CR 91-06 Preliminary Design Plans - SW LRT Cooridor
-----
~.......E}...-.~.......,
',,'''''',
,
-", "e ..".,-'
"";':::"4.,- _..,C;_,:"..,_
. . ..-.... '.'" " ',' "'.'-'~.' '.
.. "-',.," ",,>,,:,
December 31, 1990 Council Report: 91-6
~ PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLANS FOR
SOUTHWEST LRT CORRIDOR
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, review
and discuss the preliminary design plans, and continue the matter until the
Council's January 15, 1991 meeting.
This action will meet the previous time schedule established for reviewing
the plans and will allow the Council time to consider action to be taken on
this matter.
overview.
The Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) has approved for
distribution the preliminary design plans for the segment of the Southwest
LRT Corridor located in the cities of st. Louis Park and Hopkins. These
plans include the completion of design to approximately a 10% level. The
City will also be given the opportunity to review the 30% design plans and
the final design plans. The City is required to approve or disapprove the
10% preliminary design plans by January 27, 1991. If there is no action
taken by the City within the specified time limit, the plans are considered
approved.
On November 29, 1990 an informational meeting was conducted by the City and
the HCRRA on the preliminary design plans. Approximately 30 people were in
.. attendance for the informational meeting. The bulk of the questions which
. were raised pertained to the construction of LRT in general, the need for
LRT, and the scheduling for construction ofLRT.
On December 27, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary
design plans and provided comments to the City Council for its
consideration (see attached Resolution No. 90-22).
A representative from the HCRRA will be in attendance at the public hearing
to make a presentation and respond to questions.
primary Issues to Consider.
o What level of detail is involved in the Preliminary Design Plans?
o What is staffs primary concern as related to the preliminary design
plans?
o What are the size and locations of the two stations?
o What are the issues that will have to be addressed in the future
for the Second Street station?
o What are the issues that will have to be addressed in the future
for the Excelsior Boulevard station?
o What action did the Planning Commission take?
o What action must the City take on the Preliminary Design Plans?
supporting Documents.
o Analysis of Issues 0 Benshoof memo dated 12/19/90
o Corridor Map 0 Letter from HCRRA dated 12/21/90
."~.'; 0 .Plannin? Commission which resp~nds to questions and
~esol~t1on No. 90-22 concerns ra1sed by staff.
" ~(j; i ;
Thomas K. Har , Community Development Director
-.
.
PUBLIC HEARING - LRT CORRIDOR
CR: 91-6
'~ Page 2
o What level of detail is involved in the Preliminary Design Plans?
The Preliminary Design Plans include the completion of design activities to
approximately a 10% level. Preliminary design, as defined in the 1989
state LRT legislation, includes:
- the general definition of the horizontal and vertical alignment 'of
the track
- station platform locations and ancillary station facilities
- the yard and shop facilities
- the general limits of construction
- the relationship of the LRT system to the street system
- preliminary internodal coordination plans
- a conceptual operating plan of the proposed LRT system
- preliminary ridership projections
- preliminary cost estimates
- funding for final design, construction and operation
- discussion regarding implementation method
- preliminary handicap access plans
Several of the issues which have been identified by the Planning Commission
and staff are issues which go beyond the scope of the preliminary design
.-,plans. These items, such as landscaping, buffering,i etc., will be dealt
with at later design stages.
o What is staff's primary concern as related to the preliminary design
plans?
Staff's main concern with the design plans pertain to traffic impacts, and
in particular traffic impacts at the Excelsior Boulevard/T.H. 169 station.
Staff requested that Benshoof & Associates briefly review the design plans
and identify and summarize issues which should be kept in mind. ~he report
prepared by Benshoof is attached. Outlined later in this report is a brief
summary of the traffic concerns which have been identified.
o What are the ,size and locations of the two stations?
There are two stations proposed for Hopkins, one on Second Street N.E. and
the second on Excelsior Boulevard. The Comprehensive Plan has identified
these locations for light rail stations.
The station on Second Street N. E. is the existing si te of Dick Hughes
Towing. This property is currently owned by Edco. Edco has expressed
concerns regarding the use of this property for an LRT station. The
parking area is designed for 135 parking spaces. The station is also
designed for 4 bus drop-off areas and 10 drop-off areas for cars. LRT
.riders will need to utilize a pedestrian crossing to the platform on the
south side of the tracks.
,,",----- _._-,.,-~_._,._-~--.._"....._-,,---.., ..........~-~.~..'-"._.-'--,._..~---~._.:_.-.
PUBLIC HEARING - LRT CORRIDOR
. CR: 91-6
Page 3
The second station, which is located at T.H. 169 and County Road 3, is much
larger and contains 718 parking stalls. This site represents the location
of the existing Millwork Inc. and General Resources property. The access
to the station is proposed at this time to be from 5th Avenue, Third street
South, and an additional access from the off-ramp of T.H. 169. The station
is proposed to accommodate 9 buses to drop off riders plus 14 spaces for
car rider drop-offs.
0 What are the issues that will have to be addressed in the future for the
Second Street station?
- Impact of station on residential property to the north.
- Traffic concerns and questions. Benshoof & Associates has identified
several issues regarding the Second Street station. The following
issues are recommended for further study (please see attached report for
more detailed information).
. Number of access points on Second Street
. Need for/desirability of restripping on Second Street
. Location of driveway relative to existing parking lot access on
north side of Second Street
. . Access implications for residential area to the north
. Implications of at grade pedestrian crossing
. Provision of ped~strian access to/from North Blake Road on south
side of railroad tracks
. Possibility of sidewalk construction on Second Street
- Possible storm sewer issues
- Appearance of station and parking lots related to traffic on Second
street. Use of aesthetic treatments, landscaping,berming, etc.
- Zoning issues - whether LRT is a permitted or conditional use.
Currently, the Zoning Ordinance does not specifically address LRT
0 What are issues that will need to be addressed in the future regarding
the Excelsior Boulevard station?
- Traffic concerns, questions regarding impact of station on County
Road 3, 5th Avenue, Third Street, ramps and residential area to the
south (Park Valley neighborhood). Benshoof & Associates has
identified several traffic issues at the Excelsior Boulevard
station. The following are issues which will require further study:
. Traffic impacts at the intersection and need for improvements on
. 5th Avenue.
. Traffic impacts at the intersection of 5th Avenue & Third Street.
. Location of driveways relative to existing and future access on
south side of Third Street.
. Adequacy of spacing of access from Third Street/5th Avenue
intersection.
-- . ~ - --... -~.- --- ......,.~,,"_."'~.. -'. -"
PUBLIC HEARING - LRT CORRIDOR
CR: 91-6
. Page 4
. Traffic impacts at Third street/Washington Avenue intersection.
. site distance at access on Washington Avenue.
. Need for/desirability of a new railroad crossing
. Traffic at west and east T.H. 169 ramps.
- possible redesign of park and ride lot to allow direct access from
County Road 3 to Hennepin County property to the south. This
involves a road through the park and ride site for access to the
Hennepin County site.
- Appearance of station and park and ride lot related to proximity to
county Road 3 and T.H. 169. Use of aesthetic treatments,
landscaping, berming, etc.
- possible storm sewer issues.
- Design of park and ride lot and the station as a whole, and the need
to consider existing sanitary sewer main running through the site.
- zoning issues - whether LRT is a permitted or conditional use.
Currently, the Zoning Ordinance does not address LRT in the
ordinance.
.0 What action did the Planning Commission take on this matter?
The Planning commission reviewed the preliminary design plans during, its
meeting on December 27, 1990. Ken stevens of the HCRRA was in attendance
and provided a brief presentation and answered questions.
The Planning Commission reviewed with Mr. stevens the issues which are
outlined in this report. It was noted by Mr. stevens that a number of the
issues are beyond the scope of the preliminary design plans and will be
taken into consideration as a part of the 30% design plans and the 100%
design plans.
A representative from Edco was in attendance and expressed concerns
regarding the proposed Second Street station. The Edco representative
indicated that Edcohad purchased the property (Dick Hughes Towing) with
the intention that this property serve the future business needs of Edco.
The Planning commission requested that the HCRRA and city staff meet with
Mr. Edwards to discuss this issue further.
After discussion on the matter, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 90-22 which identifies for the City Council those issues which should
be taken into consideration as a part of the Council's review of the
Preliminary Design Plans as well as future plans.
o What action must the City take on the Preliminary Design Plans?
.unless an extension were granted, the city Council is required to approve
or disapprove the preliminary Design Plans by January 27, 1991. The city
Council is scheduled at this time to formally act on the Preliminary Design
Plans during its meeting on January 15.
PUBLIC HEARING - LRT CORRIDOR
CR: 91-6
. Page 5
Upon reviewing state law and discussing this matter with Ken stevens of the
HCRRA, the City may be in a position to approve or disapprove of the plans
in a fashion which the Council is not normally accustomed to. In this
case, unless the City is in a position to approve the Preliminary Design
Plans without any conditions, it may be necessary for the City Council to
take action which would involve disapproving the plans with the conditions
clearly outlined which, if met, would allow the City to approve the plans.
Under this type of process, even though the City disapproves the plans
subject to a number of conditions, the plans would not be required to be
brought back to the Council until the next normally scheduled review period
(30% design review). Essentially, the city Council would be approving the
plans subject to conditions.
staff will continue to investigate this approval process further prior to
the Council having to take action on the plans.
.
***NOTE - A COpy OF THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLANS WERE DISTRIBUTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL
IN LATE NOVEMBER.
.
-_.--. _c-:_ -- ~- ----~-
~ l\iJJ__!l~;' j .""
- - .: ... .. 'ft j) . '~., ~ 'r.... _
. --:- . - . ,.; ,~: ; ..: ~ t . ..t": ,: .r," ,', '.~
' , , . "'. " "'. " '~~ .. .
. , . '" "'. "" '., , . . '"
. "-,,'-,........ 'l!,'."<, .''.,. . ~ "",., "V~ " ..
" . ;r;r- .."",,~ ~ " . '. '.'" "..' . " .', "" 1 <;: '" .-
' " . n:. '.., '" '" _" . '. .., '. ,.. ~ ~
. ',V' V,ru.... ,. .. .. , .. . '" .....
. \ ~"'J '0.,,,,... '. . _. ", ,''',. , "'.. '. _
,j. \-\<~ .~. ". .;.. "'.. . . .:: , .-.. · .. . , . 'j , .. 0
" ';-' " ~, , . , " , . "" -'- . ..
~ . ,'>. :'::..: .~: : ' : :', . ; ; ;.> ; i..: '~.: . ,. . :.', :: .::::: . .:, ;;: , ~ =
' , ,.... . . , . ,... . , .. -" ,..... ... '- 1oloi
. . , " ". ." '. . ;C. :. ". ", . ", "'.' -....' '. . . ",. ~ ,,'. =
" ;, ,," "" ',. "'" """, '. . '. ..... "- , ;. '.. .. ~ r
." "" . , ': , : ";.":" ," ....: . :. ' ,...... :: , ""f'," '" " _ _
" .~ \',,' "," ""'". . " ,c , ,. , " " ~ _ '.
~ l" .'" ':....' _. "" . L ". , " \ ". '" , ; ...~
' ',.; ,:...... ,--.J " . ..' ,:C,' f\ " I ; \ ' .. , C. .
'~ . .. ,.. r.:;; L~ -:-..J , , ." . :: ' I . . " t/ ~ . , ~ \
-; ~~;. I" ."'Lt'_~' ~'~'" ~1iIi:: ~ '\ '" "', ,... .'. "" ~
.... "'"." '. r "'. '. ,. ,
'- "~ ; ,'" · lU ',-~. ,~_ ."_ '.Ii< _~ ~ _
~.. '~\'~,.:." :~~y:\ : ~ :~l,!~,r /1 CDc ... , :::~ "r,~, g ',~'" S""'''' "taM ~.5.
1'"<:\hI .-J T: \'- , .~.. \ " ,. I .... . '~'f ''>-', ,."", ". +J
I"""","~,'T"'" ". "'. \'~ '.-" c .. .: ., ~ I "=" "~ '" ---;r;:.. t.t..t
I--'\. ,,,,,",, ";;",, -. v' ~\ C ,...... . ". --'t(
,~,... ''''', '''.'' '., ". '.\ .. ., ".. \ .,. .~."'.. -
"'.-" "''',''" . \ " , '., '.' ~ ," ", oW
,"-~ · \,.,.... '" ". ..- ", \ 0 CD '. I . ... ". 0
. ,~ . ,. - '. .
: :. ~.~ ". ;ij~'\\: ,,~;.: ~;;'; "met '..h.I) ~ I c;:i" ':: .. "T"':' _ l:1.;j ...::r
I,; : -,,\11 \ " ',-;:,(:~ .,.~\ . "'~' '-".... '. _. ..:: ii - ':::",' ct~ e ~
' ......'r'i' '=-"~',":.Ii...",; "" "r"-.;-'~.. "".1".,.,- ..._
: ,: I" I ~'~\ . ... -~' , '. . '" : ," . "'; '" . 1 c'..... '"' _
. . , "". '.. - . " . . .
gr- ..~.'i "", ." """... " '. "/11. . -. " ". '" l:s:
... ". .,.. ',..., "" .' . "" .,
;;,. :,.;., ,l.\ A:~i J. I JI-, .~, ''\ " t I. \' '"'' . -:l ,~,. ~~
I.. I." . \'''1'':' ....,: ..".", . ~, . '0' ".~.. "".
--~ ~ '~"-: ", ,,," . '"IT." "~r." . .~ "" "';.".1 .. ij '\.~" I~,,~~ 'f~;e). S i
_. .- -... - ':b '. " ." .""",. "'.., "... ='_.~ "", . .,_ ), "'" ...
-~~ ." ' \ ,:. : :'';; ,,":- - . .;'" .... ...:: .. ::.. ,,: -. . 11\".if ,; ,. " .. 7,;:";': ',-'" :"'" ~
'rr:;;,;:~ '..",~, . ,'~;'" .,. ---'J"'Il' .~_.. ,-'''' ,,, " I:;,r.;~. '.<C : ,,= . _
. ,.' -'- \... ''''';;' '.. '-''''-, T" ".~ '. '_., "".~ ~ ....
~.;71 Ni ,,\.' "',.1;:;'''''''';:; . -.Q~ ".' -. . _' _ . '~.._ .. ,\)., . .' ~ .,:r" ~
.' ....;/. j:l; : :. .. "" -... ' .. ': "" 7:: ..., ~ '''. _ ','-"'. '" "'.: .,,' "'" "'.' +1
ifi!;...:;' ...~ :\ L~. /.: ''''i''"'-'-: ..J~~,} , '''i\X=~~., '''''':;-~' '. u.. rJ) _ ,
.. ,- .. 1"-,:,:: "'". .. : r:1'.... . . rt' \:.,:.x-". ,r, . 10\ ,~.; ~"'-:.<.\ fJ .. . "1 ~ r=-. '",
"1..::;:"1\1 , :'~'..... -; ; ~ . ~'~l ' . \.~: '- ,~'~'-_~ 1\ ':,dJ"'f.::.~ "
~ \ " ,... _. -. .. . ",. "" .~' '" ~''''L ".. , ~
. " . h . ~'. , .,,_ '" _ __", ." ~~. "'.,.
.. -' , -" '" . '"....,~ ~ ", _.... " ... 1 - ~~
1~"'4 (~. ; \~ ~.'"~""'" ';. '.....,- . 'M_',,:, :idn--,@'"*~h)\:':~:~' ,:.~; 'lr;:' ~,~
1:111. , ..v', "'- "'~ -. , "... ......". .. .' CJ~ . ',". >..c." _ ,M; . .""
· , . ~. "i' .""" ~ ... ~..... .. > - ,,,, """"'L..." '''''. . ''''^'" .
.' . . \ '.... -'-"- -"',,",.. "'" rv, ,'--..... '''" I~""""..,."'f "...., ~ _
:' , . ," ., " .. '" . '.' . M 1, " '''. ...-- _,,' '" .
L . , \ 'g. .. ,,= '." , , ''''''' EP', _.. r;;;:t:~f ',. .. _
,~ '" " ,..-.... '.~ ': ,..~= '/.., '" ~ -- '.
\l~ '-.-. ....... \". r.... :~.. . . ''''j'(~'(,."., K ,i'i~~: ......I_;~._ ',""U,-, 1.,_. ------..,-
d h'" '. .. . ',.. '-. ..., ", ." . "" ...... \-1<-',
I ~ . '..:. " . \ . "'.. ". "." ' .. .. .' ...:,/ .,: ( i,. '. .',..:; '. '. -J' .n '
. ),. 1-' ;~.. :-~. . ~\..:-.:;. .,: .' '. :~. ~1 ~ ;~~\ ..., ..~, ~'''Il'~~;'. ....;r .__..
~U~ r-! "~\.""-.. .. ,~. \ ~ i .~...~! ._j ""~lF.'"
:....... c'.. :" ~\, '\ '.'..; '" .<~, ',~' .... '.. ,>" fe, '''0 '_.. ';,.,;:. ,,". .
1_,..1 ".".. ~7.-'1.~.... .....,..,: .~~ .[...'l- '1' _...1:. ". ~. 't~t..1.,~.. I
r==1 ,'. ~'\\-' ~-. ."', .... ;;..~~ .~ ,'. \.. __ h !.', [h'~~'\f"
' .... ,"',',,". _. ," ,," " , ,. '. ". ".'",' .
' j , . . ~ . .,..".. " .. -' . :. .- i .'
L.' ~ '.. ". .' .._;~. ~'" " I: ::;:, ) ,. :,,: i"..:. ; i' '/;Jr:. ":-i!=/'~.: :~_~..
- ';/ .' -... ..... .' "-- - I~ 3:;.,. -_. '.' ". '. " .' I;,. '..
". .'~ . - . . " , - . ,.. '. '-' " ".
. " . ,...... -,. . \. ~,." -. ". -0 ~ -. ,~ r' ;~-,l(l _. , ". ""
. ~." ""-\' . .. ",,"' ...... ~""'" 'V"'r;;r.'''''j!..:' 0 ~-5
- . .' .... ~..;.;A' .-r'. . ... , \ I - ..' . /. ""'. ...l-:;!. "l'] II
Qh.- IF1:t"'" :,p;;~ -- "::l' . . ~..... ~~~ .'l .:..... :ili:..'J\;';Ej,.',t P. '" ';; Wy.!,--; "OA
""- IV.!,. " 7.1'.-.. 'c" '. . ,"'.. = ~ ~.~, ': "" ,,',J/. "" f'>,.......
..r.'9 ~. '. 'ffJ.... ,'.!~. ~nf"'"o;;.lb.;;;t\lllll"." .... . .'. .. .." ""~., .....~.;r..
'~'. "", ... '. ".., "l' . "" . .... , \7- ~'~., .. '--., ;-;;." "..:1,
'""t-' I - ~:."., ,\! "')"- . ,,'" ,,-,;,... ..:\ '. ", -',~ ,..... , _ i
-;\ '...,,' '.' ,. "'" .. .. "...A~""';';."", ,. '.' ,.....- , " , _", '. . .
~. '''A"-~ ~ T,~. ;. .~' ~:~f-',~, .. [A '~-;; ';:; ~. \ ..~~=1,' ~~~-Jf' '~r-ll; (l) ~ ...
I) '--~, .,~....' ,';1 1:\:~~..;.;,~ _ '~r' ~. ,. _ '.... , . , .... '"
\ ) '~. ,~ "~!r ~ .~" .. C' ; i, , , .. T ~ .." : ,,....,. ..' ',. _r:
,,' ". '-', ,~ " , '.. ". .. T ,"-' '" ~I." ""
'" . . - .' , ".' ',' , ... , . .. . ."'" " . "-
..- ~'~I I.... -..: ':Ji;./~:l '~I ~~'(~\ (L,,:. ~~~)".l~;~ -. "':"d'k. -~' :.'~~..{~. ~, -:,;.Q:. .~;< i b
I . . _ J ,~ '~iJvdl;!J7. ""'" . "~'''-;'''' _.. clj
, , ",.,..".1' ';;l.." "9 ~ ..,. -rv~. "';'<';;., ". ~
~,I ~... ". 'Jr'''! ,'\ - +''''''-" .",.;" " _ :".-, ...
'" '. '- .. . "" -. .~... -
,.. .;, "., " '-~~l:~', '" ";d ...... " ,,,.J;tT_ ))
". . .. , , .. " . " " ".. . I ' I
'"., . . . v' .: """, "",~ "" t", ,,' '"", '''.'L. '--'"
~'J:7, ";7 """Iv ".. :("';"; ,.. . ":.. '. "'~ "_ ":'-' " ..
~ ~ ..,/A if 1:'r,......\~" .""... ;.;.:. ." = ~ , "
t ". '.: . ..,.... ','" i '" ...:;!.;'," '_:.:- ~. ~ "Q r--.;...:;;./ I; . ... ." ,
; .." ~":t ' r"d';';.., ,> - '-'''. . '" ..." '-. .~,., "
. ~,.;,: .V=. ";'. i' '. "'-... ")!! i. . ..,. ,(ft'\..h' ~rJi - WI>- .;.
I~ . - . " ~~ :..& ' . ;J":t'"(. ..,~. .l:: . - 'v . ,.. 3J~ri{' ~r. .
.. . , '. . .. . '''''' "'., , ,
'... ~ y ...,.~!.; . "', ',' ...... >. 'i;":t . :.~ C1l
I~ . I. '-. 'I 'CD ,.. . >> , " ...._
" . . " '. ", - , "', "', '" ,,' ., .. , --
. .. , . ., " I '", .., '\ ~', ~ 1.::, '. '~
,......,,, .. '.. ,. , .. . ..., " ", ~
I~.' "}':::':~':I !~ ~.>>' ".......II~.", .L-.,h .;; ::. ;.' .::I \f;"" :~..:\-.. .-.. "'Y' ...-r.... .t'
-.. -------.J '-'1 i~. (.. ~l" ~ I "" ~_ '... -0" , ':. .
.. ~,I-:, ~\ !I' . -.. "'.. \ I "b- ,;J,:r..l .., ~ ;f. ,~... fl \~ _ , \~" ,.... _, '"
.. . . '. "'L::r\./J" ,\f' '--., ~'.. '" "'~
. .'. '., '. - - ", ." " . , ". -.
' .. ,. ", " , . '. . , -
. ~ ~-')_. ...., :'3,: i~,} '. ~r,~9:\o' ..< "y) I) I ,., :rili \. ---". \ (\(1. ') ."-h
' ,....;:... .; , ; f' . 'J, \_._ . ',/., .....; .". ':"'., '....'~ . ...,;..,',' \~ ',' ..,
II I .... '".. . \', ,,, .. . ". .. " "". , 1" . ',. ..
Cj~. ..'- ~ 1.'\ ,:. ''''':~::"'' 'c, .~~~",:~ "~~~:~~' . ..:;:', .~.~ ~ -"'---J'-"H."!
/. ~.'jj iJ.'. I~~.: \t, . ,Yo:- .,..~..- .'''':...., ~.~ ',' . ~..., \ - , , y' VHtI
g "".,,, , . .' .. ',,, ~. " '._" .,
" ~\: ' . ~ :~s.\,,~.~\"lli"--,\ '\~v ,!~ ~~~,.:~: ~. ...... :.:~ : If./f <:::D~"';r: ::'\. , '., 'i~ ."'.
/d ,:~ ' , ....., , '- ~,. . ,.) _ . , "
. .. ';. . 'v ~'. " \. .' ",. ...... _
.' . -.. \'. ;., ,.,. ,,~. '~." ''''.
:I.::~':'- :'j : .~" _~..:: !, ,
I
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin county, Minnesota
4It RESOLUTION NO. 90-22
COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PLANS FOR THE SOUTHWEST LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT CORRIDOR
WHEREAS, Hennepin county Regional Railroad Authority desires
to construct a light rail transit system to service the
metropolitan area; and
WHEREAS, the preliminary design plan calls for the tracks to
run on the existing Soo Line right-of-way through Hopkins with
two stations located in Hopkins at 2nd Street N.E. and County
Road 3fT.H. 169; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority held a
public hearing regarding these design plans on December 13, 1990;
and
,
WHEREAS, each affected city must hold a public hearing to
either approve or disapprove these plans; and
WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins has been a strong supporter of
light rail transit;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
tit city of Hopkins that the following items have been identified as
issues which should be taken into consideration as part of the
city Councils review of the preliminary design plan for the
southwest LRT corridor:
1. That all storm sewer issues are resolved.
2. The possible redesign of the County Road 3 park and ride
lot to allow direct access from. County Road 3 to Hennepin
County property is studied.
3. Appearance of the stations and parking lots as related
their to proximity to County Road 3 and Highway 169. Use
of aesthetic treatments, landscaping, berming, etc.
4. Appearance of station and parking lot at the 2nd Street
station as related to the residential area to the north.
Use of aesthetic treatments, landscaping, berming, etc.
5. That the traffic concerns as identified by Benshoof and
Associates, are addressed.
6. Coordination with the city and Benshoof of the possible
crossing of County road 3 for Super Value
. 7. That the responsibility for paying for any necessary
roadway improvements, utility relocation, sidewalks,
signalization, etc. be addressed.
8. That the HCRRAbe informed that zoning issues will need
to be resolved with regard to the locations of the LRT
stations.
9: That consideration be given to using rubberized track
. at the various roadway/LRT intersections.
10. That the LRT system be designed to provide cathodic
protection for adjacent utility lines.
Adopted 1990.
~
.
.
~.:J I .' t
BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS
December 19, 1990 REFER TO FILE: 90-50
MEMORANDUM
TO: tom Harmcillng,~ty of am
FROM: James A.Bensh~ & David . .. gan
RE: Review of Traffic Issues Relating to Proposed LRT Stations in City of
Hopkins
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
The purpose of this memorandum is tosuminarize the results of pur review regarding
. preliminary plans for proposed LRTstations in the. City of Hopkins.. Key purposes of
our review have been to identify important traffic issues relating to the proposed T.H.
169 and North Blake Road Stations, review available materials regarding previous
. analyses of these issues, and offer suggestions as to issues requiring further attention.
In order to identify important issues. and review previous study efforts the following
steps were conducted:
. Pieldobservations at both locations during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour time
periods
. Review of materials obtained from HCRRA including preliminary analysis, .
design drawings, and a traffic impact report prepared by BRW, Inc.
. Review of City of Hopkins Comprehensive Plan and issues raised by City of
Hopkins staff
. Review of Benshoof & Associates' CSAH3 Comdor Study and Southeast
Hopkins-Minnetonka Transportation Study
Based on these observations and review, issues needing further study have been
identified. The remainder of this memorandum will further detail our basis for the
identification of issues and provide our recommendations. for further study.
,
~._-_.~- ---~ _ _ ___C-<-k,"~><-'._'=______c.,,"-_~~~"""_~-_-'__"H__' --- ~
, "' } (' .
'Mr. Tom Harmening -2- December 19, 1990
, IDENTIFICATION OF TRAFFIC ISSUES
Field Observations
Field observations were conducted in the area surrounding the proposed stations during
the expected a.m. (7-9 a.m.) and p.m. (3-5 p.m~) peak hour time periods. These
observations centered on the identification of traffic and design issues related to
individual station sites. Specifically, conditions observed included the following:
. Traffic operations and turning movement patterns at all adjacent intersections
. The potential for vehicle stacking and conflict relative to relationships between
proposed site access points and adjacent intersections . .
. The potential impact on and provisions for pedestrian access at each proposed
site
Information from HCRRA
A careful review of materials provided by HCRRA was completed in terms of traffic-
related issues associated with the proposed stations. Preliminary design analyses and
drawings were reviewed to gain knowledge concerning the physical layouts proposed
and to identify provisions for effective site-related vehicle and pedestnan movements
1- to, from, and within each station. In addition, an attempt was made to determine if a
relationship had been established between the demand for on-site parking and the
proposed parking provisions. Any problems with undersized lots may cause undue
parking pressures on~street and in residential neighborhood areas.
A report conducted by BRW, Inc. regarding traffic operations was reviewed to
determine trip generation and distribution characteristics associated with the station sites
and to identify any level of service or capacity concerns at nearby and adjacent
intersections. The report did not indicate the particular basis for trip generation or
distribution projections. The report addressed the T.H. 169 Station, but not the North
Blake Road Station.
Other Related Materials
Materials provided by the City of Hopkins, including the Comprehensive Plan and a
summary of staff concerns, further assisted us in the identification of important issues.
') Finally, the content of Benshoof & Associates' materials involving the CSAH 3
I, Corridor Study and the Southeast Hopkins-Minnetonka Transportation Study was
reviewed to determine any additional pertinent concerns. .
, "
.....--... ..-
4'''' , ' ,-.. "
Mr. Tom Harmening -3- December 19, 1990
. Traffic Issues Warranting Further Study for T.H. 169 Station
. Traffic issues at the T.H. 169 station which need further study are shown in Figure 1.
One important issue regarding theT.H. 169 station involves the proposed new at-grade
railroad crossing that woUld connect the station with CSAH .3 at the west ramp
intersection. This crossing would be just 850 feet east of the existing 5th Ave. crossing
and just 1750 feet west of the CSAH 3 crossing. In addition to the existing crossings,
two new crossings are being considered in the CSAH .3 corridor study-eastramp
intersection and Jackson St. From a traffic safety standpoint, it is important to limit the
number of at-:-grade railroad crossings. A need exists to address access for the T.H.
169 station and other properties in the area ina roadway system context. Theobjective
is to develop a plan for roadway connections and at-grade railroad crossings that will
meet several il1lportant criteria, including: capacity, safety,' and accessibility.
An issue relating to the above railroad crossingconcempertains to access to the
Hennepin County site on the south side of 3rd Street. When this site is redeveloped in
the future, its access needs may be greater than at present. A pertinent question is: If
a new at-grade crossing and traffic eonnectionare provided to CSAH 3 at the west
ramp intersection, should this connection be extended south to 3rd Street to serve the
County. site and other properties in the area?
Another issue warranting further study involves traffic operations at intersections
adjacent to the T.H. 169.site. Information provided by the HCRRAindicates that work
. has begun to address traffic implications at nearby intersections, but more study of such
effects is needed. Five particular limitations of information provided by the HCRRA
. that need to be. resolved through further study are:
. 1985. traffic counts were used as a basis for the analysis
. The particular basis for trip generation and trip distribution projections was not
expressed
. Trips approaching the T.H. 169 station from the south and southwest were not
addressed
. The analysis did not account for redevelopment of the Hennepin County
property, nor the anticipated expansion of Super Valu
. The intersections of Third Street with 5th Ave. and Washington Ave. were not \
addressed
The question of stacking, particularly near the intersection of Fifth Ave. and Third St.,
should be examined. The large number of semi-trailer trucks and other vehicles
utilizing this intersection during the am and pm peak periods may result in queues
which would cause conflicts and reduce the capacity of the two southw~sterly
driveways for the T.H. 169 station.
,
"'.
\
,
W>-
U .c(
~~
le t;~ ~z
- 0::
~ C C
.c( W I- ~ ooQ
0:: ~.c( w....
en ::><
co
.... 00....
~~ ~oo
en I- ~ Um
I- -<0
ten 'w u.~
.c(-.c( a: u.
o..W
~c ::> <.
- Z C) a::I;
U .c( ........
U:I- u:
~ en en
.c(w Z
l=?; .c(
;.J
0..
Z
CI
i3
C
>-
a:
.c(
Z
~
~ >-
....0
0..
t: a:::>
en ..Jt;
~ 00,
f!: zz
-0
;.J ~-
;( D-~
a:
Z !i: 0....
0 CI :I: 00
) Wen :J
z~z ~
-0..0 0
Cllhxt= 0::
zzw.c( ~
EZcffi c
o::wzo.. W
.c(:I:c(0 Z
Cl~;.J ;(
WOW:;> t;
0:: I- U ;.J
enzo::.c( 0
C:I: ZWc(> Q.
enz5 O~o..o:: c(
>- .c( 0 t=Q.~w ~ '11I
.c( CI en .c(g ~ Z O~
~~Z UW:;>en g ~~
~~o~
> t; 0 ~ C U 0 ffi ui~
C2x~..= C Wo
cWwen t(~
~oU'O
o I- U 0- 00 -Ill
Zwc(C') 0::1
O>W~ Z 00
--0::0 s;2 Cf)z
~~~~ j
D- ~~
UW:;>_ 0
go::~en oIj<
:I: u.~
~ u. o~
0 o~
en J:o
t ~ Cf)Oo
c( Z z~
0.. 0 w<
~5 () ml!:
UW
u:~
~w
.c(t-
, 1=:;
0
.
,1,1 i " "-
Mr. Tom Harmening -4- December 19, 1990
. Traffic Issues Warranting Further Study for North Blake Road Station
. Figure 2 illustrates issues at the North Blake Road station which we believe need
further study.
An issue of pedestrian traffic arises in regards to proposed plans for the North Blake
Road station. Plans call for an at-grade pedestrian crossing of the Soo Line tracks.
Further, the subject of access provisions for pedestrians north of Second St. need
further consideration. There are currently no sidewalks on the north or south sides of
Second St. to accommodate pedestrians to and from the residential area to the north.
Another pedestrian issue involves access for persons along Blake Road south of the
railroad tracks. A direct pedestrian connection to the LRT station is needed from Blake
Rd. south of the tracks. Without such a connection, users would have to walk a much
greater distance north to Second St., west on Second St. to the station, and then south
through the station I s parking lot.
The number and location of driveways on Second St. is another issue that needs to be
addressed. The proposal to provide four driveways along the 320 foot frontage of the
site may cause undue conflicts for traffic on Second St.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURmER STUDY
T.H. 169 Station
. The question of an access to this station from the west TH 169 ramp deserves careful
attention. The number of at-grade railroad crossings along CSAH 3 is a matter that
. will significantly affect the efficiency and safety of travel along the corridor. We
would recommend that a traffic analysis addressing the .need for and desirability of this
access be conducted following a three step process:
. Identification of AltemativeRoadway Network and Access Plans
. Traffic Forecasts for Identified Alternatives
. Traffic Analysis to Identify Preferred Plan
Identification of Alternative Roadway Network and Access Plans - The central issue
in the identification of alternatives for this access involve providing safe and efficient
traffic operations for the LRT station and other nearby properties. All reasonable
options for achieving this goal should be considered. Three possible options are:
. The traffic plan as presented in preliminary design drawings. (With all
driveways including the at-grade railroad crossing at the west TH 169 ramp)
. A concept without the at-grade crossing at the west TH 169 ramp but instead
featuring a frontage road design. This frontage road would begin on Third St.
just east of the Fifth Ave.lThird St. intersection and terminate on CSAH 3 at
the east TH 169 ramp. (This plan would entail an at-grade railroad crossing at
.. the east TH 169 ramp)
. According to the traffic plan presented in preliminary design drawings but
including a connection through the LRT site from CSAH 3 to Third St.
"
,
. ..
' '.
....0
~ ~~
000
i .. wa:
:Jwz I
~ oo~o I
oo~_
-..J....
\j!: \lfP N Um~
C W -:I:....
a: tl:....oo
:J ~a:....
a: 0:: (!) a:0a:
o 0
LL Z s> CIl u: ....Z..J
~ 0 z
<
o I- ...I
I=~ a..
< 0:: Z
o < !) C)
::;... en
a.. < ~ w
~ - ~ 0
- I- >
CIl.Z Z 0
CIl < 0::
CIlW > O. <
we <C)CIlt; 0::
OCll 'I- Z
Ow =:zCll11 00 0 :lE
<0:: w-w 0:: <
::: t; 0 C'l z~o irl >-
O::XOLL < ::5 0:: 0:: ....0
O,W < 0 - ...I a..
LLOI-W 0:: m ;( I- a::J
ol-ge I- '0:: en ..J....
ZWC)CIl 13zLL Z 0000
2 > z'x . O~o <
~ g l': t::::::; 0:: zz
1-1=-1- I-
<<::':0:: ~Q
...: 0...10::0 o l!:: en '. . ...I
OW<z zo~ ;( a.....
CIl ... 0:: a.. 0::
~ 11 o l- I- O.~
-CIl::l :1:....
..JC'l CIl CIl 0 :r
mz :> w CIl C) 00
<0 OOz ::;
!:E C) 0::00 ~
0..<
cr. z 0
w_ 0::
e~ LL
0::0:: 0
o I- w
LLCIl Z
o~ ~
wLL
~O 0
a..
Iw <
Ie ~ 'VJ
< z OlZ
CIl 0:: C) z~
CIl ...: C) C) en
::.: ...: w CIl ..:. ~ ~::J
W enVJ
g 11 <CIl 0
...I CIl LL CIl Wz
< 11 < C'l o ~ !;(8
=: C'l LL Z CIl 0 en _w
Wz o 0 O~
e 0 0:: CIl I Z Z Z 00
CIl Z w l- to < ~ en~
m z I=ii:
LL 0 ~ - <I- a. eno
o _ ::l 0
~ t; o CIl <z
Z a.. ::;w 0 ~<
0..0
::;::l ~w :I: u.~
m ~ _ a.. LL O~
- CIl
CIl Z 0 01-'
80 :ca:
a.. 0 I ~ en~
I z~
I w<
') U 1:01:
b
Mr. Tom Harmening -5- December 19, 1990
, Traffic Forecasts - Traffic forecasts would then be developed as a basis for analyzing
each alternative. This analysis would focus on the ability of the roadway network to
safely and efficiently accommodate'traffic associated with the LRT station and nearby
properties.
To develop these forecasts, we would propose that 1989 traffic counts for the west TH
169 Ramp/CSAH 3 and Fifth Ave.lCSAH 3 intersections, available from Hennepin
County, and 1990 counts observed at the Fifth A ve.lThird St.and Washington
A ve.lThird St. intersections, observed as part of the CSAH 3 Corridor Study, be
utilized to provide baseline traffic volumes. An appropriate growth factor would be
established and applied to baseline volumes to reflect expected 1995 traffic projections.
A sound basis for station-related trip generation and distribution would also be
established.
Trip generation figures for the LRT station would be added to the 1995 projected
volumes. In addition, the redevelopment of the Hennepin County property to the south
of Third St. and the proposed expansion of the Super Valu operations should be taken
into account. Expected traffic from these two sources would also be added to the 1995
projections. The addition of traffic relating both to theLRT station and other nearby
development will provide a more accurate picture of expected future conditions. In
conjunction with an appropriate trip distribution pattern, these trip generation figures
woulct be assigned to the local traffic network. This assignment, to the point of
. specific turn movements at all affected intersections, would be based on the most
efficient and convenient travel routes and on characteristics of the individual traffic
plan under review.
.
Analysis of Alternatives - As noted, the analysis of particular alternative traffic plans
would be conducted regarding the ability of the roadway network to adequately
accommodate traffic associated with both the LRT station and nearby properties.' To
this end, the merits of each alternative would be judged on the basis of its resulting
effects on roadway and intersection capacity, delay, and safety. Thorough analysis of
each plan would culminate in the identification of a single preferred plan which best
addresses these concerns. It is important to note that the resultant traffic plan needs to
be fully coordinated with objectives and strategies developed in the CSAH 3 Corridor
Study. Such careful coordination would help to ensure the consistent application of
sound traffic operation throughout the area.
I
North Blake Road Station
Issues regarding the North Blake Road Station fall into two major categories:
. Vehic1e operations on Second Street
. Pedestrian access from areas both south and north of the station
,
'"... , . " .
.
Mr. Tom Harmening -6- December 19, 1990
.. Vehicle Operations on Second Street - One issue concerning the number and location
of proposed driveways serving this site should be examined. Specificallr;' we believe
that four individual access points along the 320 foot frontage likely wou d not be
needed. While recognizing a desire to separate bus traffic from other vehicles, we
,. would suggest that altematives be examined to reduce the number of site driveways.
One option to accomplish this improvement would involve two site driveways. Both
buses and automobiles would access and exit the site using the same driveways.
However the buses, upon entering the site, would be quickly routed to the outside edge
of the parcel and separated from automobile traffic at this point. They would then
continue in an exclusive bus lane around the periphery of the site to allow unrestricted
loading and unloading. The bus operations would occur in a counter-clockwise
direction, instead of the clockwise pattem shown on the current plans. Finally, the
buses would merge with automobile traffic before exiting from a shared driveway.
This should prove an efficient and effective means for limiting the number of access
points required on Second St. while allowing a separated circulation pattem within the
site. This concept and, possibly, other options should be analyzed in order to
determine a preferred plan.
An additional issue which deserves consideration is general traffic operations on Second
St. Recognizing the need for left turn movements by westbound vehicles entering the
station and eastbound vehicles entering the parking lot 011 the north side of Second St.,
an alternative lane assignment may be appropriate. We suggest an examination to
determine the desirability of operating Second St. under a three lane design. One lane
. would be provided for eastbound and westbound through movements while the center
lane would be a two-way left turn lane.
. Pedestrian Access - An important issue to be addressed concerning this station involves
provisions for pedestrian access. Residential areas north of Second Street and the south
of the LRT station will be poorly served given proposed desigl1 plans and existing
conditions. In addition, the proposed at-grade pedestrian crossing of the SooLine
tracks at this station may be undesirable.
To serve residential areas north of Second Street, we recommend that possibilities for
providing sidewalks along Second St. and a crosswalk adjacent to the station be
examined. The possibility of a sidewalk on the south side of the railroad tracks
connecting the LRT station with an existing sidewalk on the west side of North Blake
Road also should be closely considered. This walkway would allow for safe and more
convenient access for pedestrians to and from areas south of the LRT station.
We further recommend that the desirability of an at-grade pedestrian crossing of the
Soo Line tracks be carefully examined relative to the potential merits for a grade
separated crossing. We believe that the implications of this crossing in terms of safety
considerations would be significant and warrant additional study.
'.
.
,- .
-.
. HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY
Southwest Street Level Government Center, Minneapolis, MN. 55487-0016612/348-9260
Fax. 612/348-9710
December 21, 1990
Mr. Steve Mielke, city Manager
City of Hopkins
1010rirst Street South
Hopkins, MN 55343
Re: Response to LRT Concerns
Dear Mr. Mielke:
The attached information references our meeting of August 31, 1990, at
. which time the city staff submitted a series of written questions.
Although we have discussed some of the issues at ,length and some are
answered in the technical memo or design plan, the information provided
will confirm our discussions.
Please bear in mind that the preliminary design plans are by definition
not final designs. The principal items included are alignment, grade,
station locations and function. Items ,such as landscaping, station
finishing, and engineering details will be completed during preliminary
engineering and final design~
As you know, the city also has a final design approval authority.
stevens, Director
Transit
Enclosure
.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Mark Andrew John E. Derus Tad Jude Jeff Spartz Randy Johnson John Keefe Sam S. Sivanich
Chairman Vice Chairman Treasurer Secretary
,_. ,--,-, ~'- - "."',. ..", ~, . ___.. _ _..__' ~ ._-,__'c.'_ ".,. __ ~_ ,._l,~- "~_'c_.' ___._. 'u~...-.- --- ,- ~.,-~...,. '-- .,- f..~._._ __
. ~.
.
. .
.
Response to Hopkins
Second Street Station:
0 Traffic concerns" on Second Street: The potential traffic impact to the city
street system as a result of this station will be minor. Trip generation at
the site will be about 264 vehicle trips per hour during the afternoon peak
hour. Traffic generated will approach the station from the east, via
Blake Road and Second Street, or from the west, via Tyler Avenue and
Second street. The intersection most likely to be affected is Blake Road
and Second Street. This intersection is signalized and currently operates
. under capacity. Analysis shows that with the station, the intersection
would continue to operate under capacity.
0 Sidewalks on Second Street: station plans call for six foot sidewalks along
Second Street (industrial zone).
0 Impacts to Residential Property: Impacts will be analyzed in preliminary
engineering to determine what mitigation, if any, is required.
0 Access Points on Second Street: CUrrent plans show the adjacent access
points on both sides of street.
0 zoning Issue: HCRRA will attempt to meet all zoning ordinances; if variance
is required, HCRRA will comply with appropriate review and approval process.
0 Station Enclosures: Station platform will have canopies but will not be
fully enclosed. Heated shelters, whose size will be dependent upon demand,
will be provided.
. 0 Storm Sewers: All storm runoffs and sewer sizing will conform to city
ordinances and good' engineering practice.
, t.,.
.
.
0 Excelsior Boulevard Access: with existing development along Excelsior
Boulevard and the existing street access off Second street, it is not
necessary to consider direct access to Excelsior Boulevard from the station
site.
Excelsior Boulevard Station:
0 Traffic Concerns: See attached traffic analysis which concludes there is no
significant traffic impacts.
0 Access Through Station Site to Third Avenue: HCRRA believes that this
access would create operational and safety problems for the light rail
operations and parking facility. In addition, the reduction in parking
. spaces and bus lllovement restriction cou.ld impact ridership for the system.
Crossings:
0 In general, the state of the art materials will be used which have proven
quali ty and long li fe in our envi ronment. Standard railway crossing
protection will be used as required.
General Comments:
0 Impact of LRT on adjacent property: preliminary engineering will include
impact analysis for adjacent property with recommended mitigation, if any.
0 Cathodic Protection: Utility guidelines and recommendations will be
provided during preliminary engineering.
0 Grade Changes: For at-grade construction, the preferred maximum grade of 4%
. and an absolute maximum of 6%.
.
:. ~ ... ~. 4 ,~.
-.
. a[((~ /j c- ( !,.-....
.
. tv'~ .A. /.. ), ! -., (''''0
, , . :' I
I
. PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLANS
SOUTHWEST LRT CORRIDOR IN HOP~INS
PRELIMINARY STAFF COMMENTS/QUESTIONS
I. Proposed Stations.
A. Second Street N.E.
~,.~ .... 'n, Traffic concerns on 2nd Street - .' t _, .,:,) i" " / I
-~_.-. I 0 ..
( Need for sidewalks on 2nd street-jc: ."" ' ~.. ; J lI\A~"'fM',::,~
If .,>.:..1.,1 ~'..~:. :...~ .': ~.~'o
0 'Impact of station on residential property to
; ,:.;; .' ...._~ '. t north. Need to consider buffering/berming, etc.
- ,
~-" .- .J ,~ '. J 0 Proposed access points on 2nd Street as related
".,'" to existing access points across street.
.--
0 Zoning issues including setbacks of parking area
(may be a 50 ft. requirement due to proximity of
adjacent residential property), whether parking
areas and stations are permitted or conditional
uses.
0 will the station be an enclosed structure,
platform? I.
; ....' .(.;,1
0 Loss of tax base due to 'conversion to tax exempt
status.
0 Any storm sewer issues.
. 0 possible provision of a more direct access to
station from Excelsior Boulevard.
B. County Road 3 & T.H. 169
0 Traffic concerns, questions re: impact of station
on County Road 3, 5th Avenue, 3rd Street, Ramps
and residential area to the south (Park Valley
neighborhood)
0 possible redesign of park and ride lot to allow
direct access from County Road 3 to Hennepin
County property to south.
0 Appearance of station and parking lot as related
to proximity to Co. Rd. 3 & T.H. 169. Use of
aesthetic treatments, landscaping, berming, etc.
0 possible storm sewer issues.
0 Will station be an enclosed structure, platform?
0 Loss of tax base due to conversion to tax exempt
status.
0 Zoning issues including setbacks, whether parking
areas and station are allowed as a permitted or
condit-ional use, etc.
0 status of acquisition of property. Staff has
concern re: appearance of property. When will
County purchase and make improvements.
.
,....._._~'. _' .__'.~~. ....- _'-'___.'_o" _.... "-.- _._~-~_.. ,------..~.
1-' ...' ,
-. '" .*,
.
f .
. II. Crossinqs.
0 Use of rubberized track at intersections.
0 What types of signage, gates will be used?
0 What would be the frequency of trains?
0 General traffic concerns
! ,.{ ""-0 Coordination with potential crossing of Co. Rd. 3
/ \ for Super Valu. Current study being undertaken
.- ,. ,;"..; '.Y"
\- by Benshoof & Associates.
~' III. General Comments.
0 Status of use of CNW line vs. Soo line.
'0 Impact of LRT on adjacent residential areas. Is
any buffering, screening, etc. proposed?
0 Cathodic protection for adjacent utility lin~s.
0 How extensive can grade changes be?
0 Have major concern re: future crossing of Co. Rd.
3 at T.H. 169 to allow for extension of norther
route.
0 strongly advocate realignment of northern route
to 9th Ave. as per the Bakker study.
0 As part of realignment of northern route to 9th
Avenue, also suggest that consideration be given
to a LRT stop in Downtown Hopkins. Also suggest
consideration for full movement intersections at
. 9th Avenue and 1st street North and South and
Mainstreet.
LRTCMTS
.
- ~'~-p" --:0,.__..,_ '--:"-~,_ ._0.0>..-:..... ,-----,~-=-~.. ,~._...~.___~~_____.
- -