05-23-2022 Conf. Mtg.
COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING
May 23, 2022
5:30 PM
Fridley Civic Center, 7071 University Avenue N.E.
AGENDA
1.MnDOT TH47/TH65 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study Update
2.Recodification Update: Title 2 (Administration), Chapter 209, Fees
3.
The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatment, or
employment in its services, program, or activities because ofrace, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability,
age, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regard to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation will
be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in any o
Hearing impaired persons who need any interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids
should contact Roberta Collins at (763) 572-3500. (TTD/763-572-3534).
2
Jufn!2/
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date:May 23, 2022 Meeting Type:City CouncilConferenceMeeting
Submitted By:James Kosluchar, Director of Public Works
Title
MnDOT TH47 / TH65 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study Update
Background
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is developing a future vision for the 10-mile
stretch of Highway 47 (University Ave.) and Highway 65 (Central Ave.) that extends from where they
meet in Northeast Minneapolis northward through Columbia Heights, Hilltop, and Fridley to County
Highway 10 in Blaine and Spring Lake Park. Analysis ofboth transportation data and community input
along the roadshas been initiated by MnDOT, called a Planning and Environmental Linkage (PEL) study.
This studyemphasizes community engagement and collaboration early in transportation planning and
environmental processes.Phase 1of this study is complete, Phase 2is newly underway in 2022. MnDOT
will be presenting an update to the City Council and look for feedback on the process going forward.
To better understand the existing conditions and transportation needs of the study area, in Phase 1of
the PEL Study, MnDOT and project staff carried out an extensive public engagement program that
reached more than 2,200 residents and stakeholders. The MnDOT project team and its partners engaged
Vision Statement
We believe Fridley will be a safe, vibrant, friendly and stable home for families and businesses.
3
Jufn!2/
with people in the study area in October and November 2020. The public engagement program was
largely successful in connecting with the broad group of community members and organizations that
rely on University and Central avenues. The project team made special efforts to reach people with
different backgrounds, spoken languages and perspectives.
Key themes and takeaways
Pedestrian and transit user concerns
Pedestrian safety was a significant concern along both University and Central avenues, but survey results
indicated that people tend to have a less comfortable experience along the former. Twenty percent of
respondents wanted motorists to slow down, while 16% mentioned that drivers disobeying traffic laws
was a problem. Additionally, pedestrians indicated that more crosswalks are needed, and the traffic lights
significant areas of improvement included adding more bus shelters and implementing a better snow
removal process along sidewalks and near bus shelters.
Bicyclist concerns
Bicyclists and non-bicyclists alike generally agreed that bike safety should be addressed along both
University and Central avenues. Overall, 81% of survey respondents said they feel unsafe while biking
along University Avenue, while 83% said the same regarding Central Avenue. Bicyclists who travel along
the study area mentioned that motorists were a concern beca
Many respondents suggested adding or expanding bike lanes, including protected ones, in the study
area.
Motorist concerns
People who had traveled within or through the study area generally felt the safest when doing so by car,
but many motorists expressed concerns that vehicle traffic may negatively affect pedestrian and bicyclist
safety. Survey respondents were concerned about speeding, and many suggested lowering speed limits,
better street design and increased enforcement to curb the issue. Many also mentioned that traffic lights
around the study area feel out of sync, and both streets become very congested.
Vision Statement
We believe Fridley will be a safe, vibrant, friendly and stable home for families and businesses.
4
Jufn!2/
Attachments and Other Resources
!Phase 1 Comment Letter from the City of Fridley
!MnDOT Response to Phase 1 Comment Letter from the City of Fridley
Vision Statement
We believe Fridley will be a safe, vibrant, friendly and stable home for families and businesses.
5
Jufn!2/
Fridley Civic Campus
7071 University Ave N.E. Fridley, MN 55432
763-571-3450 | FAX: 763-571-1287 | FridleyMN.gov
July 29, 2021
Mr. Tony Wotzka
North Area Coordinator
MnDOT Metro District
Sent to: Anthony.Wotzka@state.mn.us
Re: TH 47/65 PEL Study- Draft Purpose and Needs Statement and Evaluation Criteria
Dear Mr. Wotzka,
The City of Fridley appreciates the amount of public outreach that has been conducted
in support of the PEL study of TH 47/65 to date as well as the opportunity to
participate in development as well as comment on the draft Purpose and Needs (P&N)
Statement and Evaluation Criteria. These documents reflect many of the priorities
identified by Fridley residents during the TH 47/65 Corridor Workshops hosted by the
City of Fridley and MnDOT in 2019, particularly in regard to the importance of
improved safety for all users including pedestrians and bicyclists along and across the
corridors. The City offers the following recommendations for MnDOTÔs consideration:
1. The P & N Statement acknowledges that higher vehicle speeds contribute to
increased fatalities and decreased use of alternative modes of transportation along
TH 47/65. Reducing vehicle speeds would therefore address the primary and
secondary needs identified by the P & N Statement and mitigate both the number
of crashes and their severity. However, the Evaluation Criteria is centered around
designed-based alternatives to influence speed. While changing roadway design is
one available strategy which we support, vehicle speed can also be impacted
through other methods such as updated signal timing and reducing posted
speeds, particularly on TH 47. The City would like to see managed alternatives to
reduce vehicle speed evaluated within the PEL study and believes that this
important safety mitigation measure should be considered paramount due to the
excess number of severe and fatal crashes on TH 47.
2. The P & N Statement acknowledges future development will bring additional
residential, commercial, and mixed-use development. The City would like to see
explicit mention of the increase in multifamily housing along TH 47 in Fridley that
has occurred in the past five years (over 600 units directly on the corridor, and 250
6
Jufn!2/
st
units on 61 Avenue within ¼ mile complete or under construction) and the
contributing impact on shifting the role of the corridor from a throughway to a
living corridor with a corresponding demand for multi-modal crossing and access,
further emphasizing the need for consideration of safety mitigation measures. The
City of Fridley is urbanizing along TH 47 in rapid fashion, and tools other than
speed studies are needed to reduce life-threatening conflicts and eliminate barriers
to disadvantaged populations within the community.
3. The TH 47/65 Corridor Workshops in 2019 recommended improving the sense of
place and community identity along these corridors including developing the
unique vision for each corridor. The roadway characteristics and surrounding land
use are inextricably linked. The City would like to see additional evaluation of how
the PEL study can develop the sense of place of TH 47 and TH 65 within the SEE
Considerations.
4. The P & N Statement acknowledges that environmental factors contribute to
pedestrian/bicyclist comfort which in turn impacts facility use. Excessive heat is an
environmental factor that impacts pedestrian comfort and safety that can be
ameliorated by the planting of trees and other vegetated ground covers. The
unequal distribution of tree cover and resulting temperature disparity is a known
environmental justice issue. The City of Fridley recently collaborated with MnDOT
rd
Avenue and
on a successful median landscape planting along Th 47 between 53
th
69 Avenue. However, vehicle speeds and corridor management have limited the
planting of trees throughout most of these corridors. The City would like to see
additional consideration of vegetation management as a strategy to increase
pedestrian comfort and address environmental justice issues.
5. The P & N Statement states that certain sections of roadway are comfortable due
to dedicated side paths; however, many of these side paths are disconnected, and
are in poor condition due to lack of resources for trail maintenance which can
decrease user comfort and lead to avoidance. The City will need collaboration with
MnDOT to continue to maintain these facilities effectively, and provide the
connections identified in the PEL study and its Active Transportation plan such as
licensing rights-of-way, cooperative construction of connections, and a
collaborative approach to mitigating geographic and constructed barriers both
along and across the corridors.
6. The Evaluation Criteria includes pedestrian connectivity to transit as a performance
measure; however, many transit riders reach their transit stop via bicycle. This may
become increasingly common along the corridor due the increased spacing
between BRT stops compared to traditional stops. The City would like to see
improved connectivity to transit include bicyclists in addition to pedestrians and
ask that the PEL study recognize the increase in multimodal trips anticipated along
and across corridors to access increased transit use with the future F BRT line.
7
Jufn!2/
7.The Evaluation Criteria includes improved multimodal connectivity as performance
measure for environmental justice. The City would like to see considerations for
environmental justice expanded to include environmental impacts such as noise
pollution, air quality, and temperature.
8. The City has provided site specific feedback as comments on the attached draft P
& N Statement for consideration.
The City of Fridley sincerely appreciates this process, the opportunity to be involved as
a committed stakeholder seeking improvement to those our agencies concurrently
serve, and our continued positive relationship with you and our local MnDOT staff.
Sincerely,
James Kosluchar, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
City of Fridley
CC:
Brigid Gombold (Brigid.Gombold@state.mn.us)
Andrew Emanuele (Andrew.Emanuele@dot.gov)
8
Jufn!2/
Purpose and Need Statement
Highway 47 andHighway 65 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study
06/21/21
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/20211
9
Jufn!2/
Table of Contents
Purpose and Need Statement ................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Background .................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Study Location ....................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Existing Characteristics ........................................................................................................................ 10
2.3 Previous Studies and Reports .............................................................................................................. 21
2.4 Public and Agency Coordination .......................................................................................................... 21
3. Transportation Needs .................................................................................................................................. 25
3.1 Primary Needs ..................................................................................................................................... 25
3.2 Secondary Needs ................................................................................................................................. 49
4. Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................ 59
5. Additional Considerations ........................................................................................................................... 60
5.1 Consistency with Local, State and Regional Plans and Programs ........................................................ 61
5.2 Consistency with Local, State and Regional Projects .......................................................................... 61
5.3 Cost Effectiveness/Implementable...................................................................................................... 62
5.4 Non-pavement Infrastructure ............................................................................................................. 62
6. Social, Economic and Environmental (SEE) Considerations ............................................................................ 63
Appendix A – Logical Termini Technical Memorandum ...................................................................................... 64
Appendix B – Supporting Documents and Reports (Incorporated by Reference) .............................................. 66
Appendix C – Supporting Exhibits ........................................................................................................................ 67
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 2
:
Jufn!2/
1. Introduction
The purpose of the Hwy 47 and Hwy 65 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study (PEL Study) is to evaluate
existing and future conditions along Hwy 47 and Hwy 65 to identify needs and potential transportation
improvements for inclusion in future projects along Hwy 47 and Hwy 65, and the local supporting roadway
system, that improve safety and mobility for all users, including vehicular traffic, pedestrians, bicycle and
transit users and freight operators.
MnDOT is completing this Purpose and Need Statement as part of the PEL Study to support the decision-making
process for future transportation improvements. The documentation developed during a PEL Study is carried
forward to inform the environmental review process, to minimize duplication of effort, promote environmental
stewardship and reduce delays in project implementation. The purpose and need developed under this study
should be used in the alternatives development and screening process to identify alternatives that may be
carried forward for further analysis under the environmental review process. It can also be used, or refined for
use, for future projects within the PEL Study area. A PEL Study also provides an opportunity for early
collaboration with federal, state and local agencies and the public to incorporate input and identify issues earlier
in the planning process than under the traditional project delivery process.
The Highway 47 and Highway 65 (Hwy 47 and Hwy 65) PEL Study describes existing conditions and analyzes a
variety of data and issues on the two highways between their junction in Minneapolis to their separate
interchanges with Anoka County State Aid Highway 10 in Blaine, Coon Rapids and Spring Lake Park. The Purpose
and Need Statement highlights the main issues that need to be addressed with future projects on Hwy 47 and
Hwy 65. While the documentation completed during a PEL Study will be carried forward for use in any future
proposed projects within the PEL Study area, it may need to be updated to address a specific project or location.
The substantiated needs and evaluation completed under a PEL Study can be applied to the project, saving time
and resources in completing future phases of the project development process.
Hwy 65 in Minneapolis
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 3
21
Jufn!2/
Transportation needs are broken down into Primary Needs and Secondary Needs. Additional considerations
describe project elements that are not central to the purpose and need but are important criteria in the
selection of alternatives. Based on analysis and stakeholder feedback, the following needs were identified.
Primary NeedsSecondaryNeeds
Walkability and Bikeability - Safety: Walkability and Bikeability - Mobility:
to reduce or eliminate traffic fatalities and to improve comfort and access to destinations
serious injuries for the most vulnerable
users who make up 39% of all fatal and
Vehicle Mobility:
serious injury crashes on Hwy 47 and Hwy
tomaintain or improve operations for autos, transit and
65
freight
Vehicle Safety:
Additional Considerations:
to reduce injury and loss of life for all
Consistency with State and Regional Plans and Programs
users on both corridors which have a total
Consistency with State and Regional Projects
of 27 sustained high crash locations
Cost Effectiveness/Implementable
Non-pavement Infrastructure
Pavement Condition:
to maintain and improve roadway surface
Social, Economic and Environmental Considerations
Hwy 47 in Fridley and Columbia Heights 1
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/20214
22
Jufn!2/
Purpose and Need Process
A PEL is a tool used to create efficiency in transportation project development. Figure 1-1 shows the
documentation and FHWA concurrence completed during a PEL Study and how the work transitions to
environmental and design activities.
This study is currently at the second FHWA concurrencepoint as shown below for the Purpose and Need and
Evaluation Criteria.
Figure 1-1. PEL Steps and Integration with Project Development
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/20215
23
Jufn!2/
The following sections comprise this Purpose and Need Statement:
Background: Provides a summary of the corridor, including notable high-level concerns; projects
recently completed and planned projects within or near the PEL Study area; a description of the PEL
Study area; a summary of existing transportation conditions; and a summary of previous studies and
reports (see Section 2).
Transportation Needs: Identifies transportation problems that stakeholders agree need to be addressed
(see Section 3).
Purpose: A statement of the primary intended transportation result that the PEL study and/or future
proposed projects are expected to attain (see Section 4).
Additional Considerations: Describes other desirable project elements or effects that are not central to
the purpose and need but are nonetheless important criteria to consider in the selection of alternatives
for the PEL Study and eventually a preferred alternative for a future proposed project (see Section 5).
Social, Economic and Environmental (SEE) Considerations: Describes environmental and cultural
resources throughout the study to be reviewed and considered in future projects due to their
significance in the study area.
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 6
24
Jufn!2/
2. Background
The PEL Study area includes two parallel north-south corridors of Hwy 47 (University Avenue) and Hwy 65
(Central Avenue), each approximately 10 miles long, for a total of 20 highway miles. Within the PEL Study area,
Hwy 47 and Hwy 65 pass through the cities of Minneapolis, in Hennepin County, and Columbia Heights, Hilltop,
Fridley, Spring Lake Park, Coon Rapids, and Blaine, in Anoka County (see Figure 2-1). The southern limit of the
study area is the intersection of the two roadways in the Saint Anthony Main neighborhood in the City of
Minneapolis; and the northern limit is County Highway 10 in the City of Coon Rapids for Hwy 47 and County
Highway 10 in the City of Spring Lake Park for Hwy 65.
2.1 Study Corridor Context
Hwy 47 and Hwy 65 pass through residential, commercial and industrial areas of seven cities, connecting
travelers with commercial business, residences, employment opportunities, parks, schools, and community
facilities. These places of interest and numerous origins and destinations within the PEL Study area underscore
the importance of providing a multimodal transportation system that serves all highway users, inclusive of
vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, to connect with transportation generators, including:
Restaurants and grocery stores
Schools, senior and community centers, hospitals, public libraries
Residential areas, including large apartment developments
Business and retail areas
Northtown Mall
Columbia Park and over 90 additional parks
Rice Creek Corridor Trail
Transit centers and regional transit routes
Mobility, or the movement of people and goods, in the PEL Study area is impacted by several major roadway
corridors that serve statewide and regional traffic and other physical barriers, including:
Table 2-1. Major roadways and physical barriers in the PEL Study Area (Figure 2-1)
Roadway Section Limits Characteristics
1
I-94located to the west of the PEL A principal arterial with a 2019 annual average daily
Study area and south of I-694 traffic (AADT) adjacent to the PEL Study area ranging
and Hwy 252from 91,000 to 112,000
Hwy 252 located to the west of the PEL A principal arterial with a 2019 AADT adjacent to the
Study area, north of I-94 and I-PEL Study area ranging from 53,000 to 58,000
694
Hwy 610 located west of the PEL Study A principal arterial with an AADT adjacent to the PEL
area and US 10 and north of Study area ranging from 58,000 (2019) to 102,000
Hwy 252 (2015)
1
Principal Arterial – most heavily used roads, usually highways or expressways designed for higher speeds with minimal land access.
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 7
25
Jufn!2/
Roadway Section Limits Characteristics
2
County Highway located to the north of the PEL A minorarterial with a 2018 AADT ranging from
10 Study area 19,100 to 25,000 in the section north of the PEL Study
area
US 10 located to the north of County A principal arterial with a 2019 AADT ranging from
Highway 10 and the PEL Study 55,000 to 102,000 in the section north of the PEL
area Study area
I-35W located to the east of the PEL A principal arterial with a 2019 AADT of 117,000 near
Study area the southern end of the PEL Study area (closest point
to I-35W)
I-694 roughly bisecting the PEL Study A principal arterial with a 2019 AADT of 141,000 within
with a diamond interchange at the PEL Study area
Hwy 47 and a partial cloverleaf
interchange at Hwy 65
Mississippi River Located on the west side of the Major waterway with four non-highway east-west
study area between I-94/Hwy crossings in the study area
252 and Hwy 47
Railroad Heaviest concentrated east of Mainly BNSF railroad accessing CP Shoreham Yards
Hwy 47 between Hwy 47 and intermodal facility
the river
These corridors generally transport motor vehicle and transit commuters traveling to and from the adjacent
communities and suburbs of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area to employment centers in Minneapolis or
neighboring communities and freight traffic. Local traffic on Hwy 47 and Hwy 65 can connect the study area to
the broader transportation network due to proximity to these corridors.
Appendix A, Logical Termini Technical Memorandum, provides an explanation of how the PEL Study area was
identified and how the analysis completed under the PEL Study area will be used in future proposed projects.
Safety and operational issues along Hwy 47 and Hwy 65 led MnDOT to perform a road safety audit in 2018 that
analyzed crash information. The audit focused on pedestrian crashes on the two highways between the
3
Hennepin-Anoka county line in Columbia Heights and Hwy 10 in Coon Rapids in Anoka County.The audit report
recommended short, medium and long-term measures to improve safety within the area analyzed. In April
2020, MnDOT completed several safety projects identified in the audit to improve crosswalks, lighting and
signals. Section 5.2, Consistency with State and Regional Projects, of this Purpose and Need Statement
summarizes several programmed projects for construction within the next five years that are based on
recommendations from the 2018 audit report.
2
Minor Arterial – functional roadway classification that supplements the capacity of principal arterials and provides connections to
principal arterials, provides access to major traffic generators and serves medium-to-short trips.
3
TH47 and TH 65 Road Safety Audit: Technical Report, Anoka-Hennepin County Limit to TH 10. HDR. December 2018.
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/hwy47andhwy65improvements/index.html
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 8
26
Jufn!2/
Figure 2-1. PEL Study Area
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/20219
27
Jufn!2/
2.2 Existing Characteristics
The corridors transition from dense urban centers on the southern end towards open suburban character
in the north. The study area is composed of a mix of land uses creating a variety of destinations and
multimodal travel needs. The schools, high to moderate-density residential and various community
amenities throughout the study areas create a variety of destinations for people driving, walking, biking and
taking public transit. There are also many freight destinations along both corridors, furthering the
competition between modes. The variety of destinations and modes has created a demand for multimodal
roadways that balances safe and convenient access for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as drivers and
transit users.
Because the roadway and surrounding character is not consistent throughout the study area, the needs and
potential alternatives will vary. To bring a context sensitive analysis of needs, five roadway sections were
used for this Purpose and Need Statement (see Table 2-2 and Figure 2-2). They were identified based on a
review of existing characteristics including speed limits, land use, vehicle traffic volumes, vehicle access
points, walkways and bikeways, transit stops, and other roadway characteristics.
Both highways are classified as minor arterials, except for Hwy 65 north of I-694, which is a principal arterial. The
Metropolitan Council’s 2040 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) states that minor arterials are designed and
constructed to serve medium-to-short trips and higher volumes of general traffic than other local roads. This can
create a barrier for bicycle and pedestrian travel. The TPP states that “priority should be placed on addressing
these barriers in areas with pedestrian traffic, such as within regional job concentrations, within local centers,
and along major transit routes.” With respect to principal arterials, the TPP states that “Principal arterials are
not intended to serve pedestrian and bicycle travel directly and they often act as barriers to bicycle and
pedestrian travel in the centers and neighborhoods through which they pass. Adequate pedestrian and bicycle
crossings separate from general traffic lanes are an important consideration along principal arterials.”
The Corridor Conditions Review Technical Memorandum provides a detailed review of existing conditions
throughout the PEL Study area (see Appendix B).
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 10
28
Jufn!2/
Table 2-2. Summary of Roadway Sections within PEL Study Area
Section Limits Characteristics - Hwy 47Characteristics - Hwy 65
1 Intersec
4-lane undivided roadway with narrow 4-lane undivided roadway with
tion of
(or no shoulder width) narrow (or no shoulder width)
Hwy 47
Speed limit: 30 miles per hour (mph) Speed limit: 30 mph
and Hwy
Adjacent land uses: Primarily urban Adjacent land uses: Primarily urban
65 to
residential and mixed industrial, and residential, mixed industrial, and
th
27 Ave
some urban commercial urban commercial
NE
Heavy job concentration Heavy job concentration
Lower traffic volume Lower traffic volume
More frequent vehicle access points More frequent vehicle access points
Moderate truck volumes Moderate truck volumes
Limited or restricted on-street parking Limited or restricted on-street
parking
Heavy pedestrian volumes
Heavy pedestrian volumes
Limited or no buffer between sidewalk
and street Limited or no buffer between
sidewalk and street
No dedicated bike facilities
Limited, discontinuous bike facilities
Occasional bus stops, moderate transit
ridership Frequent bus stops, heavy transit
ridership
2 27th
4-lane undivided roadway with narrow 4-lane undivided roadway with
Ave NE
(or no shoulder width) narrow (or no shoulder width)
th
to 37
Speed limit: 45 mph Speed limit: 30 mph
Ave NE
Adjacent land uses: Primarily mixed Adjacent land uses: Primarily mixed
industrial, some residential industrial and recreational open
space to the west and moderate
Lower traffic volume
density residential and mixed
Less frequent vehicle access points
commercial to the east Lower traffic
Higher truck volumes
volume
Some on-street parking
More frequent vehicle access points
Limited sidewalks
Higher truck volumes
Some off-street bike facilities
Moderate pedestrian activity
No transit stops directly on Hwy 47 with
Some on-street parking
bus routes located one to three blocks to
Center medians
the west
Sidewalks with buffers
Some off-street bike facilities
No on-street bike facilities
Frequent bus stops
3 37th
4-lane undivided roadway with narrow 4-lane undivided roadway with
Ave. NE
(or no shoulder width) transitioning to 4-narrow (or no shoulder width)
nd
to I-694
lane divided roadway at 32 Avenue
Speed limit: 30-40 mph
Speed limit: 50 mph
Adjacent land uses: Primarily mixed
Adjacent land uses: Primarily suburban commercial and urban residential,
highway, some residential, industrial and some suburban highway
mixed commercial
Higher traffic volume
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 11
29
Jufn!2/
Section Limits Characteristics - Hwy 47Characteristics - Hwy 65
Higher traffic volume More frequentvehicle access points
Less frequent vehicle access points Higher truck volumes
Higher truck volumes No on-street parking
No on-street parking No on-street bike facilities
Center medians Intermittent sidewalks
Landscape buffers between roadway Moderate to high pedestrian
and sidewalk volumes
Intermittent trails or sidewalks Frequent bus stops, heavy transit
ridership
Frequent bus stops
4 I-694 to
4-lane divided roadway with turn lanes 4-lane divided roadway with turn
Osborne
and 8-foot shoulders lanes and 10-foot shoulders
Rd
Speed limit: 50-55 mph Speed limit: 40-55 mph
Adjacent land uses: Primarily suburban Adjacent land uses: Primarily
highway, some residential, retail, suburban highway, some residential,
commercial, recreational, and industrial retail, commercial, recreational, and
industrial
Heavy job concentration
Higher traffic volume
Higher traffic volume
More frequent vehicle access points
Less frequent vehicle access points
Higher truck volumes
Moderate truck volumes
Center medians
Center medians
Landscape buffers
Landscape buffers
Intermittent trails or sidewalks
Intermittent trails or sidewalks
No on-street parking
No on-street parking
Occasional bus stops
Occasional bus stops, moderate transit
ridership
5 Osborne
4-lane divided roadway with turn lanes 4-lane divided roadway with turn
Rd to
and 8-foot shoulders lanes and 10-foot shoulders
County
Speed limit: 55 mph Speed limit: 55 mph
Highway
Adjacent land uses: Primarily suburban Adjacent land uses: Primarily
10
highway, some retail, commercial, suburban highway, some retail,
(Coon
residential, and industrial commercial, industrial, and
Rapids
residential
Heavy job concentration
Blvd)
Higher traffic volume
Higher traffic volume
More frequent vehicle access points
Less frequent vehicle access points
Higher truck volumes
Higher truck volumes
Center medians
Center medians
Landscape buffers
Landscape buffers
Intermittent trails or sidewalks
Intermittent trails or sidewalks
No on-street parking
No on-street parking
Occasional bus stops
Occasional bus stops, moderate transit
ridership
Sources: Corridor Conditions Review Technical Memorandum and Corridor Character Technical Memorandum
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 12
2:
Jufn!2/
Figure 2-2. Roadway Sections within PEL Study Area
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 13
31
Jufn!2/
2.2.1 Land Use and Demographics
2.2.1.1 Land Use
Hwy 47 and Hwy 65 serve an important transportation role for the many land uses within the PEL Study area,
including:
Community destinations – 66 schools, nearly 100 parks, seniors housing, community centers, hospitals,
religious facilities (see Section 4.1.1 and Section 4.3.2 of the Corridor Conditions Review)
Residential neighborhoods – high and moderate-density housing, particularly south of I-694, over 250
driveways with a direct connection to the highway concentrated in the south end of the corridors
Businesses – over 4,000 employers and 60,000 jobs, (see Section 4.1.3 of the Corridor Conditions
Review)
Economic connection –high density job centers and major employers including Northtown Mall and
other shopping areas, Medtronic Headquarters; intermodal hub at CP Shoreham Intermodal Terminal
(see Section 4.1.5 of the Corridor Conditions Review)
Future development - Several planned developments and land use changes are identified adjacent to
the roadways that will bring additional residential, commercial and mixed-use development to the cities
of Minneapolis, Fridley and Spring Lake Park.
Figure 2-3 shows potential trip generators such as areas of high job density, schools, parks, senior housing and
transit ridership. Areas with high trip generators are indicators of potential multimodal demand. The location of
that high potential demand becomes a focus area to look deeper to determine if the multimodal system in that
area is performing adequately or if there are transportation problems to solve.
2.2.1.2 Demographics
The PEL Study area is home to over 145,000 residents, and in general this community is more racially and
ethnically diverse and sees higher rates of poverty than the metro average. Over half of the census block groups
along the two corridors have higher than metro average (9.4%) for residents living below federal poverty rates,
while fourteen locations are over 10% above the metro average. The percentage of minority residents in the
metro area is 26.8 percent, and a majority of census block groups within the PEL Study area are above the Metro
average (see figure 2-4). Section 4.1.4 of the Corridor Conditions Review Technical Memorandum provides more
information on demographics of the study area (see Appendix B). Approximately 1 in 10 residents of the study
area don’t have a personal vehicle in their household—either by choice or necessity.
Low-income and minority residents are more likely to be dependent on non-personal-vehicle travel to meet
their transportation needs for activities such as commuting to work, getting an education, shopping for food,
accessing healthcare, and other basic pursuits of daily life. Convenient access to reliable transportation options
is essential for the livelihood and well-being of these groups. Areas with higher-than-average percentages of
minority and low-income residents are indicators of greater potential demand for non-personal-vehicle
4
transportation choices. These groups tend to rely more heavily on public transportation.
4
Metro Transit 2019 Transit System Performance Evaluation Report
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 14
32
Jufn!2/
Figure 2-3 Trip generators and transit ridership within the Hwy 47 and Hwy 65 PEL Study Area
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 15
33
Jufn!2/
Figure 2-4. Percentage of Minority Residents
within the Hwy 47 and Hwy 65
PEL Study Area
Minority Residents
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/202116
34
Jufn!2/
2.2.2 Motor Vehicle Traffic Volume and Use
Daily vehicle traffic growth rates on both highways over the next 20 years are expected to be relatively flat with
minor increases and minor decreases depending on location. This is primarily due to major capacity
improvements to nearby parallel arterial routes I-35W and I-94/Hwy 252 that are expected to experience an
increase in traffic volume at higher rates than local arterials. Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 of the Corridor Conditions
Review Technical Memorandum and the Daily Traffic Forecasts Memorandum provide more information on
vehicular transportation and traffic operations within the PEL Study area (see Appendix B).
Highway 47 (University Avenue)
Hwy 47 travels north-south from its intersection with Hwy 65 in Minneapolis to its intersection with Hwy 169 in
Aitkin, serving as an important connection between downtown Minneapolis and the northern suburbs. It also
provides access to major highways I-694 and US 10. The portion of the roadway within the PEL Study area is a
Minor Arterial carrying an AADT in 2017 of 11,500 in the southern portion to 34,000 AADT north of I-694 to
22,100 AADT (2018) at County Highway 10. The AADT is expected to decrease on Hwy 47 within the PEL Study
area by 2040 due to major capacity improvements to adjacent highways that would attract long-distance trips to
I-35W, I-94 and TH 252. Daily traffic volumes on the streets crossing Hwy 47 are expected to increase slightly by
2040. There are 53 intersections within the PEL Study area, and 32 of these are signalized with full access. No
movements are restricted at the signalized intersections. Signalized intersections operate at a 110 second cycle
length in the City of Minneapolis and vary between 95 seconds and 190 seconds throughout the remainder of
the PEL Study area.
Highway 65 (Central Avenue)
Hwy 65 travels north-south from downtown Minneapolis to just south of International Falls. In the study area,
Hwy 65 provides access to highways I-694 and US 10. The section of Hwy 65 north of I-694 is a principal arterial,
while the remainder of the roadway in the PEL Study area is a minor arterial. The 2017 AADT ranges from 11,800
in the southern portion of the PEL Study area to 30,500 just north of I-694 to 41,000 at County Highway 10. The
AADT is expected to decrease on Hwy 65 within the PEL Study area by 2040 due to major capacity improvements
to adjacent highways that would attract long-distance trips to I-35W, I-94 and TH 252. Daily traffic volume on
the streets crossing Hwy 65 is expected to increase slightly by 2040. There are 85 intersections within the PEL
Study area, and the number of signalized and non-signalized intersections are roughly equal and are full access,
except for 22 right-in/right-out intersections. Signalized intersections operate at a 110 second cycle length in the
City of Minneapolis and vary between 110 seconds and 250 seconds throughout the remainder of the PEL Study
area.
2.2.3 Freight Use
Hwy 47 and Hwy 65 provide important connections for freight haulers and distributors to the regional highway
network, as well as local businesses. There are more than 2,400 establishments (62 percent, out of nearly 3,900
total establishments), in and around the PEL Study area that are considered “freight-related,” meaning they
either generate or distribute freight. The highways play a key role in access to these businesses, both within the
PEL Study area and by providing connections to I-694, Hwy 280 and US 10 and other major highways to
distribute goods beyond the PEL Study area.
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 17
35
Jufn!2/
Canadian Pacific (CP) Shoreham Yards is situated in Section 2 of the PEL Study area between Hwy 47 and Hwy
th
65, from 27Avenue to Saint Anthony Parkway. It is a 230-acre site used for railroadand freight distribution
and storage activities. The facility recently completed an expansion that adds storage space and a new access on
thth
Hwy 65 with a new entrance 28 Avenue NE and a new exit at 29 Avenue NE. The new accesses were added to
5
The BNSF Railway St. Paul Intermodal Facility is located southeast of
increase fluidity and reduce truck queuing.
th
the PEL Study area and impacts freight volume within the study area. The 37 Avenue NE and East Hennepin
Avenue corridors serve as critical east-west connections between the CP Shoreham Terminal and the BNSF St.
Paul Intermodal Facility. North of I-694, Old Central Avenue NE provides a key north-south connection to the
thrd
largest freight generator in the study area with connections at I-694, 69 Avenue NE and 73 Avenue NE.
Section 4.2.3 of the Corridor Conditions Review and Section 7 of the Existing Conditions Modal Analysis Technical
Memorandum provide more information on freight use within the PEL Study area (see Appendix B).
2.2.4 Transit Use
Metro Transit provides transit service varying from local, limited-stop and express service north-south along
Hwy 47 and Hwy 65 and to a lesser extent east-west across the corridors. Except for Northtown Mall, most of
the high activity bus stops are in the southern portion of the PEL Study area, south of I-694. Common origins and
destinations for transit riders in the PEL Study area are downtown Minneapolis, Northtown Mall, and shopping
and retail along Hwy 65 in Columbia Heights. High job density and high transit ridership (see figure 2-3) exist in
some locations like Northtown Mall and the Downtown Minneapolis Area. Areas of lower job density, more
th
schools, and more senior housing near Hwy 65 south of 49 Ave NE also have higher transit ridership.
In addition to six local and commuter bus routes, there is an existing commuter rail line and planned Arterial Bus
Rapid Transit (aBRT) route within the study area. Metro Transit’s Northstar Commuter Rail Line operates on the
western edge of the PEL Study area and has a stop in Fridley at 6151 East River Road, near 61st Avenue NE.
Metro Transit is also in the planning stages for the F Line aBRT with anticipated construction beginning in 2025.
Most of the bus stops in the PEL Study area are accessible to the pedestrian network by sidewalks, trails or
sidepaths. There are 10 bus stop locations along Hwy 47 that lack direct sidewalk network connections,
representing a gap in the network. The disconnected stops on Hwy 47 are all north of 37th Avenue NE. There are
no gaps in sidewalk connections to bus stops on Hwy 65.
Section 4.2.4 of the Corridor Conditions Review and Section 4 of the Existing Conditions Modal Analysis Technical
Memorandum provide more information on transit use and network gaps within the PEL Study area (see
Appendix B).
2.2.5 Pedestrian and BicyclistPriority and Use
2.2.5.1 Priority Areas for Walking Analysis (PAWS)
The PAWS analysis prioritizes areas where investments in walking are needed based on 19 criteria that
use infrastructure supply, health, land use, safety, and equity to indicate a demand for walking and
5
Memo, RE: Canadian Pacific (CP) Rail Shoreham Expansion – Supplement to TDMP Dated July 11, 2019, December 17, 2019, From: Tom
Fidler and Mark Powers, p. 16.
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 18
36
Jufn!2/
prudence to look deeper to determine if there are transportation problems in the walking environment.
Once scored, the hexagons are divided into five tiers, with the highest scoring hexagons receive a Tier 1
ranking.
The PAWS analysis shows the majority of Hwy 47 receives a Tier 1 Priority Level Score within the PEL
Study area, the highest priority ranking for walking improvements. The remaining area is Tier 2, located
primarily near I-694 and Hwy 610. Figure C-5 in Appendix C shows the PAWS scoring for the PEL Study
area.
The PAWS analysis shows the majority of Hwy 65 received a Tier 1 Priority Level Score, the highest
priority ranking for walking improvements. The remaining area is Tier 2, located primarily near the
Columbia Golf Club. Figure C-5 in Appendix C shows the PAWS scoring for the PEL Study area.
Refer to Section 3.3, MnDOT PAWS Analysis, of the Existing Conditions Modal Analysis Technical
Memorandum for an explanation of the scoring methodology used for PAWS (see Appendix B).
2.2.5.2 Pedestrian Use
The sidewalk network is complete for a majority of the PEL Study area south of Saint Anthony Pkwy on
rd
Hwy 47 in Minneapolis and south of 53 Avenue NE on Hwy 65 in Columbia Heights. The sidewalk
network becomes incomplete north of these locations, although sidepaths shared by pedestrians and
bicyclists exist in some locations along the two highways. In areas where sidewalks or sidepaths do not
exist, pedestrians make their trips by traveling on the road shoulder or by walking on paths worn on
bare ground adjacent to the roadways.
The sidewalk network is more comfortable on the south end of the PEL Study area due to lower speed
limits, fewer vehicle travel lanes to cross and in some areas greenspace or parking between sidewalks
and the roadways. While an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) audit was not completed as part of
this PEL Study, many of the sidewalks, curb ramps and traffic signals along Hwy 47 and Hwy 65 do not
meet current ADA standards. Pedestrian traffic counts were only available for the cities of Minneapolis
and Fridley for the PEL Study (see Tables 2-3 and 2-4). Additional pedestrian counts will be needed for
future proposed projects to analyze pedestrian issues.
Table 2-3. Average Daily Pedestrian Traffic in City of Minneapolis – automatic counter data
Location of Count Year Counted Average Daily Ped Traffic
University Av SE south of Hennepin Av E 2017 1,760
Central Av NE north of Lowry Av NE 2018 1,460
Central Av NE south of Lowry Av NE 2007 720
Central Av NE south of Broadway St NE 2016 330
Central Av NE south of Saint Anthony 2015 90
Pkwy NE
University Av NE south of 18th Av NE Trail 2018 40
University Av NE Trail south of Saint 2016 30
Anthony Pkwy NE
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 19
37
Jufn!2/
Table 2-4. City of Fridley Pedestrian Counts – 2018 manual two and three-hour counts
Location of Count Year Counted Ped Traffic
a
Highway 47 & 57th Ave NE2018 195
a
Highway 47 & 61st Ave NE 2018 160
b
Highway 47 & Mississippi Ave NE 2018 81
b
Highway 65 & Medtronic Pkwy NE 2018 81
b
Locke Park 2018 8
a
3-hour manual count
b
2-hour manual count
Section 4.2.6 of the Corridor Conditions Review and Section 3 of the Existing Conditions Modal Analysis
Technical Memorandum provide more information on pedestrian use within the PEL Study area (see
Appendix B).
2.2.5.3 Bicycle Priority
Off-street trails and sidepaths, on-street bicycle lanes and paved shoulders all exist in the PEL Study
area, however these do not provide a consistent or comfortable experience between known origin-
destination pairs. Bicycle facilities are limited to some on-street bike lanes along Hwy 65 in Minneapolis
and some sidepaths along Hwy 47 in Fridley. In areas where dedicated bicycle facilities do not exist,
bicyclists make their trips by traveling on the sidewalk, the shoulder, in the vehicle travel lane, or along
nearby streets.
The Metro District Bicycle Investment Prioritization analysis shows all sections of the PEL Study area
include Tier 1 prioritization scores, representing areas where people would benefit most from bicycle-
related improvements. Figure C-7 in Appendix C shows the prioritization scores for the PEL Study area.
Additionally, public engagement and comprehensive plans indicate the community’s vision for improved
bicycle safety and mobility along and across both Hwy 47 and Hwy 65.
2.2.5.4 Bicycle Use
Bicycle traffic counts were only available for the cities of Minneapolis and Fridley for the PEL Study (see
Tables 2-5 and 2-6). Additional traffic counts will be needed to analyze bicycle issues as part of the
alternatives evaluation for a future proposed project.
Table 2-5. Average Daily Bicycle Traffic in City of Minneapolis – automatic counter data
Location of Count Year Counted Average Daily Bike Traffic
University Av SE south of Hennepin Av E 2017180
Central Av NE north of Lowry Av NE 2018220
Central Av NE south of Lowry Av NE 2007110
Central Av NE south of Broadway St NE2016300
Central Av NE south of Saint Anthony Pkwy 2015100
NE
University Av NE Trail south of Saint Anthony 201680
Pkwy NE
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 20
38
Jufn!2/
Table 2-6. City of Fridley Bicycle Counts – 2018 manual two and three-hour counts
Location of Count Year Counted Bike Traffic
a
Highway 47 & 57th Ave NE 201833
a
Highway 47 & 61st Ave NE201868
b
Highway 47 & Mississippi Ave NE 201823
b
Highway 65 & Medtronic Pkwy NE 201823
b
Locke Park 201821
a
3-hour manual count
b
2-hour manual count
Section 4.2.5 of the Corridor Conditions Review and Section 5 of the Existing Conditions Modal Analysis
Technical Memorandum provide more information on bicycle use within the PEL Study area (see
Appendix B).
2.3 Previous Studies and Reports
MnDOT, Metropolitan Council and the counties and cities completed numerous studies and reports that address
issues and goals within the PEL Study area. The roadways are addressed in the comprehensive plans of the cities
within the corridors, including being identified as “high injury streets” in the City of Minneapolis’ Vision Zero
6
Action Plan. Section 3, Plans, Policies and Prior Studies, in the Corridor Conditions Review Technical
Memorandum provides a summary of the regional and municipal comprehensive plans, transportation plans,
parks and trails plans, and other relevant policies, studies and small area plans (see Appendix B).
2.4 Public and Agency Coordination
The following public and agency coordination activities were completed during development of the Purpose and
Need Statement and helped to identify the needs within the PEL Study area.
2.4.1 Public Outreach
A public involvement period was held in October and November 2020 to engage with the public and
stakeholders to identify their issues and concerns within the PEL Study area. The engagement report provides
more information on activities conducted and comments received (see Appendix B). The major elements of the
public involvement period were:
PEL Study website that included an online survey and comment map
Three virtual open houses
Ads on social media, community papers and websites
6
Minneapolis Vision Zero Action Plan 2020-2022. December 2019.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c25330aaf2096c3a2756f1a/t/5df40e26e7eee27b9ea38d7f/1576275502104/Minneapolis+VZ_+A
ction+Plan_20191119_lowres.pdf
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 21
39
Jufn!2/
Promotional lawn signs and sidewalk decals at 90 locations in 5 languages with website URL and QR
code to access website directly via smart phone
Outreach toolkits for partners’ websites
Press release and interviews with local media
One-on-one telephone interviews with underrepresented stakeholders
Thirteen meetings with city council members, neighborhood organizations and other stakeholders
Sidewalk decal near transit stop promoting project website in 5 languages with QR code and URL.
2.4.2 Advisory Committee Coordination
The following advisory committees provided input and recommendations for the PEL Study.
2.4.2.1 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
The TAC is composed of engineers and/or planners from each of the stakeholder cities and counties, FHWA,
MnDOT, the Metropolitan Council, and Metro Transit. In addition to advising the PEL Study team on issue
identification and technical analysis, TAC members provided suggestions and support for the public outreach
effort.
2.4.2.2. Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
The PAC consists of elected officials the cities of Minneapolis, Spring Lake Park, Hilltop, Columbia Heights,
Fridley, Con Rapids, and Blaine, and Hennepin and Anoka counties, as well as FHWA, members of the State
Legislature and the Metropolitan Council. The PAC serves as advisors to the PEL Study team, assisting with
identifying issues in communities, sharing information and encouraging community participation.
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 22
3:
Jufn!2/
2.4.2.3 Resource Agency Coordination
Table 2-7 lists the resource agencies that were notified of the initiation of the PEL Study and provided this
Purpose and Need Statement for review and comment.
Table 2-7. Resource Agencies
Federal Agencies
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
United States Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office
Federal Aviation Administration, Great Lakes Region
Federal Railroad Administration, Region 4
Federal Transit Administration, Region 5
United States Departmentof Interior
National Park Service, Mississippi National River and Recreation Area
Indian Tribes
Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe
Lower Sioux Indian Community
Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe
Prairie Island Indian Community
Santee Sioux Nation
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation
Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa
Upper Sioux Community
State Agencies
State Historic Preservation Office
Office of the State Archaeologist
Minnesota Indian Affairs Council
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Department of Health
Minnesota Department of Administration
Minnesota Department of Commerce
Board of Water and Soil Resources
Regional Authorities
Metropolitan Council
Metro Transit
County Agencies
Hennepin County
Ramsey County
Anoka County
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 23
41
Jufn!2/
Local Government Agencies/Municipalities
City of Minneapolis
City of Spring Lake Park
City of Hilltop
City of Columbia Heights
City of Fridley
City of Blaine
City of Coon Rapids
Coon Creek Watershed
Rice Creek Watershed
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 24
42
Jufn!2/
3. Transportation Needs
This section identifies the transportation needs, or problems, for the Hwy 47 and Hwy 65 PEL Study area. The
needs are based on data analyzed for the corridors and input from stakeholders and the public. These needs
describe the transportation problems that future proposed projects are intended to address through
improvements.
Hwy 47 and Hwy 65 have varying characteristics that lead to differing needs throughout the study area, which
covers approximately 20 miles of roadway (10 miles for each highway). Due to the length of the corridors being
studied, and their varying characteristics, the needs will be framed around the problems experienced corridor-
wide or within the five sections of the PEL Study area to form a cohesive statement (see Figure 2-2).
Needs are broken down into Primary Needs and Secondary Needs, as well as Additional Considerations outlined
in section five of this report. The three primary needs for improving both Hwy 47 and Hwy 65 are related to
pedestrian and bicyclist safety and vehicle safety along and across the highways and pavement condition.
Secondary needs include mobility of pedestrians and bicyclists along and across the corridors, mobility of
vehicles along and across the corridors (including freight and transit mobility) and infrastructure condition.
Additional considerations include: consistency with state and regional plans, programs and projects; social,
economic and environmental impact on the surrounding community; and cost effectiveness/implementable.
The following sections present the primary and secondary needs and the justification for their selection.
Supporting data analysis can be found in Appendix B – Existing Conditions Modal Analysis, Technical
Memorandum #2 and Appendix B – 2040 Forecast Year Conditions, Technical Memorandum for Task 5.
3.1 Primary Needs
Primary needs are the main transportation problems that need to be solved within the PEL study area and the
primary reason(s) why MnDOT is undertaking the PEL Study and evaluating alternatives for future projects. As a
project is identified within the PEL Study area, the primary need(s) from the PEL Study should be reviewed based
on the location of the proposed project to determine whether or not the need remains a primary need based on
the location of the project and any new or additional data available. The following section includes:
3.1.1 Primary Need - Vehicle Safety
3.1.2 Primary Need – Walkability and Bikeability (Safety)
3.1.3 Primary Need - Pavement Condition
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 25
43
Jufn!2/
3.1.1 Primary Need - Vehicle Safety
Select intersections and segments of both highways in the PEL study area exceed the critical crash rate and/or
the critical FAR rate. Seventeen intersections within the PEL Study area have crash rates that indicate safety
issues.
A five-year period was analyzed for the PEL Study area between 2015 and 2019. The following factors were used
to analyze vehicle safety issues within the PEL Study area, as defined:
Critical crash rate: A statistical rate that is unique to each intersection based on vehicle exposure and the 2015
Statewide average crash rate for similar intersections. Crash rates that exceed critical rates can indicate a safety
concern and should be further reviewed. These intersections have a critical index greater than 1.0. An
intersection with a critical index below 1.0 implies that the site does not deviate substantially from the
Statewide trends.
Fatal and severity A crash rate (FAR rate): A statistical value that is unique to each intersection based on
vehicular exposure and the 2015 Statewide average FAR rate for similar intersections. An intersection with a FAR
rate higher than the critical FAR rate can indicate a safety concern at the intersection and the site should be
further reviewed.
Crash severity is separated into five categories based on injuries sustained during the crash:
Property Damage – Crash that results in property damage only, with no injuries
Severity C – Crash that results in possible injury
Severity B – Crash that results in a non-incapacitating injury or suspected minor injury
Severity A – Crash that results in an incapacitating injury or suspected serious injury
Fatal – Crash that results in death
Sustained High Crash Locations (SHCL): An intersection or segment is considered a SHCL if either of the
following criteria applies:
Criteria 1 – The FAR rate is above the critical FAR rate
Criteria 2 – The crash rate is above the critical crash rate and one of the following applies:
o Intersection – One fatal or severity A crash occurred within the 5-year analysis period
o Segment – 0.2 fatal or severity A crashes per mile per year occurred within the last 5-year analysis
period
Figure 3-1 shows the percentage of total crashes by severity type for the five-year period analyzed. Both
highways have a higher percentage of all injury crash types when compared to the Metro and Statewide
percentages. On Hwy 47, approximately 33 percent of crashes resulted in injuries or fatalities and approximately
37 percent of crashes resulted in injuries or fatalities on Hwy 65. This is in comparison to approximately 25
percent and 26 percent of crashes resulting in injuries and fatalities in the Metro and Statewide, respectively.
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 26
44
Jufn!2/
Figure 3-1. Crashes by Severity on Hwy 47 and Hwy 65
2.4%
1.4%
Hwy 47
66.8%18.5%11.0%
2.3%
0.4%
Hwy 65
63.4%21.3%12.6%
1.3%
0.2%
MnDOT Metro District
74.8%15.5%8.2%
1.6%
0.4%
Statewide
74.1%14.7%9.1%
0.0%20.0%40.0%60.0%80.0%100.0%120.0%
Property Damage OnlySeverity CSeverity BSeverity AFatal
3.1.1.1 Highway 47 (University Avenue)
Highway 47 has a fatality proportion that is over three times Statewide data. Between 2015 and 2019, there
were 1,173 crashes on Hwy 47 within the PEL Study area. Sixteen of these crashes were fatal (1.4 percent) and
28 were severity A (2.4 percent). The Metro and Statewide averages are 0.2 percent and 0.4 percent for fatal
crashes and 1.3 percent and 1.6 percent for severity A crashes, respectively. Seventy nine percent of crashes
along Hwy 47 occurred at the 29 signalized intersections on the corridor. Thirty-five percent of all crashes were
rear end crashes, usually the result of drivers following too closely, driver distraction or congestion, 26 percent
were right angle and left turn crashes, typically due to drivers failing to yield or running red lights, and 17
percent were sideswipe crashes, usually the result of drivers changing lanes without looking, changing lanes to
avoid a collision or to avoid a turning vehicle.
Table 3-1 shows the intersections within each section of the PEL Study area with crash rates that exceed or are
approaching the critical rates and with FAR rates that exceed the critical FAR rates. Eight intersections along Hwy
47 have crash rates that exceed the critical rate, eight are approaching the critical rate and 13 intersections have
FAR rates that exceed the critical FAR rate. Table 3-1 also shows the 15 locations that meet the criteria to be
considered an SHCL. Figures C-3a through C-3e in Appendix C illustrate the crash summary for the PEL Study
area.
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 27
45
Jufn!2/
Table 3-1. Hwy 47 Intersections with Crash Rates and FAR Rates Approaching or Exceeding Critical Rate (2015-2019)
Roadway Cross Street Average Total Intersection Critical Critical Intersection Critical SHCL SHCL
Section Entering Crashes Crash Rate Crash Index FAR Rate FAR Criteria 1 Criteria
Daily Volume RateRate 2
a b
1Hwy 6517,45027 0.85 0.860.993.14 3.47--
c
1Bank Street9,75070.39 0.470.82 5.62 4.87X-
th c
1 7 Avenue 12,950 6 0.250.43 0.58 4.23 3.95 X
c
1Broadway Street28,05084 1.64 1.011.631.95 3.31-X
a
th c
1 16 Avenue 13,000 5 0.210.43 0.49 4.21 3.94 X-
th c c
1 18 Avenue 12,500 12 0.53 0.44 .044 4.38 4.05 XX
th c
1 19 Avenue 13,000 11 0.46 0.43 1.07 0.00 3.94 --
nd cc
1 22Avenue 13,280 14 0.58 0.43 1.35 4.12 3.88 XX
rd b
1 23Avenue13,000 10 0.42 0.43 0.97 0.003.94 --
a c
1 Lowry Avenue 26,050 129 2.71 0.79 3.41 2.102.69 -X
th a c c
1/2 27 Avenue 14,900 30 1.10 0.89 1.24 7.35 3.86 X-
th b c
2 35 Avenue 13,430 8 0.33 0.39 0.86 8.15 3.27 X-
th a b
2/3 37 Avenue 17,700 21 0.65 0.70 0.93 3.093.15 --
th a b
3 40 Avenue 21,250 27 0.70 0.74 0.94 2.583.19 --
th a b c
3 44 Avenue 26,950 32 0.65 0.71 0.92 4.06 2.76 X-
th a b c
4 57 Avenue 37,600 44 0.64 0.67 0.96 4.37 2.27 X-
rda c
4 73Avenue 41,400 26 0.340.66 0.52 3.97 2.16 X-
a c
4/5 Osborne Road 40,600 41 0.50.66 0.83 4.05 2.18 X-
st a b
5 81 Avenue 39,100 46 0.64 0.66 0.97 1.402.22 --
rd c c
5 83Avenue32,380 21 0.36 0.30 1.20 5.07 1.70 X-
th a c c
5 85 Avenue 46,600 77 0.90 0.64 1.40 7.05 2.02 X-
a
Signalized intersection
b
Approaching Critical Crash Rate at Intersection
c
Exceeds Critical Crash Rate of Critical FAR rate at intersection
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 28
46
Jufn!2/
The segments of roadway between signalized intersections were also analyzed to account for crashes not
attributed to an intersection. Table 3-2 summarizes the segments with crash rates that exceed or are
approaching the critical rates and the FAR rates that exceed the critical FAR rates. One segment has a crash rate
that exceeds the critical rate, two are approaching the critical rate and two have FAR rates that exceed the
critical FAR rate. There are no segments classified as a SHCL.
Table 3-2. Hwy 47 Segments with Crash Rates and FAR Rates Approaching or Exceeding Critical Rate (2015-
2019)
Roadway Segment Segment Average Total Segment Critical Critical Intersection Critical
Section start end AADT Crashes Crash Crash Index FAR Rate FAR
Rate Rate Rate
aa
1 Hwy 65 Hennepin 9,500 16 8.25 7.96 1.04 51.58 51.10
Avenue
thth b
1 17 20 12,500 31 5.98 6.36 0.94 19.27 27.01
Avenue Avenue
th b
1 20 Lowry 12,500 39 5.31 5.97 0.89 13.61 22.18
Avenue Avenue
ndth a
2 3237 13,000 171.27 4.11 0.31 14.93 13.29
Avenue Avenue
a
Segment exceeds critical crash rate or FAR rate
b
Segment approach critical crash rate
3.1.1.2 Highway 65 (Central Avenue)
Between 2015 and 2019, there were 1,300 crashes on Hwy 65 within the PEL Study area. Five of these were
fatal (0.4 percent) and 30 were severity A (2.3 percent). The Metro and Statewide averages are 0.2 percent and
0.4 percent for fatal crashes and 1.3 percent and 1.6 percent for severity A crashes, respectively. Seventy seven
percent of all crashes along Hwy 65 occurred at the 38 signalized intersections. Of these, 37 percent of crashes
were rear end crashes, 27 percent were right angle and left turn crashes, and 13 percent were sideswipe
crashes.
Table 3-3 shows the intersections within each section of the PEL Study area with crash rates that exceed or are
approaching the critical rates and the FAR rates that exceed the critical FAR rates. Nine intersections along Hwy
65 have crash rates that exceed the critical rate, five are approaching the critical rate and nine intersections
have FAR rates that exceed the critical FAR rate. Table 3-3 also shows the 11 locations that meet the criteria to
be considered an SHCL. Figures C-3a through C-3e in Appendix C illustrate the crash summary for the PEL Study
area.
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 29
47
Jufn!2/
Table 3-3. Hwy 65 Intersections with Crash Rates and FAR Rates Approaching or Exceeding Critical Rate (2015-2019)
Roadway Cross StreetAverage Total Intersection Critical Critical Intersection Critical SHCL SHCL
Section Entering Daily Crashes Crash Rate Crash Index FAR Rate FAR Criteria 1 Criteria
Volume RateRate 2
a b
1Hwy 4717,45027 0.85 0.860.993.14 3.47--
th ac c
15Street12,150231.04 0.931.12 9.01 4.45XX
th a b
1 SE 7Street 17,380 26 0.82 0.86 0.95 3.153.48 --
th c
18Street13,60013 0.52 0.431.220.003.81--
c c
1 Broadway 30,800 56 1.00 0.99 1.01 5.33 3.15 X X
a
Street
th a c
1 18 Avenue 20,310 31 0.84 0.83 0.42 0.003.14 --
c c
1 Lowry Avenue26,400 65 1.35 0.79 1.70 4.15 2.66 X X
a
th a b
1 26 Avenue13,250 21 0.87 0.91 0.95 0.004.19 --
b
2 St. Anthony 17,300 24 0.76 0.86 0.88 0.003.49 --
a
Parkway
th a c c
2/3 37 Avenue 23,300 46 1.08 1.04 1.04 4.70 3.66 X X
rd c
3 43 Avenue24,500 26 0.58 0.36 1.61 2.232.54 -X
tha c
3 45 Avenue 27,980 30 0.58 3.91 3.31 X -
th a b
3 49 Avenue 32,850 53 0.88 0.98 0.89 0.00 3.05 --
st c
3 51 Avenue29,980 4 0.070.31 0.23 1.83 1.80 X -
c
4 Moore Lake 35,780 14 0.210.67 0.31 3.06 2.34 X -
a
Drive
rd c
4 63 Avenue 31,500 3 0.050.30 0.17 1.74 1.73 X -
c c
4/5 Osborne Road38,130 56 0.80 0.67 1.20 8.62 2.26 X -
a
st a c
5 81 Avenue 41,200 78 1.04 0.66 1.58 1.332.16 X -
a
Signalized intersection
b
Approaching Critical Crash Rate at Intersection
c
Exceeds Critical Crash Rate of CriticalFAR rate at intersection
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 30
48
Jufn!2/
The segments of roadway between signalized intersections were also analyzed to account for crashes not
attributed to an intersection. Table 3-4 summarizes the segments with crash rates that exceed or are
approaching the critical rates and the FAR rates that exceed the critical FAR rates. One segment has a crash rate
that exceeds the critical rate and two have FAR rates that exceed the critical FAR rate. One segment is also
classified as a SHCL.
Table 3-4. Hwy 65 Segments with Crash Rates and FAR Rates Approaching or Exceeding Critical Rate (2015-
2019)
Roadway Segment Segment Average Total Segment Critical Critical Intersection Critical
Section start end AADT Crashes Crash Crash Index FAR RateFAR
Rate Rate Rate
th b
1 Lowry 26 Avenue 12,400 24 8.48 7.24 1.17 0.00 39.45
Avenue
stth b
3 41 44 Avenue 23,000 42 2.67 4.01 0.67 12.70 12.24
Avenue
st b
5 81 Co. Hwy 10 37,000 11 0.68 4.00 0.17 18.46 12.05
a
Avenue Interchange
a
Segment meets criteria to be considered a SHCL.
b
Segment exceeds critical crash rate or FAR rate.
The following figures (3-2 through 3-6) show crash summaries by corridor sections. This includes total
intersection crashes, intersections and segments above CCR and FAR, and location for fatal and sever crashes for
pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists.
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 31
49
Jufn!2/
Figure 3-2. Crash Summary on Hwy 47 and Hwy 65, Section 1 (Based 2015-2019 Crash History)
d
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 32
4:
Jufn!2/
Figure 3-3. Crash Summary on Hwy 47 and Hwy 65, Section 2 (Based 2015-2019 Crash History)
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 33
51
Jufn!2/
Figure 3-4. Crash Summary on Hwy 47 and Hwy 65, Section 3 (Based 2015-2019 Crash History)
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 34
52
Jufn!2/
Figure 3-5. Crash Summary on Hwy 47 and Hwy 65, Section 4 (Based 2015-2019 Crash History)
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 35
53
Jufn!2/
Figure 3-6. Crash Summary on Hwy 47 and Hwy 65, Section 5 (Based 2015-2019 Crash History)
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 36
54
Jufn!2/
3.1.2.3 Summary
Summary of Vehicle Safety (Primary Need)
Vehicle safety is a primary need throughout the PEL Study area due to higher-than-average crash severity and
crash rates. The percentage of fatal crashes on Hwy 47 are three times the statewide average (1.4 vs 0.4%) and
seven times the metro average (1.4% vs 0.2%). Fatal Crashes on Hwy 65 are equal to the statewide averages
(0.4%) but double the metro averages (0.4% vs 0.2%). There are 29 intersections and five segments on Hwy
47and Hwy 65 within the PEL Study area that exceed the critical crash rate and/or critical FAR rate.
The Safety Analysis Technical Memorandum provides additional data and background for vehicle safety in the
PEL Study area (see Appendix B).
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 37
55
Jufn!2/
3.1.2 Primary Need - Walkability and Bikeability (Safety)
This need addresses the safety of people walking and biking within the PEL Study area. Hwy 47 and Hwy 65
travel through residential and commercial areas of five cities, connecting non-motorized travelers with the
surrounding commercial businesses, residences, parks, schools, and community facilities. Most neighborhoods
along the study corridors, especially towards the south end, have moderate to high housing and job density as
well as community amenities such as schools and parks. This makes large portions of the corridors walkable and
bikeable from a distance perspective. The crash history and level of service/stress, however, indicate issues with
pedestrian and bicyclist safety both along and across Hwy 47 and Hwy 65.
3.1.2.1 Crash History
Crash history was reviewed for the five-year reporting period from 2015 to 2019. Although pedestrian and
bicyclists were involved in only 5% of the 2,473 total crashes during this time, they account for 39% of the fatal
and serious injury crashes along the corridor, more than 10 times the rate for auto drivers. Since this study
began in March of 2020, there have been two more pedestrian fatalities along Hwy 65 and a pedestrian fatality
along Hwy 47 which were not included in the crash data analysis.
Highway 47 (University Avenue): Pedestrian and bicycle crashes are more frequent in the south end through
high density housing and commercial areas of Minneapolis, while fatalities are more concentrated in the
northern sections where vehicles speeds and volumes are higher. There were 39 pedestrian and 18 bicyclist
involved crashes that occurred on Hwy 47 within the PEL Study area during the 5-year analysis period between
7
2015 and 2019. Ten (17.6 percent) of these were fatal and eight (14.0 percent) were severity A crashes. While
the largest number of total crashes occurred at the south end in section 1 and 2 of the study area, fatal and
severity A crashes remained comparatively low, likely due to a narrower and slower roadway. Fatal and severity
A crashes were highest at the northern end in section 5, where vehicle speeds and volumes are highest. Of the
13 pedestrian or bicyclist crashes that occurred in this section, 10 resulted in a death or severe injury. The
th
Avenue near Northtown Mall stands out with five pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities. Table 3-
intersection of 85
5 shows the fatal and severity A crashes by study area sections.
Table 3-5. Hwy 47 Pedestrian and Bicycle Fatal and Severity A Crashes
Roadway Cross Street Number of Fatal/Severity Total number of
Section A Crashes crashes
a
1 TH 47 at TH 65 0 3
a
1 Hennepin Avenue 0 3
sta
1 1 Avenue 0 2
tha
1 5 Avenue 0 1
tha
1 8 Avenue 0 1
a
1 Broadway Street 0 2
tha
1 13 Avenue 0 2
thb
1 16 Avenue1 2
7
Three additional fatal pedestrian crashes occurred in 2020, outside of 2015-2019 analysis period. One crash was on Hwy 47 at County
thst
Highway 3/University Avenue NW, and two crashes were on Hwy 65 at 44 Avenue and 41 Avenue.
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 38
56
Jufn!2/
Roadway Cross Street Number of Fatal/Severity Total number of
Section A Crashes crashes
thb
1 18 Avenue1 1
tha
1 20 Avenue 0 1
ndb
1 22 Avenue 1 1
a
1 Lowry Avenue 0 5
tha
2/3 37 Avenue 1 5
tha
340Avenue12
tha
344Avenue12
tha
4 57 Avenue 1 2
sta
4 61 Avenue 1 2
a
4Mississippi Street01
tha
4 69 Avenue 0 2
a
4/5 Osborne Road 2 3
sta
5 81 Avenue 1 2
rdb
5 83 Avenue 2 2
tha
5 85 Avenue 5 6
a
signalized intersection
b
unsignalized intersection
Highway 65 (Central Avenue): There were 57 pedestrian and 23 bicyclist related crashes that occurred on Hwy
65 within the PEL Study area during the 5-year analysis period between 2015 and 2019. Two (2 percent) of these
were fatal and 11 (14 percent) were severity A crashes. One of the fatal and one of the severity A crashes were
in segments between intersections, unlike Hwy 47 which had all fatal and severity A crashes occur at
intersections.
Table 3-6 summarizes the fatal and severe A crashes at intersections and along segments of Hwy 65. While no
th
intersection or segment stands out on Hwy 65 like 85 Avenue on Hwy 47, sections 1 and 3 have clusters of
th
Street and Lowry Avenue stand out for the total
crashes spread throughout these sections. In section 1, 5
number of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes and severity A crashes. Section 3 has a cluster of crashes extending
thnd
from 40 Avenue to 52 Avenue, with 32 total pedestrian and bicyclist crashes, five of which were severity A
thth
crashes. 45 Avenue and 50 Avenue stand out with five and six total pedestrian/bicyclist crashes respectively.
Of the two fatal crashes that occurred on Hwy 65, one was a bicyclist at West Moore Lake Drive and one was a
st
pedestrian north of 81Avenue. It should also be noted that after the 2015-2019 recording period, there have
been several more fatal pedestrian and bicyclist crashes on Hwy 65 through section 3.
Table 3-6. Hwy 65 Pedestrian and Bicycle Fatal and Severity A Crashes
Roadway Cross Street Number of Fatal/Severity A Total number of crashes
Section Crashes
a
1 TH 65 at TH 47 0 3
tha
1 4 St0 1
tha
1 5 Street 2 5
a
1 Hennepin Avenue 0 1
tha
1 SE 7 Street 1 3
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 39
57
Jufn!2/
Roadway Cross Street Number of Fatal/Severity A Total number of crashes
Section Crashes
a
1 Spring Street 0 1
a
1 Broadway Street 0 2
thb
1 12 Avenue 0 1
tha
1 14Avenue0 1
a
1 18th Avenue 0 1
a
118 ½ Avenue02
a
124thAvenue01
a
1 Lowry Avenue 1 4
thb
2 26 Avenue 0 2
stb
227Avenue02
a
2 St Anthony Parkway 0 2
b
2 Columbia Parkway 0 1
tha
2/3 37Avenue0 1
b
3 Gould Avenue 0 1
tha
3 40Avenue0 3
sta
3 41 Avenue 0 1
stnd
3 41 to 42 Avenue 1 1
ndb
3 42 Avenue 0 1
rdb
3 43 Avenue 0 1
tha
3 44Avenue1 4
tha
3 45Avenue1 5
thb
3 46 Avenue 1 3
tha
3 47Avenue1 3
tha
3 49Avenue0 1
tha
3 50Avenue0 6
stb
3 51 Avenue 0 1
a
3 52ndAvenue 0 2
a
4 Moore Lake Drive 1 2
b
4 63rd Avenue 1 1
a
4 73rd Avenue 0 3
a
4/5 Osborne Road 1 2
a
5 81st Avenue 0 2
5 81stAvenue to Co. Hwy101 1
a
signalized intersection
b
unsignalized intersection
3.1.2.2 Pedestrian Level of Service and Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) and Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) are frequently used proxies to
evaluate the perceived safety of facilities, identifying locations that feel unsafe to people walking and biking.
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 40
58
Jufn!2/
Perceived safety must be reviewed independently of crash history because facilities may be so inadequate for
8
safe travel that people avoid them all together. These locations may not show up on crash history.
Perceived safety is also referred to as “user comfort or stress”. User comfort and stress are based on the
physical and environmental factors at intersections and along segments, such as types of traffic control at
9
crossings, facility widths, traffic volumes, traffic speeds, and number of through lanes. These types of factors
impact a user’s comfort level using these locations as part of their route. Low comfort facilities can result in
realized crashes, near misses, low compliance (such as mid-block crossings of Hwy 47 and 65), or avoidance all
10
together.
PLOS and BLTS analyses were conducted to evaluate the comfort/stress along and across Hwy 47 and Hwy 65.
Based on the findings, both corridors have insufficient pedestrian levels of service and high levels of traffic stress
for bicyclists, resulting in the need for safety improvements.
Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS)
A PLOS analysis identifies locations with comfort issues/safety for people walking by considering the
infrastructure available to pedestrians along segments of Hwy 47 and Hwy 65 as well as crossings of both
roadways. The methodology is based on best practice analyses and was adapted to consider conditions along
Hwy 47 and Hwy 65. A data-driven score is assigned to each segment and crossing along each corridor. PLOS is
scored with a rating of 3-4 as “more comfortable” to 18-20 as “most uncomfortable.” See figure 3-7 for the PLOS
scores at intersections and along segments of Hwy 47 and Hwy 65.
8
From FHWA Pedestrian and Bicyclist Road Safety Audit Guide and Prompt List: “As vehicle traffic increases, pedestrians may be
discouraged from walking, especially in areas with poor infrastructure and higher speeds. In such cases, there may be relatively few
collisions. Low crash numbers certainly do not indicate these locations are relatively safe and they may have a relatively high risk of
severe collisions in the future”
9
From FHWA Pedestrian and Bicyclist Road Safety Audit Guide and Prompt List: “Besides traffic, pedestrian and bicyclist crash risk may
increase with the following: • Increasing number of lanes (including turn lanes) presenting more conflict points. • Increasing pedestrian
crossing distance and roadway width, leading to greater exposure to traffic. • Decreasing separation in time, such as allowing free-flow
turns or right-turn-on-red movements. • Decreasing availability of sidewalks or other facilities that separate pedestrians from motor
vehicle traffic.”
10
From FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide: “Exposure to high motor vehicle traffic speeds and volumes is the primary contributor of
stress…Proximity to motor vehicle traffic is a significant source of stress and discomfort for bicyclists: crash and fatality risks sharply rise
for vulnerable users when motor vehicle speeds exceed 25 mph.”
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 41
59
Jufn!2/
Figure 3-7. Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) for Hwy 47 and Hwy 65
Purpose and Need Statement -06/21/202142
5:
Jufn!2/
Figures 3-8 and 3-9 show examples of more comfortable and less comfortable locations for pedestrians. Refer to
Section 3.2.1, PLOS Intersection Scoring Methodology, of the Existing Conditions Modal Analysis Technical
Memorandum for an explanation of the scoring methodology used for PLOSanalysis (see Appendix B).
Figure 3-8. More ComfortFigure 3-9. Less Comfort
Highway 47:The findings of the PLOS analysis of Hwy 47 show that intersections range from comfortable to
very uncomfortable, and roadway segments range from very comfortable to less comfortable. By this
th
measure, the most comfortable intersection crossings are in Section 1, south of NE 27Avenue, due to
lower speed limits and fewer travel lanes to cross and the most comfortable segments are in Sections 1 and
4 due to buffers and greenspace between sidewalks and roadway. The most uncomfortable intersections
and segments are generally found in Sections 2 through 5 based on higher speed limits, more lanes to cross
and higher traffic volume.
The pedestrian sidewalk network is incomplete in Section 2, north of Saint Anthony Parkway, and Sections 3,
4 and 5 resulting in lack of access for pedestrians. Ten bus stops are disconnected from the surrounding
th
pedestrian network, all located north of 37Avenue NE in Sections 3, 4 and 5. Lack of connected transit
stops can provide unsafe loading and waiting locations for people in wheelchairs or other assist devices to
access public transit.
Highway 65:The PLOS analysis of Hwy 65 found that intersections and segments range from comfortable to
very uncomfortable, depending on the location. The most comfortable intersection crossings are in Sections
th
Avenue NE, and the most comfortable segments are south of I-694 in Sections 1, 2
1, 2 and 3, south of 44
and 3. The most uncomfortable, lowest rated intersections and segments are found in Sections 4 and 5 due
to higher speed limits, more roadway lanes to cross and higher traffic volume.
The pedestrian sidewalk network is incomplete in Section 4 and 5, north of I-694. The walking experience,
such as having to use roadway shoulders, is a contributing factor to low PLOS scores and reduced mobility
for people walking for transportation, shopping, to work and bus stops, recreation, and physical activity.
Sidewalks, curb ramps, traffic signals, and other infrastructure will be reviewed as part of future projects to
determine if current standards developed for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are being met and/or
impacted by the project.
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/202143
61
Jufn!2/
ADA Accessibility
A full ADA assessment was not conducted due to the size of the study area, but a qualitative review of both
corridors identified many locations for whichinfrastructure is not in compliance with Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) standards, posing safety issues for users with disabilities. Sidewalks, curb ramps, traffic signals, and
other infrastructure will need to be reviewed as part of future projects to determine if current standards are
being met and/or impacted by the project.
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS)
A BLTS analysis considers the infrastructure available to people biking on and along Hwy 47 and Hwy 65 to
identify locations of low, moderate and high stress.BLTS is scored with 1 as “low stress” to 4 as “high stress”.
Figures 3-10and 3-11show examples of low stress and high stress locations for bicyclists. Refer to Section 5.3.1,
BLTS Scoring Methodology, of the Existing Conditions Modal Analysis Technical Memorandum for an explanation
of the scoring methodology used for the BLTS (see Appendix B). See figure 3-12 for the BLTS scores of Hwy 47
and Hwy 65.
Figure 3-10. Lower Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Figure 3-11. Higher Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/202144
62
Jufn!2/
Figure 3-12. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS)on and along Hwy 47 and Hwy 65
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/202145
63
Jufn!2/
Highway 47: The findings of the BLTS analysis show that bicycling along Hwy 47 is high stress for all but a
few segments of the PEL Study corridors due to the lack of space separating bicycles from moving
vehicles. The exception is in Section 4 in Fridley, which is considered very comfortable due to dedicated
sidepaths that separate bicyclists from vehicles. For the remainder of the PEL Study area, there is limited
separation between vehicles and bicyclists traveling along the roadways. Signalized and enhanced
crossings are also infrequent throughout the PEL Study area and do not connect users to destinations,
limiting access for those traveling by bicycle. Figure C-8 in Appendix C shows the existing on-street and
off-street bicycle facilities within the PEL Study area.
Highway 65:
The findings of the BLTS analysis show that bicycling along Hwy 65 is very uncomfortable for most of the
PEL Study area due to the lack of space separating bicycles from moving vehicles. The exceptions are
portions of Section 1 near Lowry Avenue and Section 2 near the Columbia Golf Club where there are
sidepaths separating bicyclists from vehicles.
3.1.2.3 Summary
Summary of Walkability and Bikeability - Safety (Primary Need)
The recorded crash history, low level of pedestrian service, and high level of bicycle traffic stress, combined
with the high priority for pedestrian and bicycle accessibility outlined in the background section, make the
safety of people walking and biking a primary need for all sections of the study area.
The safety of users crossing the roadways is of particular importance where they are most exposed to conflicts
with motor vehicles. Intersection crossings throughout the PEL Study area have documented safety issues, as
reported in the 2018 road safety audit and this PEL Study. Issues such as vehicle speed and the number of
access points add to the safety issues within the PEL Study area. Long delays at signalized intersection may have
an impact on user compliance, which has further safety ramifications.
While safety is listed as a primary need, and mobility as a secondary need, the two are inextricably linked.
Safety improvements often provide a benefit to pedestrian and bicyclist mobility. Walkability and Bikeability -
Mobility is a secondary needs for this study, and primarily focuses on the amount of out-of-direction travel
imposed on people walking and biking to access comfortable or low-stress facilities.
The Existing Conditions Modal Analysis Technical Memorandum and Safety Analysis – Technical Memorandum
#3, provide additional data and background for pedestrian and bicycle safety in the PEL Study area (Appendix B
and B).
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 46
64
Jufn!2/
3.1.3 Primary Need - Pavement Condition
MnDOT uses four indices for reporting pavement conditions. Each index describes a different aspect of
pavement condition. MnDOT uses the indices to rank existing pavement sections and predict the need for future
maintenance and rehabilitation. Additional information describing the four indices is in MnDOT’s Pavement
11
Conditions Annual Report. In addition, Table 3-7 illustrates the ratings of each indice from Very Good to Very
Poor on a scale of 5-0.
Table 3-7: Pavement Conditions Metric Rating Scale for Categories
RSL
Condition Condition
(# of years from current year to year
Categories Categories RQI PQI SR
RQI=2.5;
(Metric) (Metric)
If RQI2.5 then RSL=0)
Very Good 4.1 – 5.0 3.7 – 4.5 3.3 – 4.0
High 12+ years
Good 3.1 – 4.0 2.8 – 3.6 2.5 – 3.2
Moderate 4 to 11 years Fair 2.1 – 3.0 1.9 – 2.7 1.7 – 2.4
Poor 1.1 – 2.0 1.0 – 1.8 0.9 – 1.6
Low 0 to 3 years
Very Poor 0.1 – 1.0 0.1 – 0.9 0.1 – 0.8
Pavement Condition Metric definitions:
RSL: The RSL is an estimate, in years, until the RQI will reach a value of 2.5, which is generally considered the end of a pavement’s
design life.
RQI: The RQI is MnDOT’s ride, or smoothness, index. It uses a zero to five rating scale, rounded to the nearest tenth. The higher the
RQI, the smoother the road is. The RQI is intended to represent the rating that a typical road user would give to the pavement’s
smoothness as felt while driving his/her vehicle.
PQI: The PQI is a composite index, equal to the square root of the product of RQI and SR. As such, it gives an overall indication of the
condition of the pavement, taking into account both the pavement smoothness and cracking. The PQI is the index used to
determine if the state highway system is meeting performance thresholds established for the Government Accounting Standards
Board, Standard 34 (GASB 34).
SR: MnDOT uses the SR to quantify pavement distress. The percentage of each distress in a 500-foot sample is determined and
multiplied by a weighting factor the get a weighted distress value. The weighting factors are greater for higher severity levels of
the same distress and greater for distress types that indicate more serious problems exist in the roadway such as alligator cracking
or broken panels. The weighted distresses are then combined to determine the SR. The SR ranges from 0.0 to 4.0 and is reported
to the nearest tenth. A higher SR means better condition. A road with no defects is rated at 4.0. A road in need of major
rehabilitation or reconstruction will generally have an SR near or below 2.5.
11
2017 Pavement Conditions Annual Report, January 2018, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Office of Materials and Road
Research, Pavement Management Unit; available at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/materials/pvmtmgmt.html.
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 47
65
Jufn!2/
3.1.3.1 Highway 47 (University Avenue)
The present RQI within the PEL Study area ranges from Poor to Good condition. Table 3-8 provides the existing
pavement metric conditions for each section on Hwy 47 within the PEL Study area.
Table 3-8. Existing Hwy 47 PEL Study Area 2019 Pavement Metric Conditions
Section 1 2 3 4 5
Metric Value Condition Value Condition Value Condition Value Condition Value Condition
RSL 0-3 Low4-11 Moderate 12+ High 12+ High 12+ High
years yearsyears years years
RQI 0.0-Poor-Fair 2.1-Fair-Good 3.1-Good 3.1-Good 3.1-Good
3.05.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
PQI 0.0-Poor-Fair 2.8-Good 2.8-Good 2.8-Good 2.8-Good
2.74.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
SR 0.0-Poor-Fair 2.5-Good 2.5-Good 2.5-Good 2.5-Good
2.44.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Source: 2019 MnDOT pavement conditions maps. https://www.dot.state.mn.us/materials/pvmtmgmt.html
3.1.3.2 Highway 65 (Central Avenue)
The present RQI within the PEL Study area ranges from Poor to Good categories. Table 3-9 provides the existing
pavement metric conditions for each section on Hwy 65 within the PEL Study area.
Table 3-9. Existing Hwy 65 PEL Study Area Pavement Metric Conditions
Section 1 2 3 4 5
Metric Value Condition Value ConditionValueCondition Value Condition Value Condition
RSL 0-3 Low12+ High 0-11 Low-12+ High 4-12+ Medium-
years yearsyears Medium years years High
RQI 0.0-Poor-Fair 2.1-Fair 2.1-Fair-Good 3.1-Good 2.1-Fair-Good
3.03.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
PQI 1.9-Fair 2.8-Good 2.8-Good2.8-Good 2.8-Good
2.74.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
SR 1.7-Fair 1.7-Fair-Good 1.7-Fair-Good 2.5-Good 2.5-Good
2.44.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Source: 2019 MnDOT pavement conditions maps. https://www.dot.state.mn.us/materials/pvmtmgmt.html
3.1.3.3 Summary
Summary of Pavement Condition (Primary Need)
Pavement condition is a primary need in Section 1 for both Hwy 47 and Hwy 65 due to poor pavement
conditions. Depending on when a future project is planned for implementation, the conditions in the other
sections could deteriorate and additional areas could become a primary need. Otherwise, pavement
conditions may be considered a secondary need or additional consideration when planning future
transportation improvements.
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 48
66
Jufn!2/
3.2 Secondary Needs
The secondary need describes other transportation problems or opportunities for improvements within the PEL
Study Area that may be able to be addressed, if feasible, while the primary needs should be addressed as part of
future proposed projects. Secondary needs include:
3.2.1 Vehicle Mobility
3.2.2 Walkability and Bikeability – Mobility
3.2.1 Secondary Need - Vehicle Mobility
Daily vehicle traffic growth rates on both highways over the next 20 years are expected to be relatively flat with
minor increases and minor decreases depending on location. Queue lengths on side streets connecting to Hwy
47 and Hwy 65, freight mobility and transit define the vehicle mobility needs within the PEL Study area.
3.2.1.1 Highway 47 (University Avenue)
Automobile
Daily traffic volume (AADT) increases from 7,900 in the southern end of the PEL Study area to 40,150 in the
north portion. On average, the calculated growth rates show steady annual linear growth in traffic volume
between 0.1 percent and 2.3 percent. There is little through traffic traveling from end to end, with less than 15
percent of vehicles continuing beyond I-694 in the northbound and southbound directions. On average, all
sections within the PEL Study area operate with an acceptable segment LOS C or better. Vehicle back-ups at
intersections, or queue lengths, exceed the available lane storage more frequently on the side-street
approaches than for the turning movements on Hwy 47. Lane blocking also occurs for more than 25 percent of
the time for either through, right-turn and left-turn lanes at several intersections. Table 3-10 lists the
intersections where average queue lengths exceed available turn storage lengths and where lane blocking
occurs for more than 25 percent of the time. Table 3-10 provides a summary of queuing along Hwy 47.
Table 3-10. Queuing Analysis Summary – Hwy 47
Section Intersections where Queue Lengths Intersections where Lane Blocking Occurs More
a
Exceed Available Turn Storage Lengths Than 25 Percent of the Time
1
8 th St Ave NE Broadway St NE (mainline & side-street)
Broadway St NE 13 th Ave NE (side-street)
13 th Ave NE 17 th Ave NE (mainline)
20 th Ave NE (mainline)
Lowry Ave NE (mainline)
27 th Ave NE (mainline)
2/3 None 37 th Ave NE (side-street)
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 49
67
Jufn!2/
Section Intersections where Queue Lengths Intersections where Lane Blocking Occurs More
a
Exceed Available Turn Storage Lengths Than 25 Percent of the Time
3
49 th Ave NE 40 th Ave NE (side-street)
53 rd Ave NE 44 th Ave NE (side-street)
49 th Ave NE (side-street)
53 rd Ave NE (side-street)
4 None 73 rd Ave NE (side-street)
4/5 Osborne Rd NEOsborne Rd NE (side-street)
a
Lane blocking occurs for either through, right and/or left-turn lane
Transit
Transit service within the PEL Study area focuses on serving regional travel needs through local routes and
longer trips through commuter rail. This includes six local bus routes and the Northstar Commuter Rail
connecting Big Lake with downtown Minneapolis. The Metropolitan Council is also prioritizing the F Line arterial
bus rapid transit service for near-term development from 53rd Avenue to Northtown Mall. Local service
connects transit riders to downtown Minneapolis, Northtown Mall, schools, senior housing, shopping, and retail.
There are also three Park and Ride stations along Hwy 47 within the PEL Study area. The highest level of transit
ridership is in areas with high job density such as Northtown Mall and downtown Minneapolis and areas with
more schools and senior housing. Figure C-9 in Appendix C illustrates ridership within the PEL Study area. As
described under Section 3.2.1, ten transit stops are disconnected from the surrounding pedestrian network
th
north of 37Avenue NE.
3.2.1.2 Highway 65 (Central Avenue)
Automobile
Daily traffic volume (AADT) increases from 10,550 in the southern end of the PEL Study area to 36,400 in the
north portion. On average, the calculated growth rates show steady annual linear growth in traffic volume
between 0.0 percent and 2.5 percent. There is little through traffic traveling from end to end, with 3 percent of
vehicles continuing beyond I-694 in the northbound direction and 8 percent of vehicles continuing south of I-
694. On average, all sections operate with an acceptable segment LOS C during the AM peak hour. The average
LOS during the PM peak hour operates at LOS C in Sections 1, 2 and 3, but drops to LOS E and LOS F for Sections
4 and 5, north of I-694, likely due to long cycle lengths of up to 250 seconds and heavy turning volumes. Figure
C-10 in Appendix C illustrates traffic operations on Hwy 65.
Vehicle back-ups at intersections, or queue lengths, exceed the available lane storage more frequently on the
side-street approaches than for the turning movements on Hwy 65. Lane blocking also occurs for more than 25
percent of the time for either through, right-turn and left-turn lanes at several intersections. Table 3-11 lists the
intersections where average queue lengths exceed available turn storage lengths and where lane blocking
occurs for more than 25 percent of the time. Table 3-10 provides a summary of queuing along Hwy 65.
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 50
68
Jufn!2/
Table 3-11. Queuing Analysis Summary – Hwy 65
Section Intersections Where Queue Lengths Intersections Where Lane Blocking Occurs More Than
a
Exceed Available Turn Storage Lengths 25 Percentof the Time
1
8th St Ave NE 5th St SE (mainline)
Broadway St NE Spring St NE (side-street)
13th Ave NE 18th Ave NE (side-street)
Lowry Ave NE (mainline & side-street)
2/3 None 37th Ave NE (side-street)
3
49th Ave NE49th Ave NE (side-street)
53rd Ave NE 53rd Ave NE (mainline)
4 None
Central Ave/Medtronic Pkwy NE (mainline & side-
street)
E Moore Lake Drive (mainline)
73rd Ave NE (mainline & side-street)
4/5 Osborne Rd NEOsborne Rd NE (side-street)
5 None 81st Ave NE (mainline)
a
Lane blocking occurs for either through, right and/or left-turn lane
Transit
Transit service within the PEL Study area focuses on serving local and regional travel needs through local routes
and commuter rail. This includes six local bus routes and the Northstar Commuter Rail connecting Big Lake with
downtown Minneapolis. Local service connects residential neighborhoods to high job and activity centers such
as downtown Minneapolis, Northtown Mall, schools, senior housing, shopping, and retail. The highest levels of
transit ridership are in areas with high job density such as Northtown Mall and downtown Minneapolis and
areas with more schools and senior housing. The Metropolitan Council is also prioritizing the F Line arterial bus
rapid transit service for near-term development from University Avenue to 53rd Avenue. Figure C-9 in Appendix
C illustrates ridership within the PEL Study area. As described under Section 3.2.1, ten transit stops are
th
disconnected from the surrounding pedestrian network north of 37 Avenue NE.
3.2.1.3 Freight Mobility
Freight Origin-Destination and “Top Routes” Analysis
StreetLight origin-destination and “Top Routes” analysis was completed for freight within the study catchment
area as described in the Existing Conditions Modal Analysis – Technical Memorandum #2 found in Appendix B.
Thirteen zones were identified within the freight catchment area and ranked based on their concentration of
freight trip activity. Six of the thirteen zones directly feed Hwy 47 and Hwy 65 and the top routes, key origins
and destinations for each were analyzed to understand how they impact Hwy 47 and Hwy 65.
The analysis showed the key role that both Hwy 47 and Hwy 65 serve in local freight supply chains. In many
cases the corridor analysis showed that businesses locate near each other to save costs. This is most evident in
Figure 7.3-6 where top trip ends from CP Shoreham Terminal are shown throughout the study area. In all cases
the analysis showed the importance of good connections to I-694 and US-10 to distribute goods beyond the
study area. For the CP Terminal, 37th Ave. NE and E. Hennepin Ave. serve as critical east-west connections
between the terminal and the BNSF St. Paul Intermodal Facility. Adjacent to Cummins Power Generation Inc.,
the largest freight employer in the study area, Central Ave. NE serves as a parallel freight corridor to Hwy 65,
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 51
69
Jufn!2/
and provides connections to key east-west connections for that site including 73rd Ave. NE, 69th Ave. NE and
I-694.
Freight Volume Analysis
StreetLight data for the “top routes” analysis was also used to determine truck turning volume indices at 22
intersections spread between the Hwy 47 and 65 corridors. While not a true truck volume, the indices provide a
representation of the level of turning activity at each location in the absence of truck field counts.
Appendix C provides visual depictions of the intersections that fall within the top 25 percent of truck turning
movements within each corridor. Note that several intersections reviewed do not have any turning movements
falling within the highest 25 percent of volume indices.
During consultations with freight operators it was noted that the southbound RT onto westbound Lowry Ave. NE
has experienced increased turns due to the new CP yard entrance on Hwy 65. This was also noted as having
inadequate geometrics for trucks.
Canadian Pacific (CP) Shoreham Yards Terminal
There is limited truck traffic access to the CP Shoreham Terminal from both the I-94 and I-694 interstate system
and from intermodal container depots in the area. From the interstate, roads on alternative routes have
substantial impediments (e.g. height restrictions, weight limitations, bridge closures), making Hwy 47 the only
adequate road for CP Shoreham Terminal access. Hwy 47 also connects Hwy 280 to the CP Shoreham Terminal
and the BNSF St. Paul Intermodal Facility.
The addition of new entrance and exit from the CP Shoreham Terminal onto Hwy 65 in 2020 is expected to
alleviate previous queues experienced along Hwy 47 by allowing queuing on CP property and providing another
direct route for the terminal to I-694 and Hwy 10. This expansion project is also projected to increase capacity by
21 percent. While the new access is operational, data was not available for analysis as part of the PEL Study,
therefore further analysis of the new entrance will be needed to determine impacts to freight mobility within
the PEL Study area.
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 52
6:
Jufn!2/
3.2.1.4 Summary
Summary of Vehicle Mobility (Secondary Need)
Automobile
Mobility through Sections 4 and 5 on Hwy 65 are secondary needs based on LOS E and F conditions.
Decreasing queue lengths on side streets are needs in all sections. As future proposed projects are
identified, existing and future traffic data should be reviewed for the specific location of the project to
determine if this is substantiated. Any future proposed project on Hwy 65 should also consider alternatives
1
developed under the TH 65 PEL Study that is expected to be completed in early 2021.Section 6 of the
Existing Conditions Modal Analysis Technical Memorandum provides additional data and background for
automobile mobility (see Appendix B).
Transit
Based on ridership, gaps in pedestrian access to transit stops, density of destinations, transit mobility,
including transit service priority/delay and access to stops, is a secondary need within segments 3, 4 and 5
on Hwy 47 and segments 1 through 5 on Hwy 65. Section 4, Transit Analysis, of the Existing Conditions
Modal Analysis Technical Memorandum provides additional data and background for transit mobility (see
Appendix B).
Freight
The analysis showed the key role that both Hwy 47 and Hwy 65 serve in local freight supply chains. In many
cases the corridor analysis showed that businesses locate near each other to save costs. The greatest level
rd
of truck turning movement occurs at Hwy 65 and 73 Avenue near Cummins, the largest employer in the
study area, and Hwy 47 at the I-694 interchange. Additional analysis of the impact of the new entrance on
Hwy 65 to the CP Shoreham Yard should be completed for future analysis within the PEL Study area to
determine impacts on vehicle mobility. Section 7, Freight Analysis, of the Existing Conditions Modal Analysis
Technical Memorandum provides additional data and background for freight mobility (see Appendix B).
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 53
71
Jufn!2/
3.2.2 Secondary Need - Walkability and Bikeability (Mobility)
The Land Use, Demographic, Economics, Transit, Pedestrian, Bicycle and Plans and Policies sections of this report
document the demand and community vision for a high level of pedestrian and bicycle accessibility and
connectedness throughout both corridors. As mentioned in the Walkability and Bikeability Safety section under
primary needs, mobility and safety are linked, and improvements to safety can have a positive impact on the
accessibility and connectedness of pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Pedestrian and bicyclist mobility needs in the study area are substantiated by the PLOS and BLTS which identify
the level of stress for crossing locations along the corridor. High stress crossings fail to provide adequate
mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists because pedestrians and bicyclists must travel out-of-direction to cross at
a lower stress location. This could result in either a longer out-of-direction trip or the loss of a walking or biking
trip, which:
Restricts the Community’s ability to meet their vision for improved physical, mental and environmental
health through the support of active transportation
Removes a free/cheap travel option for user, which disproportionately impacts low-income and minority
communities
Pedestrians are especially sensitive to increases in trip distance. Most walking trips are around 0.5 miles, with
12
few exceeding one mile. In suburban contexts along the corridors, where the distance between marked
crossings can exceed 0.5 miles, out-of-direction travel to reach a low-stress crossing can easily double or triple
total trip length, requiring an excessive amount of travel time for people walking.
3.2.2.1 Pedestrian Mobility
The PLOS analysis, outlined in section 3.1.2., identifies low-stress crossings across and sidewalk or trail facilities
along Hwy 47 and Hwy 65. Based on a review of this analysis, and east-west permeability of the corridors and
density of trip generators, the following areas were identified as requiring a high level of out-of-direction travel
to access low stress crossings, resulting in a likely increase in travel time for pedestrians.
Hwy 47: Based on the PLOS, the northern most sections of Hwy 47 have the highest impact on out-of-direction
travel due to lack of high comfort facilities. See table 3-12 for a full summary of mobility needs by section.
Table 3-12. Estimated out-of-direction travel for pedestrians based on Hwy 47
Section PLOS Network Permeability Out-of-direction
and Trip Generator travel
Density
Section 1 Highest comfort level for crossings and highest permeability Low
sidewalks on Hwy 47 and high density in and high trip
controlled crossing locations generators
12
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3377942/
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 54
72
Jufn!2/
Section PLOS Network Permeability Out-of-direction
and Trip Generator travel
Density
Section 2 Varying sidewalk comfort on Hwy 47, no Low permeability and Moderate
comfortable crossing opportunities north of
low trip generators
th
27, low density of controlled crossing
locations
Section 3 Low level of sidewalk comfort and crossing Low permeability and High
comfort, low density of controlled crossings moderate trip
thrd
between 40 and 53Ave generators
th
Section 4 Varying sidewalk comfort (I-694 to 57 and Low permeability and High
st
61 to Mississippi – low comfort, all other high trip generators
segments comfortable on one side), low
crossing comfort, low density of controlled
crossings
rd
Section 5 Varying sidewalk comfort (83 to Co. Hwy Low permeability and High
10 – low comfort, all other segments high trip generators
comfortable on one side), low crossing
comfort, low density of controlled crossings
Hwy 65: Based on the PLOS, both sections 1 and 2 have an anticipated low level of out-of-direction travel, with
section 4 having the highest anticipated out-of-direction travel with no comfortable sidewalk or trail facilities
along Hwy 65 and only one comfortable crossing location (Rice Creek Trail Crossing) within the section. See table
3-13 for a full summary of mobility needs by section.
Table 3-13. Estimated out-of-direction travel for pedestrians on Hwy 65
Section PLOS Network Permeability Out-of-direction
and Trip Generator travel
Density
Section 1 Highest comfort level for crossings and highest permeability Low
sidewalks on Hwy 65 and high density in and high trip
controlled crossing locations generators
Section 2 Highest comfort level for crossings and Moderate to high Low
sidewalks on Hwy 65 and moderate density permeability and low
in controlled crossing locations trip generators
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 55
73
Jufn!2/
Section PLOS Network Permeability Out-of-direction
and Trip Generator travel
Density
Section 3 High to low levels of sidewalk comfort Moderate Moderate
(moderate to low comfort at the northern permeability and
rd
most end from 53 to I-694, otherwise moderate to high trip
comfortable) and moderate to low comfort generators
thrd
crossing from 46 to 53, high density of
controlled crossings
Section 4 Low level of sidewalk comfort throughout, Low permeability and High
except for small section near Rice Creek moderate trip
Trail, moderate to low crossing comfort, low generators
density of controlled crossings
Section 5 Low level of sidewalk comfort, moderate to Moderate to low Moderate
low crossing comfort except for pedestrian permeability and
th
bridge at 80, low density of controlled moderate trip
crossings generators
3.2.2.2 Bicyclist Mobility
The BLTS analysis, outlined in section 3.1.2., identifies low-stress facilities along Hwy 47 and Hwy 65. Based on a
review of this analysis, along with a review of PLOS crossing comfort at east-west facility and presence of parallel
routes, areas were identified where a high level of out-of-direction travel may be necessary to access low stress
routes, resulting in a likely increase in travel time.
Hwy 47: The level of out-of-direction travel increases to the north with the lack of low-stress crossing
opportunities to connect north-south bicycle facilities to the surrounding trail system. See table 3-14 for a full
summary of mobility needs by section.
Table 3-14. Estimated out-of-direction travel for bicyclists on Hwy 47
Section BLTS Low PLOS crossing Out-of-direction
density and parallel travel
facilities
Section 1 High-stress for the entire section Low-stress parallel Low
th
route on 5 Ave, low
comfort crossings
Section 2 Low-stress along segment from St. Anthony Low comfort crossing
th
Moderate
Parkway to approximately 30Ave, High-at Grand Rounds trail,
stress the remainder of the section no parallel route to
connect to regional
trail system
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 56
74
Jufn!2/
Section BLTS Low PLOS crossing Out-of-direction
density and parallel travel
facilities
Section 3 High-stress the entire section All low comfort High
crossings, parallel
route to the west
th
from 44 to I-694
Section 4High-stress from I-694 to Mississippi , low No comfortable High
stress on west side of Hwy 47 from crossings, including at
th
Mississippi to Osborne regional trail (69),
Parallel route to the
st
west from I-694 to 61
Section 5 Low stress on west side of Hwy 47 from No comfortable
th th
High
Osborne to 85,high-stress from 85 to Co. crossings, no
Hwy 10 (F) comfortable crossings
to connect trails at
th
85 and University
Ave
Hwy 65: The level of out-of-direction travel for bicyclists is highest in sections 3 and 5 with a lack of low-stress
crossing opportunities and alternative routes to connect to surrounding trail system. See table 3-15 for a full
summary of mobility needs by section.
Table 3-15. Estimated out-of-direction travel for bicyclists on Hwy 65
Section BLTS Facility crossings with Out-of-direction
low PLOS crossings travel
and parallel facilities
Section 1 Moderate to high-stress facilities Multiple comfortable Low
crossings, parallel
route to the west
th
from Spring St to 27
Ave
Section 2 Low-stress north of St. Anthony Parkway, Multiple comfortable
Low
otherwise high-stress crossings, parallel
route to the west
thth
from 27 Ave to 37
Ave
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 57
75
Jufn!2/
Section BLTS Facility crossings with Out-of-direction
low PLOS crossings travel
and parallel facilities
Section 3 High-stress facility Few comfortable
High
crossings, especially
th
north of 45 Ave, no
parallel routes or
connections to
east/west trails
Section 4 High-stress facility except for a small section Only one comfortable
Moderate
of low-stress facility around Rice Creek Trail crossing (Rice Creek
Trail), parallel route to
the east and high trail
connections
Section 5 High-stress facility Only one comfortable
th
High
crossing (80 Ave
bridge), no parallel
routes
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 58
76
Jufn!2/
3.2.2.3 Summary
Summary of Walkability and Bikeability – Mobility (Secondary Need)
In addition to the safety issue for pedestrians and bicyclists, walking and biking along and across Hwy 47 and
Hwy 65 is challenging due to the location and connectivity of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure that
connect people to places. Issues such as intermittent sidewalks along Hwy 47 and Hwy 65, barriers to
crossing, such as center medians and railroad tracks, and roadway characteristics not conducive to
pedestrian and bicycle travel. The demographics of the area show that biking and walking is an important
facet of the overall transportation system and provides access to the many businesses and community
facilities within the PEL Study area, however the infrastructure to access these destinations is missing,
disconnected or uncomfortable to both people walking and biking.
Because much of Hwy 47 and Hwy 65 fail to provide low-stress and connected facilities for people walking
and biking, mobility for users was identified as a secondary need for this study.
As future proposed projects are identified, mobility will need to be evaluated to improve access and
connectivity for those walking and biking. Different locations along these corridors may have varying
walkability and bikeability needs that could address issues with access, connectivity and mobility.
The Existing Conditions Modal Analysis Technical Memorandum provides additional data and background
for pedestrian and bicycle mobility in the PEL Study area (see Appendix B).
4.Purpose
The purpose of the PEL Study is to identify alternatives for inclusion in future proposed projects along Hwy 47
and Hwy 65 and the local supporting roadway system that improve safety and mobility for vehicular traffic and
pedestrian and bicycle users.
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 59
77
Jufn!2/
5. Additional Considerations
Additional considerations are other elements that are not central to the Purpose and Need but are nonetheless
important considerations for future proposed alternatives. Additional considerations for Hwy 47 and Hwy 65
projects include:
5.1 Consistency with local, State, and Regional Plans and Programs
5.2 Consistency with local, State and Regional Projects
5.3 Cost Effectiveness/Implementable
5.4 Non-pavement Infrastructure
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 60
78
Jufn!2/
5.1 Consistency with Local, State and Regional Plans and Programs
There are a number of state, regional, county, and municipal plans and programs that identify key themes for
safety and access that should be considered as part of future proposed projects within the PEL Study area.
Section 3, Plans, Policies and Prior Studies, in the Corridor Conditions Review Technical Memorandum provides a
summary of these and other plans for consideration when developing alternatives and proposed projects within
the PEL Study area (see Appendix B). Specific plans to accommodate include, but are not limited to:
MnDOT’s 20-Year State Highway Investment Plan, Metropolitan Council 2020 Transportation Policy Plan
MnDOT’s Statewide Bicycle System and Pedestrian System plans, and MnDOT’s Metro District Bicycle
Plan.
Consistency with MnDOT’s Connected and Automated Vehicle Plan
Connected and Automated Vehicle (CAV) technology may present future opportunities to address the safety
needs for users of Hwy 47 and Hwy 65. MnDOT’s 2019 CAV Statewide Plan emphasizes improved safety as a
leading goal and rationale for the advancement and implementation of this technology, as well as the potential
for greater equity, enhanced economic benefits and sustainability. The CAV Plan seeks to “support deployment
of CAV technology to improve safety and achieve Toward Zero Death (TZD) goals to eliminate traffic deaths.”
The plan recommends that at the corridor scale, assessments of piloting or long term CAV infrastructure needs
(i.e., traffic signals and cabinets, fiberoptic conduit, CAV-compatible pavement markings and signage, additional
right-of-way needs, and so forth) be considered as part of corridor plans and improvements, with the
understanding that CAV technology will continue to mature in the coming years. The value and efficiency of this
assessment lies in building CAV readiness into future transportation improvements.
5.2 Consistency with Local, State and Regional Projects
There are several projects planned or underway within, or near, the Hwy 47 and Hwy 65 PEL Study area.
Depending on the schedule, some of these projects could be combined with an alternative and/or address a
need identified as part of this PEL study. These projects include:
Hwy 47
o Metro Transit F Line aBRT, planned for 2025 construction
o Repairs on the roadways and bridges, ADA upgrades on US Hwy 10 from East ramps at Foley
Boulevard in Coon Rapids to MN65 in Blaine and on Hwy 47 from Anoka County Highway 10 to East
Junction US 10 in Coon Rapids (2021) – located just north of the PEL Study area
o Resurface, drainage, sidewalks and ADA work on Hwy 47 from Hwy 65 to just south of 27th northeast
Ave in Minneapolis (2024) – S.P. 2726-78 – located in Section 1 of the PEL Study area
o Safety improvements including modifying pedestrian crossing distances, tightening corner radii and
lane reductions at various intersections from Hennepin/Anoka County line to U.S. 610 (2025) – S.P.
0205-110 – located in Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the PEL Study area
Hwy 65
o Metro Transit F Line aBRT, planned for 2025 construction
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 61
79
Jufn!2/
o Hwy 65 PEL Study (ongoing) – Identifies alternatives for Hwy 65 directly north of the Hwy 47 and Hwy
65 PEL Study area in Blaine (2020) – S.P. 0208-161 – located just north of the PEL Study area
o Repair bridges at County Road 10 in Spring Lake Park (2023) – located just north of the PEL Study area
o Resurface road, drainage repairs and ADA improvements from County Road 10 in Spring Lake Park to
Coon Creek in Blaine (2024) – S.P. 0207-110 – located just north of the PEL Study area
o Safety improvements including modifying pedestrian crossing distances, tightening corner radii and
lane reductions at various intersections from Hennepin/Anoka County line to U.S. 610 (2025) – S.P.
0207-125 – located in Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the PEL Study area
o Resurface road from 53rd Ave NE to South Moore Lake Dr (2027) – located in Sections 3 and 4 of the
PEL Study area
th
o Resurface bridge over railroad in Minneapolis at 8 St NE – 2027 – located in Section 1 of the PEL
Study area
o Resurface road from Washington Ave to 53rd NE (2028) – located in Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the PEL
Study area
o Resurface bridge over BNSF railroad at Broadway NE (2030) – located in Section 1 of the PEL Study
area
Nearby roadways
o Metro Transit F Line aBRT, planned for 2025 construction
rd
o Hwy 65 – Bridge rehab and associated improvements to 3Avenue bridge over Mississippi River
(2020-2022)
o County Highway 8 (Osborne Rd) State Aid Project 002-608-012 – Grading, aggregate base, bituminous
pavement, concrete curb & gutter, storm sewer and ADA improvements (2021) – located in Sections 4
and 5 of the PEL Study area
o County Highway 6 (Mississippi Street) State Aid Project – Implementation of recommended
alternatives from the Anoka County Highway 6 (Mississippi Street) Corridor Study (2022 and 2025) –
located in Section 4 of the PEL Study area
stth
o Hennepin Ave/1 Ave – Construct bike facility between Main Street and 8 Street (2023) – located in
Section 1 of the PEL Study area
o Lowry Ave – Reconstruct roadway between Washington Ave and Johnson Ave, crossing Hwy 65 (2023)
– located in Section 1 of the PEL Study area
5.3 Cost Effectiveness/Implementable
The cost of transportation improvements is always a consideration; capital budgets are constrained andmust
address many needs across the system. Alternatives evaluated for the PEL Study area must fit within fiscal
constraints and be implementable. The development of risk-based cost estimate ranges will help minimize
future project delays by accounting for risk and uncertainty for unknown factors that can often lead to future
increases in costs (e.g., utility relocations, environmental mitigations, etc.). It is also important for cost ranges to
consider not only the initial cost of construction, but also the project’s seasonal and life cycle maintenance costs.
5.4 Non-pavement Infrastructure
Infrastructure needs were not evaluated as part of the PEL Study and should be considered during early scoping
activities when proposed projects are identified. Infrastructure needs that may need to be considered include
but are not limited to:
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 62
7:
Jufn!2/
Drainage – determine if infrastructure has cracking, spalling or other distress and if capacity and treatment
requirements are being met
Signals – determine if traffic signals are deteriorated (e.g., corrosion, damage from vehicle collisions)
Signing – determine if signs are past service life set by MnDOT as a standard for replacement
Bridges – determine if corridor structures and bridges are deficient or in need of replacement
Noise barriers – three existing noise walls are located on Hwy 47 that have a condition rating of “fair”
6. Social, Economic and Environmental (SEE) Considerations
There are many environmental and cultural resources throughout the study area as defined in the Corridor
Conditions Report – Technical Memorandum #1. These include things such as Environmental Justice impacts,
sites of archeological or historical significance, wetlands, basins and floodways, and threatened or endangered
species. The following areas should be reviewed and considered in future projects due to their significance in the
study area.
Improves Transportation Equity/Environmental Justice
Historical/Cultural Resources
Storm Water Management
Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources
Threatened or endangered species
Access Impacts
ROW impacts
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 63
81
Jufn!2/
Purpose and Need Summary and Next Steps
Safety issues along the corridor, changes to surrounding interstate and highway systems, low or no
projected growth rates for drivers and the community’s vision for high quality pedestrian, bicycle and transit
access along and across these two highways were all driving forces behind this PEL Study. The purpose and
needs presented in this document represent the high-level findings based on analysis of corridor conditions,
safety and transportation operations, as well as public feedback.
Safety continues to be a top priority for the state and local community, to minimize or eliminate the loss of
life on Minnesota roadways. Safety for all modes, along with the need to address deteriorating pavement
conditions along Hwy 47 and Hwy 65, have developed into the primary needs for the study corridors. Unlike
past purpose and need statements, pedestrian and bicyclist safety has been broken out as an individual
primary need for this study, to address the high vulnerability and loss of life for people walking and biking,
but also to reflect the communities desire to make Hwy 47 and Hwy 65 multimodal corridors that are safe
and comfortable for all users.
The mobility of all users along with additional infrastructure conditions are secondary needs for the corridor
and should be considered once safety has been addressed. Additional considerations include equity of
transportation improvements for environmental justice communities and consistency with the community’s
vision for the two roadways.
Ultimately, future projects along and across these two roadways will need to address a variety of issues
including providing more inclusive multimodal facilities, considering the equity of future projects, and
meeting they community’s goals for a more sustainable transportation system.
Evaluation Criteria were developed based on this purpose and need statement to provide guidance on
selecting future projects alternatives that best meet the needs for the study area.
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 64
82
Jufn!2/
Appendix A – Logical Termini Technical Memorandum
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 65
83
Jufn!2/
Appendix B – Supporting Documents and Reports (Incorporated by
Reference)
A copy of the documents can be obtained by contacting Anthony Wotzka at Anthony.wotzka@state.mn.us or
651-234-7712.
1. Highway 47 and Highway 65 PEL Study – Corridor Conditions Review Technical Memorandum. SEH. August 3,
2020. This document provides a planning level review of previous planning efforts and provides a review of
existing and future conditions throughout the PEL study area (study area).
2. Highway 47 and Highway 65 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study – Corridor Character Technical
Memorandum. SEH. July 22, 2020. This document analyzes existing visual character within the PEL Study
area.
3. University & Central Vision, Hwy 47 and Hwy 65 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study Phase 1.
SEH. December 2020. This document summarizes the public engagement program conducted in October
and November 2020.
4. Highway 47 and Highway 65 PEL Study – Daily Traffic Forecasts Memorandum. HFTE, Inc. July 17, 2020. This
document summarizes the methodology, assumptions and daily traffic forecast results for the major
roadways in the PEL Study area.
5. Highway 47 and Highway 65 PEL Study – Existing Conditions Modal Analysis Technical Memorandum. SEH.
September 25, 2020. This document analyzes existing transportation conditions for pedestrian, transit,
bicycle, auto, and freight travel modes for the PEL Study area.
6. Highway 47 and Highway 65 PEL Study – Safety Analysis Technical Memorandum. SEH. October 26, 2020.
This document analyzes existing and future safety concerns within the PEL Study area for all modes.
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 66
84
Jufn!2/
Appendix C – Supporting Exhibits
Figure C-1. PEL Study Area Location Map
Figure C-2. Sections within PEL Study Area
Figure C-3a. Crash Summary – Section 1
Figure C-3b. Crash Summary – Section 2
Figure C-3c. Crash Summary – Section 3
Figure C-3d. Crash Summary – Section 4
Figure C-3e. Crash Summary – Section 5
Figure C-4a. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety – Section 1
Figure C-4b. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety – Section 2
Figure C-4c. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety – Section 3
Figure C-4d. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety – Section 4
Figure C-4e. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety – Section 5
Figure C-5. Priority Areas for Walking Study (PAWS) Scoring
Figure C-6. Bicycle Barriers
Figure C-7. Metro District Bike Prioritization
Figure C-8. Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities and Alignments
Figure C-9. Transit Ridership – 2019
Figure C-10. Existing Hwy 65 Traffic Operations
Figure C-11. Freight Turning Movements on Hwy 47
Figure C-12. Freight Turning Movements on Hwy 65
Purpose and Need Statement - 06/21/2021 67
85
Metropolitan District
Jufn!2/
1500 County Road B-2 West
Roseville, MN 55113
February 10, 2022
Jim Kosluchar, PE
Public Works Director / City Engineer
City of Fridley
7071 University Avenue NE
Fridley, MN55432
SUBJECT: MnDOT Responses to City of Fridley Comments on MN 47/65 PEL Study Purpose and
Need and Evaluation Criteria draft documents
Dear Jim Kosluchar,
Thank you for reviewing the MN47/65 Purpose & Need Evaluation and Draft Evaluation Criteria. I’m
writing to share MnDOT’s responses to the thoughtful comments that you sent during the 30-day public
comment period that concluded July 29, 2021.The MnDOT project team values the City of Fridley’s
input and partnership on this study, and Iapologize for the long interval before you received our written
responses. Our team has been addressing the City’scomments as we’ve been refining the Evaluation
Criteria. Our individual responses to comments are provided in the attached matrix.
In general,we understand that the City of Fridley would like the Level 2 Evaluation Criteria refined to
include improvements to transit connections for bicyclists; and theSEE impact analysis refinedto
include the consideration noisepollution, air quality, and temperature/heat impacts related to vegetation
and the urban heat island effectas part of the environmental justicecategory. The study team is working
to addressthese comments. The study team will update the final version of the Purpose & Need
Evaluation to make corrections to the physical characteristics as noted in the attached matrix.
We look forward to sharing the updated Level 2 Evaluation Criteria document with you at the next TAC
meeting in March 2022. The updates to the Purpose & Need document will be made in the final version
of that document at the end of the study; andcorrected information will be available for the development
and screening of alternatives this spring and summer.
You are welcometo contact me at 651-234-7795or David.Elvin@state.mn.uswith questions.
Sincerely,
Ejhjubmmz!tjhofe!cz!Ebwje!Fmwjo!
Ebuf;!3133/13/21!27;32;32!
.17(11(
David Elvin, AICP
Principal Planner
Copy sent via email:
Melissa Barnes, North Area Manager
Brigid Gombold, Environmental Documentation
An equal opportunity employer
86
Jufn!2/
87
Jufn!2/
88
Jufn!2/
89
Jufn!2/
8:
Jufn!3/
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date:May 23, 2022 Meeting Type:City CouncilConferenceMeeting
Submitted By:Melissa Moore, City Clerk
Title
Recodification Update: Title 2(Administration), Chapter 209, Fees
Background
Pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 415.02 and Fridley City Charter (Charter) § 1.02, the City Council
(Council) may codify and publish ordinances that carry the force and effect of law for the City of Fridley
(City), which may be arranged into a system generally referred to as the Fridley City Code (Code).
On August 23, 2021 the Council authorized and directed efforts related to recodification of the Codeby
adopting Resolution No. 2021-67.Following the process established by the City Manager for revising
each chapter of the Code, staff are preparedto present a draft of Chapter 209 (Fees)to be found in Title
2(Administration) of the Code.
The proposed revisions to the Fees chapter (Exhibit A) areintendedto make finding particular fees easier
for the reader. Section 209.12is dividedinto nine sub-parts generally by City department or function.
This section contains no new, or adjusted fees. Staff have added fees for the Community Services
Department and elaborated on the fees related to rental housing licensing, which are currently being
charged by the City, and authorized by the Code.
To explain proposed revisions to chapters, and the rationale for the proposed revisions, the City Manager
created Recodification Reports(Exhibit B)that will accompany any chapter amendment that proposes
substantive changes to the Code. Staff will present proposed changes to Chapter 209to the Council,
take questions and solicit feedback and further direction. Based on such feedback and direction, staff
will make additional changes to Title 2.
Attachments and Other Resources
Exhibit A: Draft of Chapter 209, Fees
Exhibit B: Chapter 209 Recodification Report
Vision Statement
We believe Fridley will be a safe, vibrant, friendly and stable home for families and businesses.
91
Jufn!3/
RECODIFICATION REPORT
Introduction
To aid accessibility and clarity in understanding of proposed updates to large, and sometimes
complicated chapters of the Fridley City Code (Code), this Recodification Report (Report) will accompany
select ordinances as they are introduced to the City Council. The Report will illuminate substantive
changes to the Code (e.g., addition or removal of a section, fee changes, policy updates, etc.). It will not
point out grammatical, punctuation, renumbering, or stylistic changes.
TitlePlacement
Title 6 Lands and Buildings
Title 1General Provisions
Title 7 Zoning
Title 2 Administration
Title 3 Licensing Title 8 Franchises, Utilities and Right-of-Way
Title 4 Health, Safety and WelfareTitle 9 Public Ways and Places
Title 5 Public NuisanceAppendices
Chapter Information
Chapter Title:FeesRecodification Liaisons:Melissa Moore, City Clerk;
Stacy Stromberg, Planning Manager; Rachel
Workin, Environmental Planner; Margo Numedahl,
Recreation Division Manager; Korrie Johnson,
Assistant Finance Director; Ryan George, Deputy
Director of Public Safety; Maddison Zikmund, Fire
Chief; Trisha Lindahl, License and Permit
Coordinator; Jon Lennander, Assistant City
Engineer; Trent Homard, Administrative Intern
Current Chapter Number:11New Chapter Number:209
Substantive Changes
Section NumberCurrent CodeProposed Changes
209.01This is an added purpose statement to
the Chapter, consistent with the style
format established for the Code.
11.01States any person not in compliance This sentiment is more clearly defined
with state, federal, or licensure laws is in § 209.17.
authorized to conduct business in the
City.
209.02Currently, fees for various services are Asthe progresses,
found throughout the Code, in all fees for City services will exclusively
addition to the Fees chapter.be listed in the Fees chapter.Future
92
Jufn!3/
RECODIFICATION REPORT
work on the Code will remove specific
fees from other chapters.
209.03This section only defined the term The additions to this Chapter add
definitions for Administrative
Citations, fees,penalties, and
renewals. Staff recommend these
additions to explicitly state how the
City defines these terms as applicable
to the fees the City will charge for
services.
209.12This proposed reorganizationof the
fees in relative alphabetical order.Chapter is meant to make finding
particular fees easier for the reader.
The section is broken up into nine sub-
parts generally by City departmentor
function. This section contains no new,
or adjusted fees. Staff have added fees
for the Community Services
Department andelaborated on the
fees related to rental housing
licensing, which were fees already
being charged and authorized by the
Code.
209.13Upon recommendation of the City
Attorney, penalties were specifically
distinguished from fees.
209.17This section allows anyone aggrieved Upon the recommendation of the City
by this Chapter to request a hearing to Attorney the Code has been changed
determine if someone were out of to require any such hearingbe
compliance, or a balance was due to conducted by theCity Council.
the City.
93
Jufn!3/
Fridley City Code
Chapter 11.209 General Provisions and Fees
209.01 Purpose
The fees for licenses, permits and municipal services offered by the City of Fridley (City) are
established in this Chapter. References in other chapters or sections of the Fridley City Code (Code)
to any fee means the fees specified in this Chapter.
11.01. Compliance
No person shall practice or carry on a business, trade or profession in the City without complying
with all federal and state regulations, laws, license or permit requirements and with the license
and permit requirements of any provision of this Code.
209.02 Conflicts
If fees are specified in other parts of the Code for a particular license, fee, or service, but not in
this Chapter, then the fees specified elsewhere in the Code shall be effective for the stated license,
permit, or service. If there are amounts specified in this Chapter for a particular license, permit, or
service, as well as other chapters of the Code, then the amounts appearing in this Chapter
supersede the others.
11.02. 209.03 Definitions
Administrative Citation: A notice, issued by a Public Official, that a person or property is in
violation of or has violated the Code.
Business: A business, trade or profession shall include that engages in the bartering, selling,
purchasing or exchanging of goods, services, and or materials with or without compensation.
Penalty: A monetary fine imposed by the City upon a violation of the Code.
Fee: The charge by the City for or in connection with any license, permit, service(s), or function
rendered. The fee shall be based on costs incurred by the City to provide a license, permit, or
service. Fees are charged for the reviewing, investigating, and administering an application for
an amendment to an official control or an application for a permit or other approval required
under an official control, or any other costs established and authorized pursuant to Minnesota
Statute (M.S.) Chapter 462. Any other fee the City as authorized by state law to impose shall
be set forth in a rate/fee schedule duly adopted by the Fridley City Council (Council).
Renewal: Where a license or permit holder makes application to extend for a further period a
license or permit and pays the required fee to the City.
94
Jufn!3/
11.03. 209.04 License or Permit Application
Unless otherwise provided in this Code, application for any license or permit required by this Code
shall be made with the city clerkCity Manager or their designee. The applicant shall provide such
information as required by the City or any licensing or permit provision of this Code. In the event
of the sale of the licensed business or death of the licensee, unless otherwise specified in the City
Code, the business shall be allowed to continue to operate as long as the new application is
submitted to the city clerkCity Manager or their designee within thirty (30) days. In the event an
application is not received within thirty (30) days, the business license shall expire.
11.04. 209.05 Processing Time
The minimum length of time required for the processing of any application shall be determined
by the City ClerkCity Manager or their designee who shall inform any applicant of the appropriate
time requirements.
11.05. 209.06 Term
The license or permit begins May 1 of any year through April 30 of the following year, inclusive,
unless otherwise provided in this Code.
11.06. 209.07 License Approval and Issuance
Unless otherwise provided in this Code, the approval and issuance of the license shall not require
City Council (Council) consideration and shall be issued administratively by the city clerkCity
Manager or their designee if the applicant has met all of the conditions and requirements of the
license. A list of issued licenses shall be provided to the City Council for its information.
11.07. 209.08 Renewal
No license or permit is automatically renewed by the City. Applications for renewal shall be
submitted to the Clerk City Manager or their designee prior to the expiration date for Council
approval.
11.08. 209.09 Proration and Refunds
No license or permit fee shall be prorated or refunded except as expressly provided by Section
11.10209.12 of this Chapter or any other licensing or permit provision of this Code.
11.09. 209.10 Revocation
Any violation of the terms of this Chapter or any other licensing or permit provision of this Code
shall be grounds for suspension and/or revocation of the license or permit by the City Council.
95
Jufn!3/
Licenses and permits shall be revoked only for cause and upon adequate notice and the
opportunity to be heard.
11.10. 209.11 Display
Any person to whom a license or permit is issued pursuant to this Code shall be required to display
such license or permit or to make said license or permit available for review upon request. This
provision shall be subordinate to any other provision of this Code which expressly requires that
said license or permit shall be displayed or posted.
11.11. 209.12 Fees
1. Administrative Fees
Code Subject Fee
33203 Administrative Hearing $200 Administrative Hearing
608 Lodging Tax 3% of rent charged
102.02 Seizure fee for motor vehicles
Each vehicle $200 assessed for each vehicle
seizure; or
Each vehicle when vehicle owner $400 assessed to a vehicle
or lien holder refuses to repossess owner or lien holder who
their own vehicle refuses to repossess their own
vehicles
102.02 Storage fee for seized motor vehicles $10 per day for each day or
part of a day the seized motor
vehicle is held at a storage
facility or impound lot. The
total storage fees assessed on
any one motor vehicle shall not
exceed $500 or 50% of the
value of the motor vehicle as
determined by competent
authority, whichever is less.
Text Amendment to the City Code $1,500
Application
2. Building and Inspection Fees
(a) Building Permit Fees
Code Subject Fee
206 Valuation $1 to $500 $23.50
96
Jufn!3/
206 Valuation $501 to $2,000 $23.50 for the first $500 plus $3.05 for
each additional $100 or fraction thereof,
to and including $2,000
206 Valuation $2,001 to $25,000 $69.25 for the first $2,000 plus $14 for
each additional $100 or faction thereof,
to and including $25,000
206 Valuation $25,001 to $50,000 $391.25 for the first $25,000 plus $10.10
for each additional $1,000 or fraction
thereof, to and including $50,000
206 Valuation $50,001 to $100,000 $643.75 for the first $50,000 plus $7 for
each additional $1,000 or fraction
thereof, to and including $100,000
206 Valuation $100,001 to $500,000 $993.75 for the first $100,000 plus $5.60
for each additional $1,000 or fraction
thereof, to and including $500,000
206 Valuation $500,001 to $3,233.75 for the first $500,000 plus
$1,000,000 $4.75 for each additional $1,000 or
fraction thereof, to and including
$1,000,000
206 Valuation $1,000,001 and up $5,608.75 for the first $1,000,000 plus
$3.15 for each additional $1,000 or
fraction thereof
206 Inspections outside of normal $50 per hour
business hours (minimum
charge Ï two hours)
206 Re-inspection fees assessed $50 per hour
under provisions of Section 108
206 Inspections for which no fee is $50 per hour
specifically indicated (minimum
charge one-half hour)
206 Additional plan review required $50 per hour
by changes, additions or
revisions to approved plans
(minimum charge one-half hour)
or the total hourly cost to the
jurisdiction, whichever is the
greatest. This cost shall include
supervision, overhead,
equipment, hourly wages and
fringe benefits of the employee
involved.
97
Jufn!3/
206 For use of outside consultants Actual costs which include
for plan checking and administrative and overhead costs
inspections, or both
206 Residential Mobile Home $100
Installation
206 Surcharge on Residential A surcharge of $5 shall be added to the
Building Permits. permit fee charged for each residential
building permit that requires a state
licensed residential contract
115 Swimming Pools, Public
$250
Per outdoor pool
Per indoor pool $350 + 25% of base per added pool
enclosed area
(b) Electrical Permit Fees
Code Subject Fee
Residential, Commercial, Multi-Family
206 0 to 400 Amp Power Source $50 each
206 401 to 800 Amp Power Source $100 each
206
Over 800 Amp Power Source $150 each
206
0 to 200 Amp Circuit or Feeder $8 each
206
Over 200 Amp Circuit or Feeder $30 each
Over 200 Volts
206
0 to 400 Amp Power Source $100 each
206
401 to 800 Amp Power Source $200 each
206
Over 800 Amp Power Source $300 each
206
0 to 200 Amp Circuit or Feeder $16 each
206
Over 200 Amp Circuit or Feeder $60 each
206
Panel Changes (reconnect existing circuit or feeder $100 each
for panelboard replacement)
206
New 1 and 2 Family Homes up to 25 Circuits, 3 Trips $175 each
206
New Multi-Family Dwelling unit (with up to 20 circuits $100 per dwelling
and feeders per unit) unit
206
New Multi-Family Dwelling Unit $8 per feeder or
(additional circuits over 20 per unit) circuit
206
Existing Multi-Family Dwelling Unit (up to 10 feeders $100 per unit
or circuits are installed or extended)
206
Existing Multi-Family Dwelling Unit $8 per feeder or
(where less than 10 feeders or circuits are installed or circuit
extended)
206
Additional circuits over 25 per unit $8 each
206
Circuits extended or modified $8 each
98
Jufn!3/
206
Retrofitting of existing lighting fixtures $1 each
206
Manufactured Home Park Lot Supply + Circuits $50 per pedestal
206
Separate Bonding Inspection $40
206
Pools plus circuits $80
206
Inspection of concrete encased grounding electrode $40
206
Technology circuits and circuits less than 50 volts $1 per device
206
Traffic Signals, Street, Parking and Outdoor Lighting $5 each
Standards
206
Transformers for light, heat and power (0 to 10 KVA) 20 each
206
Transformers for light, heat and power (more than 10 $40 each
KVA)
206
Transformers for electronic power supplies and $5.50 each
outline lighting
206
Additional Inspection trip(s), re-inspections $40 each
Minnesota Solar PV System Electrical Inspection Fee Chart
206
0 Ï 5,000 watts (5 kw) $60
206
5,001 Ï 10,000 watts (5 kw Ï 10 kw) $100
206
10,001 Ï 20,000 watts (10 kw Ï 20 kw) $150
206
20,001 Ï 30,000 watts (20 kw Ï 30 kw) $200
206
30,001 Ï 40,000 watts (30 kw Ï 40 kw) $250
206
40,001 and larger watts (40 kw) $250, and
Each additional 10,000 watts $25
206
Plan review fee $80 per hour
(c) Mechanical Permit Fees
Code Subject Fee
206 Residential minimum fee $15 or 5% of cost of improvement,
whichever is greater
206 Furnace $35
206 Gas Range $10
206 Gas Piping $10
206 Air Conditioning $25
206 Other 1% of value of appliance
206 Commercial minimum fee $35
206 All work 1.25% of value of appliance
206 Inspections outside of normal $50 per hour
business hours (minimum charge
two hours)
206 Re-inspection fees assessed $50 per hour
under provisions of Chapter 108
of the Code
99
Jufn!3/
206 Inspections for which no fee is $50 per hour
specifically indicated (minimum
charge one-half hour)
206 Additional plan review required $50 per hour
by changes, additions or
revisions to approved plans
(minimum charge one-half hour).
Or the total hourly cost to the
jurisdiction, whichever is the
greatest. This cost shall include
supervision, overhead,
equipment, hourly wages, and
fringe benefits of the employees
involved.
206 For use of outside consultants for Actual cost including administrative
plan checking and inspections, or and overhead costs
both
(d) Moving of Dwelling or Building Fees
Code Subject Fee
206 For Principle Building into City $300
206 For Accessory Building into City $42
206 For moving any building out of $20
City
206 For moving through or within the $20
City
(e) Plumbing Permit Fees
Code Subject Fee
206 Minimum Fee $15 or 5% of cost of improvement,
whichever is greater
206 Each fixture $10
206 Old opening, new fixture $10
206 Beer Dispenser $10
206 Blow Off Basin $10
206 Catch Basin $10
206 Rainwater Leader $10
206 Sump or Receiving Tank $10
206 Water Treating Appliance $35
206 Water Heater Electric $35
206 Water Heater Gas $35
9:
Jufn!3/
206 Backflow Preventer $15
206 Other Commercial 1.25% of value of fixture
or appliance
206 Inspections outside of normal $50 per hour
business hours (minimum charge
two hours)
206 Re-inspection fee $50 per hour
206 Inspections for which no fee is $50 per hour
specifically indicated (minimum
charge one-half hour)
206 Additional plan review required $50 per hour
by changes, additions or
revisions to approved plans
(minimum charge one-half hour)
or the total hourly cost to the
jurisdiction, whichever is the
greatest. This cost shall include
supervision, overhead,
equipment, hourly wages, and
fringe benefits of the employees
involved.
206 Use of outside consultants for Actual cost including administrative
plan checking and inspections, or and overhead costs
both
(f) Pollution Monitoring Registration Fees
Code Fee
206 Each pollution monitoring location shall require a site map, description and
length of monitoring time requested. Pollution monitoring location shall
mean each individual tax parcel. There shall be an initial application and plan
check fee of $25.
206 The applicant for a Pollution Control Registration shall provide the City with
a hold harmless statement for any damages or claims made to the City
regarding location, construction, or contaminates.
206 An initial registration fee of $50 is due and payable to the City of Fridley at
or before commencement of the installation.
206 An annual renewal registration fee of $50 and annual monitoring activity
reports for all individual locations must be made on or before September 1
of each year. If renewal is not filed on or before October 1 of each year the
applicant must pay double the fee.
206 A final pollution monitoring activity report must be submitted to the City
within 30 days of termination of monitoring activity.
:1
Jufn!3/
(g) Wrecking Permit Fees
Code
Fee
206 For any permit for the wrecking of any building or portion thereof, the fee
charged for each such building included in such permit shall be based on
the cubical contents thereof and shall be at the rate of $1.25 for each 1,000
cubic feet or fraction thereof.
206 For structures which would be impractical to cube, the wrecking permit fee
shall be based on the total cost of wrecking such structure at the rate of $6
for each $500 or fraction thereof.
206 In no case shall the fee charged for any wrecking permit be less than $20.
3. Community Services Fees
(a) Recreation Division
(1) Program fees are listed in the CityÔs bi-monthly Parks and Recreation Brochure and
on the CityÔs website.
(2) Administrative Fees
Item Category A Category B Category C
(Fridley Youth (Residents (Non-
Athletics and residents)
community
groups)
Additional maintenance staff City staff hourly City staff City staff
rate hourly rate hourly rate
Chalk Market rate Market rate Market rate
Concession area for $175 per day $175 per day $175 per day
Community Park
Damage deposit for multiple $200 $200 $200
day rentals
Lights $20 per field $20 per field $20 per field
Locates for electrical or Market rate Market rate Market rate
irrigation heads
Portable restrooms Market rate Market rate Market rate
Scoreboard and press box at $20 per field $20 per field $20 per field
Community Park
Shelter rental for Commons $65 per day $65 per day $100 per day
Park and Flanery Park
:2
Jufn!3/
Vendor fee (concession $100 per day $100 per day $100 per day
space)
(3) Event Fees
Code
Subject Fee
508 Parade
$100
Application
Daily $700
23 Public Dance
Application $75
(4) Outdoor Field Rental Fees
Use
Category A Category B Category C
(Fridley Youth (Residents (Non-
Athletics and residents)
community
groups)
Baseball, softball, and $0 per hour $20 per hour $40 per hour
football fields
Commons Park baseball and $80 per $100 per $200 per
softball fields weekend weekend weekend
$40 per day $50 per day $100/day
Community Park Softball $500 per $1,000 per $2,000 per
Complex weekend weekend weekend
$250 per day $500 per day $1,000 per day
Hockey rink $0 per hour $20 per hour $20 per hour
Soccer field $0 per hour $30 per hour $60 per hour
Tennis or pickleball court $0 per hour $20 per hour $40 per hour
Volleyball court $0 per hour $20 per hour $40 per hour
(5) Picnic Shelter Rental Fees
Park Resident Non-Resident Deposit
Flanery and Commons Parks
1-50 guests $65 plus tax $100 plus tax $50
51-150 guests $105 plus tax $150 plus tax $50
Special Use Permit $265 plus tax $450 plus tax $50
:3
Jufn!3/
Moore Lake
1-50 guests $35 plus tax $75 plus tax $50
51-150 guests $75 plus tax $115 plus tax $50
Special Use Permit $235 plus tax $425 plus tax $50
(6) Springbrook Nature Center Program Fees
Program Fee
60 Minute naturalist-led program $4 per student
90 Minute naturalist-led program $6 per student
60 Minute naturalist-led program at another $150
location
Additional program at same site $50
Summer Camp
$155 per five-day program
Resident
Non-resident $165 per five-day program
Birthday Party Program $125
(7) Springbrook Nature Center Room Rental Fees
Fee
Program/Amenity
Amphitheater
Resident $225 per room per hour plus tax
Non-resident $300 per room per hour plus tax
Non-profit group (proof of status must be $225 per room per hour plus tax
provided)
Classroom ($50 refundable damage deposit
due at time of booking)
Resident $30 per room per hour plus tax
Non-resident $50 per room per hour plus tax
Non-profit group (proof of status must be $30 per room per hour plus tax
provided)
Pavilion Activity Center Outdoor ($100
refundable damage deposit due at time of
booking)
Resident $65 plus tax
Non-resident $100 plus tax
Non-profit group (proof of status must be $65 plus tax
provided)
Pavilion Activity Center Indoor ($100
refundable damage deposit due at time of
booking) $65 plus tax
Resident $100 plus tax
:4
Jufn!3/
Non-resident $65 plus tax
Non-profit group (proof of status must be
provided)
Pavilion Activity Center Entire ($100 refundable
damage deposit due at time of booking)
Resident $130 plus tax
Non-resident $200 plus tax
Non-profit group (proof of status must be $130 plus tax
provided)
Portable public address (PA) system $50 per day plus tax
4. Engineering Fees
(a) Rights-of-Way Fees
Code Subject Fee
407 Rights-of-Way
Registration $50
User Fee (residential, $50
commercial or industrial)
Excavation Permit $350
Obstruction Permit $50
Small Wireless Facility $150
Permit
Permit Extension Fee $20
Delay Penalty $125 week
Mapping Fee $50 if data is not in City format
and City GIS compatible
Degradation Fee Restoration cost per square foot
for the area to be restored
(b) Land Alterations, Excavating, or Grading Fees Including Conservation Plan
Implementation Fees
Code Subject Fee
206 50 cubic yards or less $40
206 51 to 100 cubic yards $47.50
206 101 to 1,000 cubic yards $47.50 for the first 100 cubic yards
plus $10.50 for each additional 100
cubic yards or fraction thereof
206 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $167 for the first 1,000 cubic yards
:5
Jufn!3/
plus $9 for each additional 1,000 cubic
yards or fraction thereof
206 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards
$273 for the first 10,000 cubic yards
plus $40.50 for each additional 10,000
cubic yards or fraction thereof
206 100,001 cubic yards or more $662.50 for the first 100,000 cubic
yards plus $22.50 for each additional
100,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof
(c) Land Alteration Plan Checking Fees
Code Subject Fee
206 50 cubic yards or less No fee
206 51 to 100 cubic yards $23.50
206 101 to 1,000 cubic yards $37
206 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $49.25
206 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $49.25 for the first 10,000 cubic yards
plus $24.50 for each additional 10,000
cubic yards or fraction thereof
206 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards $269.75 for the first 100,000 cubic
yards plus $13.25 for each additional
10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof
206 200,001 cubic yards or more $402.25 for the first 200,000 cubic
yards plus $7.25 for each additional
10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof
(d) Water and Sewer Fees
Code Subject Fee
205.30 Automatic Meter Reading Device $25 per stationary device
Permit
206 Hydrant Rental Agreement $50
Service Charge (for use of hydrant
only City does not supply hose)
206 Water Usage $1.30/1,000 gallons used
Metered Minimum $20
206 Tanker $20 per fill
206 Water Taps See Engineering
206 Permanent Street Patch
First 5 square yards $300
Over 5 square yards $30 per square yard
206 Temporary Street Patch
(November 1 through May 1)
:6
Jufn!3/
First 5 square yards $400
Over 5 square yards $40 per square yard plus cost of
permanent street patch
206 Water Meter Repair Ï Weekend $125
and Holidays
206 Water Connections Permit $50
206 Sewer Connections Permit $50
206 Inspection Fee for Water/Sewer $40
Line Repair
5. Fire Department Fees
(a) Fire Department Fees Found in Code
Code Subject Fee
112 False Alarms $50 for sixth false alarm in single
calendar year and for each
subsequent false alarm in calendar
year an additional $25 shall be
th
added (e.g., 7 seventh false alarm
th
$75, 8 eighth false alarm $100,
etc.)
103 Fire Arm Permit to Discharge $25
108 Fire Department Plan Review Fee 65% of the Fire Permit Fee
(b) Fire Department Fees Directed by the Minnesota State Fire Code (MSFC)
MSFC
Section Type of Activity Stipulations Fee
105.7.1 Automatic Fire Extinguishing Final inspection See Below
Systems
required
1. Kitchen Hood Extinguishing Inspection & and
Systems testing
2. Fire Sprinkler Systems
3. Other Special Extinguishing Inspection and
Systems &testing
Inspection and
&testing
105.7.24 Compressed Gasses and & Final inspection $ 235.00
Systems required per
Install, repair damage to, MSFC requirements
abandon, remove, place
temporarily our out of service,
:7
Jufn!3/
close or substantially modify
systems
105.7.37 Fire Alarm, Detection and & See Below
Final inspection and
Related Alarm or Detection testing required
Equipment
Inspection & Testing
Install or modify new & and
existing systems
105.7.48 Fire Pumps and & Related Final inspection and See Below
Equipment testing required
Install or modify fire pumps, Inspection & Testing
related fuel tanks, jockey pumps,
controllers and generators
105.7.59 Flammable and & Combustible
Liquids
1. Install or modify a pipeline Final inspection $150.00
2. Install, construct or alter tank Required $150.00
vehicles, equipment, tanks, inspection
plants, terminals, wells, fuel requirements as
dispensing stations, refineries, defined by 2003 2020
distilleries and similar activities MSFC requirements.
where flammable or
combustible liquids are
produced, processed,
transported, stored, dispensed
or used UGST or AGST storage
3. Install, alter, remove, abandon, tank removal must be $200.00
place temporarily out of service witnessed by Fire
or otherwise dispose of a Marshal.
flammable or combustible liquid
tank
105.7.613 Hazardous Materials Final inspection $ 200.00
Install, repair damage to, required when
abandon, remove, place hazardous materials in
temporarily out of service, close use or storage exceed
or substantially modify a storage amounts shown in the
facility or other area regulated by MSFC Table 105.6.21
MSFC Chapter 27
105.7.715 Industrial Ovens Final inspection $ 165.00
Installation of industrial ovens required per
regulated by MSFC Chapter 21 MSFC requirements
105.7.816 LP Gas Final inspection $ 200.00
Installation of or modification to required per
an LP Gas system MSFC & and NFPA
National Fire Protection
:8
Jufn!3/
Association Chapter 58
requirements
105.7.9 Private Fire Hydrants Final inspection $ 145.00
Installation of or modification of Required
private fire hydrants
Inspection &and
testing
105.7.1023 Spraying or Dipping Final inspection $ 200.00
Install or modify a spray room, required per
dip tank or booth MSFC requirements
105.7.1124 Standpipe System Final inspection
See Below
Installation, modification, or Required
removal from service of a
Inspection &and
standpipe system testing
105.7.1225 Temporary Membrane Structures, Final inspection $ 145.00
Tents and Canopies required per
To construct an air-supported MSFC requirements
temporary membrane structure,
tent (=> 200 ft²) or canopy (=>
400 ft²).
(c) Fire Department Fees for Fire Sprinkler, Fire Extinguishing Systems, Fire Alarm Systems
or Standpipe Systems
Fees for Automatic Fire Extinguishing Systems (MSFC 105.7.1); Fire Alarm, Detection and
related equipment (MSFC 105.7.3); Fire Pumps or related equipment, (MSFC 105.7.4); and
Standpipe Systems (MSFC 105.7.11) are calculated on project valuation from the 1997 UBC
Permit Fee Schedule as shown below, plus the State of Minnesota Surcharge Fee on
sprinkler permits:
Total Valuation Fee
$ 1.00 to $ 500.00 $23.50
$ 501.00 to $ 2,000.00 $23.50 for the first $500.00 plus $3.05 for each
additional $100.00, or fraction thereof, to and including
$2000.00
$ 2001.00 to $ 25,000.00 $69.25 for the first $2,000.00 plus $14.00 for each
additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and
including $25,000.00
$ 25,001.00 to $ 50,000.00 $391.75 for the first $25,000.00 plus $10.10 for each
additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and
including $50,000.00
:9
Jufn!3/
$ 50,001.00 to $ 100,000.00 $643.75 for the first $50,000.00 plus $ 7.00 for each
additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and
including $ 100,000.00
$ 100,001.00 to $ 500,000.00 $993.75 for the first $100,000.00 plus $5.60 for each
additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and
including $ 500,000.00
$ 500,001.00 to $ 1,000,000.00 $3233.75 for the first $500,000.00 plus $4.75 for each
additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and
including $ 1,000,000.00
$ 1,000,001.00 and up $5,608.75 for the first $1,000.000.00 plus $3.65 for each
additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof
(d) Fire Department Fees for Permitted Business Operations Ï Processes and Activities
Fees
Permit Description Fee
AuthorityMSCF
Section
105.6.1 Aerosol products $145.00
105.6.2 Amusement buildings $75.00
105.6.3 Aviation facilities $120.00
105.6.4 Carnivals and fairs $200.00
105.6.5 Battery and energy systems $95.00
105.6.6 Cellulose nitrate film $95.00
105.6.7 Combustible dust-producing ops $200.00
105.6.8 Combustible fibers $145.00
105.6.9 Compressed gases $150.00
105.6.10 Covered mall buildings $95.00
105.6.11 Cryogenic fluids $95.00
105.6.12 Cutting and welding $95.00
105.6.13 Dry cleaning plants $145.00
105.6.14 Exhibits and trade shows $200.00
105.6.15 Explosives $200.00
105.6.16 Fire hydrants and valves $75.00
105.6.17 Flammable & and combustible liquids $200.00
105.6.18 Floor finishing $95.00
105.6.19 Fruit and crop ripening $120.00
105.6.20 Fumigation & and thermal insecticide fog $95.00
::
Jufn!3/
105.6.21 Hazardous materials $145.00
HPM facilities (Haz Prod Materials)Hazardous
105.6.22 Production Materials Facility $145.00
105.6.23 High piled storage $200.00
105.6.24 Hot work operations $95.00
105.6.25 Industrial ovens $145.00
105.6.26 Lumber yards & and woodworking plants $200.00
Liq Liquid or gas fueled veh/equip
105.6.27 vehicle/equipment in Grp Group A $95.00
105.6.28 LP Gas $95.00
150.6.29 Magnesium $95.00
105.6.30 Misc Miscellaneous combustible storage $145.00
105.6.31 Open burning $95.00
105.6.32 Open flames and candles $95.00
105.6.33 Organic coatings $145.00
105.6.34 Places of assembly $135.00
105.6.35 Private fire hydrants $75.00
105.6.36 Pyrotechnic special effects material $95.00
105.6.37 Pyroxylin plastic $145.00
105.6.38 Refrigeration equipment $95.00
105.6.39 Repair garages or service stations $120.00
105.6.40 Rooftop heliports $95.00
105.6.41 Spraying or dipping $145.00
105.6.42 Storage of scrap tires/tire byproducts $120.00
105.6.43 Temporary tents & and canopies $95.00
105.6.44 Tire -rebuilding plants $145.00
105.6.45 Waste handling $200.00
105.6.46 Wood products $165.00
6. Licensing Fees
Code Subject Fee
17 Auction
Weekly permit $30.00 weekly,
Annual permit $150 year
27 Billiards
First table $40 for first table,
Each additional table $10 each additional
15 Bowling Alleys
Annual license $40 +
Per lane $10 each lane
28 Carnivals
Application fee $75 application fee
211
Jufn!3/
Each day $75 each day
Required cash deposit or bond $3,000 cash deposit or bond
30 Charitable Gambling (see Lawful
Gambling)
101 Chickens
Initial fee $100 Initial Fee
Annual renewal fee $25 Renewal Fee
Impound Fee $25 Impound Fee
21 Christmas Tree Lots
Annual license fee $200 +
Deposit $100 deposit
12 Cigarette Sales (see Tobacco)
101 Dogs
Lifetime license
$25 Lifetime
Duplicate license $5 duplicate license
Impound fee $25 Impound Fee
Annual Dangerous Dog license $500 Dangerous Dog
Potentially Dangerous Dog license $500 Potentially Dangerous
Dog
702 Drive-in Theaters $400
607 Entertainment $85
32 Food Establishment Ï Business License $45
32 Food Temporary Ï Business License $30
25 Golf Course, Driving Range $30
113 Haulers $100 for first truck and $40
Mixed Municipal Solid Waste License each additional truck
(Garbage Truck), Yard Waste License,
Organics License, Recycling License
101 Honeybees
Initial fee $100 Initial Fee
Annual renewal fee $25 Renewal Fee
24 Junk Yards $350
609 Liquor, Caterer
Annual Caterer Registration $100 annually
Event Notification Permit (per $25/event
event)
604 Liquor, Consumption and Display
Annual State permit $300 Annual State Permit
One-day City permit $25 One-Day City Permit
603 Liquor, On-Sale Intoxicating Holiday $100
Endorsement
603 Liquor, Lawful Gambling Endorsement $300
610 Liquor Manufacturers/Investigative Fee
212
Jufn!3/
Individual $200
Partnership/Corporation $400
Alteration of Business $100
Change of Officers $25
On-Sale Brewer/Distillery Taproom $600
License
Off-Sale Brewer/Distillery Growler $300
License
603 Liquor, On-Sale Intoxicating No Entertainment
No entertainment
(a) 0-3,000 square feet a. 0-3000 sq. ft. - $6,000
(b) 3,001-6,000 square feet b. 3001-6000 sq. ft. - $7,000
(c) Over 6,000 square feet c. over 6000 sq. ft. - $8,000
With entertainment or dancing With Entertainment or Dancing
(a) 0-3,000 square feet a. 0-3000 sq. ft. - $7,000
(b) 3,001-6,000 square feet b. 3001-6000 sq. ft. - $8,000
(a)(c) Over 6,000 square feet c. Over 6000 sq. ft. - $9,000
603 Liquor, On-Sale Intoxicating Initial
Investigative Fee
Individual $200 individual
Corporation or partnership $400 corporation or partnership
603 Liquor, On-Sale Sunday $200
603 Liquor, On-Sale Intoxicating Temporary $25 (MN §340A.414, Sub.9)
1 one day only
602 Liquor, 3.2% Malt Liquor
Off-Sale Off-Sale - $60
On-Sale On-Sale - $325
Holiday Endorsement $100
Liquor, 3.2% Malt Liquor
Holiday Endorsement
602 Liquor, 3.2% Malt Liquor, Initial
Investigative Fee
Individual $90 individual
Corporation or partnership $180 corporation or partnership
602 Liquor, 3.2% Malt Liquor Temporary $60
603 Liquor, Wine $1,000
603 Liquor, Wine Investigative Initial Fee
Individual $200 individual
Corporation or partnership $400 corporation or partnership
603 Liquor (Employee Dispensing Ï see
Managerial License)
605 Liquor, Bottle Club
213
Jufn!3/
Annual permit $300 annual permit
One day permit $25 one day permit
606 Liquor, On-Sale Intoxicating Club $300/club under 200 members
Per club under 200 members
$500/club, 201-500 members
Per club of 201-500 members $650/club, 501-1,000 members
Per club of 501-1,000 members $800/club, 1001-2,000
Per club of 1,001-2,000 members members
Per club of 2,001-4,000 members $1000/club, 2001-4000
Per club of 4,001-6,000 members members
Per club of over 6,000 members $2,000/club 4,001-6,000
(the annual license fee for an on-sale members
intoxicating liquor license issued by a $3,000/club over 6,000
city to a club must be no greater than members
the fee set in Minnesota Statute
Chapter 340A:
606 Liquor, On-Sale Club Holiday $100
Endorsement
101 Livestock
Initial fee $100 annually
Annual review $25
603 Managerial License (Liquor) $10
125 Massage Therapy Business License
Annual license $400 annually
Business investigation fee for $400 (new) $200 (renewal)
corporations or partnerships
Investigative
Fee/Corporation/Partnership
Business investigation fee for $200 (new) $100 (renewal)
individual/sole proprietor
Fee/Individual/Sole Prop.
125 Massage Therapist
License Fee $50 annually
Therapist Investigation Fee $25 annually
22 Music Festivals
Per day $700/day +
Filing fee $100 filing fee
18 Motor Vehicle Body Repair Business $150
509 Motorized Vehicles Rental $50 per vehicle
220 Multiple Dwelling License Single rental unit $100.00
Two rental units $150.00
Three units $210.00
Four units $270.00
214
Jufn!3/
Five or more units $245.00 plus
$12 per unit.
101 Multiple Pet Location
License Fee $100 Initial Fee
Renewal Fee $25 Renewal Fee
Impound Fee $25 Impound Fee
220 Rental Housing Annual License
Single rental unit $100
Two rental units $150
Three rental units $210
Four rental unit $270
Five or more units $270 plus $12 per unit over
four units
License renewal late fee if more than 150% of the annual license fee
seven days late
License fee to reinstate after revocation 150% of the annual license fee
or suspension
License transfer fee $25
License reinstatement fee for
properties that were posted for not
complying with correction orders or
license renewals
1-30 days $250
31+ days $500
Renting prior to obtaining a license 125% of the annual license
Reinspection fee after second
inspection
Single, duplex, triplex $100
Four or more units $300
Rental Inspection Fee $100 single, duplex and triplex
Transfer Fee $300 4+ units
License Fee after Revocation or $25
Suspension 150% times the annual license
fee
31 Pawn Shops
Annual license fee $3,000
Monthly transaction fee $3.00 per transaction
Reporting failure penalty $4.00 per transaction/
215
Jufn!3/
Investigation fee $400
14 Peddlers/Solicitor $60 per peddler
23 Public Dance $75
13 Retail Gasoline Sales $60
Private Gasoline Pump $30 per location
127 Sexually Oriented Businesses $400
Investigation fee $400
602, 603, 606 Social Skill Game Tournament Service $100 annually
Provider
16 Street Vending
Industrial/commercial $50 industrial/commercial
Residential $70 residential
Both $100 both
116 Sun Tanning Rooms $500
12 Tobacco ProductsLicense $125
12 Tobacco Product Shop
License fee $400 license application fee
Investigation fee $100 license investigation fee
104 Tree Removal/TreatmentManagement $150
License
19 Used Motor Vehicles License $150/per year
7. Planning and Zoning Fees
Code Subject Fee
206 Certificate of Occupancy Fees See Chapter 206
M.S. § 462.355 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $1,500
217 Condominium (annual registration)
2-4 units 2-4 Ownership Units $20
5-12 units 5-12 Ownership units $30
13-24 units 13-24 Ownership units $40
Over 24 units Over 24 Ownership Units $50
217.04 Condominium conversion registration
(one-time fee)
2 units 2 ownership units $500
3-7 units 3-7 ownership units $750
8-12 units 8-12 ownership units $1,000
Over 12 units Over 12 units $1,000 + $50 per
unit for every unit over 12
208 Conservation Plan Review (as part of $450
building permit for new construction
216
Jufn!3/
208 Conservation Plan Review as part of See Chapter 206
land alteration, excavating or grading
permit process
205 Farmers Market Event Permit $100
211 Lot Splits $1,250
205.24 Master Plan, Application or $1,500
Amendment
203 Mobile Manufactured Home Parks $30 + $1 per trailer site (one-
time fee)
407 Rights-of-Way $50
Registration $50
User Fee (residential, commercial
or industrial) $350
Excavation Permit $50
Obstruction Permit $150
Small Wireless Facility Permit $20
Permit Extension Fee $125 week
Delay Penalty $50 if data is not in City format
and City GIS compatible
Mapping Fee Restoration cost per square
foot for the area to be restored
Degradation Fee
214 Signs and/or Billboards
Permanent Sign
Permanent wall sign $100
Permanent free-$200
standing/monument
Permanent re-face/face-change $50
Temporary sign $100 plus ($200 deposit
refunded if conditions met)
205.30 Telecommunications Permit to Locate $400/user/tower
onadd Equipment to an Approved Site
Small Cell Telecommunications Towers
and Facilities District
205.30.24 Distributed Antenna $500
System (DAS) Application Fee
205.30.24 DAS Application Review $1,500
Fee
205.30.9(9) DAS Abandonment $2,000
Escrow
217
Jufn!3/
205.30 Temporary Outdoor Display $75
LicensePermit
205 Text Amendment to the Zoning $1,500
Ordinance
205.33 Transit Oriented District (TOD) Project $1,500
Plan Application
205.33 TOD Tree Substitution Fee to TOD $500/ per tree
Capital Project Fund
211 Plat
Up to 200 lots $1,500/200 lots +
Each additional lot $15 each additional lot
206 Reinspection Ï Building Fee See Chapter 206
205 Rezoning $1,500
205 Special Use Permit
R-1 $1,000 for R-1
All others $1,500 for all others
205 Vacations, Right of Way or Easement $1,500
211205 Variance
R-1 $500 for R-1
All others $1,400 for all other
205 Wetlands
Certifying Exemptions $1,500.00
Replacement Plan Application $1,500.00
No Loss Determination $1,500.00
Appeal of Decision $1,500.00
8. Police Fees
Code Subject Fee
103 Fire Arm Permit to Discharge $25
30 Lawful Gambling Permit $25 for one-day small events,
(e.g., a raffle)
209.13 Penalties
Code Subject Penalty
203 Administrative Citation or Penalty
General $100 per violation (General)
Fire Lane/Reserved Handicap $125 per violation (Fire
Parking Lane/Reserved Handicap Parking)
Other Parking $35 per violation (Other Parking)
203 Administrative Citation or PenaltyLate
Fee
218
Jufn!3/
General $25 (General)
Fire Lane/Reserved Handicap $30 (Fire Lane/Reserved Handicap
Parking Parking)
Other Parking $10 (Other Parking)
514 Snow Removal Penalty
Violations of the provisions of this
Section shall be a misdemeanor,
subject to penalties of a maximum of
$700 and 90 days in jail per occurrence.
In the alternative, the City may, in its
discretion, impose a civil penalty as
follows:
nd
2offense in any given yearwithin $50
365 days
rd
3 offense within 6 six months of $200
any prior offense
th
4 offense or more within 6 six $500
months of prior offense(s)
In addition, the City may charge to, and
assess to the associated property, any
damage to City property or injury to
City employees attributable to
violations of this section.
209.14 Compliance
No person shall practice or carry on a business, trade or profession in the City without complying
with all federal and state regulations, laws, license or permit requirements, and with the license
and permit requirements of any provision of this Code.
11.12. 209.15 Administrative Assessments
In addition to the fees in Section 11.10209.12, an administrative assessment will be required to
fund special studies such as environmental assessment worksheets, transportation, drainage,
noise impacts, indirect source permits, wetland impacts, etc. The amount of the assessment is to
be based on the site, complexity, diversity, and location of the project as determined by staff, but
shall not be less than 2.5 two and one half times the hourly wage of estimated staff Public Official
or consultantÔs time.
11.13. 209.16 Late Payment Penalties
The penalty for late payment of all licenses and permit any fees as shown in Section 11.10 of the
City Codethis Chapter shall be 25% of the amount of the fee if received from 1 one to 7seven days
219
Jufn!3/
late. If the payment is received more than 7seven days after it is due, the penalty shall be 50% of
the fee.
11.14 209.17 Compliance with State and Local Law and Payment of Fees and Charges
Prior to the issuance of any license or permit as provided by this Chapter, the City may determine
whether the applicant is out of compliance with any state or local law or ordinance enforced by
the City. In addition, the City may determine whether the applicant is in arrears with respect to
any fee, tax or utility charge. If the City determines the applicant is out of compliance with any
state or local law or ordinance, or that outstanding balances are due to the City for fees, taxes or
utility charges, the City may deny issuance of the license until such time as the Applicant is in
compliance or has paid any such outstanding balance.
Any applicant aggrieved by the application of the section shall, upon written request, be permitted
a public hearing before the Council, and determination on the fact question of whether there is
non-compliance or any outstanding balance due.
21:
Jufn!4/
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date:May 23, 2022 Meeting Type:City Council Conference Meeting
Submitted By:Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Stacy Stromberg, Planning Manager
Dan Cahill, Code Enforcement Inspector
Title
Discussion Item to Consider Using Administrative Citations in the Code Enforcement Process
Background
The Council is awarethat
City C
for staff without ensuring prompt resolution of the violation. It also creates a criminal record for citizens,
which has been seen as a negative consequence for these types of code violations.
As a result, staff has been exploring modifying the existing Administrative Citation chapter of the Code
to include an alternative processthat wouldissue
Administrative Citations as opposed to criminal citations for Code violations.
Many other communities in the metro use this process and have found it to be very beneficial. Staff
would like to gather feedback from the Council on adoption of this process, which would include an
amendment or re-write of the existing Administrative Citationschapter.
Financial Impact
Potential code amendment or re-write would be absorbed. Staff anticipates that if an administrative
citation process is adopted for
be generated.
Discussion
Staff is asking for Council to have a discussion on this process and a potential code amendmentor re-
write.
Focus on Fridley Strategic Alignment
X Vibrant Neighborhoods &PlacesCommunity Identity &Relationship Building
Financial Stability & Commercial ProsperityPublic Safety & Environmental Stewardship
Organizational Excellence
Attachments and Other Resources
Vision Statement
We believe Fridley will be a safe, vibrant, friendly and stable home for families and businesses.
221
Jufn!4/
Chapter 22 Administrative Enforcement of Ordinance Violations
!PowerPoint presentation to be presented at Council Conference Meeting
Vision Statement
We believe Fridley will be a safe, vibrant, friendly and stable home for families and businesses.
222
Jufn!4/
ADMINISTRATIVE FINES
AN INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION
MAY 23, 2022
223
Jufn!4/
What is an Administrative Citation?
•An administrative citation is a civil fine that is issued in response to a
violation of local ordinance as opposed to a criminal citation.
•Criminal citations can result in unintended consequences, such as the
creation of a criminal record for business owners and residents who
are cited and can also consume a lot of legal and city staff time.
•An administrative citation, through a fine is only imposed if the
property owner doesn’t correct the code violation by the correction
date.
224
2
Jufn!4/
Advantages
•Not as time and resource demanding as the criminal citation route
•The use of administrative fines can help to counteract the monetary costs
of code enforcement
•The revenues collected could be put towards legal aid/advice in the
scenario of an appeal and other code enforcement costs
•The use of administrative fines can work as a scare tactic and provide a
more direct consequence that yields greater compliance
o Cambridge, Blaine, Coon Rapids all report a reduction in the length of a standard code
enforcement case
o Anoka, Blaine, Coon Rapids all reported a reduction in the amount of code
enforcement cases
225
3
Jufn!4/
Cities that use Administrative Citations
•St. Francis
•Brainerd
•Isanti
•Hopkins
•Blaine
•Coon Rapids
•Andover
•East Bethel
•Cambridge
•Oakdale
•Minnetonka
226
4
Jufn!4/
Example Process
Brainerd:
1.“Order to Correct” Letter is sent. Violation and compliance deadline are outlined.
2.Failure to comply with the requests of an “Order to Correct” will result in an administrative citation (a fine
with an order to correct the violation).
3.If failure to comply continues the City will abate the problem and the property will be assessed the costs
and the fine.
Appeals:
1.A request for a hearing can be made and must be made within 10 days from the citation date.
2.The decision of the hearing officer is final and may only be appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
3.If the violation is upheld, the violator will have 30 days to correct the violation and pay the fines and
hearing costs.
Extensions can be made to deadlines for those who can not complete the required work on time.
227
5
Jufn!4/
Example
Administrative
Citation
First Letter
Coon Rapids
228
6
Jufn!4/
Example Workflows
Coon Rapids
229
7
Jufn!4/
Who Can Issue Administrative Citations?
Minnetonka
Anoka
Administrative hearing officer
Peace officers, CSO’s, Park Rangers,
Property Maintenance Coordinator,
Isanti
Peace Officers, Code Enforcement, Zoning Administrator, Fire Marshal,
Comm. Dev. Director, City Planner,
Building Official
Animal Control Officer, Building Official
Cambridge
Blaine
Police Officer, any city employee with
Anyone that the city
written permission from City Manager
administrator authorizes can
administer administrative
Coon Rapids
Housing Programs/Services
citations
Two inspectors that issue citations
Rental licensing, rental complaints, hoarding
Oakdale
houses, and interior property issues
Code enforcement officer and
Property Maintenance:
building official
Two inspectors that issue citations
Exterior code enforcement
22:
8
*Coon Rapids:
Jufn!4/
Fine Amounts
Each subsequent fine
doubles with a max. fine
700
of $2,400
**Cambridge:
600
$300 for exterior structure
violations
500
***Brainerd:
Max fine of $2,000, and a
400
$500 fine for biting
animals, diseased animals,
300
Initial Fine Amount
and dangerous dogs
Subsequent Fines
200
Minnetonka has four
100
levels of violations ($50,
$75, $150, $400). In the
0
event of failing to pay, a
10% fee of the fine is
added every 30 days.
231
9
Jufn!4/
Fines Amount, Cont.
•Fines that are not paid are assessed to property taxes
•Total collection amounts in 2018:
Coon Rapids: $169,500
Cambridge: $3,150
•Most cities have a maximum value in which the fines can amount to:
Cambridge: $2,000
Coon Rapids: $2,400
232
10
Jufn!4/
Compliance Timelines
35
30
•All cities reported
working with citizens and
25
the willingness to grant
extensions given the
varying conditions of
20
each case
Time to come into
15
Minnetonka: 30 days to
compliance (days)
pay fine (no time to allow
Time to request an appeal
for compliance), 14 days to
10
hearing (days)
appeal
5
0
233
11
Jufn!4/
Cases Opened and Closed
COONRAPIDS20142015201620172018
Cases Opened1,8001,5421,5401,2111,609
Cases Closed1,1161,1101,2179321,255
Compliance(%)62%72%79%77%78%
234
12
Jufn!4/
How Fridley Could Use Administrative
Citations
Inoperable/unlicensed vehicles
Vehicle parking
Solid waste placement/storage
If compliance is not met after the deadline established by the first
letter a fine will be administered
$300 fine
$150 fine for excess use of City resources (same or similar violation
within a year)
235
13
Jufn!4/
236
14
Jufn!4/
237
Jufn!4/
238
Jufn!4/
239
Jufn!4/
23:
Jufn!4/
241
Jufn!4/
242