07-623Council File # 07-623
GreenSheet# 3041b72
Suspension - July 11, 20�7
RESOLUTION
SAINT PAUL, MtNNESOTA
Presented by
1
2
3
4
5
b
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
14
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
RESOLUTION REGARDING PLANNING FOR
SNELLING AND UNNERSITY INTERSECTION
WHEREAS, the Ciry of St. Paul and Ramsey County completed the Snelling-Universiry Capacity Study in January
2007, and
WHEREAS, the Snelling-University CapaciTy Study featured three alternative realignments of the road, known as
the 1) one-way pair with LRT; 2) ring road at Asbury with LKT, and 3) grade-separated with LRT; and
WHEREAS, St. Paul Public Works staff indicated that the alternatives that received detailed study were not chosen
because they were superior to other alternatives, including a"no-build" alternative; and
WHEREAS, in 10 meetings held in response to the study between January and June of 2007, including the Midway
Chamber of Commerce, the St. Paul Chamber Transportation Committee, the District Council Collaborative, the
Summit University Planning Council, the Central Corridor Management Committee, the Snelling-Hamline
Community Council, the St. Pau] Ciry Council, a communitywide meeting organized by the District Council
Collaborative, SPARC and the Hamline Midway Coalition; and
WHEFtEAS, the predominant community response was that 1) the study was too narrowly focused by geography,
mode choice and land use; 2) the alternatives provided insufficient accommodaYions for pedestrians at intersections;
3) the alternatives divert traffic out of the area; 4) the wall secYions of the grade-separated alternative are particularly
bad for area businesses and pedestrians, and 5) all alternatives are worse for pedestrians and transit riders; and
WHEREAS, it is essential that this strong community consensus be considered as the city moves forward on station
area planning as well as overall planning for the Central Corridor LRT; therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Saint Paal City Council hereby declares its opposition to the grade-separated alternative and
directs the Administration to suspend all future study the grade-separated alternative; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council declares its opposiYion to any future local, state or federal funding
requests related to the Snelling University Capacity Study, prior to a thorough community process; and be it fuRher
RESOLVED, that this resolution be conveyed to the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners, the Saint Paul
Delegation to the Minnesota Legislature, to Minnesota's federal delegation and the Federal Surface Transportation
Board; and be it further
RESOLVED, the City of Saint Paul convene a meeting of community representatives from the aforementioned
organizations, and technical staff to discuss and agree on a revised scope of work for a next phase of study of the
Snelling-University intersection; and be it further
07-623
42 RESOLVED that this next phase of planning include a larger study azea and additional transportation analyses such
43 as pedestrian modeling and Travel Demand Managemeni, and an origin and destination study that is integrated with
44 station and station azea planning for Snelling and University.
Benanav
Bostrom
Harris
Requested by Department of'
✓
✓
�
Form Approved by CiTy Attorney
By:
Adopted by Council: Date
Adoption Certified by Council Secret�y
B � r
Approv d by ta Date
By:
Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
07-623 �
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet
(,`� -Council
ConWCt Person & Phone:
Jay Benanav
Must Be on Council Agend
71JUL-07
Doc. Type: RESOLUTION
by
11-JUL-07
y
Assign
Number
For
Routing
Order
Green Sheet NO: 3041672
0 oaocil
1 ounotl De artment D"veMOr
2 i Cferk G� Clerk
E-Document Required: Y
Document Contact: Carol B
Contact Phone:
Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature)
Opposing grade sepazation at Snelling and University intersection and addresssing future planning for the in[ersection.
CoMracts
Planning Commission 1, Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department?
CIB Committee Yes No
Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a ciry employee?
Yes No
3. Does this personlfirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any
current ciry employee?
Yes No
� Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
AdvanWges If Approved:
DisadvanWges If Approved:
Disadvantages If Not Approved:
Trensaction:
Funding Source:
CostlRevenue Budgeted:
Activity Number:
Financial I nformation:
(Ezplain)
July 11, 2007 332 PM Page 1