HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-21-16 Joint WS with PTRCAGENDA ITEMS
Discussion Of The Land O' Lakes Project
Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director
Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers & Associates
MEMO.PDF
Cooperative Agreement Amendment For Final Design Of TCAAP Infrastructure
John Anderson, Acting Public Works Director
MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF,
ATTACHMENT C.PDF
I -694 Non -Motorized Crossing Study
Gina Mitteco, MnDOT
MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF
2016 PTRC Work Plan And Project Priorities Discussion
Sara Grant, Parks and Recreation Coordinator
MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF
Process And Parameters For Organized Collection On TCAAP
Joel Jamnik, City Attorney
MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF
Administrative Approvals
Joel Jamnik, City Attorney
MEMO.PDF
Update On Supreme Court Decision Regarding Signs
Joel Jamnik, City Attorney
MEMO.PDF
Building Permit Follow -Up
Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director
MEMO.PDF
COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
ADJOURN
Mayor:
David Grant
Councilmembers:
Brenda Holden
Fran Holmes
Dave McClung
Jonathan Wicklund
City Council
Work Session
Joint Meeting with Parks,
Trails and Recreation
Committee (PTRC)
Agenda
March 21, 2016
5:00 p.m.
City Hall
Address:
1245 W Highway 96
Arden Hills MN 55112
Phone:
651 -792 -7800
Website :
www.cityofardenhills.org
City Vision
Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential
neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our
long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.
CALL TO ORDER
1.
1.A.
Documents:
1.B.
Documents:
1.C.
Documents:
1.D.
Documents:
1.E.
Documents:
1.F.
Documents:
1.G.
Documents:
1.H.
Documents:
2.
AGENDA ITEMSDiscussion Of The Land O' Lakes ProjectJill Hutmacher, Community Development DirectorStacie Kvilvang, Ehlers & Associates MEMO.PDFCooperative Agreement Amendment For Final Design Of TCAAP InfrastructureJohn Anderson, Acting Public Works Director MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDFI-694 Non -Motorized Crossing StudyGina Mitteco, MnDOT MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF2016 PTRC Work Plan And Project Priorities DiscussionSara Grant, Parks and Recreation Coordinator MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDFProcess And Parameters For Organized Collection On TCAAPJoel Jamnik, City Attorney
MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF
Administrative Approvals
Joel Jamnik, City Attorney
MEMO.PDF
Update On Supreme Court Decision Regarding Signs
Joel Jamnik, City Attorney
MEMO.PDF
Building Permit Follow -Up
Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director
MEMO.PDF
COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
ADJOURN
Mayor:David Grant Councilmembers:Brenda Holden Fran HolmesDave McClungJonathan Wicklund City Council Work Session Joint Meeting with Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee (PTRC)AgendaMarch 21, 20165:00 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone:651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.CALL TO ORDER1.1.A.Documents:1.B.Documents:1.C.Documents:1.D.Documents:1.E.
Documents:
1.F.
Documents:
1.G.
Documents:
1.H.
Documents:
2.
Page 1 of 1
DATE: March 21, 2016
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Sue Iverson, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Land O’Lakes Expansion Project
Discussion
Background information on the Land O’Lakes expansion project has been previously provided to
the City Council. The City Attorney, Stacie Kvilvang (Ehlers), and Jenny Boulton (Kennedy &
Graven) will be present at the March 21 work session meeting to respond to any Council
questions.
AGENDA ITEM –1A
MEMORANDUM
Page 1 of 2
DATE: March 21, 2016
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Susan Iverson, Acting City Administrator
FROM: John Anderson, Acting Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Cooperative Agreement Amendment for Final Design- TCAAP
Requested Action
Provide staff with feedback on the proposed final design services Cooperative Agreement for
TCAAP.
Background
The City Council approved a Cooperative Agreement with Ramsey County for the preliminary
design of TCAAP on December 8, 2014 (Attachment B). The City’s share of the Cooperative
Agreement is $144,312.00; the County’s share of that agreement is $721,648.00.
Discussion
The preliminary site development process has moved ahead to the point where final design must
begin to ensure plans are ready for construction in 2017. Ramsey County has obtained a
proposal from Kimley Horn to complete final design on the infrastructure (Attachment A).
The project scope as described in the Kimley Horn proposal is divided between the City of
Arden Hills and Ramsey County as detailed in the Cooperative Agreement Amendment for Final
Design (Attachment C). Table 1 below summarizes the cost break down between the two
parties. The total amount of the Final Design is $1,243,109.70. The Amendment to the
Cooperative Agreement identifies the City cost to be $357,142.94 and the County’s share to be
$885,966.76.
The scope of work as it relates to the water tower and booster station provides additional
modeling to determine the final sizing of the water tower, timing of when the tower is needed,
and to what extent the tower and booster station benefits the TCAAP site and the existing north
pressure zone. Additional design work will be needed to complete a design and bid package for
construction of the water tower and booster station when they are needed to serve the site.
ITEM – 1B
MEMORANDUM
Page 2 of 2
It is anticipated that the City’s costs associated with preliminary design, final design and
construction will be recouped though a combination of assessments and utility fees. The City’s
financial consultant Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers, will be available at the Council work session to
discuss these financing strategies in more detail. Project Engineer Beth Engum will also be
available to discuss the scope of work in the Agreement and the cost breakdown between the
City and the County.
Table 1 - Final Design Engineering Cost - TCAAP
Description Total County City County City
section 12
project
management $ 19,800.00 50% 50% $ 9,900.00 $ 9,900.00
section 13 stormwater $ 46,665.00 50% 50% $ 23,332.50 $ 23,332.50
section 14 spine road $ 899,240.00 78% 22% $ 701,407.20 $ 197,832.80
section 15 thumb road $ 144,540.00 70% 30% $ 101,178.00 $ 43,362.00
section 16
water tower /
booster $ 15,000.00 0% 100% $ - $ 15,000.00
section 17 lift station $ 47,500.00 0% 100% $ - $ 47,500.00
Subtotal $ 1,172,745.00 $ 835,817.70 $ 336,927.30
section 18
Reimbursable
expenses (6%) $ 70,364.70 $ 50,149.06 $ 20,215.64
Total $ 1,243,109.70 $ 885,966.76 $ 357,142.94
Attachments
Attachment A: Kimley Horn proposal for Final Design Services
Attachment B: Cooperative Agreement
Attachment C: Cooperative Agreement Amendment for Final Design - TCAAP
kimley-horn.com 2550 University Avenue West, Suite 238N, St. Paul, MN 55114 651 645 4197
March 16, 2016
Ms. Beth Engum, PE
Project Manager
Ramsey County Public Works
1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive
Arden Hills, MN 55112-3933
Re:Additional Consulting Services
TCAAP Site Redevelopment Infrastructure Development and Design (Agreement PW2014-24)
Amendment No.1 to City of Arden Hills Cost Sharing Agreement for Consulting Services
Dear Ms. Engum:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (“Kimley-Horn”) and Ramsey County (“County”) have entered into
Agreement PW2014-24, dated June 9, 2014, for professional civil engineering consulting services for
the TCAAP Site Redevelopment Infrastructure Development and Design Project (“Project”) in Arden
Hills, MN.
The County and the City of Arden Hills (“City”) have executed a Cost Sharing Agreement for Consultant
Services dated April 29, 2015. The Cost Sharing Agreement identifies financial responsibilities for
some of the services included in Agreement PW2014-24.
Additional services have been requested that were not included in Agreement PW2014-24 and/or the
original Cost Sharing Agreement requiring an amendment to the Cost Sharing Agreement. The
following is a summary of these additional services.
Project Management
Additional project management services will be required for the final design phase of the project.
These services will include up to twenty-four (24) final design coordination meetings with County and
City staff.
Project Management Additional Cost:$ 19,800
Stormwater Preliminary Design
Additional stormwater preliminary design services have been required to obtain Rice Creek Watershed
District approval of the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (CSMP). These services have
included additional agency coordination meetings; numerous updates to the HydroCAD, P8 and HEC-
RAS models; and updates to the CSMP and appendices.
Stormwater Preliminary Design Additional Cost:$ 46,665
Spine Road and Public Utilities Final Design
The Spine Road and public utilities final design task includes the preparation of final plans and
specifications for the following improvements as identified in the Preliminary Design Report:
Page 2
kimley-horn.com 2550 University Avenue West, Suite 238N, St. Paul, MN 55114 651 645 4197
· Spine Road between Highway 96 and County Road H
· Highway 96 Traffic Signal
· Spine Road Bridge over Rice Creek
· Water Main
· Sanitary Sewer
· Storm Sewer
· Natural Resources Corridor Ponds, Wetlands, and Trail
· Regional Trail between Highway 96 and County Road H
· Sidewalk Extension along Highway 96
· Earthwork Balance/Site Grading
Spine Road and Public Utilities Final Design Cost:$899,240
Thumb Road and Public Utility Design
The Thumb Road and public utility design task will include the preparation of final plans and
specifications for the following improvements as identified in the Preliminary Design Report:
· Thumb Road between County Road H and County Road I
· Storm Sewer
· Water Main Extension from County Road H to Approximately 4,600’ South
· Interconnect with Mounds View Water System
· Water Service Connection to State of Minnesota Facilities
Thumb Road and Public Utility Design Cost:$144,540
Water Tower and Booster Station Final Design
Final design of the water tower and booster station will require additional water system modeling
from that completed with the preliminary design. The City of Arden Hills has expressed interest in
adjusting the preliminary water system design parameters in an attempt to reduce the elevated
storage requirements. Construction sequencing may leave out portions of the trunk water main
system requiring modeling to determine resulting fire flows. We will complete six runs of the water
main model to address these issues as follows:
· Reduced duration and/or fire flow requirement and impact on required elevated storage while
maintaining a minimum 20 PSI residual pressure (continue to assume worst-case low water
level in tower at start of fire flow event)
· Reduced duration and fire flow requirement and impact on required elevated storage while
maintaining a minimum 20 PSI residual pressure (continue to assume worst-case low water level
in tower at start of fire flow event)
· Reduced duration, reduced fire flow requirement, and adjusted assumption on the water level in
tower at start of fire flow event to determine the impact on required elevated storage while
maintaining a minimum 20 PSI residual pressure
·One addition iteration similar to the three previous runs
·Based on final tower design assumptions determined above, run analysis of one alternate trunk
water main layout to address potential construction sequencing
Page 3
kimley-horn.com 2550 University Avenue West, Suite 238N, St. Paul, MN 55114 651 645 4197
·Based on final tower design assumptions determined above, run analysis of a second alternate
trunk water main layout to address potential construction sequencing
We will also evaluate, model and refine the pump hydraulics and requirements.
Modeling results will be documented in a short technical memorandum and modeling files will be
archived with the City.
Water Tower and Booster Station Final Design Cost:$15,000
Lift Station Final Design
It has been determined that a lift station is required to meet the sanitary sewer needs of the TCAAP
redevelopment area. The final design of a lift station was not included in Agreement PW2014-24.
The proposed lift station design will utilize a duplex submersible pump system with variable frequency
drives (VFD) in order to allow for greater flexibility in adjusting the capacity of the lift station as the
development is phased out.
Based on our Technical Memorandum, dated November 20, 2014, the average flow used for design of
the lift station will be 500 gpm with a peaking factor of 3.3. The pump size will be selected to handle the
peak full developed flow with only one pump operating and the second pump serving as a back-up.
The proposed lift station will also be backed up with an on-site generator. The peak flow anticipated for
the design of the lift station is 1600 gpm or 3.6 cfs.
The proposed lift station will be located along the US Highway 10/I-35W right-of-way. The lift station
wet well will be 12 feet in diameter with a separate meter/valve vault. Kimley-Horn will review the
MPCA permitting requirements for lift station design and confirm assumptions.
Kimley-Horn will work with Electric Pump as the supplier of the Flygt Pumps that the City of Arden Hills
is requesting. Kimley-Horn will investigate the use of a flush valve with the selected pumps. Variable
frequency drive (VFD) pumps will be considered which can accommodate varying sanitary sewer flows.
Dual force mains will be design to accommodate varying sanitary sewer flows. Septicity will need to be
addressed during initial low flows as development is occurring. Casing pipes for these dual force mains
have been installed under Rice Creek with the Rice Creek Remeander project and the receiving
sanitary sewer manhole will be installed as a part of the County Road H interchange project.
Kimley-Horn will prepare design and construction documents for a new lift station using City of Arden
Hills utility design standards. Our services will include the following:
· Coordination with Ramsey County, Arden Hills and the regulatory/permitting agencies
· Calculations and design of the proposed lift station (electrical, mechanical, & structural)
· Prepare construction drawings for the lift station including structure and foundation details, site
grading, access road, electrical and telemetry design, drainage and landscaping, piping and
equipment details, and electrical and instrumentation design
· Prepare a detailed engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost
· Furnish sets of construction drawings and specifications in such quantities as may be required by
Ramsey County and Arden Hills for submission to State regulatory agencies and other review
authorities
Page 4
kimley-horn.com 2550 University Avenue West, Suite 238N, St. Paul, MN 55114 651 645 4197
· Assist Ramsey County and Arden Hills with necessary permit applications
Lift Station Final Design Cost:$47,500
Reimbursable Expenses
Estimated reimbursable expenses for the additional services detailed above are as follows:
$1,172,745 x 6% = $70,365
Additional Reimbursable Expenses:$70,365
Summary
The following is a summary of the additional services and costs to be included in the amendment to the
Cost Sharing Agreement.
Amendment No. 1
to Cost Sharing
Agreement
Project Management $ 19,800
Stormwater Preliminary Design $ 46,665
Spine Road and Public Utilities Final Design $ 899,240
Thumb Road and Public Utility Design $ 144,540
Water Tower and Booster Station Final Design $ 15,000
Lift Station Final Design $ 47,500
Expenses $ 70,365
Total $1,243,110
Please let me know if you have questions or we can provide any additional information.
Sincerely,
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Jon B. Horn, PE
Sr. Vice President
Amendment No. 1 to Cost Sharing Agreement for Consulting Services
(TCAAP Redevelopment Infrastructure Development and Design)
1 of 4
211519v4
Amendment No. 1 to Cost Sharing Agreement for Consulting Services
(TCAAP Site Redevelopment Infrastructure Development and Design)
Between The City of Arden Hills and Ramsey County
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 to Cost Sharing Agreement for Consulting Services (the “Amendment”) is
made as of _______________________, 2016 and is by and between the City of Arden Hills, a Minnesota
municipal corporation (the “City”) and the County of Ramsey, a political subdivision under the laws of the
State of Minnesota (the “County”).
Recitals
WHEREAS, the City and County executed a Cost Sharing Agreement for Consulting Services effective as
of April 29, 2015 (the “Agreement”) to identify and define financial responsibility for the tasks of the
TCAAP Site Redevelopment Infrastructure Development and Design to be performed by Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. (the “Consultant”); and
WHEREAS, The Agreement addressed financial responsibility for Consultant tasks of a preliminary design
nature only which include Tasks 1 through 10, 12, and 15 through 18; and
WHEREAS, The scope of work for each of the Consultant Tasks identified in the Agreement are more
specifically defined in the RFP; and
WHEREAS, The Agreement states that financial responsibility of final design tasks will be addressed by a
separate Cost Sharing Agreement at a future date when the preliminary design is nearing completion and
outcomes are known; and
WHEREAS, The County has entered into an agreement with the Consultant for all the Tasks identified in
the RFP (“Consultant Agreement”) and has executed an amendment to the Consultant Agreement to add
final design tasks (“Final Design Amendment”); and
WHEREAS, The parties wish to amend the Agreement to include financial responsibility for Tasks 1, 3,
and 11 and Additional Tasks 17, 23, and 24.
NOW THEREFORE, the City and County hereby amend the Agreement as follows:
1. Recital E. of the Agreement is modified by changing “Financial responsibility of final design tasks
will be addressed by separate Cost Sharing Agreement” to “Financial responsibility of final design
tasks will be addressed by Amendment to Cost Sharing Agreement”.
2. The Agreement is modified by adding the following Sections allocating financial responsibility for
design tasks as outlined below:
Section 12. Project Management. The Consultant scope and cost for Project Management, RFP
Task 1, has increased to include additional meetings for final design. The parties intend to allocate
Consultant costs for additional meetings for final design as follows:
Amendment No. 1 to Cost Sharing Agreement for Consulting Services
(TCAAP Redevelopment Infrastructure Development and Design)
2 of 4
211519v4
Responsible/Lead Party: County
Shared: 50% County, 50% City
Total Cost: $19,800; $9,900 County, $9,900 City
Section 13. Stormwater Preliminary Design. The parties intend to allocate Consultant costs for
Stormwater Preliminary Design, RFP Task 3, 50% County, 50% City as in the Agreement. The
Consultant cost for Task 3 has increased from the original cost of $77,940 to $124,605. The
increase of $46,665 is due to additional design work performed by the Consultant to meet the
requirements of the stormwater permitting agency, the Rice Creek Watershed District, and will be
shared as follows:
Responsible/Lead Party: County
Shared: 50% County, 50% City
Total Cost: $46,665; $23,332.50 County, $23,332.50 City
Section 14. Spine Road and Public Utilities Final Design. The Parties intend to allocate the
Consultant costs for Spine Road and Public Utilities Final Design, RFP Task 11:
Responsible/Lead Party: County
Shared: 78% County, 22% City
Total Cost: $899,240; $701,407 County, $197,833 City
Section 15. Thumb Road and Public Utility Design. The Parties intend to allocate the Consultant
costs for Thumb Road and Public Utility Design, Task 17:
Responsible/Lead Party: County
Shared: 70% County, 30% City
Total Cost: $144,540; $101,178 County, $43,362 City
Section 16. Water Tower and Booster Station Final Design. It was determined during preliminary
design of the water system that a water tower and booster station would be required to
accommodate water demand generated by the New Development. Additional design work beyond
what was included in the original scope of water system design is required, including additional
modeling to determine if water tower storage requirements can be reduced and at what stage of
development the water tower would be required. The parties intend to allocate the Consultant costs
for Water Tower and Booster Station Final Design, Task 23:
Responsible/Lead Party: City
Total Cost: $15,000
Section 17. Lift Station Final Design. It was determined during preliminary design of the sanitary
sewer that a lift station would be required to accommodate sanitary sewer service to the New
Development. The Parties intend to allocate the Consultant costs for Lift Station Final Design,
Task 24:
Responsible/Lead Party: City
Total Cost: $47,500
Amendment No. 1 to Cost Sharing Agreement for Consulting Services
(TCAAP Redevelopment Infrastructure Development and Design)
3 of 4
211519v4
Section 18. Reimbursable Expenses. The Parties intend to allocate Consultant reimbursable
expenses for services included in this Amendment based on 6% of the Consultant cost of services in
this amendment as follows:
Total City Cost: $336,927.50 x 6% = $20,215.65
3. Except as modified herein, the terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
WHEREFORE, this Agreement is duly executed on the last date written below.
Amendment No. 1 to Cost Sharing Agreement for Consulting Services
(TCAAP Redevelopment Infrastructure Development and Design)
4 of 4
211519v4
RAMSEY COUNTY CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
By:
Julie Kleinschmidt, County Manager Its Mayor
Date:_______________________________
By:________________________________
Its City Administrator
Date: _______________________________ Date:_______________________________
Approval recommended:
Jim Tolaas, Director
Public Works Department
____________________________________
Date
Approved as to form
____________________________________
Assistant County Attorney
____________________________________
Date
DATE: March 21, 2016
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Susan Iverson, Acting City Administrator
FROM: John Anderson, Acting Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Interstate 694 Non-Motorized Crossing Study
Requested Action
Receive the I-694 Non-Motorized Crossing Study as prepared by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT).
Background
As MnDOT was preparing plans to reconstruct the I-694 and TH 51 interchange, the City of
Arden Hills asked if a trail could be extended along the Hamline Avenue / TH 51 corridor. This
proved to be not feasible for a number of reasons but lead to the larger question of where were
logical locations for non-motorized crossings along the I-694 corridor in Arden Hills. MnDOT
began a study to answer this question. Shortly after commencing the study, other neighboring
communities were asking the same question which lead to expanding the study to include a
larger area bounded by Silver Lake Road to the west and TH 120 to the east.
Discussion
The Study has been completed and representatives from MnDOT will be in attendance to
summarize the results and answer any questions the City Council may have.
Attachments
Attachment A: I-694 Non-motorized Crossing Study
ITEM – 1C
MEMORANDUM
I-694 Non Motorized Crossing Study
MARCH 2016
Study Partners:
City of Arden Hills, City of Little Canada, City of Maplewood, City of New Brighton, City
of North St. Paul, City of Shoreview, City of Vadnais Heights, City of White Bear Lake,
Metropolitan Council, MnDOT , Ramsey County and Active Living Ramsey County
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 1
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
PURPOSE
The I-694 Non Motorized Crossing Study was initiated to identify pedestrian and bicycle mobility needs across I-694 within
Ramsey County and along this Interstate corridor. (Non-motorized travel is prohibited within the Interstate right-of-way by
federal requirements.) The study area, shown in Figure 1, is bounded by Silver Lake Road in the west, Trunk Highway 120 /
Century Avenue in the east, County Road 96 to the North, and County Road C to the South. MnDOT worked in partnership with
Ramsey County to complete the study, with involvement of staff and local leaders from New Brighton, Arden Hills, Shoreview,
Little Canada, Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake, Maplewood, North St. Paul, and the Metropolitan Council. The study aims
to achieve the following objectives:
• Document the existing network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the area (2014);
• Document future plans or projects in the study area that provide opportunities to improve pedestrian and bicycle
mobility;
• Incorporate corridors identified as regional priorities by the Metropolitan Council’s Bicycle System Study (2014) and
Transportation Policy Plan (2015);
• Identify critical connections that should be preserved, maintained, added, or enhanced to ensure connectivity around
and across I-694;
• Provide recommendations that can be incorporated into Ramsey County’s pedestrian and bicycle plan;
• Improve coordination among study area agencies, including MnDOT, Ramsey County, cities, and the Metropolitan
Council, for trail, sidewalk, and bikeway improvements as future funding and project opportunities arise.
BACKGROUND
Interest in pedestrian and bicycle travel for recreation, routine trips, and commuting is growing within the Twin Cities region and
Ramsey County. Area cities and the County have been actively planning and constructing improved trails, sidewalks, and on-
street bikeways. However, despite the growing network of non motorized facilities in the area, I-694 is a barrier for pedestrian
and bicycle mobility. Many existing crossings of I-694 carry high volumes of vehicular traffic and some lack adequate facilities
for pedestrians and bicyclists. Crossings that do include a suitable trail or sidewalk may be too far out of the way for some
users to be considered a convenient walking or biking route.
The challenges of moving pedestrians and bicyclists across freeway corridors, as described above, are not unique to I-694
through Ramsey County. The need for a study in this particular location was identified in 2011 by the City of Arden Hills during
the first phase of the development of MnDOT’s I-694 North Central Project. This large-scale construction project, shown in
Figure 2, will eventually rebuild the I-694 Corridor between I-35E and I-35W. The first phase included rebuilding the I-694,
Highway 10 and Highway 51 interchange in Arden Hills. The entire project will not be complete until at least 2016.
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 2
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
:
S
t
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
4 9 4
4 9 4
D a t a : S t a t e o f M i n n e s o t a , M e t r o p o l i t a n C o u n c i l , R a m s e y C o u n t y
0
1
2
3
0.
5
Mi
l
e
s
´
Wh
i
t
e
B
e
a
r
Ow
a
s
s
o
Sn
a
i
l
Jo
h
a
n
n
a
Bi
r
c
h
Lo
n
g
Ea
s
t
V ad
n
a
i
s
Go
o
s
e
Ro
u
n
d
W es
t
V ad
n
a
i
s
Jo
s
e
p
h
i
n
e
Ge
r
v
a
i
s
Su
c
k
e
r
Pi
k
e
Ru
s
h
Ko
h
l
m
a
n
Is
l
a
n
d
W il
l
o
w
V al
e
n
t
i
n
e
Si
l
v
e
r
(E
a
s
t
)
Si
l
v
e
r
(W es
t
)
W ab
a
s
s
o
Ge
m
W il
l
o
w
Jo
n
e
s
Fa
r
r
e
l
'
s
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
1 1
10
R
i
c
e
L
e
x
i
n
g
t
o
n
M
c
k
n
i
g
h
t
W
h
i
t
e
B
e
a
r
S
i
l
v
e
r
L
a
k
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
v
i
l
l
e
a i d y L
C
l
e
v
e
l
a
n
d
L
a
b
o
r
e
6 9 y a w h g i H
F d R y t n u o C
Hodgson
V adn
a
i
s
m a e B
B
e
l
l
a
i
r
e
S
n
e
l
l
i
n
g
Otter Lake
G
o
o
s
e
L
a
k
e
N
e
w
B
r
i
g
h
t
o
n
H
a
m
l
i
n
e
So
u
t
h
S
h
o
r
e
C
e
n
t
u
r
y
C
o
u
n
t
y
H
w
y
8
8
Ko
e
h
l
e
r
H
a
m
l
i
n
e
F d R y t n u o C
Co
u
n
t
y
R
d
F
I-
6
9
4
U
S
H
w
y
6
1
Co
u
n
t
y
R
d
E
I
-
3
5
W
I
-
3
5
E
Ci
t
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Co
u
n
t
y
R
o
a
d
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
La
k
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
I
-
6
9
4
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
-
6
9
4
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Pa
r
k
,
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
,
o
r
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
Li
s
t
o
f
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
Si
l
v
e
r
L
a
k
e
R
o
a
d
(
C
S
A
H
4
4
)
Lo
n
g
L
a
k
e
R
o
a
d
(
C
S
A
H
4
5
)
Ol
d
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
8
(
C
S
A
H
7
7
)
Ol
d
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
1
0
/
O
l
d
S
n
e
l
l
i
n
g
(
C
S
A
H
7
6
)
TH
5
1
Le
x
i
n
g
t
o
n
A ve
n
u
e
(
C
S
A
H
5
1
)
V ic
t
o
r
i
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
C
S
A
H
5
2
)
Gr
a
s
s
L
a
k
e
T ra
i
l
Ri
c
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
C
S
A
H
4
9
)
T ro
u
t
B
r
o
o
k
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
T ra
i
l
N
o
r
t
h
St
.
An
t
h
o
n
y
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
S
p
u
r
Ed
g
e
r
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
C
S
A
H
5
8
)
La
b
o
r
e
R
o
a
d
(
C
o
u
n
t
y
1
0
8
)
TH
6
1
Br
u
c
e
V en
t
o
T ra
i
l
Wh
i
t
e
B
e
a
r
A ve
n
u
e
(
C
S
A
H
6
5
)
Mc
K
n
i
g
h
t
R
o
a
d
(
C
S
A
H
6
8
)
TH
1
2
0
987654321
1 81716151413121110
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 3
The I-694 / 10 / 51 interchange project generated extensive discussion about how to move pedestrians and bicyclists
across I-694 at TH 51. Many stakeholders saw this as an important opportunity for a new connection for pedestrian
and bicycle access to destinations such as Bethel University, Valentine Lake, and major employers in the area.
However, integrating a trail with an interchange connecting an expressway and a freeway posed design challenges
and raised significant safety concerns. The most challenging issue was determining how a trail could cross the
free-flowing interchange movements between I-694 and TH 51 in a manner that was safe for trail users of varying
ages and abilities. High traffic volumes on TH 51 (approximately 33,000 vehicles per day), and a 55 mile per hour
speed limit would also inevitably create an unpleasant biking and walking environment for a trail adjacent to the
highway. There were also questions about the potential for broader connectivity along this route since there are not
existing trail facilities along TH 51 and the existing railroad bridge south of I-694 is not currently wide enough to fit
a trail underneath. Bethel University, the major private land holder in the area, also expressed some concern about
constructing a public trail through this property.
Due to these challenging circumstances, it was decided that the I-694/TH 51 interchange could not provide a safe
or comfortable environment for pedestrians and bicyclists of all abilities and a separate trail was not included in the
project design.
Figure 2: North Central Project Illustration
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 4
The City of Arden Hills passed a resolution on October 26, 2010 rejecting MnDOT’s final layout for the I-694/TH 51
project with a list of 14 conditions for MnDOT to meet in order to receive municipal consent (Arden Hills Resolution
2010-052). Among the conditions was a request to include a non-motorized/pedestrian facility across I-694 on the
west side of TH 51. A municipal consent appeal process was initiated in December of 2010 to resolve these issues
between MnDOT and Arden Hills.
As an outcome of the municipal consent appeal process, MnDOT agreed to work with the City of Arden Hills and
Ramsey County, 1) to improve the pedestrian and bicycle connection across I-694 at Lexington Avenue as part
of the larger interchange project and 2) to study unmet pedestrian and bicycle needs in the project area. Both of
these conditions were included in the City of Arden Hills 2011 municipal consent agreement for the I-694 / 10 / 51
interchange project.
The study was initially designed to focus specifically on the crossings of I-694 between I-35E and I-35W. As the
study progressed, discussions with Ramsey County and cities along the corridor indicated a need to expand
the study area to also examine east / west connections to the north and south of the Interstate in order to fully
understand the pedestrian and bicycle network and needs in the area. The study area was also expanded to include
the eastern and western limits of Ramsey County along I-694 at the request of Active Living Ramsey Communities
and Ramsey County. This expanded scope of work was significantly above and beyond the initial agreement from
the municipal consent appeal process but provided a broader understanding of pedestrian and bicycle networks and
key connections in the original study area and beyond.
ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES
This study is not associated with implementation dollars or a specific scoped transportation project that can be used
to implement study findings. The study is intended to be a tool to guide future decisions as transportation projects
are planned and developed by all units of government within the study area. It can also be used to help local
governments prioritize projects for grant applications and capital programs.
The study provided information for the Metropolitan Council’s Bicycle System Study, completed in 2014, in close
coordination with MnDOT. It also informed the recently drafted Ramsey Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
Finally, the I-694 study will serve as a model for other parts of the region where Interstates and other arterial
corridors create challenges for pedestrian and bicycle access.
STUDY PROCESS
The I-694 Non Motorized Crossing Study was kicked off in May of 2012 with an initial group of study partners that
represented the cities within the initial study area as well as Ramsey County and the Metropolitan Council. As the
study area boundaries grew, new cities were added to the agency work group. MnDOT staff led the overall effort
with guidance from study partners. Key work tasks included:
• Data collection and GIS mapping of existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure within
the study area
• Analysis of local comprehensive plans, policies, and other studies related to pedestrian and bicycle
mobility
• One public meeting to get input on pedestrian and bicycle destinations, needs, and barriers within the
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 5
study area
• Meetings with local pedestrian and bicycle groups
• Identification of future planned and programmed street, highway, and trail projects in the study area
• Incorporation of mapping from Metropolitan Council’s Bicycle System Study
• Documentation of study recommendations in the final report
PLANNING AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
Pedestrian and Bicycle travel is an important part of the transportation network and has been recognized as such
in state, regional, and local plans and policies for decades. Though not an exhaustive review, this section includes
recent high-level policies and plans at various levels of government to underscore the supporting policy framework
for this study and its implementation .
Federal
The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation
Regulations and Recommendations was signed on March 11, 2010 and announced March 15, 2010 by former
Secretary Ray LaHood. The policy states:
“The DOT policy is to incorporate safe and convenient walking and bicycling facilities into transportation projects.
Every transportation agency, including DOT, has the responsibility to improve conditions and opportunities for walking
and bicycling and to integrate walking and bicycling into their transportation systems. Because of the numerous
individual and community benefits that walking and bicycling provide — including health, safety, environmental,
transportation, and quality of life — transportation agencies are encouraged to go beyond minimum standards to
provide safe and convenient facilities for these modes.”
State
Non motorized travel is critical to Minnesota GO, the state’s 50-year vision for a multimodal transportation system
that maximizes the health of people, the environment and our economy. The vision includes the following principles
to guide future policy and investment decisions for all forms of transportation throughout the state:
• Leverage public investments to achieve multiple purposes: The transportation system should support
other public purposes, such as environmental stewardship, economic competitiveness, public health and
energy independence.
• Ensure accessibility: The transportation system must be accessible and safe for users of all abilities and
incomes. The system must provide access to key resources and amenities throughout communities.
• Build to a maintainable scale: Consider and minimize long-term obligations–don’t overbuild. The scale
of the system should reflect and respect the surrounding physical and social context of the facility. The
transportation system should affordably contribute to the overall quality of life and prosperity of the state.
• Ensure regional connections: Key regional centers need to be connected to each other through multiple
modes of transportation.
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 6
• Integrate safety: Systematically and holistically improve safety for all forms of transportation. Be proactive,
innovative and strategic in creating safe options.
• Emphasize reliable and predictable options: The reliability of the system and predictability of travel time
are frequently as important or more important than speed. Prioritize multiple multimodal options over
reliance on a single option.
• Strategically fix the system: Some parts of the system may need to be reduced while others are enhanced
or expanded to meet changing demand. Strategically maintain and upgrade critical existing infrastructure.
• Use partnerships: Coordinate across sectors and jurisdictions to make transportation projects and
services more efficient.
The Minnesota Go vision also informs MnDOT’s subsequent planning efforts such as the Minnesota 20-year
Statewide Highway Improvement Plan (MnSHIP). MnSHIP identifies capital investment priorities for the state
highway system over the next 20 years. The current plan identifies two new investment categories, Bicycle
Infrastructure and Accessible Pedestrian Infrastructure, to better account for investments that support non-
motorized modes of travel.
MnDOT is also in the process of developing a statewide bicycle system plan which will lead to the development
of a bicycle plan for each district. The Metro District plan will incorporate the results of the Metropolitan Council’s
regional Bicycle System Study as well as priority state bike routes to identify priorities for bicycling investments
for MnDOT in the Metro District. A statewide pedestrian plan has also recently been authorized and will be led by
MnDOT in partnership with the Minnesota Department of Health.
During the time of the I-694 study process, MnDOT formally adopted a Complete Streets Policy and accompanying
Technical Memorandum, which provides internal guidance to MnDOT on planning and project development under
a complete streets framework . The goals of the I-694 crossing study align closely with the processes identified in
the Complete Streets Policy.
Regional
The Metropolitan Council oversees several regional planning efforts that relate to bicycling and walking in the
region. The Council’s overarching long-range plan establishes a regional vision with the intent to help ensure
coordinated, orderly and economic development of the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area (MN Statute
473.851). This plan, Thrive MSP 2040 was adopted in May of 2014 and identifies five outcomes for the Twin Cities
Region: stewardship, prosperity, equity, livability, and sustainability. Thrive 2040 and its identified outcomes set the
direction of the systems and policy plans also under the Council’s jurisdiction. Those most relevant to the I-694
Crossing Study are the Transportation Policy Plan and the Regional Parks Policy Plan.
Transportation Policy Plan
The Metropolitan Council’s 2040 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) establishes regional priorities for transportation
investments to ensure that the regional transportation system develops in a manner consistent with Thrive MSP
2040. The TPP is updated every four years. The TPP includes goals, objectives, strategies, and performance
measures that guide and help evaluate progress toward the regional vision. The TPP places an emphasis on the
integration of multiple travel modes and therefore specific strategies for pedestrian and bicycle mobility are located
throughout the Plan.
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 7
Notable for the I-694 study is the TPP’s inclusion of a designated Regional Bicycle Transportation Network
(RBTN). The intent of the RBTN is to identify a “backbone” network of on- and off-street bikeways that can serve a
transportation purpose by connecting people to regional destinations. Planning and implementation of the RBTN is
the responsibility of cities, counties, MnDOT, and parks agencies. However, bikeways that are located on the RBTN
will receive some level of priority when competing for federal transportation funds through the Council-administered
regional solicitation.
Figure 3: Regional Bicycle Transportation Network (RBTN)
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!##
##
#
#
###
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
##
#
#
Wright
Dakot a
Scott
Anoka
Hennepin
Carver
Sherburne
W a s h i n g t o n
Ramsey
0 10 205 Miles
§
Nov 2014
Regional Bicycle Transportation Network Vision
RBTN Alignments
Tier 2 Alignments
Tier 1 Alignments
RBTN Corridors (Alignments Undefined)
Tier 1 Priority Regional Bicycle
Transportation Corridor
Tier 2 Regional Bicycle
Transportation Corridors
Other Trail Systems
State Trails (DNR)
Mississippi River Trail
(US Route 45)
Regional Trails
(Regional Parks Policy Plan)
Regional Destinations
Regional Job Centers
!(Highly Visited Regional Parks
Major Sport & Entertainment Centers!
#Colleges & Universities
#Large High Schools
Subregional Job Centers
Metropolitan Job Centers
Reference Items
Principal Arterial Roads
Lakes and Rivers
City Boundary
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 8
The RBTN was developed in 2013-2014 through the Regional Bicycle System Study. That effort resulted in a
regional map that identifies two tiers of investment priority in the TPP. The regional map is shown in Figure 3.
The RBTN within the I-694 study area is shown in Figure 7, along with the rest of the existing and proposed
transportation context.
• Tier 1, Priority Regional Bicycle Transportation Corridors (purple): should be given the highest priority
for transportation funding; these are the corridors and alignments that provide the highest transportation
function by connecting the most regional activity centers through the developed urban and suburban
areas of the region.
• Tier 2, Regional Bicycle Transportation Network Corridors (green): should be given the second
highest priority for transportation investment. These corridors provide transportation connectivity to
outlying regional destinations within and beyond the urban / suburban areas and serve to connect priority
regional bicycle transportation corridors.
The map shows both defined alignments (narrow lines) and broad corridors. The alignments represent areas where
local entities had done considerable planning and / or implementation of off-road trail or on-street bikeway facilities.”
Broad corridors represent areas where further analysis is needed to identify the specific roadway or trail corridor
that is most suitable for a bikeway.
The TPP also includes many goals, strategies and supportive local actions that relate to pedestrian and bicycle
mobility at all levels of transportation network – local, regional, and state. These statements emphasize the
importance of mobility, access, safety and multi-modal connections for all users of the transportation system.
Regional Parks Policy Plan
The Regional Parks Policy Plan guides the development and expansion of the Regional Parks System, which
includes Regional Trails. The Plan is updated every four years and identifies the goals and strategies for expanding
and maintaining the system. Some existing trails in the study area are part of the existing Regional Parks System,
including Highway 96 Regional Trail, and the Bruce Vento Regional Trail. Lexington Avenue/Parkway and the Trout
Brook Extension are Regional Trail Search Corridors within the study area. These corridors are identified in the
Regional Parks Policy Plan, but do not yet have an approved master plan and defined regional trail alignment. The
Rice Creek North Regional Trail, which is currently north of the study area has a planned extension south into the
study area to connect with CSAH 96. Regional trails are owned and operated by local implementing agencies (i.e.
Ramsey County), but the Metropolitan Council provides support for the regional system in the form of planning,
funding, information, marketing and advocacy.
County
Ramsey County has an adopted Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 2010. Bicycle and pedestrian needs
are discussed in both the Transportation and Parks and Open Space sections. The transportation section identifies
several strategies for improving pedestrian and bicycle mobility with County roadways. The Parks and Open Space
section includes a map of existing and proposed regional parks and connecting trails as well as information on
existing and planned trails within County parks. The County has recently developed its first countywide pedestrian
and bicycle plan.
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 9
Local
Comprehensive plans for all of the local governments within the area have elements and policies related to
pedestrian and bicycle mobility which are included within transportation and / or parks and recreation chapters.
Though written policies were too numerous to include here, maps of existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure from the comprehensive plans for all cities in the study area were analyzed and compiled in a
Geographic Information System (GIS). This exercise documented the long-range vision for pedestrian and bicycle
travel for each community. Updates of local plans are scheduled for 2018, providing an opportunity for cities to
incorporate recommendations from the Metropolitan Council’s Thrive MSP 2040, the TPP, Regional Parks Policy
Plan, the Ramsey County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, and this study.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT
The study area includes the northern suburbs of Ramsey County with primary land uses shown in Figure 4. Single-
family residential development covers much of the study area with large tracts of parkland and lakes, and several
commercial nodes and employment centers. The many parks, lakes, Bethel University, and the employment node
between Hamline and Lexington provide a variety of destinations that residents of the area would like to access by
walking or bicycling for both recreational and transportation purposes. The downtowns of Minneapolis and St. Paul
lie outside of the study area but are accessible via transit connections and also are important destinations for those
bicyclists who ride longer distances for commuting or recreation. Most of the study area is fully developed with the
exception of a few large redevelopment sites. Rice Creek Commons (the former Twin Cities Army Ammunition
Plant site) in Arden Hills lies on the northern border of the study area. This 427 acre site has been purchased and
remediated by Ramsey County with plans for a mix of residential, commercial, and light industrial uses.. The New
Brighton Exchange is another former industrial site that is currently undergoing redevelopment. This 100-acre site at
the northwest corner of I-35W and I-694 is envisioned to be an extension of New Brighton’s town center with various
forms of residential and commercial office development.
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 10
Fi
g
u
r
e
4
:
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
C
o
n
t
e
x
t
4 9 4
4 9 4
D a t a : S t a t e o f M i n n e s o t a , M e t r o p o l i t a n C o u n c i l , R a m s e y C o u n t y
Wh
i
t
e
B
e
a
r
Ow
a
s
s
o
Sn
a
i
l
Jo
h
a
n
n
a
Ea
s
t
V ad
n
a
i
s
Lo
n
g
Go
o
s
e
Ro
u
n
d
W es
t
V ad
n
a
i
s
Ge
r
v
a
i
s
Jo
s
e
p
h
i
n
e
Bi
r
c
h
Ko
h
l
m
a
n
Su
c
k
e
r
Pi
k
e
Ru
s
h
T wi
n
Is
l
a
n
d
W il
l
o
w
V al
e
n
t
i
n
e
Si
l
v
e
r
(E
a
s
t
)
Si
l
v
e
r
(W es
t
)
W ab
a
s
s
o
Ge
m
Fa
r
r
e
l
'
s
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
1 1
10
R
i
c
e
L
e
x
i
n
g
t
o
n
V
i
c
t
o
r
i
a
M
c
k
n
i
g
h
t
W
h
i
t
e
B
e
a
r
S
i
l
v
e
r
L
a
k
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
v
i
l
l
e
a i d y L
C
l
e
v
e
l
a
n
d
6 9 y a w h g i H
F d R y t n u o C
m a e B
B
e
l
l
a
i
r
e
Hodgson
M
c
m
e
m
e
m
y
H
o
f
f
m
a
n
S
n
e
l
l
i
n
g
H
a
m
l
i
n
e
Long Lake
G
o
o
s
e
L
a
k
e
h t 7 3
Otter La
k
e
5
t
h
1
0
t
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
H
w
y
8
8
S
c
h
e
u
n
e
m
a
n
r e l h e o K
t s 1
S
t
i
n
s
o
n
Co
u
n
t
y
R
o
a
d
C
N
e
w
B
r
i
g
h
t
o
n
E d R y t n u o C
S
t
i
n
s
o
n
F d R y t n u o C
H
a
m
l
i
n
e
Co
u
n
t
y
R
d
F
C
e
n
t
u
r
y
I
-
3
5
E
I
-
3
5
W
Co
u
n
t
y
R
d
E
M
a
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
I
-
3
5
W
U
S
H
w
y
6
1
I-
6
9
4
I-
6
9
4
I
-
3
5
E
0
1
2
3
0.
5
Mi
l
e
s
´
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Mu
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Si
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
At
t
a
c
h
e
d
In
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Li
s
t
o
f
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
Si
l
v
e
r
L
a
k
e
R
o
a
d
(
C
S
A
H
4
4
)
Lo
n
g
L
a
k
e
R
o
a
d
(
C
S
A
H
4
5
)
Ol
d
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
8
(
C
S
A
H
7
7
)
Ol
d
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
1
0
/
O
l
d
S
n
e
l
l
i
n
g
(
C
S
A
H
7
6
)
TH
5
1
Le
x
i
n
g
t
o
n
A ve
n
u
e
(
C
S
A
H
5
1
)
V ic
t
o
r
i
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
C
S
A
H
5
2
)
Gr
a
s
s
L
a
k
e
T ra
i
l
Ri
c
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
C
S
A
H
4
9
)
T ro
u
t
B
r
o
o
k
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
T ra
i
l
N
o
r
t
h
St
.
An
t
h
o
n
y
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
S
p
u
r
Ed
g
e
r
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
C
S
A
H
5
8
)
La
b
o
r
e
R
o
a
d
(
C
o
u
n
t
y
1
0
8
)
TH
6
1
Br
u
c
e
V en
t
o
T ra
i
l
Wh
i
t
e
B
e
a
r
A ve
n
u
e
(
C
S
A
H
6
5
)
Mc
K
n
i
g
h
t
R
o
a
d
(
C
S
A
H
6
8
)
TH
1
2
0
987654321
1 81716151413121110
Ci
t
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Co
u
n
t
y
R
o
a
d
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
La
k
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
I
-
6
9
4
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
-
6
9
4
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Pa
r
k
,
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
,
o
r
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 11
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
I-694 is a corridor within the designated National Highway System. It is an Urban Principal Arterial that runs east /
west through the study area in northern Ramsey County. It carries 110,000 vehicles per day in the western part of
Ramsey County and 70,000 vehicles per day in the eastern portion of the study area. The function of the Interstate
within the overall transportation network requires that it serve high traffic volumes, longer trips, higher speeds,
and express bus service. In order to preserve these functions, land access and roadway crossings are limited
along the corridor. Most non-freeway roadway crossings of I-694 are classified as minor arterials and generally
spaced between one-half and one mile apart. These arterials provide the primary means for pedestrians and
bicyclists to cross I-694. However, these roadways are also characterized by high volumes of vehicular traffic,
and, in many cases, are subregional corridors for scheduled bus service. Many pedestrians and bicyclists consider
these corridors difficult and uncomfortable to navigate due to high traffic volumes and complicated crossings at
interchange locations. There are several roadways that cross I-694 but do not have an interchange, generally
offering a more safe and comfortable experience for pedestrians and bicyclists. The non-interchange crossings
within the study area are Old Highway 8, Old 10 / Old Snelling, Edgerton Street, Labore Road, and McKnight Road.
There are two bridges within the study area that provide crossings completely separated from automobile traffic,
Grass Lake Trail and Bruce Vento Trail.
East west connectivity in the study area is provided primarily via Ramsey County Highways that are spaced at
approximately one mile intervals (with some exceptions). Local roadways and residential streets with low speeds
and traffic volumes provide opportunities for short pedestrian and bicycle trips within the study area, however these
routes rarely connect across barriers such as major roadways, and the many lakes in the area. The lakes and
wetlands in this part of the County create challenges for roadway and trail connectivity, even for higher classification
roadways on the County system.
Transit is an important element for pedestrian and bicycle travel since most transit trips begin and end with a
pedestrian or bicycle trip. Many of the arterial streets within the study area provide local bus service with some
limited stop service into St. Paul and Minneapolis. Express service into downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul is
provided along the Interstates (I-694, I-35W, I-35E) with access at some park-and-ride locations and local stops.
Figure 5 shows existing transit routes and park-and-ride facilities within the study area.
The Rush Line is a future transitway corridor that is currently in the planning phase. The entire corridor is envisioned
to link Union Depot in St. Paul to communities along the corridor, which extends north to Hinckley. Ramsey County
Regional Railroad Authority (RCRRA) is in the process of a Pre Project Development (PPD) study to identify
the corridor’s locally preferred alternative (LPA) between St. Paul and White Bear Lake, with some alternatives
extending to Forest Lake. The two primary options under consideration include bus rapid transit (BRT) or a rail-
based option.. Timing for selecting the LPA is expected within the next two years. Timing for developing the project
is uncertain but is a more long-term proposition.
There are two trails designated as Regional Trails by the Metropolitan Council in the study area. These trails provide
connections to regional parks and are included in the Regional Parks Policy Plan. The Highway 96 Regional Trail
runs east/west from Arden Hills to White Bear Lake. The Bruce Vento Regional Trail is a north/south connection
from downtown St. Paul to just north of I-694 in White Bear Lake, with plans for an extension to the north. Just
beyond the study area, the Birch Lake Regional Trail begins at Highway 96 near 35E and connects north to the
Tamarack Nature Center. The Rice Creek North Regional Trail and the Trout Brook Regional Trail are existing
regional trails outside of the study area that have future planned connections to the study area. The 2040 Parks
Policy Plan also identifies Lexington Avenue / Parkway as a Regional Trail Search Corridor. A Search Corridor
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 12
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
:
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
R
o
u
t
e
s
a
n
d
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
4 9 4
4 9 4
D a t a : S t a t e o f M i n n e s o t a , M e t r o p o l i t a n C o u n c i l , R a m s e y C o u n t y
0
1
2
3
0.
5
Mi
l
e
s
´
!
!
!!!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!!!
!
!
!!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!
!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!
!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!
!
!!
!!!!
!!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!!
!
!!
!!
!!!
!!
!!
!!
¯P
¯P
¯P
¯P
¯P
¯P
¯P
¯P
¯P ¯P
¯P
Wh
i
t
e
B
e
a
r
Ow
a
s
s
o
Sn
a
i
l
Jo
h
a
n
n
a
Bi
r
c
h
Lo
n
g
Ea
s
t
V ad
n
a
i
s
Go
o
s
e
Ro
u
n
d
W es
t
V ad
n
a
i
s
Jo
s
e
p
h
i
n
e
Su
c
k
e
r
Pi
k
e
Ru
s
h
Ge
r
v
a
i
s
Ko
h
l
m
a
n
Is
l
a
n
d
W il
l
o
w
V al
e
n
t
i
n
e
Si
l
v
e
r
(E
a
s
t
)
Si
l
v
e
r
(W es
t
)
W ab
a
s
s
o
Ge
m
W il
l
o
w
Jo
n
e
s
Fa
r
r
e
l
'
s
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
1 1
10
R
i
c
e
L
e
x
i
n
g
t
o
n
M
c
k
n
i
g
h
t
W
h
i
t
e
B
e
a
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
v
i
l
l
e
a i d y L
m a e B
C
l
e
v
e
l
a
n
d
S
i
l
v
e
r
L
a
k
e
L
a
b
o
r
e
F d R y t n u o C
Hodgson
B
e
l
l
a
i
r
e
L
o
n
g
L
a
k
e
S
n
e
l
l
i
n
g
Otter Lake
H
a
m
l
i
n
e
6 9 y a w h g i H
G
o
o
s
e
L
a
k
e
N
e
w
B
r
i
g
h
t
o
n
So
u
t
h
S
h
o
r
e
Old H
w
y
1
0
C
e
n
t
u
r
y
C
o
u
n
t
y
H
w
y
8
8
Koe
h
l
e
r
R
i
c
e
H
a
m
l
i
n
e
Co
u
n
t
y
R
d
F
F d R y t n u o C
U
S
H
w
y
6
1
Co
u
n
t
y
R
d
E
¯P
Pa
r
k
a
n
d
R
i
d
e
L
o
t
s
!
T ra
n
s
i
t
S
t
o
p
s
T ra
n
s
i
t
R
o
u
t
e
s
Ci
t
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Co
u
n
t
y
R
o
a
d
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
La
k
e
I-
6
9
4
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
I-
6
9
4
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Pa
r
k
,
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
,
o
r
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
Li
s
t
o
f
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
Si
l
v
e
r
L
a
k
e
R
o
a
d
(
C
S
A
H
4
4
)
Lo
n
g
L
a
k
e
R
o
a
d
(
C
S
A
H
4
5
)
Ol
d
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
8
(
C
S
A
H
7
7
)
Ol
d
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
1
0
/
O
l
d
S
n
e
l
l
i
n
g
(
C
S
A
H
7
6
)
TH
5
1
Le
x
i
n
g
t
o
n
A ve
n
u
e
(
C
S
A
H
5
1
)
V ic
t
o
r
i
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
C
S
A
H
5
2
)
Gr
a
s
s
L
a
k
e
T ra
i
l
Ri
c
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
C
S
A
H
4
9
)
T ro
u
t
B
r
o
o
k
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
T ra
i
l
N
o
r
t
h
St
.
An
t
h
o
n
y
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
S
p
u
r
Ed
g
e
r
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
C
S
A
H
5
8
)
La
b
o
r
e
R
o
a
d
(
C
o
u
n
t
y
1
0
8
)
TH
6
1
Br
u
c
e
V en
t
o
T ra
i
l
Wh
i
t
e
B
e
a
r
A ve
n
u
e
(
C
S
A
H
6
5
)
Mc
K
n
i
g
h
t
R
o
a
d
(
C
S
A
H
6
8
)
TH
1
2
0
987654321
1 81716151413121110
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 13
Table 1: I-694 Existing and Potential Crossings Summary of Existing Conditions (2014)
MAP
REFERENCE
CROSSING
LOCATION
CITY
(LOCATION)
ROADWAY
JURISDICTION
(OWNERSHIP)
PEDESTRIAN
FACILITY
BICYCLE FACILITY CONNECTION TO TRAILS /
SIDEWALKS
EXISTING TRANSIT
ROUTE
AVG. DAILY TRAFFIC
VOLUMES
MOTOR VEHICLE
SPEED LIMIT
PLANS FOR FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
1
Silver Lake
Road (CSAH
44)
New Brighton Ramsey County 8 ft. sidewalk
(east side)None Sidewalk on east side of roadway Yes; Park and ride south
of I-694 12,700 40 mph
• Bridge is in good condition, no near term plans for improvements.
• City of New Brighton Comprehensive Plan shows proposed multi-
use path along entire corridor.
2
Long Lake
Road (CSAH
45)
New Brighton Ramsey County 6 ft. sidewalk
(east side)Shoulder
Bike lane north of bridge through
study area; Sidewalks north and
south of I-694
No 6,700 30 mph
• Bridge is in good condition, no near term plans for improvements.
• City of New Brighton Comprehensive Plan shows proposed multi-
use path south of I-694
3 Old Highway 8
(CSAH 77)New Brighton Ramsey County 5 ft. sidewalk
(west side)None Sidewalks north and south of I-694
on west side
Yes; Park and ride north
of study area at County
Road H
10,000 30 mph (south); 40 mph
(north)
• Bridge is in good condition, no near term plans for improvements.
• City of New Brighton Comprehensive Plan shows proposed multi-
use path along the corridor.
4
Old Highway 10
/ Old Snelling
(CSAH 76)
Arden Hills Ramsey County None Shoulder
Shoulder continues for length of
the corridor (except near Valentine
Lake); No sidewalk
No 2,550 45 mph
• City of Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan shows planned shared use
path along the corridor.
• Space for shared use path was provided in I-694 North Central
Project, City is actively pursuing funding for trail construction.
5 TH 51 Arden Hills MnDOT None Intermittent shoulder Intermittent shoulder throughout
corridor No 31,500 55 mph • Planned trail in Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan.
6
Lexington
Avenue (CSAH
51)
Arden Hills;
Shoreview Ramsey County 10 ft. shared use
path (east side)
10 ft. shared use
path (east side)
Trail on east side of Lexington,
operated by City of Shoreview Yes 21,400 40 mph
• Planned trail on west side of Lexington from 694 to County F.
• Identified as a regional trail search corridor in Regional Parks
Policy Plan.
7 Victoria Street
(CSAH 52)Shoreview Ramsey County 10 ft. shared use
path (west side)
10 ft. shared use
path (west side);
shoulder (west side)
Trail on west side of Victoria;
Shoulders north of I-694
Yes; Park and ride at
Victoria and CSAH 96 14,300 40 mph • Bridge is in good condition, no near term plans for improvements.
8 Grass Lake Rail Shoreview Shoreview 12 ft. shared use
path
12 ft. shared use
path
Connects to Grass Lake Trail (north);
County Road E to west (shoulder)NA NA NA • Bridge is in good condition, no near term plans for improvements.
9 Rice Street
(CSAH 49)
Shoreview;
Little Canada;
Vadnais Heights
Ramsey County None None
Shoulders north and south of 694
Intermittent sidewalk north of 694;
Sidewalk 1/4 mile south of 694
Yes 17,400 40 mph
• County is seeking funding for new interchange that would include
improved ped/bike facilities. No near term plans to replace or
redeck the bridge for structural purposes.
• Planned Trail along west side of Rice Street in Shoreview
Comprehensive Plan.
10 (Potential
Future)
Trout Brok
Regional Trail
Shoreview;
Little Canada NA NA NA Would connect to Trout Brook
Regional Trail through St. Paul NA NA NA
• Potential crossing and feasibility is currently being explored
through the Trout Brook Trail North Master Plan led by Ramsey
County.
• Crossing not identified in adopted comprehensive plan.
11 (Potential
Future)
St. Anthony
Railroad Spur Little Canada BNSF Railroad NA NA NA NA NA • Crossing not identified in adopted comprehensive plan, railroad is
still active
12 Edgerton Street
(CSAH 58)
Vadnais Heights;
Little Canada Ramsey County 8 ft. sidewalk Shoulders
Existing shoulder along corridor;
Shared use path on east side for
short distance north of I-694
Yes (south of I-694); Park
and ride on County Road
C near Edgerton
7,400 40 mph • Vadnais Heights shows proposed shared use trail in
Comprehensive Plan.
13 Labore Road
(County 108)
Vadnais Heights;
Little Canada Ramsey County 8 ft. sidewalk Shoulders Shoulders north and south of I-694;
Segment north of I-694 No 3,200 35 mph • Little Canada shows proposed shared use path along Labore Road
in Comprehensive Plan.
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 14
Table 1: I-694 Existing and Potential Crossings Summary of Existing Conditions (2014) (continued)
MAP
REFERENCE
CROSSING
LOCATION
CITY
(LOCATION)
ROADWAY
JURISDICTION
(OWNERSHIP)
PEDESTRIAN
FACILITY
BICYCLE FACILITY CONNECTION TO TRAILS /
SIDEWALKS
EXISTING TRANSIT
ROUTE
AVG. DAILY TRAFFIC
VOLUMES
MOTOR VEHICLE
SPEED LIMIT
PLANS FOR FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
14 TH 61 Vadnais Heights MnDOT None Intermittent shoulder Intermittent shoulder No; Park and ride at
County Road C 30,500 50 mph
15 Bruce Vento
Regional Trail
Vadnais Heights;
Maplewood;
White Bear Lake
Ramsey County
Regional Rail Shared use path Shared use path Bruce Vento Regional Trail NA NA NA • City of White Bear Lake and Ramsey County pursuing expansion
of trail to the north from Buerkle Rd. to CSAH 96
16
White Bear
Avenue (CSAH
65)
White Bear Lake;
Maplewood Ramsey County Sidewalk (both
sides)None Continuous sidewalk on both sides of
roadway
Yes; Maplewood Mall
Transit Center 35,500 40 mph
17 McKnight Road
(CSAH 68)
White Bear Lake;
Maplewood Ramsey County 5 ft. sidewalk
(east side)None
Trail on west side of roadway north of
I-694; Trail on east side of roadway
south of I-694
Yes 7,000 30 mph • Bridge is in good condition, no near term plans for improvements.
18 TH 120
White Bear Lake;
Maplewood;
North St. Paul
MnDOT
5 ft. sidewalk
(both sides);
Missing sidewalk
at bridge
approach
None Shoulder on west side of roadway;
Sidewalks near Century College Yes 16,300 40 mph
• Bridge is in good condition, no near term plans for improvements.
• Recent mobility study of TH 120 in this area did not provide specific
recommendations for pedestrian and bicycle travel.
• Lake Links Trail Master Plan identifies future trail south of I-694
along the west side of TH 120. Plan also identifies a seperate bike/
ped bridge across I-694 east of TH 120.
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 15
Fi
g
u
r
e
6
:
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
4 9 4
4 9 4
D a t a : S t a t e o f M i n n e s o t a , M e t r o p o l i t a n C o u n c i l , R a m s e y C o u n t y
0
1
2
3
0.
5
Mi
l
e
s
´
Wh
i
t
e
B
e
a
r
Ow
a
s
s
o
Sn
a
i
l
Jo
h
a
n
n
a
Bi
r
c
h
Lo
n
g
Ea
s
t
V ad
n
a
i
s
Go
o
s
e
Ro
u
n
d
W es
t
V ad
n
a
i
s
Jo
s
e
p
h
i
n
e
Su
c
k
e
r
Pi
k
e
Ru
s
h
Ge
r
v
a
i
s
Ko
h
l
m
a
n
Is
l
a
n
d
W il
l
o
w
V al
e
n
t
i
n
e
Si
l
v
e
r
(E
a
s
t
)
Si
l
v
e
r
(W es
t
)
W ab
a
s
s
o
Ge
m
Jo
n
e
s
Fa
r
r
e
l
'
s
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
1 1
10
R
i
c
e
L
e
x
i
n
g
t
o
n
M
c
k
n
i
g
h
t
W
h
i
t
e
B
e
a
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
v
i
l
l
e
a i d y L
m a e B
C
l
e
v
e
l
a
n
d
S
i
l
v
e
r
L
a
k
e
Hodgson
B
e
l
l
a
i
r
e
L
o
n
g
L
a
k
e
S
n
e
l
l
i
n
g
Otter Lake
6 9 y a w h g i H
G
o
o
s
e
L
a
k
e
N
e
w
B
r
i
g
h
t
o
n
5
t
h
Old H
w
y
1
0
C
e
n
t
u
r
y
C
o
u
n
t
y
H
w
y
8
8
Ko
e
h
l
e
r
t s 1
H
a
m
l
i
n
e
Co
u
n
t
y
R
d
F
F d R y t n u o C
I-
6
9
4
U
S
H
w
y
6
1
Co
u
n
t
y
R
d
E
I
-
3
5
W
4 9 6 -I
I
-
3
5
E
T ra
i
l
,
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
Bi
k
e
L
a
n
e
,
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
St
r
i
p
e
d
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r ,
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
Fo
o
t
p
a
t
h
,
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
,
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ot
h
e
r ,
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ci
t
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Co
u
n
t
y
R
o
a
d
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
La
k
e
I-
6
9
4
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
I-
6
9
4
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Pa
r
k
,
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
,
o
r
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
Li
s
t
o
f
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
Si
l
v
e
r
L
a
k
e
R
o
a
d
(
C
S
A
H
4
4
)
Lo
n
g
L
a
k
e
R
o
a
d
(
C
S
A
H
4
5
)
Ol
d
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
8
(
C
S
A
H
7
7
)
Ol
d
H
w
y
1
0
/
O
l
d
S
n
e
l
l
i
n
g
(
C
S
A
H
7
6
)
TH
5
1
Le
x
i
n
g
t
o
n
A ve
n
u
e
(
C
S
A
H
5
1
)
V ic
t
o
r
i
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
C
S
A
H
5
2
)
Gr
a
s
s
L
a
k
e
T ra
i
l
Ri
c
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
C
S
A
H
4
9
)
T ro
u
t
B
r
o
o
k
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
T ra
i
l
N
o
r
t
h
St
.
An
t
h
o
n
y
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
S
p
u
r
Ed
g
e
r
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
C
S
A
H
5
8
)
La
b
o
r
e
R
o
a
d
(
C
o
u
n
t
y
1
0
8
)
TH
6
1
Br
u
c
e
V en
t
o
T ra
i
l
Wh
i
t
e
B
e
a
r
A ve
n
u
e
(
C
S
A
H
6
5
)
Mc
K
n
i
g
h
t
R
o
a
d
(
C
S
A
H
6
8
)
TH
1
2
0
987654321
1 81716151413121110
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 16
represents a proposed regional trail that does not have an approved master plan or specific trail alignment.
In addition to regional trails, cities and Ramsey County have provided a growing network of local trails within parks
and along roadways. On-street bikeways in the form of shoulders, bike lanes, and signed bike routes provide
mobility for bicyclists who are comfortable riding in mixed traffic. The network of existing trails and bikeways is
shown in Figure 6.
The study area is characterized primarily by post World War II suburban style development that trended away from
providing sidewalks on local streets. In recent years, local governments have been retrofitting streets to include the
addition of sidewalks and trails as opportunities allow with road reconstruction projects or with new development and
redevelopment. Many cities in the area now have sidewalk requirements in their subdivision and zoning ordinances.
These trends have led to improved sidewalk connectivity in the area, though gaps still remain.
EXISTING CROSSINGS OF I-694
The study evaluated 16 existing crossings of I-694 where pedestrian and bicycle access is allowed (non freeway
crossings of I-694) as well as two additional locations that were identified by the study work group as potential future
crossings. One of the potential future crossings is still an active freight rail line and highly unlikely to be abandoned
in the near future (crossing 11, St. Anthony Railroad). Table 1 provides a summary of each crossing location noting
the presence of pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities, traffic volumes, network connections and future plans. A short
description of each crossing (in order of west to east) is included after the table.
Silver Lake Road
Silver Lake Road is a County State Aid Highway (CSAH 44) located in the City of New
Brighton. The roadway carries 12,700 vehicles per day near I-694 and also serves
as a Metro Transit bus route. There is also a Park-and-ride located south of I-694 at
5th Street NW. Land uses along Silver Lake Road primarily consist of single family
residential with a retail node immediately north of I-694 and a middle school to the
south. The crossing of I-694 includes an 8-foot sidewalk on the east side of the bridge,
which was added in 2008 using Safe Routes to School funds that the City obtained
through a competitive grant. Sidewalk is consistently provided along the east side of
the roadway through the study area and beyond. There are no designated bicycle
facilities or shoulders currently on this corridor, though the City of New Brighton has
identified a future shared use path for Silver Lake Road in its Comprehensive Plan.
Long Lake Road
Long Lake Road (CSAH 45) runs north and south through New Brighton, turning
into an east/west local street just south of I-694. The roadway carries approximately
6,700 vehicles per day near the I-694 crossing and is not a transit route. The bridge
over I-694 has a 6-foot sidewalk on the east side of the roadway. The bridge has
bikeable shoulders that connect to a bike lane north of I-694. The bike lane continues
north through to the city limits, connecting to the Rice Creek West Regional Trail.
Other destinations along the bike route include Long Lake, Irondale High school,
and residential neighborhoods. South of I-694, Long Lake Road leads to community
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 17
destinations such as the New Brighton Community Center and Mounds View High School. There are no existing bike
facilities south of the bridge, but the City of New Brighton identifies a future trail south of I-694 in its Comprehensive
Plan. There is existing sidewalk on at least one side of the road for the length of the
corridor, though it switches sides in some locations..
Old Highway 8
Old Highway 8, now CSAH 77, runs north/south through New Brighton and carries
10,000 vehicles per day near I-694. Metro Transit bus service runs along Old
Highway 8 and there are two park-and-ride stations at Old 8 and County H (just north
of the study area) that provide express bus service. The New Brighton Exchange
redevelopment site lies north of I-694 between Old Highway 8 and I-35W. Planned
future land uses include office on the east side of Old Highway 8 with a mix of office
and residential on the west side of the roadway. Redevelopment plans also include
future parkland with trails that connect to the regional trail system and Long Lake
Regional Park. South of I-694, Old Highway 8 serves as the City of New Brighton’s
“Main Street” with community destinations such as the City Hall, Public Safety Center, Community Center/Eagle’s
Nest Play Center, and Early Childhood Education Center. Land uses along the corridor include a mix of single family
homes, townhomes, and apartments as well as offices. There is an existing trail on the west side of Old Highway 8
north the study area, connecting Rice Creek North Regional Trail to Long Lake Regional Park. South of the Park,
the roadway does not have a designated bikeway, but does include a wide sidewalk on the west side of the roadway
that connects across I-694. South of 10th Street, there are sidewalks on both sides of Old Highway 8 that connect
to community destinations. This crossing of I-694 does not have an interchange and
is low speed (30 miles per hour), which gives this corridor the potential to provide a
safe and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle route.
Old Highway 10
Old 10/Old Snelling (CSAH 76) provides a parallel route to Highway 10 and Highway
51 through Arden Hills. The roadway has low vehicular traffic volumes (2,550
vehicles per day) and crosses under I-694 at a non-interchange location. The
roadway currently has shoulders, but the higher traffic speeds (45 mph) and minimal
separation from traffic may deter many pedestrians and bicyclists from using this
corridor as an alternative to TH 51. Space under I-694 was preserved for a future
trail crossing and the City of Arden Hills is actively planning a trail along this corridor.
The corridor connects to destinations such as the Highway 96 Regional Trail, Bethel
University, Lake Valentine and Lake Johanna. The roadway ends at an unsignalized
t-intersection with TH 51, which is a barrier to bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to areas south and east of the
study area.
Trunk Highway 51
TH 51 is a north/south expressway through the study area that carries approximately 31,500 vehicles per day at
the I-694/TH 10 interchange. The speed limit through the study area is 55 mph. Pedestrians and bicyclists are not
prohibited from using TH 51 and there are shoulders along much of the route. However, the high vehicular speeds,
volumes, and merging vehicles are a deterrent and safety concern for most pedestrians and bicyclists.
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 18
Lexington Avenue
Lexington Avenue (CSAH 51) provides a parallel crossing of I-694 to TH 51. A trail on
the east side of the bridge was improved with the I-694 TH 10 / 51 project. Lexington
Avenue provides access to major employers north of I-694 including Boston Scientific
and Land O’Lakes. Lexington is also a major commercial corridor with several large
grocery retailers as well as restaurants and other services. Metro Transit route 261
provides express service between Shoreview and downtown Minneapolis along
Lexington. The existing trail along Lexington is owned and operated by the City of
Shoreview. The trail provides pedestrians and bicyclists with separation from traffic
in this corridor that sees approximately 21,400 vehicles per day. This separation
is important to comfortably accommodate the wide range of users that are drawn
to the employment, retail and transit destinations along this corridor. However, the
high levels of vehicular traffic entering and exiting I-694 at the interchange can be a
challenge for some pedestrians and bicyclists to navigate.
Victoria
Victoria (CSAH 52) provides a north/south connection from Shoreview to St. Paul.
The crossing at I-694 is an interchange and carries approximately 14,300 vehicles
per day. It is also a Metro Transit bus route. Land uses along Victoria are primarily
residential with destinations such as Island Lake Park, and two schools south of
I-694. Victoria has a shared use path along the corridor and at the I-694 crossing.
The crossing was generally rated as a positive or good example of a pedestrian and
bicycle crossing of I-694 among participants at the public meeting.
Grass Lake Trail
The Grass Lake Trail provides a trail crossing of I-694 that is completely separated
from vehicular traffic. The trail crossing connects County Road E to the Vadnais Snail
Lake Regional Park and includes connections to the Highway 96 Regional Trail via
Snail Lake. Bicyclists and pedestrians who are not comfortable riding alongside traffic
and seeking a scenic route can use this as an alternative to nearby roadway crossings
of I-694. Many utilitarian bicyclists may not use this crossing because access through
the park is not direct and is only open during park operating hours.
Rice Street
Rice Street (CSAH 49) provides a direct north/south connection from St. Paul to Little
Canada, Shoreview, North Oaks, and Vadnais Heights. The roadway carries 17,400
vehicles per day and is a Metro Transit bus route. Within the study area, the corridor is
surrounded primarily by residential land uses with commercial retail between County
Road C and I-694. The interchange at I-694 does not have pedestrian or bicycle
facilities and was identified as a notable barrier and safety concern by attendees
at the public meeting. The roadway has shoulders north and south of the I-694
interchange and some segments of sidewalk.
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 19
Trout Brook Regional Trail
There is not an existing crossing of I-694 at this location (near Owasso Boulevard/Country Drive), but this area is
being explored as a potential future trail crossing in the Trout Brook Regional Trail North Master Plan led by the
Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department. The crossing would connect the trail north of I-694 at Vadnais
Lake to the Trout Brook Regional Trail south into St. Paul. The crossing would also fill a notable gap in the spacing
between interstate crossings that have adequate non-motorized facilities.
St. Anthony Railroad Spur
The St. Anthony Railroad Spur crosses under I-694 and is currently an active freight rail crossing. The railroad
crossing was identified as a possible long-term future crossing of I-694, but there are no foreseeable plans to pursue
this option given its active rail use.
Edgerton Street
Edgerton (CSAH 58) provides a direct north/south connection from St. Paul to
Maplewood, Little Canada and Vadnais Heights. The corridor primarily serves
residential land uses with destinations such as parks and schools south of I-694. It
crosses I-694 at a non-interchange location and has relatively low vehicular traffic
volumes (7,400 vehicles per day). The crossing over I-694 has an 8-foot sidewalk on
the east side and bikeable shoulders on both sides of the road, but is in need of a
bicycle-safe railing on the west side for southbound bicyclists riding on the shoulder.
Edgerton has consistent shoulders throughout the study area, making it an ideal
north/south on-street bike route.
Labore Road
Labore Road (County Road 108) provides a crossing of I-694 on the east side
of I-35E at a low-volume (3,200 vehicles per day) non-interchange location. The
bridge configuration includes an 8-foot sidewalk on the east side and bikeable
shoulders. It was noted at the public meeting that this crossing lacks a bicycle
railing on the west side for southbound bicyclists riding on the shoulder. The
roadway has continuous shoulders north and south of I-694 but lacks sidewalks.
The roadway primarily serves residential land uses with a commercial/industrial
node north of I-694. The roadway serves a limited area due to its short length, but
connects to key on-street bike routes such as Goose Lake Road and Edgerton
for a broader service area.
Trunk Highway 61
TH 61 is a high speed (50 mph) divided highway through the I-694 study area.
There are no provisions for pedestrians or bicyclists along the highway within
the study area except for wide shoulders. Though bicyclists are legally allowed
to ride along the shoulders, the high speeds and traffic volumes (30,500 vehicles
per day) are a safety concern and deterrent for most non-motorized users.
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 20
Bruce Vento Regional Trail
The Bruce Vento Regional Trail is a designated Regional Trail that is owned and
operated by Ramsey County and follows the Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority
Right of way from White Bear Lake into St. Paul. The trail crossing at I-694 is
completely separated from vehicular traffic, providing a safe alternative to busier
adjacent crossings such as TH 61 and White Bear Avenue. The Bruce Vento Regional
Trail currently terminates just north of I-694 at Buerkle Road, which limits its ability to
serve as an adequate alternative crossing. Those that want to access the trail from
the north must ultimately ride along White Bear Avenue or TH 61 for a segment in
order to reach the Vento trail crossing via Buerkle Road. The City of White Bear Lake
and Ramsey County are actively pursuing the extension of the trail in recognition of
this need.
White Bear Avenue
White Bear Avenue (CSAH 65) is a north/south corridor between White Bear Lake and
St. Paul. White Bear Avenue is the primary route to the Maplewood Mall and transit
center, a key destination in the area. The corridor carries 35,500 vehicles per day at
I-694 and is a transit route with both local and express bus service. The corridor has
sidewalks on both sides throughout but lacks designated bicycle facilities.
McKnight Road
McKnight Road (CSAH 68) connects the south shore of White Bear Lake to St. Paul
through a primarily residential area. There are two high schools along the route—
White Bear Lake north of I-694, and North High School near TH 36. McKnight crosses
I-694 at a non-interchange location with relatively low traffic volumes (7,000 vehicles
per day). These characteristics are a benefit for non-motorized users, but the bridge
currently lacks designated pedestrian or bicycle facilities. There is a narrow sidewalk
on the east side of the bridge, but it does not extend to the approaching intersections
and is therefore not accessible.
Trunk Highway 120
TH 120 is a MnDOT highway that connects TH 244 in White Bear Lake to just south of
I-94 near the 3M campus. Century College, north of I-694 is a significant destination
and traffic generator of all travel modes within the study area. Near I-694, the corridor
carries 16,300 vehicles per day and serves as a Metro Transit bus route. The corridor
generally lacks sidewalks, except for a few locations, and does not have designated
bicycle facilities. The bridge over I-694 has 5-foot sidewalks on the bridge, but lacks
sidewalks on the approaches, making them inaccessible. The Lake Links Trail Master
Plan identified a proposed future trail on the west side of TH 120 south of I-694. The
plan also identified a future separate trail crossing of I-694 east of TH 120 as a way
to direct trail users away from the busy I-694 interchange. Funding for either project
has not been secured.
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 21
PUBLIC FEEDBACK ON EXISTING CONDITIONS
A public open house was held for the I-694 Crossing study on September 27th 2012.
The open house gave residents an opportunity to provide feedback on the existing
crossings of I-694 in the study area, routes to move across and parallel to I-694,
area destinations, and suggestions for improvement. Information about the existing
crossing locations was presented using large display boards with photographs and a
short description of the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure at each location. Large
maps of the study area were also available for participants to identify barriers and
gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle network. Staff from MnDOT, Ramsey County, and
many of the communities along the corridor were on-hand to talk with participants
about their ideas and answer questions. Materials from the open house were posted
on the MnDOT website with the option for people to send in additional surveys and
comments.
The open house was well-attended with 40 people that signed in (not including
agency staff) representing a variety of communities along the corridor. The meeting
was interactive, and generally received a positive reception from the community. Forty
surveys were completed about the existing and potential crossing locations of I-694,
five worksheets were completed about issues related to crossings and intersections
outside of the I-694 corridor (most of these were regarding the crossing of I-35W at
County Road 96). General comment cards and email comments were also collected.
There were not enough surveys completed for each location to draw conclusive
results, since many participants only filled out surveys for the crossings they
were most familiar with in the study area. However, there were some trends
among survey responses and general comment cards that can be highlighted.
Highly Rated Crossings: The following crossing locations were generally
ranked high (4-5 on a scale of 1-5) on the survey or noted as favorable in the
general comments:
• Victoria: The Separated trail and lower vehicle volumes at the interchange
got favorable reviews from participants.
• Grass Lake: The crossing’s complete separation from vehicular traffic as a
stand-alone facility was highly valued. Participants noted that the inability to access the trail at night (due
to park operating hours) and lack of east/west connections as a barrier to giving it a higher rating.
• Bruce Vento Regional Trail: This trail crossing was noted as a positive alternative to TH 61, because of its
complete separation from traffic. Several people noted the desire to extend the trail north.
• Lexington: The trail facility along Lexington was noted as positive, but high traffic volumes were identified
as a detractor from this facility as a safe/comfortable route for some users.
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 22
Most Commented Crossing: Rice Street had the most surveys completed (7). The crossing was generally noted
as unsafe due to high traffic levels, lack of dedicated bike lanes/shoulders or sidewalks, and debris on the bridge.
Most people who completed a survey about this crossing identified themselves as “road” bicyclists over “trail”
bicyclists and recommended on-street shoulders/bike lanes as a suggestion to improve safety of this crossing.
East/West Connecting Routes: County Roads E, F, and D were noted as frequent East/West routes that are used
to access the I-694 crossings. I-35W at Highway 96 was noted by many participants as a significant barrier to east/
west mobility. Highway 96 was generally viewed as bikeable, except for notable gaps between TH 10 and I-35W.
Potential New Crossings: Crossings at Trout Brook Regional Trail and the St. Anthony RR were both noted as
favorable. The proposed Trout Brook Regional Trail crossing was noted as a good alternative to Rice Street by
some, but others indicated that this was not a substitute.
Two people identified a crossing of TH 10 at Old 10/Old Snelling as a potential substitute for TH 51. This would
require a new pedestrian/bicycle bridge as well as a trail along Old 10/Old Snelling to get across I-694.
PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS
Comprehensive plans for the communities within the study area show that local governments and Ramsey County
have long-range plans to fully develop the pedestrian and bicycle network within the study area (Figure 7). The
Metropolitan Council has also identified regional trail corridors as well as priorities for regional bicycle transportation
(Regional Bicycle Transportation Network or RBTN). However, the estimated timing for these pedestrian and bicycle
improvements can be uncertain because funding often relies on competitive grants or when opportunities arise
through roadway projects or private development. A key objective of this study is to identify improvements that can
improve pedestrian and bicycle mobility across I-694 by building upon existing facilities, near-term projects, and
local and regional plans.
Information on near-term projects and planned investments was collected from a variety of sources including
MnDOT’s four-year State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), the MnDOT Metro District 10-Year Capital
Highway Work Plan, Ramsey County planned roadway improvements (public works), Ramsey County planned trail
improvements (parks and recreation), and local government plans and projects.
The known project commitments (as of 2015) are illustrated in Figures 8-10 and described in the corresponding
text as “near-term” improvements. These projects have firm funding commitments and a timeline or implementation.
Additional long-term recommendations have been identified and called out separately because they do not have
dedicated funds for implementation, a commitment by the lead agency, or a timeframe for implementation. These
long-term recommendations are identified as priorities for planning and implementation in the study area because
they strategically fill network gaps and make connections to existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Consideration was also given to corridors that are regional priorities as documented in either the Met Council’s
Transportation Policy Plan or the Regional Parks Policy Plan. Analysis to determine exact locations, facility types,
and feasibility for the recommended additional needs is beyond the scope of this study and is recommended as a
next step for implementing agencies.
The near-term projects and long-term recommendations are grouped into three geographic sub areas of the study
to illustrate the spatial relationship among the projects at a manageable scale. The west area includes Silver Lake
Road to Lexington Avenue and includes the communities of New Brighton and Arden Hills. The central area includes
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 23
Fi
g
u
r
e
7
:
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
P
l
a
n
n
e
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
4 9 4
D a t a : S t a t e o f M i n n e s o t a , M e t r o p o l i t a n C o u n c i l , R a m s e y C o u n t y
0
1
2
3
0.
5
Mi
l
e
s
´
Wh
i
t
e
B
e
a
r
Ow
a
s
s
o
Sn
a
i
l
Jo
h
a
n
n
a
Bi
r
c
h
Lo
n
g
Ea
s
t
V ad
n
a
i
s
Go
o
s
e
Ro
u
n
d
W es
t
V ad
n
a
i
s
Jo
s
e
p
h
i
n
e
Su
c
k
e
r
Pi
k
e
Ru
s
h
Ge
r
v
a
i
s
Ko
h
l
m
a
n
Is
l
a
n
d
W il
l
o
w
V al
e
n
t
i
n
e
Si
l
v
e
r
(
E
a
s
t
)
Si
l
v
e
r
(W es
t
)
W ab
a
s
s
o
Ge
m
Jo
n
e
s
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
1 1
10
L
e
x
i
n
g
t
o
n
M
c
k
n
i
g
h
t
W
h
i
t
e
B
e
a
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
v
i
l
l
e
a i d y L
m a e B
C
l
e
v
e
l
a
n
d
S
i
l
v
e
r
L
a
k
e
F d R y t n u o C
B
e
l
l
a
i
r
e
L
o
n
g
L
a
k
e
H
o
f
f
m
a
n
S
n
e
l
l
i
n
g
H
a
m
l
i
n
e
N
e
w
B
r
i
g
h
t
o
n
Old H
w
y
1
0
C
e
n
t
u
r
y
R
i
c
e
H
a
m
l
i
n
e
Co
u
n
t
y
R
d
F
I
-
3
5
E
U
S
H
w
y
6
1
Co
u
n
t
y
R
d
E
RB
T
N
T ie
r
1
Al
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
RB
T
N
T ie
r
1
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
T ra
i
l
,
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
T ra
i
l
,
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
Bi
k
e
L
a
n
e
,
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
Bi
k
e
L
a
n
e
,
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
St
r
i
p
e
d
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r ,
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
St
r
i
p
e
d
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r ,
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
Fo
o
t
p
a
t
h
,
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
,
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
,
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ot
h
e
r ,
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ci
t
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Co
u
n
t
y
R
o
a
d
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
La
k
e
I-
6
9
4
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Pa
r
k
,
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
,
o
r
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
-
6
9
4
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Li
s
t
o
f
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
Si
l
v
e
r
L
a
k
e
R
o
a
d
(
C
S
A
H
4
4
)
Lo
n
g
L
a
k
e
R
o
a
d
(
C
S
A
H
4
5
)
Ol
d
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
8
(
C
S
A
H
7
7
)
Ol
d
H
w
y
1
0
/
O
l
d
S
n
e
l
l
i
n
g
(
C
S
A
H
7
6
)
TH
5
1
Le
x
i
n
g
t
o
n
A ve
n
u
e
(
C
S
A
H
5
1
)
V ic
t
o
r
i
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
C
S
A
H
5
2
)
Gr
a
s
s
L
a
k
e
T ra
i
l
Ri
c
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
C
S
A
H
4
9
)
T ro
u
t
B
r
o
o
k
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
T ra
i
l
N
o
r
t
h
St
.
An
t
h
o
n
y
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
S
p
u
r
Ed
g
e
r
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
C
S
A
H
5
8
)
La
b
o
r
e
R
o
a
d
(
C
o
u
n
t
y
1
0
8
)
TH
6
1
Br
u
c
e
V en
t
o
T ra
i
l
Wh
i
t
e
B
e
a
r
A ve
n
u
e
(
C
S
A
H
6
5
)
Mc
K
n
i
g
h
t
R
o
a
d
(
C
S
A
H
6
8
)
TH
1
2
0
987654321
1 81716151413121110
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 24
Lexington Avenue to Labore Road in the communities of Shoreview, Vadnais Heights, Little Canada, and White
Bear Lake. The east study area includes Labore Road to TH 120/Century Avenue. Communities in the east study
area include White Bear Lake, North St. Paul, and Maplewood.
WEST STUDY AREA NEAR-TERM PROJECTS
Highway 10/CSAH Grade Separation (map reference A) — This project, completed in late 2014 fills a noted
gap in the Highway 96 Regional Trail by extending the trail on the south side of CSAH 96 west to Highway 10. The
project also constructed a sidewalk for pedestrians and shoulders suitable for on-road bicyclists.
I-35W/CSAH 96 Interchange (map reference B) — This project, led by Ramsey County, replaced the existing
bridge at CSAH 96 and I-35W with a new diverging diamond interchange. The project included a trail through the
interchange, which eliminated the long-standing trail gap between Long Lake Regional Park and the Highway 96
Regional Trail.
I-35W/County Road F Bridge Replacement (map reference C) — This bridge replacement project completed in
2015 will include the addition of a 10-foot wide shared use path on the south side of the bridge with a 6-foot shoulder
on the north side of the bridge. Proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities on the new bridge create potential for
connections between important destinations such as the New Brighton Community Center and Mounds View High
School.
I-35W/County Road E2 Bridge Replacement (map reference D) — This bridge replacement project scheduled
for 2016 is proposed to include a 10-foot shared use path on the south side of the bridge with bikeable shoulders.
TH 51/County Road E Bridge Replacement (map reference E) — This project was recently completed in 2015 by
MnDOT and included 6-foot wide bikeable shoulders as well as a 10- foot wide shared use path on the south side
of the bridge. The new bridge is a significant improvement to the previous structure, which did not have dedicated
pedestrian or bicycle facilities.
County Road E Resurfacing (map reference F) — This Ramsey County pavement project will provide on-street
bike improvements to the west of the TH 51 bridge to facilitate east/west on-street bicycle access to Lexington and
Victoria Avenues, both of which have trail connections across I-694. County Road E is a highly used pedestrian and
bicycle route given its close proximity to Bethel University, Lake Johanna, as well as local parks and retail centers.
Elmer Andersen Trail Improvements (map reference G) — The Ramsey County Parks and Recreation
Department will fill gaps in the Elmer Andersen Trail, providing improved connections between County Road E2 and
Tony Schmidt Regional Park as well as a north/south link between Venus Avenue (north of E2) to County Road F
(Lake Valentine Road).
County Road H over I-35W (map reference H) — This project lies outside of the study area, but provides
important opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to the study area. This Ramsey County led project
will reconstruct the bridge at County Road H over I-35W, which will include a trail facility on the south side of the
bridge. Rice Creek North Regional Trail is adjacent to this bridge, providing a significant opportunity to facilitate
better access to the Regional Trail from the west.
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 25
Rice Creek Commons Redevelopment (map reference I) — This 427 acre redevelopment site is owned and
under development by Ramsey County. Once complete, this will be a significant destination in Arden Hills with a
mix of commercial, office and residential land uses. Preliminary plans for the site include local trails connecting the
development to adjacent areas.
WEST STUDY AREA LONG-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS
Old Highway 8/CSAH 77 (map reference J) — With the extension of the Highway 96 Regional Trail west to Old
Highway 8, the need for better north/south connections to and from the trail become more important. This corridor
is also included as Tier 1 priority in the Metropolitan Council’s Regional Bicycle Transportation Network (RBTN) as
adopted in its 2040 Transportation Policy Plan. The City of New Brighton has general plans to extend the trail on
Old Highway 8 south to I-694 without a specific time frame. This crossing of I-694 has the potential to become a
safe and comfortable route due to lower traffic volumes and the fact that it is a non-interchange freeway crossing.
The bridge across I-694 currently has a sidewalk on one side, but does not include a designated bicycle facility. This
bridge is not scheduled for redecking or reconstruction in the near future. Lower cost alternatives such as restriping
the roadway to accommodate on-street bicycle use or constructing a cantilevered trail (similar to Lexington Avenue
over I-694) should be explored further by partner agencies to determine the feasibility and cost of improving this
crossing without a full bridge replacement.
Old Highway 10 / Old Snelling/CSAH 76 (map reference K) — This roadway has low traffic volumes (2,500/ADT),
which boosts its potential for creating a safe and pleasant location for pedestrian and bicycle traffic as an alternative
to TH 51. The roadway currently has a narrow paved shoulder that is used by some bicyclists today. The City of
Arden Hills has identified this corridor as a local priority for developing a future trail and Old Snelling Ave is entirely
within a Met Council RBTN Tier 1 Corridor. The I-694 bridge over Old 10/Old Snelling was constructed with enough
space to accommodate a future trail alongside the roadway. This corridor would serve as a connection to Bethel
University for students in the area without encroaching on campus property. In addition to trail construction along
the roadway, the intersection of Old10/Snelling and TH 51 should be addressed to ensure safe connectivity along
this important north-south RBTN corridor which extends southward into St Paul. This may require grade separation,
since the roadway intersects TH 51, a high-speed expressway, at an unsignalized t-intersection.
County Road F Trail Gaps (map reference L) — The upcoming MnDOT project to reconstruct the County Road
F bridge over I-35W will include a shared use path on the south side of the bridge with a bikeable shoulder on the
north side. Important community destinations lie on either side of the bridge with the New Brighton Community
Center to the west and Mounds View High School to the east. The new bridge provides opportunities for the cities of
New Brighton, Arden Hills and Ramsey County to coordinate pedestrian/bicycle improvements along County Road
F to fill gaps in the network leading up to the bridge. The connection between the bridge and the high school has
recently been completed. An improvement project along this segment of CR F would also fall within a RBTN Tier 1
corridor in the Met Council’s 2040 TPP.
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 26
County Road E2 trail gaps (map reference M) — The 2016 MnDOT project to reconstruct the County Road E2 bridge over I-35W will include a
shared use trail and 6 foot shoulder on the south side of the bridge and an 8 foot shoulder on the north side. County Road E2’s value for broader
east/west connectivity is limited by the fact that it does not cross the railroad tracks west of I-35W. The corridor does provide a connection to the
industrial employers in New Brighton before terminating at the railroad tracks. It also provides a connection to the Elmer Andersen Trail, Tony Schmidt
Regional Park, and Valentine Hills Elementary School on the east side of I-35W. Planned Ramsey County trail improvements will fill gaps in the Elmer
Andersen Regional Trail (Project G), which will provide trail access between County Road E2 and Tony Schmidt Regional Park as well as a north/south
connection to County Road F.
County Road E trail (map reference N) — The City of Arden Hills has a planned trail connection along County Road E west of TH 51 to Old Snelling.
This connection would build upon recent investments along County Road E (the new TH 51 bridge and on-street bikeway improvements west of the
bridge) by extending a pedestrian and bicycle facility east toward destinations such as Bethel University and Lake Johanna. If a trail connection along
Old Snelling is constructed, this connection becomes even more significant as it will provide access to Bethel University from areas south and east.
County Road E is also within a Met Council designated Tier 1 RBTN corridor.
Table 2: West Study Area Opportunity Projects
MAP
REFERENCE
DESCRIPTION NOTES STATUS /
TIMING
AGENCIES
A
Highway 10 /
Highway 96 Grade
Separation
• Converted signalized intersection into partial interchange.
• Extends Highway 96 Regional Trail to the west
• Includes shoulders on Hwy 96
• Includes sidewalk on the north side of Hwy 96
Completed
Fall 2013
MnDOT;
Ramsey County;
Arden Hills
B I-35W / Highway 96
Interchange
• Full interchange reconstruction, changing to a diverging diamond
interchange (DDI)
• Extends Highway 96 Regional Trail to Old Highway 8
Completed
2015
Ramsey County;
MnDOT;
Arden Hills;
New Brighton
C
I-35W / County
Rd F Bridge
Replacement
• Complete bridge replacement provides opportunity to include
pedestrian and bicycle connections across I-35W
• Will connect New Brighton Community Center on west side to
Mounds View High School on east side
• Proposed bridge will have a 10’ shared use path on the south
(eastbound) side of the bridge with a 6’ shoulder on the north
(westbound) side of the bridge.
Completed
2015
MnDOT;
Ramsey County;
Arden Hills;
New Brighton
D
I-35W / County
Rd E2 Bridge
Replacement
• Complete bridge replacement provides opportunity to include
pedestrian and bicycle connections across I-35W
• Current bridge concept shows a 10’ shared use path and 4’
shoulder on the south (eastbound) side of the bridge with a 6’
shoulder on the north (westbound) side of the bridge.
2016
MnDOT;
Ramsey County;
Arden Hills;
New Brighton
E
TH 51 / County
Rd E Bridge
Replacement
• Complete bridge replacement includes plans for trail and
sidewalk across TH 51.2015
MnDOT;
Ramsey County;
Arden Hills
F County Rd E
Resurfacing
• Roadway maintenance project will reconfigure center median to
allow wider shoulders for bicyclists.
• Project will connect to new bridge over TH 51 (project E).
2014 Ramsey County
Public Works
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 27
MAP
REFERENCE
DESCRIPTION NOTES STATUS /
TIMING
AGENCIES
G Elmer Anderson
Trail
• Fill in trail gaps between County Road E2 and Tony Schmidt
Regional Park and gap from Venus Avenue to Lake Valentine
Road (County F).
Unknown Ramsey County
Parks
H
I-35W / County
Rd H Bridge
Replacement
• Ramsey County is leading this project and currently developing
the proposed bridge design. Exact details have not been
determined, but a trail connection is proposed on both sides of
the bridge.
2016
Ramsey County;
MnDOT;
Arden Hills;
New Brighton
I
Rice Creek
Commons
Redevelopment
• Proposed redevelopment includes trail connections into study
area.
Unknown;
Master plan
underway
Ramsey County;
Arden Hills
Figure 8: West Study Area Opportunity Projects and Recommendations
Turtle
Long
Johanna
Round
Pike
Rush
Valentine
Jones
L e x i n g t o n
L o n g L a k e
Highway 96
S i l v e r L a k e
C l e v e l a n d
County Rd H
H a m l i n e
County Rd F
Rice Creek
County Rd ECounty Rd E
U
S
H
w
y 1
0
H a m l i n e
I -3 5 W
I-694
A
J
B
C
D
E F
G
H
I
K
L
M
N
6
5
4321
0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles
Data: State of Minnesota, Metropolitan Council, Ramsey County
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
Highway 10 / Highway 96 Grade Separation
I-35W / Highway 96 Interchange
I-35W / County Rd F Bridge Replacement
I-35W / County Rd E2 Bridge Replacement
TH 51 / County Rd E Bridge Replacement
County Rd E Resurfacing
Elmer Andersen Trail
I-35W / County Rd H Bridge Replacement
Rice Creek Commons Redevelopment
Near-Term Opportunities
Old Highway 8 Connection
Old Snelling / Old Highway 10 Connection
County Rd F Connection
County Rd E2 Connection
County Rd E Trail
Future Network Needs
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 28
MAP
REFERENCE
DESCRIPTION NOTES STATUS /
TIMING
AGENCIES
J Old Highway 8
Connection
• Recommendation to provide a continuous north / south
pedestrian and bicycle connection along Old Highway 8.
• This corridor would provide north / south connectivity on the
west side of I-35W.
• Provides opportunities to connect to the existing and nearly
complete east / west Regional trail along CSAH 96, as well as
bridges over I-35W at County Roads F and E2 that will have ped
/ bike facilities in the near future.
• This crossing at I-694 is a non-interchange location and has
lower traffic volumes and fewer conflicts than at adjacent
corridors with interchanges.
• North of the study area, Old Highway 8 has the potential to
connect to the Rice Creek Regional Trail.
• Located within the bandwidth of a “priority regional transportation
corridor” in the Metropolitan Council’s Regional Bicycle System
Study.
Not funded or
committed
Ramsey County;
New Brighton;
MnDOT*
K
Old Snelling /
Old Highway 10
Connection
• Recommendation to provide a continuous north / south
pedestrian and bicycle connection along Old Snelling / Old 10 in
Arden Hills.
• This corridor would provide north / south connectivity on the east
side of I-35W and provides an alternative to TH 51.
• Provides opportunities to connect to the existing east / west
Regional trail along CSAH 96, as well as the planned bridge at
TH 51 and County Road E.
• Connects destinations such as Bethel College, Valentine Lake,
and Mounds View High School.
• Crosses underneath I-694 at a non-interchange location, which
has fewer conflicts and very low traffic volumes when compared
to adjacent corridors, especially TH 51.
• Fits within the bandwidth of a “priority regional transportation
corridor” in the Met Council’s Regional Bicycle System Study.
• A grade separated crossing at TH 51 is recommended to safely
connect south and east to Hamline Avenue.
Not funded or
committed
Ramsey County;
Arden Hills;
MnDOT*
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 29
MAP
REFERENCE
DESCRIPTION NOTES STATUS /
TIMING
AGENCIES
L County Rd F
Connection
• Recommendation to fill gaps in pedestrian / bicycle facilities
leading up to the planned bridge replacement at I-35W to ensure
the investment in pedestrian / bicycle facilities on the bridge is
fully accessible and utilized.
• Important community destinations lie on either side of I-35W,
including the New Brighton Community Center and Mounds
View High School.
• Located within the bandwidth of a “priority regional transportation
corridor” in the Metropolitan Council’s Regional Bicycle System
Study.
Not funded or
committed
Ramsey County;
Arden Hills;
New Brighton
M County Rd E2
Connection
• Recommendation to fill gaps in pedestrian / bicycle facilities
leading up to the planned bridge replacement at I-35W to ensure
the investment in pedestrian / bicycle facilities on the bridge is
fully accessible and utilized.
• Important community destinations lie on either side of I-35W,
including the Industrial employment base in New Brighton, Tony
Schmidt Regional Park, and Valentine Hills Elementary School
in Arden Hills.
Not funded or
committed
Ramsey County;
Arden Hills;
New Brighton
N County Rd E Trail
• Recommendation to construct the City’s planned trail along
County Road E west of TH 51.
• Trail would connect trail across TH 51 bridge to destinations
further west including Lake Johanna and Bethel College.
• If Old Snelling Trail is also built, the County E trail would provide
an important east / west network connection to this north / south
corridor.
• Located within the bandwidth of a “priority regional transportation
corridor” in the Metropolitan Council’s Regional Bicycle System
Study.
Not funded or
committed
Ramsey County;
Arden Hills
Notes: * MnDOT role limited to crossing
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 30
CENTRAL STUDY AREA NEAR-TERM PROJECTS
Hodgson Road Reconstruction (map reference O) — This project will reconstruct Hodgson Road between Bridge
Street and Gramsie Road. The specific type of pedestrian and bicycle facilities have not yet been determined,
but the City of Shoreview and County are working together to determine the solution. This segment of Hodgson
provides an important connection to the CSAH 96 Regional Trail and can serve as an alternate to Rice Street north
of County Road F.
CSAH 96 Bridge Redeck over I-35E (map reference P) — This 2016 MnDOT bridge maintenance project will
replace the bridge deck of the CSAH 96 bridge over I-35E. The existing bridge was built in 1966 and does not
currently have sidewalks, shoulders, or a trail. The current bridge is a significant barrier for east / west pedestrian
and bicycle travel. CSAH 96 has a regional trail and is a Tier 1 RBTN corridor in the Met Council’s TPP. The planned
bridge repair will result in an 8 foot trail on the south side of CSAH 96 with 3 foot shoulders on both sides of the
roadway. These widths do not meet current standards for trails or bikeable shoulders, but represent an incremental
improvement to pedestrian and bicycle mobility prior to the time that a full bridge replacement is undertaken.
CENTRAL STUDY AREA LONG-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS
County Road E Bikeway (map reference Q) — This recommendation aims to provide a bikeway connection and
wayfinding signage along County Road E and Soo Street on the south side of I-694. This bike route would take
advantage of low-volume, low-speed streets to connect existing trails along Victoria and Owasso. More importantly,
this connection improves access to the existing Grass Lake Trail crossing that is entirely separated from traffic, and
provides a safe and comfortable alternative to adjacent crossings (especially Rice Street).
Wayfinding to Grass Lake Trail Crossing (map reference R) — This recommends to provide wayfinding signage
to the Grass Lake Trail crossing of I-694 from Hodgson Road and Gramsie Road through Snail Lake Regional Park.
Signage here would take advantage of the planned improvements on Hodgson Road and help people find the
existing crossing of I-694 at Grass Lake. This route could serve as an alternative to Rice Street and would connect
to the County E / Soo Street bike route to the south (as previously described in recommendation Q). This route is
somewhat indirect when compared to Rice Street, but would accommodate trail users who would not be comfortable
using Rice Street.
Rice Street Interchange (map reference S) — Ramsey County is actively seeking funding for the replacement of
the Rice Street Interchange. The current interchange does not currently have pedestrian or bicycle facilities on Rice
Street. A new interchange would replace the existing bridge over I-694 and provide some opportunity to improve
pedestrian and bicycle accommodations across I-694. However, the proposed improvements will not likely appeal
to all bicyclists and pedestrians due to high traffic volumes through the interchange. A new interchange has the
potential to serve as a key connection for advanced bicyclists and pedestrians that are looking for the most direct
route to access destinations along this commercial corridor and transit route.
Trout Brook Regional Trail North (map reference T) — This project proposes to extend Trout Brook Regional
Trail north across I-694 to Vadnais Lake. The proposed extension would create a new grade-separated trail crossing
of I-694 east of Rice Street, providing a safe and comfortable crossing for all users in an area that lacks good non-
motorized crossings. The trail master plan is currently under development and not yet approved by Metropolitan
Council, and likely has a longer timeframe for implementation. Once complete, this route will fill a north-south gap
between the Highway 96 Regional Trail and downtown St. Paul.
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 31
Edgerton Street Connection to Highway 96 Regional Trail (map reference U) — This recommendation suggests developing an on-street bike
connection along Edgerton between Vadnais Boulevard/Centerville Road and the Highway 96 Regional Trail. Edgerton has an existing bikeable
shoulder along much of the route and crosses I-694 at a non-interchange location with low traffic volumes. It is also identified by the Metropolitan
Council as a Tier 1 RBTN corridor. Edgerton terminates approximately 1.5 miles south of CSAH 96. Currently, bicyclists using Edgerton can continue
north on trails along Centerville Road (to the east) or at Vadnais Lake (west). An on-street route using Koehler Road and McMenemy Street provides a
more direct route west of Centerville Road for commuter bicyclists and could likely be achieved with low-cost improvements such as wayfinding / bike
route signage or pavement markings. There is already an existing trail along McMenemy between County Road F and the Highway 96 Regional Trail.
Bicycle Railings on Edgerton and Labore Bridges (map reference V) — The Edgerton and Labore bridges over I-694 do not currently have bicycle
railings on southbound sides of the bridges adjacent to the shoulder. Bicyclists have commented that this feels unsafe while riding on the southbound
shoulder. MnDOT’s bridge office will need to evaluate the feasibility and cost of retrofitting the bridge to replace the southbound railings.
Figure 9: Central Study Area Opportunity Projects and Recommendations
0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles
Data: State of Minnesota, Metropolitan Council, Ramsey County
O
P
Q
R
S
T
Hodgson Rd Reconstruction
I-35E / Highway 96 Bridge Redeck
Near-Term Opportunities
County Rd E Connection to Grass
Wayfinding to Grass Lake Trail Crossing
I-694 / Rice St Interchange
Trout Brook Regional Trail North
Fill bikeway gap between Edgerton & Highway 96
Bicycle Railings on Edgerton and Labore Bridges
Future Network Needs
Owasso
East Vadnais
Snail
Gilfillan
Gervais Kohlman
West Vadnais
Sucker
Twin
Island
Wabasso
Martha
R i c e
V i c t o r i a
C e n t e r v i l l e
H
o
d
g
s
o
n
County Rd F
E d g e r t o n
M c m e m e m y
Highway 96
Little Canada
County Rd E
Koehler
I -3 5 E
I-694
O
P
Q
S
T
U
9
8
7
131211
10
V V
U
R
V
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 32
Table 3: Central Study Area Opportunity Projects
MAP
REFERENCE
DESCRIPTION NOTES STATUS /
TIMING
AGENCIES
O Hodgson Rd
Reconstruction
• Programmed road reconstruction between Bridge Street to
Gramsie Road
• County and City are working together to determine the
appropriate ped / bike facility provision with the project.
• Rice Street Trail from Hodgson to County F will be rebuilt with
the project (existing trail but currently in poor condition).
2016 / 2017 Ramsey County;
Shoreview
P I-35E / Highway 96
Bridge Redeck
• Project scope as bridge redeck limits options for adding width to
the bridge.
• Proposed layout will 8’ trail on the south side of the roadway
filling the gap in the 96 Regional Trail.
• 3’ shoulders will also be included on both sides of the roadway.
• Proposed Ped / Bike facilities are improvements compared to
existing condition, but do not meet current standards.
2016
MnDOT;
Ramsey County;
White Bear Lake
MAP
REFERENCE
DESCRIPTION NOTES STATUS /
TIMING
AGENCIES
Q
County Rd E
Connection to
Grass
• Recommendation to include a bikeway connection along County
Road E between Victoria and the Grass Lake Trail bridge over
I-694 to improve accessibility of this existing trail crossing.
• Recommendation also includes creating a bikeway (likely
through wayfinding signage given the tight right-of-way) along
Soo Street to direct those from the south and east to the Grass
Lake Trail crossing.
Not funded or
committed
Ramsey County;
Shoreview
R
Wayfinding to
Grass Lake Trail
Crossing
• Recommendation to install wayfinding from existing trails and
bikeways including Victoria, Gramsie, Hodgson, and Owasso.
• Signage will help guide bicyclists to this crossing as an option to
avoid more difficult crossings such as Rice Street.
Not funded or
committed
Ramsey County;
Shoreview
S I-694 / Rice St
Interchange
• County is seeking funds from the State Legislature to reconstruct
the Rice Street Interchange.
• Current bridge does not have pedestrian or bike facilities. New
interchange will provide opportunity to address deficiencies.
Not funded or
committed
Ramsey County;
MnDOT;
Shoreview;
Vadnais Heights;
Little Canada
T
Trout Brook
Regional Trail
North
• Recommendation to extend the Trout Brook Regional Trail North
across I-694 to Vadnais Lake.
• Trail master plan is currently under development and not yet
approved by Metropolitan Council, therefore this is likely a
longer term initiative.
• Master plan includes a trail crossing of I-694 that is completely
separated from traffic east of Rice Street.
Not funded or
committed
MnDOT;
Ramsey County;
Little Canada;
Vadnais Heights
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 33
MAP
REFERENCE
DESCRIPTION NOTES STATUS /
TIMING
AGENCIES
U
Connection from
Edgerton to
Highway 96
• Recommendation to make on-street bike connections between
Edgerton and CSAH 96.
• Existing facilities along Edgerton facilitate safe pedestrian and
bicycle movement across I-694 at a non-interchange location
and Edgerton has bikeable shoulders along much of the route.
However, Edgerton terminates south of CSAH 96, an important
east / west network connection.
• Edgerton is identified as a Priority Regional Bicycle
Transportation Corridor in the Metropolitan Council’s Regional
Bicycle System Study. The extension to CSAH 96 via Centerville
Road is also included as a priority corridor, though this route
already has bikeable shoulders and a trail.
• Though not identified as a regional priority, a local parallel
connection via Koehler and McMenemy would improve local
network connectivity west of Centerville and could likely
be achieved via wayfinding signage and other low-cost
improvements.
Not funded or
committed
Ramsey County;
Vadnais Heights
V
Bicycle Railings
on Edgerton and
Labore Bridges
• Retrofit existing bridges to include a 42” railing on the east
side of both bridges to improve safety for bicyclists riding in the
southbound shoulders.
MnDOT is
exploring
cost and
timing
MnDOT
EAST STUDY AREA LONG-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS
TH 120 Resurfacing ( map reference W) — This project recommends implementing pedestrian and bicycle improvements on TH 120 in
conjunction with a future mill and overlay project scheduled for the general 2020 timeframe according to MnDOT’s 10-Year Capital Highway
Work Plan. The proposed mill and overlay begins at 4th Street North (near the 3M campus north of I-94) and ends at County Road E (just
north of I-694). MnDOT and partner agencies recognize that pedestrian and bicycle improvements are needed in this corridor. However,
this is a highly constrained corridor and any solution for pedestrian and bicycle improvements will require advanced planning to understand
feasibility, cost, right-of-way needs, and impacts to adjacent landowners. Since the project is several years out and not yet scoped, there is
an opportunity to work through many of these issues with partner agencies and the community in advance of the project. Gaining consensus
on a solution and identifying funding sources for implementation are critical to ensure that the base mill and overlay project is able to address
pedestrian and bicycle needs on the corridor. This corridor is also a priority candidate for a jurisdictional transfer (turnback) to Ramsey and
Washington Counties and improvements made with the project could help facilitate a turnback.
Bruce Vento Regional Trail Extension (map reference X) — The City of White Bear Lake and Ramsey County have a desire to extend the
Bruce Vento Trail north from where it currently terminates at Buerkle Road (just north of I-694) to White Bear Lake. The eventual plan will have the
trail connect to the Hardwood Creek Regional Trail in Hugo, which will provide a continuous trail all the way from St. Paul to North Branch. This trail
segment is identified as Priority Regional Bicycle Transportation Corridor in the Metropolitan Council’s 2040 Transportation Policy Plan. It is also
identified as a planned Regional Trail in the Metropolitan Council’s 2040 Regional Parks System Plan. The main challenge to implementing this
trail is that it follows the alignment of an active freight rail line. The City of White Bear Lake and Ramsey County continue to work with the railroad
to identify a solution for extending this important regional trail. Planning work for the Rush Line Transitway corridor is also exploring the feasibility
of co-locating the trail with future rail transit in this corridor. If that alignment is selected, the trail extension would likely occur in conjunction with
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 34
the transitway development. Once the trail is extended north, east-west connections to the Bruce Vento RegionalTrail become important in order to
provide a true alternative to less attractive crossings such as TH 61 and White Bear Avenue.
McKnight Bikeway Improvements (map reference Y) — This recommends that Ramsey County and the Cities of White Bear Lake and Maplewood
explore the feasibility of a north / south bikeway along McKnight road in the vicinity of I-694. This segment of McKnight has lower traffic volumes and
speeds than many other crossings of I-694. It is also at a non-interchange location, which significantly reduces the number of conflicts at the crossing.
McKnight Road also lies at the center of a Priority RBTN corridor in the Metropolitan Council’s 2040 Transportation Policy Plan, though the exact
alignment has not yet been defined. Future city and county planning processes should determine whether or not McKnight is the preferred alignment
for the RBTN corridor and also identify the type of bicycle facilities for the selected route. On-street bikeway accommodations would be a possible low-
cost option to implementing a bike facility in a shorter timeframe if there is adequate space to achieve this with a restriping or resurfacing. A separate or
cantilevered trail bridge adjacent to the roadway could also be explored for feasibility, though this type of improvement would have significantly higher
costs and would therefore likely be a longer-term endeavor.
Silver Lake Trail and Lake Links Trail Plans (map reference Z) — This recommendation recognizes the planning work that has already been
completed by Ramsey and Washington Counties and area cities via the Lakes Links Trail Master Plan. The Plan includes proposed trail alignments
that address many of the gaps in bicycle and pedestrian connectivity in the I-694 study area. Notable connections identified in the Plan that relate to
the I-694 study area include the Bruce Vento Regional Trail extension to White Bear Lake (previously discussed in Recommendation X), a trail on
the west side of TH 120 south of I-694 as part of the Silver Lake Trail, and a separate trail crossing of I-694 east of TH 120 in Washington County.
Funding to implement the Master Plan’s recommendations has not yet been secured.
Table 4: East Study Area Opportunity Projects
MAP
REFERENCE
DESCRIPTION NOTES STATUS /
TIMING
AGENCIES
W Highway 120
Resurfacing
• The MnDOT 10-year Work Plan includes a mill and overlay
on TH 120 from 4th Street to County Road E in the general
timeframe of 2020.
• This segment of the corridor currently has high levels of
pedestrian and bicycle traffic with minimal provisions (shoulders
in some places). Opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian facility
provision should be explored with city and County partners well
in advance of this project in order to identify possible solutions
and additional funding sources.
• The existing sidewalk gap between the I-694 bridge and ramps
should also be addressed with this project.
2020
(tentative)
MnDOT;
Ramsey County;
Washington
County; Oakdale;
Maplewood;
North St. Paul;
White Bear Lake;
Mahtomedi
X Bruce Vento Trail
Extension
• City and County working with railroad to determine feasibility of
extending Bruce Vento Trail within Railroad ROW or Xcel power
line easement.
• Would provide north south travel into White Bear Lake and
eventually connect to the Hardwood Creek Trail.
• Rush Line Transit Corridor planning is also looking for ways to
resolve the trail connection if the Ramsey County Regional Rail
Authority corridor is chosen as the locally preferred alternative.
Long range Ramsey County;
White Bear Lake
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 35
MAP
REFERENCE
DESCRIPTION NOTES STATUS /
TIMING
AGENCIES
Y
McKnight On-
Street Bikeway
Improvements
• City of White Bear Lake has expressed an interest in exploring
the feasibility of providing on-street bike lanes on McKnight.
• The feasibility of adding bike lanes to McKnight has not yet been
determined and requires further study by the City and County.
Not funded or
committed
Ramsey County;
White Bear Lake;
MnDOT
Z
Silver Lake Trail
and Lake Links
Trail Plans
• Plan was completed in 2001 with proposed trail alignments that
address some needs identified in the I-694 study.
• The plan identifies a trail alignment along the west side of
TH 120 near Silver Lake (from Hadley/Joy Roads to E. 20th
Avenue). The plan also identifies east/west connections to major
destinations such as the Maplewood Mall, Bruce Vento Trail, and
Gateway Trail.
• The plan identifies a separate trail crossing of I-694 in
Washington County just east of TH 120 as an alternative to
crossing I-694 at TH 120.
• Currently no near-term plans to implement study
recommendations, though funding for some elements has been
requested in previous legislative sessions.
Uncertain /
Long range
Ramsey County;
Washington
County; MnDOT;
Oakdale;
Maplewood;
North St. Paul;
White Bear Lake;
Mahtomedi
I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 36
MOVING FORWARD
The recommendations provided here are intended to provide planning level guidance on ways that
agencies along the I-694 corridor can take advantage of existing and planned projects to improve
pedestrian and bicycle safety and mobility. Many of the recommendations require further exploration to
determine feasibility, cost and other impacts. Each partner agency has a role in furthering that work and
will need to determine how these recommendations fit within their own priorities and available funding
moving forward. Additionally, upcoming planning efforts such as the Ramsey County Bicycle and
Pedestrian plan, the MnDOT Metro District Bicycle Master Plan, and local comprehensive plan updates
will provide avenues to understand how recommendations for this corridor fit within a larger context.
The study and its recommendations demonstrate that implementing a seamless network of pedestrian
and bicycle facilities across a significant barrier like an interstate corridor requires the interest,
investment, and coordination of all partners. In that regard, the collaboration of the various agencies
throughout the study process is to be commended and will hopefully carry through to further planning
and implementation.
Figure 10: East Study Area Opportunity Projects and Recommendations
0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles
Data: State of Minnesota, Metropolitan Council, Ramsey County
W
X
Y
Z
Highway 120 Resurfacing
Bruce Vento Trail Extension
McKnight On-Street Bikeway Improvements
Silver Lake Trail and Lake Links Trail Plans
Future Network Needs
494
494
White Bear
Goose
Birch
Willow
Silver (East)
Gem
M c k n i g h t
W h i t e B e a r
County Rd F
Highway 96
County Road C
O
t
t
e
r
L
a
k
e
G o o s e L a k e
C e n t u r y
I-694
County Rd E
M a p l e w o o d
X
W
Y
Z
18
17161514
Page 1 of 1
DATE: March 21, 2016
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Sue Iverson, Interim City Administrator
FROM: Sara Grant, Parks and Recreation Coordinator
SUBJECT: PTRC Goals and Work Plan
Requested Action
Discuss goals and work plan priorities for the Parks Trails and Recreation Committee (PTRC)
for 2016.
Background
Each year, the various City committees and commissions discuss and recommend goals and
project priorities for the upcoming year. These are then brought to the Council for evaluation
and further discussion in order to finalize a work plan for each committee. The Parks Trails and
Recreation Committee (PTRC) is prepared to discuss their goals and priorities for 2016 at
Monday night’s meeting. The Council will make the final determination as to what the goals and
priorities are for the upcoming year. The joint meeting will be an opportunity for the PTRC to
present their goals, priorities, discuss current parks and trail issues, and receive Council
feedback.
Discussion
The PTRC will be presenting each of these priorities, along with other parks and trail topics, in
more detail with a PowerPoint slide show at the meeting.
Requested Action
Discuss goals and work plan priorities for the Parks Trails and Recreation Committee (PTRC)
for 2016.
Attachments
Attachment A: PTRC Power Point Presentation
Attachment B: Arden Hills Parks, Trail and Open Space Plan
AGENDA ITEM – 1D
MEMORANDUM
PTRC/CITY COUNCIL JOINT
WORK SESSION
March 21st, 2016, 6:00 p.m.
PTRC
Rich Straumann–Chair
Josh Bloyer
Keri Bloyer
Chuck Michaelson
Nancy O’Malley
Harold Petersen
Steve Scott
John Van Valkenburg
Fran Holmes–Council Liaison
Sara Grant–Staff Liaison
Aaron Thelen -Staff
PTRC/CITY COUNCIL JOINT WORK SESSION
PTRC Purpose/Mission:
Parks, trails, recreation and natural resources in Arden Hills increase the desirability of the city as a place to live or work, enhance the health and well-being of citizens and guests, and improve the value of citizens’ property. The Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee (PTRC) represents the interests of Arden Hills citizens in leading the continuing development, expansion, and improvement of those resources. The PTRC recommends to the City Council actions that support those interests; monitors the use of and the improvements in parks, trails, and recreation; and collaborates with other City committees and commissions in improving parks and trails.
2
PTRC/CITY COUNCIL JOINT WORK SESSION
•GOALS
•ONGOING or AS NEEDED:
1.Recommend actions that advance the vision for parks, trails, and recreation.
2.Assist in identifying ongoing parks and trails maintenance /improvement priorities.
3.Recommend and review grant opportunities, sponsorships, and partnerships for parks
and trails.
4.Assist, recommend, and monitor plans for parks, trails and recreation within Arden
Hills at the appropriate time.
5.Continue to work with Ramsey County on mutually beneficial trail/park projects and
activities.
6.Monitor potential road improvements to encourage inclusion of pedestrian friendly
infrastructure whenever possible.
7.Look to enhance/add recreational opportunities in our parks.
8.Recommend future replacements for the 5 year Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
each year.
9.Sponsor and organize Community events such as clean up day, garden clean up day
and other volunteer projects.
10.Prepare semi-regular articles that the Committee would like to see highlighted in the
City newsletter.
3
PTRC/CITY COUNCIL JOINT WORK SESSION
2015 Completed Projects
•County Road E Bridge –Walking/Biking Area
•Pine Tree Drive Sidewalk to Bethel East Campus
•Mounds View High School Trail Bridge to New Brighton
•Highway 96 Bridge Over 35W –Walking/Biking Area
•Rice Creek Commons –Started Trail & Park Amenities Study
•PTRC Park Tour –Maintenance Program
4
PTRC/CITY COUNCIL JOINT WORK SESSION
2015 Completed Projects
•Ingerson Basketball System
•Floral Park Garden Enhancements
•Bark & Rec Day Event at Hazelnut Park
•Push Light –Cummings Park
•Pickleball –Cummings Park
•New Basketball Nets at all Parks
•New Benches Added to 3 parks
•Don Messerly Donation Trees –Valentine Park
5
PTRC/CITY COUNCIL JOINT WORK SESSION
2016 Proposed Work Plan
1.Recommend actions that advance the vision for parks, trails, and
recreation.
•Continue Floral Park Garden Enhancements
•Dog Park –additional at Perry Park
•Ingerson Park -Parking lot Improvement
•Sign at Arden Manor Park (small version)
•Trail Connection gaps throughout Arden Hills
6
PTRC/CITY COUNCIL JOINT WORK SESSION
2016 Proposed Work Plan
2. Assist in identifying ongoing parks and trails
maintenance /improvement priorities.
•County Road F Sidewalk –gap on County Road F
•County Road H Bridge with Trail to Mounds View
•County Road E2 over 35W Trail into New Brighton
•New Brighton Road –Rail Road Trail Underpass
(Near Perry Park on East side –Share costs with City of New Brighton)
7
PTRC/CITY COUNCIL JOINT WORK SESSION
2016 Proposed Work Plan
3. Recommend and review grant opportunities, sponsorships,
and partnerships for parks and trails.
•Arden Hills Foundation
•$300 donation for scholarships, Bench dedication program
•Donation Letters (Sent out every three months to different businesses)
•Bethel University
•Boston Scientific
•Brausen’s Automotive
•Frattalone’s Hardware
•George’s Shoe Repair
•Land O’ Lakes –Donated $2500 in 2015
•Lindey’s Steakhouse
•Donations for our Special Events
•Arden Hills/Shoreview Animal Hospital
•Ramsey County Sheriff K9 Unit
8
PTRC/CITY COUNCIL JOINT WORK SESSION
Rice Creek Commons –Parks and Trails
9
PTRC/CITY COUNCIL JOINT WORK SESSION
Rice Creek Commons Park Amenities
Every Park Should Include:
Optional amenities the PTRC would like to see at any of the four parks in Rice Creek Commons
10
Picnic Shelter At least a ½ size basketball court Multi-Use Field / Open Space
Baseball, Lacrosse,Soccer, Etc.
Playground / Play
Structure
Parking Spaces / Parking Lot
Onsite/Offsite Parking
Bathroom Facility
Benches Water Fountain Lighting Options
Bike Rack Fencing
Tennis Courts Pickle Ball Courts
Splash Pad Pavilion (Bathrooms, changing
rooms, shower)
Volleyball Court Badminton Court
Skating Pleasure Rink Hockey Rink
Warming House Basketball Court
Baseball/Softball Fields Soccer Fields
Rain Gardens Disc Golf Course
PTRC/CITY COUNCIL JOINT WORK SESSION
2016 Proposed Work Plan
4.Assist, recommend and monitor plans for parks, trails,
and recreation within Arden Hills at the appropriate
time.
•Parks & Trails Amenities –Continue Improving
•Rice Creek Commons Parks & Trail Amenities
•Water Tower –Observation Deck Study
11
PTRC/CITY COUNCIL JOINT WORK SESSION
12
2016 Proposed Work Plan
5. Continue work with Ramsey County on mutually
beneficial trail/park projects and activities.
•Active Living Ramsey Communities (Ramsey County)
•Ramsey County Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan Resolution
•Cities of New Brighton and Mounds View –Trail Connections
PTRC/CITY COUNCIL JOINT WORK SESSION
Ramsey County Future Improvements
Trail Development
•Rice Creek Regional Trail –County Road I to Highway 96
•Elmer L. Andersen Trail East to Tony Schmidt Regional Park
•Tony Schmidt Regional Park -below Mounds View High School
•Tony Schmidt Regional Park Entrance to Highway 51 bridge
(Contingent upon Arden Hills completion of AH segments)
13
PTRC/CITY COUNCIL JOINT WORK SESSION
2016 Proposed Work Plan
6. Monitor potential road improvements to encourage
inclusion of pedestrian friendly infrastructure whenever
possible.
•Old Snelling Trail -County Road E to Bethel University Entrance
•Improvements to Crepeau Nature Preserve
•Bethel University West campus could have a natural study area
•Pine Tree Drive Sidewalk (completed)
14
PTRC/CITY COUNCIL JOINT WORK SESSION
2016 Proposed Work Plan
7. Look to enhance/add recreation opportunities in our parks.
•Fitness in the Park –Cummings Park
•Pickleball Courts –Hazelnut Park
•Volleyball/Badminton –Hazelnut Park
•New Pitching Machine for Youth Programs (2)
•Johanna Marsh Tennis Court Survey
•Push Lights for summer use
•Summer use for hockey rinks
-Dog Parks
-Small sided Soccer space
-In Line Skating (needs paving)
(Paving improves ice quality and cost)
15
2016 Proposed Work Plan
16
PTRC/CITY COUNCIL JOINT WORK SESSION
8. Recommend future Replacements for the 5 year Capital
Improvement Program each year.
•Play Structures
•Perry Park (2016) $75,000
•Hazelnut Park (2017)
•Cummings Park (2018)
•Freeway Park (2018)
•Basketball Hoops
16
PTRC/CITY COUNCIL JOINT WORK SESSION
17
2016 Proposed Work Plan
9. Sponsor and organize Community Events such as
clean up day, garden clean up, and other volunteer
projects.
•Floral Garden Clean Up
•Hazelnut Garden Clean Up
•Bethel Welcome Week –Student Workers
•Northwestern Orientation –Student Workers
•“Bark & Rec” Day –Dog Park Showcase
•Family Fun Bike, Run, Walk Day –Cummings & Floral Parks
PTRC/CITY COUNCIL JOINT WORK SESSION
2016 Proposed Work Plan
10. Prepare semi-regular articles/ideas that the Committee
would like to see highlighted in the City Newsletter.
•Trails –Elmer L. Andersen and other trail Updates
•Recreation Programs (foot care, fitness, etc…)
•Floral Park Honey Bee Hive (Pollinator Resolution)
•Tree Update for City Residents
•Donation Requests (benches, trees, etc..)
•Yoga classes for all ages at City Hall
18
PTRC/CITY COUNCIL JOINT WORK SESSION
Any Questions or Comments
Thank you!
19
1
Arden Hills Parks, Trails and Open Space
Plan
May 7, 2002
Arden Hills, Minnesota
Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee
Rich Straumann, Chair
Jim Crassweller
Cindy Garretson
Bill Henry
Patrick Krenn
Gregg Larson, Council Liason
Don Messerly
Louis Speggen
Roberta Thompson
Steve Zilmer
City Council
Dennis Probst, Mayor
Beverly Aplikowski
David Grant
Gregg Larson
Lois Rem
Parks and Recreation Staff
Tom Moore, O & M Director
Michelle Olson, Recreation Program Supervisor
Park Planning Consultants
Ingraham & Associates Inc.
Project Staff: Greg Ingraham, Stephen Wensman, and Ian Butler-Severson
Contact Information
For further information about this plan contact:
Arden Hills Parks and Recreation 651.634.5120
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us
2
Table of Contents
Plan Summary 3 - 4
Mission & Vision 4
Introduction 5 - 6
City Parks & Facility Inventory (Table A) 7
Planning Process Summary 8
Demographic and Recreational Trends 9 - 11
Public Input Summary 11 - 12
Goals & Key Issues 13
Parks & Recreational Facility Recommendations 13 - 19
Financing and Partnerships 20 - 21
Implementation Recommendations 2002-2006 21 - 23
APPENDICES 24
A. Arden Hills Parks, Trails & Open Space
Survey Results 24 - 28
B. Community Meeting Summaries 29 - 33
C. Trail Segment Analysis 34 - 35
D. Trail Segment Identification Map 36
E. A.H. Location Map (Figure A) 37
F. A.H. Existing Parks & Trails Map (Figure B) 38
G. A.H. Issues & Ideas Map (Figure C) 39
H. A.H. Comprehensive Parks, Trails & Open Space Plan
(Figure D) 40
I. Individual Park Maps & Renovation
Recommendations 41 - 57
3
Plan Summary
The Arden Hills Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan is a guide to the future use, improvement and expansion
of the Arden Hills outdoor recreation system. Parks, trails and open spaces are essential components of
community quality of life and are highly valued by City residents.
This plan is intended to act as a guide to decision-making regarding recreation facilities and is based on
input gathered through a public opinion survey and a series of community meetings. Key elements and
recommendations are:
Trail Improvement and Connections
Arden Hills is divided by many major roads, highways and railroads. These transportation corridors
provide excellent regional access and mobility, but they separate neighborhoods and separate people from
parks. Trail connections across, over or under the major highways and railroads are needed to tie the City
together, create a comprehensive system of parks and trails, improve safety and enhance the feeling of
community.
Residents want trail improvements to existing trails, new trail segments and internal loop trails within parks.
A variety of trail surfaces serving various trail functions such as walking, bikes, strollers, in-line skates, cross
country skis, nature walks, running, etc., are needed to meet residents’ recreation desires. The trails master
plan illustrates the City’s vision for a comprehensive trail network. Building this network requires assistance
from other agencies (such as MNDOT and Ramsey County) and the commitment from the City to improve
and create trails.
Park Renovation
Overall, residents are satisfied with Arden Hills parks. However, improvements are desired which will
increase the function and usability of existing parks. These improvements range from adding a bench and
shade trees near a children’s play area to reconfiguration of a park access road, parking lot and shelter
building to increase safety and assure long-term use of the park land. A systematic long-term approach to
these park improvements is proposed.
Open Space and Park Acquisition
In general, the existing developed portion of Arden Hills is well served by parks. There are key acquisitions
and enhancements needed to improve function and safety and to assure long-term use (such as changes at
Perry and Cummings Park).
Use of major portions of the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) for recreation and open space
is important as TCAAP transitions from the former ammunition plant use to a mixed-use development area.
Dedication of parks, open space and trails in accordance with the TCAAP Vento Re-Use Master Plan will
help assure an adequate supply of recreation and open space for new residents and employees and en-
hanced recreation opportunities for existing Arden Hills residents.
4
Mission and Vision
Parks, Trails and Recreation Department Mission Statement
The Arden Hills Parks and Recreation Department is dedicated to serving the people of Arden Hills by
providing a comprehensive, well maintained system of parks, trails and open spaces and a balanced
program of affordable recreation activities.
Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan Vision
This plan envisions a comprehensive parks, trails and open space system designed to meet current and future
community needs. Resources will be directed toward improving trail connections, renovating parks and acquiring
open space land in a manner consistent with residents’ commitment and pride in their parks, trails and open
spaces. Many regional projects will be accomplished through partnerships with other units of government,
business, service, education and non-profit groups and the people of Arden Hills.
Funding
The Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan establishes a need for park and trail improvements and acquisition
over the next 20 years. A long-term commitment of funding and personnel is needed to achieve the vision
of this plan and the community. Partnerships with other government agencies, schools, and the private
sector will help fund and build larger improvements. The following funding sources are recommended, along
with continued community and political support for parks and recreation.
• Annual City capital improvement funds
• Federal and State grants
• Cooperative funding of state and county trails
• Partnerships with community groups and institutions
• Private sector support
• Park and trail dedication from new development
• Additional set asides of open space land at TCAAP
Major Goals and Opportunities
• Complete trail connections and expand trail use opportunities
• Revitalize underutilized parks
• Advocate for dedication of public lands in TCAAP, consistent with the Vento Re-use Master Plan
• Ensure permanent access and parking for all major parks
• Enhance natural areas and opportunities for passive uses
• Secure funding to ensure that the vision is achievable
• Enhance partnerships with businesses, institutions and agencies
• Increase visibility and access to parks and trails
• Continue to evaluate and respond to changing demographic and recreational needs
5
Lindey’s Triangle
Introduction
The intent of this parks, trails and open space plan is to act as a guide to parks, trails and open space
decision making and improvements. The Plan is designed to address recreation needs between 2001 and
2020. The City recognizes that demographic, recreation and environmental trends will change over the next
twenty years and those changes will affect parks, trails and open space user needs. However, the Plan will
help set the framework for funding, operations and improvements and will increase efficiency by establishing
a long-term vision and priorities.
The plan includes a park and trail system map and recommendations for renovation of existing parks,
acquisition of park land and easements, trail improvements, and a funding strategy.
Arden Hills Existing Conditions
Regional Setting
Arden Hills is located in the northern portion of Ramsey County and is well served by regional parks. Tony
Schmidt Regional Park is located in Arden Hills along the north shore of Lake Johanna. Long
6
Lake Regional Park is located just west of Arden Hills in New Brighton. Rice Creek Chain of Lakes
Regional Park is a linear park located northeast of Arden Hills in Shoreview, Circle Pines and Lino Lakes.
Snail Lake Park is located to the east in Shoreview. These parks are operated by Ramsey County Parks.
Northwestern College and Bethel College are located in Arden Hills. Both schools contain significant
privately-owned open space and lakeshore within their campus. Bethel College also has a significant
amount of active outdoor recreation facilities such as soccer and ballfields.
Arden Hills has numerous lakes. Lake Johanna and Lake Josephine have public access and beaches. The
recreation potential of Round Lake is limited by the need to restrict public access due to pollution from
former industrial activity.
Natural Resources
The area of Arden Hills located south of Trunk Highway 96 is largely developed. However, many Arden
Hills neighborhoods retain tree cover, ponds and wetlands giving the City a natural and well landscaped
character. There are significant areas of open space, woodlands, lakes and wetlands in the City. Ramsey
County - Tony Schmidt Park, Charles Perry Park, Chatham Trails, Ramsey County open space lands,
Crepeau Park, Northwestern College, Bethel College and Mounds View High School all contain natural
areas of varying character and species.
The area north of Trunk Highway 96 and east of State Highway 10 is the TCAAP property. TCAAP is a
former ammunition plant area and it contains a significant amount of natural resources including a lake,
wetlands, woodlands, meadows, rolling terrain and excellent vistas, including the highest point in Ramsey
County. The Vento Re-Use Plan for TCAAP calls for preservation of a significant amount of the former
arsenal site.
Invasive species such as buckthorn (a woody non-native shrub) are a problem in many parks and open
space areas in Minnesota. Several parks in Arden Hills contain buckthorn. The City has instituted a buck-
thorn removal program with the cooperation of numerous residents and service groups. The City plans to
continue to control buckthorn on an on-going basis as needed and as resources are available.
Existing Parks and Trails
Arden Hills has 16 parks and a network of trails, located primarily on or adjacent to County Roads. The
parks are well distributed throughout the City to serve the area south of Trunk Highway 96.
Major highways and roads act as barriers between residents and parks. While many residents may live
within a mile of a community park, controlled access roads may prevent easy access to that nearby park.
See Table A on the following page for the existing park and facilty inventory.
7
8
Planning Process Summary
The City of Arden Hills wanted the Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan to accurately reflect community
desires and needs. A public opinion survey was conducted and a series of public open house meetings,
Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee meetings and workshop sessions were held to gather input and to
prepare the Plan.
Public Opinion Survey
In February 2001 a detailed public opinion survey was sent to each Arden Hills household. Approximately
15% of the households completed the survey. The survey results are summarized in Appendix A.
Open House Meetings
Four public open house meetings were held in August 2001 to gather information about City-wide and
neighborhood parks, trails and open space needs. The meetings were held in four different locations
throughout the City. A community open house was held on December 18, 2001 to review the draft plan
and recommendations. A summary of the meeting results is included in Appendix B.
Committee Meetings and Work Sessions
The Arden Hills Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee (PTRC) is an advisory committee appointed by
the City Council to advise City staff and the Council on parks, trails, recreation and open space issues. The
PTRC assisted in the preparation of the plan, provided detailed guidance and input into the process, and
worked with the consulting park planners Ingraham & Associates, City staff and the community to prepare
the plan recommendations.
Review of Existing Plans and Coordination with Other Jurisdictions
A number of existing plans were reviewed to help prepare this plan. The Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan,
the TCAAP, Vento Re-use Master Plan, Ramsey County Parks and Trails plans, year 2000 Census data,
adjacent communities parks and trails plans and the Arden Hills Gateways plan were all helpful resources.
Site Analysis and PTRC and Staff Input
City staff and the planning consultants visited each park and many trail corridors to map and document
existing conditions and to plan for future improvements. PTRC members analyzed each trail segment and
prepared detailed recommendations. City parks management, programming, maintenance, legal and finance
staff all participated in the plan preparation or review.
It is hoped that the depth of participation in the planning process will pay dividends by creating ownership in
the plan and political support for the resource allocations needed to implement the plan recommendations.
9
Demographic and Recreational Trends
Demographics
Compared to average metro area residents, Arden Hills residents are, on average:
1. older and have fewer children in their home,
2. more likely to be a part of the “baby boomer” generation,
3. are more likely to live in single family, owner-occupied homes,
4. are more likely to live in a two wage earner household,
5. have a higher household income.
Arden Hills Minnesota Twin Cities Metro Area (Average)
Median age (yrs.)36.2 35.4 34.3 years
Under 18 yrs old 20.0% 26.2% 26.4%
65 yrs and over 13.9% 12.1% 35%
45-59 yrs old 21.7% 18.1% 17.3%
Housing Own/Rent 88% / 12% 75% / 25% 71.4% / 28.6%
Implications: Over the next 10-20 years a significant proportion of Arden Hills residents will retire. Some
will move out of the community, some may move to a smaller home and some will stay in their current home.
This probably means some degree of change in neighborhood and community demographics. The higher
median home values in Arden Hills may result in a higher proportion of established families and fewer first
time home buyers. Some new residents are likely to be younger and have more children than existing
residents. The City should continue to monitor changes and to work with the school district to track demo-
graphic and student population changes. If the change is significant the City can restructure recreation
programs and may need to re-evaluate facility supply. Discretionary time is likely to remain at a premium.
Many senior citizens are active park and trail users.
10
Recreation Trends
Recreation interests and participation are influenced by many factors. Age, access to facilities, income,
amount of leisure time, interest in the environment, new recreation technology and social trends all influence
recreation participation. In general, people are looking for quality recreation close to home, but are willing
to travel to obtain higher quality or more specialized activities.
Current Trends
The following recreation trends have been observed in the Twin Cities over the last ten years:
• Trail use has boomed (walking, running, biking and in-line skating)
• Non-contact recreation activities are growing
• Interest in arts and natural areas is growing
• Participation in many team sports has plateaued or in some cases declined
• More youth are specializing in one sport and training year-round
• Soccer participation has increased
• Golf has increased in popularity
• Women’s sports have increased
• Off-leash dog parks are popular
Freeway Park
11
Implications and Future Trends
The following are likely trends based on Arden Hills demographics and the public opinion survey:
A. Trail use will remain strong and interest in trail expansion will continue (trail expansion and
connections)
B. Individual activities will continue to be more popular than team or group activities (multi-use
trails and open space)
C. Interest in natural resources and open space will remain strong (TCAAP area and other resource
areas)
D. Recreation facility development and operation partnerships between government agencies,
schools, organizations and corporations will be more frequent (local partnerships)
E. Demand for youth activities and facilities may increase (retain park space and flexibility to meet
future needs)
Public Input Summary
Arden Hills Parks, Recreation and Open Space Public Opinion Survey
Summary
Introduction
In February 2001, the City of Arden Hills conducted a public opinion survey. The survey was designed to
determine residents’ attitudes about parks, recreation and open space issues and to help guide preparation
of a parks, trails and open space plan for the City. The written survey was sent to 3,897 households and
businesses. A total of 593 completed surveys were returned resulting in a response rate of 15%. This is a
higher than normal response rate for a mail-back survey and indicates a significant level of interest in City
parks, trails and open spaces. This response gives the survey results a relatively high degree of accuracy.
The margin of error of the survey is plus or minus 4%. A copy of the survey results is attached in Appendix
A. The following is a summary of the findings and implications for the parks and trails plan.
Survey Findings:
1. Arden Hills residents have a high level of interest in parks, trails and open space.
2. They are frequent users of the parks and trails.
3. They are satisfied with the existing parks, trails, maintenance and programs. The
overall satisfaction level is 70% to 80%.
4. They want more TRAILS!
5. They also want existing parks to be renovated, passive parks areas to be
improved and more land acquired for passive parks and natural areas.
6. There is some interest in an indoor recreation facility.
7. There is some support for fee increases and tax increases for park purposes.
8. There is very little difference in attitudes among different geographic areas of
the City.
12
Recommendations (based on the survey results)
1. The Arden Hills trail plan identifies needed trail connections, pedestrian/bike bridges
and new trail opportunities.
2.Loop trails are proposed in many existing parks.
3.Park renovation and revitalization recommendations for existing parks are summarized
starting on page 17 and shown on maps in Appendix C.
4. Significant open space and trails are planned for the TCAAP area.
5.Partnerships to acquire land/easements and construct recreation improvements are
a key to long-term success.
6.Existing natural areas such as Crepeau Nature Center should be enhanced.
7. Given the proximity to existing recreation centers and the population base, the
costs of an indoor recreation facility are likely to outweigh the benefits.
8. A variety of funding sources are needed for desired parks, recreation and open space
improvements.
Crepeau Park Trails
13
County Rd. E bridge at TH 51
Goals and Key Issues
Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan Goals:
• Complete trail connections and expand trail use opportunities.
• Revitalize underutilized parks.
• Advocate for dedication of public lands in TCAAP, consistent with the Vento Re-use Master Plan.
• Ensure permanent access and parking for major parks with no access and parking easements.
• Enhance natural areas and opportunities for passive uses.
• Secure funding to ensure that the vision is achievable.
• Enhance partnerships with businesses, institutions and agencies.
• Increase visibility and access to parks and trails.
• Continue to evaluate and respond to changing demographic and recreation needs.
Parks and Recreation Facility Recommendations
Parks and Trails System Plan
Figure D shows the recommended Parks, Trails
and Open Space system for Arden Hills. The map
shows recommended park additions and
acquisitions, new trails and trail connections.
Appendix D contains maps of each park with park
renovation recommendations. The Parks, Trails
and Open Space Plan is based on the extensive
public input and PTRC recommendations. Listed
below are explanations of the recommendations by
category.
Grade Separated Trail Connections
Constructing grade separated trail crossings of
major roads and railroads is one of the most
important actions the City (in conjunction with
Ramsey County and MNDOT) can take to
improve the trail network, enhance access to parks
and tie the community together. Federal T-21 grants are available for many of these trail improvements.
The following are recommended trail crossings:
County Road E over Highway 51
The existing bridge is very narrow and unsafe for pedestrians or bicyclists. This location is a key connection
between the east and west portions of the City. The City should work with Ramsey County and MNDOT
to either expand the bridge width to create adequate pedestrian/bike crossings or build a freestanding bike/
walk bridge next to the vehicle bridge.
14
Mpls., St. Paul & Sault St. Marie Railroad
Ramsey County proposes to construct a north-south trail crossing under the railroad tracks between the
south section of Ramsey County - Tony Schmidt Park and Charles Perry Park/north section of Ramsey
County - Tony Schmidt Park. This north-south trail link is very important as the railroad acts as a significant
barrier between neighborhoods and park use. Railroad bridges on New Brighton Road and Old Snelling
are too narrow for a widened shoulder and act as crossing barriers. These bridges should be widened to
accommodate a widened shoulder or trail.
Trail Connections
Additional trails are needed to provide a comprehensive network of walk/bike ways and to connect the
community together. These trails will function for recreation and as a non-motorized transportation alterna-
tive.
A. Snelling/Old Highway 10 corridor from the Arden Hills/Roseville border to Highway 96
B. County Road E between Old Snelling and TH51
C. County Road E between Lake Johanna Blvd. and New Brighton Road
D. Lake Johanna Blvd between Ramsey County -Tony Schmidt Park and the Roseville border to
Northwestern College
E. Crepeau Park on Tiller Lane to Hamline Avenue to the Roseville border
F. Ingerson Road between Hamline Avenue and Lexington Avenue
Highway 96
A trail underpass should be installed at a selected location between Highway 10 and Lexington Avenue
when Highway 96 is rebuilt. This grade-separated connection will provide access to City Hall and the
TCAAP area. A trail crossing of Highway 10 should also be incorporated into the Highway 96/10 intersec-
tion when it is rebuilt.
Highway 10
There are two potential grade separated crossing locations along Highway 10: One, just south of Royal
Hills Park and another within TCAAP, north of Highway 96. A minimum of one grade separated crossing
should be built.
I-35W
There are two potential locations for pedestrian/bike bridges over I-35W. At least one crossing should be
constructed. A significant option is to convert the existing railroad bridge located just north of I-694 to a
pedestrian/bike trail crossing. This trail would connect the Round Lake area to the City of New Brighton
trails and Long Lake Regional Park. A second trail bridge option is proposed to be located north of
Highway 96 to connect the TCAAP area with Long Lake Regional Park and New Brighton.
15
Arden Oaks Park
Ramsey County - Tony Schmidt Park Trail Underpass
The trail under the Mpls., St. Paul, Sault St. Marie railroad line is a crucial north-south connection within
Ramsey County - Tony Schmidt Park. The underpass will link Ramsey County - Tony Schmidt Park with
Charles Perry Park and the Ramsey County Open Space north of County Road E.
Rice Creek Park Trail Corridor
Rice Creek flows through the northwest corner of Arden Hills. Ramsey County has acquired many sections
of the creek to the north and west of Arden Hills and has converted them into a linear park. The Ramsey
County Parks Master Plan and the TCAAP Vento Re-use Master Plan call for incorporation of the section
of Rice Creek in Arden Hills into the Regional Park. This will allow access to regional bike, walking and ski
trails and canoeing on the creek.
Trail over I-35W
The existing railroad bridge over
I-35W west of Round Lake
should be converted into a
pedestrian/bicycle bridge. The
bridge is not used by the railroad
and represents a rare opportunity
for non-motorized crossing of I-
35W. The trail bridge will link
Arden Hills with New Brighton
trails and Long Lake Regional
Park.
G. Pine Tree Drive between County Road E to Creapeau Park at Harriet Avenue
H. Cleveland Avenue south of the Sampson/Hazelnut trail corridor to the Roseville border
I. Along Valentine Road from Old Snelling to Mounds View High School
J. South of Round Lake between I-35W and Old Highway 10
K. From Floral Park on Hamline to County Road F to Lexington Avenue
L. Along Highway 96 from I-35W to Lexington Avenue
M. Within Ramsey County - Tony Schmidt Park
N. Within Bethel and Northwestern Colleges
O. Within TCAAP and along Rice Creek
Regional Trails
Three regional trail connections warrant special mention. These are key links to existing parks and trails and
these connections should be implemented as soon as possible.
16
Freeway Park
Trail Surfacing
The choice of trail surface (i.e. bituminous, wood chips, mowed turf, gravel, etc.) affects use of the trail, cost
of trail construction, trail character, aesthetics and trail maintenance. Arden Hills residents want a variety
of trail surfaces. Based on responses to the public opinion survey, paved trails are the most popular trail
surface, although there is considerable interest in non-paved surfaces (401 paved responses to 351 non-
paved responses). The City should balance paved and unpaved trail surfacing. Trails along roads and trails
making cross community or inter-City connections should be paved as should major loop or access paths
within larger parks. Trails within natural areas and secondary trails should have a more natural surface (ag-
lime, gravel, wood chip or mowed turf). The Arden Hills Parks and Trails Plan (Figure D) and the individual
park renovation maps show the recommended trail locations and surface type.
Trail Maintenance and Replacement
Due to increased use, interest and expansion of trails, there is a need for a comprehensive trail maintenance
and replacement plan. This plan would include annual maintenance (crack sealing, plowing, etc.) and
scheduled pavement replacement. Winter walking is popular and there is more demand for snow plowing of
trails during the winter. Equipment is needed to allow plowing of trails for winter use.
Parks and Trails Signs and Identification
Trail identification is needed as none of the trails in the City have names. Individual trails within the City
should be given names and mile markers to help users find their way and assist with directions. This may
also help the City with maintenance and response to emergency situations.
New park signage is also needed. Existing park signs are too small or non-existent. A common sign design
should be developed and consistent parks
and trails identification signs should be
placed in the parks and along trail corridors.
A parks and trails system map was devel-
oped as part of the planning process. This
map should be reproduced on weather and
vandal resistant materials and displayed in
the City parks and at major trail entrances.
An overall parks and trails map will help
residents find parks and trails and connect
neighborhoods. Many residents are un-
aware of the existing parks and trails in
Arden Hills. This map could also be copied
as a handout guide for interested citizens.
17
Park Renovation
The City of Arden Hills should continue to upgrade and renovate existing parks based upon a 5-10 year
capital improvement plan and in an effort to meet changing demographics, public safety and the desires of
the community. Maps indicating individual park improvement recommendations have been prepared based
upon input received from the community through four public meetings, from service organizations and from
the PTRC. The individual park maps are attached as Appendix D. The recommendations are intended to
improve public safety, aesthetics, function and efficiency of individual parks. Future park improvements
should be based upon these recommendations and funding supply. Individual park renovation recommen-
dations are summarized below.
Comprehensive Approach to Renovation
The PTRC recommends that where possible, park renovation be done all at once in each park to minimize
park disruption, reduce costs through efficiency of construction and improve park function. In the past,
park renovation has occurred in a piecemeal fashion and has resulted in less than satisfactory results.
Park Renovation Recommendations (listed by park)
Arden Manor Park - Provide a new entrance drive, parking lot and trail connection when Highway 96 is
upgraded. Add a looped trail around the pond and to the future TCAAP trails. Define edges of the park
with new trees and landscaping. Add new shaded benches near park features. Add a sign and map at the
park entrances to provide parks and trail identification.
Arden Oaks Park - Add a paved trail from north to south across the park to connect the park features to
meet ADA accessibility requirements. Add benches and trash containers near the park features. Add trees
and landscaping to provide shade, spatial definition and to improve aesthetics. Add a sign and map at the
park entrances to provide park and trail identification.
Charles Perry Park – Add a bridge over the lower wetland. Move entrance drive to line up with Thom
Drive. Add new warming house in close proximity to the skating rink ( this will eliminate the conflict with
skaters having to cross the entrance drive. Add a drinking fountain with jug filler. Pave the existing skating
rink for inline skating and half court basketball). Add a new open skating area. Turn existing warming
house into a storage shed. Add a paved trail connecting the parking lot to the play structure and a trail from
the future picnic shelter to the unpaved trails below hill. Add a kiosk map and identification sign. Add
benches and a picnic area/plaza. Realign unpaved trail onto park property. Work with Bethel College to
provide access across and to the new sports complex. Add a sign and map at the park entrances to
provide park and trail identification. Acquire the single family home nearest the park to accommodate future
uses.
Chatham Trails – Realign trails where they cross private property. Add a sign and map at the park en-
trances to provide park and trail identification.
Crepeau Park - Add a new unpaved trail from Pine Tree Drive to Benton Way on the north side of the
wetland. Add a new unpaved trail loop near southwest edge of Park. Add a children’s play structure and
picnic tables near entrance on Benton Way. Utilize the Dellwood right-of-way for an improved entrance.
Add a sign and map at the park entrances to provide park and trail identification.
18
Cummings Park – Add a new unpaved looped trail near the lake. Add a paved trail connection to
Wyncrest Circle. Provide directional signs on City streets to guide users to the park and parking area on
Fair Issac’s property. Add parking/Trail Head near the City water tower south of the park. Replace the
tennis courts with a parking lot with access off of Wyncrest Court. Add a bench on the new trail for lake
viewing. Add a drinking fountain. Add a sign and map at the park entrances to provide park and trail
identification.
Floral Park – The trail entrance in the northwest corner of the park is narrow, overgrown and in poor
shape and should be reconstructed. Individual amenities within the park should be connected to trails for
ADA accessibility. Additional unpaved looped trails should be constructed in the park to provide more
walking and nature watching opportunities. The tennis courts should be reconstructed with a full basketball
court. A new parking lot should be constructed in the center area of the park to provide better access to
the ballfields and other park amenities. Add a sign and map at the park entrances to provide park and trail
identification.
Freeway Park - Replace the warming house. Add a new paved parking lot off of County Road E. Add
parking stalls off of Arden Place. Pave the hockey rink for year-round use. Add a paved trail and a half
basketball court. Remove former street paving.
Hazelnut Park – Connect existing recreational features to paved trails for ADA accessibility. Add a trail
connection to New Brighton Road. Replace the warming house with a new structure. Manage the wood-
lands to remove undesired species such as Buckthorn and Honeysuckle. Install shaded benches near
recreational features. Add lights from parking lot to skating rink. Add a drinking fountain. Add a sign and
map at the park entrances to provide park and trail identification.
Ingerson Park – Add a connecting trail to Lexington, Fernwood Court and Lake Lane, utilizing a sewer
easement to Fernwood as a trail corridor and Lake Lane as a trail access point. Install a 9-hole disc golf
course. Expand the parking lot. Connect all existing and future park features to paved trails for ADA
accessibility. Add a sign and map at the park entrances to provide park and trail identification.
Lindey’s Triangle- Provide benches and park identification sign at the corner of Snelling and County Road
E. Leave as unprogrammed open space. Install a paved trail segment connecting the Snelling cul-de-sac
to County Road E.
Round Lake Park – Add a trail connecting Old Highway 10 to the trail west of Round Lake by easement
or land acquisition. Add a parking lot at Parkshore Drive. Add community garden plots and soccer fields.
Acquire more land for additional soccer fields as needed by the City. Add a sign and map at the park
entrances to provide park and trail identification.
Royal Hills – Add a paved trail through the park. Add a tennis court adjacent to the existing court.
Relocate the play equipment out of the sliding hill route. Move garden area towards the park entrance.
Sampson Park – Add landscaping within the park to provide interest and improve aesthetics. Detach the
basketball court from the road pavement and replace with a trail segment. Add a sign and map at the park
entrances to provide park and trail identification.
Sheehy Park – Add an unpaved trail across the park connecting Old Snelling Avenue with Ridgewood
19
Road. Maintain a mowed trail along Old Snelling Avenue. Add benches and create an overlook near the
pond. Remove the existing damaged tennis courts.
Valentine Park – Add a looped trail around the inside of the park. Connect existing recreational features
to paved trails for ADA accessibility. Reconfigure parking lot to detach park features from the parking lot
pavement. Add a new warming house/picnic shelter. Move the half basketball court. Add a toilet screen
and storm ponds.
Parks and Open Space Acquisitions
To improve the function of existing parks and to provide better service to certain neighborhoods, parks and
open space acquisitions are recommended.
Dedication of parks, trails and open space on TCAAP is recommended in accordance with the Vento Re-
use Master Plan and the City Comprehensive Plan.
Charles Perry Park - The residential property adjacent to Charles Perry should be acquired to minimize
the potential conflict caused by reflected light, noise and trespassing while providing an opportunity to
expand the recreational offerings in the park and to provide better park access.
Round Lake Park - The open land west of Round Lake Park should be acquired to provide adequate
space for community soccer fields. The amount of property to acquire should be determined by the number
and size of the fields needed. This land should be obtained by park dedication and acquisition as possible.
Round Lake Trail Easements- The remaining easements should be acquired to complete the trail around
the west and south sides of Round Lake and make the trail connection to the I –35W railroad bridge
(potential future trail crossing).
Cummings Park - Parking for Cummings Park currently occurs on Fair Issac’s company parking lot. The
City does not have a long-term agreement for continued use of that parking lot. A long-term use agreement
should be obtained or the City should acquire other adjoining land to provide parking for Cummings Park.
Indoor Facilities
Although there was some interest in having indoor recreational facilities, community input determined that the
facilities in surrounding communities and those provided by the Mounds View School District and Bethel
and Northwestern Colleges were adequate. Within the community there was little support for spending tax
dollars for a separate facility. Shoreview’s Community Center and indoor swimming pool is located less that
3/4 mile to the east of Arden Hills and New Brighton’s Family Service Center (gyms, exercise area and
indoor children’s play area) is located 1/3 mile to the west of Arden Hills.
20
Financing and Partnerships
Funding for the recommended improvement must come form a variety of sources, but the City of Arden
Hills must take an aggressive and pro-active approach to park and trail improvement. In addition to City
funds the following potential sources of funding are needed to achieve the vision established by the commu-
nity and reflect in this plan. Potential funding sources are:
• City General Funds
• Park and Trail Dedication Funds
• Federal T-21 trail and pedestrian bridge funds
• Minnesota DNR Outdoor Recreation Grants
• Contributions from recreation and environmental groups
• Contributions from civic and service groups
• Cooperative projects and funding with local businesses
• Minnesota DNR Metro Greenway Grants
• Cooperative funding with Ramsey County and Ramsey County Parks
• Watershed Districts
Partnerships
Within the City of Arden Hills, there are great opportunities for public and private partnerships for shared
use of parkland and private or corporate properties or partnerships with Bethel and Northwestern Colleges.
In particular, it may be possible to improve upon the relationship between MSI Insurance and Crepeau Park
to share parking and signage and to expand the facilities for both.
Similarly, partnerships with Bethel and Northwestern College should be made or improved to provide
community use of trails and athletic facilities.
Other partnerships include working with the Rice Creek Watershed District, Ramsey County and the U.S.
Army to complete missing sections of the Rice Creek Park and Trails and to hasten the release of TCAAP
land. Furthermore, the City, MNDOT and Ramsey County should coordinate efforts to improve trails along
county and state roads and within county parks to better respond to the community’s desires.
Park Dedication Requirements and Policy
Arden Hills collects park dedications (either cash or land) from new subdivisions. The intent of the
dedication requirement is to make sure that new development provides adequate park and recreation
resources to meet the demand created by the new growth.
Park dedication funds are intended for park and trail land acquisition and development of new facilities.
They should not be used for park facility replacement or maintenance. Arden Hills should accept cash park
dedication in leiu of land for development south of TH96, except when there is the possibility and need to
add land adjacent to existing parks. Park dedication north of TH96 (TCAAP) should be in accordance
with the Vento Re-use Master
21
Because of the developed status of the City, park dedication funds are not anticipated to be a significant
source of additional funding for park and trail improvements. The City may have to rely more on general
funds and other revenues for needed replacement and improvements.
Implementation Recommendations 2002-2006
The following are the implementation actions recommended to the PTRC. These projects should be
reviewed and adjusted annually. Funding should be secured and actions plans developed to assure imple-
mentation of these projects.
Trails
• Purchase a maintenance vehicle capable of both summer and winter trail maintenance. $95,000.
• Railroad Bridge Crossing over I-35W. Work with MNDOT and the Railroad to utilize existing
railroad bridge for a trail crossing over the interstate. (ISTEA Grant, funding from Arden Hills,
New Brighton and Ramsey County). $ to be determined.
• Assist with construction of a railroad underpass between Tony Schmidt and Perry Park (work with
County and railroad). $32,000 / City share.
• Charles Perry Park – Add a N-S trail connection with the county (pending county acquisition of
underpass) from the railroad to Mounds View High School. Add a trail connection from parking
lot to pump house. Replace bridge across wetland opposite pump house road. $35,000.
• Lobby for a pedestrian/bike bridge/lanes over TH51 at County Road E. Work with county and
state to move it to their priority list. $0 - staff and committee time.
• Obtain the trail along County E built from Old Snelling to east of TH 51 (county project).
$ to be determined. City share if any of trail construction.
• Make trail connections from Tony Schmidt to the diagonal trail (trail should be named) through
Sampson and Hazelnut Parks. $20,000.
• Connect Crepeau Park to County Road E trail along Pine Tree Drive. $30,000.
• Work with MNDOT to obtain trail crossings of TH96, including a grade separated crossing, to
connect City Hall and TCAAP with the area south of TH96. $ to be determined City share, if
any.
• Work to complete a trail around the south end of Lake Johanna to Lydia Avenue. $ to be
determined.
• Round Lake Trail – Obtain remaining easements and complete the trail along west Round Lake.
$25,000.
22
Park Renovation
Note: Where possible, the PTRC recommends complete renovation of a park, rather than a piecemeal
approach.
• Add new parks and trails signage at all parks and trails, have parks and trails system maps installed
at key outdoor locations, and available at City Hall. $22,000.
• Install ADA access upgrades (seek MnDNR grants) Connect park features with paved trails
at Arden Oaks, Floral, Hazelnut, Ingerson and Valentine Parks. $125,000.
• Charles Perry Park – Renovate the park including relocation of the access drive, a new warming
house, shelter, trails, bridge, paved rink and tot lot, etc. $350,000.
• Freeway Park – Add a parking lot and replace warming house. $75,000.
• Hazelnut Park – Replace warming house and provide long- term parking. $40,000.
• Ingerson Park – Add a disc golf course (partner with disc golf association. for design and partial
funding). $7,500.
• Valentine Park renovation – $140,000.
• Cummings Park – Add directional signs to the park. Provide long-term parking. Signs
$750. Parking $75,000.
• Add trees for shade at key locations and additional benches and picnic tables. $10,000/year for
three years.
• Crepeau Park – Work to create an integrated trail network, marked trails, defined entrance
point(s) and an area trail and interpretive map/signs. $5,000.
New parks and open space acquisition
Obtain long-term parking and access agreement for Cummings Parks (Fair Isaac). $ if any to be deter-
mined.
TCAAP – Work with developers and the property owners to acquire trails corridors, neighborhoods and
community parks and open spaces as per the park and trail master plan - as development occurs and
opportunities arise. $0 - staff and committee time.
Round Lake Park – Work with property owners to acquire additional land for multi-use athletic fields
(principally soccer, lacrosse, rugby, football, etc.)
23
Partnerships
MNDOT & Ramsey County Transportation - Establish/enhance working relationships with MnDOT and
Ramsey County Transportation and make sure the trail crossings and trail additions are in their transporta-
tion master plans, CIP’s and are a priority for funding and implementation. On-going effort. Cooperate on
joint funding applications (Federal T-21, etc.) Make sure trail crossings get incorporated into the TH96
reconstruction. $0 - staff and committee time + any matching City funds for grants on a project-by-project
basis.
TCAAP – Work with the land owner/manager to build trails, expand public access and build a joint athletic
complex (with other partners). $0 - staff and committee time.
Ramsey County Parks –Work with Ramsey County to get implementation of Tony Schmidt Master Plan
and Rice Creek Park trails. $0 - staff and committee time.
Mounds View School District – Work with District to improve trails on school property. $10,000.
Bethel and Northwestern Colleges – Work to expand and enhance public trail access. $0 - staff and
committee time.
Other
• Put together a 5-year CIP, based on these initial priorities and review and adjust it annually. $0 –
staff and committee time.
• Continue and expand woodland management/buckthorn removal, etc. (Chatham, Crepeau, Hazel-
nut, Perry, etc.) $7,500/year.
Ramsey County - Tony Schmidt Park - Lake Johanna
24
APPENDICES
A. Arden Hills Parks, Trails and Open Space Survey Results
B. Public Meeting Summaries
C. Trail Segment Analysis
D. Individual Park Maps and Renovation Recommendations
A. Arden Hills Parks, Trails and Open Space Survey Results
Introduction
In February 2001, the City of Arden Hills conducted a public opinion survey. The survey was designed to
determine residents’ attitudes about parks, recreation and open space issues and to help guide preparation
of a parks, trails and open space plan for the City. The written survey was sent to 3,897 households and
businesses in the City. A total of 593 completed surveys were returned resulting in a response rate of 15%.
This is a higher than normal response rate for a mail-back survey and indicates a high level of interest in City
parks, trails and open spaces. This high response gives the survey results a relatively high degree of accu-
racy. The margin of error of the survey is plus or minus 4%. The following is a summary of the findings,
implications for the parks and trails plan and the results for each question.
1) Visitation
Of the 593 returned surveys, 45% of the participants used Arden Hills’ parks and trails on a weekly basis,
21% on a monthly basis and 26% on a yearly basis. These percents remained mostly constant when
broken into the four demographic areas: north, central, southeast and southwest. The frequency of park
use among survey respondents is likely to be higher than the average resident’s use of parks and trails. This
is due to the possibility that park users were more likely to complete and return the survey than non-park
users.
2) Barriers to participation
Only 8% of those surveyed said they had never used the parks and trails system. Of this 8%, the two most
frequent explanations as to why the respondent had never used a park or trail were: 1) The respondent was
unaware of parks and trails; or 2) The respondent was new to the community, which might also explain
why they are unaware of the existing park and trail system. Overall, few barriers exist to participation.
Barriers to participation (# of responses):
Not aware of parks 16
Prefer other parks 7
Not interested 7
Parks hard to find 5
Inadequate transportation 1
3) Parks & Trails Use
Ramsey County - Tony Schmidt Park is the most frequently visited park in Arden Hills. The survey results
indicate that residents from all areas of Arden Hills use Ramsey County - Tony Schmidt Park equally.
Residents from all areas of the City also frequently use Cummings, Floral, Valentine, Hazelnut and Perry. As
expected, the frequency of use for each park seems to be based on their specific amenities, size and loca-
25
tion. A smaller park such as Sampson is frequented more often by residents who live close to the park.
Trail usage ranked high among those surveyed. However, many of those surveyed commented on the need
to expand or improve the current park and trail network. Several respondents said that at times, trail users
are forced to walk along busy or unsafe roadways to navigate the trail system.
Park Use (# of responses in order of most to least frequented)
1 City trails 235
2 Tony Schmidt 214
3 Cummings 174
4 Valentine 121
4 Floral 121
5 Hazelnut 117
5 Perry 117
6 Crepeau 71
7 Royal Hills 61
8 Ingerson 40
9 Freeway 35
10 Arden Oaks 29
11 Lindeys 23
11 Sampson 23
12 Arden Manor 11
4) Recreation Participation (in order of most frequented activities)
Walking and biking are by far the most popular recreation activities. Use of children’s playgrounds, nature
areas and picnicking and bird watching are popular activities. Popular active recreation includes swimming,
running/jogging, skating and hockey and team and informal sports. Arden Hills residents seem to prefer
trails and passive parks use.
1 Walk/hike 482
2 Bike 313
3 Children’s playgrounds 253
4 Nature areas 199
5 Picnic 188
6 Swim 167
7 Jog/run 165
8 Ice skate/hockey 152
9 Bird watch 143
10 Organized sports 141
11 Informal sports 140
12 Tennis 123
13 Golf 122
14 Cross country ski 117
15 Inline skate 103
16 Outdoor court sports 91
17 Indoor court sports 64
18 Alternative sports 45
26
5) Desired Outdoor Recreation Elements (in order of respondents requests)
The most frequently requested recreation facilities are trails and passive parks.
1 Bike/walk trails 196
2 Natural areas 112
3 Ski trails 106
4 Golf course 82
5 Interpretive/historic areas 78
6 Swimming 64
7 Soccer fields 46
8 Picnic areas 36
8 Children’s play areas 36
9 Baseball/softball fields 21
6) Satisfaction/Future Priorities (sorted by priority for the future)
Survey respondents are very satisfied with trails, parks, recreation programs, communications and park
maintenance. They are less satisfied with the availability of indoor recreation facilities and special events.
Recommended priorities for the future are trails, park maintenance and passive parks.
Current Rating Future Priority
Satisfied Unsatisfied High Low
Trails 379 (73%) 143 (27%) 419 (89%) 54 (11%)
Park maintenance 414 (90%) 46 (10%) 297 (80%) 75 (20%)
Passive parks 355 (77%) 102 (23%) 313 (78%) 89 (22%)
Indoor recreation 209 (58%) 152 (42%) 224 (59%) 153 (41%)
Communications 341 (92%) 29 (8%) 183 (56%) 145 (44%)
Active parks 327 (82%) 70 (18%) 191 (53%) 172 (47%)
Rec. programs 6-12 260 (90%) 28 (10%) 123 (41%) 179 (59%)
Special events 209 (63%) 121 (27%) 120 (36%) 209 (64%)
Rec. programs U6 264 (89%) 34 (11%) 98 (33%) 203 (67%)
Rec. programs 19-64 223 (78%) 62 (22%) 101 (33%) 205 (67%)
Rec. programs 13-18 225 (85%) 39 (15%) 91 (31%) 200 (69%)
Rec. programs 65+227 (83%) 46 (17%) 82 (28%) 213 (72%)
Average (80%) (20%) (49%) (51%)
7) Indoor Recreation Facility Needs
Respondents are interested in a fitness center, indoor track and swimming pool.
Fitness center 264
Run/walk track 223
Swimming 194
Golf practice 117
Gyms 109
Aerobics 108
Tennis 85
27
Climbing wall 83
Racquetball 79
Play equipment 77
Soccer 43
Auditorium 36
Skateboard 21
8) Support for Improvements (from highest to lowest amount of support -great and marginal support
totaled)
There is community support for biking and walking trail additions, renovation of existing parks,
improvements to passive parks and for acquisition of passive parks and open space lands. There is little
support for acquisition of land for new athletic parks or for alternative forms of recreation.
Great Marginal None
Bike/walk trail additions 298 (58%) 134 (26%) 78 (15%)
Renovate existing parks 134 (28%) 266 (55%) 87 (18%)
Improve exist. passive parks 183 (37%) 213 (43%) 100 (20%)
Acquire land for passive parks 154 (32%) 170 (35%) 162 (33%)
Improve exist. athletic complexes 76 (16%) 208 (45%) 180 (39%)
Acquire land for athletic parks 73 (15%) 158 (33%) 241 (51%)
More alternative recreation 56 (12%) 131 (28%) 288 (61%)
9) Household Age Distribution (# of persons)
0-5 122
6-11 167
12-19 252
20-29 101
30-39 158
40-49 332
50-64 390
65+ 160
10) Types of Trail Surface Preferred
Paved trails are the most popular trail surface, although there is considerable interest in non-paved surfaces
(401 paved responses vs. 351 non-paved responses). The City should balance paved and unpaved trail
surfacing. Trails along roads and trails making cross community or inter-City connections should be paved
as should major loop or access paths within larger parks. Trails within natural areas and secondary trails
should have a more natural surface (ag-lime, gravel, wood chip or mowed turf).
Paved 401
Woodchip 159
Mowed grass 115
Crushed rock 77
28
11) Neighborhood Location of Respondents
Southwest 32%
North 31%
Southeast 16%
Central 21%
12) a. Concentrate on existing facilities
Survey respondents feel that the City should concentrate its efforts on improvement of existing recreation
facilities vs. adding new parks.
Strongly Agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly Disagree
159 236 96 51 1
(71% Strongly Agree and Agree) (9% Disagree and Strongly Disagree)
b. Satisfied with rec. service and facilities for tax $
Most residents are satisfied with the recreation value they receive for their tax dollar.
Strongly Agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly Disagree
87 305 94 62 12
(70% Strongly Agree and Agree) (14% Disagree and Strongly Disagree)
b1. Satisfied with service if fee increase
Fee increases would slightly diminish people’s opinion of recreation value for their tax dollars.
Strongly Agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly Disagree
56 204 205 59 21
(48% Strongly Agree and Agree) (15% Disagree and Strongly Disagree)
b2. Satisfied with service if tax increase
A property tax increase would further diminish people’s opinion of recreation value for their tax dollar.
However, more people would still be satisfied than unsatisfied if a tax increase occurred for park and
recreation purposes. There may be sufficient support for a future bond referendum for select trail and
recreation improvements.
Strongly Agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly Disagree
57 143 185 102 58
(37% Strongly Agree and Agree) (29% Disagree and Strongly Disagree)
29
B. Community Meeting Summaries
Community Meeting Summaries - July 9-12, 2001
(#) indicates meeting number
Introduction -
Four community meetings were held during the week of July 9-12, 2001 at various locations around the
City. Approximately 80 people attended the meetings. Meeting participants provided input regarding the
overall City parks, trails and open space system and individual parks and trails. The community input is
summarized below. This input combined with the April 2001 public opinion survey and interviews with
stakeholders and affiliates will assist the Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee with preparation of the
Arden Hills Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan.
General Comments –
Need Collaboration with Ramsey County colleges and school districts. (1,2,3,4)
Picnic Facilities (3)
- Add shelter, shade structures (3)
Save/conserve open space (4)
Indoor recreation needed for swimming and indoor track, art classes and history center (4)
Nature Center (1,2,3,4)
Keeping up the existing park system will be adequate (4)
Hwy 96 barrier to movement (When will trails be ready?) (4)
Finish Tony Schmidt system (trail connections to park along Lk. Johanna Blvd., etc) (2)
Plow trails in winter (4)
When will TCAAP be ready (4)
Trail/signage connections (4)
Trail/road crossing possibility at Hamline and Snelling RR bridge (3)
Bridge over highway 10 (2)
Cooperation with the colleges (1,2,3,4)
Park and Rec info pamphlets etc. out to community (3)
Feeling of neighborhoods being landlocked (2 & 3)
Focus on non-motorized trail connections (1)
Make bridges usable for pedestrians and bikes and skaters/rollerbladers. (1,2,3)
Loop bike route around Lake Josephine (1)
Create gathering places for kids within neighborhood parks (2)
Lindeys should stay a park (2)
County removed softball backstop in Tony Schmidt (2)
Storm water pond maintenance is needed - i.e. pond by Tiller Lane and south end of
Creapau Park. Siltation and debris. Need maintenance plan involving City, homeowners, county and Rice
Creek Watershed. Runoff comes from Lexington Avenue (1)
Crepeau as a neighborhood park w/play structure (2)
Lack of water supply at parks is not a priority issue for users.(1&2)
Large roads are barriers which require people to drive to reach nearby parks (1&2)
People aren’t aware of the City parks and trails (1)
Better park identification signs are needed & signs showing trail connections, etc. (1,2,3)
Add “children playing” or “park - slow” traffic safety sign near the parks.(1)
Need safe access from neighborhoods to parks (3)
30
Ingraham & Assoc. to help facilitate county involvement in Arden hills park improvements (2)
Explore trail options w/west Lake Johanna (2)
-alleviate problems w/ “danger trails” (i.e. auto traffic conflicts, etc.)
-displacement of trail users to Old Snelling and New Brighton Blvd.
Loop trail needed to move trail users off streets (2&3)
Skating trail/canal? (3)
Site specific park amenities vs. generalized park amenities (3)
Priority for a comprehensive trail system(w/ Ramsey Co. participation)
Larger skating surfaces (3)
Trail connections to North side of A.H. (and vice versa) (2)
Round Lake polluted, no access (2)
Limit Truck traffic on Johanna Lake Rd (vehicle weight limit) (2)
Trail option south of Presbyterian homes (2)
Fifty/fifty split for paved/ non-paved trails (2)
-safety areas or specific use (ie biking) could be paved (2)
-smaller/less traffic trails should be unpaved? (2)
Emphasis on ease of use (2)
Emphasis on connectivity (2)
Off-leash dog park ? (2)
No railroad gravel on trails for biking use! (2)
Low desire for A.H. indoor recreation facility
“Tear drops” to signify “park entrances” and usages (2)
-used as traffic calming strategy along pedestrian thoroughfares.
Help from Shoreview with trail connection to Shoreview (i.e. funding) (2)
Partnerships with neighbor communities utilizing resources (3)
Site Specific Comments
Sampson Park-
New playground structure is too small (2)
-designed for tots? (2)
Royal Hills Park -
Trail connection to North Heights Church (4)
Dog Waste container (4)
B Ball Field – T ball only (4)
Parking not sufficient / check on why no parking signs exist (4)
Valentine Park -
Raise grade, effective drainage vs. incremental improvements (3)
Park is integral to the community (3)
Need path/entrance to park from neighborhood (3)
Flooding of parking lot vs. infield/ grade issues (3)
Picnic tables with shade (3)
Swings (3)
Reconsider layout of park (parking orientation parallel to Lake Valentine Road , grading etc…) (3)
31
Hazelnut Park -
Need better maintenance of park land (2)
-dead tree removal
-trimming of trees / grasses
Auto traffic on pedestrian trails is major problem (2)
Hazelnut trails do not accommodate biking / roller blading, etc. (2)
Wider trails (2)
Need benches/seating (2)
Invasive species problems / “Chinese elms” (2)
Delineate sides of trail for “walkers”/ “bikers” (2)
Fix dilapidated fencing (2)
Hockey “dropoff” problem (2)
-add lights from church parking to hockey rink
-pave hockey rinks (3)
Sledding / skating conflict (2)
Round Lake Park -
Relocate A.H. community gardens to Round Lake (3)
Leave as open space? (3)
Trail link to the west (3)
-to RR bridge and Long Lake
Charles Perry Park -
Re-evaluate use of space during all seasons
Off-road dirt bike trails (3)
Portable skate parks
Bridge easement issues / improve trails and access to park (2&3)
Seating needed at new playground (2)
Ages of play structures? (2)
Water fountain? (2)
Shelter shade structure? (2)
Formal trail needed on south side? (2)
Erosion problems (2)
Road divides hockey rink and warming house (2&3)
“No golfing” signage on west and south sides of park (2)
Half court basketball w/backstop (2)
Paved surface / courts inside hockey rinks for summer use (2&3)
Park programming for Perry? (2)
Location of play structure / safety issues / relocate closer to warming house (3)
Add recreational skating rink? (3)
Add bridge and trails across the swamp? (3)
Crepeau Park -
Add a childrens play area for the Hunters Park Neighborhood (1)
Add playground equip. by Benton Way (1)
The wood chip trails are nice (1)
Need Buckthorn (invasive species) removal and woodland management (1&2)
32
Boy Scout project (1)
-Bridge or stone crossing for wildlife (1)
- add bird houses (1)
-Re-plant prairie area (1)
MSI restricts bike and inline trail use
Water off Lexington-weeds (2)
-Water quality-erosion
-Management/maintenance of storm ponds
Add picnic tables and trash cans (1)
A trail map is needed (1)
Species diversity (2)
Ingerson Park -
Can a “back way” (easement) trail to Ingerson Park be found? (1)
Keep the sliding hill (1)
Frisbee golf might be a good use if it does not interfere with sliding (1)
Lindey’s Triangle Park -
Keep Lindey’s as a park, replace the backstop (1)
Keep it for flexible open play space (1&2)
Kites (2)
Soccer (2)
Parking issues (2)
Lacrosse (2)
Softball (2)
Add an exercise station (1&2)
Parking can be a problem on the street (1)
Need park sign. (2)
Need traffic sign for park (2)
Sitting benches on hill overlooking Lindey’s Triangle (in between crab trees) (4)
Freeway Park -
Parking is dangerous in the winter, need a barrier between the rinks and the
parking area (1)
Need security lighting in the lower area (1)
Need protective fencing around the hockey rink (1)
Add a tennis court and backboard (1)
The path to the ice rink is steep and icy (1)
Pave the rink for summer use (1)
Have a full court basketball in the lower area (1)
Need guard rails between the TH51 southbound entrance ramp and the park (1)
Add park safety sign on Co. Rd. E (1)
Balance open skating and parking (1)
Barriers / guard rail for ramp (1)
33
Chatham Trails -
Trail surface unpaved, but not dirt (3)
Maintain mixed trail surfaces paved/unpaved (3)
Trail to Venus Ave (3)
-priority for surface upgrade
-currently used by many groups
Ongoing community involvement/volunteering (3)
Lacrosse/soccer field use (3)
Cummings Park -
No water in the park (4)
Limited parking / need more (4)
Signage (4)
Floral Park -
Long walk to ball field (4)
Parking (4)
Water? (4)
North / West trail connection (4)
Water problem/ highway rain (4)
Drainage issue on trails (4)
More tennis courts (4)
34
C. Trail Segment Analysis
Individual trails within the City were rated by members of the PTRC based on a variety of criteria: (See Trail
Identification Map)
Trail Segment A (Orange), North Snelling Avenue to Highway 96
Roughly a mile of bituminous trail located in a valley between residential back yards. The trail has been
rated well, although it is recommended that additional resting areas be considered and landscaping to
provide some separation from back yards where appropriate.
Trail Segment B (DK Blue), Lake Johanna Blvd
Lake Johanna Blvd is a paved shoulder trail on a county road. The trail is well used and the traffic levels are
high. The surface condition of the trail has been rated as below average. The City should work with the
county to provide adequate maintenance of the trail and to provide a detached trail where possible, work to
reroute truck traffic to other roads, and maintain lower speeds. This trail has great potential as Lake
Johanna Blvd. will need reconstructing in the near future. The City should partner and work with Ramsey
County, Northwestern College and MNDOT to provide a looped trail around Lake Johanna.
Trail Segment C (Red), Sampson / Hazelnut Trail
The bituminous trail is well maintained with only a few cracks and damaged areas and is aesthetically
pleasing. The trail terminates with a flower garden at Cleveland Avenue. The trail accesses Sampson and
Hazelnut Parks where there is adequate seating and facilities. A trail sign and map is recommended at the
trail ends with landscaping.
Trail Segment D (Peach) New Brighton Road to County Road E
This trail is a narrow paved shoulder. The pavement narrows at the railroad bridge and is dangerous. It is
recommended that this trail be upgraded when New Brighton Road or the railroad bridge are reconstructed.
Segments of this trail should be detached from the roadbed as possible. This project will require a working
relationship with the railroad and Ramsey County.
Trail Segment N/A ,Trail in Sampson / Hazelnut Trail
The bituminous trail received an above average rating. The surface is rough for inline skating, but has
adequate width and length. Maintenance was rated as poor with erosion deposits in low areas. There are
adequate resting places, however, the benches appear to be unused. Relocation of the benches should be
considered. The aesthetic appearance of the trail corridor was poorly rated. Improved landscaping is
recommended.
Trail Segment E (Green),Cummings to Floral Park
The bituminous trail is varied in topography, partially shaded with good views, wild in appearance with
adequately spaced and located resting areas. The trail surface is cracked and the trail is slightly overgrown
with vegetation. The crossing at Hamline Avenue is difficult in spite of striped crosswalk. Maintenance is
relatively good.
35
Trail Segment H (Rust), West of Round Lake
Trail Segment I (Yellow), Valentine Lake Drive
Trail Segment J (Aqua), Highway 96
Trail Segment F (Magenta),Lexington Ave from County Road F to Tamarack
The detached bituminous trail is in average condition with some cracks and settling. There are no planned
resting areas except for bus stops along the route. Landscaping is recommended to provide screening,
traffic separation and seating areas where appropriate.
Trail Segment G (Brown), Hamline Avenue - Highway 96 to W. Floral Drive
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
City of Arden Hills
City Council Work Session for March 21, 2016
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2016\PC 16-010 - Organized Collection on TCAAP_RCC\Memos_Reports_16-010
Page 1 of 1
DATE: March 21, 2016
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Sue Iverson, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner
Joel Jamnik, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Organized Collection Discussion – TCAAP/RRC
Requested Action
Discuss the organized collection process for the TCAAP/RCC property.
Background
During the Planning Commission 2016 Work Plan discussion on January 19, 2016, the Council
requested that organized collection for TCAAP/RCC be added to the 2016 Work Plan.
City Attorney, Joel Jamnik will provide an oral review of the organized collection process during
the City Council Work Session on March 21, 2016.
Attachments
A. MN Statute 115A.94 - Organized Collection
AGENDA ITEM 1E
MEMORANDUM
115A.94 ORGANIZED COLLECTION.
§
Subdivision 1.Definition.
"Organized collection" means a system for collecting solid waste in which a specified collector, or a
member of an organization of collectors, is authorized to collect from a defined geographic service area
or areas some or all of the solid waste that is released by generators for collection.
§
Subd. 2.Local authority.
A city or town may organize collection, after public notification and hearing as required in
subdivisions 4a to 4d. A county may organize collection as provided in subdivision 5. A city or town that
has organized collection as of May 1, 2013, is exempt from subdivisions 4a to 4d.
§
Subd. 3.General provisions.
(a) The local government unit may organize collection as a municipal service or by ordinance,
franchise, license, negotiated or bidded contract, or other means, using one or more collectors or an
organization of collectors.
(b) The local government unit may not establish or administer organized collection in a manner
that impairs the preservation and development of recycling and markets for recyclable materials. The
local government unit shall exempt recyclable materials from organized collection upon a showing by
the generator or collector that the materials are or will be separated from mixed municipal solid waste
by the generator, separately collected, and delivered for reuse in their original form or for use in a
manufacturing process.
(c) The local government unit shall invite and employ the assistance of interested persons,
including persons licensed to operate solid waste collection services in the local government unit, in
developing plans and proposals for organized collection and in establishing the organized collection
system.
(d) Organized collection accomplished by contract or as a municipal service may include a
requirement that all or any portion of the solid waste, except (1) recyclable materials and (2) materials
that are processed at a resource recovery facility at the capacity in operation at the time that the
requirement is imposed, be delivered to a waste facility identified by the local government unit. In a
district or county where a resource recovery facility has been designated by ordinance under section
115A.86, organized collection must conform to the requirements of the designation ordinance.
§
Subd. 4.
[Repealed, 2013 c 45 s 7]
§
Subd. 4a.Committee establishment.
(a) Before implementing an ordinance, franchise, license, contract, or other means of organizing
collection, a city or town, by resolution of the governing body, must establish an organized collection
options committee to identify, examine, and evaluate various methods of organized collection. The
governing body shall appoint the committee members.
(b) The organized collection options committee is subject to chapter 13D.
§
Subd. 4b.Committee duties.
The committee established under subdivision 4a shall:
(1) determine which methods of organized collection to examine, which must include:
(i) a system in which a single collector collects solid waste from all sections of a city or town; and
(ii) a system in which multiple collectors, either singly or as members of an organization of
collectors, collect solid waste from different sections of a city or town;
(2) establish a list of criteria on which the organized collection methods selected for examination
will be evaluated, which may include: costs to residential subscribers, miles driven by collection vehicles
on city streets and alleys, initial and operating costs to the city of implementing the organized collection
system, providing incentives for waste reduction, impacts on solid waste collectors, and other physical,
economic, fiscal, social, environmental, and aesthetic impacts;
(3) collect information regarding the operation and efficacy of existing methods of organized
collection in other cities and towns;
(4) seek input from, at a minimum:
(i) the governing body of the city or town;
(ii) the local official of the city or town responsible for solid waste issues;
(iii) persons currently licensed to operate solid waste collection and recycling services in the city or
town; and
(iv) residents of the city or town who currently pay for residential solid waste collection services;
and
(5) issue a report on the committee's research, findings, and any recommendations to the
governing body of the city or town.
§
Subd. 4c.Governing body; implementation.
The governing body of the city or town shall consider the report and recommendations of the
organized collection options committee. The governing body must provide public notice and hold at
least one public hearing before deciding whether to implement organized collection. Organized
collection may begin no sooner than six months after the effective date of the decision of the governing
body of the city or town to implement organized collection.
§
Subd. 4d.Participating collectors proposal requirement.
Prior to establishing a committee under subdivision 4a to consider organizing residential solid
waste collection, a city or town with more than one licensed collector must notify the public and all
licensed collectors in the community. The city or town must provide a 60-day period in which meetings
and negotiations shall occur exclusively between licensed collectors and the city or town to develop a
proposal in which interested licensed collectors, as members of an organization of collectors, collect
solid waste from designated sections of the city or town. The proposal shall include identified city or
town priorities, including issues related to zone creation, traffic, safety, environmental performance,
service provided, and price, and shall reflect existing haulers maintaining their respective market share
of business as determined by each hauler's average customer count during the six months prior to the
commencement of the 60-day negotiation period. If an existing hauler opts to be excluded from the
proposal, the city may allocate their customers proportionally based on market share to the
participating collectors who choose to negotiate. The initial organized collection agreement executed
under this subdivision must be for a period of three to seven years. Upon execution of an agreement
between the participating licensed collectors and city or town, the city or town shall establish organized
collection through appropriate local controls and is not required to fulfill the requirements of
subdivisions 4a, 4b, and 4c, except that the governing body must provide the public notification and
hearing required under subdivision 4c.
§
Subd. 5.County organized collection.
(a) A county may by ordinance require cities and towns within the county to organize collection.
Organized collection ordinances of counties may:
(1) require cities and towns to require the separation and separate collection of recyclable
materials;
(2) specify the material to be separated; and
(3) require cities and towns to meet any performance standards for source separation that are
contained in the county solid waste plan.
(b) A county may itself organize collection under subdivisions 4a to 4d in any city or town that does
not comply with a county organized collection ordinance adopted under this subdivision, and the county
may implement, as part of its organized collection, the source separation program and performance
standards required by its organized collection ordinance.
City of Arden Hills
City Council Work Session for March 21, 2016
P:\Planning\City Council Memos\2016
Page 1 of 1
DATE: March 21, 2016
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Sue Iverson, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner
Joel Jamnik, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Review of Administrative Approvals
Background
City Attorney, Joel Jamnik will provide an oral review of the City’s Administrative Approvals
process during the City Council Work Session on March 21, 2016.
The administrative approvals review will primarily focus on Section 1355.06, Subd 4 of the City
Code. This particular section of the code has been provided below.
1355.06, Subd 4. Amendments of Site Plans, Conditional Use Permits, Interim
Use Permit, or Planned Unit Developments. An application for amendment shall
be administered in the same manner as required for a new application. Such
applications shall include re-applications for permits that have been denied,
revoked, or have expired; renewal or temporary permits; requests for changes in
conditions; and such other instances as are provided in this Code. Any structural
alteration, enlargement or intensification change in site plan, or similar change
not specially permitted, shall require City Council action and all procedures shall
apply as if a new application were being requested; provided, however, that when
such changes are deemed to be insignificant by the zoning administrator, the
requirements of a public hearing may be waived.
Attachments
None.
AGENDA ITEM 1F
MEMORANDUM
City of Arden Hills
City Council Work Session for March 21, 2016
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2016\PC 16-011 - Sign Code Updates\Memos_Reports_16-011
Page 1 of 2
DATE: March 21, 2016
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Sue Iverson, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner
Joel Jamnik, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Update on the signage decision made by the Supreme Court
Requested Action
Discuss the Supreme Court Decision (Reed vs. Gilbert) regarding signage.
Background
City Attorney, Joel Jamnik will provide an oral review during the City Council Work Session on
March 21, 2016, of the decision made by the Supreme Court regarding signage and how this
decision may affect the City’s Sign Code.
Briefly, the U.S. Supreme Court recently found a local sign code unconstitutional because it
regulated signs differently based on the content, or message, of the signs. The Town of Gilbert,
Arizona, adopted a sign code that prohibits the display of outdoor signs without a permit, but
exempted 23 categories of signs, including ideological signs, political signs, and temporary
directional signs.
Temporary directional signs included any sign intended to provide direction to a “qualifying
event.” A qualifying event was defined as an “assembly, gathering, activity, or meeting
sponsored, arranged, or promoted by a religious, charitable, community service, educational, or
other similar nonprofit organization.”
AGENDA ITEM 1G
MEMORANDUM
City of Arden Hills
City Council Work Session for March 21, 2016
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2016\PC 16-011 - Sign Code Updates\Memos_Reports_16-011
Page 2 of 2
The Good News Community Church, which did not have a set meeting location and hosted
Sunday services at various locations, began placing signs in the town providing directions to
those services. The number, location and frequency of the signs raised concerns for the
community. The town cited the church for exceeding the time limits for displaying a temporary
directional sign and for failing to include an event date on the signs. The church sued,
challenging the sign code under the First Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the sign code was unconstitutional, reasoning that it was a
content-based regulation that did not survive a strict-scrutiny review under which a challenged
regulation must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The Supreme Court
reasoned that the sign code is content-based on its face because it defines the categories of
temporary, political, and ideological signs on the basis of their messages and subjects each
category to different restrictions. Reed v. Town of Gilbert, AZ, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015). The full
opinion can be reviewed at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-502_9olb.pdf.
Attachments
None.
Page 1 of 3
DATE: March 21, 2016
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Sue Iverson, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Building Permit Update
Discussion
During Council comments at a previous regular meeting, the City Council inquired about the
number of open building permits, whether the number of open permits had increased, and
whether staff needed additional assistance to address open permits. This memo provides
information on permit history and current open permits as well as a recommendation to provide
additional support for Buildings and Inspections.
Permit History
The number of permits issued varies from year-to-year and is somewhat reflective of trends in
the overall economy. For example, since 2006, the highest number of permits issued was in
2006 (1,541 permits issued) and was related to the housing boom and corresponding home
improvement/renovation projects. The lowest permit years were 2009 and 2010 (1,147 and
1,067 permits issued, respectively) in the midst of the Great Recession.
The number of open permits has also varied. In 2005, the City hired a full-time Building
Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer which had a significant positive impact on the number of
open permits. By 2008, the number of open permits was down to 741 from 1,141 and 1,320 in
2006 and 2007, respectively. Since 2008, the number of open permits has ranged from 502 to
867 with an eight-year average of 690 open permits. At the end of 2015, the City had 660 open
permits.
The table below shows the ten-year history of permits – issued and open.
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Permits Issued 1541 1332 1231 1147 1067 1230 1285 1193 1196 1246
Open Permits 1141 1320 741 710 635 867 817 502 588 660
AGENDA ITEM –1H
MEMORANDUM
Page 2 of 3
Total construction value of permits issued varies more significantly than the number of permits
issued and is a better indicator of the overall workload for Building and Inspections. The
following table shows the ten-year history for construction value of issued permits and total fees
collected.
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Construction
Value
(in millions)
20.60 40.96 11.19 27.95 15.68 16.61 53.80 28.76 16.20 48.10
Total Fees 325,964 442,459 216,930 343,996 285,230 342,688 726,192 456,550 376,549 706,078
A construction value that is significantly higher than other years is likely to represent a large
commercial project. For example, in 2012 permits were issued for the Presbyterian Homes
Johanna Shores project. That project had a construction value of $23.8 million. Permits issued
in 2012 for the Pulte Homes Fox Ridge Development had a construction value of $10.4 million.
Together, those two projects alone comprised $34.2 million in value, or 63.6% of the year’s total
construction value.
In 2015, permits issued for the Presbyterian Homes brownstone project had a value of $9.0
million; permits issued for renovations at Boston Scientific had a value of $8.6 million; the Red
Fox Business Center had a value of $5.4 million, and the Bethel University wellness center had a
value of $4.8 million. Together these four projects had a value of $27.8 million, or 57.8% of the
year’s total construction value.
It is important to note that large, commercial projects are often constructed over multiple years.
Permits are issued and fees are collected at the beginning of the project, but inspections contin ue
for as many as three years. Therefore, the workload for Building and Inspections cannot be
determined solely by the number of permits issued or total construction value in any given year,
but must be evaluated in terms of construction trends and ongoing projects.
Open Permits
The City had 660 open permits at the end of 2015. Since then, the City has issued an additional
225 permits and closed 113 permits, so the current number of open permits is 772. Of the 772
open permits, 516 are less than one year old, 176 are one to two years old, 79 are two to three
years old, and one is more than three years old. The permit that is greater than three years old is
an active grading and erosion control permit. Generally, permits less than two years old are
considered active, although it is not uncommon for permits to be active after two years.
Recommendation
Open permits are within the range established over the past eight years, but the number of open
permits appears to be slowly increasing. Building and Inspections currently have a heavy
workload as shown by the total construction value in 2015 and by the number of new permits
already issued in 2016.
Permits issued January 1 through March 10
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
169 156 120 171 225
Page 3 of 3
For the past seven years, the City has contracted with Kevin White, North star Inspections, on an
hourly basis to provide coverage, particularly in the busy summer season, when staff is out of the
office or on vacation. Mr. White is familiar with the City and its processes, and staff feels that
the contract rate of $65.00 per hour is a good value for the City. The following chart shows the
City’s payments to Northstar Inspections over the past four years.
Payments to Northstar Inspections
2012 2013 2014 2015
$2,048 $1,235 $130 $1,105
Staff recommends that the City utilize Northstar Inspections for additional hours over the spring
and summer to assist with reducing the number of open permits and to allow staff time to address
administrative duties. With TCAAP and other large projects on the horizon, staff does not want
to fall behind on either open permits or paperwork. Additional fees paid to Northstar Inspections
would be significantly less than the cost including wages, benefits, training, etc. to h ire an
additional full- or part-time employee.
As TCAAP develops, the City Council will need to consider staffing in Buildings and
Inspections and make appropriate decisions to maintain a high level of service to builders and
contractors. In 2017, once additional information regarding the timing of specific development
projects is known, staff will bring forward a TCAAP staffing plan for Council consideration.
The staffing plan may consider additional full-time, part-time, temporary, or contract employees
as determined to best meet City needs.