The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022-03-02 PC PacketMOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA March 2, 2022 — 6:30 P.M. AMENDED MARCH 1, 2022, 1:30 pm 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Order of Business Sketch Plan 7700 Long Lake Road 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. Public Hearing: Resolution 1147-22, Recommending an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 7 (Transportation) B. Resolution 1148-22; Recommending Approval of Ordinance 988, Amending City Code Chapter §161 related to Dynamic Displays C. Resolution 1149-22; Recommending Approval of Ordinance 989, Amending City Code Chapter 160.167(F) related to Outdoor Vending Kiosks 6. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 7. Other Planning Activity A. (none) 8. Approval of Minutes: February 2, 2022 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, March 16, 2022 B. Wednesday, April 6, 2022 10. Adjournment Item No: 03A Meeting Date: Mar 2, 2022 Type of Business: Special City Administrator Review: City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Planning Commision From: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: 7700 Long Lake Road Sketch Plan Introduction: Schifsky Development has submitted a Sketch Plan for 7700 Long Lake Road (northwest corner of Long Lake Road & County Road I). The project includes a three lot subdivision, with twin -homes on each lot (six units, total). Discussion: The intent of a Sketch Plan is for the City Council/Planning Commission to provide comments to the developer prior to the applicant incurring costs of preparing a preliminary plat. Comments are non -binding. Analysis: Existing Proposed Required Zoning R-1 Single Family Residential R-2 or R-3 R-2 or R-3 Comprehensive Plan Single Family Detached Single Family Attached Single Family Attached Lot Size 44,544 SF (1.02 acres) ? 6,250sq ft p/unit Density 1 unit p/ac 6 units p/ac 7 units p/acre' Building Setbacks Front —43' Co Rd I —60' Long Lake Rd 30' 30' Co Rd I 50'(?) Long Lake Rd2 Side 100'+ 10' 10' Rear 100'+ 30' 30' If the project is (3) twin -homes, then zoning can be R-2 or R-3. There is no difference between the two, if twin -homes. If zoned R-3, then the project could include two twin homes and one tri-plex (7 units), attached townhomes (6 units), detached townhomes (6 units), or apartments (6 units). A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for anything more than twin -homes. 2 Density allows 7 units (44,544 sq ft ± 6,250 sq ft p/unit = 7.13 units). If R-2, then six units e.g. 3 twin -homes). If R-3, then seven units (e.g. 2 twin homes & possibly 1 tri-plex). Mounds View City Code 160.055(C)(1) (Yard Requirements); Where principal buildings in existence on lots within the same block on the same side of the street have front yard setbacks different from those required, the minimum front yard setback for any new principal buildings shall be the minimum front yard setback in existence for any one lot. In no case shall the front yard setback be less than 30 feet. For purposes of this division (C)(1), a BLOCK shall be defined as that group of lots lying along a street between the two closest intersecting streets; except that, where the length of the street frontage between the two intersecting streets is greater than 1,400 feet, the block shall be the lots within 650 feet on either side of the lot in question, or to an intersecting street whichever is less. Item 03A Page 2 of 4 Other: • The project is on two county roads. The County will allow one access, minimum of 200' from the intersection (two accesses are shown). The project will need one driveway serving all units. • If driveway access is on Co Rd I, it will require permission to cross St Paul Board of Water land (owns 30' between road and subject property). • Lot is heavily wooded. City Code encourages (but does not require) preservation of significant and specimen trees. A tree plan is required.3 • Requires; (1) Zoning Map amendment (rezoning), (2) Comprehensive Plan amendment, (3) subdivision (including watershed permit). Strategic Plan Strategy/Goal: Continue BR&E program, maximize utilization of development space and current list of available sites, encourage land owners to maintain their properties, & consider residential redevelopment. Financial Impact: N/A Recommendation: Staff requests that City Council members provide feedback regarding the sketch plan, and their expectations for the development. The north side of County Road I is a mixture of single-family, twin -homes (two units on one lot), and attached townhomes (two units on two lots). The proposed sketch plan is consistent with the corridor. Respectfully, 4&--ia,94F Jon Sevald, AICP Community Development Director ATTACHED Aerial Photo Site Photos Sketch Plan 3 City Code 160.418 (Tree Removal on lots with construction or grading activity) The Mounds View Visior_ A Thriving Desirable Commuta«ty Item 03A Page 3 of 4 Aerial Photo (up = east) The Mounds View Vision A Thriving Desirable Community Item 03A Page 4 of 4 Site Photo 7700 Long Lake Road, view looking NW (photo Mar 1, 2022) 7700 Long Lake Road, view looking NE from Co Rd I (photo Mar 1, 2022) 7700 Long Lake Road, view looking SW from Long Lake Rd (photo Mar 1, 2022) The Mounds View Vision A Thriving Desirable Community G7 SCHIFSKY DEVELO PM ENT 77oo Long Lake Rd, Mounds View MN 55112 - Six Units Total - Three Twin home Structures -10' Side yard Setbacks -30' Front and rear yard setbacks -30' Roadway side yard setback -12,5oosgft Lot minimum -200' driveway setback from intersection MouNis lVtEw City of Mounds View Staff Report Item No: Meeting Date: Type of Business Planning Case 05A Mar 2, 2022 Planning Case To: Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing: Resolution 1147-22, Recommending an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 5 (Transportation) Introduction: Staff is requesting a Text Amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to include reference to the Ramsey County Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan. Discussion: During the City Council's October 25, 2021 meeting, Ramsey County Staff provided a presentation about the county's Active Living Communities. It was noted that Mounds View is one of three cities' whose Comprehensive Plan does not reference the county's Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan, nor the Connected Ramsey Communities Network. Ramsey County Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan (2015) The Plan establishes a Vision and Goals to improve access to pedestrian facilities. These culminated from several outreach efforts and surveys, concluding that residents walk and bike for recreation and as a mode of transportation. Residents want more separation from traffic, safe connections between sidewalks and trails, year -around maintenance, and meaningful engagement. The Connected Ramsey Communities Network (2015) This network is a map of various routes that connect from city to city, and county to county. The concepts within both plans are included in the city's Comprehensive Plan, although the Plan does not reference them directly. The City facilitated committees in the 1990's and 2000's, culminating in a sidewalk and trail plan to be implemented as part of the City's street reconstruction program. Each street project is designed based on this past work, and generally includes a sidewalk or striped road shoulder within '/4 mile of every home, and on school routes. It should be noted that residents have often objected to sidewalks for various reasons (e.g. tree preservation, loss of street parking). Reasons opposing sidewalks have not included maintenance. Since 19882, the city has removed snow from public sidewalks and trails, providing year -around use. The County's plan identifies3 pedestrian stress in areas including the three manufactured home communities (private streets), neighborhoods with concentrated apartments such as Scotland Green (private streets), Woodlawn Terrace, Silver Lake Woods (originally private streets), the 1 Gem Lake and North Oaks are the other two cities. 2 Ordinance 451 (Snow and Ice Control Policy) 3 Ramsey County-ide Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan, maps 2B-1 thru 2B-8 ne IVIOUF1US view VISIUF1 A Thriving Desirable Community Item # Page2of2 Medtronic campus, County Road H (east of Mounds View Blvd), and portions of Mounds View Boulevard without trails (planned for 2022/2023). The county's plan is helpful in identifying gaps within the system, as well as actual walking and bicycle use as reported by smart devices. This reporting revealed the popularity of trails through the Medtronic Campus, and the wood trip trail through Greenfield Park. All that said, the proposed text amendment is intended to draw attention to the county's plan, but does not result in any changes to the City's pedestrian and bicycle plans. The proposed amendment includes the following: 1. Chapter 5 (Transportation), page 5-1 Addition of photo (Mounds View Boulevard). 2. Chapter 5 (Transportation), page 5-7 Addition of map (Ramsey Communities Pedestrian Facilities), and text relating to the goals of the county's Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan, and previous work of various city initiatives. 3. Chapter 5 (Transportation), page 5-9 Addition of map (MTC Ridership, Fall 2019). 4. Chapter 5 (Transportation), page 5-11 Addition of photo (Anoka County -Blaine Airport) The text amendment is applicable to the Parks chapter, and Transportation chapter. Staff chose Transportation, as there is more space for additions. The additional photos are intended to fill-in white space within page side -margins. Strategic Plan Strategy/Goal: N/A Financial Impact: N/A Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a Public Hearing, and approve Resolution 1147-22, recommending an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. A Public Hearing notice was published by the Shoreview Press on February 15, 2022. Respectfully, APNaSi9 Jon Sevald, AICP Community Development Director ATTACHED Resolution 1147-22 Mounds View Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4 Parks & Trails Mounds View Comprehensive Plan Chapter 5 Transportation AMENDED Ramsey County Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan; Gaps & Barriers in Ramsey County A Thriving Desirable Community MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1147-22 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) was adopted by the City Council on September 13, 2021, and amended on October 11, 2021. The Plan is authorized by the Metropolitan Council to be put into effect; and, WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan was unintentionally excluded from the City's Plan; and, WHEREAS, The Ramsey County Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan establishes county -wide goals (paraphrased); to improve health and mobility through connecting multi -model networks, and to establish a safe, equitable, and sustainable non -motorized transportation system; and, WHEREAS, in compliance with MN Statute §462.355, Subd 2 and Subd 3, the Planning Commission (planning agency) conducted a Public Hearing on March 2, 2022. A Public Hearing Notice was published by the Shoreview Press on February 15, 2022; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends that the 2040 Comprehensive Plan be amended to include reference to the Ramsey County Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan goals; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 2nd Day of March, 2022 ATTEST: Gary Rundle, Chair (SEAL) Jon Sevald, Community Development Director City of Mounds View 12040 Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Parks, Trails, and Community Facilities INTRODUCTION This section covers the lands, infrastructure, buildings, and services that public agencies provide on a public and semipublic basis in the interest of Mounds View residents. Public facilities and services are vital to the city's quality of life and marketability. As Mounds View is a developed city, its public facilities are generally in place. The focus of this chapter is maintenance and improvement of existing facilities and services and the community's future needs. PARKS, TRAILS, AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES GOALS AND POLICIES The City of Mounds View has developed policies related to parks, trails, and community facilities to ensure their preservation and enhancement. The goals and policies are as follows: Goal 1: Recognize that the Mounds View ISD 621 is the most valued community asset, and coordinate with the district in developing mutually beneficial facilities and programs. • Establish agreements with ISD 621 and athletic associations for shared programing and maintenance of city -school facilities. Goal 2: Support community health through land uses that improve opportunities for physical activities, access to healthy food and social services, housing stability and the environment. • Support healthy lifestyle programs through continued cooperation with the YMCA and other programing. • Support partnerships between the City and community organizations, and for -profit organizations and local entrepreneurs, for the joint use of City facilities. • Investigate market demands for the Community Center and consider re -allocating space and/or expansion to meet the needs of the community and the adjacent City Hall Park. • Explore opportunities for studying access to healthy food. MouNDs VIEW Opinion Survey 28% of respondents use the Mounds View Community Center, and 30% use city trails at least weekly. There were several comments comparing Mounds View facilities to that of Shoreview and New Brighton, along with suggestions for minor improvements to specific parks and trail segments. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to maintain and enhance current park facilities and explore partnerships for expansions and enhancements. Silver View Park Chapter 4: Parks, Trails, and Community Facilities 14-1 City of Mounds View 12040 Comprehensive Plan Goal 3: Improve connections between local trails and regional trail systems. • Complete the City's trail and sidewalk master plan with connections to trails/sidewalks in adjacent cities. Coordinate with Ramsey County and DNR for improvements to the Rice Creek Water trail and the regional trail system. Goal 4: Conduct inventory and needs analysis of park facilities to address if parks are addressing the needs of the immediate neighborhood and the larger community. • Identify gaps in facilities, and program improvements through the CIP and annual budget. • Consider repurposing of under-utilized properties in a manner that achieves the highest and best use and increases the value (not limited to monetary) to the community while mitigating impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. • Study park dedication fees and how they are handled by other municipalities. Goal 5: Create a pollinator friendly community. • Encourage pollinator friendly practices in private gardens. • Partner with local schools. Goal 6: Maintain, repair, and improve the City's stormwater system infrastructure as necessary. EXISTING PARKS AND TRAIL NETWORK Parks and open space areas in Mounds View include municipally owned and operated neighborhood and community parks and special use facilities. There are nine neighborhood parks, three community parks, and one special use park. These publicly owned parcels are highlighted in Figure 4-1. The City owns several properties that do not have a designated use. Many of these are not publicly accessible or consist of wetlands and flood plain. The City intends to consider the land's highest and best use, which may be leaving it as open space. City trails and sidewalks are identified in Figure 4-2. The City plans to complete a trail segment along Mounds View Boulevard, with connections to the Rice Creek North Regional Trail (east), and planned trails in Spring Lake Park (west). The City has added sidewalks as part of its street reconstruction program. It is the intent that every household be within a'/4 mile of a sidewalk or trail, and that all busy roads have a sidewalk or trail. MOUNDS VIEW Rice Creek North Regional Trail Master Plan The 14-mile Rice Creek Regional Trail extends from the Chain of Lakes Regional Park Reserve in Lino Lakes (5,500 acres), to the Mississippi River in Fridley. Within Ramsey County, the trail passes through a wildlife corridor adjacent to the Arden Hills Army Training Site, and through Long Lake Regional Park in New Brighton (217 acres). Anoka and Ramsey counties are conducting a trail master plan. The main activity center will be in and around Building 189 in Arden Hills. Within Mounds View, planned improvements include: Trails for hiking, mountain biking, and cross-country skiing, east of and adjacent to Irondale HS. • Redevelopment of the parking lot at Old Hwy 8 to include improved water trail access, fishing area, restrooms, increased parking. • Overflow parking at Edgewood Middle School. (Below) Proposed Development (south section). Mounds View is highlighted in yellow. Chapter 4: Parks, Trails, and Community Facilities 14-2 m 9th Rve.NE 91. -85thrAverNE- LL G roveland Park Oakwood -Dr II Ardan-Ave Laport-Dr l ■ Shierwood=Rid Silver View Park WOoderest Woodcrest-Dr paLk 0 0 3 Y N N IM I I I I I I 1 H Mounds View City Boundary Public Ownership: lllllllll� lllllllll� lllllllll� lllllllll� lllllllll� City of Mounds View Ramsey County State of Minnesota Ardan Park Hillview Park, CR-5 0 -. CouisaAve—s 0 —Clearview-Ave—Q 0 m -o Wood rest -Dr o 0• 0 m • N O LEI L-aport-Dr ©a ' I I11iV: � Greenfield Park 0 Oakwood Dr Oakwood Park 1 rn. rn 'L Oakwood-0r... m t , aronson.Dr m Random Park lld c Existing Land Use: 2 7 Woodale-D Single Family, Detached Single Family, Attached ▪ Multi -Family ▪ Manufactured Housing Park Mounds View School District , Retail and Other Commercial Public Utilities Office MI Residential Mixed Use Figure 4-1: Publicly Owned Properties City of Mounds View 1,500 3,000 Feet N City Hall Clearview-Ave Industrial and Utility Institutional Park, Recreation, or Preserve Undeveloped/Vacant Right -of -Way Open Water NWI Wetland Terrace Dr — Pinewood Pinewood Elem Bel le -La y!'1oodale,D •tr CR9 & I Rice Creek North Regional Trail 1 1_ Mustang D C3o;o b V,V1938Vacti e\1938O41741G1 S\Projeds(Public Properties.ned keside Park Groveland Park — f Sherwood PI 85th.Ave _N E _ m -Kr c Ardan Ave Laport Dr Bronson Dr Park View D Sherwood Rd - `eiy Library CR H2 W Ardan Park -Arden;A. wee 85th Ave NE I _1 7 III111 - pm i 1 • i �t(t��. • I '�, \ Lois or >, tt uuuu1 Oakwood Zr 1 m m Inilz tlll�� s ■■ ro g m r` :::t ce Dr. a Pinewood Cu g -E '-- } - I m E c CR I W co �- - ��d�rl • Hillview Rd MIN or/ ��I. Louisa Ave cr =�' Clearview Ave ClearviewAve r T v, 1: ?' Ridge La o Random Park 0 0 Wo�odale Dr J , r a o .. J „(� - WoodaleD 1...,,,,, A. . r�1.�-k�--��-III--HIV c rn cI-� oho' ' fey' Dr twoodcrest m rj ° 1 Park " w Edgewood poi i Wo 1G(e t o -o!• f3 m m• Middle School I 1 o ,1 m al W 0 le Bike Lane, Existing (3 mi.) Metropolitan Council Tier 1 RBTN Corridor Bike Lane, Planned Metropolitan Council Tier 2 RBTN Corridor Sidewalk, Existing (11.5 mi.) City Parks (11) • Sidewalk, Planned (3.4 mi.) Other Destinations Trail, Existing (10.2 mi) — — I ▪ Mounds View City Boundary 1 Trail, Planned (1.6 mi.) Figure 4-2: Bicycle and Pedestrian System City of Mounds View 0 1,500 3,000 Feet N Bronsvna Rice Creek North Regional Trail 1 1 1 1 Mustang Dr w - --- -- ---- t , 2019 March 2 V:419361a6tiVell 93S341741GI S0ProleaSEIKing.mxd City of Mounds View 12040 Comprehensive Plan In addition to City parks, Ramsey County Parks and Trails are included in the Metropolitan Council's Regional Park System. Within, and adjacent to Mounds View, is the Rice Creek North Regional Trail, and water trail, which includes portions of Anoka and Ramsey counties. The trail cuts through the far southeast corner of Mounds View. Facilities include a pedestrian trail, water trail (Rice Creek), and parking/portage area. PLANNED PARKS AND TRAILS There are no proposals for new parks within the city. There are a number of sidewalks, trails, and extensions proposed to improve options for active transportation. Proposed trails and sidewalks generally connect segments that are missing to close gaps in the network. Proposed trails/sidewalks connections are mapped in Figure 4-2. COMMUNITY FACILITIES Mounds View public buildings include City Hall (which includes city administrative offices and the police department), the Public Works maintenance facility, the community center, park buildings, and park shelters. All community facilities are mapped in Figure 4-4. MouN1Js VIEW Mounds View Community Center and YMCA The Bel Rae Ballroom was built in 1964 and was remodeled to become the Mounds View Community Center in 1998. The Center includes a banquet facility with a 400-person capacity, meeting rooms, gymnasium, fitness equipment, teen center, game area, and a daycare center which operates independently. In 1998, the City Council voted to eliminated the Parks Department and contract with an external agency. The City entered into an agreement with the YMCA in 1999, reviewing CIIJ.ICCIIICIIIJ C VCIy IIVC yc11 . 1 IIC YMCA administers the Community Center operations and recreational programing, and is overseen by the YMCA Advisory Board, including two City Councilmembers, Parks, Trails & Forestry Commissioners, community members, YMCA staff and City staff. The Advisory Board provides recommendations to the City Council on operational considerations. Hea Source Map, illustrating popularity €-4 of walking/jogg ng routes (Stave Labs, 2019). The most used route is on the Medtronic campus. • Chapter 4: Parks, Trails, and Community Facilities 14-5 Sher r d P1 Bronson Dr - w 9. J_ a (n - Arlan -Ave Sherwood Rd LL H'Alview-Rd --Oakwood-Dr Silver View Park -Bronson-Dr L Pa[k ViewDr, Woodale-Dr_ o s-. Woodcrest i 1 's �WoodcreStrDr Park ? oo ®.. ' I d -- - c } 1 69Ih-Ave•NE * Major Gateway Minor Gateway Public Facilities and Schools Parks Aden Ave CR 5 tau atuW:0 —Louisa-Ave S —Glearview-Ave—a I Cleary ew-Ave Random Park Ridge La- 1 ,I I _I r J Woodale-D _ 9 IX a ❑ K • a WoodcreSt-Dr o`o O C J N 0 L1 j ▪ - - i-- '85th-Ave-NE- Ardan Park Pinewood-Cir m 0 1 Mounds View City Boundary Right -of -Way 1.11 Open Water NWI Wetland 'Figure 4-3: Community Facilities City of Mounds View E Middle School Greenfield Park Hillview Rd Oakwood Park --- Oakwood Dr -errace-Dr- Pinewood-Dr Belle -La Woodale-Dr Rice Creek North -Regional Trail Mustang -Dr IOc{o b r 25r?Y11,F 1,500 3,000 Feet MOUNDS VIEW V:119351actve11935041741GI S5ProjectslCommunity Facilities, avid City of Mounds View 12040 Comprehensive Plan Chapter 5: Transportation INTRODUCTION The roadway system in Mounds View is built -out, though it will continue to evolve in the coming years. The system consists of state and county roads that function as principal and minor arterials, and County and City roads that function as collector and local streets. Mounds View Boulevard, also known as County Highway 10, runs diagonally through the city. The corridor provides quick access to nearby freeways, but many have seen it function dually as a barrier. The State of Minnesota (MnDOT) turned the jurisdiction of Mounds View Boulevard to Ramsey County in 2000. While Mounds View acknowledges the importance of the corridor for moving traffic, the City has determined that there is an excessive amount of right-of-way being maintained for the Boulevard. In 2002, the City adopted a design theme to enhance the image of the Mounds View Boulevard corridor and continues to work toward its implementation. Mounds View has developed a comprehensive trailway plan. The City will consider opportunities to implement the construction and maintenance of trailways. See Chapter 5: Parks, Trails, and Community Facilities for more information. Transportation Goals and Policies The City has developed transportation goals and policies to ensure residents and visitors can move safety through the city. The goals and policies related to transportation are as follows: Goal 1: Support Transit Oriented Development (TOD) through supportive transit options. • Expand transit routes through Mounds View, including the city's northeast quadrant, where there are gaps in the service area. • Encourage transit innovation and implementation, including future Bus Rapid Transit, alternative modes of transit (e.g. autonomous vehicles), and electric vehicles. • Work with MTC to invest in permanent Park & Ride facilities. • Advocate for transit including the preservation of existing routes, investments in permanent Park & Ride facilities, and support for Transit Oriented Development. • Improve permanent mass transit stations, including seating, shelters, and signage for all ages and abilities. Goal 2: Complete the remaining 20% of street reconstruction and maintain a long- term fiscal plan for maintenance and replacement of City infrastructure. Goal 3: Balance community and commuting needs by enhancing characteristics that improve the City's Boulevard. • Coordinate with Ramsey County access management to balance needs of travelling public with needs of residents and local property owners. • Minimize non -local traffic from driving through residential neighborhoods. MOUNDS VIEW Chapter 5: Transportation 1 5-1 City of Mounds View 12040 Comprehensive Plan • Coordinate with Ramsey County and MnDOT to improve traffic flow on County and State Roads. • Improve safety of pedestrian crossings along Mounds View Boulevard. • When considering subdivisions, require additional right-of-way and realignment of off -set intersections along Mounds View Blvd. • Include electric vehicle charging stations and improvements to support innovative modes of transportation in capital improvement projects. Goal 4: Continue to participate in the planning process for any expansion of the Anoka County Airport. • Protect the general airspace of the Anoka County Airport, through regulation of structure height. • Notify MnDOT and the FAA of any proposed construction or alteration that would exceed a height of 200' above ground level at an imaginary surface extending upward and outward at a slope of 100:1 from the nearest point of the nearest runway of a public airport, at least 30 days in advance of a Public Hearing, or City Council action. • Oppose expansion of the Anoka County Airport if it creates noise nuisance or safety related issues for Mounds View residents. Goal 5: Improve major and minor gateway entrances of the city to include improved signage and attractive landscaping (where space permits). ROADWAY SYSTEM The streets in Mounds View mostly create a regular, rectangular grid system. The major exception is Mounds View Boulevard as it cuts through the grid northwest to southeast diagonally from Central Avenue (Highway 65) just outside of Mounds View to I-35W at the opposite corner of the city. This layout creates many angled intersections with the Boulevard. The City is not anticipating any major street expansion projects in the near future, although some street extensions may occur due to subdivisions and development of existing large lots. Some street and intersection reconfigurations and traffic calming installations may also be undertaken to manage traffic. Ramsey County and the City recently completed a federally funded reconstruction of the intersection of Mounds View Boulevard and County Road H. The City will continue to pursue funding opportunities to improve roadway facilities, crossings, and calming measures across the city. CR H s • Highway Ave ▪ Local Access: Moulds View Boulevard & County Road H ■ Gateway to TGAAP Lore l-35W Highway Ave & I-35W MOUNDS VIEW akt Old Highway 8 (foreground) Chapter 5: Transportation 15-2 City of Mounds View 12040 Comprehensive Plan Functional Classification Functional classification is a system to establish the hierarchy of streets that collect and distribute traffic from residential neighborhoods to the metropolitan roadway system. The Metropolitan Council has established a functional classification system for the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Classifications of streets in Mounds View include principal arterials, minor arterials, collector roadways, and local streets. The functional classifications of roadways in Mounds View and associated traffic volumes are shown in Figure 5-1. Functional classification helps to ensure that non -transportation factors, such as land use and development, are taken into account in planning and design of the roadway system. The two major considerations in the classification of roadway networks are access and mobility. Mobility is of primary importance on arterials and thus limiting access is a necessity. However, the primary function of a local roadway is access. This in turn limits mobility. The extent and degree of access control is an important factor in the function of a roadway facility. The functional classification types are dependent upon one another in order to provide a system of streets and highways. Minor Arterials — Mounds View Boulevard, Silver Lake Road: Minor arterial roadways connect the urban service area to cities and towns inside and outside the region and generally service medium to short trips. Minor arterials connect principal arterials, minor arterials, and collectors. The spacing range from 1/4 to 3/4 of a mile in metro centers to 1 to 2 miles in developing areas. The desired minimum average speed during peak traffic periods is 20 mph in fully developed and 30 mph in developing areas. The emphasis for minor arterial roadways is on mobility rather than on land access. In urban areas, direct land access is generally restricted to concentrations of commercial/industrial land uses. • Mounds View Boulevard (A -Minor Reliever): Defined as a road that provides direct relief for metropolitan highway traffic. 4 lanes + turn lanes. • Silver Lake Road (A -Minor Expander): Defined as a road that provides a way to make connections between urban areas outside the 1-494/1-694 beltway. 4 lanes. Principal Arterials - Interstate 35W, State Highway 10: Principal arterial roadways serve major activity centers, higher traffic volumes, longer trips, and carry a higher proportion of total urbanized travel on a minimum of mileage. Along these facilities, the City and other agencies limit access to preserve the ability of the roadway to accommodate the volumes and to maximize safety for drivers. The management criteria require that a 40 mph average speed be achieved during peak traffic periods. Also, little or no direct land access should be allowed to these roadways. Grade separated intersections are required for freeways and highly desired for other principal arterial roadways. Highway Safety Minnesota Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) 2014-2019, Minnesota Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) MouNDS 7iEW j I I 1 Chapter 5: Transportation 15-3 8000 �. :- --.- �_1.7.,300.-------- 1,700`= 1;650 Sherwood -Rd 21,400 s y 1,950 r . 3 Y a 250 J" • Bronson D }- Z Bronson•Dr - t ark PVietrDr --560 J I— ` avv ,Oakwood-D 1. cc \ T., m 4,900 6,800." , $Ri1 17-350 7,600.970 2,500 900 4,250 creberg St t Q I O v \ Q`� .LJJ j f �/ 640 Bell l2 �1,100 r I Br ns nDr -_ �� 2 650 �} 4,900 ! +! ' Lambe AID o 0 = E • 85thAve NE • 15,100 J I15500 Hillview Rd Pinewood-Cir -530 C CD 4,050 �n— • • 540 p,6CR 5 1 650 4,950 x J - L-auis •As '° wl _ r w. iC-learview-AveOa �.; 8,500 1 • `o ■ ■■ Ridge Las C9 m Wo ale DC.. � o`• ■■ 1 Woodale•Dr� 4,500 Tr c m• :WaoderestVDr - ml I k v_ --- — -WoodetestDr—o 3 m, 350 waI -y ILF I -- � 1,100 m g5 700n CS 4-250 2650 J 369tM4 - NE - .- - - •--'- - -_. - ■ Principal Arterial • 2014 AADT Location A -Minor Reliever • 2015 AADT Location A -Minor Expander • 2016 AADT Location Other Arterial Major Collector Local Street O 2012 HCAADT Location I Mounds View City Boundary a CleaRnew•Ave j- - ekwood-Dr Pinewood -Dr 1,100 1;650Woodaie-Dr Figure 5-1: Existing and Planned Functional Classifications and Traffic Volumes City of Mounds View 1,500 3,000 Feet 23;100 7,500 1,28,00 129;0,00 Mustang Dr Apiril 1b, 2019 MOUNDS IVIEW V:1938\active11938041741GIS\Projects1Functional Class.mzd City of Mounds View 12040 Comprehensive Plan Access Management Access management is the balancing of two important components in any transportation system: access and mobility. It is a critical component of a safe and efficient roadway system. By limiting access points on highways, the number of potential conflicts may be reduced. Access management is important to balancing automotive mobility with automobile access to local properties. As discussed above, access is limited on higher mobility roadways such as Principal Arterials, while local streets provide increased access and decreased mobility. Standards are listed in Table 5-1. Table 5-1: Summary of Recommended Street Spacing for Non-IRCs, MnDOT Access Management Manual Category Area or Facility Type TypicaI Functional Class Public St eet Spacing Signal Spacing Primary FuII-Movement intersection Secondary intersection 4 Principal Arterials in the Twin Cities Met opolitan Area and Primary Regional Trade Centers (Non-lRCs). 4AF Non -Interstate Freeway Prm l o Arterials Arterials Interchange Access Ordy ire Seddon 3.2.7 for interim sparing) rote•:-- 4A Rural 1 mile 1t2 ro:io See Seouon 3.2.S 4B Urban/ Urbanizing 1..2 !Tiet14 rode 112 mle 4C 5 Urban Care Minor 300-00 fen. dependent upon blodr length 114 mfie SA Rural Elinor Arterials 022 rode 114 rode See Sect. 3.2.5 SB Urban/ Urbanizing 11i rode 1,8 mile 114 mile SC Urban Core 300-80 feel. deperdcrt upon hook length 1.14 mie 6 Collectors 6A Rural Collectors 112 rode 114 rode See Section 2.2.5 6B Urban) Urbanizing 118 mie Nol Applicable tamile 6C Urban Core 300480 fen. depe deni upon block length 1:8 mile 7 Specific Area Access Management Plans 7 Aid Ail By adopted plan Complete Streets The City is committed to providing a transportation network that is safe and supportive of all users, in or outside of motor vehicles. As the use of alternative modes of transportation rise locally and regionally, the City will study the feasibility of allocating more space on the roads for slower moving traffic with a primary focus on pedestrian comfort and safety. The City also recognizes that residents' mode choice is largely dependent on the type of infrastructure in place. The City will continue to study options for improving sidewalk, bikeways, and transit facilities as a catalyst for increasing use of alternative modes of transportation. MDUNDS VIEW Red Oak Drive Chapter 5: Transportation 1 5-5 City of Mounds View 12040 Comprehensive Plan Revisioning Mounds View Boulevard In past years, a significant portion of traffic has been diverted from Mounds View Boulevard to State Highway 10, bypassing much of the city. This reconfiguration brings new opportunities as well as challenges. With much of the traffic diverted from the area, fewer people are passing by the local businesses each day. The bypass of automotive traffic also provides new opportunities for creating an attractive destination. Mounds View Boulevard could better function for people using a range of transportation options, including walking, biking, use of mass transit, and driving. The City will study the feasibility of reconstructing Mounds View Boulevard in the coming years. Transportation studies will be completed in tandem with land use studies, as each greatly effects and is dependent on the other. For topics related to land use along Mounds View Boulevard, see Chapter 2.In 2002, a cooridor improvement plan was completed for the Boulevard, addressing automobile traffic, pedestiran trails, and landscaping. The City has completed most of the trail system, and implemented a scaled down landscaping plan foused on intersections. The more exsensive parts of the plan, including realigning intersections, and landscaping county road medians. is yet to be addressed. 10' Trail • Guardral+s Where Trees are Planted In Median E9 _ 1 " WR 12'-0" !if edWan 225-0' 32'43" MOUND VIEW ®I 1171., m o32ana Typical Soot° n Through Mal r rhP 4y x 8 ,1k lid 11 11.-1 I - T 3rn 11 Ornamental Tree Shade Troll Rainwater Runoff holding Area 65'-0" Highway 10Reconstruction and Revitalization Plan April 24, 2902 UPS Chapter 5: Transportation 15-6 City of Mounds View 12040 Comprehensive Plan Pedestrian and Bicycle System Mounds View adopted a resolution establishing a comprehensive trailways system policy in 1992. The goals of this program include: 1. Helping to promote pedestrian and bicycle safety in the city 2. Providing a trailway system that connects recreational opportunities within the city 3. Provide trail links to Ramsey and Anoka counties and to adjacent cities' trail systems In recent years, a link to the Rice Creek North Regional Trail and Rice Creek Chain of Lake Park Preserve has been completed, providing bike and walking access to neighboring jurisdictions and the Mississippi River Trail. Anoka and Ramsey Counties jointly operate the Rice Creek West Regional Trail and the Rice Creek North Regional Trails. Mounds View lies in the middle of the corridor and provides a link between the two. Ramsey County trailway connections that serve Mounds View include a route to downtown St. Paul through Shoreview on a trailway on County Road I. Mounds View also has the opportunity to connect with trailways leading to downtown Minneapolis via Silver Lake Road. The City will continue to study trailway improvements and extensions. See Chapter 4: Parks, Trails, and Community Facilities for more. The City does not provide trailways on every street. Mounds View intends for the trailway system to provide reasonable accessibility to all areas of the city, making special provisions to provide access to schools, parks, business areas, and the City Hall and Community Center area. A map of the existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian system can be seen in Figure 5-2. Trailway priorities established by the City in 1992 include: Stripe and mark one or both sides of City roads with sufficient width to provide on - street trails consistent with the trailways plan 1. Pursue grants and funding sources for development of the trailways in Mounds View 2. Consider adding trailways during street reconstruction and improvements The City has nearly completed a program to construct new trailways along both sides of Mounds View Boulevard, a street which could otherwise be seen as a barrier to safe biking. The corridor contains several destinations vital to the city, including Mounds View City Hall, Community Center, Ramsey County public library, parks, transit facilities, and various strip malls, most of which were designed primarily for access by car. The new trails along Mounds View Boulevard provide pedestrian safe access to these facilities as well as provide access to several local trial segments and regional trail systems. The City will investigate strategies for integrating mixed -use trails into existing strip malls and other auto -oriented developments. The City will also study expansions to the system that provide connections with neighboring cities. MOUNDel '..11UFJICI D. I I UI IU IIUf I I J-/ Groveland Park Lakeside Park OakwoodrOr — f1� 1-1 • 1_II I��-Bronson D w Bronson Dr z 85th`Ave NE Laport D� Sherwood Rd 1 I I ■ Hiilview Rd Silver View Park Hillview Park 'es. Library O, `I Louisa Ave Clearview Ave Bronson Dr City Flail Park Random Park Ridge La ■ 2 Woodale D 1 ' T C ,woodcrest Dr twoParkest m - o w 1 "7 �o11 IN Wo+crrtYDi o sio;• c a 1 3 m CM , W J O a_' 1 1 1 Woodale Dr i 1 Bike Lane, Planned Sidewalk, Existing (11.5 mi.) Sidewalk, Planned (3.4 mi.) Trail, Existing (10.2 mi) Trail, Planned (1.6 mi.) Metropolitan Council Tier 1 RBTN Corridor Metropolitan Council Tier 2 RBTN Corridor City Parks (11) Other Destinations Mounds View City Boundary Figure 5-2: Bicycle and Pedestrian System City of Mounds View a 0 1,500 3,000 Feet N Greenfield Park Lois Dr 8 mmoO`. Oakwood lDr Hillview Rd Oakwood Park 1 Oakwood Dr Terrace Dr Llimilimi ml ' GrobergSt K Pirewoed.._ Elem 1 , — O� m I Belle_Ler Brorrsveyar- - Edgewood Middle School Rice Creek North Regional Trail Pinewood Dr E m 0 Woodale Dr a_ Mustang Dr. MOUNDS VIEW V: \19 38\active 11938 cJ4 S 741 G I SIP rol e cts C i ki ng. rnxd City of Mounds View 12040 Comprehensive Plan Transit Metro Transit is the major transit service provider in the Twin Cities area, and it provides transit service in Mounds View. Mounds View is within the Metropolitan Transit Taxing District, Market Area III. Service options for Market Area III include: • Primary emphasis on commuter express bus service • Suburban local routes providing basic coverage • General public dial -a -ride service supplementing fixed route service Figure 5-3 shows the current bus routes serving Mounds View. There are express routes to downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul, and limited plus local bus services to downtown Minneapolis via Silver Lake Road. In addition to the fixed route bus service, the Metropolitan Council operates Metro Mobility that provides door-to-door transportation service for people with disabilities. The Metropolitan Council provides other services through the Metro Commuter program. The City is expecting the Metropolitan Council to continue to provide mass transit, Metro Mobility, and Metro Commuter services in the future. The City is supportive of higher density and mixed -use development along the Mounds View Boulevard corridor, see Chapter 2: Land Use. Higher density development is needed to support frequent transit service, and vice -versa. As plans move forward with higher density development along the Corridor, the City will continue to work with Metro Transit to develop transit service on Mounds View Boulevard. There is an existing park -and -ride lot located at the County Road H and I-35W interchange area. Transit service in the northeast quarter of Mounds View is virtually nonexistent. The residential areas there, including two manufactured home parks, would benefit from transit service. As Mounds View works to build a robust and diversified transportation network, it is important for transit service to be included as a viable option. Mounds View will work with Metro Transit to enhance transit service in the City in order to support a multi -modal network and improve access for current and future residents. Spring Lake Road MoUN VIEiN L Chapter 5: Transportation 15-9 - • Bus Stop Park & Ride Lot Route 25 Route 250 Route 252 Route 288 Route 825 Route 860 Route 955 L-aport-Dr ShetWood Rd a re m T 0) Hillvi Bronson 0 rk Vi isDr I WoodcrestDr m --Louisa Ave--5 —Clearview-Ave — a 0 Ridge -La — a 1 J Woodale-D CC 711 r _ J Mounds View City Boundary Single Family, Detached Single Family, Attached Multi -Family Manufactured Housing Park Retail and Other Commercial Office am Residential Mixed Use Figure 5-3: Existing Transit System City of Mounds View 0 1,500 3,000 Feet N 0 m Bronson D Cleerview-Av Industrial Mixed -Use Industrial and Utility Institutional Park, Recreation, or Preserve Undeveloped/Vacant Right -of -Way Open Water NWI Wetland Lammed Av..e Terrace Dr Pinewood-Dr- 1Noodale-Dr Mustang Dr April 10, 2019 VA19381active11938041741G151ProjectslTra nsitmrd City of Mounds View 12040 Comprehensive Plan Aviation The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Aeronautics safety and standards are a major consideration in the planning, design, maintenance, and operation of air transportation facilities and services. There are no existing or planned aviation facilities within Mound View. However, the City has a responsibility to protect airspace from potential hazards to air navigation including electronic interference. The City recognizes its responsibility to protect the general airspace around the airport in Blaine and within City limits. Federal and state agencies have established safety zones and regulations around public airports to ensure safety of aircraft operations. Land uses in these zones must be consistent with FAA and MnDOT Aeronautics rules. Structures that are 200 feet tall or higher may pose a hazard to air navigation. As such, structures are limited to a maximum height of 200 feet and there can be no interference with electronic communications, airport lighting, and impairment of visibility. The construction for any structure or alteration exceeding a height of 200 feet or any construction or alteration of greater height that an imaginary surface extending upward at a scale of 100:1 from the nearest point of the nearest runway of a public airport requires notification to the MnDOT Commissioner and possibly the FAA. The current FAA Regulations can be found on the FAA website. Part 77 of the Current FAA Regulations contains guidelines regarding when the FAA shall be notified of construction or alterations that will affect the local airspace. In the event that the FAA shall be notified of proposed construction or alterations, one may find the appropriate form ("Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration" — Form 7460- 1) on the FAA website. The FAA has several regional offices with Minnesota served by the Great Lakes Regional Office in Des Plaines, Illinois. There currently are no structures in Mounds View that exceed 200 feet or pose safety hazards to air navigation. Mounds view is almost fully developed and land uses are well established in the safety zones. Some infill development of residential land may occur as property owners subdivide larger lots in the future. Mounds View has enacted a Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance that governs the height of towers among other things. This ordinance limits the height of towers to 150 feet in an industrial area, subject to certain conditions. As such, the City is not expecting to have any structure that would be taller than 200 feet near the airport or within its boundaries. In 2008, the Mounds View City Council passed Resolution 7366, opposing the expansion of the Anoka County -Blaine Airport runway(s), and opposing any legislative effort to reclassify the airport as an intermediate status facility. The City expects to participate in the long-term planning efforts and preparations of the safety zoning ordinance for the Anoka County -Blaine Airport and to ensure that airport noise levels to not increase in Mounds View. MOUNDS VIEW Chapter 5: Transportation 1 5-1 1 City of Mounds View 12040 Comprehensive Plan Freight There are a couple nodes of industrial uses that generate freight movement within Mounds View, each adjacent to city limits. The first and largest is around the interchange of I-35W and Mounds View Boulevard (County 10). Multiple industrial facilities with trucking docks are located in this area. Access is provided via A -Minor and local streets to the Interstate system and Mounds View Boulevard. The second use that generates freight movement is along the city's northern border. There is a distribution center with direct access to County Rd J, an A -Minor Expander so freight traffic is not expected on local streets as a result. There are no rail lines or rail stations in Mounds View. One rail line and spur runs adjacent to city limits and to a facility in Fridley. County Road H2 through Mounds View is the most direct route between the property and Interstate-35W, creating freight traffic through Mounds View along County Road H2. Figure 5-4 illustrates major access -point and desitnations in Mounds View for freight traffic. Figure 5-1 maps multi -axle freight traffic on A -Minor and Principal Arterial roads. s-yo 4 Figure 5-4: Freight Access MouNDS av SAIA LTL Freight Chapter 5: Transportation 1 5-12 City of Mounds View 12040 Comprehensive Plan TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES The City of Mounds View lies within Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) 1692 through 1695, and 1701 through 1707. Potions of zones 1703 and 1695 are also within adjacent cities. Figure 5-5 shows the alignment of TAZ zones and Mounds View boundaries. Population, household, and employment forecasts are allocated for each TAZ zone in Table 5-2. The City of Mounds View is developed with few vacant parcels. New population growth in each zone will be the result of residential and mixed -use redevelopment. The heaviest concentration of redevelopment (i.e. population growth) is guided along the Mounds View Boulevard corridor, which limits the need for road improvements on local roads and better supports use of mass transit and alternative modes of transportation. TAZ zone 1701 is expected to see the greatest population change in the city with an 80 person increase. This zone is one of the largest by geographical area and includes land along Mounds View Boulevard, residential neighborhood, one of the city's manufactured home parks, and large industrial parcels. Population growth here could be a result of mixed -use or high -density residential development along Mounds View Boulevard, or infill development in the residential neighborhoods or manufactured home park. The number of households is also expected to remain steady across all Mounds View TAZ zones. In one zone near Long Lake Road and County Road H2, the number of households is expected to drop by 10. In the other zones, the number of households is expected to increase by anywhere between 10 and 30 between 2020 and 2040. The greatest increase is expected in a small zone between Mounds View Boulevard and Spring Lake. Employment numbers are expected to rise nearly across the board, with one major exception. The zone that is spread between Blaine and the northeast corner of Mounds View and that includes a Medtronic facility within Mounds View and industrial uses within Blaine is expected to lose 100 jobs between 2020 and 2040. Most zones are expected to gain somewhere between 10 and 40 jobs. The zone south of Mounds View Boulevard at the southeast corner of Mounds View is expected to gain 300 jobs. Most growth is expected in TAZ zones adjacent to Mounds View Boulevard. MOUNDel Chapter 5: Transportation 1 5-13 yl l : : I Mounds View City Boundary Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) boundaries Traffic Analysis Zones City of Mounds View _\0 1,500 3,000 Feet 10.1938'acxv911938037851GIS,ProlectslCa m Plan 20181TAZs. mrd City of Mounds View 12040 Comprehensive Plan Table 5-2: Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) MOUND VIEW Population : TAZ 2020 2030 2040 1692 1693 1694 1695 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1,200 1,200 1,210 1,230 1,230 1,240 2,150 2,130 2,150 0 0 0 2,600 2,640 2,680 1,710 1,720 1,740 520 540 570 470 480 490 470 450 450 1,020 980 970 1,130 1,130 1,140 Households: TAZ 2020 2030 2040 1692 1693 1694 1695 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 480 490 490 490 500 510 850 870 870 0 0 0 1,080 1,100 1,100 750 770 770 220 250 250 210 210 220 190 190 190 410 410 400 500 500 500 Employment : TAZ 2020 2030 2040 1692 1693 1694 1695 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 60 60 70 40 40 50 80 80 90 4,660 4,710 4,560 1,610 1,690 1,730 280 340 380 110 140 140 0 0 0 10 10 20 90 100 110 940 1,120 1,260 Chapter 5: Transportation 1 5-15 City of Mounds View 12040 Comprehensive Plan PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS The City of Mounds View will continue to collaborate with neighboring municipalities, Anoka and Ramsey Counties, and MnDOT to maintain and improve mobility and access for residents and visitors to the city. Highlights from the 2018-2024 Capital Improvement Plan are listed below. 2018 — Program Ave from MV Blvd to CR H2 2019 — Bronson Dr from Edgewood to Long Lake and Woodale Dr. 2019 — Water Treatment System Upgrade (bonds in 2020) 2020 — Quincy St from CR H2 to CR I 2020 — MV Blvd / Co. Rd. H2 intersection improvements 2020 — Water Treatment System Upgrade 2021 — Pleasant View Dr/84th Ave 2021 — Spring Lake Road 2021 — Water Treatment System Upgrade 2022 — Bronson from Edgewood to Quincy 2024 — Intersection improvements along MV Blvd (2024 or later) 2026 — Sediment Removal — Silver View Pond (approx. year)* *The City will need to demonstrate compliance with RCWD and DNR requirements and the Wetland Conservation Act in order to proceed with sediment removal at Silver View Pond. MOUNDS VIEW Street & Utility Improvement Program In 2005, a petition was submitted by Mounds View residents in opposition to a street project that was to be assessed. In 2007, the City Council appointed a 30-member taskforce to develop street standards and a financial plan to reconstruct all City streets. The financial plan included the use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Municipal State Aid (MSA), franchise fees, utility funds, and a ten-year property tax levy. Through the levy, homeowners paid an average of $100 per year, as opposed to street assessments as high as $3,000 per household. The street design plan includes narrowing most streets from 32' in width to 28', and use of storm sewer (vs. open ditches) with curb & gutter. The plan also added sidewalks to a number of local streets. I. Between 2009 and 2018, about 80% of the city's streets were reconstructed, with the remaining to be completed by 2024. The adopted plan was not without controversy. A number of residents who were assed for street reconstruction projects prior to 2007, objected to the levy. Those affected property owners were refunded 60% of levied amounts. Quincy Street Chapter 5: Transportation 15-16 RAMSEY COUNTY -WIDE Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan Gaps & Barriers in Ramsey County 2B-1 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2B-2 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS System Analysis Introduction and Overview Budgets are not unlimited, needs are not equal and some places may see more net benefits than others in a given time period. The system analysis described below identifies those areas most deficient in walking and biking infrastructure as those areas of most potential for benefit. A county -scale, data -driven approach was used to identify network gaps throughout Ramsey County. This analysis identified barriers to connectivity and put them in the context of community need and potential demand. Analysis Approach The report analyzes where people are, where they want to travel and what kind of system facilities they need. The analysis performed here is based on the principles of supply and demand. The supply side represents the provision of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and the safety history of the streets in Ramsey County. Most often, this is a lack of supply of safe and comfortable facilities for walking and biking. The demand side represents where people are located, where they want to travel and concentrations of historically disadvantaged populations that may have greater needs for transportation options and investment. Balancing supply and demand can help guide investments, identify priorities and get the most community value for funding when upgrading or implementing facilities. Mapping Street -by -Street Each analysis area and data point is mapped and assigned to the individual street itself, even if these are not traditionally thought of as street characteristics. For example, population density data from the Census Bureau is translated from the census tract level geography and assigned to the streets within the area. This doesn't identify the individual block -by -block population density, but it does allow a block - by -block analysis using the general density in the vicinity of a particular street. 2B-3 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS Outcomes The analysis provides an overview of conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists on streets within the County. The result reflects the quality of streets and the experience for walking and cycling rather than a simple documentation of the existing facilities. Maps showing existing and planned facilities are available in the State of Walking and Biking Environment Report. In addition, the system analysis provides additional information to inform future implementation of the Connected Ramsey Communities network. Evaluating network quality, barriers and key population concentrations supports both the route identification process and knowledge about needs for improvement or new facilities. Four Analysis Areas The technical analysis of the Ramsey County walking and biking network covers four areas. These analysis areas can be referenced independently to better understand the street -by -street conditions or can be combined to understand a comprehensive picture of street by street gaps, barriers and opportunities. Each analysis area is composed of two or more factors. The Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Analysis, for example, is built upon datasets of reported crashes and locations of fatalities. Each analysis area is depicted below, identifying the primary inputs used in the analysis. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE NETWORB QUALITY ANALYSIS Roadway Classification Facility Provision Speed Limits PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY ANALYSIS ACTIVITY CONCENTRATION ANALYSIS EcIUFTY CONCENTRATION ANALYSIS 2B-4 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS ACTIVITY CONCENTRATION Constructing new facilities in locations where there will be higher levels of use helps make effective use of resources as the larger network is built out over time. Trip making demand is tied to residential and employment population density, mix of land uses and trip length. Residential and employment population density is very important for walking and biking demand because as density increases, trip lengths tend to decrease.' The shorter the trip, the more likely it can be made by walking and biking. High residential and employment population densities also result in more viable transit service and use.' Most people making a trip by transit start and end as a pedestrian, relying on sidewalks and crosswalks to get them to their final destination. Employment is also a significant trip generator and attractor. The journey to work is one of the most consistent trips in a person's day. It is a standard measure tracked by the Census Bureau and is one of the most common ways to report and track the levels of walking and biking in local communities. To represent trip demand in the analysis, the Population Density Index measures the composite density of population and employment, representing the general level of potential activity on a particular street. Activity Concentration Analysis Results While Saint Paul shows the highest level of activity concentration across the county, other communities have their own local areas of concentrated activity, such as Roseville Mall or employer campus areas. Not every community in Ramsey County has areas of high levels of activity. These locations are places where residents and employees are likely to make frequent short trips, ideal for increased walking and biking. Activity Concentration Analysis Map Summary The activity concentration analysis map displays a street -by -street assessment of surrounding residential and employment density. Color intensity indicates overall activity concentration on a relative scale of "Lower Activity" to "Higher Activity." Absolute values for density factors are displayed and discussed in detail in the State of Walking and Biking Report. Limited access highways are displayed in gray and are excluded from this analysis. Findings and Notable Results The major population center in Ramsey County is the City of Saint Paul. The downtown core is filled with dense employment activity. Other notable population activity areas include the 3M campus in Maplewood and along the Snelling Avenue corridor in Falcon Heights and Roseville. Pockets of activity areas are also concentrated in the historic downtown White Bear Lake, the neighborhood around Berwood Park in Vadnais Heights and areas in St. Paul such as University Avenue, Energy Park Drive and the University of Minnesota St. Paul Campus. Future development areas, such as Rice Creek Commons in Arden Hills, the New Brighton Exchange in New Brighton and the Ford Plant in St. Paul, are identified on the map. While these areas today are not yet developed to their future potential, these sites are planned for new residential and employment development. This will result higher activity levels than the surrounding areas. 2B-6 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS Implications to the Future Vision Areas with high levels of activity concentration are the backbone of the Connected Ramsey Community networks. These locations represent the most common origins and destinations for county -wide transportation trips and are most likely to have high demand for internal short -distance trips. Not all areas with high activity concentration have the same needs for leveraging that activity. Downtown Saint Paul has the street grid, sidewalks and crossing opportunities to promote high levels of walking activity between destinations. The high levels of activity around Roseville Mall lack the developed street grid and complete sidewalks of Saint Paul. Promoting walking and biking here should emphasize county -wide connections to the mall area, include high quality bike parking and provide comfortable walking corridors for trips between commercial developments. Analysis Details and Data The activity concentration analysis is based on 2013 Census five-year American Community Survey data of employment density and residential density. Both factors were assigned a one to five scale from least dense to most dense, and those scales were combined to identify areas of both high residential and employment density. rkz„- _ LITTLE L,hRKLt KUAU jllFrY CANADA-COUNTY ROAD D EAST 2 kid • OSELAWN Lu Ce AVENUE EAST Fit Af BEAM•AVEN W E.EAST COUN MAPLEWOOD "1O B EAST �� Mi111 A OIL '11U1"I ' 1 i A 0 1 Egrin I. ma.. LYDIA AVENUE EAST d �-� • LARPENTEUR AVENUE EAST SOUTH AVENUE EAST • There are areas within Ramsey County that have high concentrations of activity, including in North St. Paul. For the full map, see page 2B-36. 2B-7 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE NETWORK DEFICIENCY Not every street is safe or comfortable for walking and biking in its current form. Missing sidewalks and curb ramps or a lack of separated bike facilities on busy streets can easily prevent people from walking or biking. Measures of pedestrian and bicycle deficiencies are analyzed by comparing the provision of walkways and bikeways with the roadway characteristics. The Pedestrian Deficiency Index was measured by comparing the presence of a separated sidewalk or path to the type of roadway next to it. Busy streets without a separated walkway or with a walkway on only one side of the street are considered deficient. Not all streets need a separated sidewalk to be comfortable for walking. On low - speed, low -volume local streets, the lack of a sidewalk may not be a barrier and is not considered deficient. The Bicycle Deficiency Index measures streets in a similar way, by comparing the level of motorized traffic to the type of bikeway provided. In this analysis, street segments are classified into one of four levels of traffic stress based on the anticipated user comfort. Pedestrian Network Deficiency Analysis Results The analysis results illustrate a diverse Ramsey County street network formed by historic roadway standards. Facility quality varies widely across Ramsey County. Some local streets have complete sidewalks or paths on both sides while some large streets with significant levels of traffic are lacking any sort of pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian Network Deficiency Analysis Map Summary The Pedestrian Network Deficiency Analysis map displays the analysis results of the pedestrian level of service calculation. Different colors indicate different levels of completeness. Streets considered most deficient are illustrated in red. These tend to be fast arterial streets with missing or incomplete sidewalks. Light brown segments are the next level of deficiency in the analysis. These may be local streets with intermittent sidewalk coverage, or arterial streets with a sidewalk on only one side of the street. Light green segments are those calculated to have minor deficiencies. These segments include moderate speed streets with a sidewalk on one side of the street, or local streets lacking sidewalks. Dark green segments indicate the streets considered least deficient and least stressful. To qualify for this categorization, the street must have sidewalks on both sides of the street, and have traffic operating at low speeds. Limited access highways are displayed in gray and are excluded from this analysis. Findings and Notable Results Streets with full sidewalk coverage are concentrated in the parts of Ramsey County with older development. This includes most of St Paul, the historic center of White Bear Lake and areas of Falcon Heights south of Larpenteur such as University Grove. These streets were built in an era when sidewalk provision was standard on all types of streets and the presence of sidewalks supports walking in these communities to this day. 2B-9 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS Neighborhood development in areas outside of Saint Paul followed less consistent design standards and did not require sidewalks as a part of construction. This is particularly noticeable in lower density single family home neighborhoods. Most of these streets are considered deficient in the analysis because of the lack of sidewalks combined with a 30 mph default speed limit. In outer suburban parts of Ramsey County, streets with paths are often the most complete street segments available for pedestrians because of their separated space for people to walk. While the analysis includes recreational paths in independent corridors less suitable for transportation purposes, this category also includes large streets with adjacent paths. Implications to the Future Vision The current design of a street has a dramatic influence over the potential for future investments to support pedestrian activity. To create safe and comfortable conditions high levels of traffic must be mitigated either with traffic calming or with increased separation between pedestrians and moving motor vehicles. These investments in complete streets are most needed in the lower density suburban areas of Ramsey County. However, unimproved streets that currently lack curbs, gutters and drainage may offer a future opportunity. Because these streets have little investment today, they offer a lower cost opportunity to construct to a high quality pedestrian facility than an existing complete street which would need to be reconstructed. m w y ■ ■ ENERGYT4, w V) " LARPENTEUR AVENUEI 1ZEST FALCON HEIGHTS •� 1 • • • RIVE HOYT AVENUE -WEST ROSELA r PIERG L _emu ='-1 m. h, ■11I•1III II FRONT BUR ROUTF� AVENUE 2 o~�C 0 z uJ w w w 0 ■ — 1 - - THOMAS'AVENUE I.IAII\/CDC ITVA\/CAII,IC.\A/CCT FRONT -AVENUE ■■■ --- Sidewalk coverage varies across the county, with higher concentrations of sidewalks in areas like Falcon Heights. For the full map, see page 2B-37. 2B-10 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS Analysis Details and Data The pedestrian facility deficiency analysis is based on 2014 MnDOT street data describing speed limit, sidewalk data identifying the location and completeness of sidewalks, shoulder data indicating some form of walkable shoulder space and street classification for identifying local roadways.' Shoulders are not considered a significant walking facility in this analysis. Providing a shoulder on these streets is considered a minor improvement over no shoulder, but is generally not enough to provide a high level of service for pedestrians. The scoring matrix for the pedestrian level of service analysis is displayed below. Higher values are considered more deficient. Table 2B-1: Scoring Matrix for Pedestrian Level of Service Analysis Speed Limit Complete sidewalk Pedestrian Facility Provision* Sidewalk on one side Partial sidewalk No side- walk 25 mph or Less 0 3 4 5 30 mph 1 4 5 6 35-40 mph 2 5 6 7 45 mph or higher 3 6 7 8 * If the street is residential, the deficiency level decreases by 2 points and provision of a shoulder decreases the score by 1 point. Streets with paths are assigned a score of zero (not deficient). 2B-11 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS Bicycle Network Deficiency Analysis Results The bicycle network deficiency analysis shows that much of Ramsey County is traversable by skilled adult riders. Less skilled, more traffic averse riders, such as children or casual riders, are faced with network gaps, stressful situations and other barriers to bicycling. Bicycle Network Deficiency Analysis Map Summary The Bicycle Network Deficiency Analysis map identifies those streets that are most and least suitable for traveling by users of all ages and abilities as determined by the level of traffic stress analysis, described at the end of this section. A color scale of red to green reports the overall stress level. Those streets classified as extreme stress are displayed in red. These are street segments that lack facilities or contain facilities inadequate for the intensity of traffic on the street. This classification is common on portions of state or county highways, and on portions of arterial streets with high levels of traffic. Streets classified as high stress are displayed in orange. These street segments are arterial or collector roads with high speeds and volumes, often with a minimum width conventional bicycle lane. Moderate stress streets are displayed in light green and include most local streets. The analysis considers most local streets to be stressful due to the default 30 mph speed limit. Because most bicyclist travel between 10 and 15 mph, the high speed limit indicates that motor vehicle speed differentials are too high for riders of all ages and abilities to be comfortable. Low stress streets are displayed in dark green. These are considered to be functional for users of all ages and abilities. This includes recreational trails, streets with paths running adjacent to them, and some local streets with speed limits below 30 miles per hour. Limited access highways are displayed in gray and are excluded from this analysis. 2B-12 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS Findings and Notable Results Most state or county highways are classified as extreme stress due to multiple lanes of fast moving traffic, with minimal separation from bicycle users. Arterial streets with high levels of traffic and no bicycle facilities are also classified as extreme stress, such as portions of Snelling Avenue and Larpeneur Ave. Arterials streets with a separated shared use path running along them achieve a stress rating appropriate for users of all ages and abilities. Highway 96 is an example of an otherwise stressful street that achieves a low -stress rating due to the adjacent path. Most streets in downtown Saint Paul are classified as high stress along with arterial streets such as portions of Como Avenue and University Ave W. These streets have too many lanes or traffic traveling too quickly to permit comfortable travel by bicycle, even if a bicycle lane is provided. While local streets are often considered low stress, this analysis classifies most local segments in Ramsey County as moderate stress. Because the default speed limit is 30 mph, travel speeds are assumed to be too high for users of all ages and abilities to ride in mixed traffic. Residential street segments are occasionally classified as low stress when speed limits are below 30 mph. Collector streets such as Fairview Ave S through St. Catherine University are classified as low stress when a wide bicycle lane is present, traffic speeds are low and the roadway configuration includes only one lane in each direction. Implications to the Future Vision The results of the bicycle network deficiency analysis help identify gaps in the Connected Ramsey Communities network. If a county -wide network corridor is classified as extreme or high stress, it indicates a segment in need of improvement. These network deficiency gaps may be present even if a street currently has a bicycle facility provided. Communities may need to upgrade existing facilities to something more comfortable if accessibility for users of all ages and abilities is desired. In particular, county -wide network connections along local roadways may be considered candidates for speed management treatments and speed limit reductions. Achieving an average operating speed below 20 mph would reduce the difference in speed between bicyclists and motor vehicles and reduce exposure to passing cars. This modification would change the classification to low stress, which is considered suitable for bicyclists of all ages and abilities. 2B-13 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS ■I v� IIIP ,-- 1 11� 4 1..mil ..! ff ■111�1111111 I I I" ' 'UM 111 ' 11— �■ ERCF FRONT AVENUE THOMASAVENUE FRONT -AVENUE MOT t ' ■■■.. .�� ■A UNIVERSITY-AVENUE-WEST111 Min— ■■_■— p� , ►� 5'k SELBY-AVEN —■■_l__■■■ v -- -- .----—��----- fir. .--------- — V1MIT=AVENUE mo,,,....i�� W I- w cc ----____■■■______■■__ II 1• I•`► 40,1 UE SELBY-AVENUE III) GOODRICH.AVENUE--LINCOLN AVENUE---W' • -� ■■U■ =�' JEFFERSON AVENUE d `Q ■ �'m--11111111P. ■■I r JGuW c SAI NT,6G PAUL', w W 0 w w cc N •- MAR) w z W z .• IN NI IN IN ■. off - NMI . 52 Levels of traffic stress vary from street to street throughout the County; many low volume and low speed streets are appropriate for most cyclists. For the full map, see page 2B-38. Analysis Details and Data ■ The methods used for the Level of Traffic Stress Analysis were adapted from the 2012 Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) Report 11-19: Low -Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity.4 The approach outlined in the MTI report uses roadway network data including — posted speed limit, the number of travel lanes, and the presence and character of bicycle lanes — as a proxy for bicyclist comfort level. Road segments are classified into one of four levels of traffic stress based on these factors. The lowest level of traffic stress 1 (LTS 1), is assigned to roads that would be tolerable for most children to ride and to multi -use paths that are separated from motorized traffic. Level of traffic stress 2 (LTS 2) roads are those that could be comfortably ridden by the mainstream adult population. 2B-14 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS The higher levels of traffic stress 3 & 4 (LTS 3 and LTS 4) correspond to types of cyclists characterized by the Four Types of Cyclists framework.' This categorization of cyclist types is accepted throughout the bicycling planning practice across the U.S. Level of traffic stress 3 (LTS 3) is the level assigned to roads that would be acceptable to current "enthused and confident" cyclists and level of traffic stress 4 is assigned to segments that are only acceptable to "strong and fearless" bicyclists, who will tolerate riding on roadways with higher motorized traffic volumes and speeds. The definitions for each level of traffic stress are shown below: Table 2B-2: Bicycle Deficiency Analysis Scoring and Characteristics Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Description Suitability Traffic Speed Typical Locations 1 2 3 4 Little traffic stress and requires less attention Little traffic stress but requires more attention and skill Moderate stress High stress All cyclists (age 10 or higher) Adult cyclists with adequate bike handling skills Most observant adult cyclists Experienced and skilled cyclists Low Low Moderate Moderate to high Residential local streets and separated bike paths/cycle tracks Collector -level streets with bike lanes or a central business district Low -speed arterials with wide bike lanes or moderate speed roadways with one lane in each direction High-speed or wide roadways with narrow or no bike lanes 2B-15 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2B-16 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS One of the top reasons people cite for not walking and biking more is concern about safety. The threat of collision is real, and 10 years of collision data shows that some places are safer than others. Intersections and streets that have a history of motor vehicle collisions act as barriers to walking and biking. The safety analysis identifies these locations to identify geographic patterns that might be overcome with targeted investments. Pedestrian Safety Analysis Results Ramsey County has the highest estimated pedestrian fatality rates in the State of Minnesota.' Clusters of pedestrian involved crashes reveal key corridors with pedestrian safety concerns. These streets tend to combine a large amount of fast moving traffic with a high level of pedestrian activity and often have disastrous results. Pedestrian Safety Analysis Map Summary The pedestrian safety analysis identifies streets with a high concentration of crashes involving pedestrians. Segments with multiple crashes are highlighted with increasing intensity and the result shows clear corridors where pedestrian -involved collisions are a frequent occurrence. Street segments in gray had no reported collisions. The locations of pedestrian fatalities are identified on the map. These locations indicate a potential problem area, although specific analysis of the crash details is necessary to understand the circumstances surrounding the particular incident. Findings and Notable Results When displayed visually, clear corridors appear with concerning levels of crashes. These tend to be streets with high volumes of cars and higher levels of pedestrian activity, such as: • Downtown Saint Paul • University Avenue W • Snelling Avenue • Summit Avenue • Minnehaha Avenue E • White Bear Avenue • US 61 through White Bear Lake 2B-18 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS Fatal or Serious Injury Crashes' • Most pedestrian crashes resulting in an injury or fatality occurred in St Paul. • Maplewood and White Bear Lake have the second highest number of pedestrian crashes resulting serious injury or fatality. In these communities, fatal and serious injury pedestrian crashes account for 29 and 26 percent of the community's pedestrian crashes, respectively. • In Vadnais Heights, over two-thirds of all pedestrian crashes resulted in a fatal or serious injury. Only reported crashes were used in this analysis. These crashes were severe enough to warrant reporting and data collection. Data concerning less severe crashes or near -miss events that may indicate a safety problem is not available and is not included on this map. The likelihood of a pedestrian fatality is directly tied to the impact speed of a crash. This relationship is well documented nationally and is illustrated by the experiences within Ramsey County communities. This can be seen based on an analysis of Ramsey County crash data.' On streets with speed limits of 50 mph or below, the rate of fatal or serious injuries in crashes involving pedestrians is under 20%. On streets with speed limits of 55 mph or higher, this number jumps to 40%. It is important to note that the posted speed limit does not indicate the actual travel speed of the motor vehicle involved in the crash. Injury Level of Pedestrian Involved Crashes in Ramsey County (2004-2014) Possible Injury 53% .No Injury 1% Killed �f 3% g 11171n3jiusry 2B-19 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS Implications to the Future Vision Concern over safety is one of the leading reasons people decide not to walk or bike. This analysis indicates that in some parts of Ramsey County the safety risk is real. Corridors with high levels of crash activity act as barriers to increased walking and local jurisdictions should explore investments to improve pedestrian conditions in these areas. In some cases, such as University Avenue or Snelling Avenue, the high -crash corridor is a commercial corridor. These areas see high levels of pedestrian activity, and the traffic environment should be improved to reflect a pedestrian -priority. This may include lower design speeds, enhanced marked crossings and improved signal timing at intersections. Analysis Details and Data Crash data comes from MnDOT, including crashes from 2004-2014. A detailed analysis of all pedestrian crashes in Ramsey County is available from MnDOT in the report Pedestrian Safety: An Exploratory Analysis Minnesota and Ramsey County Preliminary Findings (2009 - 2014).9 :Rod,,. 'Y_AVENUE:WEST NCOLN )DRICH•AVENUE M.3Bin,5GJ�j U h1U111 • CASEAVEN SAINT GG PAU L'' ��■■■ :o 1. �1 Crashes involving pedestrians occur most frequently on streets with high volumes of cars and higher levels of pedestrian activity, such as in downtown St. Paul. For the full map, see page 2B-39. 2B-20 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS Bicyclist Safety Analysis Results It is estimated that Ramsey County has the second highest serious injury rate of bicyclists in the State of Minnesota.10 Overcoming these unsafe conditions will do much to remove a barrier to increase bicycling. The bicyclist safety analysis identifies those areas and streets where most bicycle involved crashes occur. Bicyclist Safety Analysis Map Summary The bicyclist safety analysis identifies streets with a high concentration of crashes involving bicyclists. Segments with multiple crashes are highlighted with increasing intensity, and the result clearly shows corridors where bicyclist -involved collisions are a frequent occurrence. Street segments in gray had no reported collisions. The locations of bicyclist fatalities are specifically identified on the map. These locations indicate a potential problem area, although specific analysis of the crash details is necessary to understand the circumstances surrounding the particular incident. Findings and Notable Results When the crash history data is displayed visually, clear corridors appear with concerning levels of crashes. Fewer high -crash corridors stand out than did on the pedestrian analysis, but those that do correlate with those identified in the pedestrian analysis: • University Avenue W • Snelling Avenue • Rice Street • Summit Avenue Only reported crashes were used in this analysis. These crashes were severe enough to warrant reporting and data collection. Data concerning less severe crashes or near -miss events that may indicate a safety problem is not available and is not included on this map. 2B-21 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS There were five bicyclist fatalities in Ramsey County within the ten year period examined in this analysis. This dataset is too small to get an accurate understanding of the causes or type of crash that resulted in a bicyclist fatality. To get better understanding, a national study was referred to that analyzed hundreds of bicyclist fatalities. This study identified "rear end" collisions as the major crash type resulting in bicyclist fatality. This information can be used to support facilities such as protected bike lanes, which can reduce rear -end collisions when compared to conventional on -street bike lanes. Table 2B-3: Crash Type in Bicyclist Fatality Crashes in the United States" Crash Type Rear End 40% Cyclist Side/Car Front 11% T-Hit 10% Head On 8% None 7% Right Hook 6% Driver Failure to Yield 6% Other 5% Sideswipe 4% Cyclist Failure to Yield 2% Implications to the Future Vision The Connected Ramsey Communities Network has an opportunity to overcome the barriers of high -crash corridors. The network alignments can act as a bridge across these high crash areas, or if they run along them, can transform the safety of an entire corridor. Even if a high -crash corridor is not a part of the county -wide network, local communities will see benefits from removing risks and improving safety for the most vulnerable users of these roads. 2B-22 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS Analysis Details and Data Crash data comes from MnDOT, including crashes from 2004-2014.12 JNIVERSITY_AVENUE_WEST II SELBY_AVENUE LINCOLN AVENUE 11 I 1 GOODRICH'AVENUE JEFI;ERSONrAVENUE Crashes involving cyclists occur most frequently on streets with high volumes of cars and higher levels of bicycle activity, such as in downtown St. Paul. For the full map, see page 2B-40. 2B-23 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2B-24 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS Good transportation is vital for access to activities and essential services that are needed to fully participate in society. In automobile dependent communities, people who do not have the ability to drive or do not have access to vehicles can be at a great economic and social disadvantage. Forty percent of Minnesotans are not able to drive due to youth, old age, income or disability.13 Communities without adequate quality and quantity of transportation, including facilities for bicycling and walking, place residents at a distinct disadvantage when trying to access jobs, school, medical services and other daily needs. Equity in transportation planning looks to more fairly distribute resources, particularly to those who have the least access to critical resources, including jobs, education, affordable housing, health care resources and other destinations important to daily life. When using an equity lens, it is possible to identify where transportation investments can improve health and accessibility for populations in need, including low-income households, communities of color and people with disabilities. Many factors in the built environment contribute to the inequitable distribution and availability of resources to populations including the inadequate distribution, accessibility and quality of biking and walking facilities, the concentration and limitation of affordable housing options and the construction of high speed, high volume roads through low-income neighborhoods. Communities of color and low income residents are disproportionately represented in pedestrian and bicycle crashes and are at the highest risk. Inequitable distribution of resources impacts vulnerable populations, through increased travel costs, worse health outcomes and higher health care costs and decreased accessibility and mobility.14 Equity Analysis Results Understanding where and how particularly vulnerable populations live is an important aspect to any transportation planning process. Equity Analysis Map Summary The equity analysis map presents the equity population concentration of a particular street segment, displayed in increasing intensity as the degree of concentration increases. General intensity is noticeable in the central core of Ramsey County, but clusters of equity population concentrations are spread across the county. These clusters tend to be in the commercial core areas of each community. Based on a Ramsey County -specific subset of MnDOT recommendations for priority populations, the equity index creates a consolidated map of concentrations of these populations in Ramsey County. This score is generated as a combination of four primary equity populations: • Disabled population • Non -white population • Youth population • Population in poverty These maps are displayed in detail in the State of Walking and Biking Environment Report, and reproduced as thumbnails below. Population with a Disability Non -White Population Youth Aged Population Population Living in Poverty 2B-26 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS BEAM•Ari VENUE•EAST CO [ NTY-ROAD• IAST LL� Findings and Notable Results Outside of Saint Paul, some communities stand out with more significant concentrations of equity populations: • Mounds View • White Bear Township • Roseville • Falcon Heights • Maplewood • North Saint Paul Implications to the Future Vision The Connected Ramsey Community network must connect the residents most in need of active transportation facilities. By distributing the network equitably across the county and connecting into the core of equity population concentration areas, the county -wide network can function as a lifeline for regional travel. The information in this analysis can be used along with the other analysis areas to evaluate and prioritize alignments along the Connected Ramsey Communities Network. Analysis Details and Data Data used for the equity analysis was Census Bureau American Community Survey 2013 5-year estimate data.15Data was retrieved at the tract level and mapped down to individual street segments for analysis purposes. It is important to note that this represents the demographics of the overall tract -level area where the street segment is located, it does not show the level of population concentration for the street segment itself. \ ROSE LAW SAVE N U E. EAST 17TH AVENUE EAST] NORTH1F,PS' �SAI NTH PAUL SOUTH AVENUE EAST I High concentrations of equity populations live in North St. Paul and Maplewood. For the full map, see page 2B-41. 2B-27 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2B-28 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS SYSTEM ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS Combining the four analysis areas results in a composite system analysis. The resulting hot spots identify network and service gaps where improvements may be needed the most. To interpret the resulting maps, it may be necessary to refer back to the specific analysis areas. A particular hot -spot might arise due to a strong crash history in a particular location, or perhaps due to a high concentration of target equity populations. Understanding the reason for the hot spot can orient agencies and jurisdictions toward an appropriate response. On these maps, all indices have been given 'equal' weighting. The particular balance should be adjusted to reflect the goals and objectives of the plan, and communities referencing this analysis should always review the individual index layers themselves to understand what factor may be influencing the final priority scoring. Pedestrian and Bicycle System Analysis Results Combining all levels of the system analysis reveals the areas that rank highest across each analysis area. The highest scoring locations combine high population densities and high concentrations of equity populations with a poor safety record and lower quality facilities. Improving these areas can do the most good for the most people. Pedestrian and Bicycle System Analysis Map Summary The system analysis maps presents the overall combined results of all previous analysis areas. Each street is ranked from low to high, representing the overall level of population demand and facility need. Moderate scores on this map, such as North Saint Paul or Roseville, indicate that an area may have scored highly on one analysis, but not on another. High scores, such as downtown Saint Paul, indicate an area that scores highly is many analysis areas. Findings and Notable Results Downtown Saint Paul stands out as the highest ranking area in the overall system analysis. The downtown core ranks highly across every analysis area, and improvements there would benefit many people and improve currently inadequate conditions. Differences in Pedestrian and Bicycle Results In general, the system analysis results for the bicycle system match those for the pedestrian system. This is because of the similar conditions and factors used for each mode. Some factors, such as a population density and equity concentration, are identical in the analysis for each mode. The safety analysis is unique for bicyclists or pedestrians, but the overall concentration of crashes involving these users tends to be clustered around the same areas and streets. Areas ranked slightly higher on the bicycle system analysis are: • Northern neighborhoods in Saint Paul • The Highland neighborhood in Saint Paul • The Baker -Annapolis neighborhood in Saint Paul Areas ranked slightly higher on the pedestrian system analysis are: 2B-30 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS II-+.ROSEVILLE • Little Canada • Roseville • Neighborhoods south of White Bear Lake Implications to the Future Vision This overall system analysis can be used to identify prioritization of Connected Ramsey Communities corridors or to focus local efforts for improvements to the walking environment. 4LIflhi1L 11;TIF MAPLEWOOD 3151,21 ---' - ai■ Lin;%EAU .H -== �-- =- MMM ■■■■••■■■■■■■■■■■u�i n •. ;---- O . I�i ��. ■■■■�1: ■ ■ �- 9494 — 94 h ■ ,-=_s::__= SAINT :•�'•:•o:•:.� •;w== 1..1i1 a_ Maps were created for both the pedestrian and bicycle system analysis, which illustrate the differences in the two systems. For the full maps, see pages 2B-39 and 2B-40. 2B-31 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS WORKS CITED 1. Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC). An Analysis of Relationships Between Urban Form (Density, Mix, and Jobs: Housing Balance) and Travel Behavior (Mode Choice, Trip Generation, Trip Length, and Travel Time). 2007. 2. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Land Use Impacts on Transit: How Land Use Factors Affect Travel Behavior. 2015. 3. Data Products. Minnesota Department of Transportation. http://www.dot. state.mn.us/traffic/data/data-products.html 4. Low -Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity. Mineta Transportation Institute. http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1005-low-stress-bicycling- network-connectivity.pdf 5. Roger Geller. Four Types of Cyclists. http://www.portlandoregon.gov/ transportation/article/237507 6. In the period of 2007-2011. MnDOT Towards Zero Death Handout: Ramsey County Fatals 2009-2013 Minnesota Department of Public Safety as compared to the Ramsey County Roadway Safety Plan 2007-2011. 7. MnDOT. Pedestrian Safety: An Exploratory Analysis Minnesota and Ramsey County Preliminary Findings (2009 - 2014). 2015. 8. MnDOT. Pedestrian Safety: An Exploratory Analysis Minnesota and Ramsey County Preliminary Findings (2009 - 2014). 2015. 9. MnDOT. Pedestrian Safety: An Exploratory Analysis Minnesota and Ramsey County Preliminary Findings (2009 - 2014). 2015. 10. In the period of 2007-2011. Ramsey County Fatals 2009-2013 Minnesota Department of Public Safety as compared to the Ramsey County Roadway Safety Plan 2007-2011 Data. 11. League of American Bicyclists. Every Bicyclist Counts. 2015. 12. Data Products. Minnesota Department of Transportation. http://www.dot. state.mn.us/traffic/data/data-products.html 13. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota. http://www.centerforpreventiommn. com/our-approach/how-we-work/influencing-policy/complete-streets 14. MnDOT. Minnesota Walks: Current & Future Steps Toward a Walkable Minnesota. 2015. 15. American Community Survey (ACS). United States Census Bureau. 2009-2013 ACS 5-year Estimates. 2015. 2B-32 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS Map 2B-1: Activity Concentration Analysis Results MOUNDS L VIEW COG tiT), 9 ,90 COUNTY ROAD I p 70 w W P.III is 11046, AA NEWJ Q;_BRIGHTON ..35W �7 sir �01 1 !1 riuP 11■1 L' I 11111'IIatI SAINT ANOTHONY _ LAUDERDALE 726 r O Z le LP co, rI z; i i* J-TAN_ i-\) D DRIVE II !IIINT 1 HIGHWAY-96•WEST 4 QMIIII wAA, / PM !m3\ _SHOREVIEW laMrG+KtiHu ROSEVILLE • 11 HOYT AVENUE•WES:1`=;11 ■11111111 WEIII .�,!-■��`11` `�111 ea i i, ■Ilf 111■_ Ammo MERGE. BUTteR-ROUT �' �il ■_ -- F■EE-1 igeM----__ ■ ----... w_... •K__ -1 ►��\ ��_ ■■■�lf�: — 94 ■■N._■----__mom_ .n M_MM■ El••- __t, GRAND'AVENUE SAINT•CLAIR AVENUE 2 Surrounding Resident and Employment Density Lower Density Higher Density Rivers & Lakes SELBY AVENUE FRONT AVENUE ROAD C WEST FRONT -AVENUE NORTH OAKS H GHWAY=96-EAST =COUNTY -ROAD F EAST ROSELAWN AVENUE EAST w w, z 0 ■■;c THOMAS•AVENUEM:0 Alm __•■...W i ♦ ,i SUMMIT -AVENUE LINCOLN AVENUE .e GOODRICH•AVENUE JEFFERSOWAVENUE 111_MEIN—'___II111111P.�_ 1 __MMM II!!— 1 1 __ AV 0 WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP •- .1&j E 9TH•STREET ■■■ PA ■ qTH STREET 4_p r 32 2ND-STREET r BIRCH LAKE AVENUE- -i IIIII:z;:: ,O WE WHITE BEAR LAKE COUNTY ROAD E EAST couNMAPLEWOOD '''4O7B EAST.,'_ 7 6 will r� 4111111g• ► _ , LARPENTEUINWENUE EAST 1111 =7I'111111 _ -111 11 1:1Mr UM1111111ZC_ IIILJ--- MARYLAND-AVENUE I Miles 1 2 Data Sources: Active Living Ramsey Communities, Ramsey County, Met Council MINNEHAHA 3 BOU<EVA ' ► 1SOUTH 1Cw CASE AVENUE -I= I C2 `N p'(ER AVENUE 1- STILV TH.STREET EAST. 3 tt AVENUE -EAST ---'---- 3RDSTREET EAST z7' Q Min MVCIVW CFV■-- _— -- -- - NORTH,p- SAINT ,PAUL AVENUE EAST Parks & Greenspace Future Development Area 2B-34 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS Map 2B-2: Pedestrian Network Deficiency Analysis Results ;E11I NEWS a BRIGHTON 1 4, wrwell VINima111-•1111■ 1 r �IIIII "III35w ' \� `I UUL% I 11111 IIIIP III�,'y • LAUDERDALE ARDEN HILLS `SHOREVIEW Nam- $Li!!l p, Im' iII i' IIIIII i rturA �■�Ii �ergIIIIIIl''7Pww°' tral1 ROSEVILLE -- 1111 II :___111111----- 1m 111 --1111111111 �---`—uu 111 ■11111111 `I11111111111I FALCON HINIII l'i— ■1111r ■IIIIIIII I•n HEIGHTS •I m; !I1111111r _EC , 14111111 111111== p.■iiiu-Xl= W� 1 �111111 111111= L. `4ftlmiiw m•■.Y .......■ppum Nom raw izIN•ii_gmE la w 1.o11111: minim ii7: . 'i Qom.■■■■■■-■�■■ - —■ ---- mommommilliEmma •o■■•■■•■■■■ ■■■■■■ i%/J46 4 _■___■r_..=lMii— i■■■■■■■■tom_.� �ice■ ��. immommweipi ----- ■-- ==----IriI --- -�----7 111=========IIINUMIM = __ Pedestrian Level of Service Results Lower Stress Higher Stress 35E.111p' .--nuuur. t;UG=I Rivers & Lakes Parks & Greenspace WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP NORTH OAKS LITTLE CANADA 35E1 WHITE BEAR LAKE --,. —.—.,... — 1 __ ul-..ill==eE:�--' i' - ■...... -- - n.i.ij -------- --F-; ----- --■-.__.■1___-m-I ----- -- II . - .1 -- --•— o.-_.1n11 1 I Miles 0 1 2 Data Sources: Active Living Ramsey Communities, Ramsey County, Met Council I« /1Ng MI -...__I L1 NORTH - E ■ SAINT E D MAPLEWOOD' !` PAUL•m= — -- -- ........ . - ...., I�,iC_=liiii�� r� _ _11 i1 'III ii ___/IIlIt. J 2B-35 1 SYSTEM ANALYSIS Map 2B-3: Bicycle Network Deficiency Analysis Results MOUNDS COUNTY 1 a111-1 1 �Illll 'llll d11i111 117 CO U NT;Y-ROOAAD ;E-W ESQ SAINT ANOTHONY FOSSROAD LAUDERDALE °g 94 -- ,041 11 1�MARSHALLAVENUE ..:.�� —��'�---••i-----�,+'.j "%it :11111E:::::— �Y r"'i��:�0i.ul, ��-� 44115 .. SUMMIT -AVENUE m...mirunic=. y-.0,41♦S GRANDAVENUE �� ----t�7 LINGOLN AVENUE�� • �.�� -- .1 GOODRICH•AVENUE . _ Q 4. ��-- --� ---, ■.11—•Er - � -.— I. 11----_�� _ 41■-- SAINT GLAIR AVENUE -- - �� Q' --i=--- xl11=11—t �! �I JLIIRI Q� D ------ I111---- -►. JEFFERSON'AVENUE ■ .Q,4- p ... �--- ---- ---�--- 'n I11----_ �� .::11111111P _ wlll-- i■/,mi--.■■— -- --- w — --- >I11---- I ---(, - ---- J —ir �` Z J (V� in Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Results Low Stress Moderate Stress High Stress Extreme Stress Rivers & Lakes Parks & Greenspace 0 FALCON HEIGHTS w-TANGLEWOOD1DRI E �� 1 I I l 11 —mei 11 HIGHWAY•96-WEST % VI AM kiln 1 r I lit I link LARPENTEUR HOYT AVENUEWEST `SHOREVIEW a COUNTY-ROAD;C-WEST AVENUE -WEST' co �'o r.e NO THOMAS•AVENUE --::!: gt.zj-__, ::=:EI:iinalifi lia 1' ■u■1 4 -- ;I■-■ �muCr::�9.�IIIIr ■I _---... -'-�` �,, _, , t�1�H 5..� OJ�E,PP SAINT,��O PAUL NORTH OAKS HIGHWA6•EAST �4 COUNTY-ROAD•F•EAST ROSELAWN AVENUE.EAST 111 MMMMMM --■■■■ w ...— 35E --■■■■ ...- ,��:IIIY I > , 11 j111111 a � I Miles 2 BWHITE EAR TOWNSHIP 4TH+STREE NDISTREET AR -AVENUE COUNTY-ROAD•E BEAM•AVENUE•EAST EOf NTY-ROAD•C-IAS T . 1 GERVAIS•AVENUU- LARPENTEUR•AVENUE EAST SOUTH 1�°i I � = -... --- MARYLANDAVENUE EAST r-.�.�■-11Q = L. �I ----� [TZ:�1 Li ---- opiiii ---_ imm- l� w-i I R VII --- CASE -AVENUE -I —-� --- �pTER•AVENUf 7TH•STREET•EAST -STTLV Data Sources: Active Living Ramsey Communities, Ramsey County, Met Council 3RD STREET EAST BURNS -AVENUE 2B-36 1 SYSTEM ANALYSIS Map 2B-4: Pedestrian Safety Analysis Results AR' MOUNDS COUNTY ROAD -I COUNTY ROAD E 1- 0 2 'I W LI a FALCON HEIGHTS ENERGY rMARSHALL- 2 F 7 0 ��SAINT CLAIR•AVENUE Lu I ■---- I --.I ■---z — FORD:PARKWAY Reported Crashes Involving Pedestrians (2004-2014) 0 1-2 3-8 9+ 2 0 w z Q LU z COUNTY ROAD I WEST :TANGLEWOOD}DRIVE `SHOREVIEW GRAMSIE ROAD COUNTY ROAD. C WEST LARPENTEUR AVENUE WEST HOYT AVENUE WEST hill -diap 111 Ill l _71 ID -zia 1 . mum,mum,i■IL - Rimy ■I111IiII �= w1111P IM 11 111111:: 'ill G I 111111M= 1 1bilk 1111=w. o YIIIIr III. IIIN NORTH OAKS IARPENTEUR�AVENUE:EAST WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP ENU 4TH,STREET ND STREET COUNTY ROAD E EAST BUERKLE R�C BEAM AVENUE EAST I . COUNTY ROAD-C"EAST .1 SOUTH AVENUE EAST \1111111111P� ■11117., -111I11 7==r= 1 1 IIIIII'II��-- .I 1111..1==" • C/� M A RY LA N D. AV E N U E: EAST MM..`■ �.1I w FRONT.AVENUE - 35==:::::-- ---- r� FRONT AVENUE '- CO --I =c IC■11111IZ—■ ■-- I—I 2j—= u�C.. �� . �11�111111� `I BU�LFR-ROUT Oq� �.�. --AP:, 711E1F-- �F,1, �moprI.Ci THOMAS AVENUE ■■■■� —u. —��— v♦ •- •-�!!_::--�ili:�� SAINT G%v AVENUE .—�•�-- ■■■...�..■■��, _ --..■ � �a..■� � � �� •r,•� -moo. ■.■■.■■III■■■■�■■r--1,/��•��. PAUL •��MI - - II UM LINCOLN ■■■<L=.�- /"S• Q.o GRAND�AVENUE ...I a l ..",35E1--!■ PQ'� � s GOODRICH•AVENUE�1 f�� LIt! J r��'`:iii —� JEFF,ERRSSOWAVENUE IICl/ /,'===:=-� ' III UMW —i//---Ii111-11 1'ii' i��i: ------ ) • mu,. II 1• Rivers & Lakes Parks & Greenspace 0 I Miles 1 2 c;TRE ET EAST MINNEHAHA AVENUE:EAST Data Sources: MnDOT, Active Living Ramsey Communities, Ramsey County, Met Council 3RD STREET EAS z LLI • Pedestrian Fatality 2B-37 1 SYSTEM ANALYSIS Map 2B-5: Bicycle Safety Analysis Results AR, MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY ROAD E J LAUDERDALE MA 1 SHALL AVENUE UMMIT AVENUE FORD:PARKWAY Reported Crashes Involving Bicyclists (2004-2014) 0 1-2 3-6 7+ COUNTY ROAD I WEST ANGLEWOOD`DRIVE HIGHWAY 96 WEST VICTORIA ST• ' SHOREVIEW GRAMSIE ROAD €OUNTY ROADiC-WEST GOUNTY'ROAD B WEST w mMENE I� 11:7M-� =_ III =111 1::F—■�� 1 11114J 11 I I"'11 LARPENTEUR AVENUE WEST HOYT AVENUE WEST NORTH OAKS COUNTY W 1/ I s e VAD*.80 4� II_� coot G4liFRD .. a / m r I111 �r9�� LITTLE CANADA !u■Iis nr' Mil NI' Q� r r ur ■ l .. LARPENTEUR�AVENUE:EAST In 1 l,u:�l1� IIIIIIII► NEILom-_ ■1111%1■1111■Ii h ilw 1111� FRONT AVENUE FRONT AVENUE C-`0_ ,�I ■Iu' .. ■C:� :N '&F 1I �1, ::--■■■.lamZt -■.11111 ::_:__42 '(liir -- _ SAINT. ce �'i,♦..`� PAUL- �•,_ THOMAS AVENUE AV =35E ��■- GOODRICH•AVENUE 1M■11 yo�� .Z1VW 1::== 90� JEFFERSONrAVENUE 11:A 1----■� �2III 11111' II� 1■■■■I •,I■■IIlYl1!, I11:::' ___I -E is r%11 op -- Rivers & Lakes Parks & Greenspace Il1'� 35E--■■■■--■..- r-� ��-■: i:e ��IIIY IC::':=: 11;111111— — _1111= :. i�,lt=z IIIF IP ■ 111111':'� 1 IN ■'IIIIn111Pi:_:_■11117., -111 11 7--rl r 111111II1::-- C� 111LJ:::: Ia115: w -_ _ NUE=EAST 1111 ■■ a - 1u -- 17 mow Nma W ►+ o �M ■C_== �uu �,r■I STREET EAST r-S:::-E,` ,, =1 �� ro min - --= WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP H2 EAST ROAD E EAST 4TH,STREET g'bAR AVENUE BUERKLE RAC BEAM AVENUE EAST COUNTY ROAD -LEAST MAPLEWOOD COUNTY ROlD EAST ENU ND STREET z LYDIA.AVENU BEAS•T LIU -- pr LS�r NORTH' s� r SAINT��'<"— PAUL—:: II -- : AVENUE EAST II SOUTH MARYLAND.AVE it it O r MINN EHAHArAVENUE:EAST .�----ice -m—c- ryilviro MU.— — hubs 94 � •�`��\�\ 94 D �1 iime _ �� + IeURNS•AVENUE _ ■ ak RAap11��1 NMI NROAD IIE ,� I I Miles 0 1 2 Data Sources: Active Living Ramsey Communities, Ramsey County, Met Council 3RD STREET EAST x 0 Z a cc LU V • Pedestrian Fatality 2B-38 1 SYSTEM ANALYSIS Map 2B-6: Equity Analysis Results L.wl I I® MOUNDS � T _ --VIEW c wF- Ip 3 ■ `1 • I Z NEW a._BRIGHTON , .35W- _ 4IIfr1111 11■ IIIIVi cc COUNTY ROAD E WESj Illlllllllli�i.. SAINT 1:01.1jr\ANOTHONY FOSS ROAD il. m LAUDERDALE o FALCON HEIGHTS ENERGY pq,Y� HIGHWAY 96 WEST SHOREVIEW UKHMit KUHU • COUNTY -ROAD; C—WEST ARPENTEUR-AVENUE-WEST HOYT AVENUE•WEST `11 i ; UII�lfFi ■11 FRONT AVENUE PIER�F BUT-FR-ROUTF Emmmm NORTH OAKS COUNTY ROAD F EAST vrRyo� LITTLE ^CANADA-COUNTY ROAD•D EAST III_1�Y II �� ROSELAWN AVEN E AST I I •�7I FAQ. FAIIMM NM... JIMMIE _� __...__ r-11 Am! 116.6. a- ib*, illn. CF�AR AVENUE 1111112444 :COUNTY ROAD•E EAST ,l I oa 1 = PO ~ EL BEAM•AVENUE.EAST COL/ NTY-ROAD•C--EAST MARYLAND-AVENUE-EAST pppp____- \ _ ..._ ____ NE nommm ��— __ A_C __.■III-_ __ III. FRONT - AVENUE GERVAIS-AVENU�- J7rTHrAVENUE�EASTC� II_..__�F .�__ _� s� �`_~mr NORTH SAINT Jam= • PAUL SOUTH AVENUE EAST LARPENTEUR%AVENUE _!j:: I__■■_■ Q • ommEN 0, ___ 1► �iill■i _ ._ �+ __ In PM.11�1111Ai .IMMEM■,11 -7 12.1 1r•Or WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP Y 9TH STREET k-IIIILI 4TH STREET BIRCH LAKE AVENUE 2ND STREET /WHITE BEAR - LAKE LLI _ 1 r l �I CASE=��-_ �E AVENUE Q 3 2�-STILV S1 TH•STREET•EAST JJ AVENUE -EAST THOMAS•AVENUE �7 __ —� \1� __��_ ••:E: r S- Q 3RDdTREET EAST � �1111 1 III ♦I.___ w e • M. mmmE mmm mm _.._.� L � P,.� I•II, __ 2 _v—_ 4.7 �_�MM.� ■ii1/Ciii�94 ___u•__ _� ` 94 • •HSS, ,PO zyo MAR SHALL AVENUEI'".r..,.�i'�e___ii�--�_=-`r�� e • •OP I■_m ■.■ ___ 4.� SAINT, �Nos,Bo �� pF SEL•BY-AVENUE Ea■■ot, ��" Y > utevA- Rom_ -- — '� _��■lf % �1 ` PAUL SUMMIT'AVENUE 111�� : �• LINCOLN AVENUE _�__ G LINCOLN•AVENUE--- -- �"A�t:� �� GRAND AVENUE Composite of Selected Equity Population Concentrations Lower Concentrations 1 Rivers & Lakes Parks & Greenspace JEFFERSON•AVENUE 0 I Miles 2 Data Sources: Active Living Ramsey Communities, Ramsey County, Met Council 0- Higher Concentrations 2B-39 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS Map 2B-7: Bicycle System Analysis I MOUNDS VIEW J�35W- � �111• 111111� uC�'!11111�"IIIIJ IIIIIII LAUDERDALE g - ENERGY -PA,, 'DRIVE 0 z w z z 0 ROSEVILLE `SHOREVIEW 'UNHIN>It Num., CC w w V HIGHWAY 96 EAST AVE NUE•EAST EAST WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP II • 4TH STREET�;�' i-■-,. ) BIRCH LAKE AVENUE COUNTY-ROAD•E VERKLE•ROAO BEAM•AVENUE•EAST COUNTY ROAD•C IAST MARYLAND-AVENUE-EAST �' f �► FRONT AVENUE PIER. —.- I f► --.�-� •�+ / •IIIY Y '�,� Ili � iii�.. et BUT, — c0 l \�. 1---�'.'-- MO-ROUjF 470.-- a■■ �� ' mommm EOM o'er �� ---�- THOMAS•AVENUE--��■� pp ■ 1. 1,... �1� �� ----- _ _u_—■—.0 IlMOM.r" . ,,,„i c�<c �.--- Biroadil MARSHAL L AVENUE ��."- ---� —•wm•�■ mm��■■�.1� ♦ �' Gy r I I �IC��__ ELBY AVENU r.--;• �.� � SAINTG �$BC -I ■...-.-...::��-.. ----- �i PAUL N•m•••--... //�/♦Al �� SUMMIPAVENUE ..------.magg�4rdS. -- GRAN D•AVENUE W ---•,� P•• '` - --t��r LINCOLN•AVENUE-- �-- . O .-- ., ■■■■ EN GOODRICH•AVENUE + �.-� —•�J ■.I1_ Op �..-- ------I 11�.J�imu— _0 cal -- SAINT•CLAIR AVENUE -- — _ �� Il =----.--- xlll--11—I �I J21Vi p---�--- ---- IEFFERSON•AVENUE II 11 w ------- 0111---- — -- _ _ ' 111---_— ■111111111' w ---- —.n�■■--.�.� a— w 11 -- ----� -- -—m Lill --Cm: ��= C._I -■■.�IIIIIIIM- t7 ---i■ r. Sr Ill _ w .- . • �___ fi\ === v, Composite Score of Deficiency, Safety, Equity and Density Analysis Lower Score Higher Score Rivers & Lakes Parks & Greenspace FRONT -AVENUE 0 I Miles 1 2 Data Sources: Active Living Ramsey Communities, Ramsey County, Met Council 2ND STREET -17TH.AVENUE EAST -- — —C NORTH_�� SAINT PAUL = SO,UTH AVENUE EAST ■ LARPENTEUR-AVENUE EAST II Q — r S•c ---- P9oP CASE -AVENUE -Minn �' 7TH•STREET•EAST = l`NPTEr�Uf \Q maim ` AVE EEAST—ST�h1 ■I Mia 3RD•STREET EAST - 94 OLD•yiDs07741R010.7411miltratillierilii BURNS -AVENUE 1.-.194 � 2B-40 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS Map 2B-8: Pedestrian System Analysis limags-6-4 - I fit ��;�11�� 1 1111111i -,-'1.01Tiii":-' , il_=I = nilliiiPLIr drR1 t IIIII1311—� tz� :�1111 �:it►�A. III 11�� -mill I rI Ir11111ri11 1:1A&LPIL 111.1 MIL I]Ili"_ NEWS c BRIGHTON Ir aE.r._.i MILI1i1 ii Tv� 1 r 111111P1-11135w \� �� 1LW1 1:1111 IIIIII ��pry SAINT ANOTHONYP 1 LAUDERDALE SHOREVIEW o LITTLE—, CANADA �i II—�`7��R ' �i■ 1 �` - ■i=pi>!■ ■�_ Tllllllr II III.■�1 -� -- — — p11 1 :L ■■ 111M__1117N�� _ . 1 �1 _IIII 9"i7 E111E _' il� Iu = �' n��.._..,_ _ .11__III n� _ w■■ll.� 11 `�___ 1111 - I -- -IIIIII 11____--1■1 .___IIIIII = 1 111- ■ I �_►.... __r_.— _--_- __ ` _- � -■■::: 11 IIII 1■■_■ICBM 1 :*..11 'mI 1111111111 �. `_IIII 11 111 ` I�■ _ _�=- ____—� ,� YY.■■■ t ■INIIIII 4=Suu11111 II'AI I_ I I■ = 111 �� ____—=/� .'artaM j!. FALCON�IN .. ■IIIP ■IIIIIUI - 11■� ■■■■�=.- -�'si31 -�. 1►-== _ =111111111r r� 111,11_1!h1�----- i1k4110r114-44nA..4 1i%.--.1..16„-11:-J:.ir:.o.m.E-.,.,.M.Ef-M..I..N1..':IMI --fTi-,IiN- k--\---m=-iiiiE—i mm.0Miiml=-Mii.Mim=,_Mi-m Mr Mel-Il a11 ±I_� em►- HEIGHTS ppC ■1114111111 IIIIII!: II ■■■.■��■1 ----�� 1,74o.'v.� --- 1: `1I111111 IIIIII-- ii lily__-.. !I1. Il/lll�.]__ _ 0l 1 (A ^ __ a_=__: I : 111■ ■C=---_I''jijj 1 -ri� �. ;`'I'`1I n1■ _■■■=■■■■___ �___■■u-_ IIIIII_ 1� _ S v4211 iIII►,-----■- :::: , i■■■■.1�■■ ■■■I■■■■M1-. -__... mow`, rr�� ____ _ _ \ 11 _-■■ u_■- ' (1■i ' III ____■ ? .-- -��___ 2 7 si11111■. 111E��-- • ;:. ##1�I"AL:==r,`__ g)qgH■C\■' �I� :I J_-_11 ___■■-__ ■■_■ .■� v ■ 1 ■1 mi1■oil■C-i■i� ___---__ - .4.41$ ,if. ��___-.1♦- !_=\�/a _1 ■■lid■.E.::■ii:E�t ILA--------- - `�.�•..11 j�� _ ��i�r��lli�� lr a� r1�� -��Irj ji �■■■■_■_ ! •_-__■■■■�■■■-� 4I-„, ramiJ! •.... .■..;� ___ ,�� mi 11111._"1g1_nneenel 1 r: `��i1�� \, :____—_____IIII■■■■_ L,,-35Ed11111 i ____IIII____ —_g =1■11111 um -- -- ----r -- ___ ____IIII____ =__.%iu ___I■■IIII■___ —____ ■ A•• I ,� 1111. - IIIII111 II -�II Him AIM■ WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP Composite Score of Deficiency, Safety, Equity and Density Analysis Lower Score Higher Score Rivers & Lakes Parks & Greenspace r 0 �A r WHITE BEAR L , LAKE �� Nwarammithiv-ki 4&il tIlI1lrfl=! 1C111!Lt J -1 J- 47 kW 11/'1 ��__L-1 el al � ` .11ff�1� gloms' � L_Sr NORTH A■ ■ i SAINT r1g CiTj'I PAULE_FT ��pV11.■'.1'-1l i1tiC=liiiiil �� IIIIII Miles 1 2 Data Sources: Active Living Ramsey Communities, Ramsey County, Met Council t 2B-41 I SYSTEM ANALYSIS MouNis lVtEw City of Mounds View Staff Report Item No: Meeting Date: Type of Business Planning Case 05B March 2, 2022 Planning Case To: Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Resolution 1148-22; Recommending Approval of Ordinance 988, Amending City Code Chapter §161 related to Dynamic Displays Introduction: Dynamic Displays (e.g. digital signs) are permitted in the B2, B3, B4, and PUD zoning districts, and conditionally permitted (CUP) in residential districts for churches and non-commercial uses. They are not permitted in the Industrial district. In 2021 Bauer Welding, 2159 Mustang Drive (Industrial district), applied for a Ground Sign permit with a Dynamic Display, which was denied. The topic (should Dynamic signs be allowed in the Industrial district?) was discussed at the February 7th City Council Work Session. The Council's consensus was; yes. The proposed Text Amendment addresses two items; (1) Dynamic Displays in the Industrial district; and, (2) Menu Boards at drive-thru businesses. Discussion: Dynamic Display regulations came about in 2008 as many static billboards around the Twin Cities were replaced with digital billboards. Staff skimmed through City Council minutes finding no discussions as to why they are not permitted in the Industrial district. The Industrial district includes Central Sandblasting, and properties along Mustang Drive/Mustang Circle, and Coral Sea Street (north of Medtronic). Most of the warehouse/manufacturing-type properties in the city are zoned PUD. As the technology has advanced, dynamic displays have become more affordable and popular. In recent years, dynamic displays have been installed at The Station, Holiday, McDonalds, Taco Bell, Popeye's, Subway, Tommy's Express Car Wash, The Bear Lot, and soon; Caribou Cabin. The Sign ordinance was most recently reviewed by the Planning Commission at its June 16, 2021 meeting, focusing on Dynamic Displays. No changes were requested. Analysis: Attached, is a comparison chart from the June 16, 2021 Commission meeting, with the addition of Bloomington, Shakopee, and Woodbury, as suggested by Albright Sign Company (vendor for Bauer Welding). Sign ordinances are very complex. The comparison chart focuses on sign - types allowed along corridors similar to Mounds View Boulevard. The chart does not segregate signs permitted by zoning district (too many variables to chart). Thus, Dynamic Display Signs in Industrial districts is not addressed in the comparison chart. Dynamic Display Drive-thru Menu Boards are addressed in the comparison chart. This sign - type is not in the City Code. However, Staff has allowed them. In speaking with other city o ne IVIOUnUS view V ISIUn A Thriving Desirable Community Item 05B Page2of3 planners, many cities do not regulate them, but permit them anyway (e.g. codes have not kept up with industry standards). The proposed amendment; (1) allows Dynamic Display signs in the Industrial district, similar to other Business districts; and (2) allows Dynamic Display Drive-Thru menu boards in the B-3, B- 4, and PUD districts, limited to two 36 sq ft signs, and one 15 sq ft accessory sign (same as Bloomington). a11 1IEEIl COFFEE ever Example of a secondary sign (left), and primary sign (right), otherwise known as a pre -browse board, and a menu board. In this example, each dynamic screen is 2' X 5' (source.' Mounds View McDonalds sign permit). The proposed Text Amendment would allow a double sided pre -browse board 3' X 5' (15 sq ft), and double sided menu board 6' X 6' (36 sq ft). Strategic Plan Strategy/Goal: N/A Financial Impact: N/A Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. Respectfully, 44P-iaS49 Jon Sevald, AICP Community Development Director ATTACHED Examples of Dynamic Displays Comparison Chart Res 1148-22 lsion A Thriving Desirable Community Item 05B Page 3 of 3 Examples of Dynamic Displays The Station, 2280 Co Rd I. Dynamic Display; price, and lower message display (photo Jan 27, 2022). Tommy's Express Car Wash, 2525 Mounds View Blvd (photo Jan 27, 2022). Popeye's, 2213 Mounds View Blvd (foreground menu board), and McDonalds, 2201 Mounds View Blvd (background) (photo Jan 27, 2022). The Mounds View Vision A Thriving Desirable Community City Street Avg Daily Traffic Ground/Monument Wall Dynamic Size (SF or % of total sign area) Menu Board Brightness (nits) Min Duration (seconds) Low High Area Height Area Height Day Night Arden Hills CR 51 (Lexington) 13,700 21,900 100' 16' 80' prohib. 40' 8' - - - Blaine CR 10 19,100 20,400 140' 14' 10%, or 200 sf, 100% 50' 10' - - 8 CR 14 (Main St) 13,700 22,100 whchevr smlr MN 51 (University As 4,700 22,800 MN 65 (Central Ave) 42,300 58,000 MN 65 (Central Ave) 42,300 58,000 180' 50' Bloomington American Blvd 8,300 21,000 100 SF + 1' 20' Complicated, 100% (2) 36' 8' primary 6,500 425 20 min France Ave 1,150 31,500 for each 1' based on sign primary + + 6' images, 8 sec Normandale Blvd 6,400 38,500 over 100' zone, type of wall 15' secondary text Penn Ave 4,300 25,000 lot frontage sign, and if single secondary 24th Ave 9,100 21,100 or multi -tenant. Generally, 8%- 10% of wall area. Coon Rapids CR 10 (Coon Rapids E 12,800 31,000 200' static 20' - 36', 40 sf or 10%, up 64' Not specifically - 15W 4 + 64' dynamic (if less than depending on sign area to 200 sf regulated 15ac lot) CR 14 (Main St) 11,500 31,500 Based on Riverdale master sign plan Fridley MN 47 (University A\ 23,100 32,500 Owners req to submit sign plan to City by (date?) for approval. Others are non- 5,000 500 8 conforming, may be replaced but not enlarged. (47 & 65 w/i retail - - 80' 25' 15X V of wall MN 65 (Central Ave) 27,000 31,500 80' 25' length 100% Not specifically regulated Minnetonka Co Rd 101 11,900 22,600 (sliding scale based on SF of building) 50% Not specifically - - 20 min regulated Mounds View CR 10 (Mounds View 21,500 26,000 200' 16' 100' 50' Not specifically 7,500 500 8 regulated New Brighton CR 44 (Silver Lake Rd 10,900 22,300 64' 20' 40% of wall area, 100% Not specifically 7,000 500 8 or 200', whichever is less regulated Roseville CR 51 (Snelling) 31,500 38,000 200' 25' 1.5' per 1' of wall 100% Not specifically 5,000 500 25 width regulated Shoreview CR 51 (Lexington) 13,700 21,900 50' - 150', 10' - 20', 5% - 10% of wall 50% or 50', 0.3 fc above ambiant 8 depending depending area, depending whichever is less ligh level, measured on size of on size of on size of Based on from V(sign area X 100) building building building (min 40 Comprehensive Sign sf & max 500 sf wall sign). Plan Co Rd 96 20,600 22,900 Req Comprehensive Sign Plan, for multi-tennant buildings Spring Lake Park CR 10 19,100 22,300 30% of bldg 25' 30% of bldg 35% Not specifically - - 20 min width width regulated Shakopee MN Hwy 101 7,500 19,000 50' 10' 200 SF p/tenant 32' Not specifically 7,500 500 8 + 100 SF on secondary wall regulated Vadnais Heights CR 96 19,900 30,500 80' 20' 25% of wall area 10%, or 80', - - 8 whichever is less Not specifically US 61 17,100 34,000 200' 40' 10% of wall area regulated White Bear Lake CR 96 15,900 30,500 35' 10' Single-tennant: 10% 70% or 25 sq ft, 32' 6' 0.3 fc above ambiant 5 min of front wall area+ 5% of side wall area, not to exceed xx sq ft, based on size of building. Single - whichever is less ligh level, measured from V(sign area X 100) Tenant: 7% of wall area, up to 80 sq ft. US 61 17,100 34,000 Woodbury Co Rd 19 (Woodbury 9,700 36,500 80' (+ 150' 20' (30' if Varies. 4% of 100% 50' 6' - - 24 hrs Co Rd 13 (Radio Dr) 6,500 36,500 if on on tenant wall area, Hudson Rd 4,300 17,900 freewavl freewavl max 60 sf MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1148-22 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 988, AMENDING MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE CHAPTER 161 RELATING TO DYNAMIC DISPLAYS The City of Mounds View Ordains: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View hereby amends Title XV, Chapter 116, SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS of the Mounds View Municipal Code by adding the underlined material and deleting the stricken material as follows: § 161.037 GENERAL LOCATION, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. (B) Signs allowed by district. The following table represents the allowable signage and area requirements (in square feet) by zoning district: Sign Type R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 8-1 8-2 8-3 8-4 6i-1=1 CRP PUD Billboards No No No No No No No No No No No No Construction** * 8 8 8 8 8 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 Directional*** No No 4 4 4 4 4 8 8 8 8 8 Drive-Thru No No No No No No No (2) 36' (2) 36' No No Menu primary + primary + Board*** 15' secondary 15' secondary Ground*** No No 32 32 32 100 200 200 200 200 100 Home occupation 1 1 No No 1 No No No No No No No Identification 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 8 8 8 4 Incidental 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Non- commercial*** 6 6 6 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Projection No No No No No 100 8 24 24 24 No Real estate*** 10 10 32 32 10 32 32 32 32 64 32 32 Temporary Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Wall No No 64 64 64 100 100 100 100 100 100 Window No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No NOTES TO TABLE: * Signage requirements within a PUD shall be as allowed by the PUD Narrative document. If no such document exists, signage shall be as permitted for a B-3 zoning district. ** Directional signs may be allowed within rights -of -way upon written approval of the city, the appropriate governmental agency having jurisdiction over the roadway (if not the City) and the owner of the property directly abutting the sign. *** For free-standing signs, maximum sign area is measured per side, maximum of two sides. Res 1148-22 Page 2 of 5 § 161.038 SPECIFIC SIGN TYPE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS. (H) Dynamic display signs. (1) The city allows non-commercial dynamic display signs wherever the city allows commercial dynamic display signs. The signs are subject to the same standards and total maximum allowances per site or building of each sign type specified in this chapter. (2) Standards for all dynamic display signs. (a) The messages, content and images on all such displays shall not flash or blink. (b) No person or contractor shall install a dynamic display sign that because of its position, shape, movement or color, interferes with the proper functioning of a traffic sign, signal or that constitutes a traffic hazard. (c) All dynamic display signs shall have ambient light monitors and shall, at all times, allow the monitors to automatically adjust the brightness level of the sign based on light conditions. (d) The manufacturers, owners and operators of dynamic display signs must design and equip such signs with a fully functional monitoring off switch system that automatically shuts the sign off or will freeze the device or sign in one position; if a malfunction occurs. The signs and displays also must be equipped with a means to shut off or discontinue the display if it malfunctions. The sign owner or operator must stop or shut off the dynamic display within one hour or as soon as reasonably possible of the city notification that the sign is not meeting the standards of this chapter. (e) Any dynamic display sign capable of accessing and utilizing State Amber Alert technology shall display such messages as they are made available by the state's Department of Public Safety or other responsible agency. (f) All dynamic display signs shall meet the following brightness standards. 1. No sign shall be brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility and no sign shall exceed 500 Nits (candelas per square meter) at night and 7,500 Nits (candelas per square meter) during the day. 2. No sign shall be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the vision of a motor vehicle driver with average eyesight, nor shall such a sign interfere with the driver's operation of a motor vehicle in any way or manner Res 1148-22 Page 3 of 5 (3) 3. No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal. 4. The person owning or controlling a sign with a dynamic display shall adjust the sign to meet the brightness standards according to the city's instructions. The sign owner or operator shall adjust the sign within one hour or as soon as reasonably possible upon notice of non-compliance from the city. 5. All dynamic display signs installed after 12-31-2008 shall be equipped and operated with an ambient light monitor or a mechanism that automatically adjusts the brightness level of the sign in response to light conditions. These signs also shall be equipped with a means to turn off immediately the display or lighting if the sign malfunctions, and the sign owner or operator must turn off the sign or lighting within one hour or as soon as reasonably possible after the city notifies the owner or operator that the sign is not meeting the standards of this chapter. 6. Subsequent to 11-01-2011, no dynamic display sign shall have the capacity to operate in excess of 7,500 Nits (candelas per square meter). The lamp wattage and luminance level in Nits (candelas per square meter) shall be provided at the time of permit application. Dynamic display sign permit applications must also include a certification from the owner or operator of the sign stating that the sign shall at all times be operated in accordance with city codes. 7. In addition to the brightness standards required above, dynamic display signs shall meet the city's lighting requirements as listed in § 160.031 of this code of ordinances. In addition to all other standards of this chapter, the city allows on -site dynamic display signs subject to the following additional conditions. (a) Such signs may be located only in the Limited Business (B-2), Highway Business (B-3), Regional Business (B-4)1 Of Commercial Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), or (I-1) Industrial zoning districts. (b) Notwithstanding division (H)(3)(a) above, the signs may be located on the sites of schools, churches, places of worship or other institutional land uses, subject to the following additional conditions: 1. City Council approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) as outlined in §§ 160.088 and 160.452 of this chapter; and Res 1148-22 Page 4 of 5 2. The signs shall not cause glare, disturbance or other problems to any residential properties or land uses. (c) The owner or operator of a dynamic display sign shall control and display the primary or background images and messages on the sign so they maintain each display for a minimum of four seconds. (d) Dynamic display signage shall not exceed 50 square feet of the sign area. (e) The signs may only display and advertise information about products, events, persons, institutions, activities, businesses, services or subjects that are located on the premises or on the site or only to provide public service or community service information. (f) Such signs must meet all other city location and setback requirements. (4) The city allows off -site dynamic display signs subject to division (F) above, the above -mentioned standards for all dynamic display signs, and the following operational standards and additional conditions. (a) The images and messages displayed on the billboard must be static and each display must be maintained for a minimum of eight seconds. The transition from one static display to another must be instantaneous and without any special effects or videos. (b) Only billboard faces located adjacent to Interstate 35W and more than 1,000 feet from any residentially zoned property in the city may be retrofit to a dynamic display, and only subsequent to a building permit issued by the city. One hundred percent of the sign face may be used for dynamic display. (c) If city staff determines that a dynamic display sign is not being operated pursuant to this chapter due to its location or display capabilities, city staff can require the sign owner or operator to modify the sign after the city notifies the property owner or operator about the operational issues. SECTION 2. In accordance with Section 3.07 of the City Charter, City staff shall have the following summary printed in the official City newspaper in lieu of the complete ordinance. On March 21, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance 988 that amends Chapter 161 of the Mounds View City Code, relating to Dynamic Displays. Res 1148-22 Page 5 of 5 A printed copy of the ordinance is available for inspection during regular business hours at Mounds View City Hall and is available on line at the City's web site located at www.moundsviewmn.us . SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days from and after its passage and publication, in accordance with Section 3.09 of the City Charter. Introduction and First Reading by the Mounds View City Council on March 14, 2022. Second Reading and Adoption by the Mounds View City Council on March 21, 2022. Publication Date: March 29, 2022. BE IT FINNALLY RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission directs Staff to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 2th day of March, 2022. Gary Rundle, Chair Attest: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director (SEAL) MouNDs lViEw City of Mounds View Staff Report Item No: Meeting Date: Type of Business Planning Case 05C March 2, 2022 Planning Case To: Planning Commission From: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Resolution 1149-22; Recommending Approval of Ordinance 989, Amending City Code Chapter 160.167(F) related to Outdoor Vending Kiosks Introduction: Staff received an inquiry from a vender (ByBox) regarding installing a business -to -business (b2b) vending kiosk at a gas station. The City code limits outdoor vending kiosks to movies and video game rentals (e.g redbox), thus, the proposed b2b kiosk is not permitted. This topic was discussed at the City Council's February 7, 2022 Work Session. The Council's consensus was to allow them. Discussion: Outdoor Vending Kiosks are a permitted accessory use in the B1, B2, B3, B4, and PUD zoning districts, and located at retail stores, gas stations, and restaurants.' Outdoor redbox kiosks are located at Holiday and Walgreens. Additionally, there is an Amazon kiosk at Holiday, in violation of the City Code. The proposed ByBox kiosk would be used by an electronics manufacturing company, allowing customers to pick up parts at the kiosk, vs. having parts delivered. The City Code was amended in 2012 to allow Outdoor Vending Kiosks. At that time, the City Council and Planning Commission discussions focused on if they should be a permitted use vs. conditionally permitted (CUP), and concerns about vandalism and clutter. Staff is not aware of any problems with redbox kiosks. There has been vandalism (attempted theft) to other types of kiosks containing cash, such as ATM's and car wash code kiosks. The proposed amendment allows any type of outdoor kiosk (e.g. is not limited to movie and video game rental). Staff does not recommend requiring a permit. Analysis: N/A Strategic Plan Strategy/Goal: N/A Financial Impact: N/A Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. 1 Mounds View City Code §160.167(F) (Outdoor vending kiosks) The w ounas view vision A Thriving Desirable Community Item 05B Page 2 of 2 Respectfully, a„,Q.9.9 Jon Sevald, AICP Community Development Director ATTACHED Resolution 1149-22 ByBox Anatomy of a Smart Locker leirriremi am__ MIMI IMM WO left Nom ��~`��`��``�`�~`� ErialliarmeMWErnallallan.ilialliblibillitiartallarjr alma ft. , wirionFroz- NM 11111111 NM 1111111 Inliall1111111.1111112W1.11..11411121214-4-111.1.1.111"171181111-11:111:1111miallaniumilummj MN an MOINNIII III". PP- ZZZiil iimimo1 moismum inommimmos MIMIC CAGIER pic1 herE Amazon outdoor kiosk, Holiday Station, 2732 Mounds View Blvd (photo Feb 25, 2022). The Mounds View Vision A Thriving Desirable Community Anatomy of a smart locker ByBox allows you to securely deliver and hold your inventory at the field service edge giving you complete visibility at all times. This gives your field service team 24/7 access to the parts they need to resolve issues while you remain in control. Boost • 24/7/365 access for your field team End -to -end inventory visibility Engineer compliance Engineer safety with contactless deliveries Secured with Bluetooth locks. No power or internet connection required. Lockers can be placed *- anywhere they're needed. Locker batteries can be swapped in five minutes and • last four years on a single charge. Reduce Engineer mileage and drive time Emissions Inventory blind spots Failed jobs Our modular approach ensures that lockers, and their configuration, can be set up or amended quickly and easily. Configurable doors -4 for different size packages. "Since introducing ByBox we've saved 9% on our fuel emissions and 9% on the mileage engineers drive each year. We have also increased workforce utilization by 6%." - Head of Service Operations (NRTS), Telent ady to transform your field service? Talk • • • • ay gain intelligence, visibility and security to your field service edge. AOASLO521U Key benefits Visibility No matter where an individual part is our software ensures you can pinpoint its location and stat Intelligence Our intelligent systems enable a proactive approach to field inventory management Security Secure edge access where field service teams need it most. Our locks and lockers work in combination to offer complete peace of mind h'‘ marketing@bybox.com bybox.com/Linkedln bybox.com MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1149-22 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 989, AMENDING MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE TITLE XV LAND USE, CHAPTER 160 RELATING TO OUTDOOR VENDING KIOSKS The City of Mounds View Ordains: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View hereby amends Title XV Land Use, Chapter 160.167 (B-1, Neighborhood Business District; Accessory Uses) of the Mounds View Municipal Code by adding the underlined material and deleting the stricken material as follows: § 160.167 ACCESSORY USES. The following are permitted accessory uses in a B-1 District: (F) Outdoor vending kiosks; provided that: (1) The kiosks shall accept only electronic forms of payment; (2) The kiieskssh all rent only— ovies a nd video games; (3) gj The kiosks may be placed only at retail stores, motor fuel stations and restaurants; ('I) Only one business on each property may install outdoor vending kiosks; (5) f3j The kiosk shall be placed immediately adjacent to the host business' building; (6) 0j No loss of parking or interference with the flow of traffic shall occur due to the placement of a vending kiosk; and (7) Oj The kiosks may be allowed in PUD Districts. SECTION 2. In accordance with Section 3.07 of the City Charter, City staff shall have the following summary printed in the official City newspaper in lieu of the complete ordinance: On March 21, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance 989 that amends Chapter 161 of the Mounds View City Code, relating to Outdoor Vending Kiosks. Res 1149-22 Page 2 of 2 A printed copy of the ordinance is available for inspection during regular business hours at Mounds View City Hall and is available on line at the City's web site located at www.moundsviewmn.us . SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days from and after its passage and publication, in accordance with Section 3.09 of the City Charter. Introduction and First Reading by the Mounds View City Council on March 14, 2022. Second Reading and Adoption by the Mounds View City Council on March 21, 2022. Publication Date: March 29, 2022. BE IT FINNALLY RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission directs Staff to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 2th day of March, 2022. Gary Rundle, Chair Attest: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director (SEAL) DRAFT PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting February 2, 2022 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Mounds View Boulevard, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The virtual meeting was called to order by Chair Rundle at 6:30 p.m. for February 2, 2022. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Curtis, Farmer, French, Munson, Nelson, Rundle, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Community Development Director Jon Sevald and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. Index to Minutes Page Resolution 1146-22, Variance for an Accessory Building to Exceed 2 18' in Height at 7975 Long Lake Road Resolution 1145-22, Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use 3 Permit for an Accessory Building Exceeding 952 Square Feet at 7975 Long Lake Road Annual Review of Planning Commission Bylaws Approval of Minutes 4 4 3. Special Order of Business A. Oath of Office for Commissioner French Community Development Director Sevald administered the Oath of Office to Commissioner Jason French. Mounds View Planning Commission February 2, 2022 Regular Meeting Page 2 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases A. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 1146-22, Variance for an Accessory Building to Exceed 18' in Height at 7975 Long Lake Road. Community Development Director Sevald stated the planned detached garage will be 36' X 28' (1,008 square feet), and 24' in height, from grade to roof peak. Within the R-1 district, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for garages to exceed 952 square feet. Over -sized garages must be uniformed in appearance to the house, and a maximum of 35' wide. Each property may have up to three accessory buildings, totaling 1,800 square feet. There is an existing 120' square foot shed. A detached garage was removed in preparation for the proposed garage. The applicant's home was constructed in 1941, and a two-story addition in 2003, with a 12:12 roof pitch. The proposed garage has a 10:12 roof pitch to make it "uniform in appearance" to the house. Staff recommended the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and approve the Variance as requested. Chair Rundle opened the public hearing at 6:39 p.m. Commissioner Nelson suggested the Commission revisit the allowed width of garages in the future. He commented on the unique circumstances for this property and explained he supported the proposed variance. Community Development Director Sevald indicated the proposed garage was large but staff did not believe it would look out of character when being compared to the house. Commissioner Curtis appreciated the fact the garage would have dormers that mirrored the house. He asked if these dormers were false or would the second story be used for living space. LaShawn Albert -Hart 7975 Long Lake Road, explained the second story of the garage would be used for storage but not living space. Commissioner Farmer reported the Commission has recently reviewed and approved two other CUP requests. He indicated he supported the Commission reviewing City Code with respect to garage widths. Chair Rundle closed the public hearing at 6:46 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Nelson/Commissioner Munson. To approve Resolution 1146-22, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance for an Accessory Building to Exceed 18' in Height at 7975 Long Lake Road. A roll call vote was taken. Mounds View Planning Commission February 2, 2022 Regular Meeting Page 3 Ayes-7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. B. Resolution 1145-22, Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Building Exceeding 952 Square Feet at 7975 Long Lake Road. Community Development Director Sevald stated a conditional use permit may be approved after the Planning Commission has considered possible adverse effects, and has made Findings of Facts in support of the CUP. Details are included in Resolution 1145-22. In summary, the Commission must consider the Comprehensive Plan, the location, effect on property values, surrounding character, and the need for the garage. Oversized garages are not addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. The addition of a garage is an investment in the property, which should have a positive effect on surrounding property values. Currently, the property does not have a garage, whereas most neighboring homes do. Neighboring homes were built in 1941 (east side of street), and in the 1950's and 1960's (west side of street). Most garages are detached, and one or two cars in size. 8011 Long Lake Road has a 924 square foot detached garage (two houses north). 7980 Woodlawn Dr (house behind) had an 850 square foot attached garage. The applicant's garage will be the largest on the block, but not entirely out of character when considering the size of the house (e.g. tall house). Staff recommended the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and approve Recommendation of the Conditional Use Permit as requested. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Nelson/Commissioner Munson. To approve Resolution 1145-22, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Accessory Building Exceeding 952 Square Feet at 7975 Long Lake Road. A roll call vote was taken. Ayes-7 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 6. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity Community Development Director Sevald reported he had no upcoming planning cases at this time. B. Staff Updates Community Development Director Sevald provided the Commission with an update from staff. He explained the Council would be discussing two planning issues at their February 7 worksession meeting. He noted that Caribou Cabin would open early this spring. Mounds View Planning Commission February 2, 2022 Regular Meeting Page 4 C. Council Updates Council Member Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He congratulated Gary Rundle for being appointed Chair for 2022 and welcomed Marcus Curtis to the Planning Commission. D. Planning Commissioner Reports None. 7. Other Planning Activity A. Annual Review of Planning Commission Bylaws. Community Development Director Sevald reviewed the Planning Commission Bylaws and recommended approval. The Commission proposed no changes to the bylaws and recommended the bylaws remain as is. 8. Approval of Minutes January 19, 2022. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Farmer/Commissioner Stevenson. To approve the Minutes of the January 19, 2022 regular Planning Commission meetings as presented. A roll call vote was taken. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Abstain — 1 Motion carried. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, February 16, 2022 B. Wednesday, March 2, 2022 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Rundle adjourned the meeting at 7:06 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission February 2, 2022 Regular Meeting Page 5 Respectfully submitted, Jon Sevald Community Development Director Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther Minute Maker Secretarial