Loading...
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