to go. I find the bollards make driving more confusing. 34 I have a masters in urban planning and am all for increased biking. But let's be real. This is ridiculous. Bike lanes that are clearly delineated by striping or paint colors are perfectly sufficient. As much as the city may want to be all progressive (coming from a super lefty), the fact is drivers are still the majority and this is overkill. As a driver, I come up to these bollards and they are so in your face and distracting that you don't notice much else, especially pedestrians. They block the view when trying to turn onto Dakota from side streets so I have to half guess that no one is coming. In all the times I drive over there, I in reality encounter a pretty low number of pedestrians, unless it's peak school times. And in all the years I've lived here, I've never had an issue allowing pedestrians on Dakota space or right of way. These are incredibly unsightly, alarming, and counterproductive. Hoping this experiment is over sooner than later and they are removed. 37 I do not like parking spots taken away from residents who live on Dakota. I don't like the pylons - feel like they make the driving lanes too small and dangerous. I also feel like they are going to be hit often by vehicles and what happens in the winter when the snow plows go through? Do they get taken out? Seems like there is a lot of maintenance for a very small population of people. I don't feel like Dakota is a wide enough road to handle bike lanes and vehicles safely. I am an avid biker. I personally try to stay off streets as much as possible due to lack of confidence in other drivers - I don't think it matters if there is a specific bike lane or not, drivers just don't pay attention. Could you make the sidewalks a bike lane instead? Maybe the west side of the street is for bikes and the east side is for walkers? Keep the bikes off of the road unless it is truly wide enough for both and in the case of Dakota it is not wide enough - bring back the parking. 38 I think it's a dumb idea. What do your snow plow drivers think of it for the winter? I'll bet they hate it. 39 I am in favor of making our city more bike/walk friendly and like the effect the project has on vehicles to calm them and on bikes to contain them in their own safe area. ResponseID Response 37 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 82 41 I think bollards are an unnecessary expense and obstruction. Taking away residents parking is also a drawback. I would like to see something like Edina's use of bright paint or universal messaging. 44 This is the next best thing to a separate bicycle path. 47 I think the concept is very busy looking and confusing. I don't think experience with usage will change my opinion. 48 Because I have a low profile car, I struggle pulling out onto Dakota. It's very deceiving trying to see and guage traffic, bikers, and pedestrians!!! 54 Keep it up. More bollards and more safe infrastructure for bikes all over the city! Encourage safety and multi modal transportation! 57 Love having more bike lanes in our neighborhood! It feels safer when biking near vehicles, and it feels safer when I am walking on the sidewalk for the bikers to have their own lane, too. 60 The bollards make it very difficult to drive on Dakota Ave. It has narroed the street and leave little room to pass oncoming cars and near impossible to pass a garbage truck or delivery van. Especially when cars are parked on street. 66 Remove the bollards!! They are unnecessary, ugly and they do NOT add any value to the street. Cars have to swing way out to avoid them. Busses have to swing out so far to maneuver around them that they end up in on coming traffic. And delivery trucks have to park opposite to deliver to my home and run across the very busy street where cars go 45 miles per hour. These bollards and bike lane have ruined Dakota Avenue. 68 Dakota Ave is now too narrow to drive safely. There is no need for bike lanes on each side. Get rid of the bollards - very distracting for drivers. 69 I fear for injuries to bikers as the speeds of vehicles continue to be non compliant to 30 mph. 70 How do you intend to plow? Where are the promised crosswalks? Will crosswalks - if ever installed - have lights/buttons to assist with pedestrian crossings? Where else do you want to install these? Wouldn't green paint work just as well - even better re: plowing & weather conditions - as in other parts of the city? How expensive are these to install, replace, take down? Was community input sought BEFORE this pilot project? Frankly, they scare me!! 71 Whatever your forecasted estimated maintenance expenses are, double them and add 20%. This is going to be expensive and will impact driving, parking and snow removal on the roadway. ResponseID Response 38 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 83 72 Driving lanes seem too narrow and close to oncoming traffic, distracting when trying to turn right or left onto Dakota 74 I liked the idea of a bike lane, but it seems it was taken too far. The bollards make drivers uncomfortable which makes them ride the center line. I have seen numerous times where a head on collision is close. Busses from the school can no longer make the turns without going into oncoming traffic so they just hit the corner bollards. And the whole look in the neighborhood is ridiculous and ugly aesthetically. 77 I would think the bike lanes will prevent a lot of injuries 78 I love bike lanes and using them as part of living on Dakota. But honestly, they make it way harder to see bikers and pedestrians waiting at crosswalks. They are visually really distracting even though I drive at very slow speeds. As a frequent walker & biker, I don't feel more comfortable because the bollards won't stop a distracted driver, and I feel like I'm harder to see. I love this neighborhood & want it safe and very bike friendly! Thank you! 81 Are there more drivers or bikers? I had no problem biking on the streets without the lanes. I think Dakota is less safe because it is so distracting. 84 I've found the bollards to be distracting...lanes are much narrower 86 - 89 This is a terrible concept. The ballards confuse drivers, bikers, and walkers alike. They are burdensome and dangerous. Someone is likely to be seriously injured or killed due to the negligence of the plan. The city needs to re-asses the value of the ballard concept. 92 Protected bikeways has narrowed auto lanes allowing fewer options for motorists to navigate. Forcing pedestrians, bikes and autos into narrow lanes is cramped and uncomfortable. Snow removal will be complicated. I now try to avoid this area. I feel much less safe. This design has complicated access to local business. 95 My husband and I are planning to leave this area. The traffic is horrible and dangerous with the advent of the bike trails on such a busy roadway. There are only a few streets in SLP that run through the city. Why destroy these roadways for a couple of bikes. You have made this area more dangerous to bikes and cars. I am also saddened by the horrible appearance of Dakota Ave from Lake St to Minnetonka Blvd. Poor road conditions and the horrible sight line with so many stanchions. We've had enough! 103 We already have to watch for cars, pedestrians, and bicyclists when turning onto Dakota. The bollards only serve as an extra distraction. It makes it harder to see everything else. ResponseID Response 39 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 84 105 They are a complete eyesore, and cause confusion. They take away parking spots for us trying to visit those on Dakota. Waste of tax dollars, and will continue to be with the installation and removal of them. Would never last through a winter with snow plows, and I would hate to worry about hitting them in winter too. 107 While protected bike ways using bollards is a step in the right direction, having both bike lanes on the same side of the street with curb or grade separation (like "The Artery" in Hopkins) is the ideal setup for making bikers AND drivers comfortable on our streets long-term. Having bikeway curb/grade separation setup along the west side of Dakota/Wooddale, along with a brief bike lane(s) diversion from Wooddale onto the "south" side of Walker Street leading to a bike and pedestrian bridge across Highway 7 connecting to Cedar Lake Trail and the LRT station would be a fantastic way to improve bike, pedestrian, AND vehicle traffic throughout the entire corridor. This development would connect the Minnetonka Blvd bike lanes, high school, Cedar Lake Trail, and LRT Station in the most optimal manner, and would facilitate maximum bike usage in the corridor. 110 white is hard to see in sunlight, can you do a daytime, neon color on bottom of pole that is easier to see? 114 I find that cars going down Dakota avenue are going very fast, even when children are present. A flashing speed sign might be helpful. Or having an officer present when kids are in the street, when school starts and end. I've seen cars speeding from Minnetonka avenue towards Lake Street while buses are loading/unloading students, and while students are walking, driving, or biking to and from school. 115 The city, as usual, is wasting tax payers' money. Those bollards look dangerous, at best. A cyclist could fall off their bike and impale themselves. Then, they'd sue the city, and more tax payers' money would be wasted. 116 The street was badly repainted. It is distracting and an absolute mess. Adding the bollards made is worse. It is near impossible to turn onto Dakota safely. I'm for the changes if it were completely related and repainted and bollards removed. 117 Please do Wooddale Ave bike lane with bollards between 44th St and 43rd St. so families can feel safe biking with their kids on that route. 119 Bike lane is great but those bollards are a traffic hazard paticularly when turning onto Dakota 120 Done really well! The old yellow lines could use a better removal though. Have experiences several cars still drifting over the yellow line towards the old line in the past week 121 Do more protected bike lanes! ResponseID Response 40 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 85 124 Did this affect the valuation of the properties on Dakota? Are the bollards keeping visitors away? 126 Changes take attitude adjustments for many drivers, but the more that can be done to make walking and bicycling safer in the city (kudos on Texas Ave changes, btw!), the better a place it is to live. Ped/bike safety and infrastructure was a big reason we moved back to SLP after two years out of state. 127 I don't understand at all why you would co-locate bike lanes on one of the primary motor vehicle roadways when less travelled parallel roadway could be used by bikers. Please stop forcing bike lanes into designs made for automobiles, which is by far the primary mode of transportation for a large majority of residents, and in particular in a state where winter weather makes bike lanes irrelevant for 4-6 months for all but the most avid of bikers. 128 The city council and engineers do not care about us the homeowners who live on the Dakota. You care about those who ride a bike thru the neighborhood. The bollards look like a permanent construction project. You are not going to slow traffic because there is no police enforcing the speed limit. No matter what the speed limit is people will speed. I need to replace my front sidewalk and need space to park to unload pallets of brick and a cement truck but was told to park in my driveway( thanks for working with the homeowners who actually pay taxes and are trying to improve our homes) Instead take care of the people who pass down the street. The lines on the street look terrible as well. Very shoddy job by whomever you paid. Come take a look. Those who make these decisions need to listen to the tax payers and work with us not in your self interests. Waste of money. Bollards nor bike paths on a busy road are not going to keep you safe. If you are uncomfortable ride on another street. In addition come watch those who still ride bike on the sidewalk. Did you see how many people moved since you made this decision? Love the rental homes - Renters do not take care of the community nor the property. I vote remove the bollards and give us back our parking seasonally. You need to offer permits so we can make home improvements and be able to park on the street for moving in equipment and materials. Be sure you remove the bollards this winter because people do not ride bikes at the same level as the summer. I can give you about 10 more reasons why the bollards need to be removed but feel this will go on deaf ears, similar to the meeting we had with The City Manager where he wrote down our ideas and did not make 1 change. The City Council was very clear when they stated it is not their responsibility to provide parking to the homeowners on the final vote. ResponseID Response 41 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 86 129 I'm an avid bicyclist. I use both streets and off street trails. Prior to the bike lanes and then the bollards, I never feel unsafe riding on Dakota Ave. I would have like to see some share the road markings. The current lanes and bollards are unsightly and in some ways more dangerous the before because the bikers are less aware of the traffic and cars leaving their driveways. The speed of the cars have increased. I understand the city is looking to decrease the speed limit when the real issue is there is no enforcement of the current speed limit. I have never seen a traffic stop on Dakota but people and trucks routinely drive 10 to 15 mph above the speed limit. The bollards seem to be and issue for garbage collection, deliveries and access for home maintenance. The parking has been missed even through Covid need limited the need for now. I have still see people riding their bike on the sidewalks. Also the few bike riders I saw this winter were in the car lanes in the street because they were more snow free then bike paths and that was without the bollards to hinder snow removal. Our street use to be very attractive. Now it looks like a cross between a construction zone and a obstacle course. As a project and a demonstration it is a object fail. If you would like demonstration bollards and poorly designed bike lanes you would have only had to go to Uptown. But I guess taxation does not equal representation. 131 I think we've had a speed problem on Dakota for some time. I was hoping the bollards would slow people down and, initially, I think they helped. Now, that people are more comfortable with the bollards, speeds have gone up again. It's my thought that we should have electronic signage as they have on Texas avenue; at least it would remind people that they're moving too fast in a residential area. I know that the city will be lowering speed limits, but I seriously doubt that's going to have much impact along this section if roadway. People don't seem to pay attention, or they don't care. 132 They are obstructing views from the car both at night and during the day. I think paint on roads is enough. I do not recall seeing any issues along Dakota with bikes and cars... intersections yes but not going down the road. 135 I'm all for more bike lanes protected or otherwise in St. Louis Park. 138 The bollards make it more difficult to see pedestrians and bikers when driving and seem to confuse a lot of drivers into driving in the bike lane. Clear pavement markings of a bike lane seem like they would be more intuitive and effective while also avoiding snow maintenance issues. 139 The protected bikeway is only marginally better than nothing at all. A curb, large concrete planters, or some other barriers to provide *actual* protection from vehicles would be much safer and provide me with much more comfort when using this bike facility. 140 I am more likely to ride my bike on Dakota. I wish something like it were on Minnetonka Blvd. Right now I avoid Minnetonka even though it is a designated bike route because there is no protection for bikers. ResponseID Response 42 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 87 141 Don't copy Mpls, this is not Amsterdam, you should concern yourselves with enforcement of traffic and speed regulations currently on the books. This is disaster waiting to happen. Bikers have sufficient dedicated lanes aound town. 142 I think the bollards help protect bikers as it stops cars from swerving or driving in a bike lane to make a turn without looking for cyclists first. Since the traffic flow is back and forth on the street (ie. Driving on Dakota is no longer a straight line due to the parking on alternating sides of the street), it slows down traffic which is a VERY good thing to help keep pedestrians and cyclists (and other drivers) safe. I just wish the city could "clean up" the pavement, as the road is unevenly surfaced due to scraping off the old street lines. When driving on Dakota in the dark or wet roads or inclement weather, it's VERY hard for drivers to see where the road lines actually are today since the old lines are still very visible. It also grabs the tires of the car a bit and swerved the car a bit when crossing over these uneven pavement lines to maneuver around the alternating parking sides. It would improve visibility and safety all around the get the road cleaned up. 143 Very distracting- I'd rather watch out for bikers than these posts 145 Why do bike ways need to on main roads. can't side roads be used. when I bike, I am not comfortable in those lanes. 149 As a driver who lives near by and drives it daily The white plastic bollards are very hard to see in early morning and dusk hours. As for walking and biking I have no feeling of change. The color of the bollards should be changed to a better color for setting and rising sun 153 The slower speeds are a win for everyone. 154 I would love to see more of these across Saint Louis Park. It's not a perfect system, but we have to start somewhere. Thank you for investing in this effort. 156 this whole project is a huge waste of tax money. especially considering how little people bike a good third of the year. 157 I believe the bollards add another obstacle in an already over crowded roadway. Example: If there is debris, a person waiting to cross, equipment or a road hazard blocking only half the bike lane. Instead of only having to move a few inches to the left to get around it, the rider is now FORCED to completely enter the car lane, to not only avoid debris/hazard but also the bollards. Which in turn makes the solution worse than the original problem. I really like what the city did on the south side of Cedar Lake road from Kentucky all the way to the West End development. Definitely a more enjoyable, smarter and safer experience along there, than anything they have done on Dakota. ResponseID Response 43 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 88 159 Driving is scary now, it makes the road feel much narrower 163 The bikelanes have made parking more difficult, but the bollards have made it impossible - theres no way to maneuver around turning vehicles or stopped delivery trucks, etc. traffic that used to flow freely and easily is now negatively impacted. Additionally, the lines were so poorly painted and removed that the street is incredibly confusing 164 Please stop wasting tax dollars on projects like this. MPLS already has some of the most bike trails in the United States of America.. We dont need to accommodate bikers on the road as well. They can find a trail, I'm sure they prefer trails anyway. 165 None 166 It seems way too much to have bollards on both sides of the street. It also seemed odd to do a shift while driving because parking moved on one side to another. 167 Total waste of money. Very few will use it in the wintertime. 178 As a driver it is SUPER distracting. It makes it hard to see pedestrians and bikers as well as cars coming in and out of intersections. Whatever was done on Teacs avenue is WAY more successful in my opinion. Dakota feels like a disaster right now :( 181 The bollards were very hard to see when I drove Dakota when the sun was very bright. I posted about this on Nextdoor and received over 100 comments and most were negative. My opinion - take them out of the street. 182 I think these are great. St Louis Park residents rarely, if ever, slow down or give enough space to cyclist. I ride all over MN, and SLP and Edina are some of the worst cities to ride a bike in on the road. These are a great step towards keeping drivers away from cyclist. 186 Hopefully these bollards will last longer than the ones first installed on 3rd Avenue in downtown Minneapolis! 187 The road seems very narrow for cars and I'm afraid I'm gonna hit the ballords sometimes 188 I think all the markings on the road are very distracting to drivers and make it hard to figure out where they are supposed to be driving, and the ballards are too close and in the way when making a turn to and from 33rd street. 189 I don't like the bollards. It makes it hard to turn on to Dakota and it is much narrower when there are big trucks in the other lane. I don't mind the white lines but the bollards must go! ResponseID Response 44 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 89 191 I am very much a fan of this project. Can we get some permanent radar- speed displaying speed limit signs? Also, can you remind SLPPD that they should have their lights and siren on if they're going to drive that fast? Sure, it's usually at night, but there are still kids that live on this block. A mechanical failure at those speeds could cause a horrendous accident. 192 Super hard to see in the rain. I actually hit one in the second day they were up. If they stay color needs to change. 193 Import to protect students on bikes even if it inconveniences some drivers and parkers 196 For many years I have been concerned and frustrated by the pedestrian crossing on Dakota at the high school. NO ONE slows down or stops, and it's never patrolled. I have worried for kids and residents like me that try to use it. I think the bollards increase awareness fo drive with caution in this area. I'm hopeful it will bring awareness to drivers and STOP at the crossing. I'm surprised someone has not been hurt or killed as speeding has been a HUGE problem for the 20 years I've lived in the neighborhood. 197 I love it! We only recently moved to this area of SLP, so anticipate we will make good use walking and biking along Dakota thanks to the added (or what at least feels like added) safety and security of the dividers. Thank you! 198 Minnetonka Blvd is a street I'd like to see more caution on. Dakota is a non- issue. 202 Total waste of taxpayer dollars. Makes it less safe, visibility is terrible trying to turn onto Dakota from side streets, harder to see both bikers and cars 203 This is the worst execution I've ever seen of a project like this, even if it is a test. There's confusion on how to use it, anger and concern being expressed on social media - including next door, and you've seriously impacted the experience for drivers who are the majority using it. I've yet to see a biker on that road. I'm very concerned because of the visual distraction it causes that a person walking or trying to cross will get hit. You significantly increased the visuals a driver needs to focus on, whereas previously it was just a person obviously trying to cross the road. 204 Make it a one way and forget all these changes. Are there too many rental properties in this area, without off street parking adding to this problem.? ResponseID Response 45 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 90 206 As a frequent driver down Dakota, I find the bollards make is very difficult to take in all the visual information before safely pulling into the street (I live on Colorado and find making a left turn onto Dakota is especially difficult). I also find the bollards distracting while I drive down Dakota. Too much visual information to take in. It could just be the way my brain processes things, but I feel uncomfortable driving down Dakota now, which is unfortunate since I need to use that street several times a week. 208 I cannot believe that my tax dollars were used for this project. Bikes do not rule the road. Bikers are rude, pretentious, entitled, and law-breakers (flying through stop lights and stop signs, riding on sidewalks, endangering walkers). I do not feel safe walking on SLP trails for fear of being hit by a speeding bike. I'm embarrassed that the city cow-towed to the bike alliance bullies. Sit back and count the minuscule number of bikes that use Dakota. It's a travesty. And my poor neighbors that live on Dakota. They have to look at the monstrosity of those plastic white pillars AND had their street parking taken away. What about our elderly neighbors and visitors that now have to park blocks away from their home? Can't even park in front to unload groceries. I see who is important to SLP city council - and it's NOT their tax paying citizens. There is absolutely NO RTO by accommodating bikes while isolating homeowners/tax payers. This needs to stop. 209 I rarely see any bikers on Dakota. This was a waste of money for the city. 215 Dakota Avenue needs to be repaved as the amount of potholes and bumps makes biking slightly uncomfortable. The protected bikeway should be extended north of Minnetonka Boulevard instead of forcing bikers to share the road with traffic. The protected bikeway should also be extended south of Lake Street. During all times of the year the bikeway needs to be cleared of road debris as bike tires aren't as strong as car tires. In addition, during the winter the bikeway needs to be well-cleared of ice and snow in order for biking on it during that season to be safe. 217 Due to reduced parking on Dakota, we have a problem getting out of our driveway due to cars blocking our driveway because their parking space is overlapping our driveway. 219 In the past week, I have seen 3 bicyclists in this stretch and they were all riding on the sidewalk. 220 I've driven through the intersection heading west and believe the bollards are quiet visible and it's very clear as a driver what I'm supposed to do if I turned right. Anyone who gets confused by bollards should stop driving. I prefer a separated, raised, cycle track like Amsterdam or Cedar Lake Road ...but baby steps. Bollards are better than nothing. ResponseID Response 46 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 91 222 We found turning from side streets onto Dakota avenue surprisingly awkward due to the placement of the bollards, particularly a left turn from Dakota onto 33rd at the high school. For some reason, we found ourselves swinging into the bollards and having to awkwardly correct left toward oncoming traffic. This was discomforting and may reflect a need to move the bollards a touch further away from the intersection. 223 I think the bollards are more distracting to everyone and create visual pollution and eyesore. As a driver, sight lines of all these bollards are distracting. As a walker, I will avoid Dakota because it is now unpleasant to the surroundings, and is unnecessary overkill. One can only imagine how people ever survived the city before all of the 'experiments' the city deemed important. I think young people need more guidance from parents and schools for common sense rules of the road. I rarely see people ride their bikes on the correct side of the road and give any arm signals for turns. I feel sorry for the residents on Dakota, to have to look at that mess everyday! It's awful! Interesting how Hopkins Main Street tried to beautify and manage parking, but after years of snowplow struggles, they changed it all back, then St. Louis Park creates the same mistake on Texas Ave (and Dakota Ave), and tries to 'update and beautify' with huge slabs of rock at the corners for people to sit on. Really? who wants to sit on a hard slab, and did anyone consider the inconvenience of snowblowers and shovelers trying to clear around them? Also, the great experiment on widening the sidewalks at the end of each street into this incredibly WIDE Y shape, (at least 7' wide) on my corner, while the other 3 corners were 1/2 that size. Did anyone consider the extra effort to shovel all of that heavy snow, especially after the snowplows dump 3' high boulders?? And what was the purpose, I've never seen a HUGE traffic jam of walkers, bikers, strollers etc where it was in need of change. What a waste of taxpayers money. The city also tried a WIFI experiment and widened the roads and chopped all the lower branches off the trees and really disfigured them horribly. Another Waste, plus they city cut the roots of my boulevard tree and weakened the root base, a strong wind caused it to lean and the city had to take it down. I was even treating the tree for 3 years for the Emerald Ash borer disease. Wow, $300 of my money for a city tree, that you ruined. Oh, and your city officials made me pay 1/2 the cost of taking the tree down. Thank you city of St. Louis Park! 227 As I driver, I feel they are distracting and I am not giving my full attention to the road but instead to the divider sticks 230 When will bike lanes be installed/painted on Wooddale between Lake Street and Hwy 7? Glaring hole in current bike access through this corridor. 234 I like bike lanes but not the bollards. I think they make the road feel even narrower than it really is. ResponseID Response 47 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 92 236 These bollards are making Dakota Ave less safe. Regarding vehicle traffic. Confusing for vehicle lanes and turns. There is too much of the old lane and sign left on the road- post grind removal. Tough in the dark and wet weather to understand where the traffic lane. There is no ability to avoid collisions because the bollards would damage vehicle. Makes it tough on traffic flow because vehicles can not move over when making a turn. Regarding walking: Too much going on with the stripes and bollards. And again the poor stripe removal- so confusing. This all makes it more hazardous to cross Dakota. I would like to see the bollards removed. Nice idea but this is not the right location for them. 237 Yes. I would love for this project to be done and the bollards to be removed. I've already lost my street parking, and having to look outside my window at the bollards is not what I signed up for 238 Awesome job guys. Thank you so much 239 This improvement makes it so much more comfortable for my wife or i to take our baby girl up to the park by Dakota school or to ride on the north cedar lake trail. It makes it so much clearer how fast I should be driving in the school zones! 240 The bike lane is fine but if I lived on that road I would not like it. Are the plastic barriers permanent? How will it affect plowing for snow? It would make sense to leave them up temporarily to help train people about the lanes but eventually remove them. 241 I am impressed by this initiative. I think that bikers should have a safe space to bike. I really hope more projects like this are implemented. 255 It is more difficult to drive through but I am in favor of these to protect the bikers. 256 Turning lanes feel very unsafe and not al bikers/drivers follow the same rules. 259 I wish the city was doing this on all roads that are this busy! It makes it so much more comfortable to get around. Please continue this onto Wooddale and 36th to make it safer to go shopping. 261 The previous markings along Dakota that were ground out look terrible. I wish they would've just painted black over the lines than ruining the road. Also the new spacing puts a deep manhole right in the driving path. ResponseID Response 48 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 93 262 As a driver, I try to be aware of cyclists, but I'll admit that I'm nervous sharing the road with them because they may dart out around parked cars, etc. and I don't want to hit them. Having the lanes clearly marked gives me more peace of mind. As a bike rider, I avoid riding on streets wherever possible because I don't trust drivers to see me. 263 I am enjoying the new bike lane for when I am biking. However when driving the pavement scraping where the center lane used to be is annoying to drive over. 265 Bollards result in driving towards center to avoid hitting them. Result is dangerous driving when attempting to turn corner or two drivers meeting. Road is narrowed more than by lanes alone. Appreciate increased visibility but signage and education would be better and more helpful. I meet many who don't understand bike lanes or rules, etc - bother bikers and drivers. 266 If you leave the bollards up how are you going to plow snow to the curb, the same way you swept the street? 267 I am an avid biker. I think these lanes are unnecessary. The impact the ballards have on creating more narrow roads, taking away parking and causing some confusion isn't worth it. I love biking and bike often. I do bike down Dakota and have never felt there was a problem. Now with the ballards in place I feel vehicles don't have the space they need and it crates a very cramped feeling while biking there which makes me uncomfortable. I have switched to the sidewalk when the are unoccupied. 270 Now do Minnetonka, Cedar Lake, Louisiana 276 How much parking did you destroy? Did you compensate the homeowners? Are you trying to make a residential area more like downtown or the u? I would not like that at all if I lived there. 277 I see almost no bikers in the Dakota space. The school bus drivers don't like it . They avoid it because it's so narrow, We get more school buses on Edgewood and other residential streets. I hear talk about lowering speed limits. Why don't you just enforce the existing limits, ESPECIALLY for school busses. Please end this boondogle soon! 278 Since the bike paths and bollards have been installed I have noticed much more bike traffic on side streets. My main concern is if bikes are going to have their own lanes, why do they not obey the same road signs and lights? 280 The street is now so narrow it is dangerous! It looks hideous. I rarely see any bikes in the bike lanes and I've never seen a bike on Dakota. Is there a way to count how many bikes actually use the bike lanes before we ruin the entire city? ResponseID Response 49 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 94 282 I am interested in the outcome of the project. I think that good design has a good potential for impact on the safety of the area and the walkway/bike way. I have some confusion over a few of the design aspects on Dakota, including the variable distance between some bollards as well as the pull out curbs for parking in a few areas. Those amenities don't seem to be consistent through the project. I do think that the design probably slow is the average speed of vehicle traffic which I think is a huge benefit. I also hope that the design limits drivers passing on the right when someone is making a left turn which is terribly dangerous for cyclists. I admit I'm a regular cycler but don't utilize this particular area often. I would be interested in using this design in my own neighborhood along Cedar Lake Road between Louisiana and Highway 169 and possibly a long Virginia Avenue south to the trails from that main artery, though understand BN railroad bridge is a huge limitation. 283 Thank you so much for promoting safe biking in the city! 284 Makes the road feel cramped and uncomfortable for bikers and drivers. The panels are not needed and are distracting 287 please remove, silly and unnecessary, ruins the appearance of the entire neighborhood. please remove, remove, remove 288 Let homeowners park in front of their homes. Most do not have driveways here. 292 Remove all changes to Dakota Avenue. Instead, set up a few times a week when driving restrictions are imposed to allow safe biking. Alternatively, establish a limited time shuttle service, north south from Highway 7 to the Dakota Avenue bridge. .. 293 bollards have to go makes one dizzy and too much to watch, turning off on side streets if car is parked there is impossible 295 Given that this street is a huge street for the neighborhood that connects the people to THREE schools, Central, High School, and Peter Hobart. This should be the safest street possible for kids to allow children to bike to school, as they should. This should be a 2 bike wide one way path on both sides of the street that are up on the curb. I understand that its significantly more money, but that neighborhood should be priority number one as it is our cities future. It needs the best bike infrastructure in the city. 297 The bollards cause me to be distracted - since I'm more focused on not hitting them and less on the cars around me. THIS IS VERY UNSAFE. HOW DO OUR NEW DRIVERS AND ELDERLY FEEL. ResponseID Response 50 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 95 298 As a driver, I feel like there's a lot of "visual noise," that is, lots of new striping, lots of still-visible old striping and gouges in the pavement, the bollards, etc. I feel like I'm paying more attention to, again, the "visual noise" than I am to actual cyclists and pedestrians. Shifting lanes has also put manhole covers directly in the path of cars' tires, which increases the noise and vibration generated by traffic (previously most covers appear to have been under the center line). Bike lanes don't help much with left turns, and I feel like most car/bike/pedestrian conflicts probably arise at intersections. Also, are cyclists still entitled to use a whole "car lane" where bike lanes are present? I would assume so, but I could see some people getting confused on that point. 299 The bollards make driving very confusing and disorienting. 300 The bollards are very confusing for a driver. The bikeway and bollards take up too much of a well-traveled road. 301 I don't like that parking has been limited in the city and I think there are enough bike trails considering many people just bike wherever they want to and don't even stay in the trails 302 The beautiful Dakota Ave is now UGLY! As a driver it is crowded. Dangerous meeting a car especially the zig zag by the school. I have yet to pass a bicyclist!! I honestly cringe every time I turn down Dakota! It's UGLy!! Tell me again why it couldn't have been done like on Cedar Lake road!? Would have been a lot cheaper for us tax payers for bicycles to share the sidewalk. Why is there not a painted middle lane from Dakota to Brownton ? (By Holiday gas.) I was behind someone once who thought it was a one-way. At least take down the bollards. 329 I have seen several people (mainly children and young adults, maybe a total of about 6 in the last month) use the sidewalks instead of the bike lanes. What is the purpose of having bike lanes if people are still going to use the sidewalk for bicycles? Also it is dangerous for pedestrians. In addition, four of the about 6 bikers were on the wrong side of the street on the sidewalk! I see very few bicycles on Dakota. About 2-3 per weekday, and about 6 on weekends. I think the city is wasting money. 330 Many pedestrians cross Dakota at 3156/3200, kids on bikes, parents with strollers, dog walkers, school age children. To enhance their safety, would it be possible to paint the crosswalks and place a sign that says Pedestrian Crossing?? ResponseID Response 51 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 96 331 The narrowing of the street and bollards concept places cars closer together and places bikers closer to autos. Danger to bikers when parked car doors are flung open. Visually distracting to drivers. Bollards are aesthetically poor and degrade the feel of a green suburban environment. Greenway and green space becomes white lines, bollards and paint. It looks like NASCAR or road racing at BIR in Brainerd. The added signage to support the bikeway adds even more visual clutter to the neighborhood. Better to mark bikeways on the pavement and eliminate bollards. Lowering the speed limits will add safety which offsets this need to riddle the street with signage and pylons. It's simply a shared responsibility for drivers and bikers to operate safeIy. Bollards won't stop a distracted driver. I can't image this concept throughout SLP, especially on streets with residential property owners. It's too much, in your face and quite distracting. 332 I've found the protected bikeway to be distracting and as a pedestrian and biker I actually felt less safe with the white poles. For drivers there's too much visual clutter which can be distracting. 333 Car speeds appear to have increased. Driver behavior appears to be more rushed trying to navigate and "get through" or pass these markers. Bikers are pushed out closer to traffic as street narrows by lines and bollards. False sense of security and feel unsafe this close to cars both parked and moving! 334 These are all over Mpls and they are aesthetically unpleasant. They get run over and most people bike on the sidewalk anyway. I bike and run a lot. Paint in the road is all I need. The plastic barriers make me less likely to use Dakota and other such designed streets. 335 I understand the reason for bollards, however I fee congested/claustrophobic while driving on Dakota. I believe the bike lanes alone were enough to provide a safety measure. I live on Dakota and Minnetonka, and personally do not appreciate the way the bollards look in front of my house. I would like the bollards gone but for the bike lane to remain. 336 As an avid cyclist I try to avoid major roads well used by cars. Bike lanes on Dakota & Woodale and others are bad ideas. The Mpls Greenway and 76th in Richfield work so well because they are separated from busy roads. Please rethink these poorly imagined bike projects in SLP. We can do better. 337 I was happy to see these installed. I feel comfortable riding with my children on this section of road now. 346 It has made it very hard to see which one you're turning into and has created driver confusion ResponseID Response 52 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 97 349 The city SAYS they are following Edina's lead on their "successful" bike lanes. The bike lanes in Edina are most often empty or have cars using them to drive in (because there are no bikes there anyway). Cities like Edina and St Louis Park are putting in stupid street bike lanes because they want to be "Greener" and advertise that they are "bike friendly" or "offer many modes of transportation" - but its not true, we don't decrease OR increase the amount of people biking...if people wanna bike, they will do it either way. I've been avoiding biking in the bike lanes with the bollards because I can't get around slow bikers without breaking the law and driving on the boulevard grass or the sidewalk. But, I'm also avoiding riding on Dakota because the bollards make it too dangerous to ride on the "street" side, because I can't get over into the bike lane if a vehicle on the road won't give me space. This was stupid, the bollards make it worse. The bike lanes are annoying as all heck and I like to bike! I also like when my friends come over, they have a fekkin' place to park! Boo bike lanes, boo bollards especially! 350 Love that SLP is taking this initiative! 353 Thank you for trying (really!), but the lanes are often too narrow, and just not protected enough from cars. I feel only mildly more comfortable. Especially on a route that connects to light rail (SWLRT/Green Line Extension), and in a world of Climate Emergency, we have to do better than this. 360 Bollards are unnecessary. Not a busy enough street to warrant. 365 I love the protected bike lanes and feel it's necessary on Dakota (a lot of SLP high students use it). My only concern is that the driving lanes are now very narrow. This is good in that it forces drivers to slow down, but even as an advocate for protected bike lanes, it feels uncomfortably narrow/tight when driving. 366 The cars are by far the most utilized method of transportation on Dakota and most other streets, yet the city is spending time and a lot of money for bikes who are about 5% of the traffic while making it more difficult for cars to get around and increasing a chance of an accident because those stupid white sticks stick out way to much, especially around the turns to side streets! More Leftist Progressive BS that only makes it harder for the majority to "help" a tiny minority! 368 I detest the protected bikeway things. I think it's dangerous turning onto Dakota from the side streets. I have to do this a lot which I also detest because to pick up my grandbabies that live on Dakota, I now have to turn around and park across the street from their home since there is no longer parking allowed. It feels dangerous to cross with my littles now, and I can no longer let my granddaughter out to run up to her door (when her Mom is waiting there). She has to be walked across the street and sometimes we have to wait awhile for a break in cars. Detest it. I hardly see bikers using it either. ResponseID Response 53 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 98 371 Not a fan. Please remove and do not do this again. 372 Stop spending so many resources on biking. Please focus attention on car traffic and/or saving funds and reducing our outrageously high taxes. 374 like marked bike lanes but don't think the bollards help much/ They may be more expensive to maintain than they are worth and I don't like the visual impact to the road. I'll be curious to see the safety, speed and public input though. Thanks for asking. 376 I walk to work at the High School and cross Dakota on the North side (by McDonalds). I have done this for over 20 years. Since the new bike lanes and bollards were installed, I have had more near misses with cars whose drivers seem unsure about all the white lines and the yellow lines that are not really gone. 377 I think this project is a great first step in the right direction. Most people don't bike places close to their home because they don't feel safe. Providing not only a bike lane, but a separated and protected lane makes a huge difference. If you build more things to accommodate bikers more people will start to use them. 379 Please remove the pylons. They are becoming a bigger hazard to drivers. If we inform bikers to stay in the bike lane vs driving on the shoulder between the drive lane and bike lane, I think both will be equally safe. 380 Bollards are so sparce in parking areas, I would not consider it a "protected bikeway" 381 It affects turning It narrowed lanes Repainting the lines caused cars to go over every manhole rather than avoiding them 382 I commute from Minneapolis to Methodist Hospital daily by bicycle I used to go to Avenue as a link between the Cedar lake Trail in Methodist Hospital 385 The more than can be done to promote low emissions travel methods, the better 387 The bollards make it harder to see traffic, pedestrians, and bikers. Some are so close to the corner that you have to drive into the oncoming lane to clear the bollard. 390 Love the wide, well protected bike lane. I wish it would extend the full length of dakota avenue. ResponseID Response 54 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 99 394 Bollards create driving safety issues when turning onto Dakota which makes you almost turn into oncoming traffic. Bollards are ugly looking even when new. Now they are scuffed up with marks and even worse looking. Are the bollards even needed? Paint the bike lanes so they are clear and avoid the bollards. Seems like a waste and it's ugly. 395 I think the white plastic ballards are lords are terrible. They they Make it very difficult to see traffic when is traffic when turning on to Dakota.. The driving lanes Bing lanes feel smaller is smaller and there is no room for error room for air if oncoming in traffic is I mean traffic is not in the correct lane is in the correct lane. Personally I think it was a waste of city finances a city finances as a bike lane should have been sufficient lane should have been sufficient enough as in other cities 396 I love the concept but I think it can be even better. A fully protected and separated bike lane would be amazing, but I understand this is difficult. Ideally the sidewalk should be enlarged and the bike lane swapped sides with the street parking so there's no chance of being hit by a car. 398 The bollards seem to slow traffic and I don't get tailgated as much driving down the read, which is great 399 I do bike, but don't find myself needing to bike that direction typically. I live north of Minnetonka Blvd. I would feel safer biking on this street now with the bollards. I don't feel like it impacts my driving experience. 403 It seems that the number of bikers on the street is not equal to the $$ we've spent developing the bike lanes. 404 I drive Dakota everyday and those ballards are placed too close to corners. Bigger vehicles cannot turn onto Dakota without using the other lane because you can't get around them safely in your own lane. This is also an issue with just regular size cars in that you cannot turn onto Dakota when another car is in the oncoming lane because the turns around the ballards are too tight. Noticed this issue especially around the high school with larger straight trucks from the school district and buses. I also don't understand the need for there to be areas where there are 4-5 of the ballards in a row either. I think the street is more dangerous now for drivers than before and I think the number of scuff marks from cars on the ballards in some areas just show how stupid of an idea these are--especially in the curve heading north on dakota by mcdonalds. I hope they are not planning on leaving them up during the winter months because that will just be a nightmare. I don't think this project makes biking any more friendlier. I don't think the amount of bike traffic on dakota warrants these---if you want to do anything, get rid of the on street parking on dakota and make the people actually park in their own driveways and garages and use the parking areas for bikes if you need to have something! ResponseID Response 55 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 100 405 Those bollards subconsciously cause me, as a driver, to move father away from them, i.e. towards the center of the street. On coming drivers likely do the same. Cars pass closer on the center that before, me thinks. Removing the bollards and still using the lane lines should suffice to designate the bikeway. 407 I would encourage communication that bikers within the bollards follow the direction of the traffic and not ride on the wrong side of the street/facing the traffic. It's mostly kids i see doing this, probably just not understanding that its okay to have your backs to the oncoming traffic and you will be fine - especially with the bollards there.. 409 I had no issues on Dakota before the bikeway put in. The bike way constrains and reduces freedom to avoid cars & bikes & restricts parking. Moving cars are now closer to the bicyclists than they were before. 411 Love it! I wish W 28th St had bollards! 412 Smooth out the surface 414 Creating separated spaces makes biking more safe and comfortable, especially with kids. Should think about other places in the City to install more bike lanes. 415 I don't understand why there are 4 by every turn in to the neighborhoods. It makes for really wide turns and it's more dangerous if people aren't paying attention behind you. If not for that issue, I'd have no problem with the bike lane. Also, the curve by McDonalds is terrible, everyone traveling north goes over the center line. 416 Our bike group really likes the new bike lake. I hope they can stay. 417 I've noticed cars slow down a lot now. I bike on Dakota avenue a lot more now. I am excited for the bridge project to be finished. 418 Love the bollards as a biker. Hate the bollards as a driver. Driving lanes are way too narrow. 420 It feels as if we lose some of the street for driving even though the measurement of the driving space may be the same as before. It has felt too close when meeting oncoming traffic. I am glad the city is paying attention to the needs of people on bikes, but I'm not sure this is the best use of the space. I biked to and from work in downtown Minneapolis for almost 30 years before retiring and would have welcomed dedicated bike lanes. But I don't think the bollards are the answer. As the lanes are marked they seem to restrict the biking space. ResponseID Response 56 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 101 422 Well I like to comment about the connecting project bridge between Edgewood & Dakota. I just found out about this project, so I had to go down today and see what six million dollars of taxpayers money was going to. My first reaction was, wow looks like a ride at Valley Fair. I'm a retired construction supervisor, and I've never seen such an over the top boondoggle in my 40 yrs of construction. Im wondering why didn't you just put a simple pre-stress concrete ramp alongside the Louisiana bridge on one side or the other? I would assume you could have saved at least have the cost, and it would have been much more easily accessed. 428 These bikeway projects are ruining the roads. these new designed roads (Texas Ave and Dakota Ave) are a nightmare for residents parking, residents driving, and especially plow trucks. They have a hard enough time doing a decent plow job without these poorly designed roads. 431 1. Because of narrowed driving lanes and the positioning of the bollards, making a right turn onto Dakota is challenging (and dangerous) when there is oncoming traffic to the lane you're turning onto. 2. At the Dakota & Lake intersection, a northbound vehicle on Dakota gets squeezed at the curve (by McDonalds) between the bollards and the trailer of a southbound 18 wheeler. 434 The bollards create more distracted drivers. You see the bollards, NOT the pedestrians. 436 During snow removal, will they come down? Only there seasonally? Bicycle lanes don't seem unsafe and also make the roads feel safer from impact without the extra obstacles. 440 Can commute more safely to work now (at Methodist hospital) and more often do so by bike (rather than car, my usual). I'm now about 1-2 days per week by bike (from zero). 443 Love the new bike way-it makes it much easier to get to businesses along lake st/Dakota avenue and provides a good route to target. 445 Please remove the bollards so that the street sweeper can sweep the bike lanes. They are full of sand and weeds. 446 Bikers don't use the bike way they continue to ride on the sidewalk. 447 The bike lane has made me feel much safer while biking down that stretch. ResponseID Response 57 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 102 449 I like the idea and think it can certainly make the bike lines safer. This being said, I seem to see bikers continue to use the sidewalks rather than the improved bike lanes, but this may just be waiting on bikers to get used to the lanes more. I'm addition, some of the bollards are very close to the corner of the roads for right hand turns (I.e. eastbound on 32nd to southbound on Dakota). This becomes obvious as these bollards all seem to have tire markings on them, if not completely flattened. Removing these specific corner bollards would certainly make these more appealing, as there would then be no impact to drivers. 450 Do the research before wasting all the money next time. 456 2 items: 1) good - extra separation (bollards & bike lanes) made the sidewalk feel unexpectedly safer. 2) bad - lane surface is 1/3 cement curb and 2/3 paved roadway. My bike was squirrelly when riding on interface between the surfaces (hard to avoid given limited space) 457 Dakota is too narrow for all you are doing and planning. Shouldn't bikers have to stop for stop signs? It should be enforced! and cutting across lanes for convenience! 458 it's difficult to pull onto Dakota with a car with the bollards in place, The old stripes on the street after the lane shift are not helpful. 459 I know it takes people awhile to get used to the bollards--drivers likely disliked the changes at first. As a cyclist, the project seemed to make drivers more careful while on Dakota. I never biked it before. 460 Less space to drive and bike. If there is an obstruction in the bike lane there is no way to avoid it. Don't like the project at all!!! 461 Hate it! They look terrible. Several people have moved away because you have taken away parking on the street. They are NOT slowing traffic down, they are doing the opposite. LISTEN TO YOUR RESIDENTS ON DAKOTA!!! 462 Bollards are confusing for drivers. Driver behavior seems to have changed driving faster as of to get through the zone. Gives false sense of security. Dakota, a residential street now looks like Brainerd International Raceway. Please don't use bollards in SLP, especially on residential streets. 463 You should implement it on Lake Street, Walker, Minnetonka Blvd, 28th Street, 33rd Street, both sections of Texas, Wooddale, Cedar Lake Road, Louisiana, and the new segments of 36th Street, and Belt Line Blvd. 465 I am very excited the city is focusing on vulnerable transportation modes that reduce carbon emissions, improve health, and improve safety! ResponseID Response 58 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 103 467 There has been a noticeable increase in cars veering into oncoming traffic by crossing the center line. I've seen at least one instance where a driver drove into the oncoming lane to avoid the white vertical white post. The design seems poor because of all the old center lines are still there. In grinding them off, it leaves a distinct line where it's obvious there should not be a line The centerline was completely hidden recently during the early evening where the roadway was wet and it was already dark. You could not see the centerline It seems confusing where to drive when the centerline shifts left or right at each block. ResponseID Response 59 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 104 17. With which race and ethnic group(s) do you identify? Mark all that apply PercentAsian/ Asian- American Black/ African- American/ European- American Caucasian/ White- American/ European- American Hispanic/ Latinx Native American/ Indigenous/ First Nation Other - Write In 0 20 40 60 80 100 Value Percent Responses Asian/ Asian- American 1.8%5 Black/ African- American/ European- American 1.5%4 Caucasian/ White- American/ European- American 88.2%240 Hispanic/ Latinx 3.3%9 Native American/ Indigenous/ First Nation 1.1%3 Other - Write In 8.5%23 60 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 105 Other - Write In Count N/A 3 HUMAN 1 Human 1 Indigenous 1 Not willing to share 1 Only SLP city council could bring race into a survey about bike lanes 1 SLP resident 1 That is an immaterial question.1 This is a racist immaterial question.1 What a dumb question, how does that matter?1 What does this have to do with it?1 Why do you care about a person's ethnicity? All you are doing is further segregating our society. 1 Why does it matter?1 Why does this matter?1 human 1 other 1 why does this matter 1 Totals 19 61 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 106 18. How do you describe your gender identity? Mark all that apply PercentWoman Man Non-binary Cisgender Other - Please specify 0 10 20 30 40 50 Value Percent Responses Woman 47.6%129 Man 47.2%128 Non-binary 1.1%3 Cisgender 4.1%11 Other - Please specify 5.2%14 62 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 107 Other - Please specify Count N/A 3 This question is also immaterial.1 Another dumb question, how does that matter?1 Another immaterial question 1 Apache Helicopter 1 Person 1 SLP resident 1 Shut up!1 Why do you care about a person's gender? All you are doing is further segregating our society. 1 Why does it matter?1 Why does this matter?1 Why is this important for a biking survey?1 Totals 14 63 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 108 19. What is your age?Percent18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55 or older 0 10 20 30 40 Value Percent Responses 18-24 2.6%7 25-34 19.3%52 35-44 18.6%50 45-54 20.1%54 55 or older 39.4%106 64 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 109 20. What is your approximate household income?PercentLess than $25,000 $25,000- $49,000 $50,000- $74,000 $75,000- $124,000 $125,000- $199,000 More than $200,000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Value Percent Responses Less than $25,000 4.6%11 $25,000- $49,000 4.6%11 $50,000- $74,000 17.0%41 $75,000- $124,000 35.3%85 $125,000- $199,000 27.8%67 More than $200,000 10.8%26 65 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 110 21. Which best describes your current housing situation? 5% Renter5% Renter 94% Homeowner94% Homeowner 2% Other - Please specify2% Other - Please specify Value Percent Responses Renter 5.1%14 Homeowner 93.5%257 Other - Please specify 1.5%4 Totals: 275 Other - Please specify Count Commuter 1 Just sold home we owned there for 42 years 1 Multiple homes 1 Totals 3 66 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 111 22. How many vehicles does your household have? 27% 127% 1 59% 259% 2 11% 311% 3 3% 4 or more3% 4 or more Value Percent Responses 1 26.8%74 2 59.4%164 3 10.5%29 4 or more 3.3%9 Totals: 276 67 City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 112 Appendix C Traffic Speed Data and Turning Movement Count Due to the size of Appendix C it has been omitted from this council report. Attachement C consists of 85 pages of traffic data spreadsheets and turn movement counts. This data can be requested from the Engineering Department. City council meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 1) Title: Dakota Avenue Bikeway pilot project Page 113 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: April 11, 2022 Written report: 2 Executive summary Title: Bridgewalk Housing Improvement Area (HIA) update Recommended action: No action at this time. This report is an update on the Bridgewalk HIA. Policy consideration: The city is authorized by state statute to establish HIAs as a finance tool for private housing improvements. The city adopted the HIA policy in 2001. Summary: The Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association submitted an application Oct. 5, 2021 for $5.77 million dollars to create a Housing Improvement Area. With city fees and soft costs the total request is $5.97 million. Bridgewalk is a 92-unit condominium building with one-, two- and three -bedroom units. Bridgewalk was built in 1972 and is in need of improvements to the exterior, interior, mechanical and electrical system, pool, and garage. The association submitted signed petitions Jan. 5, 2022, from a majority of owners requesting the city council schedule a public hearing to establish the HIA and impose fees. Per state statue, cities may only establish an HIA when 50% or more of the association owners petition the city to do so. The city has imposed a 70% threshold for this HIA due to the size of the funding request and fees. Petitions were received and certified from over 70% of the owners at Bridgewalk. The public hearing was held Feb. 7, 2022. The Bridgewalk HIA consultant, board president, and four additional homeowners spoke in support of the HIA. At the Feb. 14, 2022, city council meeting the council adopted the ordinance establishing the Bridgewalk HIA and the resolution to impose fees, as well as authorize execution of the development contract. The Bridgewalk HIA veto period ends April 9 and to date the city has not received any vetos. Following the veto period , the Development Agreement was scheduled to go to council for Approval April 18; however, the association is still working with the HIA consultant and engineering firm to address the bids received. The bids came in exceptionally high prompting the association to solicit one additional bid , which is due April 13. In the meantime, the engineering firm is working w ith the bidders to go through the bids line by line to identify any cost savings. The Development Agreement is tentatively being moved to May 16, assuming they are able to get the bid down within the amount in the HIA fee resolution approved by council Feb. 14. Financial or budget considerations: The HIA will be funded with a combination of bonds and an EDA internal loan. The total project cost, including soft costs, is $5.97 million. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: None Prepared by: Marney Olson, housing supervisor Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager Meeting: Study session Meeting date : April 11, 2022 Written report: 3 Executive summary Title: Application for AHTF assistance – Rise on 7 Development (Ward 2) Recommended action: This staff report outlines CommonBond Communities’ application for financial assistance for its proposed Rise on 7 Re development at 8115 MN Highway 7. Policy consideration: Is the EDA willing to consider entering into a redevelopment contract to provide a 40-year deferred loan for $1.8 million from the AHTF to enable the project to achieve financial feasibility? Summary: Affordable housing developer CommonBond Communities acquired the former Prince o f Peace Lutheran church property at 8115 MN Highway 7 in 2020 with plans to redevelop it . The former church desire d to leave behind a legacy of affordable housing for the community. CommonBond’s plans for the 2.45-acre site call for the removal of the existing building and construction of an all-affordable, five -story, 120-unit multifamily housing development named Rise on 7, including a 6,000 SF daycare with half of the daycare spaces reserved for affordable childcare. The proposed $40.7 million development includes a mix of all-affordable one -, two-, and three-bedroom units ranging from 30 percent to 60 percent area median income , exceeding the city's Inclusionary Housing Policy requirements. Financial or budget considerations: CommonBond has received project financing from a variety of public agencies. Despite these source s, the project’s proforma shows a funding gap. Consequently, CommonBond applied to the EDA for tax increment financing (TIF) assistance to enable the development to become financially feasible . On July 6, 2021, the EDA approved a resolution of support for the provision of TIF in an amount not to exceed $1.2 million, contingent upon verification of financial need based on the project’s final proforma. Since that time , the Developer has received funding from numerous granting agencies and received an allocation for Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Ehlers, the EDA’s financial consultant, recently reexamined the project’s final pro forma to determine what remaining level of financial assistance was necessary to enable it to become viable . Ehlers recommends providing $1.8 million in financial assistance from the city’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) in the form of a 40-year deferred loan. The EDA would then retain 100% of the annual tax increment generated from a new housing TIF district over 26 years to repay $1.57 million of the AHTF loan . In addition, CommonBond would repay the outstanding balance in full, plus interest at the earlier of 40 years, at sale , or at refinance or re -syndication of the project. The project meets the city’s requirements for providing AHTF financing and meets state statute requirements necessary to establish a housing TIF district. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, redevelopment admin., Keith Dahl, municipal advisor, Ehlers Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, economic development manager Karen Barton, community development director, EDA executive director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Study session meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: Application for AHTF assistance – Rise on 7 Development Discussion Site information: The subject redevelopment site at 8115 Highway 7 is approximately 2.45 acres in size . The site is located in Ward 2 on the south side of Highway 7, west of Texas Avenue, and immediately north of the City of Hopkins. Proposed redevelopment site for Rise on 7 Site area (acres): 2.44 acres Current use: Surrounding land uses: Vacant (previously church and daycare) North: right of way, commercial East: commercial South: single-family residential West: commercial Current 2040 land use guidance Current zoning RH - high density residential PUD planned unit development Background: The existing building at 8115 State Highway No. 7 was built in 1955 and used as a place of worship and a daycare. The site was acquired by CommonBond Communities in 2020 from the former Prince of Peace Lutheran Church congregation. The Prince of Peace congregation merged with another local church and desired to leave behind a legacy of affordable housing for the community. The existing building is currently vacant and would be demolished. The daycare space does not meet current building and fire code requirements for occupancy. Study session meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 3 ) Page 3 Title: Application for AHTF assistance – Rise on 7 Development CommonBond Communities completed a phase I and phase II environmental assessment of the subject site . It indicates debris from the construction of the Highway 7 was likely left on the property. Such debris will need to be removed and any residual contaminants remediated. Additionally , at least one underground storage tank was identified on the property. The tank will need to be properly removed and disposed of prior to the existing building’s demolition. Present considerations: CommonBond Communities acquired the redevelopment site in 2020 and proposes to demolish the existing building and develop the site with an all-affordable, five - story mixed -use building. The development would include a daycare and 120 dwelling units that would be affordable at a range of 30 to 60 percent of the area median income (AMI). The plan proposes access ing the site from the Highway 7 frontage road and provides parking in a surface lot on the north side of the building and one level of structured parking on the ground floor of the building. The plan includes two outdoor play areas, one for the daycare and another for residents, as well as an outdoor recreation area. Other proposed site improvements include new landscaping, installation o f new sidewalk connections, an underground stormwater management system and a 20kw rooftop solar array. On June 21, 2021, city council approved a comprehensive plan amendment to re -guide the site ’s land use from civic to high density residential, and a preliminary and final plat. On July 6, 2021, city council approved a preliminary and final planned unit development zoning district to allow the proposed all-affordable, multi-family residential development and daycare . As approved, the development exceeds the city’s inclusionary housing policy as amended in October 2021 and exceeds the city’s green building policy as amended in July 2020, including a rooftop solar array. Rendering of proposed Rise on 7 building. Study session meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 3) Page 4 Title: Application for AHTF assistance – Rise on 7 Development Rise on 7 will be a single -phase , all-affordable , mixed -use development. The 120-unit building will include a combination of one-, two-, and three -bedroom units and 6,000 square feet of daycare space . As proposed, the daycare will provide childcare at affordable rates for half the children that attend. Approximately fifteen of the daycare spaces will be reserved for families living on the property. Unit Type 30% AMI 40% AMI 50% AMI 60% AMI Total units 1-bedroom 14 22 21 57 2-bedroom 2 37 39 3-bedroom 3 21 24 Total 19 22 21 58 120 Upon closing on its financing, the development team plans to begin construction in summer 2022 and complete construction by summer 2024. CommonBond Companies would own and manage the residential development for the long term. Inclusionary housing: The proposed apartment development exceeds the city’s inclusionary housing policy as amended in October 2021 and creates an all-affordable development with rents ranging from 30 to 60 percent AMI. Per the Metropolitan Council, the 30 percent AMI for a family of four is $31,450, the 50 percent AMI for a family of four is $52,450, and the 60 percent AMI for a family of four is $62,940. CommonBond plans to include 24 three -bedroom units in the building’s unit mix , includ ing 3 three -bedroom units affordable at 30 percent AMI to further the city’s goals for affordable family -sized housing. By covenant, the housing would be kept affordable for at least 30 years per the requirements of the LITHC allocation. Climate Action Plan: The development will exceed the city’s Green Building Policy as amended in July 2020 and intends to follow Enterprise Green Communities for its design tool. The development will also include the following sustainable features: • A 20kw rooftop solar array • Increased efficiency in building envelope, heating and cooling equipment, plumbing and light fixtures. • On site stormwater retention system • Charging stations for electric vehicles • Bioswale and native plantings along the western yard of the property The developer has completed energy modeling to ensure the building will meet the requirements of SB 2030 (current requirement is an 80% reduction in energy compared to a standard constructed building). CommonBond has hired Building Knowledge to certify the building to MN Green Communities and Cain Thomas for building commissioning. Additionally, the development will provide 22 level 1 and 1 level 2 charging stations for residents, and conduit serving an additional 17 parking spaces. The site is within ¼ mile of Metro Transit Route 17 and approximately ½ mile from the future Blake Road LRT station which will provid e reliable an d efficient public transit for building Study session meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 3) Page 5 Title: Application for AHTF assistance – Rise on 7 Development occupants. This means residents will not need to rely on a single -occupancy vehicle , resulting in reduced vehicle miles traveled and less emissions . The development will include 18 exterior bike loops at the north, south and daycare building entrances, and three bike storage rooms containing 42 spaces each for a total of 144 bicycle parking spaces. Racial equity and inclusion: As previously noted, the proposed development will be 100 percent affordable to house holds with incomes ranging from 30 percent to 60 percent of AMI, providing qualified families with equal access to new, quality housing. CommonBond serve s residents of all ages, races, sexual orientations, and geographies (rural, suburban, and urban). In addition, CommonBond believes that their leadership team and the Board of Directors profile should reflect CommonBond’s resident population and has been working diligently over the past ten years to increase leadership and board representation of BIPOC co mmunities. To enhance representation of diverse communities on their board, they launched the Board Associates program in 2017. The program expands the opportunity for influence, network building, and leadership experience to those who are not traditionally considered board candidates. It builds a cohort of young people (under age 35) who are women, people of color, from low-income families, social and non-profit sector employees, and/or immigrants and provides board experience and mentoring opportunities to ultimately increase the nonprofit leadership talent pool in Minnesota and the Upper Midwest. CommonBond believes that a diversity of perspectives makes for stronger organizations that better understand of the needs of their constituents and the impact of their work. A diversity of perspectives on boards also brings improved cultural competency in policy making and more prudent decision-making. Two of CommonBond’s six executive team members are people of color, and CommonBond’s senior leadership team (director-level and above) is made up of 17% people of color, all Black/African American. Across CommonBond, 41% of staff are people of color, an increase from 26% ten years ago. The Development Team: CommonBond Communities is a 501c3 non-profit organization that has been in operation for over 50 years. The organization has substantial experienced and is deeply knowledgeable about developing affordable housing. CommonBond has a history of strong financial management and owns or manages over 7,000 affordable rental apartments and townhomes that serve over 12,000 people serving families, seniors, people with disabilities or other barriers. The ir more than 100 properties range in size from 12 to 640 units. CommonBond’s quality affordable housing, development expertise, housing management, and on-site Advantage Services for residents help to transform lives and provide long-term assets to the communities they serve. Some similar recent CommonBond developments that include d location public funding assistance include: Gateway Northeast, located in Minneapolis, Trail Pointe Ridge in Ed e n Prairie, and Dublin Crossing in Mankato, Minnesota. Their affordable housing strategy is to both preserve deeply affordable buildings and develop new affordable housing. Their experience in these activities, and utilization of these financing Study session meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 3) Page 6 Title: Application for AHTF assistance – Rise on 7 Development tools is broad and deep as evidenced by their extensive track record leveraging private and public capital. In the last 5 years alone, they produced 678 new units and preserved 2,073 units through acquisition and rehabilitation. They completed units as part of 86 projects: 11 in 2016; 21 in 2017; 12 in 2018; 26 in 2019; and 16 in 2020. The total investment exceeded $430 million. Financial need: As noted above , there are a number of extraordinary costs on the subject redevelopment site which prohibit the project from happening in the reasonably foreseeable future, including building demo and removal, structured parking, contaminated soils and excavation of underground tanks. These extraordinary redevelopment costs, along with the all- affordable nature of the development and proposed sustainable features create a gap in the project’s financial proforma. To mitigate the project’s estimated financial gap , CommonBond applied for $4 million in tax increment financing (TIF) assistance*. On July 6, 2021, the EDA approved a resolution of support for the provision of tax increment financing in an amount not to exceed $1.2 million, contingent upon verification of financial need based on the project’s final proforma. *TIF uses most of the increased future property taxes generated by a new development to finance certain qualified development costs incurred by that project for a limited period of time to enable it to achieve financial feasibility. On January 11, 2022, CommonBond was awarded $20,576,600 in Tax Exempt revenue bonds from Minnesota Management and Budget and the necessary Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) from Minnesota Housing. Developers are awarded tax credits, through a competitive application process, and then sell them to investors to generate equity for the construction of affordable housing. Without the tax -credit incentive to investors, affordable apartment projects would not be constructed since they do not generate sufficient cashflow to pay operating expenses, debt service, and provide an investor a reasonable return on investment. The bond allocation require s the developer to receive all financial obligations within 180 days. The deadline for CommonBond to close on all its project financing is July 8, 2022. These bonds require a covenant that the housing be kept affordable for at least 30-years, which is four years longer than required by the city’s inclusionary housing policy. The development has also been awarded a $1.4 million-dollar Livable Communities Demonstration grant f rom the Metropolitan Council, a $950,000 Transit -oriented development grant from Hennepin County, and a 15-year rental operating subsidy from Hennepin County for the 30 percent area median income units. In February 2022, Common Bond asked to amend their previous TIF request with the EDA, which would have required a full 26 years of tax increment. EDA staff and Ehlers worked with CommonBond to further understand their request and help determine how best to fill the project’s remaining financial gap. Ehlers determined the additional financing was being requested in part because the project’s financer, JLL, was requiring a TIF debt service reserve for two years, driving up the total development cost of the project. Ehlers ran different scenarios utilizing TIF and funding from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) to reduce these costs. Ehlers determined that it would be more advantageous for CommonBond to forego requesting TIF assistance (thereby eliminating the need to provide the two years of debt service Study session meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 3) Page 7 Title: Application for AHTF assistance – Rise on 7 Development reserves) and instead request $1.8 million from the AHTF, which would be provided through a 40-year deferred loan. To repay the AHTF back sooner than 40-years, Ehlers recommends establishing a new housing TIF district on the site. The tax increment generated from the district would be used to pay back $1.57 million of the AHTF loan over 26 years. In addition, should CommonBond sell, refinance or re -syndicate the project prior to the deferred loan being repaid, they would be required to pay the remaining balance of the deferred loan in full plus interest. The term of the TIF to pay back the AHTF exceeds the desired 15 years under the city‘s TIF Policy; however, given the assistance is for deeply affordable housing and this would provide the EDA w ith the ability to recycle AHTF dollars sooner than the 40-year loan term, the assistance meets the mitigating circumstance exemption within the Policy . Public financial assistance analysis: Since it is anticipated that the AHTF would be repaid through the establishment of a new housing TIF district, staff and Ehlers analyzed CommonBond’s latest financial request based on general industry standards for land, construction, and project costs; tax credit pricing, deferred developer fees; rents; operating expenses; fees; underwriting and financing criteria; and project cash flow. Based on this analysis, Ehlers consulted with staff to determine the extent to which the proposed project continues to show a financial gap justifying the provision of AHTF assistance. TIF Eligible Expenses & Affordable Impact Amount ($) Demolition $178,934 Asbestos Abatement Work $89,300 Tank Removal $25,092 Solar panels $150,000 Affordable impact* $17,817,562 TOTAL Extraordinary Costs $18,260,888 Construction/Extraordinary Costs: The estimated total development cost (TDC) to construct the proposed Rise on 7 is over $40.7 million or $339,281 per unit. The extraordinary costs including the impact of affordability over 25 years to achieve the deeper levels of affordability significantly contribute to the project’s financial gap. *Affordability impact: The extraordinary costs of the affordability impact are calculated by comparing the market rate rents to the affordable rents for the term in which the developer is not receiving any tax increment. However, since the developer is receiving a deferred loan and not receiving any tax increment, the extraordinary costs of the affordability impact were calculated over 25 years, which is the term requirement of the city’s Inclusionary Housing Policy . Rents for affordable housing units in this development are approximately 59% less than the rents charged for market rate units. The difference between these rents, times the number of affordable units each month over the 25-year period , significantly reduce the development’s rental income. In this case, it is estimated that the affordability impact over 25 years will amount to $17,817,562 or $148,480 per affordable unit. Due to decreased rental income from 100% of the units over 25 years, there is insufficient cash flow to provide a market rate of return, pay ongoing operating expenses, and service the debt Study session meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 3 ) Page 8 Title: Application for AHTF assistance – Rise on 7 Development outstanding on the property. This leaves a gap in the funding for the project and makes this housing development financially infeasible without public financial assistance. LIHTC projects require several layers of public participation. The AHTF loan in concert with tax exempt bonds, tax credits, and other public sources of financing make this project financially feasible even with significant extraordinary costs. Proposed level of assistance: The recommended level of assistance for the project was determined by analyzing private sources of financing, the project’s extraordinary site development costs, construction costs, affordability im pact, required energy and sustainability improvements, and comparison to other LIHTC projects. Ehlers concluded that AHTF assistance in the amount of $1.8 million is necessary to enable the proposed development to become financially feasible . This level of assistance would sufficiently close the remaining financial gap to allow the proposed development to proceed. The Developer has indicated the recommended level of assistance is acceptable. Consistent with previous EDA redevelopment agreements, a "lookback" provision will be incorporated into the redevelopment agreement with the developer. However, due to the nature of the financing for the development, the lookback will vary slightly from TIF lookback provisions . The developer will still be required to submit verified final project costs and reports detailing the actual financial performance of the project. However, instead of having a lookback provision tied to a benchmark return based on industry standards for similar projects, the lookback will be tied to sale , refinance, or re -syndicat ion of the project. If one of those events happen the AHTF loan would be repaid in full with interest. Land Acquisition: CommonBond Communities acquired the subject redevelopment site from the Prince of Peace church for $1.9 million or $15,958 per unit. This land sale price is considered within market compared to other multi-family land sales within the city. TIF district: It is proposed that 100% of tax increment generated from a newly established housing TIF district would repay $1.57 million of the city’s AHTF loan over 26 years. With 100 percent of the units affordable to households ranging from 30 to 60 percent of area median income , the Rise on 7 development would meet the statutory requirements for establishment of a housing TIF district. The Rise on 7 development will take approximately 15 months to construct. It is anticipated that the first increment could be collected in 2024. Given current estimates of market value, it is estimated that a portion ($1.57 million) of the $1.8 million AHTF loan would be repaid over 26 years. It is projected that the TIF district would terminate with the final payment on February 1, 2050. As with most EDA redevelopment contracts, the developer will be required to execute a Minimum Assessment Agreement for the value utilized for projecting the amount of TIF assistance available. Interfund Loan: In order for the EDA to capture 100% of the tax increment from a newly established TIF district, there needs to be an in-district obligation. The EDA will need to approve an interfund loan of $1.8 million from the AHTF to the TIF district to satisfy the in-district obligation. The tax increment collected will repay the interfund loan with a 4.00% interest rate to the AHTF. Study session meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 3) Page 9 Title: Application for AHTF assistance – Rise on 7 Development AHTF Deferred Loan: A deferred loan in the amount of $1.8 million would be provided to CommonBond for the construction of affordable housing units. CommonBond would repay the deferred loan in full plus 1.00% interest, less any tax increment received at the earlier of 40- years, sale, refinance, or re -syndication. Property value and taxes: The current taxable market value of the subject redevelopment property is $2,735,000. This would be the proposed TIF district’s Base Value. The estimated market value upon the proposed development’s completion (for TIF estimation purposes) is estimated at approximately $21 million. Most of this value (minus the Base Value) would be captured as tax increment and used to make payments on the interfund loan until it is paid off or a triggering event happens where CommonBond is required to repay the deferred loan in full plus interest. The city, county and school district would continue to receive the property taxes collected on the subject site’s Base Value. Analysis of development’s conformity with the city’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund Policy: Given Rise on 7’s deep levels of affordability, the project meets the city’s requirements for the provision of AHTF financing. In order to qualify for utilization of funds from the AHTF, a rental development needs to provide at least 40 percent of the units affordable to households at 60 percent AMI or at least 20 percent of the units affordable at 50 percent AMI. The proposed development exceeds the requirements of the AHTF Policy by providing 19-units at 30 percent AMI, 22-units at 40 percent AMI, 21-units at 50 percent AMI, and the remaining 58-units at 60 percent AMI. By providing assistance through the trust fund, this allows the development to lower overall development costs, making the project financially feasible. Analysis of development’s conformity with the city’s TIF Policy: The following table lists the objectives, qualifications, and guidelines for the use of tax increment financing as specified in the city’s TIF Policy as amended in December 2021, as well as how and whether the proposed development meets the majority of those standards. TIF Policy Compliance Table* Factor Requirement/Guideline Proposed Project Met? Applicable TIF District Redevelopment/Renewal & Renovation/ Housing/Economic Development Housing district Yes Statutory TIF district requirements Housing District 40% of the units affordable at 60% AMI 20% of the units affordable at 50% AMI: or 10% of the units affordable at 30% AMI 100% of the units will be affordable between 30% to 60% AMI Yes Use of TIF Proposed costs are statutorily eligible for reimbursement through proposed TIF district. Proposed use of tax increment financing to mitigate the cost of constructing affordable housing is statutorily eligible through housing TIF districts. Yes TIF Objectives TIF Policy requires projects to meet over half of applicable objectives for use of TIF. Proposed project meets nearly all the EDA’s Objectives for the use of TIF Yes Study session meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 3) Page 10 Title: Application for AHTF assistance – Rise on 7 Development Minimum Qualifications Applicable Strategic Priorities Proposed project provides broad range of housing and neighborhood-oriented development. Yes Meets Green Building Policy requirements. Development will exceed the July 2020 Green Bldg Policy requirements. Yes Meets Inclusionary Housing Policy requirements (if applicable). Development will exceed the Oct. 2021 Inclusionary Housing Policy requirements. Yes Meets Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Policy. The Developer’s construction practices, and ongoing management will meet the intent of the city’s diversity, equity, and inclusion policy.* Yes * Consistent with city's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, or approvals pending. Proposed project is consistent with city's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Yes Removes contamination, blight and/or will not generate significant environmental problems. Project removes a vacant building that no longer meet s current building and fire codes and will clean up soil contamination. Yes Helps facilitate desired development that would not occur without assistance. Proposed assistance would facilitate desired affordable development and would not occur without such assistance. Yes Developer provided necessary documentation to evaluate TIF need and proposed project . Developer provided necessary documentation to evaluate proposed project and TIF request. Yes Determined not financially feasible "but - for" the use of tax increment financing. Ehlers determined the proposed project is not financially feasible "but-for" the use of city financial assistance. Yes Developer has experience and capability to construct proposed project. Developer has extensive experience and capability to construct the proposed project. Yes Developer plans to retain ownership of project long enough to stabilize occupancy (if applicable). CommonBond plans to retain ownership of the project through stabilization and will continue to manage the property. Yes Meets all Minimum Qualifications. The development meets all Minimum Qualifications Yes Desired Qualifications Incorporates Livable Communities, New Urbanism, TOD, Sustainable Design principles (i.e., mixed-use, urban design, human scale, walkable, public spaces, and sustainable design features). Proposed project incorporates Livable Communities, New Urbanism, and TOD design principles. Yes Study session meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 3 ) Page 11 Title: Application for AHTF assistance – Rise on 7 Development High quality development (sound architectural design, quality construction and materials). Proposed project will incorporate high quality design and materials. Yes Provides rents at deeper affordability levels such as 30% or 50% AMI (if applicable). 120 units (100%) will have rents affordable to households between 30% to 60% AMI . 19 units @ 30% AMI 22 units @ 40% AMI 21 units @ 50% AMI Yes Provides units for larger families (i.e., 3- & 4-bedroom units (if applicable)). 24 3-bedroom units are proposed Yes Complements and/or adds value to neighborhood by providing public elements or placemaking features (if applicable). The project will add value to the neighborhood by redeveloping a vacant church, and by providing a daycare use, with half of the spaces reserved as affordable daycare Yes Proposed development will likely stimulate further investment in surrounding area/neighborhood. The redevelopment may stimulate some reinvestment in surrounding commercial and multi-family properties but is unlikely to spur additional redevelopment in the area as it is fully developed. No Provides new, or retained, employment (if applicable). Will provide 19 new employment opportunities. 2 FTE jobs will be created for Rise on 7, and 17 FTE for the daycare. Yes The increase in market value of the property after redevelopment is more than 8 times the original market value. The estimated market value of the site after redevelopment is 7.68 times the original market value.** No** Will have a positive community impact. Proposed project will have a significant positive impact by providing 120 affordable living units, including units that are deeply affordable as well as affordable daycare spaces. Yes Will not place extraordinary demands on city services. City departments determined proposed project will not place extraordinary demands on city services. Yes Will not likely generate significant environmental problems and/or cleans -up existing contamination. The development will not generate any environmental problems and will clean up existing contamination. Yes Land price for project site is within market range. Land price for project site is within market range. Yes Study session meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 3 ) Page 12 Title: Application for AHTF assistance – Rise on 7 Development Ratio of private to city investment (TIF and grants) is more than $5 to $1. Proposed private to city investment is $23.62 to $1. Yes The proposed amount of TIF assistance or term of the TIF Note is within range of similar developments which received TIF assistance. The proposed amount of financial assistance is within range of similar developments. However, the term of the TIF to pay back the AHTF exceeds the desired 15 years . Given the assistance is for deeply affordable housing , the assistance would meet the mitigating circumstance exemption. Yes Proposed TIF assistance will be provided on a pay-as-you-go-basis. Proposed TIF will be provided via an interfund loan and repaid to the AHTF on a pay- as-you-go-basis . Yes Meets the majority of Desired Qualifications. The development meets the majority of Desired Qualifications Yes *Planning applications were submitted and approved prior to the adoption of the diversity equity and inclusion policy (February 2022). Therefore , the development team is not required to adhere to this policy. However, staff will work with the development team to meet the intent of the policy during construction and ongoing management. CommonBond Communities has extensive experience leading in Race, Equity and Inclusion initiatives and will continue to lead by example during the construction and operation of Rise on 7. See section above pertaining to Race Equity and Inclusion. **The increase in market value of the property after redevelopment is less than 8 times the original market value. However, until recently sold to CommonBond, the property has been used as a church and was tax exempt, making the market value for taxing entities essentially $0. Taking into consideration the increase in market value from a tax-exempt church to a multifamily development, the value of the property is significantly higher than 8 times the origin al market value. The proposed development meets the requirements for the provision of financial assistance under the AHTF. Additionally, it meets the majority of the objectives, qualifications , and guidelines as specified in the TIF Policy . Therefore , staff recommends approval of the provision of $1.8 million deferred loan to CommonBond from the AHTF to be repaid from tax increment generated from a housing TIF district and CommonBond. Summary and recommendation: Based upon its analysis of the developer’s proforma for Rise on 7, Ehlers determined that the proposed development has a verified financial gap and is not financially feasible but-for the provision of city financial assistance through the AHTF. To offset this gap, it is proposed that the city consider utilizing a $1.8 million deferred loan from the AHTF, which would be reimbursed through an interfund loan repaid through tax increment and CommonBond. Study session meeting of April 11, 2022 (Item No. 3 ) Page 13 Title: Application for AHTF assistance – Rise on 7 Development Providing financial assistance to the proposed Rise on 7 Development achieves the following: • Redevelops vacant church and daycare which do not meet current building or fire codes. • Provides the city with a quality, multi-family all-affordable housing development consistent with many goals of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, city ’s strategic priorities and council preferences. • Further diversifies the city’s housing stock with an additional 120 all-affordable multi- family units, includ ing 19 deeply affordable units at 30 percent area median income, exceeding the city’s Inclusionary Housing Policy requirements . • Provides a 6,000 s quare foot daycare, with half of the spots reserved as affordable daycare, and 15 spots reserved for families with in Rise on 7. • Includes numerous sustainable features (including a solar array) exceeding the city’s Green Building Policy requirements. • Brings the subject properties to significantly higher market value than they are currently . • Creates a regenerative revenue stream to the city’s affordable housing trust fund to assist future affordable housing developments and programs. CommonBond Communities proposed Rise on 7 Development meets the provision of Affordable Housing Trust Fund dollars per the AHTF policy . Additionally , it meets the city’s requirements for the provision of tax increment f inancing as specified in the city’s TIF Policy. As noted above, the project meets nearly all Objectives as well as all Minimum and Desired Qualifications for providing assistance. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that the proposed development is not financially feasible but-for the provision of city financing. Lastly, the proposed amount of assistance is comparable to other housing developments in which the EDA previously invested. Given these findings, staff supports providing a $1.8 million deferred loan for eligible costs . The AHTF would be repaid $1.57 million over 26 years from 100% of the annual tax increment generated from a new housing TIF district. Should CommonBond sell, refinance, or re -syndicate the project prior to the deferred loan being repaid, CommonBond would be required to repay the outstanding balance of the deferred loan in full with interest. Next steps: As with all TIF applications, it is at the EDA’s discretion as to whether to provide the proposed Rise on 7 Development with financial assistance at the recommended level. Provided the EDA supports providing such assistance as outlin ed in this report, the EDA will be asked to begin the formal process of establishing a new housing TIF district; the vehicle through which the majority of the financial assistance would be repaid . The first step of which is to set a public hearing date. It is proposed that date for holding the public hearing for the establishment of the new Rise on 7 TIF District be tentatively scheduled for June 6, 2022. The next steps in the financial assistance approval process would be as follows: 1. Negotiation of business terms for the provision of Affordable Housing Trust Fund dollars. 2. Review of proposed business terms of the redevelopment contract. 3. Hold public hearing on the establishment of the proposed Rise on 7 TIF District (a housing TIF district). – city council 4. Approval of TIF district plan and redevelopment contract – EDA and city council. 5. Approval of the deferred loan from the AHTF – city cou ncil 6. Hold public hearing pertaining to the LIHTC bond allocation – city council