The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-20-21-WSAGENDA ITEMS Draft ICE Report –County Road E And Old Snelling Avenue Intersection David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF Feasibility Study –Proposed Trail From Lake Valentine Road To CR -96 David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF Pedestrian Crossing At County Road F And Hamline Pedestrian Signage David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF Planning Commission Onboarding Policy Jessica Jagoe, City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF Commissions And Committees Discussion Dave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF Sale Of City Owned Parcel At 3588 Ridgewood Road (Closed Per M.S. 13D.05, Subd. 3(C)(1)(2) Jessica Jagoe, City Planner MEMO.PDF COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor: David Grant Councilmembers: Brenda Holden Fran Holmes Steve Scott Vacant City Council Work Session Agenda December 20, 2021 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. This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website. CALL TO ORDER 1. 1.A. Documents: 1.B. Documents: 1.C. Documents: 1.D. Documents: 1.E. Documents: 1.F. Documents: 2. AGENDA ITEMSDraft ICE Report –County Road E And Old Snelling Avenue IntersectionDavid Swearingen, Public Works Director/City EngineerMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFFeasibility Study –Proposed Trail From Lake Valentine Road To CR -96David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City EngineerMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFPedestrian Crossing At County Road F And Hamline Pedestrian SignageDavid Swearingen, Public Works Director/City EngineerMEMO.PDF Planning Commission Onboarding Policy Jessica Jagoe, City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF Commissions And Committees Discussion Dave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF Sale Of City Owned Parcel At 3588 Ridgewood Road (Closed Per M.S. 13D.05, Subd. 3(C)(1)(2) Jessica Jagoe, City Planner MEMO.PDF COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor:David GrantCouncilmembers:Brenda HoldenFran HolmesSteve ScottVacant City Council Work Session Agenda December 20, 2021 5:00 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96Arden Hills MN 55112Phone:651 -792 -7800Website:www.cityofardenhills.orgCity 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.This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website.CALL TO ORDER1.1.A.Documents:1.B.Documents:1.C.Documents: 1.D. Documents: 1.E. Documents: 1.F. Documents: 2. Page 1 of 1 AGENDA ITEM – 1A MEMORANDUM DATE: December 20, 2021 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: David Swearingen, P.E. Public Works Director / City Engineer SUBJECT: Draft ICE Report for County Road E and Old Snelling Ave Intersection Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $ $ Council Should Consider Council should consider discussing the results of the ICE Report for the intersection of County Rd E and Old Snelling Ave. Background/ Discussion Attachment A is the draft ICE Report for the County Rd E and Old Snelling Ave intersection. The County’s Engineering Consultant, SRF, has submitted the Report for review and comment by City staff. Overall, this is a technical report that analyzes 3 different intersection control alternatives and determines a recommendation for a long-term preferred improvement. Within the study they take into consideration the existing conditions, traffic volumes, future growth, cost, operation and maintenance comparison, etc. Using this information, the report concludes that a roundabout is the optimum form of traffic control at this location. Attachments Attachment A – Draft ICE Report Intersection Control Evaluation County Road E at Snelling Avenue N (CR 76) Arden Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota DRAFT Prepared by: November 2021 SRF No. 14411 [DRAFT] Intersection Control Evaluation SRF Consulting Group, Inc. County Road E at Snelling Ave N (CR 76) i November 30, 2021 Intersection Control Evaluation County Road E at Snelling Avenue N (CR 76) Proposed Letting Date: Spring 2023 Report Certification: I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Mark Powers 57915 Print Name Reg. No. 11-30-21 Signature Date Approved By: City of Arden Hills Public Works Director/City Engineer Date Ramsey County Date County Traffic Engineer MnDOT Date Metro District State Aid Engineer [DRAFT] Intersection Control Evaluation SRF Consulting Group, Inc. County Road E at Snelling Ave N (CR 76) ii November 30, 2021 Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 Intersection Characteristics .................................................................................................. 3 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Crash History ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Intersection Capacity Analysis ............................................................................................................ 3 Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................................................... 4 Analysis of Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 7 Warrant Analysis ................................................................................................................................................ 7 Traffic Operations Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 8 Safety Analysis .................................................................................................................................................. 10 Planning-Level Cost Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 10 Capital Costs ....................................................................................................................................... 10 Operation and Maintenance Costs .................................................................................................. 10 Alternatives Assessment .................................................................................................... 12 Right-of-Way Considerations ......................................................................................................................... 12 Transportation System Considerations ......................................................................................................... 12 Multimodal Considerations ............................................................................................................................ 12 Local Acceptance ............................................................................................................................................. 12 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................ 13 Recommendation ............................................................................................................................................. 14 Appendix ................................................................................................................................ 15 K:\Traffic\_staff\Mark\Projects\14411\Report\Draft_14411_ICE_211130.docx [DRAFT] Intersection Control Evaluation County Road E at Snelling Ave N (Old Hwy 10) 1 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Introduction Ramsey County, in partnership with Arden Hills, is evaluating the County Road E and Snelling Avenue N (CR 76) to improve operations, improve safety, and plan for future needs of the intersections. The intersection currently experiences longer delays and queues when traffic volumes are elevated within the day-to-day fluctuation range (i.e. 10 percent higher than the average). The intersection is planned to be rebuilt in 2023. This report contains the intersection control evaluation (ICE) results for the County Road E and Snelling Avenue N (CR 76) intersection in Arden Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota (see Figure 1). The MnDOT ICE is a process that identifies the most appropriate intersection control type through a comprehensive analysis and documentation of the technical (safety and traffic operations), economic (societal and agency costs), and other factors of viable alternatives. The goal of an ICE is to select the optimal control for an intersection based on an objective analysis of existing conditions and future needs. The purpose of this evaluation is to analyze various intersection control alternatives under near- term and long-term conditions to identify a preferred intersection control alternative. The following alternatives were considered applicable for this intersection: · All-Way Stop Control (existing) · Traffic Signal Control · Roundabout Control (single-lane) A detailed warrants analysis, operational analysis, and safety analysis was performed to determine a preferred intersection control alternative. In addition to this analysis, other factors considered for this evaluation that were applicable to determining the long-term preferred intersection control included: · Right-of-Way considerations · Construction costs · Transportation System Considerations, including proximity to Bethel College and Mounds View High School (MVHS) · Pedestrian and bike Considerations · Local acceptance. 14411 November 2021 Project Location County Road E and Snelling Avenue N ICE Report Arden Hills, Ramsey County, MN Figure 1 Yegen Road 1804 Snelling Avenue NNORTHNorthH:\Projects\14000\14411\TraffStudy\Figures\Fig01_Project Location.cdrStudy Intersection Eden Prairie RoadPublic Storage Access Morgan Avenue27 COUNTY 149 Ramsey COUNTY 76 Ramsey COUNTY 15 Ramsey COUNTYSnelling Avenue NCounty Road E Lake J ohan na Bo ulevar d [DRAFT] Intersection Control Evaluation SRF Consulting Group, Inc. County Road E at Snelling Ave N (CR 76) 3 November 30, 2021 Intersection Characteristics Existing Conditions The County Road E and Snelling Avenue N intersection is currently a four-legged intersection with all-way stop control (AWSC). County Road E is a two-lane undivided roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour (mph) on the east leg and 30 mph on the west leg. Snelling Avenue N is a two-lane undivided roadway with a posted speed limit of 40 mph on the south leg and 45 mph on the north leg. The south leg of Snelling Avenue N is functionally classified as a local roadway and under the City of Arden Hills jurisdiction and all other legs are classified as minor arterials and under Ramsey County jurisdiction. The area adjacent to the study intersection is comprised primarily of residential homes, with a lone commercial property in the northeast corner of the intersection (Lindey’s Prime Steak House), and a small park in the southeast corner (Lindey’s Park). Current intersection geometrics are listed in Table 1 and shown in Figure 2. Existing peak hour traffic volumes, also shown in Figure 2, were collected by SRF Consulting Group in September 2021. Table 1. Existing Conditions Approach Lane Configurations Northbound Snelling Avenue N (South Leg) One left-turn lane and one shared thru/right-turn lane Southbound Snelling Avenue N (North Leg) One left-turn lane and one shared thru/right-turn lane Eastbound County Road E (West Leg) One left-turn lane and one shared thru/right-turn lane Westbound County Road E (East Leg) One left-turn lane, one thru lane, and one right-turn lane Crash History Crash data was obtained from the MnDOT Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT2) for a five- year period from 2015 through 2019. Five (5) total crashes were reported during the analysis period at the County Road E and Snelling Avenue N intersection. This results in an actual crash rate of 0.24 crashes per Million Entering Vehicles (MEV), while the statewide average crash rate for similar intersections is 0.24 crashes per MEV for an urban all-way stop intersection. The actual crash rate being the same as the average crash rate indicates that the intersection is performing similar to other intersections. Additionally, there were zero fatal or serious injury crashes reported at this location. The five intersection crashes are summarized as follows: · Crash Severity: o 1 – Possible injury (type C) crashes o 4 – Property damage only (PDO) crashes · Crash Type: o 1 – Head on crash o 1 – Angle crash o 2 – Rear-end crash o 1 – Sideswipe crash The crash severities and crash types do not indicate that there is a repetitive type of crash or crash trend at this intersection. 14411 November 2021 Existing Conditions County Road E and Snelling Avenue N ICE Report Arden Hills, Ramsey County, MN Figure 2 Yegen Road 1804 (4) 6(25) 24(17) 20Snelling Ave N 15 (31)38 (106)164 (379) (55) 26 (212) 88 (19) 6 302 (294) 98 (148) 10 (34) XX (XX) - A.M. Peak Hour Volume - P.M. Peak Hour Volume - All Way Stop Control LEGENDNORTHNorth H:\Projects\14000\14411\TraffStudy\Figures\Fig02_Existing Conditions.cdrEden Prairie RoadPublic Storage Access Morgan Avenue27 COUNTY Snelling Avenue N149 Ramsey COUNTY 76 Ramsey COUNTY Snelling Avenue NLake Johanna Boulevard 15 Ramsey COUNTY County Road E CR E [DRAFT] Intersection Control Evaluation SRF Consulting Group, Inc. County Road E at Snelling Ave N (CR 76) 3 November 30, 2021 Intersection Capacity Analysis An existing intersection capacity analysis was completed for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours to establish a baseline condition to which future traffic operations can be compared. The study intersection was analyzed using Synchro/SimTraffic (Version 11). Capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS), which indicates the quality of traffic flow through an intersection. Intersections are given a ranking from LOS A through LOS F. The LOS results are based on average delay per vehicle, which correspond to the delay threshold values shown in Table 2. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation, with vehicles experiencing minimal delays. LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity, or a breakdown of traffic flow. Overall intersection LOS A through LOS D is generally considered acceptable on roadways in the Twin Cities Metro Area. Table 2. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections LOS Designation Signalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds) Unsignalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds) A ≤ 10 ≤ 10 B > 10 - 20 > 10 - 15 C > 20 - 35 > 15 - 25 D > 35 - 55 > 25 - 35 E > 55 - 80 > 35 - 50 F > 80 > 50 Results of the existing intersection capacity analysis shown in Table 3 indicate that the study intersection currently operates at an acceptable overall LOS A and LOS B during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively, with the existing geometric layout and traffic controls. No significant delay or queuing issues were identified based on the collected traffic volumes. Anecdotally, traffic operations begin to breakdown if traffic volumes increase marginally from an average day and there can be longer queues and delays based on daily traffic fluctuations. Table 3. Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay County Road E/Snelling Avenue N A 7 sec. B 14 sec. [DRAFT] Intersection Control Evaluation SRF Consulting Group, Inc. County Road E at Snelling Ave N (CR 76) 4 November 30, 2021 Traffic Volumes The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted travel patterns and traffic volumes. The newly collected traffic volumes used for this ICE were collected after the pandemic begam, so a comparison to historical volumes was made to understand how the volumes compare to pro-COVID conditions. Traffic counts were reviewed from the previous ICE Report from 2018 that utilized pre-pandemic volumes. Ramsey County also collected traffic volumes in July of 2021, which were significantly lower than the 2018 volumes and prior to schools in session. Traffic counts collected as part of this ICE were counted at the end of September 2021 to capture school traffic and more employees returning to work. Table 4 shows the total entering peak hour volumes for the three traffic counts, which shows the counts from July 2021 were lower than the 2018 counts during both peaks, and the September 2021 counts are approximately 20 percent lower in the a.m. peak hour and slightly higher in the p.m. peak hour. Table 4. Volume Comparison Traffic Count Date AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 2018 ICE Report 1,000 1,300 2021 - July 525 975 2021 – September (after school start) 800 1,325 To evaluate future conditions, Forecast Year 2043 a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes were developed for the County Road E and Snelling Avenue N intersection. The forecasts were based on existing peak hour turning movement counts and grown based on several factors, including: · MVHS does not anticipate significant changes into the future · Bethel College is expecting minor growth in undergraduate enrollment · Based on the area, it is common to use an annual traffic growth rate of 0.5 percent · Reviewing the Metro Council Regional Travel Demand Model which takes into account the local comprehensive land use plans, an annual growth rate of 0.42 percent is anticipated Based on the above information, an annual growth rate of 0.5 percent was applied to existing traffic counts to develop the forecast traffic volumes. The resultant Opening Year 2023 and Forecast Year 2043 peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively. 14411 November 2021 Opening Year 2023 Conditions County Road E and Snelling Avenue N ICE Report Arden Hills, Ramsey County, MN Figure 3 Yegen Road 1804 Snelling Avenue N (5) 10(25) 25(20) 20Snelling Ave N 15 (35)40 (110)170 (385) CR E (60) 30 (215) 90 (20) 10 305 (300) 100 (150) 10 (35) XX (XX) - A.M. Peak Hour Volume - P.M. Peak Hour Volume - All Way Stop Control LEGENDNORTHNorth H:\Projects\14000\14411\TraffStudy\Figures\Fig03_Opening Year 2023 Conditions.cdrEden Prairie RoadPublic Storage Access Morgan Avenue27 COUNTY 149 Ramsey COUNTY 76 Ramsey COUNTY 15 Ramsey COUNTYSnelling Avenue NCounty Road ELake Johanna Boulevard 14411 November 2021 Forecast Year 2043 Conditions County Road E and Snelling Avenue N ICE Report Arden Hills, Ramsey County, MN Figure 4 Yegen Road 1804 (5) 10(30) 30(20) 25Snelling Ave N 20 (35)45 (120)185 (425) CR E (65) 30 (240) 100 (25) 10 340 (330) 110 (170) 15 (40) XX (XX) - A.M. Peak Hour Volume - P.M. Peak Hour Volume - All Way Stop Control LEGENDNORTHNorth H:\Projects\14000\14411\TraffStudy\Figures\Fig04_Forecast Year 2043 Conditions.cdrEden Prairie RoadPublic Storage Access Morgan Avenue27 COUNTY Snelling Avenue N149 Ramsey COUNTY 76 Ramsey COUNTY Snelling Avenue NLake Johanna Boulevard 15 Ramsey COUNTY County Road E [DRAFT] Intersection Control Evaluation SRF Consulting Group, Inc. County Road E at Snelling Ave N (CR 76) 7 November 30, 2021 Analysis of Alternatives The evaluation of intersection control alternatives included warrant, traffic operations, safety performance, and planning-level cost analyses. Opening Year 2023 and Forecast Year 2043 volumes were used in the analysis. The following alternatives were considered: · All-Way Stop Control (No Build) · Traffic Signal Control o Assumed that existing geometry would remain under traffic signal control with potentially minor revisions. · Roundabout Control (single-lane) o An initial planning-level analysis was performed for the roundabout control alternative, which indicates that a signal entry lane on all approaches would provide acceptable traffic operations. Warrant Analysis The September 2020 Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD) provides guidance on when it may appropriate to use all-way stop or traffic signal control at an intersection. This guidance is provided in the form of “warrants”, or criteria, and engineering analysis of the intersection’s design factors, to determine when all-way stop or traffic signal control may be justified. All-way stop or traffic signal control should not be installed at an intersection unless a MnMUTCD warrant is met but meeting a warrant does not itself require the installation of a control. The control type also needs an engineering analysis of the intersection’s design for it to be justified. Under the MnDOT ICE process, roundabouts are considered warranted if traffic volumes meet the warrant requirements for either all-way stop or traffic signal control. For this ICE, analysis of signal Warrants 1-3 was conducted for Opening Year 2023 and Forecast Year 2043 volumes. Signal warrants 4-9 were investigated and were determined to be not applicable for the study intersection. The lane geometry and approach speeds assumed for the warrant analysis are shown in Table 5. The combined approaches of County Road E have a higher entering volume than the combined approaches of Snelling Avenue N. Therefore, County Road E was considered the major roadway for this analysis. Table 5. Warrant Analysis Assumptions Approach Geometry Speed Limit Northbound Snelling Avenue N (South Leg) Two approach lanes 40 mph Southbound Snelling Avenue N (North Leg) Two approach lanes 45 mph Eastbound County Road E (West Leg) Two approach lanes 30 mph Westbound County Road E (East Leg) Two approach lanes 35 mph [DRAFT] Intersection Control Evaluation SRF Consulting Group, Inc. County Road E at Snelling Ave N (CR 76) 8 November 30, 2021 Right-turn volumes on the minor street approaches are typically excluded from a warrant analysis when there is an exclusive right-turn lane because these turns can be easily made and would not benefit significantly from the addition of a signal. There are no dedicated right-turn lanes on the Snelling Avenue approaches, so the right-turns were included in the analysis. It should also be noted that the 70 percent traffic volume factor was not used for the warrant analysis because the southbound approach of Snelling Avenue is posted at 45 mph and is has the second highest volume of the four approaches, only behind the westbound approach. Table 6 provides a warrant analysis summary, while the detailed volume-based analysis is shown in the Appendix. Table 6. Signal Warrant Analysis Summary MnMUTCD Signal Warrant Hours Required Opening Year Year 2023 Volumes Forecast Year 2043 Volumes Hours Met Warrant Met? Hours Met Warrant Met? Warrant 1A: Minimum Vehicular Volume 8 9 Yes 12 Yes Warrant 1B: Interruption of Continuous Traffic 8 3 No 3 No Warrant 1C: Combination of Warrants 8 5 No 9 Yes Warrant 2: Four Hour Volume 4 7 Yes 8 Yes Warrant 3B: Peak Hour Volume 1 4 Yes 4 Yes Warrants 4-9 Not Applicable Multiway Stop Application Condition 8 12 Yes 12 Yes The results of the signal warrant/roundabout analysis indicate that Warrant 1A, Warrant 2, Warrant 3B, and the all-way stop volume warrant are expected to be met under Opening Year 2023 volumes. Under Forecast Year 2043 Volumes, Warrant 1C is also anticipated to be warranted in addition to the ones met under Opening Year 2023 volumes. Traffic Operations Analysis The operational analysis of the all-way stop and traffic signal control alternatives was performed using Synchro/SimTraffic software, while the operational analysis of the roundabout control alternative was performed using Rodel software. The operational analysis identified a Level of Service (LOS) which indicates how well an intersection is operating based on the delay per vehicle measure of effectiveness. Delay is calculated based on procedures outlined in the 6th Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) for the all-way stop and traffic signal control and roundabout delay methodologies in Rodel. Intersections are given a ranking from LOS A to LOS F. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation and LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity. [DRAFT] Intersection Control Evaluation SRF Consulting Group, Inc. County Road E at Snelling Ave N (CR 76) 9 November 30, 2021 Table 8 provides a summary of the Opening Year 2023 operational analysis. Results of the operational analysis indicate that all alternatives are expected to perform at an overall LOS B or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under Opening Year 2023 traffic volumes and proposed lane configurations. The Opening Year 2023 detailed operational analysis results are shown in the Appendix. Table 7. Opening Year 2023 Operations Analysis Results Alternative Analysis Tool AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS (1) Delay (2) (sec/veh) LOS (1) Delay (2) (sec/veh) All-Way Stop Control Synchro/ SimTraffic A/A 7/8 B/C 14/19 Traffic Signal Control A/B 9/14 B/C 14/21 Roundabout Control (single-lane) Rodel A/A 6/9 A/B 8/11 (1) Overall intersection Level of Service (LOS) shown followed by the worst approach LOS. (2) Overall intersection delay shown followed by the worst approach delay. Table 8 provides a summary of the Forecast Year 2043 operational analysis. Results of the operational analysis indicate that all-way stop alternative is expected to approach an overall LOS D, with its worst approach operating at a LOS F p.m. peak hour under Forecast Year 2043 traffic volumes and existing lane configurations. The traffic signal and roundabout control alternatives are still expected to operate at a LOS B or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The Build Year 2043 detailed operational analysis results are shown in the Appendix. Table 8. Forecast Year 2043 Operations Analysis Results Alternative Analysis Tool AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS (1) Delay (2) (sec/veh) LOS (1) Delay (2) (sec/veh) All-Way Stop Control Synchro/ SimTraffic A/A 7/9 D/F 31/57 Traffic Signal Control A/B 9/14 B/C 14/21 Roundabout Control (single-lane) Rodel A/A 7/10 A/B 10/14 (1) Overall intersection Level of Service (LOS) shown followed by the worst approach LOS. (2) Overall intersection delay shown followed by the worst approach delay. A roundabout will almost always out-perform the operations of all-way stop control. The roundabout and traffic signal can accommodate changes in volumes and a platoon traffic better than an all-way stop. Roundabouts also typically have lower delay in the off-peaks compared to a traffic signal due to the clearance intervals associated with a traffic signal. [DRAFT] Intersection Control Evaluation SRF Consulting Group, Inc. County Road E at Snelling Ave N (CR 76) 10 November 30, 2021 Safety Analysis A safety analysis was performed to estimate the number of crashes per year for each traffic control alternative for the Opening Year 2023 and Forecast Year 2043 conditions for the study intersection. For the all-way stop control alternative, crash rates were expected to match the existing observed crash rate. To analyze the crash rates for the traffic signal and roundabout alternatives, Crash Modification Factors (CMF) were taken from the CMF Clearinghouse. The CMF clearinghouse is a database sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration and contains CMFs determined through research studies. These CMFs can be used to estimate the impact that a road or intersection improvement will have on the expected crash rate for that location. A summary of the projected crashes per intersection alternative is shown in Table 9. Table 9. Crash Analysis Results Alternative Intersection ADT Crash Modification Factor Average Crash Rate (1) Projected Crashes/Year Opening Year 2023 Forecast Year 2043 Opening Year 2023 Forecast Year 2043 All-Way Stop Control 11,880 13,050 N/A 0.24 (2) 1.04 1.14 Traffic Signal Control 0.95 0.22 (3) 0.95 1.05 Roundabout Control (single-lane) 1.03 0.24 (3) 1.04 1.14 (1) Per 100 million entering vehicles (2015-2019 data). (2) Assumed to match the observed crash rate. (3) Based on the adjusted crash modification factor (CMF). Based on the results of the crash analysis, the three alternative controls are anticipated to have a similar number of crashes per year. However, most crashes at roundabouts occur at lower speeds and shallow angles due to the geometry of a roundabout. With lower speeds, the severity of the crashes is typically decreased. A roundabout virtually eliminates right-angle and left-turn head-on crashes; this is particularly true with single-lane roundabouts. Planning-Level Cost Analysis Capital Costs Since the study intersection currently exists as an all-way stop-controlled intersection, costs associated with the all-way stop control are anticipated to be minimal. Based on preliminary concepts, additional right-of-way is not anticipated to be required for either the traffic signal or roundabout. The cost to construct a signal at the intersection is estimated to be between $300,000 and $400,000, while the cost to construct a roundabout is estimated to be between $1,200,000 and $1,500,000. Operation and Maintenance Costs Traffic signals typically have higher operation and maintenance costs because of the electricity required to operate the signal and routine maintenance required to keep the signal in operation, such as retiming [DRAFT] Intersection Control Evaluation SRF Consulting Group, Inc. County Road E at Snelling Ave N (CR 76) 11 November 30, 2021 and maintenance if signals poles or pedestrian push buttons get hit during a crash. Operation and maintenance costs associated with a roundabout can vary depending on the amount of illumination required and landscaping alternatives used for the center island. [DRAFT] Intersection Control Evaluation SRF Consulting Group, Inc. County Road E at Snelling Ave N (CR 76) 12 November 30, 2021 Alternatives Assessment Right-of-Way Considerations No additional right-of-way is anticipated to be needed for the all-way stop control or traffic signal alternatives. Based on the concept sketches of a single-lane roundabout, no additional permanent right-of-way is anticipated to be needed, although temporary easements maybe needed for construction. The driveways for the business (Lindey’s Prime Steak House) in the northeast quadrant nearest the intersection will likely require closure under a roundabout design. However, even with a traffic signal or under the existing all-way stop, the driveway is close to the intersection and would be recommended to be closed. Transportation System Considerations Currently, intersections in the immediate study area operate with a mix of traffic signal control and side-street stop control. However, none of the adjacent intersection control dictates the preferred alternative at this intersection. The nearby traffic signal at the TH 51 interchange does cause some platooning into the intersection, which would be better accommodated by a traffic signal or a roundabout. Multimodal Considerations There are existing marked pedestrian crossings across all approaches of the intersection. There are trails in the northwest and southeast quadrants. Another trail is anticipated to go south of the intersection in the near future and another one in the planning stages going to the west. These trail improvements are anticipated to increase pedestrian and bicycle activity through this study intersection. The design of signalized intersections can create a safer environment for pedestrian crossings with the use of pedestrian signal phasing. This phasing allows pedestrians to cross an intersection while adjacent vehicular movements are served. Depending on the signal timing, there can be longer wait times for pedestrians to legally cross with signalized control. The design of a roundabout allows pedestrians to cross one direction of traffic at a time on each leg of the roundabout and recent MnDOT research indicates that roundabouts have improved safety performance for pedestrians compared to signalized control. Local Acceptance All the proposed alternatives are common forms of traffic control in Ramsey County. Roundabouts are the newest form and many of the existing roundabouts are multi-lane or have large radii. The current roundabout concept is a much simpler single-lane and smaller diameter that would fit better into the project constraints. [DRAFT] Intersection Control Evaluation SRF Consulting Group, Inc. County Road E at Snelling Ave N (CR 76) 13 November 30, 2021 Conclusions and Recommendations The following intersection control evaluation (ICE) conclusions and recommendations are provided for the County Road E and Snelling Avenue N intersection in Arden Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota: · Warrants Analysis The results of the signal warrant analysis indicate that Warrant 1A, Warrant 2, Warrant 3B, and the all-way stop warrant are expected to be met under Opening Year 2023 conditions and continue to be met under Forecast Year 2043 volumes, along with Warrant 1C. A signal or all-way stop being warranted is also justification that a roundabout is “warranted.” · Operations Analysis Results of the operational analysis indicate that the all-way stop control alternative is expected to perform at an overall LOS D with a worst approach at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour under Forecast Year 2043 traffic volumes and existing lane configurations. The traffic signal alternative is expected to perform at an overall LOS B during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, and the roundabout is expected to perform at overall LOS A under Forecast Year 2043 traffic volumes and proposed lane configurations. Bethel College and Mounds View High School (MVHS) are in the vicinity of the study intersection, which can result in sharp traffic peaks due to the release of students. The all-way stop control alternative does not accommodate these peaks in traffic volumes as well as a traffic signal or roundabout would. · Safety Analysis Based on the results of the crash analysis, all three alternatives are anticipated to have a similar number of crashes per year. Although, serious injury and fatal crashes are not currently a concern at the study intersection based on observed crashes, roundabout control is likely to have the fewest number of serious injury and fatal crashes per year based on the speeds and angles of the conflicts. · Planning-Level Cost Analysis A traffic signal or roundabout would require capital costs to construct. Traffic signals typically have higher operation and maintenance costs because of the electricity required to operate the signal and routine maintenance required to keep the signal in operation. Operation and maintenance costs associated with a roundabout can vary depending on the amount of illumination required or landscaping alternatives used for the center island. A roundabout is anticipated have a higher construction cost ranging between $1,200,000 and $1,500,00 compared to $300,000 and $400,000 for a traffic signal. · Right-of-Way Considerations The roundabout control, as currently designed, is not expected to require additional right-of-way, and may only require temporary easements during the construction phase. A traffic signal is also anticipated to not require additional right-of-way. The existing business in the northeast quadrant [DRAFT] Intersection Control Evaluation SRF Consulting Group, Inc. County Road E at Snelling Ave N (CR 76) 14 November 30, 2021 of the study will likely require access restrictions or closure of its driveway nearest to the intersection with any alternative due to the close proximity. · Transportation System Considerations Currently, intersections in the greater study area operate with a mix of traffic signal control, all- way stop control, and roundabout control. All alternatives would, therefore, be expected forms of traffic control. · Multimodal Considerations Currently, there is a marked pedestrian crossing on every approach, with mixed-use trails on the northwest and southeast quadrants heading north and east, respectively, from the intersection. Plans are already underway to add a trail heading south from the intersection, and initial planning has begun on constructing trail heading west from the intersection. Based on MnDOT research, a roundabout provides a safer pedestrian experience compared to all-way stop control and signalized control. Recommendation Based on the results of this Intersection Control Evaluation, the County Road E and Snelling Avenue N intersection is recommended to be constructed as a single-lane roundabout with one entry lane on all four approaches. This recommendation is based on: · The existing all-way stop traffic control intersection does not currently have an operations issue under typical peak hour volumes; however, an increase of just 10 percent in traffic volume would put a considerable strain on the intersection under the all-way stop (reflective of the Forecast Year 2043 analysis) and why there are days currently where delays and queues are longer. The all-way stop cannot accommodate changes in traffic volumes as well as a traffic signal or roundabout. · The traffic signal and roundabout alternatives are anticipated to be warranted based on Opening Year 2023 and Forecast Year 2043 volumes. · The operations analysis indicates the roundabout is expected to perform better than the traffic signal under peak hour volumes. Roundabouts also typically have lower delay in the off-peaks compared to a traffic signal due to the clearance intervals associated with a traffic signal. o A traffic signal is expected to have longer delays under Opening Year 2023 peak hour conditions compared to all-way stop control. · The overall safety performance of the roundabout is expected to be similar to a traffic signal, but roundabouts typically have fewer fatal and severe injury crashes due to the lower speeds and the angles of the conflicts. · While the initial capital costs for the roundabout are higher, it is expected to be the cheaper alternative in the long term, due to lower maintenance and operations costs compared to a traffic signal. · No additional permanent right-of-way is anticipated to be needed to construct the roundabout. [DRAFT] Intersection Control Evaluation SRF Consulting Group, Inc. County Road E at Snelling Ave N (CR 76) 15 November 30, 2021 Appendix · Year 2021 Intersection Turning Movement Volumes · Opening Year 2023 Signal Warrant Analysis · Forecast Year 2043 Signal Warrant Analysis · Opening Year 2023 Detailed Traffic Operations Analysis · Forecast Year 2043 Detailed Traffic Operations Analysis · Fastest Path Analysis · Truck Turning Movements Year 2021 Intersection Turning Movement Volumes SRF Consulting Group Turning Movment Count Lone Oak Pkwy / TH 149 Count Date: 3/18/2021 CR E CR E Old Snelling Ave Old Snelling Ave 15 min 15 min Start EB WB NB SB Veh.Ped Time L T R Ped L T R Ped L T R Ped L T R Ped Total Total 600 - 4 - 1 - 12 8 - - - 1 - 1 3 2 - 31 1 615 - 3 - - - 4 11 - - 1 1 1 8 1 - - 29 1 630 - 7 1 2 - 12 17 - - 1 2 4 8 1 4 - 53 6 645 3 10 1 2 3 13 19 1 - 1 - 2 14 2 2 1 68 6 700 4 13 1 1 - 16 24 - 2 3 4 - 20 5 2 - 94 1 715 6 15 1 1 7 13 34 - 1 3 7 - 22 5 3 - 117 1 730 6 22 3 1 4 22 57 - 1 3 7 - 32 6 2 - 165 1 745 4 29 1 1 2 30 77 - 2 8 6 1 28 11 2 - 200 2 800 11 21 1 - 3 27 112 - 1 6 3 - 50 11 5 - 251 - 815 5 16 1 1 1 19 56 - 2 7 4 1 54 10 6 - 181 2 830 4 22 2 - 7 8 48 - - 5 10 1 27 7 6 - 146 1 845 6 39 2 - 3 15 62 - 2 8 3 - 39 11 5 - 195 - 900 8 29 1 - 9 23 38 - - 2 10 1 35 3 4 - 162 1 915 5 27 1 - 1 34 35 - - 2 4 - 45 9 5 - 168 - 930 3 20 - - 6 25 36 - - 5 2 - 25 9 2 - 133 - 945 2 17 - 1 5 21 32 - - - 3 1 33 15 5 - 133 2 1000 4 19 2 2 3 21 31 - - 1 2 2 21 11 2 - 117 4 1015 9 21 5 - 2 20 37 - 3 2 1 - 53 7 4 - 164 - 1030 6 18 3 3 5 25 40 - 1 2 2 3 30 8 4 - 144 6 1045 6 27 - 1 5 26 52 - 1 1 4 - 31 8 1 - 162 1 1100 7 21 5 - 2 22 58 - - - 2 - 31 8 3 - 159 - 1115 6 30 6 - 9 24 28 - 2 2 2 - 28 9 1 - 147 - 1130 9 43 3 2 5 27 39 - 1 1 3 1 32 6 5 - 174 3 1145 6 28 5 1 3 30 38 - 2 1 6 - 28 8 1 - 156 1 1200 6 34 3 1 4 34 53 - - 2 8 - 48 10 10 - 212 1 1215 8 25 3 1 4 36 61 - - 1 - 1 49 9 15 - 211 2 1230 7 33 4 1 4 26 47 - 1 2 4 1 52 3 11 - 194 2 1245 5 23 2 1 5 25 39 - 1 3 2 - 40 7 5 - 157 1 1300 6 26 2 - 3 36 35 - 2 - 6 - 35 10 6 - 167 - 1315 7 33 5 1 4 41 49 - - 2 5 1 33 8 6 - 193 2 1330 4 24 2 - 4 30 59 - 1 1 4 1 46 4 6 - 185 1 1345 2 29 5 - 7 29 42 - 1 1 7 - 45 11 11 - 190 - 1400 9 34 4 1 9 40 39 - 1 - - 1 28 13 6 - 183 2 1415 10 34 7 1 3 34 46 - 2 2 1 2 32 5 5 - 181 3 1430 9 40 3 1 9 27 49 - 2 4 9 1 52 15 4 - 223 2 1445 4 33 2 1 8 32 41 1 1 2 4 2 46 14 12 1 199 5 1500 7 46 2 - 11 53 62 - 1 5 1 - 48 8 5 - 249 - 1515 14 45 5 1 3 41 57 - 1 4 - 1 87 8 8 - 273 2 1530 14 47 5 - 9 43 60 - 1 - - - 106 16 5 - 306 - 1545 14 50 7 1 6 37 67 - 3 6 - - 90 13 10 - 303 1 1600 13 56 3 3 12 37 61 - - 8 5 3 104 28 13 - 340 6 1615 12 48 3 2 7 37 73 - 4 5 5 2 107 36 8 - 345 4 1630 14 50 8 1 9 37 84 - - 6 3 2 74 19 9 - 313 3 1645 16 58 5 3 6 37 76 4 - 6 4 2 94 23 1 5 326 14 1700 14 58 3 - 4 32 73 - - 4 2 - 100 31 9 - 330 - 1715 13 53 5 2 10 34 83 - 1 6 2 3 104 29 11 - 351 5 1730 12 43 4 - 5 33 70 - - 2 8 - 82 21 11 - 291 - 1745 8 42 4 4 14 33 87 - 1 4 9 1 81 24 9 - 316 5 Trucks #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Counted By: Miovision Page 1 of 2 SRF No. 13506 SRF Consulting Group Turning Movment Count Lone Oak Pkwy / TH 149 Count Date: 3/18/2021 CR E CR E Old Snelling Ave Old Snelling Ave 15 min 15 min Start EB WB NB SB Veh.Ped Time L T R Ped L T R Ped L T R Ped L T R Ped Total Total Peak 1 0000 to 1000 730 6 22 3 1 4 22 57 - 1 3 7 - 32 6 2 - 165 1 745 4 29 1 1 2 30 77 - 2 8 6 1 28 11 2 - 200 2 800 11 21 1 - 3 27 112 - 1 6 3 - 50 11 5 - 251 - 815 5 16 1 1 1 19 56 - 2 7 4 1 54 10 6 - 181 2 Total 26 88 6 3 10 98 302 - 6 24 20 2 164 38 15 - 797 5 PHF 0.59 0.76 0.50 0.63 0.82 0.67 0.75 0.75 0.71 0.76 0.86 0.63 0.79 Peak 2 1000 to 1400 1400 9 34 4 1 9 40 39 - 1 - - 1 28 13 6 - 183 2 1415 10 34 7 1 3 34 46 - 2 2 1 2 32 5 5 - 181 3 1430 9 40 3 1 9 27 49 - 2 4 9 1 52 15 4 - 223 2 1445 4 33 2 1 8 32 41 1 1 2 4 2 46 14 12 1 199 5 Total 32 141 16 4 29 133 175 1 6 8 14 6 158 47 27 1 786 12 PHF 0.80 0.88 0.57 0.81 0.83 0.89 0.75 0.50 0.39 0.76 0.78 0.56 0.88 Peak 3 1400 to 2400 1600 13 56 3 3 12 37 61 - - 8 5 3 104 28 13 - 340 6 1615 12 48 3 2 7 37 73 - 4 5 5 2 107 36 8 - 345 4 1630 14 50 8 1 9 37 84 - - 6 3 2 74 19 9 - 313 3 1645 16 58 5 3 6 37 76 4 - 6 4 2 94 23 1 5 326 14 Total 55 212 19 9 34 148 294 4 4 25 17 9 379 106 31 5 1,324 27 PHF 0.86 0.91 0.59 0.71 1.00 0.88 0.25 0.78 0.85 0.89 0.74 0.60 0.96 Counted By: Miovision Page 2 of 2 SRF No. 13506 Opening Year 2023 Signal Warrant Analysis WARRANTS ANALYSIS Opening Year 2023 County Road E and Old Snelling Ave County Road E and Old Snelling Ave City of Arden Hills, Ramsey County Location : City of Arden Hills, Ramsey County Speed (mph)Lanes Date: 11/17/2021 35 2 or more Major Approach 1: M. Powers 30 2 or more Major Approach 3: Population Less than 10,000:No 40 2 or more Minor Approach 2: Seventy Percent Factor Used:Yes 45 2 or more Minor Approach 4: Major Major Total Minor Minor Largest Hour Approach 1 Approach 3 1 + 3 420 630 Approach 2 Approach 4 Minor App.140 70 Condition A Condition B A B 210 140 6 - 7 AM 100 29 129 7 46 46 7 - 8 AM 289 106 395 47 139 139 X X X X 8 - 9 AM 365 131 496 X 52 233 233 X X X X X X 9 - 10 AM 268 114 382 29 192 192 X X X X X 10 - 11 AM 271 121 392 20 182 182 X X X X X 11 - 12 AM 288 171 459 X 22 162 162 X X X X X X 12 - 1 PM 341 155 496 X 24 262 262 X X X X X X 1 - 2 PM 342 146 488 X 30 223 223 X X X X X X 2 - 3 PM 340 191 531 X 28 234 234 X X X X X X X 3 - 4 PM 454 259 713 X X 22 408 408 X X X X X X X X 4 - 5 PM 481 289 770 X X 46 521 521 X X X X X X X X 5 - 6 PM 483 262 745 X X 39 517 517 X X X X X X X X 6 - 7 PM 403 153 556 X 38 350 350 X X X X X X X 7 - 8 PM 0 8 - 9 PM 0 9 - 10 PM 0 10 - 11 PM 0 9 3 12 5 MWSA (C):Multiway Stop Applications Condition C Warrant 1A:Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant 1B:Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant 1C:Combination of Warrants Warrant 2:Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 3B:Peak Hour MWSA (C) 12 8 Met - Multiway Stop ApplicationsBackground InformationApproach Westbound County Road E Eastbound County Road E Northbound Old Snelling Ave Southbound Old Snelling Ave Analysis Prepared By: Warrants Analysis: Warrants 1A, 1B, and 1CWarrant Met CombinationWarrant Met Met Same Hours Met - Warrant 3B Satisfied 12 4 Met/Not Met 9 8 Met - Warrant 1A Satisfied Hours Met Hours Required Warrant SummaryWarrant and Description 7 Not Met 5 8 Not Met 3 8 Met - Warrant 2 Satisfied 4 1 WARRANTS ANALYSIS Opening Year 2023 County Road E and Old Snelling Ave County Road E and Old Snelling Ave City of Arden Hills, Ramsey County Number of Hours Satisfying Requirements: Notes:1. 80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 60 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 2. INTERSECTION IS EITHER (1) WITHIN A COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR (2) HAS SPEEDS ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET.Warrants Analysis: Warrant 27 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000MINOR STREET HIGH VOLUME APPROACH -- VPH MAJOR STREET -- TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -- VPH WARRANT 2 - FOUR-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME WARRANTS ANALYSIS Opening Year 2023 County Road E and Old Snelling Ave County Road E and Old Snelling Ave City of Arden Hills, Ramsey County Number of Hours Satisfying Requirements: Notes:1. 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 2. INTERSECTION IS EITHER (1) WITHIN A COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR (2) HAS SPEEDS ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET. 4Warrants Analysis: Warrant 30 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000MINOR STREET HIGH VOLUME APPROACH -- VPH MAJOR STREET -- TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -- VPH WARRANT 3 - PEAK HOUR Forecast Year 2043 Signal Warrant Analysis WARRANTS ANALYSIS Opening Year 2043 County Road E and Old Snelling Ave County Road E and Old Snelling Ave City of Arden Hills, Ramsey County Location : City of Arden Hills, Ramsey County Speed (mph)Lanes Date: 11/17/2021 35 2 or more Major Approach 1: M. Powers 30 2 or more Major Approach 3: Population Less than 10,000:No 40 2 or more Minor Approach 2: Seventy Percent Factor Used:Yes 45 2 or more Minor Approach 4: Major Major Total Minor Minor Largest Hour Approach 1 Approach 3 1 + 3 420 630 Approach 2 Approach 4 Minor App.140 70 Condition A Condition B A B 210 140 6 - 7 AM 110 32 142 8 51 51 7 - 8 AM 319 117 436 X 52 154 154 X X X X X X 8 - 9 AM 403 145 548 X 57 258 258 X X X X X X X 9 - 10 AM 296 126 422 X 32 212 212 X X X X X X 10 - 11 AM 299 134 433 X 22 201 201 X X X X X X 11 - 12 AM 318 189 507 X 25 179 179 X X X X X X X 12 - 1 PM 377 171 548 X 27 289 289 X X X X X X X 1 - 2 PM 378 162 540 X 33 247 247 X X X X X X X 2 - 3 PM 376 211 587 X 31 259 259 X X X X X X X 3 - 4 PM 501 286 787 X X 25 451 451 X X X X X X X X 4 - 5 PM 531 319 850 X X 51 576 576 X X X X X X X X 5 - 6 PM 533 289 822 X X 44 571 571 X X X X X X X X 6 - 7 PM 445 169 614 X 42 387 387 X X X X X X X 7 - 8 PM 0 0 8 - 9 PM 0 0 9 - 10 PM 0 0 10 - 11 PM 0 0 12 3 12 9 MWSA (C):Multiway Stop Applications Condition C Warrant 1A:Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant 1B:Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant 1C:Combination of Warrants Warrant 2:Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 3B:Peak HourWarrant SummaryWarrant and Description 8 Not Met 9 8 Met - Warrant 1C Satisfied 3 8 Met - Warrant 2 Satisfied 4 1 Met - Warrant 3B Satisfied 12 4 Met/Not Met 12 8 Met - Warrant 1A Satisfied Hours Met Hours Required MWSA (C) 12 8 Met - Multiway Stop ApplicationsBackground InformationApproach Westbound County Road E Eastbound County Road E Northbound Old Snelling Ave Southbound Old Snelling Ave Analysis Prepared By: Warrants Analysis: Warrants 1A, 1B, and 1CWarrant Met CombinationWarrant Met Met Same Hours WARRANTS ANALYSIS Opening Year 2043 County Road E and Old Snelling Ave County Road E and Old Snelling Ave City of Arden Hills, Ramsey County Number of Hours Satisfying Requirements: Notes:1. 80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 60 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 2. INTERSECTION IS EITHER (1) WITHIN A COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR (2) HAS SPEEDS ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET.Warrants Analysis: Warrant 28 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000MINOR STREET HIGH VOLUME APPROACH -- VPH MAJOR STREET -- TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -- VPH WARRANT 2 - FOUR-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME WARRANTS ANALYSIS Opening Year 2043 County Road E and Old Snelling Ave County Road E and Old Snelling Ave City of Arden Hills, Ramsey County Number of Hours Satisfying Requirements: Notes:1. 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 2. INTERSECTION IS EITHER (1) WITHIN A COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR (2) HAS SPEEDS ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET. 4Warrants Analysis: Warrant 30 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000MINOR STREET HIGH VOLUME APPROACH -- VPH MAJOR STREET -- TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -- VPH WARRANT 3 - PEAK HOUR Opening Year 2023 Detailed Traffic Operations Analysis County Rd E & Old Snelling Ave 11/12/2021 Build 2023 AM Peak - AWSC Average of 5 Runs \\srfgroup.loc\Shares\RDF\MPowers\Folders\Desktop\14411\Synchro\AWSC\AWSC.syn SimTraffic Report Page 1 3: Old Snelling Ave & County Rd E Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.1 2.9 0.6 3.0 2.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 8.3 6.3 5.6 6.4 6.6 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 8.2 County Rd E & Old Snelling Ave 11/12/2021 Build 2023 AM Peak - AWSC Average of 5 Runs \\srfgroup.loc\Shares\RDF\MPowers\Folders\Desktop\14411\Synchro\AWSC\AWSC.syn SimTraffic Report Page 2 Intersection: 3: Old Snelling Ave & County Rd E Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L TR L T R L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 22 46 42 73 117 23 66 100 65 Average Queue (ft) 8 14 6 28 38 3 25 39 30 95th Queue (ft) 21 32 27 55 79 16 53 74 58 Link Distance (ft) 871 898 799 788 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 70 160 100 165 140 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 1 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 1 County Rd E & Old Snelling Ave 11/12/2021 Build 2023 PM Peak - AWSC Average of 5 Runs \\srfgroup.loc\Shares\RDF\MPowers\Folders\Desktop\14411\Synchro\AWSC\AWSC.syn SimTraffic Report Page 1 3: Old Snelling Ave & County Rd E Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.9 2.7 0.4 2.8 2.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 15.3 9.0 9.5 19.3 14.3 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 16.3 County Rd E & Old Snelling Ave 11/12/2021 Build 2023 PM Peak - AWSC Average of 5 Runs \\srfgroup.loc\Shares\RDF\MPowers\Folders\Desktop\14411\Synchro\AWSC\AWSC.syn SimTraffic Report Page 2 Intersection: 3: Old Snelling Ave & County Rd E Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L TR L T R L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 47 107 55 78 125 35 46 234 262 Average Queue (ft) 17 45 17 35 42 3 24 110 55 95th Queue (ft) 37 92 43 62 84 18 47 208 154 Link Distance (ft) 871 898 799 788 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 70 160 100 165 140 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 3 0 1 12 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 2 0 1 17 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 20 County Rd E & Old Snelling Ave 11/12/2021 Build 2023 AM Peak - Signal Average of 5 Runs \\srfgroup.loc\Shares\RDF\MPowers\Folders\Desktop\14411\Synchro\Signal\Signal.syn SimTraffic Report Page 1 3: Old Snelling Ave & County Rd E Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.1 2.9 0.6 2.9 2.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 14.6 8.2 6.9 7.6 9.0 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 10.3 County Rd E & Old Snelling Ave 11/12/2021 Build 2023 AM Peak - Signal Average of 5 Runs \\srfgroup.loc\Shares\RDF\MPowers\Folders\Desktop\14411\Synchro\Signal\Signal.syn SimTraffic Report Page 2 Intersection: 3: Old Snelling Ave & County Rd E Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L TR L T R L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 42 66 40 86 133 23 56 115 63 Average Queue (ft) 10 18 6 32 42 2 19 45 15 95th Queue (ft) 28 48 26 71 90 14 48 92 46 Link Distance (ft) 871 898 799 788 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 70 160 100 165 140 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 1 1 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 2 County Rd E & Old Snelling Ave 11/12/2021 Build 2023 PM Peak - Signal Average of 5 Runs \\srfgroup.loc\Shares\RDF\MPowers\Folders\Desktop\14411\Synchro\Signal\Signal.syn SimTraffic Report Page 1 3: Old Snelling Ave & County Rd E Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.0 2.7 0.4 2.8 2.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 20.5 10.6 14.5 12.1 13.6 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 15.2 County Rd E & Old Snelling Ave 11/12/2021 Build 2023 PM Peak - Signal Average of 5 Runs \\srfgroup.loc\Shares\RDF\MPowers\Folders\Desktop\14411\Synchro\Signal\Signal.syn SimTraffic Report Page 2 Intersection: 3: Old Snelling Ave & County Rd E Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L TR L T R L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 90 168 56 118 97 30 59 211 122 Average Queue (ft) 24 70 15 48 41 2 21 111 39 95th Queue (ft) 61 130 43 94 79 14 51 186 83 Link Distance (ft) 871 898 799 788 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 70 160 100 165 140 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 9 0 0 3 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 5 1 0 4 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 11 Page 1 of 4 Rodel-Win Report dated 12-Nov-2021 Rodel Version 1.96 Scheme: Single Lane RAB Run number 72 Project: CR E & Old Snelling Redesign2023 AM Peak 50% Confidence Level Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry Operational Data Main Geometry (ft) Approach and Entry Geometry Leg Leg Names Approach Bearing (deg) Grade Separation G Half Width V Approach Lanes n Entry Width E Entry Lanes n Flare Length L' Entry Radius R Entry Angle Phi 1 NB Old Snelling Ave 0 0 12.00 1 16.00 1 150.00 60.37 30.00 2 EB County Rd E 90 0 12.00 1 16.00 1 150.00 60.37 30.00 3 SB Old Snelling Ave 180 0 12.00 1 16.00 1 150.00 60.37 30.00 4 WB County Rd E 270 0 12.00 1 16.00 1 150.00 60.37 30.00 Circulating and Exit Geometry Leg Leg Names Inscribed Diameter D Circulating Width C Circulating Lanes nc Exit Width Ex Exit Lanes nex Exit Half Width Vx Exit Half Width Lanes nvx 1 NB Old Snelling Ave 150.00 18.00 1 16.00 1 12.00 1 2 EB County Rd E 150.00 18.00 1 16.00 1 12.00 1 3 SB Old Snelling Ave 150.00 18.00 1 16.00 1 12.00 1 4 WB County Rd E 150.00 18.00 1 16.00 1 12.00 1 Page 2 of 4 Rodel-Win Report dated 12-Nov-2021 Rodel Version 1.96 Scheme: Single Lane RAB Run number 72 Project: CR E & Old Snelling Redesign2023 AM Peak 50% Confidence Level Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry Traffic Flow Data (veh/hr) 2023 AM Peak Peak Hour Flows Leg Leg Names Turning Flows U-Turn Exit-3 Exit-2 Exit-1 Bypass Flow Modifiers Trucks % Flow Factor Peak Hour Factor 1 NB Old Snelling Ave 0 6 24 20 0 5.8 1.00 0.800 2 EB County Rd E 0 26 89 6 0 0.7 1.00 0.800 3 SB Old Snelling Ave 0 166 38 15 0 7.7 1.00 0.800 4 WB County Rd E 0 10 99 305 0 6.3 1.00 0.800 Page 3 of 4 Rodel-Win Report dated 12-Nov-2021 Rodel Version 1.96 Scheme: Single Lane RAB Run number 72 Project: CR E & Old Snelling Redesign2023 AM Peak 50% Confidence Level Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry Operational Results 2023 AM Peak - 60 minutes Delays, Queues and Level of Service Leg Leg Names Bypass Type Average Delay (sec) Entry Bypass Leg 95% Queue (veh) Entry Bypass Level of Service Entry Bypass Leg 1 NB Old Snelling Ave None 4.11 4.11 0.18 A A 2 EB County Rd E None 4.23 4.23 0.37 A A 3 SB Old Snelling Ave None 6.00 6.00 0.88 A A 4 WB County Rd E None 8.64 8.64 2.59 A A Page 4 of 4 Rodel-Win Report dated 12-Nov-2021 Rodel Version 1.96 Scheme: Single Lane RAB Run number 72 Project: CR E & Old Snelling Redesign2023 AM Peak 50% Confidence Level Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry Global Results Performance and Accidents 2023 AM Peak Global Performance Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total Arrive Flows veh/hr 804 804 Capacity veh/hr 4206 4206 Average Delay sec/veh 6.10 6.10 L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A Total Delay veh.hrs 1.36 1.36 Page 1 of 4 Rodel-Win Report dated 12-Nov-2021 Rodel Version 1.96 Scheme: Single Lane RAB Run number 77 Project: CR E & Old Snelling Redesign2023 PM Peak 50% Confidence Level Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry Operational Data Main Geometry (ft) Approach and Entry Geometry Leg Leg Names Approach Bearing (deg) Grade Separation G Half Width V Approach Lanes n Entry Width E Entry Lanes n Flare Length L' Entry Radius R Entry Angle Phi 1 NB Old Snelling Ave 0 0 12.00 1 16.00 1 150.00 60.37 30.00 2 EB County Rd E 90 0 12.00 1 16.00 1 150.00 60.37 30.00 3 SB Old Snelling Ave 180 0 12.00 1 16.00 1 150.00 60.37 30.00 4 WB County Rd E 270 0 12.00 1 16.00 1 150.00 60.37 30.00 Circulating and Exit Geometry Leg Leg Names Inscribed Diameter D Circulating Width C Circulating Lanes nc Exit Width Ex Exit Lanes nex Exit Half Width Vx Exit Half Width Lanes nvx 1 NB Old Snelling Ave 150.00 18.00 1 16.00 1 12.00 1 2 EB County Rd E 150.00 18.00 1 16.00 1 12.00 1 3 SB Old Snelling Ave 150.00 18.00 1 16.00 1 12.00 1 4 WB County Rd E 150.00 18.00 1 16.00 1 12.00 1 Page 2 of 4 Rodel-Win Report dated 12-Nov-2021 Rodel Version 1.96 Scheme: Single Lane RAB Run number 77 Project: CR E & Old Snelling Redesign2023 PM Peak 50% Confidence Level Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry Traffic Flow Data (veh/hr) 2023 PM Peak Peak Hour Flows Leg Leg Names Turning Flows U-Turn Exit-3 Exit-2 Exit-1 Bypass Flow Modifiers Trucks % Flow Factor Peak Hour Factor 1 NB Old Snelling Ave 0 4 25 17 0 2.2 1.00 0.920 2 EB County Rd E 0 56 214 19 0 2.6 1.00 0.920 3 SB Old Snelling Ave 0 383 107 31 0 1.7 1.00 0.920 4 WB County Rd E 0 34 149 297 0 1.9 1.00 0.920 Page 3 of 4 Rodel-Win Report dated 12-Nov-2021 Rodel Version 1.96 Scheme: Single Lane RAB Run number 77 Project: CR E & Old Snelling Redesign2023 PM Peak 50% Confidence Level Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry Operational Results 2023 PM Peak - 60 minutes Delays, Queues and Level of Service Leg Leg Names Bypass Type Average Delay (sec) Entry Bypass Leg 95% Queue (veh) Entry Bypass Level of Service Entry Bypass Leg 1 NB Old Snelling Ave None 4.57 4.57 0.16 A A 2 EB County Rd E None 6.18 6.18 0.94 A A 3 SB Old Snelling Ave None 9.73 9.73 2.83 A A 4 WB County Rd E None 11.36 11.36 3.33 B B Page 4 of 4 Rodel-Win Report dated 12-Nov-2021 Rodel Version 1.96 Scheme: Single Lane RAB Run number 77 Project: CR E & Old Snelling Redesign2023 PM Peak 50% Confidence Level Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry Global Results Performance and Accidents 2023 PM Peak Global Performance Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total Arrive Flows veh/hr 1336 1336 Capacity veh/hr 4045 4045 Average Delay sec/veh 8.39 8.39 L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A Total Delay veh.hrs 3.12 3.12 Forecast Year 2043 Detailed Traffic Operations Analysis County Rd E & Old Snelling Ave 11/12/2021 Forecast 2043 AM Peak - AWSC Average of 5 Runs \\srfgroup.loc\Shares\RDF\MPowers\Folders\Desktop\14411\Synchro\AWSC\AWSC.syn SimTraffic Report Page 1 3: Old Snelling Ave & County Rd E Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.1 2.9 0.6 2.9 2.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 8.7 6.6 5.6 6.9 7.0 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 8.6 County Rd E & Old Snelling Ave 11/12/2021 Forecast 2043 AM Peak - AWSC Average of 5 Runs \\srfgroup.loc\Shares\RDF\MPowers\Folders\Desktop\14411\Synchro\AWSC\AWSC.syn SimTraffic Report Page 2 Intersection: 3: Old Snelling Ave & County Rd E Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L TR L T R L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 22 45 41 76 120 23 71 114 64 Average Queue (ft) 9 15 7 29 42 5 26 42 33 95th Queue (ft) 22 34 28 55 88 20 56 82 59 Link Distance (ft) 871 898 799 788 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 70 160 100 165 140 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 1 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 1 County Rd E & Old Snelling Ave 11/13/2021 Forecast 2043 PM Peak - AWSC Average of 5 Runs \\srfgroup.loc\Shares\RDF\MPowers\Folders\Desktop\14411\Synchro\AWSC\AWSC.syn SimTraffic Report Page 1 3: Old Snelling Ave & County Rd E Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.0 2.7 0.3 4.2 2.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 20.7 11.3 11.5 57.4 31.4 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 33.3 County Rd E & Old Snelling Ave 11/13/2021 Forecast 2043 PM Peak - AWSC Average of 5 Runs \\srfgroup.loc\Shares\RDF\MPowers\Folders\Desktop\14411\Synchro\AWSC\AWSC.syn SimTraffic Report Page 2 Intersection: 3: Old Snelling Ave & County Rd E Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L TR L T R L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 103 161 63 96 111 36 60 239 552 Average Queue (ft) 21 61 20 44 54 2 26 185 227 95th Queue (ft) 52 127 47 81 94 16 54 291 646 Link Distance (ft) 871 898 799 788 Upstream Blk Time (%)5 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 70 160 100 165 140 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 10 0 1 55 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 6 1 2 85 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 95 County Rd E & Old Snelling Ave 11/12/2021 Forecast 2043 AM Peak - Signal Average of 5 Runs \\srfgroup.loc\Shares\RDF\MPowers\Folders\Desktop\14411\Synchro\Signal\Signal.syn SimTraffic Report Page 1 3: Old Snelling Ave & County Rd E Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.0 2.9 0.5 2.9 2.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 14.0 8.4 6.2 8.3 9.1 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 10.4 County Rd E & Old Snelling Ave 11/12/2021 Forecast 2043 AM Peak - Signal Average of 5 Runs \\srfgroup.loc\Shares\RDF\MPowers\Folders\Desktop\14411\Synchro\Signal\Signal.syn SimTraffic Report Page 2 Intersection: 3: Old Snelling Ave & County Rd E Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L TR L T R L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 35 69 41 109 129 19 68 145 83 Average Queue (ft) 10 21 7 40 47 2 19 50 17 95th Queue (ft) 27 54 26 85 96 14 50 105 57 Link Distance (ft) 871 898 799 788 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 70 160 100 165 140 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 2 1 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 3 County Rd E & Old Snelling Ave 11/30/2021 Forecast 2043 PM Peak - Signal Average of 5 Runs K:\Traffic\_staff\Mark\Projects\14411\Synchro\Signal\Signal.syn SimTraffic Report Page 1 3: Old Snelling Ave & County Rd E Performance by approach Approach EB WB NB SB All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.0 2.7 0.3 2.8 2.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 20.5 11.4 14.3 13.1 14.1 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 15.7 County Rd E & Old Snelling Ave 11/30/2021 Forecast 2043 PM Peak - Signal Average of 5 Runs K:\Traffic\_staff\Mark\Projects\14411\Synchro\Signal\Signal.syn SimTraffic Report Page 2 Intersection: 3: Old Snelling Ave & County Rd E Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L TR L T R L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 75 160 63 130 115 30 71 230 271 Average Queue (ft) 24 71 19 54 46 2 25 121 54 95th Queue (ft) 58 134 48 104 87 14 58 200 161 Link Distance (ft) 871 898 799 788 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 70 160 100 165 140 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 9 1 0 5 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 5 5 0 8 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 19 Page 1 of 4 Rodel-Win Report dated 12-Nov-2021 Rodel Version 1.96 Scheme: Single Lane RAB Run number 84 Project: CR E & Old Snelling Redesign2043 AM Peak 50% Confidence Level Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry Operational Data Main Geometry (ft) Approach and Entry Geometry Leg Leg Names Approach Bearing (deg) Grade Separation G Half Width V Approach Lanes n Entry Width E Entry Lanes n Flare Length L' Entry Radius R Entry Angle Phi 1 NB Old Snelling Ave 0 0 12.00 1 16.00 1 150.00 60.37 30.00 2 EB County Rd E 90 0 12.00 1 16.00 1 150.00 60.37 30.00 3 SB Old Snelling Ave 180 0 12.00 1 16.00 1 150.00 60.37 30.00 4 WB County Rd E 270 0 12.00 1 16.00 1 150.00 60.37 30.00 Circulating and Exit Geometry Leg Leg Names Inscribed Diameter D Circulating Width C Circulating Lanes nc Exit Width Ex Exit Lanes nex Exit Half Width Vx Exit Half Width Lanes nvx 1 NB Old Snelling Ave 150.00 18.00 1 16.00 1 12.00 1 2 EB County Rd E 150.00 18.00 1 16.00 1 12.00 1 3 SB Old Snelling Ave 150.00 18.00 1 16.00 1 12.00 1 4 WB County Rd E 150.00 18.00 1 16.00 1 12.00 1 Page 2 of 4 Rodel-Win Report dated 12-Nov-2021 Rodel Version 1.96 Scheme: Single Lane RAB Run number 84 Project: CR E & Old Snelling Redesign2043 AM Peak 50% Confidence Level Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry Traffic Flow Data (veh/hr) 2043 AM Peak Peak Hour Flows Leg Leg Names Turning Flows U-Turn Exit-3 Exit-2 Exit-1 Bypass Flow Modifiers Trucks % Flow Factor Peak Hour Factor 1 NB Old Snelling Ave 0 7 27 22 0 5.8 1.00 0.800 2 EB County Rd E 0 29 99 7 0 0.7 1.00 0.800 3 SB Old Snelling Ave 0 184 43 17 0 7.7 1.00 0.800 4 WB County Rd E 0 11 110 338 0 6.3 1.00 0.800 Page 3 of 4 Rodel-Win Report dated 12-Nov-2021 Rodel Version 1.96 Scheme: Single Lane RAB Run number 84 Project: CR E & Old Snelling Redesign2043 AM Peak 50% Confidence Level Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry Operational Results 2043 AM Peak - 60 minutes Delays, Queues and Level of Service Leg Leg Names Bypass Type Average Delay (sec) Entry Bypass Leg 95% Queue (veh) Entry Bypass Level of Service Entry Bypass Leg 1 NB Old Snelling Ave None 4.27 4.27 0.20 A A 2 EB County Rd E None 4.40 4.40 0.42 A A 3 SB Old Snelling Ave None 6.30 6.30 1.02 A A 4 WB County Rd E None 9.53 9.53 3.31 A A Page 4 of 4 Rodel-Win Report dated 12-Nov-2021 Rodel Version 1.96 Scheme: Single Lane RAB Run number 84 Project: CR E & Old Snelling Redesign2043 AM Peak 50% Confidence Level Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry Global Results Performance and Accidents 2043 AM Peak Global Performance Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total Arrive Flows veh/hr 894 894 Capacity veh/hr 4168 4168 Average Delay sec/veh 6.65 6.65 L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A Total Delay veh.hrs 1.65 1.65 Page 1 of 4 Rodel-Win Report dated 12-Nov-2021 Rodel Version 1.96 Scheme: Single Lane RAB Run number 86 Project: CR E & Old Snelling Redesign2043 PM Peak 50% Confidence Level Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry Operational Data Main Geometry (ft) Approach and Entry Geometry Leg Leg Names Approach Bearing (deg) Grade Separation G Half Width V Approach Lanes n Entry Width E Entry Lanes n Flare Length L' Entry Radius R Entry Angle Phi 1 NB Old Snelling Ave 0 0 12.00 1 16.00 1 150.00 60.37 30.00 2 EB County Rd E 90 0 12.00 1 16.00 1 150.00 60.37 30.00 3 SB Old Snelling Ave 180 0 12.00 1 16.00 1 150.00 60.37 30.00 4 WB County Rd E 270 0 12.00 1 16.00 1 150.00 60.37 30.00 Circulating and Exit Geometry Leg Leg Names Inscribed Diameter D Circulating Width C Circulating Lanes nc Exit Width Ex Exit Lanes nex Exit Half Width Vx Exit Half Width Lanes nvx 1 NB Old Snelling Ave 150.00 18.00 1 16.00 1 12.00 1 2 EB County Rd E 150.00 18.00 1 16.00 1 12.00 1 3 SB Old Snelling Ave 150.00 18.00 1 16.00 1 12.00 1 4 WB County Rd E 150.00 18.00 1 16.00 1 12.00 1 Page 2 of 4 Rodel-Win Report dated 12-Nov-2021 Rodel Version 1.96 Scheme: Single Lane RAB Run number 86 Project: CR E & Old Snelling Redesign2043 PM Peak 50% Confidence Level Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry Traffic Flow Data (veh/hr) 2043 PM Peak Peak Hour Flows Leg Leg Names Turning Flows U-Turn Exit-3 Exit-2 Exit-1 Bypass Flow Modifiers Trucks % Flow Factor Peak Hour Factor 1 NB Old Snelling Ave 0 4 28 19 0 2.2 1.00 0.920 2 EB County Rd E 0 62 237 21 0 2.6 1.00 0.920 3 SB Old Snelling Ave 0 424 119 35 0 1.7 1.00 0.920 4 WB County Rd E 0 38 166 329 0 1.9 1.00 0.920 Page 3 of 4 Rodel-Win Report dated 12-Nov-2021 Rodel Version 1.96 Scheme: Single Lane RAB Run number 86 Project: CR E & Old Snelling Redesign2043 PM Peak 50% Confidence Level Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry Operational Results 2043 PM Peak - 60 minutes Delays, Queues and Level of Service Leg Leg Names Bypass Type Average Delay (sec) Entry Bypass Leg 95% Queue (veh) Entry Bypass Level of Service Entry Bypass Leg 1 NB Old Snelling Ave None 4.83 4.83 0.18 A A 2 EB County Rd E None 6.48 6.48 1.09 A A 3 SB Old Snelling Ave None 10.96 10.96 3.66 B B 4 WB County Rd E None 13.52 13.52 4.70 B B Page 4 of 4 Rodel-Win Report dated 12-Nov-2021 Rodel Version 1.96 Scheme: Single Lane RAB Run number 86 Project: CR E & Old Snelling Redesign2043 PM Peak 50% Confidence Level Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry Global Results Performance and Accidents 2043 PM Peak Global Performance Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total Arrive Flows veh/hr 1482 1482 Capacity veh/hr 3963 3963 Average Delay sec/veh 9.73 9.73 L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A Total Delay veh.hrs 4.00 4.00 Fastest Path Analysis Truck Turning Movements Page 1 of 2 AGENDA ITEM – 1A MEMORANDUM DATE: December 20, 2021 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: David Swearingen, P.E. Public Works Director / City Engineer SUBJECT: Feasibility Study – Proposed Trail from Lake Valentine Road to CR-96 Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $0 $8,000 Feasibility Study Update PIR Fund $15,000 Geotechnical Work Council Should Consider Council should consider updating the December 2008 Old Snelling Ave / Old Highway 10 Trail Feasibility Study of the proposed trail segment along Old Highway 10 from Lake Valentine Road to County Road 96. Background This item was initially brought forward to Council at the November 15, 2021 Work Session, which concluded with Council directing Staff to retrieve an existing study that was conducted along the proposed corridor. Staff was able to locate the study which is provided in Attachment B. Staff has reviewed the document and has determined that there is a significant amount of content within this study that can be used while applying for funding opportunities, although there will need to be some updates to figures, cost estimates, design standards and regulations that have changed since 2008. The original estimate for a full feasibility study was suggested at $35,000, the revised estimate to update the existing study is $8,000. Council also directed Staff to review if geotechnical work along this corridor had been done previously and Staff determined there has not. The geotechnical work is vital in determining how the existing soil conditions will affect the overall design of the trail and ultimately the cost. Geotechnical work for this corridor is estimated at $15,000. Page 2 of 2 The corridor for the proposed trail segment can be seen in Attachment A. This trail would be a 6,500-foot North-South connecting segment along Old Highway 10 from Lake Valentine Road to CR-96. At the southern end of the corridor there is an existing trail segment along Lake Valentine Road near Valentine Park and the City has 95% design plans for a trail segment on the West side of Old Highway 10 from Lake Valentine Road to County Road E2. Towards the middle of the trail corridor, there is another connection on the south side of Parkshore Drive as part of the senior living development. At the north end of this corridor the trail would meet the existing trail that extends along Old Hwy 10 at the interchange of CR-96. The feasibility study will provide information of what is involved if this trail were to be designed and constructed, such as, existing conditions with utilities (Public and Private), drainage, environmental challenges, estimated costs and project funding sources. It would also include some Public involvement to identify needs or issues from their feedback. The feasibility report does not commit the City to construct the trail but puts the City in position to pursue funding opportunities when available. For additional information, Ramsey County is performing a pavement preservation project along Old Highwa y 10 from County Road E to CR-96 in 2023. City staff has already coordinated with Ramsey County on a segment of trail designed on the West side of Old Snelling from County Road E2 to Lake Valentine Road which they will incorporate into their plans. Discussion City Staff is requesting direction from Council if they would like the feasibility study updated. Having a completed study puts the City in better position for future funding opportunities. Budget Impact This proposed trail is not currently funded and is not programmed in the CIP. Staff estimates the cost for the feasibility study will be around $8,000 for the report and $15,000 for soil boring geotechnical work. Attachments Attachment A – Project Corridor Attachment B – December 2008 Old Snelling Avenue / Old Highway 10 Feasibility Report DAWN CI R H I GH WA Y 1 0 NE NORMAAVECOUNTY RO AD 96 W KEITHSON DR GRAMSIE RD O L D HIG H W A Y 10 DELLVIEW AVEV A L E N T I N E C T M C C L U N G D R LAKESHOREPL BRUEBERR Y L N PARKSHORE DR COLLEENAVEGATEWAYBLVD JANET CT GLENVIEWAVEV A L E N T I NECRESTRDROYAL HILLS DRC R Y S T A L A V E VAL ENTI NE AVE BRIARKNOLL CIR FAIRVIEWAVENSNELLING AVE NLAKE VALENTINERD INTERSTATE 694 0 800Feet Ü Old HWY 10 TrailMVHS Trail Improvements Page 1 of 2 AGENDA ITEM – 1C MEMORANDUM DATE: December 20, 2021 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: David Swearingen, P.E. Public Works Director / City Engineer SUBJECT: Pedestrian crossing at County Road F and Hamline Avenue Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $ $ Council Should Consider Council should consider action to take regarding a resident’s concern reporting unsafe pedestrian conditions at the signalized intersection of Hamline Avenue and County Road F. Background On September 9, 2021 an Arden Hills resident reported a concern of unsafe conditions for pedestrians at the County Road F and Hamline Avenue signalized intersection pedestrian crossings. The resident stated: “Cars traveling south on Hamline commonly drive into the crosswalk with a red light (& a walk sign for those crossing Hamline from W to E). Drivers on Cty Rd F going west, and planning to turn right (north) onto Hamline love to come to a rolling stop at this intersection and turn right onto Hamline going north, even with walkers in the crosswalk (to cross Hamline from E to W) with a walk light.” City Staff forwarded this concern to Ramsey County, this was their response: “With regard to the County Road F and Hamline Avenue intersection, County staff have reviewed this intersection and have determined that it is designed appropriately. The concern you have raised appears to be related to inattentive driver behavior that needs to be addressed through enforcement and increased public awareness. The Ramsey County sheriff is aware of the issue and are doing what they can to monitor, educate and enforce.” Page 2 of 2 City Staff then recommended a sign be installed for approaching vehicles and this was the County’s response: “The “Turning Vehicles Stop for Pedestrian” sign is an optional sign that may be used to help remind motorists to stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk. It is not a required sign and has been used in limited cases throughout the county, mainly where there are high pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic at a signalized intersection or other site specific considerations might justify the need to provide this reminder. The intersection of Hamline and County Road F has moderate traffic and pedestrian levels, there are no site obstructions or unique considerations at this location from my review. This is the basis for not installing the sign that was requested from the resident. Lexington Ave has these signs installed at a few locations (694 ramps and CR F) where the traffic levels are twice that of Hamline. Additionally, Land O Lakes had facilities on both side of Lexington where staff would walk back and forth to the buildings which created substantial pedestrian use thereby substantiating the need for using this optional sign. Characteristics like these are what justify the use of optional signs. The county appreciates the resident’s acknowledgement of the inappropriate driver behaviors exhibited in this area and continues to offer that enforcement is a much better modifier than installing a static sign. The static sign will likely not result in the desired outcome the resident is hoping for.” Discussion Staff was requested to bring this item forward to a Work Session for Council discussion. Budget Impact Attachments Page 1 of 2 AGENDA ITEM – 1D MEMORANDUM DATE: December 20, 2021 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Commission Onboarding Policy Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council shall consider The City Council is asked to provide staff feedback and direction on the Planning Commission Onboarding Policy. Background At several work session meetings, the City Council has discussed creating a document and checklist to assist Planning Commissioners in their review of planning cases. From these meetings, staff has been developing resources that will provide a detailed checklist and additional training to the Commissioners. The first resource that staff created to use in the onboarding process is the Zoning Approval and Plan Review Guide. This document started out as a detailed checklist similar to what staff uses to review planning cases and transformed into an informational tool that contained questions Commissioners should ask themselves when reviewing submittal documents and plans. At the January 19, 2021 work session, planning staff presented the City Council with Version 3 of this guide that was developed with the Planning Commission Liaison at the time and sought direction on the onboarding policy. The general consensus of the Council was that the Zoning Approvals and Plan Review Guide would be beneficial as part of the onboarding and as a refresher resource for Commissioners. However, the Council still felt that a checklist document should be created that assists in review of land use applications for completeness. Based on that direction, city staff met with the current Commission Liaison, Councilmember Holmes, to discuss further the content that would be included in a checklist. The premise was to create a one page checklist that would function as a supplement to the staff report in review of whether or not an Applicant has provided all of the plan sheets in a complete manner for review of a planning case. The staff report would still Page 2 of 2 serve as the primary document for evaluation of specific code provisions and continue to provide a summary evaluation table at the end of the report. This checklist would act as a summary for completeness of application materials. Included with this memo are the following documents for City Council review and discussion: • Zoning Approvals and Plan Review Guide • Planning Commissioner Onboarding Policy • Land Use Application Checklist As the Council considers the application review process, staff did consult with the City Attorney on whether or not an application review could be halted by city staff if it is later determined during the plan evaluation that additional information is necessary and/or requested. When a land use application is submitted, staff will look over the materials to determine the completeness based on the requirements as outlined in Appendix A of the Zoning Code which describes the plans required as well as conduct an initial review of code requirements. This determination must be made in the first 15 days from the date of submission. There are instances in preparing the staff report or during the Commission review that there may be additional questions, details missing, and/or inconsistent data that is necessary prior to Council consideration. Staff does work diligently with the Applicant to collect this information, but there are times when the Applicant fails to provide it in a timely manner or requests to move forward without supplying it. In those cases, staff will call this to the Council’s attention in the staff report so you are aware of the status. The City Attorney has advised that staff does not have the authority to stop or pause the processing of an application that has been determined to be complete. The 60-day time limitation for processing of an application would apply. The City Attorney indicated it would be best to have the Council determine whether or not the request of staff and/or the Commission is essential for the Council evaluation either as a basis for an extension (table) or a denial; or could the Council do without and address through conditions added to an approval motion. Next Steps: Staff is looking for Council direction and feedback on the attached Planning Commission Checklist and Onboarding Policy. Budget Impact: N/A Attachment A. Draft Plan Review Guide B. Draft Onboarding Policy C. Draft Checklist 2020 Zoning Approvals and Plan Review Guide PLANNING COMMISSION PLAN REVIEW GUIDE – VERSION 3 DRAFT ARDEN HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 | Page Planning Is About Collaboration Planning is a highly collaborative field, and planners spend much of their time working with others. A planner's day may start with a staff meeting to discuss the management of a planning project. Other meetings might include a team meeting with engineers, architects, and landscape architects to review the specifics of a plan. Yet other meetings might take place with residents to discuss home improvement projects. The planner's role is to provide the big picture and to relate the project to various goals and guidelines, such as ordinances, in order to achieve a final project that meets the needs of the community. This might include appropriate design, environmental considerations, support for the local economy, or equitable access for all members of the community. The Planning Department reviews development proposals with the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan and the City Code. The Comprehensive Plan is the city's long-range guide to how property should be developed or redeveloped. The City Code regulates many aspects of land-use including the type of use, requirements, setbacks, and general standards. Typical Day On a typical day, the Planning Division will: • Meet with developers, land owners and residents inquiring about development or redevelopment of property. • Review residential, commercial and industrial building plans • Answer residents' inquiries regarding building setbacks, lot coverage and building height requirements • Review sign permit applications and answer inquiries regarding size, location and height requirements for signage • Conduct follow-up inspections and investigate complaints regarding Zoning Ordinance compliance Zoning and Approvals The zoning district section of city codes establishes the different types of districts, for example residential, commercial or industrial/manufacturing, and sets the regulations for each district. Districts also may have further designations reflecting desired density and use. Use designations, usually in a list form, specify the permitted, conditionally permitted and prohibited uses for a district or zone. The following types of uses generally are found in a zoning ordinance: Permitted uses Uses allowed in a district as a matter of right, without further need for review or approval of the city. Prohibited Uses Uses not permitted in a district under any circumstances. An explicit listing of prohibited uses is rare. Many ordinances simply will provide that any uses not specifically listed are deemed prohibited. 2 | Page Accessory uses Uses permitted or conditionally permitted to serve a permitted or conditionally permitted use. An accessory use generally will not be permitted absent the primary use. For example, a tool shed represents a standard accessory use in a residential zone. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Applicants requesting to use their property in a way that is not expressly prohibited by the zoning code may apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). A CUP authorizes a property owner to operate their property in a way that is encouraged by the ordinance as long as it is declared harmonious with their zoning district. The concept of use permits was created to give cities more flexibility in zoning ordinance administration. Oftentimes, a CUP application will include a site plan for review. Questions that may be useful in reviewing a CUP request include: • Is the proposed use allowed in its district or is it a prohibited use? • (How) will the requested use impact the neighborhood? • What noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, waste, or other nuisance characteristics might be associated with the use? • (How) Is the proposed use permitted under the land use plan? • (How) Is the proposed use compatible with neighboring uses? • What potential impacts, if any, can be mitigated (traffic, parking drainage, grading, tree removal, landscaping, etc.)? • What conditions, if any, could mitigate the potential impacts identified above? Interim Use Permit (IUP) An Interim Use Permit (IUP) is a temporary agreement to allow a property to conduct a certain use for a limited amount of time (termination clause or sunset date), if conditions listed in the ordinance are met. Arden Hills code prohibits properties from re-apply for the same interim use permit after the termination or sunset date has been reached, but the terms of the IUP can be extended or renewed at the discretion of the City Council. Oftentimes, a CUP application will include a site plan for review. • When is the use scheduled to terminate? • Is the proposed use allowed in its district or is it a prohibited use? • (How) will the requested use impact the neighborhood? • Under what conditions will the IUP terminate? • How will the conditions of the IUP be monitored for compliance? Variance Variances serve as an exception to rules laid out in a zoning ordinance. They permit departures from strict enforcement of the ordinance as applied to a particular piece of property if strict enforcement would cause the owner “practical difficulties.” Variances allow deviations to physical standards set forth in a zoning ordinance, (such as setbacks or height limits) and may not allow a use otherwise prohibited in the particular zoning district. The practical difficulties test has replaced the “undue hardship” test that had been in place for many years. The “practical difficulties,” standard includes the three-factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. State law now allows variances when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. 3 | Page The practical difficulties factors include (Minn. Stat. § 462.354, subd. 6.): • The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. This factor means that the landowner would like to use the property in a specific, reasonable way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. It does not mean that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use whatsoever without the variance. • The landowner’s situation arose out of circumstances unique to the property and not caused by the landowner. The uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of the piece of property and economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties. • The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. This factor generally contemplates whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area. Cities should grant variances when strict enforcement of a zoning ordinance causes practical difficulties. A landowner who purchased land knowing a variance would be necessary in order to make the property buildable is not barred from requesting a variance on the grounds the hardship was self-imposed. State law also requires granting “[v]ariances …only … when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” In granting a variance, a city may attach conditions, but the conditions must directly relate to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. For example, if the variance reduces side yard setbacks, it may be reasonable for a city to impose a condition of additional screening or landscaping to camouflage the structure built within the normal setback. An applicant for a variance is not entitled to a variance merely because similar variances were granted in the past, although, in granting variances, a city ought to be cautious about establishing precedent. Questions that may be useful in reviewing a CUP request include: • What are the zoning requirements specific to the district the property owner is requesting flexibility from? • Does the variance negatively impact the adjacent properties or the neighborhood? • Is the variance establishing precedent? • Were the hardships created by the property owner? • Are economic hardships part of the hardship? • Planned Unit Development (PUD) Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) are a land use planning tool that allows developers greater flexibility with large-scale projects. A Planned Unit Development would allow the City to deviate from the zoning standards for a specific development without changing the Zoning Ordinance text for all property located in that same zoning district. Within a Planned Unit Development, the City can request higher standards for some elements of the development (such as higher quality building materials) in exchange for the reduced standards allowed (such as reduced lot sizes). These new standards are approved through a Planned Unit Development Agreement between the developer and the City. The Planned Unit Development Agreement is recorded on the property and is transferred to any future land owner. If standards within the Planned Unit Development Agreement need to be added, removed, or modified, then an amendment can be applied for. • What flexibility is requested? 4 | Page • Is the PUD request establishing precedent? • How does the PUD impact adjacent properties? • Is the PUD met the overall goals and intent of the zoning district and comprehensive plan? Comprehensive Plan Amendment All cities, counties and townships within the seven-county metropolitan region must prepare a Comprehensive Plan and update that plan as needed every 10 years. The Metropolitan Council is charged with reviewing local comprehensive plans and must review a plan for completeness before initiating the review process for an update or an amendment. Any changes to the use category or the designation of a property on the city’s Land Use Plan requires an approved Comprehensive Plan Amendment from the Metropolitan Council. The City’s Zoning Code identifies specific zoning districts through which the land uses and goals in the Comprehensive Plan are implemented. The zoning of a property cannot conflict with the future land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan. When there is a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code, the City is required to amend the Zoning Code to comply with the Comprehensive Plan, or an approved Comprehensive Plan amendment is required. The Metropolitan Council has the final determination as to whether to allow a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, though they provide great deference to the City as long as the proposed land use change does not have a negative impact on a region. • What is the current land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan? • Are the surrounding land uses compatible with the proposed amendment? • Is the proposed change consistent with the city goals and visions? • What is the current zoning district for the property? • (How) will the change in land use designation comply with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code and with the policies within the City’s Comprehensive Plan? Rezoning When a landowner wants to use a parcel in a way that is incongruous with its zoning designation, they may request a re-zoning of the parcel to better align with their development goals. The rezoning of a parcel that conflicts with the uses and designations of parcels in the surrounding area, may be considered spot zoning. Spot zoning is the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use totally different from that of the surrounding area usually for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of other owners. Spot zoning is can occur when a specific parcel or parcels of land within a larger zoned area is at odds with a city's land use plan or current zoning restrictions. Property owners to do not have vested rights in the specific zoning of their parcel. Spot zoning usually involves the rezoning of a small parcel of land in a manner that: • Has no supporting rational basis that relates to promoting public welfare. • Establishes a use classification inconsistent with surrounding uses and creates an island of nonconforming use within a larger zoned district (for example one lot where industrial uses are permitted in an otherwise residential zone). • Dramatically reduces the value for uses specified in the zoning ordinance of either the rezoned plot or abutting property. Questions that may be useful in reviewing a rezoning request include: 5 | Page • What are the surrounding permitted uses? • What are the surrounding zoning requirements? • Is the proposed rezoning compatible with the adjacent zoning districts? • Is the re-zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? Plan Review Guide: Overview The following plan review guide is intended to assist Planning Commissioners review development proposals: a brief overview of what the plan sheet shows and what Planning Commissioners should ask themselves when reviewing proposals. Survey Surveys are a graphic depiction of the existing conditions on a property. Property surveys are completed to determine or confirm land boundaries, such as the plot of land a proposed structure will be built on. A survey also identifies other types of restrictions and conditions that apply to the legal description of a property such as easements, outlining its legal boundaries and other features such as lakes, rivers, or wetlands. Land surveys are legal property documents. Existing conditions or survey facts: • Surveys show boundary lines lengths and widths • Surveys provide reference locations to property ties and elevations of all benchmarks (A benchmark is a point where exact elevation is known and is marked with a brass or aluminum plate) • Surveys show where easements and right-of-way are located. • Surveys must be certified to by a registered Land Surveyor. • Survey have legal descriptions • Surveys show reference to and relations of municipal, township, county or section lines to lines of the subject property by distances, angles, radii, internal angles, points and curvatures, tangent bearings and lengths of all arcs. 6 | Page What should a planning commissioner ask themselves when reviewing? • What are the boundaries displayed on the survey? • How are these boundaries unique to this property that might not be present on other properties? • What features are unique to this property such as easements or changes in elevation such as sharp rises or depressions in elevation? • How do these key features impact the owner’s ability to develop on the lot? • Where are existing utilities located? • Is there existing wetlands or other natural resources on the property? Site Plan A site plan is a readable map or diagram depicting the plot of land on which the subject parcel is located. Site plans generally show existing building setbacks, trees, topography, and any exterior features or structures such as a detached garage, in-ground swimming pool, sidewalks, fencing, utility poles and power lines, driveways, easements, etc. Site plans are used to review items addressed in the zoning district requirement chart and the following: • Existing and proposed topography • Existing and proposed structure setbacks form the property lines and other required setbacks (easements, ordinary high water level, etc.) • Proposed buildings, additions or demolitions • Existing and proposed curbs, curb cuts and driveways; curb and driveway cross sections • Existing and proposed parking and loading facilities; parking lot cross-sections • Trash and waste storage facilities • Pedestrian circulation system with cross-section • Screening (fences, walls, landscaping, and berms) with construction details • Tabulation of pertinent site data (Lot area, setbacks, impervious area, green space, etc.) What should a planning commissioner ask themselves when reviewing? • What are the zoning requirements specific to the district this property is located within? 7 | Page o Consider the minimum lot size, lot width, lot length, structure setbacks, maximum FAR, structure coverage, and impervious coverage • How do these requirements restrict the types of uses or buildable area of the lot? • How is the buildable area of the lot or the types of uses proposed further restricted by wetlands, utility easements, topography, etc. • Where are the locations of site accesses for vehicle traffic? • Is there a pedestrian access? • Where are the trash enclosure locations and are they properly screened? • What are the minimum requirements for parking? • What are the dimensions and height of proposed buildings? • What is the site impact for significant trees with the proposed design coverage? • What traffic circulation and or vehicle stacking/turnaround is provided on-site? • What are the parking counts provided versus the needs for the proposed uses? Lighting Plan A Lighting or photometric plan is a way to view a proposed lighting solution over a given area. Lighting or photometric plans are used to review the following: • Provides details on proposed lighting fixtures (height, type of fixture head, lighting style, bulbs type) • Location of all exterior lighting fixtures • Illumination intensity at the surface (higher the number the brighter • Relationship to lighting on abutting properties What should planning commission ask themselves when reviewing? • (How) will the lighting proposed impact the neighboring properties? • Is the lighting sufficient for safety and security on the property? • (How) will the lighting impact the adjacent properties? Grading Plan 8 | Page This plan shows how storm water will flow across the property and drain through the storm sewer system. It will also include how the site is graded for building pads, parking lots, etc., as well as any berms created for screening. This plan may also need to be submitted to the applicable watershed management organization for approval. Engineering staff generally reviews grading plans to ensure conformance with engineering guidelines and city code. What should planning commission ask themselves when reviewing? • Where does the water go? Does it impact adjacent properties? • Is there any swales or berms proposed? • Where are the stormwater ponds? • Has the watershed reviewed and approved the proposal? • Has engineering staff reviewed and approved the proposal? Utility Plan A utility plan shows where proposed utilities (water, gas, electric, sewer, etc.) are located and where they connect to existing services. Engineering staff generally reviews grading plans to ensure conformance with engineering guidelines and city code. 9 | Page What should planning commission ask themselves when reviewing? • Where are the utilities located? • What are the utilities? • Has engineering staff reviewed and approved the proposal? Landscaping Plan This plan shows what types of trees, shrubs, and groundcover will be planted. It will need to show how parking lots, loading areas, outdoor storage areas, mechanical equipment, and the like will be screened from public views or nearby residential properties. Landscaping plans must be shown with the grading plan contours to ensure proper planting locations. What should planning commission ask themselves when reviewing? • Does the plan provide sufficient variety for the plantings proposed? • Does the plan provide sufficient details for what will be planted and where it will be planted? 10 | Page • Do the proposed planting assist in screening the project? • Does the proposed plantings meet tree replacement standards? Tree Inventory or Preservation Plan The purpose of a landscaping plan is to identify trees that are to be saved when development or land disturbing activity is occurring. The city council finds it is in the best interest of the city to protect, preserve, and enhance the natural environment of the community and to encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to development and property alteration. Projects on residential sites of fewer than two lots are not required to have tree surveys certified. Applicants are encouraged to consult with city staff concerning preservation of protected trees before developing a Tree Preservation Plan. What should planning commission ask themselves when reviewing? • What trees are proposed to be removed? • What are the caliper inches remaining onsite? • What are the caliper inches being removed? • How many trees, if any, will require replacement? • What trees are being preserved? Planning Commissioner Onboarding Policy Policy Statement: The Arden Hills Community Development Department is committed to equipping recently appointed Planning Commissioners with the necessary information to assist them in succeeding at fulfilling the function of the City's Planning Agency. Scope: This policy is intend to guide staff when onboarding a recently appointed Planning Commissioner. Procedure for Planning Commissioners Onboarding: It is the planning staff’s responsibility to host an orientation session within one (1) month after appointment and prior to the commissioner’s first Planning Commission meeting. During that meeting staff shall outline their roles and responsibilities of being a Planning Commissioner. They should also be provided with the resource materials needed to succeed as such as local ordinances, maps, etc. Provided below is a list of items that should be covered in the orientation sessions: 1. Brief review of the community’s Comprehensive Plan. 2. Review the pyramid of discretion. 3. Explanation of the structure and workings of the zoning ordinance. 4. Review of the subdivision regulations. 5. Discussion of other land use controls enforced in the community (shoreland management). 6. Review of commission agendas and minutes. 7. Review samples of Planning Commission reports/memos. 8. Review policies on conflict of interest and Minnesota Open Meeting Law. 9. Tour of the community. Provided below is a list of items that should be provided to the Commissioner at the orientation sessions: 1. Comprehensive Plan 2. Pyramid of discretion 3. Planning Commission Structure and Procedure Handout 4. Zoning Approvals and Plan Review Guide 5. Sample Planning Commission reports/memos. 6. LMNC Handbooks a. Comprehensive Planning, Land Use and City-Owned Land b. Planning and Zoning 101 c. Variances d. Official Conflict of Interest Land Use Application Checklist Submission Documents Plan Provided Complete Code Compliant Certificate of Survey Yes or No or N/A Yes or No Meets Requirements or Flexibility Sought Grading Plan Site Plan Landscaping Plan Tree Inventory/ Preservation Plan Utility Plan Signage Plan Lighting Plan Building Elevation Renderings Materials Board Wetland Delineation Traffic Study Shoreland Floodplain Page 1 of 2 AGENDA ITEM – 1E MEMORANDUM DATE: December 20, 2021 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator SUBJECT: Committees and Commissions Discussion Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A For Council Consideration Council should provide direction on any requested changes to future Committees and Commissions. Background Following November’s work session on Committee/Commission members tenure, the Council also requested a discussion be brought back to a work session on Committees and Commissions. The City ordinance regarding Committees and Commissions is attached (see Attachment A). Specifically, the Council wanted to discuss the Financial Planning and Analysis Committee, and transition the group to more of an ad-hoc working group. This would require an ordinance amendment to dissolve FPAC or change the structure of it. The Council may want to consider changes to the Communications Committee and Economic Development Committee. The Communications Committee is still structured in the ordinance as it was when we had community volunteers. Today, the Communications Committee is comprised of the Communications Coordinator, City Clerk, and at least one Council Liaison. This could be an official committee in ordinance, or it could be an informal working group. The Economic Development Committee has not met consistently over the last few years, this is partially due to COVID, but prior to COVID the committee was not meeting regularly either. The group did work on the Business Expansion and Retention project in 2015, and previously assisted with the State of the City. However, there are no projects planned for the EDC, and the State of the City is primarily put together by City Staff as directed by the City Council. Page 2 of 2 Budget Impact N/A Attachment Attachment A: City Code Relating to Committees and Commissions Section 220 - Boards, Committees and Commissions (revised 3/12/07) 220.01 General. The following regulations apply to all Boards, Committees, Commissions, and Appointed Bodies of the City of Arden Hills. Subd. 1 Quorum. A majority of the members of any Board, Committee, Commission and other Appointed Body appointed by the City Council shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of the business coming before such Board, Committee, Commission or Appointed Body. Subd. 2 Voting Required. Each member of any Board, Committee, Commission and other Appointed Body shall be required to vote on matters coming before that body unless such member shall have a conflict of interest concerning the matter to be considered. Subd. 3 Minimum Requirement for Action. Unless otherwise specifically provided, a majority of the members of any Board, Committee, Commission and other Appointed Body present and voting any meeting thereof, shall be required for any a ction or decision of such Board, Committee, Commission or other Appointed Body. Subd. 4 Advisory Committee. Advisory Committees may be established by the City Council as may be needed from time to time for the efficient operation and administration of the affairs of the City. In the event such Advisory Committees are established, the members thereof shall be appointed by the Mayor with the approval of the City Council. Subd. 5 Compensation. All members of Boards, Committees, Commissions and other appointed bodies shall serve without compensation. Subd. 6 Residency Requirements. Unless otherwise specifically provided, each member of any Board, Committee, Commission or other appointed body shall be a resident of the City during their term of service. Subd. 7 Length of Term. Unless otherwise specifically provided, each Member of any Board, Committee, Commission or other appointed body shall serve for a term of three (3) years. A. Number of Terms. Each Member may serve for no more than three (3) consecutive three-year terms. B. Staggered Terms. One-third of each Board, Committee, Commission or other appointed body shall be appointed at the beginning of each fiscal year. Subd. 8 Removal of Members. Any Member of a Board, Committee, Commission or other appointed body may be removed by a majority vote of the entire City Council. Subd. 9 Attendance at Meetings. A Member of a Board, Committee, Commission or other appointed body who has unexcused absences from three (3) consecutive meetings or a total of one-third of all meetings in a calendar year, shall automatically be removed from office without City Council action. The City Administrator shall notify the Member of his or her removal. Subd. 10 Officers. Unless otherwise specifically provided, the Mayor shall annually appoint one (1) Member to serve as Chair of each Board, Committee, Commission or other appointed body. The Chair shall be responsible for meeting agendas, presiding at meetings, minutes of meetings, and reports and recommendations to the City Council. Subcommittees of the Board, Committee, Commission or other appointed body may be formed, from time to time, based upon the needs of the City. The Board, Committee, Commission or other appointed body may appoint a Member to serve as Vice-Chair. Subd. 11 Meetings and Reports. The Board, Committee, Commission or other appointed body shall hold meetings at regularly scheduled times or more frequently as needed. Meetings shall be open to the public and proper notice of the meeting shall be given as set forth in the City Codes. Boards, Committees, Commissions and other appointed bodies shall keep minutes which shall be forwarded to the City Council. Subd. 12 Administrative Staff Liaison. Unless otherwise specifically provided, the City Administrator shall assign an official staff liaison to each Board, Committee, Commission, or other appointed body. The Staff Liaison shall be responsible for the keeping of minutes and reports. Subd. 13 Vacancies. In the event of death, resignation, removal, or ineligibility of a Member of a Board, Committee, Commission, or other appointed body, the Mayor shall declare a vacancy in the position and shall appoint a person to fill the vacancy as soon as conveniently possible for the remainder of the term subject to approval by a majority vote of the entire City Council. Subd. 14 Council Liaison. The Mayor shall appoint a council member to serve as a liaison to each Board, Committee, Commission or other Appointed Body. 220.02 Economic Development Authority. Subd. 1 Authorization. Pursuant to Resolution 96-8, the City has created an Economic Development Authority to be known as the "Economic Development Authority of the City of Arden Hills" ("EDA"). The EDA has all of the powers, rights, duties, and obligations set forth in Minnesota Statutes §469.090 through §469.1081, as amended, from time to time. Subd. 2 Governing Board. The EDA shall be governed by a Board of five (5) Commissioners who shall be Members of the City Council. 220.03 Planning Commission. Subd. 1 Composition. At the first Council Meeting of the calendar year, the Mayor shall appoint a Planning Commission consisting of seven (7) members and two (2) alternative member subject to approval by a majority vote of the entire Council. (Am. Ord. 2017-004, passed 6-26-17) Subd. 2 Powers and Duties. The Planning Commission shall fulfill the function of the City's Planning Agency and its Board of Adjustments and Appeals. It shall exercise the duties conferred on it by the City Council and shall have the powers prescribed for such agency and Board pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §462.351 through §462.364, as may be amended from time to time, including but not limited to the following: A. The Planning Commission shall prepare the City's Comprehensive Municipal Plan, periodically review the Comprehensive Municipal Plan, and make recommendations to the City Council regarding the adoption or amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. B. The Planning Commission shall review the proposed acquisitions and disposal of real property and proposed public improvements to real property and shall advise the City Council in writing whether such acquisitions, disposals, or improvements are in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Municipal Plan. Failure of the Planning Commission to report on the proposal within forty-five (45) days after referral by the City Council or within such other reasonable period as may be designated by the City Council shall be deemed to have satisfied this review requirement. The City Council may, by resolution adopted by an affirmative vote of four (4) Council Members, dispense with this review requirement if in its judgment the City Council determines that such proposal has no relationship to the City's Comprehensive Municipal Plan. C. The Planning Commission shall hear appeals and make recommendations to the City Council where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an Administrative Officer in the enforcement of the City's official controls. D. The Planning Commission shall hear requests for variances and make recommendations to the City Council. Subd. 3 Rules of Procedure. The Planning Commission shall prescribe its own rules of procedure to the extent permissible under statute and to the extent that such rules are consistent with the City's Code. Subd. 4 Records. The Planning Commission shall provide a written record of its proceedings, including the minutes of its meetings, findings and the actions taken by that Planning Commission on each matter referred to it or heard by it including the final recommendation. Subd. 5 Hearings. Hearings shall be held by the Planning Commission in all matters where public hearings are required by State law or this Code and as otherwise directed by the City Council. A hearing may be afforded to any interested party on any matter where the Planning Commission deems it appropriate. Subd. 6 Reports. The Planning Commission shall submit reports directly to the City Council. The reports shall contain the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Planning Commission as to the action to be taken by City Council. Subd. 7 Voting Rights of the Alternate Member. In the event that any of the regular members are not able to attend a properly noticed meeting of the Planning Commission, the alternate member may enjoy the full voting and any other privileges of a regular member during the meeting. 220.04 Economic Development Commission. Subd. 1 Establishment of Commission. An Economic Development Commission is hereby established to facilitate positive interaction with the business community and advise the City Council and the Economic Development Authority on economic development, redevelopment and related community development issues. Subd. 2 Composition. The Economic Development Commission shall consist of nine (9) members appointed by the City Council. The membership may be open to any resident or non-resident affiliated with an Arden Hills business who is interested in the business climate and economic development direction of the City. There shall be at least four (4) Arden Hills residents represented on the Commission. Subd. 3 Duties and Functions. The duties and functions of the Commission shall be included in the Annual Resolution appointing new members and may be changed by Council Resolution, from time to time, based upon the needs of the City. 220.05 Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee. Subd. 1 Establishment of Committee. The Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee is hereby established to review and evaluate the City's Parks, Trails and Recreation Programs. Subd. 2 Composition. The Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee shall consist of up to twelve (12) members appointed by the City Council. The membership may be open to any resident, or non-resident affiliated with an Arden Hills business, non-profit, or community organization that is interested in the City's Parks, Trails and Recreation Programs. At all times, a majority of the Committee membership shall be current residents of Arden Hills. Geographical balance may be used as criteria for selecting new members. (amended 1/21/09) Subd. 3 Duties and Functions. The duties and functions of the Committee shall be included in the Annual Resolution appointing new members and may be changed by Council Resolution, from time to time, based on the needs of the City. 220.06 Communications Committee. Subd. 1 Establishment of Committee. A Communications Committee is hereby established to facilitate positive interaction with the community, inform the community of news events that are occurring within the City of Arden Hills, and advise the City Council on community communication related issues. Subd. 2 Composition. The Communications Committee shall consist of at least five (5) members appointed by the City Council. Membership may be open to any resident or non-resident that has a special interest in writing for the City's newsletter. There shall be at least four (4) Arden Hills residents represented on the Committee. Subd. 3 Duties and Functions. The duties and functions of the Committee shall be included in the Annual Resolution appointing new members and may be changed by City Council Resolution, from time to time, based upon the needs of the City. 220.07 Financial Planning and Analysis Committee. Subd. 1 Establishment of Committee. A Financial Planning and Analysis Committee is hereby established to facilitate longer term financial planning on behalf o f the City Council and the City and any related issues. Subd. 2 Composition. The Financial Planning and Analysis Committee shall consist of up to six (6) members appointed by the City Council. Membership may be open to any resident or non-resident who has financial planning and analysis expertise. At all times, a majority of the Committee membership shall be current residents of Arden Hills. Subd. 3 Duties and Functions. The duties and functions of the Committee shall be included in the Annual Resolution appointing new members and may be changed by Council Resolution, from time to time, based upon the needs of the City Page 1 of 2 AGENDA ITEM – 1G MEMORANDUM DATE: December 20, 2021 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Planner SUBJECT: Sale of City Owned Parcel at 3588 Ridgewood Road Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider the Following The City Council should discuss and provide direction on selling the City owned parcel at 3588 Ridgewood Road. Background At the November 15th City Council Work Session, the Council directed staff to order the appraisal for the property at 3588 Ridgewood Road. This information will be used as part of the process in determining next steps in consideration of listing the property for sale. The appraisal was completed by Ryan Valuations and will be provided under separate cover to the Council. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute 13D.05, Subd. 3(c)(1)(2), city staff is recommending the City Council close the work session meeting to discuss the appraisal data and potential asking price of the property. Subd. 3.What meetings may be closed. (a) A public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject to its authority. The public body shall identify the individual to be evaluated prior to closing a meeting. At its next open meeting, the public body shall summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation. A meeting must be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting. (b) Meetings may be closed if the closure is expressly authorized by statute or permitted by the attorney-client privilege. (c) A public body may close a meeting: (1) to determine the asking price for real or personal property to be sold by the government entity; (2) to review confidential or protected nonpublic appraisal data under section 13.44, subdivision 3; and Page 2 of 2 (3) to develop or consider offers or counteroffers for the purchase or sale of real or personal property. For the work session discussion, city staff is seeking confirmation of direction on next steps for listing the property. In further consideration of asking price, the Public Works Director/City Engineer estimates that it may cost $30,000 (and that might be low) to extend water and sewer services to the property. Similarly to the variance application fees, the Council had agreed that the costs for utility installation would be the responsibility of the Future Buyer. Possible actions for consideration are as follows: • Determination of listing price. • Marketing the property to the adjacent Property Owners at 3583 Snelling Avenue and/or 3570 Ridgewood Road. • Begin solicitation for real estate agent selection in order to list property for sale to the general public. o Local agents would be approached and provided some sort of informational packet on the parcel (i.e. site map, acres, zoning, City’s intended use of site, timing, etc.). This packet would provide a date for their responded interest and request that they include their terms for listing the parcel. That information would be presented to the Council at a future work session in the early part of 2022 prior to any execution of the listing agreement. Next Steps Staff is looking for Council direction on next steps for selling the city owned parcel at 3588 Ridgewood Road. Budget Impact N/A Attachments Appraisal to be provided to the Council under separate cover.