HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-28-2025 City Council Mtg Packet
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Mayor
Amáda Márquez Simula
Councilmembers
Connie Buesgens
Rachel James
Justice Spriggs
Laurel Deneen
City Manager
Aaron Chirpich
City Hall—Council Chambers, 3989 Central Ave NE
Monday, July 28, 2025
6:00 PM
AGENDA
ATTENDANCE INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC
Members of the public who wish to attend may do so in-person, or by using Microsoft Teams Meeting
at columbiaheightsmn.gov/joinameeting ID 221 852 033 166 Passcode HD9W8xR6. Additionally,
members of the public may view the meeting live at columbiaheightsmn.gov/watch. For questions,
please contact Administration at 763-706-3610.
Auxiliary aids or other accommodations for individuals with disabilities are available upon request when
the request is made at least 72 hours in advance. Please contact Administration at 763 -706-3610 to
make arrangements.
WELCOME/CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
MISSION STATEMENT
Columbia Heights is a vibrant, healthy and connected City. We are here to actively support the
community, deliver equitable services, build and strengthen connections, improve upon our past, and
uphold our successes. We strive to be better and ensure Columbia Heights is a great place for everyone,
today and in the future.
Columbia Heights City Council and Staff Norms.
While we are accountable to each other for these norms, the Mayor and City Manager will
help us adhere to them with respectful reminders and reinforcement as needed.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
(The Council, upon majority vote of its members, may make additions and deletions to the agenda.
These may be items submitted after the agenda preparation deadline.)
PROCLAMATIONS, PRESENTATIONS, RECOGNITION, ANNOUNCEMENTS, GUESTS
A. Heights Bakery Day Proclamation.
Accepting Proclamation: Heights Bakery.
B. Assistance Dog Day Proclamation.
Accepting Proclamation: Christine Okerstrom, Columbia Heights Police Department.
1
City of Columbia Heights AGENDA July 28, 2025
City Council Meeting Page 2
C. National Night Out Proclamation.
Accepting Proclamation: Officer Tabitha Wood, Columbia Heights Police Department.
D. Consideration of Resolution 2025-063, Being a Resolution Calling for the Presidential
Administration to End Its Campaign of Mass Deportations and Family Separation.
Accepting Resolution: COPAL (Comunidades Organizando el Poder y la Acción
Latina) Representative.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2025-06 being a resolution calling for the Presidential
administration to end its campaign of mass deportation and family separation.
CITY COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Report of the City Council
Report of the City Manager / Response to Previous Community Forum
COMMUNITY FORUM
The Community Forum is an opportunity to address the City Council about items not scheduled for a
public hearing.
All speakers must provide their name and connection to Columbia Heights. In-person speakers
should complete a form for the City Clerk and introduce themselves at the podium. Virtual
speakers should send their information to the moderator via chat and turn on their camera
when called.
Comments are limited to five minutes. Disrespectful language is not allowed. The Council may ask
questions or refer items for follow-up but typically does not take action during the forum. The City
Manager will respond to questions raised during Community Forum at the next meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA
These items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted as part of the Consent
Agenda by one motion. Items removed from consent agenda approval will be taken up as the next
order of business. (The City Council will make motion to approve the Consent Agenda following the
statement of all items.)
1. Approval of July 14, 2025, City Council Meeting Minutes.
MOTION: Approve July 14, 2025, City Council meeting minutes.
2. Accept June 2, 2025, EDA Meeting Minutes.
MOTION: Accept June 2, 2025, Regular EDA Meeting Minutes.
3. License Agenda.
MOTION: Move to approve the items listed on the business license agenda for July 28,
2025, as presented.
2
City of Columbia Heights AGENDA July 28, 2025
City Council Meeting Page 3
4. Rental Occupancy Licenses for Approval.
MOTION: Move to approve the items listed for rental housing license applications for July
28, 2025, in that they have met the requirements of the Property Maintenance Code.
5. Review of Bills.
MOTION: Move that in accordance with Minnesota Statute 412.271, subd. 8 the City
Council has reviewed the enclosed list to claims paid by check and by electronic funds
transfer in the amount of $1,616,820.23.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
This is the public’s opportunity to speak regarding this matter. Speakers that are in-person are asked to
complete a Speaker Form and submit it to the City Clerk. Speakers attending virtually should send a
request to speak with this information to the moderator using the chat function and wait t o be called
on to speak. When speaking, virtual attendees should turn their camera on. Speakers should limit their
comments to five (5) minutes. Any comments made after the public hearing is closed will not be
considered by the City Council and will not be included as part of the formal record for this matter as
the item will have been voted on and the item formally closed by the Council.
6. Consideration of Resolution 2025-63, 800 53rd Ave NE EAW Findings of Fact and Record
of Decision.
MOTION: Move to close the public hearing and waive the reading of Resolution 2025 -065,
there being ample copies available to the public.
MOTION: Move to approve Resolution 2025-065, being a resolution approving the findings
of fact, record of decision, and the negative declaration of need for an environmental
impact statement for the 800 53rd Ave NE redevelopment project.
7. Preliminary Plat; Planned Unit Development; Easement Vacations; and a Shoreland
Variance to Allow for the Construction of a Multi -Phased Redevelopment at 800 53rd
Avenue NE Including Two 6-story, 132-Unit Affordable Multifamily Buildings, a Mixed-
Use Building with 12,000 sq. ft. of Commercial Space and a Range of 150-175 Market-
Rate Apartments, 58 Townhomes, and Associated Park and Infrastructure Improvements.
MOTION: Move to close the public hearing and waive the readings of Ordinance No. 1716,
PUD District #2025-01, Rezoning of Property; draft Resolution No. 2025-043 PUD District
Plan for #2025-01; draft Resolution No 2025-044, Preliminary and final Plat Approval; draft
Resolutions No 2025-045 Easement Vacations; and Resolution 2025-058 there being ample
copies available to the public.
MOTION: Move to set the second reading of Ordinance No. 1716, PUD District #2025 -01,
for August 11, 2025, at approximately 6:00 P.M.
MOTION: Move to approve the PUD District Plan Resolution No. 2025-043 as presented,
subject to the conditions of approval.
MOTION: Move to approve the Preliminary Plat Resolution No. 2025-044 as presented,
subject to the conditions of approval.
3
City of Columbia Heights AGENDA July 28, 2025
City Council Meeting Page 4
MOTION: Move to approve the Easement Vacations Resolution No. 2025 -045 as presented,
subject to the conditions of approval.
MOTION: Move to approve the Shoreland Overlay Variance Resolution 2025-058, as
presented, subject to the conditions of approval.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
Ordinances and Resolutions
8. First Reading of Ordinance 1718, Amending Alcohol Ordinance Restrictions in Silver Lake
Beach Park.
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1718, there being ample copies
available to the public.
MOTION: Move to set the second reading of Ordinance No. 1718, being an ordinance
amending chapter 10.201 of the Columbia Heights City Code to allow, upon council
approval, alcohol at events within Silver Lake Beach Park, for August 11, 2025, at
approximately 6:00 P.M.
9. Consideration of Resolutions 2025-061 and 2025-062, Resolutions of the City Council for
the City of Columbia Heights Identifying the Need for Livable Communities Funding and
Authorizing Application for Grant Funds.
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2025-061 and 2025-62, there being
ample copies available to the public.
MOTION: Move to approve Resolution 2025-061, a resolution of the City Council for the
City of Columbia Heights identifying the need for Livable Communities Demonstration
Account funding and authorizing application for Pre-Development grant funds.
MOTION: Move to approve Resolution 2025-062, a resolution of the City Council for the
City of Columbia Heights identifying the need for Livable Communities Demonstration
Account funding and authorizing application for Development grant funds.
10. Consideration of Resolution 2025-064: Safe Streets for All Transportation Safety Action
Plan.
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2025-64, there being ample copies
available to the public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2025-64 approving the City of Columbia Heights Safety
Action Plan and establishing a goal of zero traffic deaths and serious injuries on all City
streets by 2040.
Bid Considerations
No Bid Considerations.
New Business and Reports
4
City of Columbia Heights AGENDA July 28, 2025
City Council Meeting Page 5
No New Business or Reports.
ADJOURNMENT
Auxiliary aids or other accommodations for individuals with disabilities are available upon request when the request is
made at least 72 hours in advance. Please contact Administration at 763-706-3610 to make arrangements.
5
Columbia Heights City Council and Staff Norms
While we are accountable to each other for these norms, the Mayor and City Manager will help
us adhere to them with respectful reminders and reinforcement as needed.
Behavioral Norms
1. We will assume others best intentions.
2. We will exercise humility.
3. We will praise publicly and criticize privately.
4. We will focus on the policy and not personalities.
5. We will do our best to de-escalate contentious interactions.
6. We will provide reasonable notice to the Mayor and City Manager of any changes or additions
we wish to make at a Council meeting so that the Mayor is prepared to manage the meeting.
7. We will show respect for one another by:
a. Paying attention to others when they are speaking.
b. Not interrupting others.
c. Listening to understand others, not simply to respond to them.
d. Honoring each other in public and protecting one another in their absence.
e. Not bullying others.
Operational Norms
1. Council members and staff will respect the Mayor’s role to chair our meetings by:
a. Waiting to be called on before speaking so that others can consider our contributions.
b. The Mayor and City Manager will bring closure to policy discussions, public comment, and
other similar “final word” situations.
2. Once a decision has been made by the Council, we will support the implementation of that
decision even if we did not support the decision itself.
3. If Council has a request of staff, they will direct their request to the City Manager and the
Division Director for coordination with staff unless the City Manager decides otherwise.
4. If Council has a question about a staff member, they will raise that with the City Manager
privately before raising it publicly.
5. When Council is considering a topic, it is incumbent upon Council members to ask sufficient
questions to ensure they are making informed decisions.
6. Council and staff will address each other by their titles when engaging each other in any official
capacity and will use first names in informal settings.
6
PROCLAMATION
Heights Bakery Day: August 1, 2025
Since 1953, Heights Bakery has been a beloved fixture in Columbia Heights, filling the streets
with the aroma of fresh bread, sweet rolls, and donuts that have brought joy to generations.
Started by the grandfather of current owners Dave and Debbie, Heights Bakery has been
lovingly run by four generations of the DeShaw and Doty families, who’ve poured their
hearts—and countless pounds of flour—into every treat.
This local treasure wasn’t just a bakery; it was a tradition. A place where neighbors gathered,
families built memories, and early mornings were made a little sweeter.
Baking is no easy task—it’s a labor of love. After decades of overnight shifts, missed
holidays, and early mornings spent rolling dough instead of sleeping in, Dave and Debbie
are hanging up their aprons and stepping into a well-earned retirement.
While the news may be bittersweet, we choose to celebrate the incredible impact Heights
Bakery has had on our community. Their work was truly the heart and soul of our mornings,
and their legacy will forever be part of Columbia Heights’ story.
Now, therefore, I, Amáda Márquez Simula, Mayor of Columbia Heights, do hereby proclaim
Friday, August 1, 2025, as: HEIGHTS BAKERY DAY in the city of Columbia Heights,
County of Anoka, State of Minnesota, U.S.A.
Let’s all take a moment to savor one last donut, thank the people behind the counter, and
honor a business that baked love into every bite.
________________________________
Amáda Márquez Simula, Mayor
July 28, 2025
7
Item A.
PROCLAMATION
Assistance Dog Day: August 4, 2025
Assistance Dog Day provides an opportunity to recognize and celebrate the invaluable
contributions of assistance dogs in enhancing the quality of life for individuals with
disabilities.
Assistance dogs, including guide dogs, service dogs, hearing dogs, and therapy dogs, are
specially trained to perform tasks that mitigate their handlers' disabilities, thereby
promoting independence, safety, and well-being.
Assistance dogs play a vital role in our community by providing physical assistance,
emotional support, and companionship to their handlers, contributing to their ability to
lead more fulfilling and active lives.
The City of Columbia Heights acknowledges and appreciates the dedication and training
required to develop assistance dogs, as well as the commitment of organizations and
individuals involved in their training and placement.
Assistance Dog Day serves to raise awareness about the rights of individuals accompanied
by assistance dogs and promotes understanding and acceptance of these highly trained
animals in public spaces.
The Columbia Heights Police Department is committed to enhancing community well-
being and has introducing a therapy dog named Kansas into their team, further
exemplifying the positive impact and importance of assistance dogs in various aspects of
our community.
On this day, we honor the partnership between assistance dogs and their handlers,
recognizing the profound bond and mutual benefit that enriches both their lives.
Now Therefore, I, Amáda Márquez Simula, Mayor of the City of Columbia Heights,
proclaim August 4th, 2025, as Assistance Dog Day in the City of Columbia Heights. Join us
in celebrating and appreciating the extraordinary assistance dogs who improve the lives of
individuals who need it in our community.
________________________________
Amáda Márquez Simula, Mayor
July 28, 2025
8
Item B.
PROCLAMATION
National Night Out: August 5, 2025
The National Association of Town Watch is sponsoring a special national and
international community crime prevention campaign on the evening of Tuesday,
August 5, 2025, called “National Night Out.”
It is important that all citizens of Columbia Heights be aware of the importance of crime
prevention programs and the positive impact that their participation can have on
reducing crime and drugs in our neighborhoods.
“National Night Out” provides an opportunity for Columbia Heights residents to join
together with millions of people in thousands of communities across the country in
support of safer neighborhoods and to demonstrate the success of cooperative crime
prevention efforts.
Community partnerships, neighborhood safety, awareness and cooperation are
important themes of the “National Night Out” program. All residents and businesses
play a vital role in assisting the Columbia Heights Police Department through joint
crime, drug, and violence prevention efforts.
Now Therefore, I, Amáda Márquez Simula, Mayor of the City of Columbia Heights, do
hereby call upon all citizens of our community to join the Columbia Heights Police
Department in supporting and participating in the annual “National Night Out” event
on Tuesday, August 5, 2025.
________________________________
Amáda Márquez Simula, Mayor
July 28, 2025
9
Item C.
ITEM: Consideration of Resolution 2025-063, Being a Resolution Calling for the Presidential
Administration to End Its Campaign of Mass Deportations and Family Separation.
DEPARTMENT: Administration BY/DATE: Mayor and Council / July 21, 2025
CORE CITY STRATEGIES: (please indicate areas that apply by adding an “X” in front of the selected text below)
_Community that Grows with Purpose and Equity
_High Quality Public Spaces
_Safe, Accessible and Built for Everyone
_Engaged, Effective and Forward-Thinking
_Resilient and Prosperous Economy
X Inclusive and Connected Community
BACKGROUND
At the July 7, 2025, City Council Work Session Meeting the council discussed the attached resolution.
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2025-063 being a resolution calling for the Presidential administration
to end its campaign of mass deportation and family separation.
ATTACHMENT(S)
Resolution 2025-63
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA SECTION ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
MEETING DATE JULY 28, 2025
10
Item D.
Resolution 2025 -063
Resolution Calling for the Presidential Administration to End Its Campaign of Mass
Deportations and Family Separations.
The Trump administration has called for the largest mass deportation program in U.S. history,
seeking to separate 3,000 families per day.
The Trump administration has made multiple references to the Eisenhower administration’s
racist campaign against immigrants, which resulted in over 1 million family separations,
including the deportations of many U.S. citizens.
Federal agencies including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have increased
arrests of U.S. citizens, asylum seekers, and other immigrants regardless of immigration status
and public safety record.
The Trump administration has invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 and has explored
suspending the writ of habeas corpus to deny due process.
The United Nations states that “Human rights violations against migrants can include a denial of
civil and political rights such as arbitrary detention, torture, or a lack of due process.”
The rhetoric of mass deportations has driven many families into the shadows, with children
afraid to go to school and to play, and their parents afraid to go to work, essential medical
appointments, and the grocery store.
The Minnesota Chamber Foundation has concluded that “The success of Minnesota’s economy,
both now and in the future, is intrinsically linked to Minnesota’s immigrant communities .”
We firmly believe that Columbia Heights is better with our immigrant neighbors. In our adopted
mission statement, we affirm that we are here to actively support our community and ensure
Columbia Heights is a great place for everyone – and that includes our immigrant families.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Columbia Heights, Minnesota calls upon the Trump
administration to end its campaign of mass deportations and family separations.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That we stand with immigrant families and will work to further
defend immigrant rights.
11
Item D.
ORDER OF COUNCIL
Passed this 28th day of July, 2025
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Amada Marquez-Simula, Mayor
Attest:
Sara Ion, City Clerk
12
Item D.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Mayor
Amáda Márquez Simula
Councilmembers
Connie Buesgens
Rachel James
Justice Spriggs
Laurel Deneen
City Manager
Aaron Chirpich
City Hall—Council Chambers, 3989 Central Ave NE
Monday, July 14, 2025
6:00 PM
MINUTES
The following are the minutes for the Meeting of the City Council held at 6:00 pm on Monday,
July 14, 2025, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 3989 Central Avenue NE, Columbia Heights,
Minnesota
WELCOME/CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Mayor Márquez Simula called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.
Present: Mayor Márquez Simula; Councilmember Buesgens; Councilmember Deneen; Councilmember
Spriggs; Councilmember James
Also Present: Aaron Chirpich, City Manager; Sara Ion, City Clerk; Travis Lutz, Assistant City Attorney;
Emilie Voight, Community Development Coordinator; Phil Kern, Strategic Planning Facilitator; Arvind
Naik, Mediation Center representative; Namgyal Tsekey, Representative from Tibetan American
Foundation of Minnesota; Becky Wegscheid, Government Affairs Director for SPAAR.
MISSION STATEMENT
Columbia Heights is a vibrant, healthy and connected City. We are here to actively support the
community, deliver equitable services, build and strengthen connections, improve upon our past, and
uphold our successes. We strive to be better and ensure Columbia Heights is a great place for everyone,
today and in the future.
A. Columbia Heights City Council and Staff Norms.
While we are accountable to each other for these norms, the Mayor and City Manager will
help us adhere to them with respectful reminders and reinforcement as needed.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to t he Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Motion by Councilmember Deneen, seconded by Councilmember Spriggs, to approve the Agenda as
presented. All Ayes, Motion Carried 5-0.
PROCLAMATIONS, PRESENTATIONS, RECOGNITION, ANNOUNCEMENTS, GUESTS
A. Mediation Center Anniversary Celebration Proclamation.
Accepting Proclamation: Arvind Naik
13
Item 1.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES July 14, 2025
City Council Meeting Page 2
Mayor Márquez Simula recognized and congratulated the Science of Spirituality Meditation
Center on its 10-year anniversary, and Councilmember James read the City’s proclamation.
Mayor Márquez Simula mentioned that Arvind Naik was unable to attend the meeting to
receive the proclamation.
B. His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama Day Proclamation.
Accepting Proclamation: Tenzin Kunkyi, Tibetan American Foundation of Minnesota
Mayor Márquez Simula proclaimed July 6, 2025, as His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama Day
and read the City’s proclamation.
Namgyal Tsekey, Representative from the Tibetan American Foundation of Minnesota,
accepted the proclamation and thanked the Council for the proclamation. She stated His
Holiness was born on July 6, 1935. He is a renowned global spiritual leader and advocates
for peace, love, and compassion. She noted that the Dalai Lama is not living in Tibet, and he
is seeking full freedom from China. She added that they are seeking autonomy that would
allow for the preservation of Tibetan culture, education, language, religion, and natural
resources. The Dalai Lama retired from his political leadership role on March 10, 2011. The
Dalai Lama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on December 10, 1989, and a U.S.
Congressional Medal in 2007, and the Gold Mercury Award for peace and sustainability in
2005.
Ms. Tsekey shared the history of Tibet and mentioned that Tibet is called “the roof of the
world,” or “the third pole,” or “the water tower of Asia”. The Dalai Lama has led the
Tibetan community in exile to preserve Tibetan language, culture, and religion. Tibetan
culture emphasizes peace, compassion, and resilience. Minnesota is the home of the
second-largest Tibetan community in the United States. The Tibetan Foundation of
Minnesota is a registered non-profit. It was established as a residential resettlement
program in 1992. The US Immigration Act of 1990 granted thousands of immigrant visas to
Japan for those living in India and Nepal. 160 Tibetans settled in 1992 -1993 to the United
States. A majority of Minnesota Tibetans live in the Twin Cities. In Tibet, simply holding a
portrait of the Dalai Lama or displaying the Tibetan flag can result in arrest, or even death
without a trial. The culture and spiritual identity are considered a crime. She explained that
in the US, she is about to honor her heritage, speak Tibetan freely, and hold up the image
of the spiritual leader and the flag. She added that she cherishes the freedom and hopes
that all Tibetans will be able to experience it. She thanked the City for allowing her to
speak. She added that Minnesota would be hosting the Tibetan Midwest event next year.
A. Mediation Center Anniversary Celebration Proclamation (continued).
Mayor Márquez Simula stated that Arvind Naik arrived at the meeting and asked him to
share about the Mediation Center. Mr. Naik stated that the Science of Spirituality is a
global non-profit spiritual organization that is dedicated to transforming lives through
meditation under the guidance of Sant Rajinder Singh Ji Maharaj. He added that they
believe that inner peace will lead to outer peace, which will lead to peaceful families,
14
Item 1.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES July 14, 2025
City Council Meeting Page 3
communities, and the world. There are about 3,500 meditation centers around the world.
The science of spirituality strives to help individuals and communities achieve deeper,
richer inner and spiritual life, and a stronger sense of meaning and purpose in life. He
explained that they are committed to bettering themselves through the spiritual way of
living based on meditation, ethical living, and regards for life. He welcomed the community
to join the center. He mentioned that meditation is an ancient practice and explained that
it helps achieve a peaceful and fulfilling life. He stated the center is family-friendly and all
of the activities at the center are free.
C. Disability Independence Day Proclamation.
Mayor Márquez Simula stated that her daughter lives with long COVID and experiences
brain fog, joint pain, reduced lung capacity, and uses a wheelchair. She explained that
watching her daughter adjust to the new way of life has taught her a lot about her
daughter’s strength and how society still falls short in supporting people with disabilities.
She added that she learned that disability is the only minority group that anyone can join at
any time. She expressed her gratitude for the protections the ADA has provided and noted
that there is still more work that is needed to make spaces accessible and to listen and lead
with empathy.
Mayor Márquez Simula proclaimed July 26, 2025, as Disability Independence Day, and
Councilmember Buesgens read the City’s proclamation.
D. Final Strategic Plan Report Presented by Phil Kern.
Phil Kern presented the Strategic Plan Report. He explained that the plan was developed
over the course of several workshops throughout the year. The strategic planning process
includes three activities: developing a long-term direction, discussion and evaluation of
current conditions, and development of a goals plan.
Mr. Kern explained that there were core strategies that were developed for the long-term
direction. The core strategies identify the pillars of the organization and the community.
The six core strategies that were identify were: A community that grows with purpose and
equity; high-quality public spaces for a healthy and sustainable future; a City that is safe,
accessible, and built for everyone; engaged, effective, and forward-thinking organization; a
resilient and prosperous economy; and an inclusive and connected community where
everyone is welcome.
Mr. Kern reviewed the six core strategies. A community that grows with purpose and
equity is supported by six strategic objectives that the City envisions to grow intentionally
through vibrant mixed-use development, supporting economic vitality, housing options for
all, and the culture of a close-knit community. The redevelopment will reflect community
values and create long-term social and economic benefits for residents and businesses. The
City will ensure the availability of a full range of housing options that support residents at
every stage of life and income level.
15
Item 1.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES July 14, 2025
City Council Meeting Page 4
Mr. Kern noted that the second long-term core strategy is for high-quality public spaces for
a healthy and sustainable future. The objectives include creating public spaces that are
beautiful, active, and welcoming, prioritizing health, connectivity, and sustainability. He
added that the objective is to design spaces with fiscal responsibility that meet the current
needs.
Mr. Kern reviewed the objectives for the core strategy for a City that is safe, accessible, and
built for everyone. It is supported by objectives that include the City being a community
where people of all abilities feel safe, supported, and free to mo ve by foot, bike, transit, or
car. It also includes Public Safety being proactive, community-based, respectful to all, and
professional staff. He added that an objective of infrastructure decisions will utilize smart
designs to prioritize safety, visibility, walkability, and vibrant neighborhoods, and
investments in multimodal infrastructure and transit will connect people to opportunity.
He mentioned that an objective is to have a culture of shared responsibility between City
staff and community members that will ensure all residents will feel secure and respected.
Mr. Kern reviewed the objectives for the core strategy of “Engaged, Effective, and Forward-
thinking Organization.” The objectives that support the strategy include: the City
government will lead with equity, integrity, innovation, and excellence; staff are committed
to and invested in organizational success; the organization will invest in systems,
technology, and staff to meet evolving community needs; communication will be timely,
transparent, and inclusive, designed to build trust in the community; modernize internal
processes that are flexible, effective, and outcome-driver; and proactively support talent
development and succession planning to ensure long-term organizational strength.
Mr. Kern stated the objectives that support the core strategy of “a resilient and prosperous
economy” include: the City will be a destination for businesses, entrepreneurs, and
investment supported by economic diversity and long-term opportunity; commercial
corridors will be active, attractive, and complementary to neighborhood identity; business
development will support innovation, enhance job creation, create inv estment in the
community, and work towards easing reliance on residential property taxes; fiscal planning
will balance affordability with the delivery of high-quality public services; and infrastructure
and connectivity will support business success and community access.
Mr. Kern noted the objectives that support the core strategy of “an inclusive and
connected community where everyone is welcome” include: the City will celebrate and
embrace its diversity, encourage participation, and foster strong relationships between
neighbors, businesses, City staff, Council, and organizations; the entire community will
have access to information, services, and engagement opportunities that reflect the
cultural and linguistic diversity; Boards, Commissions, and City leadership will reflect the
community; create pathways to civic involvement and leadership for youth and
underrepresented groups; encourage connection through community events, programs,
and outreach; community members will feel welcomed, heard, and empowere d to shape
the future of the City.
16
Item 1.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES July 14, 2025
City Council Meeting Page 5
Mr. Kern explained that a part of the strategic plan was discussing what is happening in the
community as it relates to the priorities and creating goals out of it. After the goals were
created, it was determined what to prioritize. The goals include:
1. Develop a Financial Plan for major projects, including a timeline for redevelopment
of the Municipal Services Center (Public Works) and Murzyn Hall renovations. The
plan should outline multiple funding scenarios.
2. Develop a campaign to support businesses during Central Avenue construction
Create a “Survival kit”
Active engagement in the campaign
Get feedback
3. Complete Road Zone Program/Safe Streets for All Plan
4. Conduct a staffing study and develop a plan for updating personnel policies and
programs for retention
5. Develop a new Parks Master Plan
6. Create a public art plan for the purpose of developing a sense of place through art,
plantings, and design
7. Develop a climate action plan
GreenStep 3 (purchasing guidelines)
Partners in Energy
8. Develop tenant protection policies and ordinances
Mr. Kern stated reviewed other goals that the Council prioritized but did not make it on the
top eight list. The goals included:
9. Create partnerships with post-secondary and trade schools to create
internships/apprenticeships in trades with the goal of recruiting locally and leading
to increased full-time employment
10. Fully establish the Code Enforcement system
11. Better strengthen the bond, increase engagement, and explore partnerships
between businesses and City events
12. Review the Zoning Code and reform it to meet housing needs.
Mr. Kern explained that in order to implement the 2025 Strategic Plan, the City must link
long-term direction to short-term action plans. They must develop Action Plans with
measurables, action steps, and resource needs.
COMMUNITY FORUM
There were no public comments.
5. City Manager's Response to Community Forum.
City Manager Chirpich explained that during the last Community Forum, there were many individuals
who spoke about the Medtronic site redevelopment plans and Sullivan Park plans. Many of the
questions and comments that were raised during the meeting were answered during the meeting and
17
Item 1.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES July 14, 2025
City Council Meeting Page 6
afterwards. He added that the next Public Hearing for the Medtronic Site would be on July 28th at 6:00
pm at the Council meeting. He encouraged community members to attend the next meeting to provide
comments and ask questions.
City Manager Chirpich mentioned that there were comments and questions regarding the amount of
concrete that would be put in with the fitness court. He stated that the fitness court would be just
under 3,000 square feet of concrete and is within the threshold of 35% impervious surface in the area.
He mentioned that staff would continue to monitor impervious surfaces in the park system.
City Manager Chirpich explained that there was a comment regarding the City authorizing a significant
contract for the fitness court foundation . The contract is $86,000 and is funded by Community
Development Block Grant Funds from Anoka County.
City Manager Chirpich stated that Mayor Márquez Simula passed along a question regarding City truck
traffic on roads. He explained that City vehicles drive on City roads and that staff look into excess wear
and tear and will account for City vehicles being on the roads. He encouraged community members to
reach out if there are any concerns regarding City vehicles on resid ential roads. Mayor Márquez Simula
added that there is a “report a problem” feature on the City’s website where community members can
express concerns.
CITY COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Report of the City Council
Councilmember James mentioned that she attended the League of Minnesota Cities annual
conference, the Jamboree parade, the EDA meeting, the work session meeting, and the Sustainability
meeting. She noted that there is an event coming up to remove invasive species at LaBelle Park on
August 23rd from 9:00 am until 12:00 pm.
Councilmember Buesgens stated she is taking care of the flower pots at Murzyn Hall. She added that
she attended the MWMO Board meeting and the Safer Street open house. She mentioned that she is
volunteering with Blooming Sunshine Garden. She noted she attended the Pool with a Cop event, the
Jamboree parade, the Fire Department’s pancake fundraiser, and the joint School Board and City
Council meeting. She noted that the City has put up signs on vacant lots to indicate that they are trying
to grow pollinator turf.
Councilmember Deneen explained that she attended the Safe Streets for All open house, the Jamboree
parade, the Fire Department pancake breakfast, the School Board and City Council joint meeting, the
Planning Commission meeting, a panel as a panelist for the local convergence convention, the EDA
meeting, the Council work session meeting, and the Pride Planning Meeting. She noted that the family -
friendly Pride event would take place on September 13th from 11:00 am to 4:00 pm at Kordiak Park.
Councilmember Spriggs noted he attended the EDA meeting, the work session meeting, and the
Jamboree parade. He noted that the Multicultural Advisory Committee meeting is cancelled tomorrow.
The next meeting will be on September 16th.
18
Item 1.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES July 14, 2025
City Council Meeting Page 7
Mayor Márquez Simula stated she attended the EDA meeting, the work session meeting, a check-in
meeting with the City Manager, the joint School Board and City Council meeting, the Jamboree parade,
and the Fire Department pancake breakfast. She mentioned that she has been connecting with
residents regarding the Central Avenue redevelopment project. She explained that the loss of Manny
Collins weighs heavily on the community. She expressed her gratitude that community members were
able to support Manny’s family. She noted she attended the 90th birthday celebration for His Holiness
the 14th Dalai Lama. She mentioned she saw the new Superman movie and quoted “it isn’t the role
you play, it’s the choices you make.” She explained that as the mayor, she strives to make choices that
she is proud of and reflect shared values.
Report of the City Manager
City Manager Chirpich mentioned that the City has been receiving inquiries regarding door-to-door
solicitors. He announced that the City requires door-to-door solicitors, peddlers, and transient
merchants to be licensed by the City. If a solicitor approaches a resident’s home, it is important to ask
them to show their City-issued license. The license should be visibly displayed or easily accessible for
verification. He noted that if a solicitor fails to provide a valid license, call 911 to report the solicitor.
City Manager Chirpich stated that Music in the Park is scheduled for Wednesday, July 16 th, but may be
postponed due to inclement weather. The City will make an announcement at noon on Wednesday
regarding the status of the event. The City’s neighborhoods are encouraged to participate in National
Night Out, which will be on Tuesday, August 5th. He encouraged community members to register by
July 23rd if they would like street barriers or a visit from the Police Department. Registration can be
found on the City’s website or by calling Officer Tabitha Wood at 763-706-8110. The Library would like
to announce that on Saturday, July 19th, from 11:00 am to 1:00 pm, the Library and the Somali Museum
of Minnesota will have a traveling exhibition of traditional Somali artworks. The event is free and open
to the public.
Councilmember Buesgens asked if there was a way to have an image of the solicitor's license for the
public to be able to see. City Manager Chirpich replied that it is something staff would be able to do.
CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember James noted item 9 and explained that she is curious to hear more about the
engineering firm SRF Consulting Group. She asked what the plans were in the future to continue to
contract the work out. She added that the consulting group is referenced on page 120 of the Agenda
Packet. City Manager Chirpich replied that the SRF Consulting Group is designated for safe routes to
school. Councilmember James clarified that she is wondering what the scope of work is and the City’s
plan for using outside consulting groups. City Manager Chirpich replied that the consultant for the
soccer fields has a scope of work in the engagement process for designing soccer layouts for multiple
potential locations in the City. The consultants would be working with the Parks and Recreation
Commission and the City Council to develop the process. He added that staff anticipate that it will
conclude in the late fall of 2025. He noted that the consultant group would be working with residents
through the engagement process for the Sullivan Lake Park project and fitness court. Staff expect the
process to conclude this fall. He mentioned that he would need to ask the Engineering team about the
SRF Consulting Group items. He explained that it is likely to do with the ongoing certification of
19
Item 1.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES July 14, 2025
City Council Meeting Page 8
improvements with the Safe Streets to School initiative. He added he believed it was in regard to the
contracts from last year, but would follow up on the item.
Motion by Councilmember Buesgens, seconded by Councilmember James, to approve the Consent
Agenda as presented. All Ayes, Motion Carried 5-0.
1. Approve June 23, 2025 City Council Meeting Minutes.
MOTION: Move to approve the June 23, 2025 City Council meeting minutes.
2. Approve June 30, 2025 Joint City Council and School Board Work Session Meeting
Minutes.
MOTION: Move to approve the June 30, 2025 Joint City Council and School Board Work
Session meeting minutes.
3. Approve July 7, 2025 City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes.
MOTION: Move to approve the July 7, 2025 City Council Work Session meeting minutes.
4. Accept June 3, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
MOTION: Accept June 3, 2025 Planning Commission meeting minutes.
5. Consideration of Resolution 2025-60, a Rental Density Cap Exemption for 4538 4th Street
NE.
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2025-060, there being ample copies
available to the public.
MOTION: Move to approve Resolution 2025-060, a resolution approving the single-family
rental exemption request for the rental application at 4538 4th St, Columbia Heights, MN
55421.
6. Adopt 2025-2026 Strategic Plan and Goal Setting Report.
MOTION: Move to adopt the 2025-2026 Strategic Plan and Goal Setting Report.
7. License Agenda.
MOTION: Move to approve the items listed on the business license agenda for July 14,
2025, as presented.
8. Rental Occupancy Licenses for Approval.
MOTION: Move to approve the items listed for rental housing license applications for July
14, 2025, in that they have met the requirements of the Property Maintenance Code.
9. Review of Bills.
MOTION: Move that in accordance with Minnesota Statute 412.271, subd. 8 the City
Council has reviewed the enclosed list to claims paid by check and by electronic funds
transfer in the amount of $2,744,207.86.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
Ordinances and Resolutions
20
Item 1.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES July 14, 2025
City Council Meeting Page 9
10. St Paul Area Association of REALTORS® Key Communities Grant Award.
Community Development Coordinator Voight stated that in December 2024, the City’s
Economic Development Authority (EDA) applied for a St Paul Area Association of
REALTORS® (SPAAR) 2025 Key Communities grant. The Key Communities Program
endeavors to build connections between SPAAR members and cities by supporting
municipal initiatives related to homeownership, placemaking, walkability, and similar
themes. 2025 marks the fifth year of the program.
Community Development Coordinator Voight explained that the City of Columbia Heights
has been selected as a 2025 Key Communities Program grantee and will receive up to
$4,500 in grant awards from the local and national branches of the Association of
REALTORS®. Community Development staff will collaborate with the City’s
Communications team, SPAAR, and local partners to use the grant funds to create and
promote multilingual resources for homeownership in Columbia Heights. Becky Wegscheid,
Government Affairs Director for SPAAR, is present at tonight’s City Council meeting to
provide a brief overview of the organization and the history of the Key Communities
Program.
Ms. Wegscheid explained that SPAAR is a trade association for about 7,500 realtors on the
east side of the river. She added that their territory is expansive. They have developed the
key communities microgrant program to get to know communities outside of St. Paul. This
is the fifth year of the key communities program, and SPAAR has worked with 15 different
communities. Some projects they have worked on include placemaking and working with
neighborhoods in St. Paul, Coon Rapids, Northfield, and Burnsville. Some other grants they
have worked on are walkability and wayfinding grants. She added that they specifically
work with communities with a large trail system. She mentioned that they have worked
with Blaine on housing opportunity grants. The City Council and EDA are leading a
multilingual workshop series aimed at breaking down barriers to home ownership access
across language groups. SPAAR is an advocate for safe, available, and affordable housing.
The workshops will provide essential information on financing tools and resources and
local regulations, ensuring that the content is accessible through native speakers and
reliable translations.
Councilmember Buesgens thanked SPAAR for the grant money. She suggested that new
homeowners could receive resources and information , such as how to maintain their
home, what to do if they want to remodel, and what things they need permits for.
Motion by Councilmember Spriggs, seconded by Councilmember Deneen, to waive the
reading of Resolution 2025-059, there being ample copies available to the public. All Ayes,
Motion Carried 5-0.
Motion by Councilmember Spriggs, seconded by Councilmember Deneen, to approve
Resolution 2025-059, a resolution accepting a Key Communities grant from the St Paul Area
Association of REALTORS® and its affiliated national chapter. All Ayes, Motion Carried 5-0.
21
Item 1.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES July 14, 2025
City Council Meeting Page 10
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Councilmember James, seconded by Councilmember Buesgens, to adjourn. All Ayes, Motion
Carried 5-0.
Meeting adjourned at 7:23 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
______________________________________
Sara Ion, City Clerk/Council Secretary
22
Item 1.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
City Hall—Shared Vision Room, 3989 Central Ave NE
Monday, June 02, 2025
5:00 PM
MINUTES
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 pm by President James
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Members present: Connie Buesgens; Laurel Deneen; Lamin Dibba; Rachel James; Marlaine Szurek
Members absent: Amáda Márquez-Simula; Justice Spriggs
Staff Present: Andrew Boucher, City Planner; Aaron Chirpich, City Manager; Mitchell Forney,
Community Development Director; Sarah LaVoie, Administrative Assistant; Emilie Voight, Community
Development Coordinator
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approve the minutes of the Regular EDA Meeting of May 05, 2025.
2. Approve financial reports and payment of bills for April 2025 – Resolution No. 2025-13.
Motion by Deneen, seconded by Buesgens, to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. All ayes of
present. MOTION PASSED.
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA,
APPROVING THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 2025 AND THE PAYMENT OF
THE BILLS FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 2025.
WHEREAS, the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (the “EDA”) is required by
Minnesota Statutes Section 469.096, Subd. 9, to prepare a detailed financial statement that shows all
receipts and disbursements, their nature, the money on hand, the purposes to which the money on
hand is to be applied, the EDA's credits and assets, and its outstanding liabilities; and
WHEREAS, said Statute also requires the EDA to examine the statement and treasurer's vouchers or
bills and if correct, to approve them by resolution and enter the resolution in its records; and
WHEREAS, the financial statements for the month of April 2025 have been reviewed by the EDA
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the EDA has examined the financial statements and finds them to be acceptable as to both
form and accuracy; and
23
Item 2.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 02, 2025
EDA Meeting Page 2
WHEREAS, the EDA Commission has other means to verify the intent of Section 469.096, Subd. 9,
including but not limited to Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, Annual City approved Budgets,
Audits and similar documentation; and
WHEREAS, financial statements are held by the City’s Finance Department in a method outlined by the
State of Minnesota’s Records Retention Schedule,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the Columbia Heights Economic
Development Authority that it has examined the referenced financial statements including the check
history, and they are found to be correct, as to form and content; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the financial statements are acknowledged and received and the check
history as presented in writing is approved for payment out of proper funds; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED this resolution is made as part of the permanent records of the Columbia
Heights Economic Development Authority.
ORDER OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Passed this 2nd of June, 2025
Offered by: Laurel Deneen
Seconded by: Connie Buesgens
Roll Call: All ayes of present. MOTION PASSED.
President
Attest:
Secretary
BUSINESS ITEMS
3. Façade Improvement Grant Report for Capati Bermeo Inc (Mr Fuego Grill) located at 4001
University Ave NE.
Voight reported that the report pertains to the 2025 Façade Improvement Grant application for
4001 University Ave NE. This restaurant building was formerly owned and occupied by the Afandina
Cafe. The new tenant is Mr. Fuego Grill, an Ecuadorian restaurant owned and operated by C apati
Bermeo Inc. The new tenant has a contract for deed agreement for the property. The applicant is
applying for grant funds for new storefront signage on two sides of the exterior façade. Photos of
the existing conditions and images showing the proposed new signage have been included in the
packet.
Voight noted the applicant was able to receive one bid for the signage, amounting to $9,203.50,
setting them up for a grant amount of $4,601.75. Community Development staff recommend
24
Item 2.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 02, 2025
EDA Meeting Page 3
funding this project in full as the new signage will reflect the change in building occupancy and will
help attract customers. Thus far in 2025, the EDA has approved one Façade Improvement Grant
application for a total of $2,147.50 approved, with an additional $4,601.75 being requested at this
meeting. This leaves $73,250.75 in Façade Improvement Grant funds remaining from the initial
annual budget of $80,000.
Questions/Comments from Members:
James noted that the proposed sign says “Autentic” and wondered if it was a misspelling. LaVoie
replied that in the particular area in South America, it is spelled “autentic.” James requested to
verify that the spelling is correct with the applicants. Forney added that the façade grant came
from doing business outreach.
Motion by Dibba, seconded by Deneen, to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2025-14, there being
ample copies available to the public. All ayes of present. MOTION PASSED.
Motion by Dibba, seconded by Deneen, to approve Resolution No. 2025-14, a Resolution of the
Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority, approving the form and substance of the Façade
Improvement Grant Agreement, and approving authority staff and officials to take all actions necessary
to enter the authority into a Façade Improvement Grant Agreement with Capati Bermeo Inc (Mr Fuego
Grill). All ayes of present. MOTION PASSED.
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA,
APPROVING THE FORM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE FAÇADE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT, AND
APPROVING AUTHORITY STAFF AND OFFICIALS TO TAKE ALL ACTIONS NECESSARY TO ENTER THE
AUTHORITY INTO A FAÇADE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT WITH CAPATI BERMEO INC. (MR
FUEGO GRILL)
WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights (the “City”) and the Columbia Heights Economic Development
Authority (the “Authority”) have collaborated to create a certain Façade Improvement Grant Program
(the “Program”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to guidelines established for the Program, the Authority is to award and
administer a series of grants to eligible commercial property owners and/or tenants for the purposes
of revitalizing existing storefronts, increasing business vitality and economic performance, and
decreasing criminal activity along Central Avenue Northeast and in the City’s Business districts,
pursuant to a Façade Improvement Grant Agreement with various property owners and/or tenants;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Program, the City is to coordinate a surveillance camera monitoring
program by placing surveillance cameras on some of the storefronts that are part of the Program for
the purposes of improving public safety in and around the Central Busin ess District; and
25
Item 2.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 02, 2025
EDA Meeting Page 4
WHEREAS, the Authority has thoroughly reviewed copies of the proposed form of the Grant
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, after appropriate examination and due consideration, the
Authority
1. approves the form and substance of the Grant Agreement, and approves the Authority entering
into the Agreement with Capati Bermeo Inc (Mr Fuego Grill).
2. that the City Manager, as the Executive Director of the Authority, is hereby authorized,
empowered, and directed for and on behalf of the Authority to enter into the Grant
Agreement.
3. that the City Manager, as the Executive Director of the Authority, is hereby authorized and
directed to execute and take such action as they deem necessary and appropriate to carry out
the purpose of the foregoing resolution.
ORDER OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Offered by: Lamin Dibba
Seconded by: Laurel Deneen
Roll Call: All ayes of present. MOTION PASSED.
President
Attest:
Secretary
4. NOAH Program Discussion and Proposal
Voight reported that at its February meeting, the EDA directed Community Development staff to
develop a proposal to support naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) in Columbia Heights.
Per the Greater Minnesota Housing Fund, NOAHs are “residential rental properties that ar e
affordable, but… unsubsidized by any federal program. Their rents are relatively low compared to
the regional housing market.”
Voight stated based on the EDA’s neighborhood and housing revitalization goals, staff’s
recommendation during the February discussion was to use the funds in the City’s Affordable
Housing Trust Fund to support the new NOAH program. The EDA agreed with this recommendation
for program financing. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund currently holds $142,878.18 from the
2024 local affordable housing sales tax issuance (also known as Local Affordable Housing Aid –
LAHA – funds). Additional LAHA dollars are expected to be disbursed to the City annually; these
dollars will be allocated to the Trust Fund and ensure continuity of financial support for the
program over time.
Voight mentioned that specific income and expenditure requirements are assigned to LAHA funds.
26
Item 2.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 02, 2025
EDA Meeting Page 5
Notably, for rental housing, occupying households must earn at or below 80% of the greater of the
State or area median income (AMI), with priority given for use of funds for households at or below
50%. Income limits do not apply to the property owners unless the units are owner-occupied.
Rental properties are also subject to affordability criteria and must be affordable to the local
workforce; based on common methods of assessing housing affordability, this means that rents of
participating units should not exceed 30% of the occupying household’s income or 30% of a certain
percentage of AMI. All of these restrictions make LAHA funds well-suited to use for NOAH
preservation. However, LAHA funds may not be used for administrative and staffing costs. For this
reason, the EDA will need to identify a separate budget stream for all administrative costs
associated with the program.
Voight explained that in order to design the new program, staff consulted the Minnesota Center for
Energy and Environment (CEE). CEE is a nonprofit organization that partners with many Minnesota
cities on housing grant and loan programs. Given its years of experience and its ong oing
government partnerships across the Twin Cities metro area, CEE has both the capacity and the
expertise necessary to act as a loan originator, loan servicer, and, as applicable for any projects not
subject to City permitting, property inspector.
Voight stated that taking into account the rules around LAHA fund use and the EDA’s previous
discussions about NOAH priority areas, staff have developed a proposal for a deferred loan
program targeted toward the rehabilitation of multi-family (2+ units) NOAH rental properties. The
loan program would include the following elements:
• A remodeling advisor visit,
• Loan origination, and
• Loan administration.
Program details:
• Deferred loan: no reimbursement required, loan forgiven if the recipient completes the full
term of the loan. If the recipient sells or transfers the property, they are required to
reimburse the loan in full.
• Loan amount: from $2,000 to $50,000
• Loan term (duration): 30 years
Additional terms:
• Manufactured homes and co-ops are not eligible for loans.
• No owner-occupancy restrictions: for example, a building owned by an LLC is eligible for a
loan.
• Loan funds to be held in escrow from loan closing through work completion and inspection,
then disbursed to recipients.
Voight stated that in order to ensure that participating properties remain affordable, the EDA
would enter into a development agreement with each loan recipient. Each agreement would
include a recorded declaration or covenant stipulating that affordability requirements (incom e-
and/or rent-based) shall remain in effect for the full term of the loan.
27
Item 2.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 02, 2025
EDA Meeting Page 6
Voight mentioned that staff have calculated that the approximate Year 1 program administrative
cost (not including actual loan disbursements) for a deferred loan program as described would be
at least $10,097. This estimate is based on one loan originated and would increase with each
additional loan originated. The Year 2 approximate program administrative cost – for one loan,
with no additional loans originated in Year 2 – would be at least $5,012. This Year 2 cost would
repeat on an annual basis until the conclusion of the loan’s term, regardless of the NOAH
program’s duration. Even if the EDA were to dissolve the NOAH program, its contract with CEE
would require annual administrative and loan servicing fees until the conclusion of all of the loans’
terms.
Voight explained that the details and terms described in the staff’s current proposal are flexible
and can be modified based on the EDA’s preferences and priorities for the program. The program
could also include additional restrictions, for example, caps on the percentage of project cost, a
minimum number of licensed bids for any given project, or choosing to assign origination fees to
the recipients to lighten the City’s share of the administrative costs.
Voight noted that staff are looking for feedback from the EDA about the program proposal. She
asked whether the general design of the program matched the EDA’s intent for NOAH
preservation. She asked whether the EDA wished to modify any of the details or terms proposed in
the staff report.
Questions/Comments from Members:
Buesgens explained that the program sounds great and expressed her excitement. She added that
it is a great way to invest in the City’s housing.
Dibba agreed with Buesgens. He noted that there is a great need for the project in the community.
Costs to improve a home can add up easily, and the program could help make funds available for
the community. He added that he likes the terms of the loans, particularly that the loan is going to
be deferred.
Deneen noted the loan is valid for 30 years. She asked if the loans could be applied for more than
once during the 30 years. Voight replied that staff did not include that in the program but are open
to discussing the possibility of including that aspect in the program. She added that there seems to
be a lot of flexibility for program design with the LAHA funds.
Buesgens mentioned that she would be open to expanding the program so that someone could
apply for the funds more than once in 30 years. Deneen stated it would be wise to have something
like a 10-year limit to encourage people to be responsible business owners instead of using the
funds for every minor repair.
Szurek asked if the owner of the building would be the one to take out the loan. Voight confirmed.
Szurek asked how the program would be administered to ensure that the owner is verified to be
the true owner, how the project would affect the renters, and how the money would be paid back. 28
Item 2.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 02, 2025
EDA Meeting Page 7
She added that it is a long loan term to not have any input on how it is going to work. James replied
that the CEE would administer the funds. Szurek asked if CEE would verify the property owner.
Voight replied that CEE would administer the funds. There would be an application process just like
for any other private loan. Staff are recommending a development agreement with the EDA for
each application in order to have terms about affordability and income restrictions for the
occupying households, and to make sure those terms are memorialized in documents.
Szurek mentioned that the apartment buildings on University Avenue are old and did not think
$50,000 could cover the costs to replace the windows on some of the big building s. Buesgens
explained that the program would not cover all of the costs of a project ; it would cover a portion of
the costs.
Dibba suggested looking at the resources available to the EDA to determine how much of a project
the funds could cover.
James read Spriggs’ comments and noted that he likes the general design of the proposed project
and believes it fits the intent of the EDA. He likes the deferred proposal with no requirement to pay
back as long as the property is not transferred or sold.
James commented that she believes the program fits the intent of the EDA and thought the
program would be popular. She expressed her concern about using the AMI affordability criteria.
Per Met Council, a one-bedroom apartment at 80% of AMI is still $1,985, and at 50% it is $1,241.
The income is 80% of AMI – which is $104,000 – but the average income in the City is lower than
that average. She noted that a lot of housing has come into the City as affordable housing, and
then brought the rent prices up to the maximum.
James asked the EDA if they would like the program to be percentage-based or have the loan up to
a certain amount and pay up to 100% of the project costs.
Szurek asked what Spriggs’ comments were regarding the loan being paid back. James replied that
Spriggs said that it makes sense that there is no requirement for reimbursement if the property is
not transferred or sold.
Buesgens stated she would be comfortable with a percentage-based program at 50%, like the
Façade Improvement Grant program. Szurek added that she would not be comfortable paying for
100% of the project costs because the fund would quickly run out of money. Dibba agreed and
added that property owners would have some skin in the game that way. He noted that he would
like the resources to go around as widely as possible.
Deneen noted she would feel comfortable with a higher percentage because it is more immediately
impactful for those who are living on the property. She added that she would like to see housing up
to date as much as possible. She wondered if there could be language included that said there was
a certain percentage amount based on the number of applications each year. Szurek stated she did
not think the percentages should vary. She noted that the EDA should make a decision on how
much it is expected for the owner to put in, and it should be the same for everyone. She mentioned 29
Item 2.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 02, 2025
EDA Meeting Page 8
that someone could find out that another person is getting a higher percentage of the costs paid
and get upset with the City.
James read a comment from Spriggs that read “I worry that the capping costs to a percentage or a
minimum number of licensed bids may delay/discourage use. Capping the cost at a percentage may
preserve funds, but may also not allow for larger, much-needed repairs or upgrades due to
financial restraints.” James stated she is comfortable with 50% because larger projects mean that
the landlord has more units that they are profiting from .
James asked the EDA if they were fine with the loan amount range of $2,000 to $50,000. The EDA
agreed that they were fine with the range.
James noted that the loan term is proposed for 30 years. She mentioned that Spriggs commented
that the County development block grant is for a 20-year term. Voight explained the pros and cons
of having a 30-year term versus a 20-year term. After 20 years, the property owner could choose to
turn around and sell the property, and it would no longer have any rental restrictions.
Buesgens noted that she would expect the property owners to either retire or sell the properties
within the 30-year period. She wondered if the terms of the loan would be canceled if the property
owner sold the property within the 30 years. Forney replied that the loan would be canceled and
that the owners would no longer be required to maintain that affordability, but that the EDA would
receive all of the loan funds back.
Buesgens stated she is fine with either a 20-year term or a 30-year term. James noted that doing a
20-year term is 10 fewer years of administrative costs. Buesgens asked if the administrative costs
would be for the City staff or to CEE. Voight replied that it would be for CEE.
James stated she would like to have a 20-year loan term. The EDA agreed.
Buesgens asked if there was a way to monitor compliance over the period of the loan. Voight
replied that staff based the proposal on how the MHFA administers loans and grants. They do not
appear to have annual checks or requirements. It is possible for the EDA to require an annual or
biannual administrative process for verification, and re-verification throughout the term of the
loan. Staff have not discussed the option with CEE, and it could bring on additional administrative
costs. Buesgens mentioned that it is not necessary to have an annual check-in, but it would be
helpful to have spot checks over the term. Voight replied that staff could speak with CEE about that
option and include a proposed policy in the development agreement. Forney asked the EDA if
doing a check-in every five years would be a baseline suggestion to bring to the CEE. The EDA
agreed.
Szurek asked what the inspectors would be inspecting to make sure that the work was being done.
Voight replied that the CEE informed staff that if there are projects that would not require City
inspections based on their size, the CEE is qualified to do the inspections.
Buesgens asked what kind of work and renovations would qualify under the program. She added it 30
Item 2.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 02, 2025
EDA Meeting Page 9
would be helpful to have a list of projects that would qualify under the program. James noted that
a remodeling advisor visit would be involved and wondered if there could be a requirement where
the remodeling advisor would have to agree that the project qualifies. Buesgens mentioned that
she would not want the funds to go towards painting walls, but instead on structural matters.
Forney explained that other similar loans have terms such as, “eligible improvements including
most permanent interior and exterior improvements, maintenance, or remodeling.” He added that
the EDA could determine which items would not be covered.
James asked how it would be determined which loans would be approved. Forney explained that
staff propose to do a first-come, first-served basis. He added that the EDA could decide to adjust
the process in the future.
Buesgens pointed out that it is a loan that people have to qualify for and that some applicants may
not qualify.
James asked the EDA if they would like to have a minimum of license d bids. She noted that Spriggs
made a comment that read, “I am fine with only having the requirement of one as long as when
staff review it they feel like it is a reasonable proposal for the project… if we require multiple bids…
we may delay needed work being done or prevent it from happening given that the scopes may be
vastly different based on each property.” James stated she is fine with having a minimum of one
but would prefer having two.
Buesgens stated she would like to have the minimum bid be the same as the façade program. She
added that it would be ideal to have three, but would feel comfortable if staff worked with the
applicant if there was only one bid to verify that the bid is legitimate.
Deneen mentioned that three bids are the industry standard. Having two bids is reasonable and
should be easy to get. She noted that she would want to require two bids and to have applicants
reach out to the City if they are having difficulty getting two bids.
James asked the EDA if they would like to do origination fees. Voight mentioned that staff
recommend having the money come from fund 408. The City did not receive the Local Housing
Trust Fund grant, which frees up some funds to be used elsewhere. She explained that the
origination fee would be about $1,100 per loan. If the City had a stipulation that the applicant
would do it, the City’s share would instead be about $850. James stated she was fine with the $250
origination fee share. Voight clarified that the EDA would like the fee to be assigned to the
borrower. The EDA agreed.
Deneen asked what income levels the program would be set at. James requested more information
from staff. Voight explained that the LAHA funds have requirements in place that the occupying
households have to be at or below 80% AMI, and priority must be given to those at or below 50%
AMI. Buesgens stated she would want to cap the program at 50% AMI because they are the hardest
to find and in the most need. James added that there are not many who would qualify for 30% AMI
in the City.
31
Item 2.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 02, 2025
EDA Meeting Page 10
Deneen stated that she would like to see some research on how many buildings we have that meet
the standard of having a 50% AMI rental affordability price. Buesgens mentioned that she would
like to start at 50% and then adjust as needed.
Forney asked if the EDA would feel comfortable moving forward with the staff recommendation of
using the bell curve. If there are not many at 50% AMI, then the program could get bumped up to
60% AMI. The EDA agreed.
Buesgens suggested promoting the program at landlord meetings and marketing it to inspectors,
since they may have suggestions for landlords who may want to do a project.
BUSINESS UPDATES
a. Bee Lawn Signage
Voight showed the EDA an example of the Bee Lawn signage. She noted that staff are working
with the City Forester to get seeds ordered and prepare the properties for planting.
b. MHFA Housing Grants
Voight stated that the City did not receive the MHFA Local Housing Trust Fund grant.
c. Business Directory
Voight mentioned that the Community Development intern worked on the business directory
and gathered a lot of information. The Community Development Department will work on
figuring out how to compile the information and distribute it.
Buesgens asked if there would be funds for another Community Development intern in the fall.
Forney replied that staff would see in the fall if the funds and capacity were available.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Deneen, seconded by Buesgens, to adjourn the meeting at 6:01 pm. All ayes. MOTION
PASSED.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________
Sarah LaVoie, Recording Secretary
32
Item 2.
1
Emilie Voight
From:Justice Spriggs
Sent:Monday, June 2, 2025 9:20 AM
To:Rachel James; Emilie Voight
Cc:Aaron Chirpich; Mitchell Forney
Subject:Comments for EDA Meeting Tonight
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
Hi All,
Unfortunately due to a work scheduling conflict, I will be unable to attend the EDA Meeting and Work
Session tonight. Below are my comments on the items for tonight:
Items 1 and 2 - No questions about the May EDA minutes or Financial Reports
Item 3 - No questions, happy to see another business coming into our city and using the Facade program
Item 4 - I do like the general design of the proposed program and do think it does fit our intent, and I do
like the deferral proposal of that there is no requirement to pay back the loan if the property is not
transferred or sold. The terms appear to be similar to one of the CBDG programs from the county for
home rehab about an interest-free loan that is forgiven, but I do believe their term is 20 years. I think the
other restriction possibilities are interesting, but I do worry about that capping costs to a percentage of a
project cost or a minimum number of licensed bids needed may delay/discourage use. Capping the cost
at a percentage may preserve funds but also may not allow for larger, much needed repairs/upgrades to
occur due to financial restraints. For the licensed bids, I am fine with only having the requirement of one
as long as when staff review it they feel like it is a reasonable proposal for the project. I say this because
when we used the CBDG on our house for needed upgrades for health and safety, the country had
required us to get three contractors to bid the entirety of the projects and then the lowest, responsible
bid would be chosen. Given the scope of the work needed on our house and the multiple and varying
types of improvements we needed to be done, it was very difficult to find one, let alone three, different
contractors to provide bids on the project. We had to work very closely with the county about this since
we were hitting dead-ends with trying to get bids despite reaching out to a lot of contractors, and we had
to extend our deadline for getting bids to make sure we would not lose out on the money provided. I
would worry if we require multiple bids that we may delay needed work being done or prevent it from
happening given that the scopes may be vastly different based on each property.
Business Updates - excited to hear about all of these when I listen back to the meeting!
Let me know if there are any questions,
Justice
Justice Spriggs, M.D. (he/him) I Council Member - City of Columbia Heights
3989 Central Ave NE, Columbia Heights, MN, 55421
Email: jspriggs@columbiaheightsmn.gov
33
Item 2.
2
Direct: 763-706-3617 I Main: 763-706-3600
http://columbiaheightsmn.gov
*Please note: Due to my schedule and family/work balance, I often email outside of typical
business hours. Please do not feel pressured to respond outside of your own working pattern.
Sign up for CodeRED Alerts for the City of Columbia Heights here.
Follow the City of Columbia Heights on Social Media!
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
YouTube
34
Item 2.
ITEM: License Agenda.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development BY/DATE: Sarah LaVoie / July 22, 2025
CORE CITY STRATEGIES: (please indicate areas that apply by adding an “X” in front of the selected text below)
X Community that Grows with Purpose and Equity
_High Quality Public Spaces
_Safe, Accessible and Built for Everyone
_Engaged, Effective and Forward-Thinking
_Resilient and Prosperous Economy
_Inclusive and Connected Community
BACKGROUND
Attached is the business license table for the July 28, 2025, City Council meeting. This agenda consists of
applications for July 2025: massage therapist license and contractor licenses.
At the top of the license agenda there is a phrase stating "*Signed Waiver Form accompanied application",
noting that the data privacy form has been submitted as required. If not submitted, certain information
cannot be released to the public.
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
MOTION: Move to approve the items listed on the business license agenda for July 28, 2025, as presented.
ATTACHMENT(S)
07/28/2025 Buisness License Table
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA SECTION CONSENT AGENDA
MEETING DATE JULY 28, 2025
35
Item 3.
TO CITY COUNCIL JULY 28th, 2025
*Signed Waiver Form accompanied application
CONTRACTOR-2025
*RC HEATING AND AC 4880 MCALLISTER AVE NE ST MICHAEL
MN 55376
$80
*MIDWEST ELECTRIC AND
GENERATOR
10215 TWIN LAKES RD NW ELK RIVER MN
55330
$80
*LAKE COUNTRY
PLUMBING HEATING & AIR
603 17th AVE N SOUTH SAINT PAUL MN
55075
$80
*CROW RIVER HEATING
COOLING LLC
663 HALSEY AVE SE BUFFALO MN 55313
$80
*ADVANCED HEATING
AND AIR CONDITIONING
10550 CR 81 STE 210 MAPLE GROVE MN
55369
$80
MASSAGE THERAPIST
*CHANG JHIAO ZHOU-
FOOT AND BACK
MASSAGE
733 OAKWOOD DR NEW BRIGHTON MN
55112
$350
36
Item 3.
ITEM: Rental Occupancy Licenses for Approval
DEPARTMENT: Fire BY/DATE: Assistant Fire Chief Brad Roddy / July 28, 2025
CORE CITY STRATEGIES: (please indicate areas that apply by adding an “X” in front of the selected text below)
X Community that Grows with Purpose and Equity
_High Quality Public Spaces
X Safe, Accessible and Built for Everyone
_Engaged, Effective and Forward-Thinking
_Resilient and Prosperous Economy
X Inclusive and Connected Community
BACKGROUND:
Consideration of approval of the attached list of rental housing license applications.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the items listed for rental housing license applications for July 28, 2025, in that they have met the
requirements of the Property Maintenance Code.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
MOTION: Move to approve the items listed for rental housing license applications for July 28, 2025, in th at
they have met the requirements of the Property Maintenance Code.
ATTACHMENT:
Rental Occupancy Licenses for Approval – 7-28-25
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA SECTION CONSENT
MEETING DATE JULY 28, 2025
37
Item 4.
Rental Occupancy Licenses for Approval 7/28/25:
LICENSEE LICENSE ADDRESS LICENSE INFORMATION
Abdulkadir, Mohamed
KMF Group LLC
2233 University Avenue W.#225
Saint Paul, MN 55114
4625 Tyler St NE 25-0008634
Rental License [Over 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 4
$338.00
Abdulkadir, Mohamed
KMF Group LLC
2233 University Avenue W.#225
Saint Paul, MN 55114
4633 Tyler St NE 25-0008635
Rental License [Over 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 4
$338.00
Anderson, Lukas
11955 Lindstrom Lane
Lindstrom, MN 55045
1300 Pierce Ter NE 25-0008562
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 1
$300.00
Anderson, Ryan
2919 NE Arthur Street
Minneapolis, MN 55418
4833 7th St NE 25-0008644
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 1
$450.00
Boatman, Lisa
6140 Hytrail Court North
Pine Springs, MN 55115
4318 Benjamin St NE 25-0008746
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 1
$300.00
Brannon, John
1315 Larpenteur Avenue W.#D
Roseville, MN 55113
4249 Stinson Blvd NE 25-0008745
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 1
$300.00
Bruhnding, Jakob
KMBTC 2 LLC
1248 Amble Road
Arden Hills, MN 55112
970 43 1/2 Ave NE 25-0008673
Rental License [Over 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 12
$514.00
Chalmers, Scott
RV Holdings Five, LLC
1601 N Sepulveda Blvd#641
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
972 40th Ave NE 25-0008531
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 1
$300.00
Cifuno, Ada
139 Eldorado Drive
Racine, WI 53402
3953 Tyler St NE 25-0008730
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 1
$300.00
Coulibaly, Mamadou
8806 Tretbaugh Drive
Bloomington, MN 55431
4049 University Ave NE
4051 University NE Ave
25-0008603
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 2
$450.00
7/22/2025 09:49 Page 1 of 4 38
Item 4.
LICENSEE LICENSE ADDRESS LICENSE INFORMATION
Edlich, Richard
Rifive Investments, LLC
1845 Stinson Pkwy NE#101
Minneapolis, MN 55418
4749 5th St NE 25-0008777
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 1
$300.00
Fohrman, Daniel
2414 Brooke Lane
Hastings, MN 55033
4628 Johnson St NE
4630 Johnson St NE
25-0008526
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 2
$300.00
Gilbert, Brandon
Local Housing Now LLC
7548 Bittersweet Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
1041 43 1/2 Ave NE 25-0008686
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 1
$300.00
Hendren, Maria
1115 12th Street SE
New Prague, MN 56071
4351 3rd St NE 25-0008747
Family Exempt Rental License
Number of licensed units: 1
$75.00
Inamagua, Blanca
4359 Arthur Street NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
4337 Madison St NE 25-0008620
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 1
$300.00
Jirasek, Chad
1201 49th Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
4632 Washington St NE
4630 Washington St NE
25-0008454
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 1
$300.00
Kinch, Susan
1223 Circle Terrace Blvd NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
1221 Circle Terrace Blvd NE 25-0008696
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 1
$300.00
*New License
Kluz, Norah
573 Yankton College Lane
New Brighton, MN 55112
4538 4th St NE 25-0009135
Rental License: Temporary
Number of licensed units: 1
$300.00
Koponen, Robert & Susan
1035 Polk Place NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
1035 Polk Pl NE
Up/Down
25-0008684
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 1
$300.00
Koponen, Robert & Susan
1035 Polk Place NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
3930 Johnson St NE
Up/Down
25-0008726
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 2
$300.00
Maldonado-Johnson, Nuvia
175 Main Street South
Pine City, MN 55063
4216 Jackson St NE 25-0008740
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 1
$300.00
Martin, Terry
4145 5th Street NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
4145 5th St NE 25-0008608
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 1
$450.00
7/22/2025 09:49 Page 2 of 4 39
Item 4.
LICENSEE LICENSE ADDRESS LICENSE INFORMATION
McFarland, Patrick
Anoka County Community Action
Program, Inc.
19 West River Parkway
Champlin, MN 55316
3932 Central Ave NE 25-0008727
Rental License [Over 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 22
$734.00
Mohammed Ali, Dheyaa
14039 Savanna Drive
Rogers, MN 55374
1037 Gould Ave NE 25-0008685
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 1
$300.00
Mujir, Ibrahim
4375 Shorewood Trail
Medina, MN 55340
4517 Fillmore St NE
4515 Fillmore St NE
25-0008516
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 2
$300.00
Musatau, Filipp
13132 Tilden Avenue North
Champlin, MN 55316
4201 6th St NE #1 25-0008611
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 2
$450.00
Omo, Branden
ERHL LLC
4300 Xenia Avenue North
Crystal, MN 55422
609 38th Ave NE
607 38th Ave NE
25-0008666
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 2
$300.00
Osborne, Lynn
7088 11th Street#112
Oakdale, MN 55128
4712 6th St NE 25-0008775
Family Exempt Rental License
Number of licensed units: 1
$75.00
Osman, Moonir
22820 Zion Pkwy NW
Oak Grove, MN 55005
650 47 1/2 Ave NE 25-0008791
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 1
$300.00
Panora, Marco
M & G Enterprises LLC
8216 29th Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55427
648 40th Ave NE 25-0008668
Family Exempt Rental License
Number of licensed units: 1
$75.00
Piper, Maria
Piper Real Estate Holdings LLC
181 Oldcastle Lane
Alameda, CA 94502
4540 Tyler St NE
Up/Down
25-0008758
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 2
$300.00
Post, Brian
4624 7th Street NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
4624 7th St NE
4622 7th St NE
25-0008632
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 2
$300.00
Prokop, Mark
3rd Street NE Investment, LLC
2197 Stanford Avenue
Saint Paul, MN 55105
4233 3rd St NE 25-0008440
Rental License [Over 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 11
$492.00
Quizhpi Loja, Segundo
2501 Lowry Avenue NE#218
Minneapolis, MN 55418
4144 Quincy St NE #Down
Up/Down
25-0008738
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 2
$300.00
7/22/2025 09:49 Page 3 of 4 40
Item 4.
LICENSEE LICENSE ADDRESS LICENSE INFORMATION
Reincke, Joseph
750 Bear Left
Asheville, NC 28805-8207
4534 Washington St NE
4536 Washington St NE
25-0008757
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 1
$300.00
Ringate, Allen
4490 Comstock Lane North
Plymouth, MN 55446
1300 45 1/2 Ave NE
1302 45 1/2 Ave NE
25-0008699
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 2
$300.00
Sadlo, Pamela
510 Summit Street NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
514 Summit St NE 25-0008786
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 1
$300.00
Schafer, Charles
3715 Buchanan Street NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
3713 Buchanan St NE 25-0008578
Family Exempt Rental License
Number of licensed units: 1
$225.00
Sentyrz, Walter
1612 2nd Street NE
Minneapolis, MN 55413
3721 Van Buren St NE 25-0008713
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 1
$300.00
Sultana, Zehra
Hampton Investments, Inc.
8445 Center Drive
Spring Lake Park, MN 55432
4420 6th St NE 25-0008448
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 1
$330.00
Sumangil, Anne Juliet
0 91-1058 Kekuilani Loop#C303
Kapolei, HI 96707
4138 Maureen Dr NE 25-0008737
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 1
$300.00
Tut, Lich
4196 Texas Avenue
Grand Island, NE 68803
4148 Tyler St NE 25-0008609
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 1
$450.00
*New License
Valdez, Josue
4326 Monroe Street NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
4332 Monroe St NE 25-0008912
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 1
$300.00
Velez, Angel
2401 Elliot Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55404
3905 Van Buren St NE 25-0008589
Rental License [1 - 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 1
$450.00
Wordofa, Mesfin
10412 France Avenue North
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
539 40th Ave NE 25-0008474
Rental License [Over 3 Units]
Number of licensed units: 7
$404.00
7/22/2025 09:49 Page 4 of 4 41
Item 4.
ITEM: Review of Bills.
DEPARTMENT: Finance Department BY/DATE: July 28th, 2025
CORE CITY STRATEGIES: (please indicate areas that apply by adding an “X” in front of the selected text below)
X Community that Grows with Purpose and Equity
X High Quality Public Spaces
X Safe, Accessible and Built for Everyone
X Engaged, Effective and Forward-Thinking
X Resilient and Prosperous Economy
X Inclusive and Connected Community
BACKGROUND
The Finance Department prepares a list of all payments made for approval of the Council.
SUMMARY OF CURRENT STATUS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve payments since previous City Council Meeting.
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
MOTION: Move that in accordance with Minnesota Statute 412.271, subd. 8 the City Council has reviewed
the enclosed list to claims paid by check and by electronic funds transfer in the amount of $1,616,820.23.
ATTACHMENT(S)
List of Claims
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA SECTION CONSENT AGENDA
MEETING DATE JULY 28, 2025
42
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 1/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 101 GENERAL
95.40 512943050PEST CONTROL-JPM 0625ADAM'S PEST CONTROL, INC4130140203640*#MAIN07/17/2025
1,610.60 210042172# 20 NAVY CAPS WITH PATCHES, #40 SKULL CAPS WITH PATCHES.ASPEN MILLS, INC.357007203644MAIN07/17/2025
51,998.50 310043050SS4A ACTION PLANBOLTON & MENK, INC0365408203648MAIN07/17/2025
4,329.70 194044100PARKING 0625, ELECTRIC 050725 - 060825BPOZ COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, LLC1021203649MAIN07/17/2025
500.00 210043050DESIGN PATROL SCHEDULING OPTIONSBRUCE W OLIVER1314203651MAIN07/17/2025
218.78 920043810SOLAR POWERCARLSON COMMUNITY SOLAR LLC18996203652*#MAIN07/17/2025
16.91 1940438306403204114-3CENTERPOINT ENERGY6403204114-3203653*#MAIN07/17/2025
101.47 2100438308268239-48268239-4
101.48 2200438308268239-48268239-4
16.91 52004383010802324-310802324-3
16.91 5200438305467671-35467671-3
16.91 5200438305452216-45452216-4
270.59 CHECK MAIN 203653 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
346.04 520042171SPRINKLER HEADSCENTRAL IRRIGATION SUPPLY66001548-00203654MAIN07/17/2025
364.00 520044000ROOF REPAIR-SULLIVAN ELECTRICAL BUILDINGCENTRAL ROOFING CO INC38572203655*#MAIN07/17/2025
687.10 504044200FINAL PAYMENT GREASE TICKETS 082025CHANHASSEN DINNER THEATRES1255985203656MAIN07/17/2025
55.60 194044020RUGS-CH 061825CINTAS INC4234084169203659MAIN07/17/2025
55.60 194044020RUGS-CH 0625254234815037
55.60 194044020RUGS-CH 0701254235424905
166.80 CHECK MAIN 203659 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
1,508.96 512943810SOLAR POWER JUNECORNILLIE 2 COMMUNITY SOLAR18997203661*#MAIN07/17/2025
559.45 317042171SPEED LIMIT SIGNS, DATE STICKERSEARL F ANDERSEN INC0139931-IN203663#MAIN07/17/2025
289.80 317042171SIGNS- PLAY GROUND, SPEED LIMIT0139845-IN
379.35 520042171SIGNS- PLAY GROUND, SPEED LIMIT0139845-IN
1,228.60 CHECK MAIN 203663 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
53.10 111043500PHN ORD # 1717 070425ECM PUBLISHERS INC1056583203664MAIN07/17/2025 43
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 2/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 101 GENERAL
392.00 136043105BIOMETRIC SCREENING - EMPLOYEE EVENT 052025HEALTHSOURCE SOLUTIONS LLC20251896203669MAIN07/17/2025
339.00 520042010EXTENSION LADDER HOME DEPOT #28023022783203671*#MAIN07/17/2025
12.97 520042171ROPE7010897
351.97 CHECK MAIN 203671 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
602.28 520042161POOL CHEMICALSHORIZON CPO SEMINARSINV107055203672MAIN07/17/2025
13,915.97 513044020GYM MAINT 040125-063025INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #132587203673MAIN07/17/2025
23.00 111043320LMC CONFERENCE TRAVEL EXPENSES 062525-062725JAMES/RACHEL062725203675MAIN07/17/2025
36.00 111043320LMC CONFERENCE TRAVEL EXPENSES 062525-062725062725
23.00 111043320LMC CONFERENCE TRAVEL EXPENSES 062525-062725062725
210.00 111043320LMC CONFERENCE TRAVEL EXPENSES 062525-062725062725
340.84 111043320LMC CONFERENCE TRAVEL EXPENSES 062525-062725062725
632.84 CHECK MAIN 203675 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
1,507.56 210043250TRANSLATION SVCS 0525LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC72358203677MAIN07/17/2025
1,009.53 210043250TRANSLATION SRVC 062573293
2,517.09 CHECK MAIN 203677 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
141.25 210044020REPAIR MAIN CARD READER PANEL-PSBLVC COMPANIES INC172495203679#MAIN07/17/2025
141.25 220044020REPAIR MAIN CARD READER PANEL-PSB172495
282.50 CHECK MAIN 203679 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
299.82 1110443766' FOLDING TABLESMENARDS CASHWAY LUMBER-FRIDLEY31105203681#MAIN07/17/2025
144.45 312142171MAIL BOXES, POSTS31595
133.06 512942171CEILING TILE, WD40, UTILITY BLADES29975
195.23 520042010FOLDING CHAIRS, MICROWAVE, ORGANIZER31106
14.97 520042171BLOOM PLUS, HOSE MENDOR31596
28.29 520042171WRENCHES29379
7.99 520042171FOLDING CHAIRS, MICROWAVE, ORGANIZER31106
823.81 CHECK MAIN 203681 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
170.13 520042171MEDECO KEYS 2A #203-207MIDWEST LOCK & SAFE INC40394203684MAIN07/17/2025
589.99 520042010BACK PACK BLOWERMINNEAPOLIS SAW CO INC195458203686*#MAIN07/17/2025
44
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 3/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 101 GENERAL
762.51 210043810SOLAR POWERONSITE PARTNERS PROJECTCO, LLCINV-0874203690*#MAIN07/17/2025
762.50 220043810SOLAR POWERINV-0874
1,525.01 CHECK MAIN 203690 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
(5.57)000020815062625 - 10013121POPP.COM INC992882887203692*#MAIN07/17/2025
5.97 111043210062625 - 10013121992882887
13.37 132043210062625 - 10013121992882887
33.51 151043210062625 - 10013121992882887
11.37 194043210062625 - 10013121992882887
73.23 210043210062625 - 10013121992882887
25.92 220043210062625 - 10013121992882887
55.92 310043210062625 - 10013121992882887
4.73 312143210062625 - 10013121992882887
32.55 500043210062625 - 10013121992882887
1.37 512943210062625 - 10013121992882887
1.30 520043210062625 - 10013121992882887
253.67 CHECK MAIN 203692 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
(0.30)000020815063025 COOLER RENTALPREMIUM WATERS INC310879631203693*#MAIN07/17/2025
(0.30)000020815063025 COOLER RENTAL310879630
(0.60)000020815063025 COOLER RENTALS310879629
(1.20)CHECK MAIN 203693 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
2,020.00 1510430502024 AUDIT ENGAGEMENTREDPATH AND COMPANY LLC150498532203695*#MAIN07/17/2025
83.34 512944020PREVENT MAINT 0625-JPMSCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP INC8106928462203698*#MAIN07/17/2025
83.34 920044020PREVENT MAINT 0625-590 40TH ST8106924861
166.68 CHECK MAIN 203698 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
430.00 512942990POP, CO2 JPM 062725SHAMROCK GROUP-ACE ICE517041203699MAIN07/17/2025
540.00 312144300DUMP RUBBLE 0625SUPERIOR SAND AND GRAVEL, INC.31306203705MAIN07/17/2025
859.80 500442170T-SHIRTSTAHO SPORTSWEAR20126203706#MAIN07/17/2025
557.40 512942170SHIRTS20127
1,417.20 CHECK MAIN 203706 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
947.10 132043050BACKGROUND CHECKS 0625THE MCDOWELL AGENCY, INC.162598203708MAIN07/17/2025 45
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 4/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 101 GENERAL
316.75 141043050COUNCIL MINUTES 062325TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETR INC30640203709MAIN07/17/2025
77.02 512943050LAWN SVC-JPM 062625TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN211747601203710MAIN07/17/2025
64.27 31214381051-4159573-1XCEL ENERGY (N S P)51-4159573-1203714*#MAIN07/17/2025
11.06 31604381051-4174399-11196041565
63.82 31604381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
74.75 31604381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
145.87 31604381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
13,685.81 31604381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
77.75 52004381051-0012266105-31197433757
82.58 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
157.62 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
38.62 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
63.82 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
392.87 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
18.81 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
64.27 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
37.61 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
61.08 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
17.38 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
86.15 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
63.27 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
111.20 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
201.80 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
15,520.41 CHECK MAIN 203714 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
300.00 194042175EQUIPMENT RENTAL 0725FIRST CHOICE COFFEE SERVICEMN-5213822280(A)MAIN07/17/2025
335.37 194044020GARAGE DOOR REPAIR-CHA DYNAMIC DOOR CO INC22507121203717MAIN07/24/2025
834.48 132043050BSWIFT 0725AI TECHNOLOGIES, LLC.10024072025203718MAIN07/24/2025
37.50 210043250BROADBAND CONN 0725ANOKA COUNTYB250710G203720*#MAIN07/24/2025
37.50 220043250BROADBAND CONN 0725B250710G
18.75 310043250BROADBAND CONN 0725B250710G
3.75 312143250BROADBAND CONN 0725B250710G
3.75 520043250BROADBAND CONN 0725B250710G
101.25 CHECK MAIN 203720 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
878.92 210042172PANTS, SHIRTS, JACKET, PATCHES, TIE CLIP, NAME TAG, PATCHES, EMBROIDERYASPEN MILLS, INC.357437203722#MAIN07/24/2025 46
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 5/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 101 GENERAL
113.90 220042172PANTS357134
992.82 CHECK MAIN 203722 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
328.00 520042171MEDECO DEADBOLT-RAMSDELLASSURED SECURITY INCC131635203723#MAIN07/24/2025
267.00 920044000CHANGE CODE MAIN ENTRY LOCK-540 40TH AVE244386
595.00 CHECK MAIN 203723 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
4,209.00 161043041CIVIL CHARGES 0625BARNA GUZY & STEFFEN LTD298958203728MAIN07/24/2025
9,318.00 161043042PROSECUTION 0625298961
892.50 161043042IN CUSTODY 0625298962
1,215.00 161043045PERSONNEL MATTERS 0625298959
15,634.50 CHECK MAIN 203728 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
158.75 132043050COBRA ADMIN 0625; RETIREE BILLING 0625; PARTICIPATION FEE 0725BENEFIT EXTRAS, INC.1326685203729*#MAIN07/24/2025
1,799.69 210042171NALOXONE, CURAPLEX DARTBOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC85846342203731#MAIN07/24/2025
72.96 220042171GLUTOSE 15MG 85839517
1,872.65 CHECK MAIN 203731 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
4,135.40 210043050ANIMAL SVCS 050725-061225BRP VETERINARY MINNESOTA24974203733MAIN07/24/2025
15,750.00 210043050EMBEDDED MENTAL HEALTH SVC 0425-0625CANVAS HEALTH INCINV004197203734MAIN07/24/2025
259.43 920043810SOLAR POWERCARLSON COMMUNITY SOLAR LLC18907203735*#MAIN07/24/2025
443.12 5129438308000014661-5CENTERPOINT ENERGY8000014661-5203736*#MAIN07/24/2025
16.91 5200438308000014661-58000014661-5
16.91 5200438308000014661-58000014661-5
16.91 5200438308000014661-58000014661-5
16.91 5200438308000014661-58000014661-5
16.91 5200438308000014661-58000014661-5
285.96 9200438308000014661-58000014661-5
813.63 CHECK MAIN 203736 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
2,045.00 220043105FFI,FFII,HAZMATCENTURY COLLEGE1299364203737MAIN07/24/2025
2,045.00 220043105FFI, FFII, HAZMAT1299362
4,090.00 CHECK MAIN 203737 TOTAL FOR FUND 101: 47
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 6/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 101 GENERAL
78.85 194042171FIRST AID SUPPLIES CH 070125CINTAS FIRST AID-SAFETY5278570304203739MAIN07/24/2025
43.85 210044020MATS, TOWELS, FRESH AIR 062625CINTAS INC4234975210203740*#MAIN07/24/2025
25.00 210044020TOWELS, FRESH AIR 0710254236445697
25.00 220044020MATS, TOWELS, FRESH AIR 0626254234975210
25.00 220044020TOWELS, FRESH AIR 0710254236445697
122.90 512944020MATS, MOPS JPM 0708254236103476
30.52 512944020MOPS JPM 0715254236843353
272.27 CHECK MAIN 203740 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
55.60 194044020RUGS-CH 070925CINTAS INC4236272573203741MAIN07/24/2025
55.60 194044020RUGS-CH 0604254232604765
111.20 CHECK MAIN 203741 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
393.80 312142160ASPHALT MIX-4ACITY OF ST PAULIN62889203743*#MAIN07/24/2025
110.00 194044020WINDOW CLEANING-CH 0625CITY WIDE WINDOW SERVICE INC749158203744*#MAIN07/24/2025
23.16 111043250071525 934571297COMCAST246397965203745*#MAIN07/24/2025
32.43 132043250071525 934571297246397965
50.96 151043250071525 934571297246397965
4.63 194043250071525 934571297246397965
129.72 210043250071525 934571297246397965
115.82 220043250071525 934571297246397965
60.23 310043250071525 934571297246397965
18.53 312143250071525 934571297246397965
9.27 500043250071525 934571297246397965
32.43 512943250071525 934571297246397965
9.27 520043250071525 934571297246397965
486.45 CHECK MAIN 203745 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
13.91 210043250060325 8772105050213657COMCAST060325203746MAIN07/24/2025
1,780.95 512943810SOLAR POWERCORNILLIE 2 COMMUNITY SOLAR18908203748*#MAIN07/24/2025
5.64 000020810REFUND PARK RESERVATIONDAWSON/ZEENA8996203750MAIN07/24/2025
69.36 000034783REFUND PARK RESERVATION8996 48
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 7/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 101 GENERAL
75.00 CHECK MAIN 203750 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
920.40 151043500PHN 2024 FINANCIAL STMTS 071125ECM PUBLISHERS INC1057446203755*#MAIN07/24/2025
59.00 220043050PHN ORD #1715 0627251055718
979.40 CHECK MAIN 203755 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
1,130.25 220043050TURNOUT GEAR CLEANINGEMERGENCY TECHNICAL DECON00000164203757MAIN07/24/2025
73.42 312143050ANNUAL ENROLLMENTS 0625FIRST ADVANTAGE LNS SCREEN INC2504052506203758*#MAIN07/24/2025
36.71 317043050ANNUAL ENROLLMENTS 06252504052506
73.42 520043050ANNUAL ENROLLMENTS 06252504052506
183.55 CHECK MAIN 203758 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
35.00 210042175SWEARING IN CAKE GENIS/GUADALUPE100203760MAIN07/24/2025
10,975.55 210043105ICPOET TRAINING 042125-082925HENNEPIN TECH COLLEGECI0000010159203766MAIN07/24/2025
149.00 317042010IMPACT DRIVER, SOCKET ADAPTER, BITHOME DEPOT #28027410069203768*#MAIN07/24/2025
27.61 317042171IMPACT DRIVER, SOCKET ADAPTER, BIT7410069
77.02 520042171CABLE TIES6012198
253.63 CHECK MAIN 203768 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
35.39 210044010DOOR HANDLE IMPERIAL DADE4399999203769#MAIN07/24/2025
35.39 220044010DOOR HANDLE 4399999
70.78 CHECK MAIN 203769 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
123.42 194042000HP TONER, COMPOSTABLE PLATES, DAWN, PENSINNOVATIVE OFFICE SOLUTIONS LLCIN4878645203772MAIN07/24/2025
50.95 194042171HP TONER, COMPOSTABLE PLATES, DAWN, PENSIN4878645
28.45 194042171KLEENEXIN4881927
202.82 CHECK MAIN 203772 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
3,300.00 111043105STRATEGIC PLANNING SERVICES 2025KERN/PHILIP M071625203774MAIN07/24/2025
49.44 210043250LANGUAGE LINE 0625LANGUAGELINE SOLUTIONS11645745203775MAIN07/24/2025
70.81 920043810SOLAR POWERMADISON ENERGY HOLDING LLCSP-001-000391203779MAIN07/24/2025
700.00 210043050THERAPY SESSIONS, MANDATORY CHECK-IN 0625MARIE RIDGEWAY LICSW LLC3255203781MAIN07/24/2025
850.00 210043050THERAPY SESSIONS, MANDATORY CHECK-IN 06253255 49
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 8/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 101 GENERAL
1,550.00 CHECK MAIN 203781 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
241.71 312142160MV4 WEAR ASPHALTMARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC46239411203782*#MAIN07/24/2025
312.74 312142160MV4 WEAR ASPHALT46328488
554.45 CHECK MAIN 203782 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
650.00 220043050PUBLIC SAFETY ASSESSMENTSMARTIN-MCALLISTER INC16922203783MAIN07/24/2025
650.00 220043050PUBLIC SAFETY ASSESSMENTS16922
1,300.00 CHECK MAIN 203783 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
3,991.60 111044330MEDIATION AND RESTORATIVE SERVICES 2025MEDIATION & RESTORATIVE SRVCS061725203785MAIN07/24/2025
13.93 210042171DROP CLOTHS,MASKING TAPEMENARDS CASHWAY LUMBER-FRIDLEY30344203786*#MAIN07/24/2025
41.96 210042171FRUIT SNACKS, GRANOLA BARS, SUNSCREEN31678
34.02 210042175FRUIT SNACKS, GRANOLA BARS, SUNSCREEN31678
33.97 220042171SWISS CHAINSAW FILE 3PK, BATTERIES32641
34.73 220042171MASKING TAPE, DUCT TAPE, TIRE SHINE, PROTCTNT WIPES31831
42.99 312142171ACRYLIC SHEET30283
81.79 512942160PVC TRIM BOARD,PAINT BRUSH, ROLLER COVERS, PAINT, SCREEN30737
(21.98)512942160RETURN BLACK PVC TRIM31194
24.99 520042171GROWING MIX 30358
73.72 520042171CO ALARM, CLAWHAMMER, BATTERIES30336
7.47 520042171TARP STRAPS29653
43.00 520042171ACRYLIC SHEET30283
410.59 CHECK MAIN 203786 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
525.00 210043105EVOC/PIT REFRESHER 052125MN HIGHWAY SAFETY & RESEARCH337900-11877203791MAIN07/24/2025
341.52 210042000COPY PAPEROFFICE DEPOT424825689001203795MAIN07/24/2025
100.46 210042000COPY PAPER, STICKY NOTES, PENS424827430001
441.98 CHECK MAIN 203795 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
222.00 512942990SATELLITE RENT-MCKENNAON SITE SANITATION INC0001880479203796#MAIN07/24/2025
1,585.00 520044100SATELLITE RENT-JAMBOREE0001910713
196.00 520044100SATELLITE RENT-JAMBOREE0001910714
74.00 520044100SATELLITE RENT-KEYES0001918106
74.00 520044100SATELLITE RENT-LABELLE0001918107
74.00 520044100SATELLITE RENT-MCKENNA0001918108
146.00 520044100SATELLITE RENT-HUSET0001918109
50
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 9/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 101 GENERAL
74.00 520044100SATELLITE RENT-HUSET0001918110
74.00 520044100SATELLITE RENT-PRESTEMON0001918111
74.00 520044100SATELLITE RENT-GAUVITTE0001918112
220.00 520044100SATELLITE RENT-SULLIVAN0001918113
146.00 520044100SATELLITE RENT-SILVER LAKE0001918114
146.00 520044100SATELLITE RENT-RAMSDELL0001918115
74.00 520044100SATELLITE RENT-RAMSDELL0001918116
220.00 520044100SATELLITE RENT-HUSET0001918117
222.00 520044100SATELLITE RENT-MCKENNA,FINANCE CHARGE 0001918118
4.49 520044100SATELLITE RENT-MCKENNA,FINANCE CHARGE 0001918118
74.00 520044100SATELLITE RENT-LOMIANKI0001918119
74.00 520044100SATELLITE RENT-OSTRANDER0001918120
3,773.49 CHECK MAIN 203796 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
884.00 500143050UMPIRE GIRLS SOFTBALL 042925-060225PEICK/JOHN RICHARD070825203798MAIN07/24/2025
394.00 220043050PREPLACEMENT MEDICAL EXAM, MASK FITPERFORMANCE PLUS LLC06112075203799MAIN07/24/2025
13.88 111043210063025 -10010429POPP.COM INC992883835203800*#MAIN07/24/2025
13.88 132043210063025 -10010429992883835
13.88 151043210063025 -10010429992883835
12.93 500043210063025 -10010429992883835
57.14 512943210063025 -10010429992883835
102.30 920043210063025 -10010429992883835
214.01 CHECK MAIN 203800 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
358.96 512944020ELEVATOR REPAIR JPM 022125SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP INC7154118533203804MAIN07/24/2025
4,387.80 2100421715.56MM TATICAL AMMOSTREICHER'S GUN'S INC/DONI1720795203808MAIN07/24/2025
4,088.00 210042171.223 CAL PRACTICE AMMOI1716869
115.00 210042171COMMENDATION BARSI1763062
230.00 210042171COMMENDATION BARSI1757842
2,200.88 210042172CARRIER, TRAUMA PLATE, PANEL, NAME TAG I1772726
69.99 210042172BELTI1750301
184.98 210042172PANTS,GLOVESI1748810
140.00 210042172BACKPACKI1747916
380.93 210042172EAR INSERT,EARPIECE,CUFF CASE,LIGHT,HOLDER,GLOVEI1747915
318.00 210042172CARRIER VESTI1747801
2,215.00 210042172BLUE,GRAY,GREEN COMMENDATION BARSI1747746
592.99 210042172COMMENDATION NECK RIBBONSI1744941
40.00 210042172GLOVES,BEANIEI1736746 51
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 10/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 101 GENERAL
79.98 210042172GLOVESI1716197
69.99 210042172FOREARM PROTECTORSI1715873
2,130.90 210042172CARRIERS, PLATE, PANEL SETI1715663
23.98 210042172NAME TAGSI1709834
11.99 210042172NAME TAGI1751581
189.99 210042172BOOTSI1752604
28.00 210042172RADIO POUCHI1753069
35.99 210042172HANDCUFF KEY, DUTY SOCKSI1762374
884.86 210042172UNIFORMI1761279
233.00 210042172VALOR COMMENDATIONI1760889
198.98 210042172BOOTS,RADIO CASE,MIC CLIPI1760154
59.00 210042172DUTY POUCHI1773535
756.00 210042172CARRIERS,PANEL SET,TRAUMA PLATEI1756344
11.99 210042172HANDCUFF KEYI1764167
616.98 210042172CARRIERS,PANEL SET,TRAUMA PLATE,NAME TAGSI1760833
149.99 210042172BOOTSI1756396
659.88 210042172UNIFORMI1762492
701.97 210042172HATS,GAS MASK,FLASHLIGHT CASE,KEYRING HLDRI1763490
107.98 210042172RADIO CASESI1763492
11.99 210042172RAIN CAP COVERI1763598
184.99 210042172BOOTSI1765385
837.92 210042172UNIFORMI1771446
23.98 210042172NAME TAGSI1772235
254.97 210042172CARGO PANTSI1772239
23.98 210042172NAME TAGS I1772412
11.99 210042172NAME TAGI1772441
52.00 210042172SHIRTSI1772541
1,428.90 210042173CARRIERS,PANEL SET,TRAUMA PLATEI1756344
1,428.90 210042173CARRIERS,PANEL SET,TRAUMA PLATE,NAME TAGSI1760833
26,174.64 CHECK MAIN 203808 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
305.94 210044010MAIN ENTRY DOOR ROD ARM REPAIR AND PARTSTEE JAY NORTH INC53700203810#MAIN07/24/2025
305.94 220044010MAIN ENTRY DOOR ROD ARM REPAIR AND PARTS53700
611.88 CHECK MAIN 203810 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
2,494.31 210042171TYVEK PROTECTIVE COVERALL SUITS ULINE INC194680998203816MAIN07/24/2025
13.27 500042171REFUND GARDEN PLOT HOSE REPAIRVAN PILSUM/JOHN070925203817MAIN07/24/2025
2,184.05 520044100BARRICADESWARNING LITES OF MINNESOTA INC12686203821MAIN07/24/2025
52
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 11/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 101 GENERAL
33.65 210044000WHC REKEYINGWHEELER HARDWARE COMPANYSPI160358203823#MAIN07/24/2025
33.65 220044000WHC REKEYINGSPI160358
67.30 CHECK MAIN 203823 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
187.50 500143050UMPIRE GIRLS SOFTBALL 070725-070925WISNIESKI/DAVID250013A203824MAIN07/24/2025
61.75 210043320PLECET CONFERENCE CHICAGO IL 060425-060825WOOD/TABITHA060825203825MAIN07/24/2025
38.00 210043320PLECET CONFERENCE CHICAGO IL 060425-060825060825
38.00 210043320PLECET CONFERENCE CHICAGO IL 060425-060825060825
11.47 210043320PLECET CONFERENCE CHICAGO IL 060425-060825060825
61.75 210043320PLECET CONFERENCE CHICAGO IL 060425-060825060825
38.00 210043320PLECET CONFERENCE CHICAGO IL 060425-060825060825
25.61 210043320PLECET CONFERENCE CHICAGO IL 060425-060825060825
66.75 210043320PLECET CONFERENCE CHICAGO IL 060425-060825060825
93.67 210043320PLECET CONFERENCE CHICAGO IL 060425-060825060825
435.00 CHECK MAIN 203825 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
(46.11)00002081051-4436024-5XCEL ENERGY (N S P)11978741644203827*#MAIN07/24/2025
(66.83)00002081051-8335212-31197885139
(4.03)00002081051-0014068181-71198423510
(67.64)21004381051-5047554-21199692592
(100.49)21004381051-5047554-21199692592
2,363.23 21004381051-5047554-21199692592
(206.24)21004381051-5047554-21199692592
(181.41)21004381051-5047554-21199692592
(245.14)21004381051-5047554-21199692592
(85.24)21004381051-5047554-21199692592
2,363.20 22004381051-5047554-21199692592
(85.24)22004381051-5047554-21199692592
(245.14)22004381051-5047554-21199692592
(181.41)22004381051-5047554-21199692592
(206.24)22004381051-5047554-21199692592
(100.50)22004381051-5047554-21199692592
(67.64)22004381051-5047554-21199692592
10.35 22004381051-4217828-31198291827
10.35 22004381051-4217828-31198291827
12.19 22004381051-4217828-31198291827
17.62 22004381051-4217828-31198291827
19.76 31214381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
112.34 31604381051-7867659-81197387988 53
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 12/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 101 GENERAL
96.20 31604381051-0014819919-21197481194
81.53 31604381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
102.19 31604381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
42.42 31604381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
13,640.07 31604381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
23.83 31604381051-7867950-21197396050
4,280.68 51294381051-4350334-81197361866
(1,614.94)51294381051-4350334-81197361866
2,339.24 51294381051-4350334-81197361866
(1,515.89)51294381051-4350334-81197361866
(1,906.03)51294381051-4350334-81197361866
190.02 51294381051-4697130-61197352834
94.20 52004381051-0010057576-71197404781
469.23 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
9.53 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
86.97 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
31.16 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
8.69 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
36.31 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
32.48 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
159.94 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
233.15 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
19.76 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
19.18 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
20.18 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
36.31 52004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
41.45 52004381051-0011039127-71197411695
11.66 52004381051-9597586-91197402913
38.39 52004381051-80142065-31197398402
94.87 52004381051-5950185-01198793292
138.30 52004381051-5950185-01198793292
17.84 52004381051-7654903-41197791203
120.00 52004381051-7654903-41197791203
20,498.66 CHECK MAIN 203827 TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
224.00 512943050SECURITY JPM 070525-070625ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES173000302286(A)MAIN07/24/2025
89,091.80 210044100BODY WORN CAMERAS, TRANSLATION TO BWC, PLATE READER AXON ENTERPRISE INCINUS3576822288(A)*MAIN07/24/2025
223.81 210043810SOLAR POWERHINTERLAND CSG, LLCSP-035-0003262296(A)#MAIN07/24/2025
223.82 220043810SOLAR POWERSP-035-000326
54
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 13/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 101 GENERAL
447.63 CHECK MAIN 2296(A) TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
169.25 210043810SOLAR POWERMADISON ENERGY INVESTMENTS IV LLCSP-151-0002502298(A)#MAIN07/24/2025
192.41 210043810SOLAR POWERSP-150-000250
169.25 220043810SOLAR POWERSP-151-000250
192.41 220043810SOLAR POWERSP-150-000250
723.32 CHECK MAIN 2298(A) TOTAL FOR FUND 101:
495.84 520044300RETAINING WALL POST DISPOSAL-MCKENNAWALTERS RECYCLING & REFUSE INC.88899482303(A)*#MAIN07/24/2025
331,363.61 Total for fund 101 GENERAL
55
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 14/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 201 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS
7,455.00 000020830SAC 2ND QTR 2025METRO COUNCIL ENVIROMENTAL SER070125203682MAIN07/17/2025
(74.55)000036293SAC 2ND QTR 2025070125
7,380.45 CHECK MAIN 203682 TOTAL FOR FUND 201:
2,068.92 0000208202ND QTR 2025 SURCHARGEMN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY[JUNE0030402025].203687MAIN07/17/2025
(82.76)0000362602ND QTR 2025 SURCHARGE[JUNE0030402025].
1,986.16 CHECK MAIN 203687 TOTAL FOR FUND 201:
15.14 240043210062625 - 10013121POPP.COM INC992882887203692*#MAIN07/17/2025
240.00 2400430502024 AUDIT ENGAGEMENTREDPATH AND COMPANY LLC150498532203695*#MAIN07/17/2025
13.90 240043250071525 934571297COMCAST246397965203745*#MAIN07/24/2025
28.00 00003219280% SEWER PERMIT REFUND 1213 42ND AVEDEANS HOME SERVICES2025-00936203751MAIN07/24/2025
128.00 00003219280% BUILDING PERMIT REFUND 4249 VAN BURENDIAZ/JORDAN2025-00821203752MAIN07/24/2025
88.50 240043500PHN JULY 28 PH ZONING ITEMS 071125ECM PUBLISHERS INC1057448203755*#MAIN07/24/2025
88.50 240043500PHN JULY 28 PH EAW 0711251057447
177.00 CHECK MAIN 203755 TOTAL FOR FUND 201:
113.60 00003219280% BUILDING PERMIT REFUND 4152 CLEVELANDINNOVATIVE BASEMENT AUTHORITY2025-01028203771MAIN07/24/2025
176.25 240043050PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 070125TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETR INC30729203812*#MAIN07/24/2025
10,258.50 Total for fund 201 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS
56
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 15/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 204 EDA ADMINISTRATION
15.41 631443210062625 - 10013121POPP.COM INC992882887203692*#MAIN07/17/2025
26.21 631443210062625 - 10013121992882887
41.62 CHECK MAIN 203692 TOTAL FOR FUND 204:
400.00 6314430502024 AUDIT ENGAGEMENTREDPATH AND COMPANY LLC150498532203695*#MAIN07/17/2025
23.16 631443250071525 934571297COMCAST246397965203745*#MAIN07/24/2025
13.87 631443210063025 -10010429POPP.COM INC992883835203800*#MAIN07/24/2025
172.00 631443050EDA MINUTES 070725TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETR INC30728203812*#MAIN07/24/2025
375.00 631444330MEMBERSHIP 080125-073126TWIN CITIES NORTH CHAMBER OF2022590203814MAIN07/24/2025
1,025.65 Total for fund 204 EDA ADMINISTRATION
57
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 16/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 212 STATE AID MAINTENANCE
133.21 31904381051-4159573-1XCEL ENERGY (N S P)51-4159573-1203714*#MAIN07/17/2025
109.34 31904381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
91.82 31904381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
80.36 31904381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
59.13 31904381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
289.83 31904381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
82.86 31904381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
114.68 31904381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
961.23 CHECK MAIN 203714 TOTAL FOR FUND 212:
15.99 319042171TRASH CANMENARDS CASHWAY LUMBER-FRIDLEY30404203786*#MAIN07/24/2025
127.52 31904381051-0011980129-4XCEL ENERGY (N S P)1197428439203827*#MAIN07/24/2025
52.95 31904381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
75.25 31904381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
60.76 31904381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
161.28 31904381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
47.36 31904381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
35.14 31904381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
48.25 31904381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
63.55 31904381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
34.67 31904381051-9893848-41197408542
706.73 CHECK MAIN 203827 TOTAL FOR FUND 212:
1,683.95 Total for fund 212 STATE AID MAINTENANCE
58
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 17/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 225 CABLE TELEVISION
320.00 9844430502024 AUDIT ENGAGEMENTREDPATH AND COMPANY LLC150498532203695*#MAIN07/17/2025
9.27 984443250071525 934571297COMCAST246397965203745*#MAIN07/24/2025
3,500.00 984443050OPERATOR, TECH FEES 0625NINENORTH2025-095203794MAIN07/24/2025
3,829.27 Total for fund 225 CABLE TELEVISION
59
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 18/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 228 DOWNTOWN PARKING
689.79 63174381051-0013059132-8XCEL ENERGY (N S P)1197434743203714*#MAIN07/17/2025
689.79 Total for fund 228 DOWNTOWN PARKING
60
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 19/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 240 LIBRARY
256.82 55004383010570341-7CENTERPOINT ENERGY10570341-7203653*#MAIN07/17/2025
3,166.73 550043810SOLAR POWERONSITE PARTNERS PROJECTCO, LLCINV-0874203690*#MAIN07/17/2025
320.00 5500430502024 AUDIT ENGAGEMENTREDPATH AND COMPANY LLC150498532203695*#MAIN07/17/2025
21.18 550042180BOOK ORDERBAKER & TAYLOR2039186587203727MAIN07/24/2025
146.95 550042180BOOK ORDER2039162777
177.89 550042180BOOK ORDER2039172386
446.44 550042180BOOK ORDER2039182742
497.02 550042180BOOK ORDER2039194427
1,289.48 CHECK MAIN 203727 TOTAL FOR FUND 240:
128.00 550044020WINDOW CLEANING-LIB 0625CITY WIDE WINDOW SERVICE INC748950203744*#MAIN07/24/2025
189.95 550043250071525 934571297COMCAST246397965203745*#MAIN07/24/2025
1,535.00 550044020REPLACE HINGE-LIBRARYDORGLASS INC72436203753MAIN07/24/2025
233.04 550042180BOOK ORDERINGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES88993949203770MAIN07/24/2025
221.39 550042180BOOK ORDER89144244
554.44 550042180BOOK ORDER88921547
588.10 550042180BOOK ORDER89110932
1,596.97 CHECK MAIN 203770 TOTAL FOR FUND 240:
250.00 5500431052025 MLA CONFERENCE (DOUGHERTY)MINNESOTA LIBRARY ASSOC.200008407203790MAIN07/24/2025
399.00 550042171RFID TAGS (2000)REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF MN2170001744203802MAIN07/24/2025
444.72 550042171HAND SOAP, TP, CAN LINERS, TOWELSTRIO SUPPLY COMPANY INC1033615203813*#MAIN07/24/2025
1,743.73 55004381051-0011136455-0XCEL ENERGY (N S P)1197900290203827*#MAIN07/24/2025
(633.59)55004381051-0011136455-01197900290
1,110.14 CHECK MAIN 203827 TOTAL FOR FUND 240:
59.23 550042180LARGEPRINT BOOK ORDERCENGAGE LEARNING INC9991006998822295(A)MAIN07/24/2025
173.19 550042180LARGEPRINT BOOK ORDER999100702466
61
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 20/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 240 LIBRARY
232.42 CHECK MAIN 2295(A) TOTAL FOR FUND 240:
7.49 550042189DVD ORDERMIDWEST TAPE5074449412299(A)MAIN07/24/2025
10,926.72 Total for fund 240 LIBRARY
62
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 21/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 272 PUBLIC SAFETY GRANTS - OTHER
8,900.00 210043105FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR COURSE ARCHWAY DEFENSE LLC20230807203643MAIN07/17/2025
102,000.00 210044100BODY WORN CAMERAS, TRANSLATION TO BWC, PLATE READER AXON ENTERPRISE INCINUS3576822288(A)*MAIN07/24/2025
110,900.00 Total for fund 272 PUBLIC SAFETY GRANTS - OTHER
63
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 22/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 411 CAPITAL IMP-GEN GOVT. BLDG
5,180.00 194044000CABLE RUNS, CAMERA INSTALL AID ELECTRIC SERVICE INC1202493203719MAIN07/24/2025
3,333.33 999943050LOBBYIST SERVICES 0725LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.120020203776MAIN07/24/2025
8,513.33 Total for fund 411 CAPITAL IMP-GEN GOVT. BLDG
64
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 23/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 412 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PARKS
2,175.00 520043050SOCCER FIELD PLANNING 0625WSB & ASSOCIATES INCR-030659-000-2203826*#MAIN07/24/2025
2,175.00 Total for fund 412 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PARKS
65
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 24/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 415 CAPITAL IMPRVMT - PIR PROJ
1,040.00 6400430502024 AUDIT ENGAGEMENTREDPATH AND COMPANY LLC150498532203695*#MAIN07/17/2025
140.56 645044000OUTSIDE STORAGE RMVL 050725 - 0529251-800-GOT-JUNK?52203716MAIN07/24/2025
140.56 645044000OUTSIDE STORAGE RMVL 050725 - 05292552
269.23 645044000OUTSIDE STORAGE RMVL 050725 - 05292552
321.13 645044000OUTSIDE STORAGE RMVL 050725 - 05292552
573.06 645044000OUTSIDE STORAGE RMVL 050725 - 05292552
961.23 645044000OUTSIDE STORAGE RMVL 050725 - 05292552
145.97 645044000OUTSIDE STORAGE RMVL 050725 - 05292552
183.81 645044000OUTSIDE STORAGE RMVL 050725 - 05292552
140.46 645044000OUTSIDE STORAGE RMVL 061125 - 06282553
321.13 645044000OUTSIDE STORAGE RMVL 061125 - 06282553
3,197.14 CHECK MAIN 203716 TOTAL FOR FUND 415:
240.00 645044000TRIP CHARGE / EQUIP RENTAL 4300 CENTRALARISE OUTDOOR SERVICES LLC719203721MAIN07/24/2025
40.00 645044000TRIP CHARGE 1340 PIERCE718
40.00 645044000TRIP CHARGE 5030 5TH717
160.00 645044000LONG GRASS / WEED RMVL 5037 4TH716
500.00 645044000LONG GRASS / SCRUB RMVL, HAUL 4233 5TH705
800.00 645044000LONG GRASS / SCRUB RMVL, HAUL 4401 RESERV706
440.00 645044000LONG GRASS / WEED RMVL 3848 2ND721
2,220.00 CHECK MAIN 203721 TOTAL FOR FUND 415:
6,457.14 Total for fund 415 CAPITAL IMPRVMT - PIR PROJ
66
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 25/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 430 INFRASTRUCTURE FUND
790.00 194045185EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS-LIB PARKING LOT PROJTESSMAN COS417868-IN203707MAIN07/17/2025
199.80 632343050ENGINEERING SCHOOL SAFE ROUTES 0325SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC.17109.00-18203807MAIN07/24/2025
989.80 Total for fund 430 INFRASTRUCTURE FUND
67
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 26/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 601 WATER UTILITY
364.00 960044000ROOF REPAIR-SULLIVAN ELECTRICAL BUILDINGCENTRAL ROOFING CO INC38572203655*#MAIN07/17/2025
2,290.00 960042160PACER TOP EXT KITFERGUSON WATERWORKS INC0549492203665MAIN07/17/2025
76.97 960042171PRY BAR SETHOME DEPOT #28023011310203671*#MAIN07/17/2025
606.79 960042171TOOLS, UTILITY BLADES, SHARPIE, CLEANERS1010334
683.76 CHECK MAIN 203671 TOTAL FOR FUND 601:
183,733.12 940042990WATER PURCHASE 0625MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT.070325203685MAIN07/17/2025
278.63 940042990WATER PURCHASE 0625070325
184,011.75 CHECK MAIN 203685 TOTAL FOR FUND 601:
18.24 960042173RUBBER GLOVESPOLLARD0289606203691MAIN07/17/2025
3.72 960043210062625 - 10013121POPP.COM INC992882887203692*#MAIN07/17/2025
15.40 960043210070425 10013125992884611
19.12 CHECK MAIN 203692 TOTAL FOR FUND 601:
720.00 9690430502024 AUDIT ENGAGEMENTREDPATH AND COMPANY LLC150498532203695*#MAIN07/17/2025
8.69 96004381051-4159573-1XCEL ENERGY (N S P)51-4159573-1203714*#MAIN07/17/2025
1,852.97 96004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
64.27 96004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
1,925.93 CHECK MAIN 203714 TOTAL FOR FUND 601:
3.75 960043250BROADBAND CONN 0725ANOKA COUNTYB250710G203720*#MAIN07/24/2025
11.40 960043211062525 287307857001AT&T MOBILITY II, LLC28730785700107032025203725*MAIN07/24/2025
83.56 9600438308000014661-5CENTERPOINT ENERGY8000014661-5203736*#MAIN07/24/2025
22.37 9600438308000014661-58000014661-5
105.93 CHECK MAIN 203736 TOTAL FOR FUND 601:
708.84 960042160ASPHALT MIX-4ACITY OF ST PAULIN62889203743*#MAIN07/24/2025
68
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 27/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 601 WATER UTILITY
9.27 960043250071525 934571297COMCAST246397965203745*#MAIN07/24/2025
109.80 960043050CALL OUT TICKETS GOPHER STATE ONE CALL INC5060307203762*MAIN07/24/2025
35.94 960042171PLIERS, WIRING TOOLHOME DEPOT #28025012352203768*#MAIN07/24/2025
396.80 960042160MV4 WEAR ASPHALTMARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC46306326203782*#MAIN07/24/2025
639.26 960042160MV4 WEAR ASPHALT46328765
1,036.06 CHECK MAIN 203782 TOTAL FOR FUND 601:
64.04 960042171GROUND CLAMP, COPPER WIREMENARDS CASHWAY LUMBER-FRIDLEY30329203786*#MAIN07/24/2025
12.99 960042171BLOW GUN30326
77.03 CHECK MAIN 203786 TOTAL FOR FUND 601:
24.82 960043250063125 0318950-3SPOK INCJ0318950S203806*MAIN07/24/2025
60.00 960044300DUMP RUBBLE 062725SUPERIOR SAND AND GRAVEL, INC.32074203809MAIN07/24/2025
220.00 960043050COLIFORM TESTING 0525TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC INC22239203815MAIN07/24/2025
8.69 96004381051-4159573-1XCEL ENERGY (N S P)51-4159573-1203827*#MAIN07/24/2025
1,199.05 96004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
19.77 96004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
1,227.51 CHECK MAIN 203827 TOTAL FOR FUND 601:
193,663.15 Total for fund 601 WATER UTILITY
69
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 28/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 602 SEWER UTILITY
131.58 960043810SOLAR POWERCARLSON COMMUNITY SOLAR LLC18996203652*#MAIN07/17/2025
22.37 9600438309644621-6CENTERPOINT ENERGY9644621-6203653*#MAIN07/17/2025
27.85 96004383011299887-711299887-7
50.22 CHECK MAIN 203653 TOTAL FOR FUND 602:
15.40 960043210070425 10013125POPP.COM INC992884611203692*#MAIN07/17/2025
720.00 9690430502024 AUDIT ENGAGEMENTREDPATH AND COMPANY LLC150498532203695*#MAIN07/17/2025
64.27 96004381051-4159573-1XCEL ENERGY (N S P)51-4159573-1203714*#MAIN07/17/2025
125.10 96004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
702.58 96004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
926.20 96004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
(106.95)96004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
(141.91)96004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
(123.33)96004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
(171.60)96004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
1,274.36 CHECK MAIN 203714 TOTAL FOR FUND 602:
3.75 960043250BROADBAND CONN 0725ANOKA COUNTYB250710G203720*#MAIN07/24/2025
11.40 960043211062525 287307857001AT&T MOBILITY II, LLC28730785700107032025203725*MAIN07/24/2025
156.04 960043810SOLAR POWERCARLSON COMMUNITY SOLAR LLC18907203735*#MAIN07/24/2025
9.27 960043250071525 934571297COMCAST246397965203745*#MAIN07/24/2025
36.71 960043050ANNUAL ENROLLMENTS 0625FIRST ADVANTAGE LNS SCREEN INC2504052506203758*#MAIN07/24/2025
109.80 960043050CALL OUT TICKETS GOPHER STATE ONE CALL INC5060307203762*MAIN07/24/2025
24.82 960043250063125 0318950-3SPOK INCJ0318950S203806*MAIN07/24/2025
275.98 96004381051-0013099828-3XCEL ENERGY (N S P)1197435948203827*#MAIN07/24/2025
70
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 29/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 602 SEWER UTILITY
19.77 96004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
67.69 96004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
198.18 96004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
(115.86)96004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
(144.71)96004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
353.92 96004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
654.97 CHECK MAIN 203827 TOTAL FOR FUND 602:
3,198.32 Total for fund 602 SEWER UTILITY
71
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 30/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 603 REFUSE FUND
320.00 9520430502024 AUDIT ENGAGEMENTREDPATH AND COMPANY LLC150498532203695*#MAIN07/17/2025
320.00 9530430502024 AUDIT ENGAGEMENT150498532
640.00 CHECK MAIN 203695 TOTAL FOR FUND 603:
10,018.73 951042930YARD WASTE PICKUP 060925-061325SHOREVIEW HUNKS LLCYW010-2025203700MAIN07/17/2025
10,018.73 951042930YARD WASTE PICKUP 061625-062025YW0011-2025
10,021.86 951042930YARD WASTE PICKUP 062325-062725YW0012-2025
30,059.32 CHECK MAIN 203700 TOTAL FOR FUND 603:
11,296.56 951042930YARD WASTE & ORGANICS 0425WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN INC0000341-4651-4203713MAIN07/17/2025
465.47 951042930YARD WASTE & ORGANICS 04250000341-4651-4
11,762.03 CHECK MAIN 203713 TOTAL FOR FUND 603:
164.75 95304381051-4159573-1XCEL ENERGY (N S P)51-4159573-1203714*#MAIN07/17/2025
100.00 953042920PLASTIC BAGS & STYROFOAM RECYCLE 0725CITY OF COON RAPIDSAR-0000014750203742MAIN07/24/2025
628.00 953042920PLASTIC RECYCLING 0625EMERGE ENTERPRISES934203756MAIN07/24/2025
184.06 951042930ORGANICS LABELSINSTY-PRINTS OF ST. PAUL, INC.175341203773MAIN07/24/2025
76.25 954043050OIL FILTER & ANTI-FREEZE DISPOSAL-RECYCLE CENTERLOE'S OIL COMPANY INC97449203777*#MAIN07/24/2025
184.90 953042171ORGANICS BUCKETSMENARDS CASHWAY LUMBER-FRIDLEY29974203786*#MAIN07/24/2025
3,315.00 951042910BULK PICKUP 062325-070425SHOREVIEW HUNKS LLCBP013-2025203805#MAIN07/24/2025
2,470.00 951042910BULK PICKUP 060925-062025BP012-2025
2,001.00 951042920BULK PICKUP 062325-070425BP013-2025
1,314.00 951042920BULK PICKUP 060925-062025BP012-2025
10,021.86 951042930YARD WASTE PICKUP 063025-070425YW0013-2025
580.00 954043050BULK PICKUP 062325-070425BP013-2025
230.00 954043050BULK PICKUP 060925-062025BP012-2025
19,931.86 CHECK MAIN 203805 TOTAL FOR FUND 603:
9,705.96 951042930YARD WASTE & ORGANICS 0625WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN INC0000390-4651-1203822#MAIN07/24/2025
512.64 951042930YARD WASTE & ORGANICS 06250000390-4651-1
431.39 953042920RECYCLING ROLLOFF 06250051081-0500-7 72
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 31/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 603 REFUSE FUND
10,649.99 CHECK MAIN 203822 TOTAL FOR FUND 603:
90.05 95304381051-4159573-1XCEL ENERGY (N S P)51-4159573-1203827*#MAIN07/24/2025
6,852.70 951042930ORGANICS 0625BETTER FUTURES MNINV18902291(A)MAIN07/24/2025
117,998.70 951042910REFUSE & RECYCLING 0625WALTERS RECYCLING & REFUSE INC.00089209882303(A)*#MAIN07/24/2025
60,222.21 951042910REFUSE & RECYCLING 06250008920988
5,663.52 951042910REFUSE & RECYCLING 06250008920988
47,998.04 951042920REFUSE & RECYCLING 06250008920988
1,345.08 951042920REFUSE & RECYCLING 06250008920988
70.80 951042930REFUSE & RECYCLING 06250008920988
233,298.35 CHECK MAIN 2303(A) TOTAL FOR FUND 603:
314,622.26 Total for fund 603 REFUSE FUND
73
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 32/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 604 STORM SEWER UTILITY
62.55 960043810SOLAR POWER JUNECORNILLIE 2 COMMUNITY SOLAR18997203661*#MAIN07/17/2025
15.41 960043210070425 10013125POPP.COM INC992884611203692*#MAIN07/17/2025
240.00 9690430502024 AUDIT ENGAGEMENTREDPATH AND COMPANY LLC150498532203695*#MAIN07/17/2025
63.83 96004381051-4159573-1XCEL ENERGY (N S P)51-4159573-1203714*#MAIN07/17/2025
56.97 96004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
(62.80)96004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
(78.96)96004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
(20.96)CHECK MAIN 203714 TOTAL FOR FUND 604:
11.42 960043211062525 287307857001AT&T MOBILITY II, LLC28730785700107032025203725*MAIN07/24/2025
73.82 960043810SOLAR POWERCORNILLIE 2 COMMUNITY SOLAR18908203748*#MAIN07/24/2025
109.80 960043050CALL OUT TICKETS GOPHER STATE ONE CALL INC5060307203762*MAIN07/24/2025
900.00 960044000VEGETATION MGMT-PRESTEMON 0725PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INCINV-015389203801MAIN07/24/2025
3,656.50 960043050MS4 PERMIT SERVICESWSB & ASSOCIATES INCR-017544-000-3203826*#MAIN07/24/2025
62.00 96004381051-0010836533-8XCEL ENERGY (N S P)1197890846203827*#MAIN07/24/2025
254.43 96004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
(66.90)96004381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
249.53 CHECK MAIN 203827 TOTAL FOR FUND 604:
5,298.07 Total for fund 604 STORM SEWER UTILITY
74
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 49/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 651 WATER CONSTRUCTION FUND
9,919.75 969945180PROJECT MANAGEMENTCORE & MAIN LPX205714203747*MAIN07/24/2025
1,080.25 969945180PROJECT MANAGEMENTX205714
11,000.00 CHECK MAIN 203747 TOTAL FOR FUND 651:
11,000.00 Total for fund 651 WATER CONSTRUCTION FUND
75
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 50/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 652 SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND
1,080.25 969945180PROJECT MANAGEMENTCORE & MAIN LPX205714203747*MAIN07/24/2025
9,919.75 969945180PROJECT MANAGEMENTX205714
11,000.00 CHECK MAIN 203747 TOTAL FOR FUND 652:
11,000.00 Total for fund 652 SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND
76
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 51/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 701 CENTRAL GARAGE
125.00 995043050PEST CONTROL-MSC 0625ADAM'S PEST CONTROL, INC4131958203640*#MAIN07/17/2025
125.76 000014120FILTERSASTLEFORD INTERNATIONAL01P133207203645MAIN07/17/2025
113.86 000014120BATTERIES, CORK GASKETSBMJ CORPORATION67-137887203647MAIN07/17/2025
43.92 000014120BATTERIES, CORK GASKETS67-137887
157.78 CHECK MAIN 203647 TOTAL FOR FUND 701:
529.41 000014120ROTORS, BRAKE PADS, HOSESBRAKE & EQUIPMENT WAREHOUSE01LS3403203650MAIN07/17/2025
(150.30)000014120WARRANTY RTN CALIPERS01LS4252
(120.00)000014120CALIPER CORE RTN01LS3404
259.11 CHECK MAIN 203650 TOTAL FOR FUND 701:
1,234.99 995043810SOLAR POWERCARLSON COMMUNITY SOLAR LLC18996203652*#MAIN07/17/2025
179.79 995042171FIRST AID SUPPLIES-MSC 0625CINTAS FIRST AID-SAFETY5277516702203657MAIN07/17/2025
48.85 000014120UNIFORM RENTAL 063025CINTAS INC4235284877203658MAIN07/17/2025
37.20 000014120HIGH PRESSURE FITTINGSFLEETPRIDE INC126792068203666MAIN07/17/2025
129.11 000014120FILTERS126596582
129.51 000014120FILTERS126709637
5.96 000014120FILTERS126596631
94.92 000014120FILTERS126952536
87.25 000014120HEATER HOSES126947855
483.95 CHECK MAIN 203666 TOTAL FOR FUND 701:
101.88 000014120REFRIGERANT GENUINE PARTS/NAPA AUTO013889203667#MAIN07/17/2025
84.80 995042171LAMPS013730
186.68 CHECK MAIN 203667 TOTAL FOR FUND 701:
377.38 995042000TONERINNOVATIVE OFFICE SOLUTIONS LLCINV4872229203674MAIN07/17/2025
150.14 000014120PIPE, BEZELMIDWAY FORD890327203683MAIN07/17/2025
51.67 000014120FUEL DOOR889434
177.54 000014120CALIPERS890197
488.04 000014120FILTERS891479
867.39 CHECK MAIN 203683 TOTAL FOR FUND 701:
77
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 52/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 701 CENTRAL GARAGE
11.25 000014120EDGER BLADESMINNEAPOLIS SAW CO INC195544203686*#MAIN07/17/2025
353.42 000014120TIRE MTI DISTRIBUTING1478271-00203688MAIN07/17/2025
1,624.51 000014120A/C LINES, DRYER, VALVE1477126-00
271.92 000014120A/C LINE1477126-01
2,249.85 CHECK MAIN 203688 TOTAL FOR FUND 701:
1,623.24 995043810SOLAR POWERONSITE PARTNERS PROJECTCO, LLCINV-0874203690*#MAIN07/17/2025
2.18 995043210062625 - 10013121POPP.COM INC992882887203692*#MAIN07/17/2025
252.15 000014120DRIVE BELTRDO EQUIPMENTP0816914203694MAIN07/17/2025
400.00 9950430502024 AUDIT ENGAGEMENTREDPATH AND COMPANY LLC150498532203695*#MAIN07/17/2025
89.12 000014120SENSORROSEDALE CHEV210792203696MAIN07/17/2025
1,212.00 000014120WORM GEARSTEPP MANUFACTURING CO., INC066643203704MAIN07/17/2025
650.69 99504381051-4159573-1XCEL ENERGY (N S P)51-4159573-1203714*#MAIN07/17/2025
(293.70)99504381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
(1,324.46)99504381051-4159573-151-4159573-1
(967.47)CHECK MAIN 203714 TOTAL FOR FUND 701:
981.36 000014120PINS, SLEEVE, WASHERS, SEALSZIEGLER INCIN001961712203715MAIN07/17/2025
205.05 995042171WELDING STICKS, WELDING GLOVESCENTRAL MCGOWAN00010088512279(A)MAIN07/17/2025
22.79 995042171CABLE CONNECTORS0001010440
227.84 CHECK MAIN 2279(A) TOTAL FOR FUND 701:
1,702.01 000014120RADIATOR COREMAC QUEEN EQUIPMENT LLCP656852282(A)MAIN07/17/2025
972.10 000014120RECAP TIRESPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC23200157732284(A)MAIN07/17/2025
3.75 995043250BROADBAND CONN 0725ANOKA COUNTYB250710G203720*#MAIN07/24/2025
110.47 000014120WHEEL SPEED SENSORASTLEFORD INTERNATIONAL01P133339203724MAIN07/24/2025
239.54 000014120FILTERS,FUEL MODULE01P133459
166.28 000014120FILTERS,FUEL MODULE01P133459
78
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 53/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 701 CENTRAL GARAGE
516.29 CHECK MAIN 203724 TOTAL FOR FUND 701:
1,951.34 000014120A/C REPAIRAUTO AIR AND ACCESSORIES INC.63449203726MAIN07/24/2025
448.68 000014120ROTOR, PADS, PLUGSBMJ CORPORATION67-138114203730MAIN07/24/2025
1,464.47 995043810SOLAR POWERCARLSON COMMUNITY SOLAR LLC18907203735*#MAIN07/24/2025
105.83 9950438308000014661-5CENTERPOINT ENERGY8000014661-5203736*#MAIN07/24/2025
1,159.02 000014120PURUS, OILCHAMBERLAIN OIL COMPANY INC515178-00203738MAIN07/24/2025
48.85 995042172UNIFORM RENTAL 070725CINTAS INC4235983313203740*#MAIN07/24/2025
48.85 995042172UNIFORM RENTAL 0714254236742716
97.70 CHECK MAIN 203740 TOTAL FOR FUND 701:
9.27 995043250071525 934571297COMCAST246397965203745*#MAIN07/24/2025
354.98 000014120FILTERSFLEETPRIDE INC126833753203759MAIN07/24/2025
14.20 000014120FILTERS126922382
55.80 000014120HIGH PRESSURE FITTINGS126267069
424.98 CHECK MAIN 203759 TOTAL FOR FUND 701:
403.97 000014120CITY LOGOS FOR VEHICLESGRAFIX SHOPPE, INC165092203763MAIN07/24/2025
851.22 000014120TURF TIRESHANCO CORP.241298-00203765MAIN07/24/2025
76.25 995043050OIL FILTER & ANIT-FREEZE DISPOSAL - GARAGELOE'S OIL COMPANY INC97448203777*#MAIN07/24/2025
7,307.92 0000141103000 GAL UNLEADED FUELMANSFIELD OIL COMPANY26671608203780MAIN07/24/2025
6,044.50 0000141102000 GAL DIESEL FUEL26671643
13,352.42 CHECK MAIN 203780 TOTAL FOR FUND 701:
216.46 000014120SEAT PADMIDWAY FORD891124203787MAIN07/24/2025
146.18 000014120DRIVERS SEAT COVER 891564
191.44 000014120FILTERS892226
554.08 CHECK MAIN 203787 TOTAL FOR FUND 701:
719.20 000014120CLUTCH, LINKAGE, BSHNGS,ROD,WSHRMINNESOTA EQUIPMENT INCP73996203788MAIN07/24/2025
79
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 54/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 701 CENTRAL GARAGE
625.40 000014120FILTER, HEADLIGHTTENNANT COMPANY921402592203811MAIN07/24/2025
155.98 995042171GLASS CLEANER, TP, TOWELSTRIO SUPPLY COMPANY INC1033203203813*#MAIN07/24/2025
35,722.16 Total for fund 701 CENTRAL GARAGE
80
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 55/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 720 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
5.66 998043210062625 - 10013121POPP.COM INC992882887203692*#MAIN07/17/2025
125.09 998043250071525 934571297COMCAST246397965203745*#MAIN07/24/2025
976.50 998044030CROWDSTRIKE ENDPOINT DETECTION AND RESPONSE 0125-0325MINNESOTA IT SERVICES, MN IT SERVIC25030585203789MAIN07/24/2025
596.47 998044030CROWDSTRIKE ENDPOINT DETECTION AND RESPONSE 042525040608
372.16 998044030CROWDSTRIKE ENDPOINT DETECTION AND RESPONSE 052525050592
430.83 998044030CROWDSTRIKE ENDPOINT DETECTION AND RESPONSE 062525060598
2,375.96 CHECK MAIN 203789 TOTAL FOR FUND 720:
300.00 998043050REPAIR CARPET TILE MOORE FLOORING INCCG501300203793MAIN07/24/2025
232.75 998042012FN-TRAN-GC-OSI OSI HARDWARE, INC.3715408203797MAIN07/24/2025
13.87 998043210063025 -10010429POPP.COM INC992883835203800*#MAIN07/24/2025
3,936.00 998044000SERVERS & TAPE AUTOLOADER SUPPORT 052025-051926PARAGON DEVELOPMENT SYSTMS INC152850502300(A)MAIN07/24/2025
6,989.33 Total for fund 720 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
81
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 56/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 881 CONTRIBUTED PROJECTS-REC
85.00 504042170MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT 072225RYSHAVY/CHRISTOPHER EDWARD062625203697MAIN07/17/2025
85.00 Total for fund 881 CONTRIBUTED PROJECTS-REC
82
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 57/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 884 INSURANCE
351.00 210044349SADDAM SAMAAN VS CH GL 414310LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRUST9707203676MAIN07/17/2025
1,000.00 000015510INSURANCE SERVICE 0825ROSS NESBIT AGENCIES, INC080125203803MAIN07/24/2025
1,351.00 Total for fund 884 INSURANCE
83
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 58/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 887 FLEX BENEFIT FUND
53.35 925043050COBRA ADMIN 0625; RETIREE BILLING 0625; PARTICIPATION FEE 0725BENEFIT EXTRAS, INC.1326685203729*#MAIN07/24/2025
53.35 Total for fund 887 FLEX BENEFIT FUND
'#'-INDICATES CHECK DISTRIBUTED TO MORE THAN ONE DEPARTMENT
'*'-INDICATES CHECK DISTRIBUTED TO MORE THAN ONE FUND
1,324,626.48 TOTAL - ALL FUNDS
84
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 33/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 609 LIQUOR
150.00 000014500063025 INV56 BREWING LLC5629527203639MAIN07/17/2025
227.00 000014500070825 INV5629571
55.00 000014500070825 INV5629570
432.00 CHECK MAIN 203639 TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
308.00 000014500070925 INVAM CRAFT SPIRITS SALES& MRKTNG21004203641#MAIN07/17/2025
4.37 979142199070925 INV21004
312.37 CHECK MAIN 203641 TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
399.00 000014500070325 INVAMERICAN BOTTLING COMPANY4850205706203642MAIN07/17/2025
216.00 000014500070725 INVBARREL THEORY BEER COMPANYBT-06655203646MAIN07/17/2025
48.66 979144020WINDOW CLEANING 0625CITY WIDE WINDOW SERVICE INC748397203660#MAIN07/17/2025
27.03 979244020WINDOW CLEANING 0625748389
75.69 CHECK MAIN 203660 TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
172.91 000014500070925 INVCRYSTAL SPRINGS ICE LLC03-500820203662#MAIN07/17/2025
172.96 000014500070225 INV03-500693
222.63 000014500071025 INV03-500834
219.76 000014500070325 INV03-500704
171.68 000014500063025 INV03-500654
309.60 000014500070625 INV030-500770
4.00 979142199071025 INV03-500834
4.00 979142199070325 INV03-500704
4.00 979142199070625 INV030-500770
4.00 979342199070925 INV03-500820
4.00 979342199070225 INV03-500693
1,289.54 CHECK MAIN 203662 TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
683.50 000014500070725 INVGLOBAL RESERVE LLCORD-18139203668MAIN07/17/2025
728.00 000014500070825 INVORD-18185
1,411.50 CHECK MAIN 203668 TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
3,260.35 000014500070325 INVHOHENSTEINS INC836812203670MAIN07/17/2025
1,331.90 000014500070325 INV837041
4,592.25 CHECK MAIN 203670 TOTAL FOR FUND 609: 85
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 34/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 609 LIQUOR
90.00 000014500071025 INVLUCID BREWING LLCIN-242764203678MAIN07/17/2025
3,588.31 000014500070325 INVM AMUNDSON CIGAR & CANDY CO LLP405996203680MAIN07/17/2025
400.00 000014500070325 INVOLIPHANT BREWING LLCIN-3708203689MAIN07/17/2025
45.50 979143210062625 - 10013121POPP.COM INC992882887203692*#MAIN07/17/2025
19.49 979243210062625 - 10013121992882887
9.14 979343210062625 - 10013121992882887
74.13 CHECK MAIN 203692 TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
14.88 979142171070925 WATERPREMIUM WATERS INC310900037203693*#MAIN07/17/2025
9.36 979144020063025 COOLER RENTALS310879629
19.84 979242171070725 WATER310895164
4.68 979242171063025 COOLER RENTAL310879630
4.68 979342171063025 COOLER RENTAL310879631
53.44 CHECK MAIN 203693 TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
480.00 9791430502024 AUDIT ENGAGEMENTREDPATH AND COMPANY LLC150498532203695*#MAIN07/17/2025
480.00 9792430502024 AUDIT ENGAGEMENT150498532
480.00 9793430502024 AUDIT ENGAGEMENT150498532
1,440.00 CHECK MAIN 203695 TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
193.06 979144020PREVENT MAINT 0625-TV1SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP INC8106926724203698*#MAIN07/17/2025
245.46 000014500070225 INVSMALL LOT MNMN98116203701#MAIN07/17/2025
5.00 979142199070225 INVMN98116
250.46 CHECK MAIN 203701 TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
2,616.40 979144020REPAIR FRONT SLIDING DOOR-TV1STANLEY ACCESS TECHNOLOGIES LLC90016348203702MAIN07/17/2025
(14.16)979144020REPAIR FRONT SLIDING DOOR-TV190016348
2,602.24 CHECK MAIN 203702 TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
118.00 000014500070825 INVSTEEL TOE BREWING LLC61373-A203703MAIN07/17/2025
257.00 000014500070825 INVVENN BREWING COMPANY9455203711MAIN07/17/2025
120.67 979144020070825 MOPS,MATS,TOWELSVESTIS SERVICES. LLC2500725470203712#MAIN07/17/2025 86
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 35/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 609 LIQUOR
120.67 979144020070125 MOPS,MATS,TOWELS2500719434
162.38 979244020070325 MOPS,MATS,TOWELS2500721741
113.47 979344020071025 MOPS,MATS,TOWELS2500727679
113.47 979344020070325 MOPS,MATS,TOWELS2500721678
630.66 CHECK MAIN 203712 TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
829.30 000014500070825 INVARTISAN BEER COMPANY37802522273(A)MAIN07/17/2025
406.50 000014500070325 INV3779870
1,235.80 CHECK MAIN 2273(A) TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
52.43 000014500070325 INVBELLBOY BAR SUPPLY01100032002274(A)#MAIN07/17/2025
115.50 979342171070325 INV0110003200
167.93 CHECK MAIN 2274(A) TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
400.00 000014500070325 INVBELLBOY CORPORATION03000928002275(A)#MAIN07/17/2025
1,151.25 000014500070325 INV0208243700
426.00 000014500070325 INV0300097500
12.00 979242199070325 INV0300092800
12.00 979342199070325 INV0208243700
2,001.25 CHECK MAIN 2275(A) TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
543.50 000014500070225 INV 700297782BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN BEER LLC1222017092276(A)MAIN07/17/2025
329.00 000014500070825 INV 700297717122259276
840.00 000014500070225 INV 700297736122204495
91.40 000014500070225 INV 700297736122202997
255.35 000014500070925 INV 700297736122286715
29.35 000014500070225 INV 700297782122201708
378.00 000014500070125 INV 700297717122177410
594.10 000014500062525 INV 700297736122069847
9,566.00 000014500062525 INV 700297782122069466
13,186.30 000014500061825 INV 700297736121967707
12,359.77 000014500062525 INV 700297736122069848
300.70 000014500070825 INV 700297717122259275
8,644.65 000014500070225 INV 700297782122201707
(6.42)000014500062325 INV 700297717413679341
(98.10)000014500062525 INV 700297736413689384
(115.60)000014500063025 INV 700297736413709858
(102.40)000014500070825 INV 700297736413733067 87
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 36/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 609 LIQUOR
(12.80)000014500070825 INV 700297736413733069
(7.60)000014500070825 INV 700297736413733068
(39.20)000014500070125 INV 700297736413708384
(7.20)000014500070825 INV 700297782413733071
(234.80)000014500070825 INV 700297782413733070
46,494.00 CHECK MAIN 2276(A) TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
214.00 000014500062725 INV 700297717BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN W&S LLC1221299502277(A)#MAIN07/17/2025
745.48 000014500070325 INV 700297717122229873
3,342.02 000014500062725 INV 700297717122129953
0.02 000014500062725 INV 700297717122129951
5,450.00 000014500062725 INV 700297717122129952
3,105.90 000014500062725 INV 700297717122129944
2.30 979142199062725 INV 700297717122129950
5.17 979142199070325 INV 700297717122229873
16.10 979142199062725 INV 700297717122129953
2.30 979142199062725 INV 700297717122129951
28.75 979142199062725 INV 700297717122129952
40.25 979142199062725 INV 700297717122129944
12,952.29 CHECK MAIN 2277(A) TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
3,469.05 000014500071025 INVCAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP31589792278(A)MAIN07/17/2025
6,246.35 000014500070225 INV3156226
4,008.20 000014500070925 INV3158638
(31.61)000014500071025 INV3158978
13,691.99 CHECK MAIN 2278(A) TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
2,587.50 000014500052925 INVJOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO.27989292281(A)#MAIN07/17/2025
160.00 000014500062525 INV2819744
114.00 000014500062725 INV2822446
1,161.50 000014500062725 INV2822444
498.00 000014500062725 INV2822445
1,961.44 000014500062725 INV2822441
2,376.00 000014500062725 INV2822440
2,032.00 000014500062725 INV2822438
1,807.20 000014500062625 INV2821111
3,600.00 000014500062725 INV2822439
211.20 000014500062625 INV2821109
690.00 000014500062625 INV2821110
88
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 37/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 609 LIQUOR
96.00 000014500062625 INV2821103
45.05 000014500062625 INV2821108
486.00 000014500062625 INV2821106
170.00 000014500062625 INV2821104
772.75 000014500062625 INV2821107
176.00 000014500070325 INV2827641
160.00 000014500070325 INV2827642
135.15 000014500070325 INV2827644
228.40 000014500070325 INV2827643
617.88 000014500070325 INV2827640
301.50 000014500070325 INV2827639
48.00 000014500070325 INV2827633
877.50 000014500070925 INV2830135
57.48 000014500070925 INV2830134
2.12 979142199070725 DEL2828057
49.70 979242199052925 INV2798929
0.71 979242199052925 DEL2798916
10.50 979242199062525 INV2819744
4.26 979242199062725 INV2822446
17.04 979242199062725 INV2822444
5.68 979242199062725 INV2822445
12.78 979242199062725 INV2822441
36.92 979242199062725 INV2822440
0.71 97924219906272501 DEL2822422
14.20 979242199062725 INV2822438
25.56 979242199062625 INV2821111
42.60 979242199062725 INV2822439
1.42 979242199062725 DEL2822420
0.71 979242199062725 DEL2822416
2.84 979242199062625 INV2821109
8.52 979242199062625 INV2821110
1.42 979242199062625 INV2821103
1.42 979242199062625 INV2821108
5.68 979242199062625 INV2821106
1.42 979242199062625 INV2821104
21.30 979242199062625 INV2821107
(8.52)979242199061225 DEL138002
7.10 979342199070325 INV2827641
2.84 979342199070325 INV2827642
4.26 979342199070325 INV2827644
1.42 979342199070325 INV2827643 89
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 38/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 609 LIQUOR
9.94 979342199070325 INV2827640
4.26 979342199070325 INV2827639
2.84 979342199070325 INV2827633
12.78 979342199070925 INV2830135
1.08 979342199070925 INV2830134
21,676.06 CHECK MAIN 2281(A) TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
540.94 000014500062725 INVPHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS INC50020592283(A)#MAIN07/17/2025
63.00 000014500062725 INV5002060
1,100.00 000014500062725 INV5002054
47.25 000014500062725 INV5002055
650.00 000014500062725 INV5002056
986.25 000014500062725 INV5002058
896.00 000014500062725 INV5002057
33.00 000014500062725 INV5002061
28.05 000014500062725 INV5002062
220.00 000014500070325 INV5006059
223.75 000014500070325 INV5006058
205.80 000014500070325 INV5006057
99.00 000014500070325 INV5006056
9.94 979242199062725 INV5002059
42.60 979242199062725 INV5002054
1.42 979242199062725 INV5002055
7.81 979242199062725 INV5002056
21.30 979242199062725 INV5002058
1.42 979242199062725 DEL5002043
18.46 979242199062725 INV5002057
1.42 979242199062725 INV5002061
1.42 979242199062725 INV5002062
4.26 979342199070325 INV5006059
8.52 979342199070325 INV5006058
5.68 979342199070325 INV5006057
2.84 979342199070325 INV5006056
5,220.13 CHECK MAIN 2283(A) TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
406.00 000014500052925 INVSOUTHERN GLAZER'S26294512285(A)#MAIN07/17/2025
1,035.00 000014500062625 INV2640354
983.00 000014500062625 INV2640355
989.30 000014500062625 INV2640357
814.36 000014500062625 INV2640358
90
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 39/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 609 LIQUOR
994.38 000014500062625 INV2640361
170.12 000014500070225 INV2642392
143.00 000014500071025 INV2644940
84.00 000014500071025 INV2644939
271.00 000014500070225 INV2642304
8.96 979142199052925 INV2629451
1.28 979142199071025 DEL2644789
6.40 979142199070225 INV2642304
7.68 979242199062625 INV2640354
21.76 979242199062625 INV2640355
16.64 979242199062625 INV2640357
7.68 979242199062625 INV2640358
23.68 979242199062625 INV2640361
3.84 979342199070225 INV2642392
2.56 979342199071025 INV2644940
2.56 979342199071025 INV2644939
5,993.20 CHECK MAIN 2285(A) TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
160.00 000014500071625 INVBOURGET IMPORTS LLC219292203732#MAIN07/24/2025
7.00 979142199071625 INV219292
167.00 CHECK MAIN 203732 TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
162.17 9791438308000014661-5CENTERPOINT ENERGY8000014661-5203736*#MAIN07/24/2025
170.66 9792438308000014661-58000014661-5
23.91 9793438308000014661-58000014661-5
356.74 CHECK MAIN 203736 TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
603.18 979143250071525 934571297COMCAST246397965203745*#MAIN07/24/2025
580.02 979243250071525 934571297246397965
566.12 979343250071525 934571297246397965
1,749.32 CHECK MAIN 203745 TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
343.15 000014500070225 INVCRYSTAL SPRINGS ICE LLC03-500694203749#MAIN07/24/2025
219.84 000014500071425 INV03-500869
166.48 000014500070925 INV03-500821
251.20 000014500070625 INV03-500768
135.52 000014500071625 INV03-500910
4.00 979142199071425 INV03-500869 91
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 40/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 609 LIQUOR
4.00 979242199070225 INV03-500694
4.00 979242199070925 INV03-500821
4.00 979242199070625 INV03-500768
4.00 979342199071625 INV03-500910
1,136.19 CHECK MAIN 203749 TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
210.00 000014500071525 INVDUAL CITIZEN BREWING COMPANY4708203754MAIN07/24/2025
1,306.60 979143420FREQUENCE DISP/GEO/PREROLL 070125ECM PUBLISHERS INC1057185203755*#MAIN07/24/2025
1,028.60 979243420FREQUENCE DISP/GEO/PREROLL 0701251057185
444.80 979343420FREQUENCE DISP/GEO/PREROLL 0701251057185
2,780.00 CHECK MAIN 203755 TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
830.00 000014500071425 INVGLOBAL RESERVE LLCORD-18334203761MAIN07/24/2025
828.96 000014500071425 INVGREAT LAKES COCA-COLA DISTRBTN47904007014203764MAIN07/24/2025
158.30 000014500071125 INVHOHENSTEINS INC838937203767MAIN07/24/2025
4,846.05 000014500071125 INV838907
(27.00)000014500071125 INV85100001
4,977.35 CHECK MAIN 203767 TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
3,060.03 000014500070325 INVM AMUNDSON CIGAR & CANDY CO LLP405997203778MAIN07/24/2025
507.00 000014500071125 INVMCDONALD DISTRIBUTING CO815733203784MAIN07/24/2025
411.00 000014500071125 INV815705
(136.00)000014500071125 INV816028
(58.00)000014500071125 INV816022
724.00 CHECK MAIN 203784 TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
23.96 979142171LIGHT BULBSMENARDS CASHWAY LUMBER-FRIDLEY32592203786*#MAIN07/24/2025
27.14 979242171LED BULBS, WD4030423
51.10 CHECK MAIN 203786 TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
235.30 000014500071125 INVMODIST BREWING CO LLCE-60384-1203792MAIN07/24/2025
507.40 000014500071125 INVE-60298
742.70 CHECK MAIN 203792 TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
92
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 41/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 609 LIQUOR
120.67 979144020071525 MOPS,MATS,TOWELSVESTIS SERVICES. LLC2500731389203818#MAIN07/24/2025
162.38 979244020071025 MOPS,MATS,TOWELS2500727739
283.05 CHECK MAIN 203818 TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
608.00 000014500070225 INVVINOCOPIA INC0376519-IN203819#MAIN07/24/2025
256.50 000014500070925 INV0376806-IN
460.00 000014500070925 INV0376807-IN
28.50 979142199070225 INV0376519-IN
2.50 979142199070925 INV0376806-IN
12.00 979242199070925 INV0376807-IN
1,367.50 CHECK MAIN 203819 TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
611.22 979143810SOLAR POWERVIRIDI INVESTMENTS LLC07162025-CH203820MAIN07/24/2025
2,318.65 97924381051-8335212-3XCEL ENERGY (N S P)1197885139203827*#MAIN07/24/2025
(599.06)97924381051-8335212-31197885139
(680.67)97924381051-8335212-31197885139
716.82 97934381051-4436024-511978741644
62.71 97934381051-0014068181-71198423510
1,818.45 CHECK MAIN 203827 TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
2,128.70 000014500071125 INVARTISAN BEER COMPANY37815162287(A)MAIN07/24/2025
3,529.10 000014500071025 INV838655
208.00 000014500071125 INV3781517
774.50 000014500071125 INV3781518
1,636.60 000014500071525 INV3781950
(130.29)000014500061625 INV424823
(30.00)000014500061025 INV424345
8,116.61 CHECK MAIN 2287(A) TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
296.79 000014500070325 INVBELLBOY BAR SUPPLY01100061002289(A)#MAIN07/24/2025
51.99 000014500070925 INV0110022100
115.50 979142171070325 INV0110006100
464.28 CHECK MAIN 2289(A) TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
3,466.12 000014500070925 INVBELLBOY CORPORATION02082866002290(A)#MAIN07/24/2025
900.00 000014500071125 INV0208310500
900.00 000014500071125 INV0208310700
93
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 42/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 609 LIQUOR
1,888.50 000014500070925 INV0208290000
1,325.00 000014500071625 INV0208359900
3,407.15 000014500071625 INV0208359800
44.00 979142199070925 INV0208286600
10.00 979142199071125 INV0208310500
32.00 979142199071625 INV0208359800
10.00 979242199071125 INV0208310700
40.00 979242199070925 INV0208290000
10.00 979342199071625 INV0208359900
12,032.77 CHECK MAIN 2290(A) TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
14,713.07 000014500070125 INV 700297717BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN BEER LLC1221774092292(A)MAIN07/24/2025
549.75 000014500071525 INV 700297717122361480
(144.65)000014500070825 INV 700297717413733815
(2.33)000014500071025 INV 700297717413744606
(7.49)000014500071025 INV 700297717413744605
15,108.35 CHECK MAIN 2292(A) TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
1,212.00 000014500061325 INV 700297717BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN W&S LLC1219176632293(A)#MAIN07/24/2025
630.46 000014500062725 INV122129954
320.00 000014500062725 INV 700297736122129958
3,712.43 000014500062725 INV 700297736122129959
144.54 000014500062725 INV 700297736122129960
1,441.46 000014500062725 INV 700297736122129957
1,458.21 000014500071125 INV 700297782122342898
812.00 000014500071125 INV 700297717122342891
576.00 000014500071125 INV122342895
1,405.06 000014500071125 INV122342894
378.00 000014500070325 INV122231970
(184.00)000014500062525 INV413687990
(160.00)000014500070225 INV 700297736413722005
10.35 979142199061325 INV 700297717121917663
12.65 979142199071125 INV 700297717122342891
(1.15)979142199062525 INV413687990
28.75 979242199062725 INV122129954
5.75 979242199062725 INV 700297736122129958
39.10 979242199062725 INV 700297736122129959
4.60 979242199062725 INV 700297736122129960
6.90 979242199071125 INV122342895
21.85 979242199071125 INV122342894
94
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 43/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 609 LIQUOR
2.49 979242199070325 INV122231970
(3.45)979242199070225 INV 700297736413722005
18.40 979342199071125 INV 700297782122342898
11,892.40 CHECK MAIN 2293(A) TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
6,157.70 000014500070925 INVCAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP31585922294(A)MAIN07/24/2025
4,061.35 000014500071625 INV3161608
(111.29)000014500070925 INV3158591
(10.08)000014500071625 INV3161607
10,097.68 CHECK MAIN 2294(A) TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
408.00 000014500053025 INVJOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO.28003882297(A)#MAIN07/24/2025
455.40 000014500071125 INV2832447
340.00 000014500070325 INV2827634
240.00 000014500070325 INV2827638
285.90 000014500070325 INV2827636
1,356.85 000014500070325 INV2827635
168.00 000014500070225 INV2826525
247.05 000014500070325 INV2827645
1,075.69 000014500070325 INV2827646
184.00 000014500070225 INV2826530
240.00 000014500070225 INV2826529
54.00 000014500070225 INV2826528
208.00 000014500070225 INV2826527
112.00 000014500070225 INV2826524
116.00 000014500071125 INV2832452
99.00 000014500071125 INV2832451
1,005.00 000014500071025 INV2831337
960.00 000014500071025 INV2031336
348.00 000014500071025 INV2831335
1,057.75 000014500071025 INV2831334
57.00 000014500070925 INV2830133
192.00 000014500070925 INV2830132
37.00 000014500070925 INV2830131
2,890.48 000014500070925 INV2830130
230.28 000014500070925 INV2830128
240.00 000014500071125 INV2832448
120.00 000014500071125 INV2832449
1,378.75 000014500071625 INV2834991
1,005.00 000014500071025 INV2831338
95
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 44/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 609 LIQUOR
79.00 000014500070925 INV2830137
99.00 000014500071025 INV2831339
1,293.00 000014500070925 INV2830136
398.70 000014500070925 INV2830127
232.43 000014500070925 INV2830138
360.00 000014500071025 INV2831342
147.10 000014500071025 INV2831341
260.00 000014500071025 INV2831340
3,518.50 000014500062725 INV2822442
224.00 000014500071125 INV2832450
224.00 000014500071125 INV2832453
(44.00)000014500061325 INV138249
(57.64)000014500051925 INV135042
(28.21)000014500051925 INV135043
(64.06)000014500061325 INV138251
(14.33)000014500061325 INV138250
(60.67)000014500061325 INV138246
(23.76)000014500061325 INV138248
18.46 979142199053025 INV2800388
9.94 979142199070325 INV2827634
4.97 979142199070325 INV2827638
4.26 979142199070325 INV2827636
28.40 979142199070325 INV2827635
5.19 979142199070225 INV2826525
5.68 979142199070325 INV2827645
7.10 979142199071025 INV2831337
15.62 979142199071025 INV2031336
12.78 979142199071025 INV2831335
19.88 979142199071025 INV2831334
1.42 979142199070925 INV2830133
2.84 979142199070925 INV2830132
1.42 979142199070925 INV2830131
21.30 979142199070925 INV2830130
3.92 979142199070925 INV2830128
4.26 979142199071125 INV2832448
4.26 979142199071125 INV2832449
12.78 979142199071625 INV2834991
(1.42)979142199061325 INV138249
11.36 979242199070325 INV2827646
7.10 979242199070225 INV2826530
2.84 979242199070225 INV2826529 96
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 45/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 609 LIQUOR
1.42 979242199070225 INV2826528
7.10 979242199070225 INV2826527
2.84 979242199070225 INV2826524
7.10 979242199071025 INV2831338
1.42 979242199070925 INV2830137
2.84 979242199071025 INV2831339
15.62 979242199070925 INV2830136
14.20 979242199070925 INV2830127
8.20 979242199070925 INV2830138
1.42 979242199070925 DEL2830129
2.84 979242199071025 INV2831342
4.26 979242199071025 INV2831341
8.52 979242199071025 INV2831340
41.18 979242199062725 INV2822442
7.10 979242199062725 DEL2822443
1.42 979242199062725 INV2822426
5.68 979242199071125 INV2832450
5.68 979242199071125 INV2832453
2.84 979342199071125 INV2832452
1.42 979342199071125 INV2832451
22,001.67 CHECK MAIN 2297(A) TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
336.00 000014500071125 INVPHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS INC50098142301(A)#MAIN07/24/2025
411.50 000014500070325 INV5006052
123.18 000014500070325 INV5006055
285.08 000014500070325 INV5006054
396.00 000014500070325 INV5006051
96.00 000014500070225 INV5005188
58.50 000014500070325 INV5006064
33.00 000014500070325 INV5006063
205.80 000014500070325 INV5006062
99.00 000014500070325 INV5006061
308.00 000014500070325 INV5006060
94.50 000014500071125 INV5009821
800.04 000014500071125 INV5009822
308.00 000014500071125 INV5009810
128.00 000014500071125 INV5009811
472.50 000014500071125 INV5009812
257.25 000014500071125 INV5009813
355.00 000014500071125 INV5009815
479.25 000014500071125 INV5009816
97
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 46/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 609 LIQUOR
1,035.00 000014500071125 INV5009817
186.00 000014500071125 INV5009818
176.00 000014500071125 INV5009819
632.88 000014500071125 INV5009820
440.00 000014500071125 INV5009823
172.00 000014500071125 INV5009824
399.00 000014500071125 INV5009825
189.00 000014500071125 INV5009826
814.38 000014500071125 INV5009827
(12.10)000014500061725 INV552397
11.46 979142199070325 INV5006052
2.84 979142199070325 INV5006055
4.26 979142199070325 INV5006054
12.78 979142199070325 INV5006051
3.75 979142199070225 INV5005188
9.94 979142199071125 INV5009810
2.84 979142199071125 INV5009811
14.20 979142199071125 INV5009812
7.10 979142199071125 INV5009813
6.39 979142199071125 INV5009815
8.52 979142199071125 INV5009816
5.68 979142199071125 INV5009817
4.26 979142199071125 INV5009818
2.84 979142199071125 INV5009819
8.05 979142199071125 INV5009820
1.42 979242199070325 INV5006064
1.42 979242199070325 INV5006063
5.68 979242199070325 INV5006062
2.84 979242199070325 INV5006061
9.94 979242199070325 INV5006060
14.20 979242199071125 INV5009823
5.68 979242199071125 INV5009824
5.68 979242199071125 INV5009826
7.10 979242199071125 INV5009827
2.84 979342199071125 INV5009821
4.26 979342199071125 INV5009822
9,444.73 CHECK MAIN 2301(A) TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
818.95 000014500061925 INVSOUTHERN GLAZER'S26376632302(A)#MAIN07/24/2025
1,035.00 000014500061925 INV2637667
1,290.00 000014500062625 INV2640353
98
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 47/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 609 LIQUOR
924.39 000014500070225 INV2642303
128.40 000014500070225 INV2642308
270.00 000014500070225 INV2642306
128.00 000014500071025 INV2644801
246.00 000014500071025 INV2644803
960.00 000014500071025 INV2644804
229.45 000014500071025 INV2644790
368.70 000014500071025 INV2644791
953.60 000014500071025 INV2644792
362.50 000014500071025 INV2644793
990.00 000014500071025 INV2644794
250.50 000014500071025 INV2644795
882.00 000014500071025 INV2644796
141.72 000014500071025 INV2644797
679.60 000014500071025 INV2644798
728.76 000014500071025 INV2644799
56.00 000014500071025 INV2644800
486.00 000014500063025 INV2641581
554.36 000014500071025 INV2644802
141.72 000014500071025 INV2644806
3.20 979142199061925 INV2637663
1.28 979142199070225 DEL2642302
6.40 979142199061925 INV2637667
6.40 979142199062625 INV2640353
2.56 979142199070225 DL2642301
7.68 979142199070225 INV2642303
1.39 979142199071025 INV2644801
6.40 979142199071025 INV2644803
14.08 979142199071025 INV2644804
1.49 979142199071025 INV2644790
3.84 979142199071025 INV2644791
6.40 979142199071025 INV2644792
7.68 979142199071025 INV2644793
14.08 979142199071025 INV2644794
1.49 979142199071025 INV2644795
6.40 979142199071025 INV2644796
1.28 979142199071025 INV2644797
6.40 979142199071025 INV2644798
8.96 979142199071025 INV2644799
1.49 979142199071025 INV2644800
11.52 979142199071025 INV2644802 99
Item 5.
CHECK DISBURSEMENT REPORT FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 48/58Page
:
07/24/2025 09:29 AM
User: heathers
DB: Columbia Heights CHECK DATE FROM 07/11/2025 - 07/24/2025
AmountDeptAccountDescriptionPayeeInvoiceCheck #BankCheck Date
Fund: 609 LIQUOR
3.84 979242199070225 INV2642308
7.68 979242199070225 INV2642306
15.36 979242199063025 INV2641581
1.28 979242199071025 INV2644806
12,774.23 CHECK MAIN 2302(A) TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
100.00 000014500071025 INVWINE MERCHANTS75261452304(A)#MAIN07/24/2025
1,214.50 000014500071025 INV7526144
7.10 979142199071025 INV7526145
24.85 979142199071025 INV7526144
1,346.45 CHECK MAIN 2304(A) TOTAL FOR FUND 609:
252,831.08 Total for fund 609 LIQUOR
100
Item 5.
StatusDepositCheck AmountGrossNameCheck NumberBankCheck Date
DirectPhysicalCheck
For Check Dates 06/28/2025 to 07/11/2025
07/11/2025 09:04 AM Check Register Report For City Of Columbia Heights Page 1 of 1
Open0.00633.22633.22MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTE 100962PR07/11/2025
Open0.001,241.001,241.00LELS #311 OFFICERS UNION 100963PR07/11/2025
Open0.00511.00511.00LELS #342 SERGEANT UNION 100964PR07/11/2025
Open0.00200.00200.00COL HTS LOCAL 1216 EFT1601PR07/11/2025
Open0.00120.00120.00COLHTS FIREFIGHTER ASSN EFT1602PR07/11/2025
Open0.001,875.241,875.24MSRS MNDCP PLAN 650251 EFT1603PR07/11/2025
Open0.009,935.849,935.84HSA BANK EFT1604PR07/11/2025
Open0.0070.0070.00PMA UNION DUES EFT1605PR07/11/2025
Open0.00161.00161.00COL HGTS POLICE ASSN EFT1606PR07/11/2025
Open0.00119,356.60119,356.60IRS EFT1607PR07/11/2025
Open0.002,326.252,326.25MISSION SQUARE 401 (ROTH) EFT1608PR07/11/2025
Open0.0021,657.8021,657.80MISSION SQUARE 457(B) EFT1609PR07/11/2025
Open0.00814.49814.49MISSION SQUARE RHS EFT1610PR07/11/2025
Open0.00107,949.62107,949.62PERA 397400 EFT1611PR07/11/2025
Open0.0025,341.6925,341.69STATE OF MN TAX EFT1612PR07/11/2025
12
3
Total Check Stubs:
Total Physical Checks:
0.00292,193.75292,193.75Number of Checks: 015Totals:
101
Item 5.
ITEM: Consideration of Resolution 2025-63, 800 53rd Ave NE EAW Findings of Fact and Record of
Decision.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development BY/DATE: Mitchell Forney, CD Director / July 24, 2025
CORE CITY STRATEGIES:
X Community that Grows with Purpose and Equity
_High Quality Public Spaces
_Safe, Accessible and Built for Everyone
_Engaged, Effective and Forward-Thinking
X Resilient and Prosperous Economy
_Inclusive and Connected Community
BACKGROUND
This evening, the City Council is being asked to take action related to, but not directly a part of, the larger
redevelopment project proposed for 800 53rd Avenue NE. More specifically the review and approval of the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the project. An EAW is a state-mandated environmental
review document governed by Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410. It serves as a tool to help local governments,
project proposers, and the public evaluate a project’s potential environmental impacts. The EAW covers a
wide range of topics, including traffic, parking, stormwater management, land use compatibility, and the
preservation of natural resources.
The proposed redevelopment at 800 53rd Avenue NE is required to complete an EAW under Minnesota Rules
4410.4300, Subpart 19, which mandates environmental review for residential developments that include more
than 375 units of high-density housing. The EAW for this project was prepared by the civil engineering firm
Louks using the required state forms and was submitted on behalf of the project proposer. While the EAW
process ensures that the project team considers environmental factors, its broader purpose i s to engage state
agencies, local government units, tribal nations, and members of the public in identifying and assessing the
development’s potential impacts.
Once City staff reviewed the submitted EAW and determined it to be complete, it was distributed in
accordance with the state’s environmental review procedures. A notice of availability and the EAW document
were submitted to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and distributed to the required list of reviewing
authorities, including relevant state agencies, watershed districts, tribal governments, and regional planning
organizations. The public comment period opened on June 10th and closed on July 10th, 2025. During this time,
the City received written comments from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the Mississippi
Watershed Management Organization (MWMO), the Metropolitan Council, and one local resident.
Following the close of the comment period, City staff compiled and re viewed all submitted comments. Staff
then prepared formal responses and assembled the City’s Findings of Fact and Record of Decision, which
addresses the submitted comments and outlines the basis for the City’s determination. These documents will
be sent to all commenting parties as required by Minnesota Rules. Now that the comment period is closed and
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA SECTION PUBLIC HEARINGS
MEETING DATE JULY 28, 2025
102
Item 6.
City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 2
the Findings of Fact have been completed, the City Council must determine whether the project requires the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
In making this determination, the City must consider the following criteria outlined in Minnesota Rules
4410.1700, Subpart 7.
- Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects;
- Cumulative potential effects. The RGU shall consider the following factors: Whether the cumulative
potential effect is significant; Whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in
connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; The degree to which the
project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative
potential effect; And the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project;
- the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory
authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably
expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project; and
- The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other
available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other
EIS’s.
Based on the City’s review of the EAW and comments received, staff makes the following findings of fact:
1. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet, this Findings of Fact and Record of Decision document, and
related documentation for the project were prepared in compliance with the procedures set forth by
Minnesota Rules 4410.1000 to 4410.1700 and the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board.
2. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet, this Findings of Fact and Record of Decision document and
related documentation for the project have satisfactorily addressed all of the issues for which existing
information could have been reasonably obtained.
3. The proposed project does not meet any of the mandatory EIS thresholds contained in Minnesota
Rules 4410.4400.
4. The project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based upon the above
findings and the evaluation of the following four criteria per Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, subpart 7:
a. The type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects have been c onsidered, and they do
not contain the potential for significant environmental effects
b. The cumulative potential of environmental effects has been considered, and the project does
not contain the potential for significant environmental effects.
103
Item 6.
City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 3
c. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public
regulatory authority indicates that this proposed project does not have the potential for
significant environmental effects. The mitigation of environmental impacts will be designed and
implemented in coordination with regulatory agencies and will be subject to the plan approval
and permitting processes as outlined in Question 8 of the EAW.
d. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of
other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies and the project proposed has been
considered and it indicates that this project does not have the potential for significant
environmental effects.
5. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, subpart 5, a copy of this Findings of Fact and Record of
Decision is being provided within 5 days to all persons on the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
List, the people commenting, and to persons who requested a copy. This Findings of Fact and Record of
Decision will also be made available on the City of Columbia Heights’ website.
These findings are supported by the EAW analysis and by the comments received from state agencies, none of
which indicated that an Environmental Impact Statement is required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Community Development Staff Recommend Approval of Resolution 2025-65.
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
MOTION: Move to close the hearing and waive the reading of Resolution 2025-065, there being ample
copies available to the public
MOTION: Move to approve Resolution 2025-065, being a resolution approving the findings of fact, record of
decision, and the negative declaration of need for an environmental impact statement for the 800 53 rd ave
redevelopment project
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Resolution 2025-065
2. 800 53rd Ave NE EAW Findings of Fact
3. EAW Comments
4. EAW
104
Item 6.
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-065
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA,
APPROVING THE FINDINGS OF FACT, RECORD OF DECISION, AND THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 800 53RD
AVE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Lincoln Avenue Communities (“Proposer”) proposes to redevelop 800 53rd Ave NE in Columbia
Heights in order to construct approximately 440 new high density residential units, 60
townhomes, and 12,000 square feet of commercial space; and
The project crosses the threshold of a mandatory environmental assessment worksheet
(“EAW”) by having a total of more than 375 attached units per Minnesota Rules, part
4410.4300, subpart 19; and
The EAW was prepared by Louks on behalf of the Proposer, who submitted completed data
portions of the EAW to the City of Columbia Heights consistent with Minnesota Rules, part
4410.1400; and
The EAW was prepared using the form approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality
Board (EQB) for EAWs in accordance with Minnesota Rules, part 4410.1300; and
The City of Columbia Heights submitted a copy of the EAW to all public agencies on the EAW
distribution list and published EAW availability in the EQB Monitor on June 10th, 2025, in
accordance with applicable state laws, rules, and regulations; and
The EAW comment period lasted from June 10th, 2025 to July 10th, 2025, and three (3)
regulatory agencies and one (1) member of the public submitted written comments during the
comment period; and
The City of Columbia Heights acknowledges the comments received from the Mississippi
Watershed Management Organization, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Metropolitan
Council, and Michelle Brask; and
City staff reviewed the proposed record of decision and finds it to be consistent with the
evidence submitted to the city and the applicable statutes and regulations, to the best of their
knowledge, and recommends the City Council approve the findings of fact and record of
decision dated July 2025 and determine that no environmental impact statement (“EIS”) is
necessary, reasonable or warranted with respect to the Project under the circumstances; and
105
Item 6.
The City Council desires to make findings of fact and a record of decision that no EIS is required
with respect to the Project (“Negative Declaration”).
Now therefore be it resolved, by the City Council in the City of Columbia Heights, that the City
Council does hereby
1. Adopt and approve the findings of fact and record of decision for the 800 53rd Ave
Redevelopment environmental assessment worksheet in the form which is attached hereto and
hereby makes the findings of fact and conclusions which are contained therein; and
2. Finds and determines that, based upon the findings of fact and record of decision, no
environmental impact statement is required for the Project pursuant to the Minnesota
Environmental Policy Act or Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200 to 4410.6500.
ORDER OF COUNCIL
Passed this day of , 2025
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
_____________________________________
Amáda Márquez Simula, Mayor
Attest:
____________________________________
Sara Ion, City Clerk/Council Secretary
106
Item 6.
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Anoka County, Minnesota
Findings of Fact and Record of Decision
For
The 800 53rd Avenue NE - Redevelopment to High Density Residential
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU)
City of Columbia Heights
Mitchell Forney, Community Dev. Director
3989 Central Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Proposer
Lincoln Avenue Communities
Kyle Brasser, Regional Project Partner
401 Wilshire Blvd., 11th Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Administrative Background
107
Item 6.
Lincoln Avenue Communities is proposing to redevelop the 12 acre commercial site at
800 53rd Ave NE in Columbia Heights MN. The mixed-use transit-oriented development
is located on the border of Columbia Heights and Fridley and will be served by the
metro transit F line BRT. This project will consist of approximately 440 high density
residential units 60 townhomes and 12,000 square feet of commercial space.
The City of Columbia Heights is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for this
project. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) has been prepared in
accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410. The EAW was mandatory per
Minnesota Rules, part 4410.4300, subpart 19: Residential Development. The EAW was
filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and circulated for review
and comment on the required distribution list. A notice of availability was published in
the EQB Monitor on June 10th, 2025. A notice was also published in The Life
newspaper. This notice included a description of the project, information on where
copies of the EAW were available, and invited the public to provide comments.
The EAW was made available electronically on the City of Columbia Heights website at
https://www.columbiaheightsmn.gov/government/eaw.php and in hard copy at the
following location: City of Columbia Heights City Hall, 3989 Central Ave NE, Columbia
Heights, MN 55421
The EAW comment period extended from June 10th to July 10th, 2025. Written
comments were received from Three agencies. One written comment was received from
the public. All comments received were considered in determining the potential for
significant environmental impacts. Appendix A includes copies of the comment letters.
Based on the information in the record, which is composed of the EAW for the proposed
project, the comments submitted during the public comment period, the responses to
comments, and other supporting documents, the City of Columbia Heights makes the
following Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
Project Description
The 800 53rd Avenue NE – Redevelopment to High Density Residential (herein referred
to as “the Project”) proposes replacement of the former office building and parking lot
site. The 12.5-acre site is located at 800 53rd Avenue NE, just south of 53rd Avenue
and one block west of Central Avenue.
The proposed Project includes three multi-story residential apartment buildings (443
units) with surface and underground parking; 58 townhome units; and 12,000 square
feet of commercial space. The Project will require extension and installation of utilities
108
Item 6.
including watermain, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, stormwater management, electric,
gas and communication cables.
The Project would include development on the current site which is mostly impervious
surface consisting of the vacant office building and parking lot. The building and parking
lot will be removed prior to construction of the Project. There are no wetland s on the
site.
Construction is proposed to be phased with phase one being the southerly six-story
apartment building. Subsequent phases will be dependent upon the market needs.
Corrections to the EAW or Changes to the Project since the EAW was
Published
There have been no changes to the proposed project design since the EAW was
published.
Agency and Public Comments on the EAW
The following comment letters were sent to the City of Columbia Heights:
Letter 1: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Email dated July 7, 2025, from Chris Green, Project Manager, Environmental Review
Unit.
Letter 2: Metropolitan Council
Letter dated July 9, 2025, from Angela R. Torres, AICP, Senior Manager, Local Planning
Assistance.
Letter 3: Public Citizens
One email was sent to the City dated July 9, 2025, from Michelle Brask.
Letter 4: Mississippi Watershed Management Organization
Email dated July 10, 2025, from Daniel Kalmon, Planning Principal.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
109
Item 6.
The following information and clarifications are provided in response to all EAW
comments received during the 30-day comment period. Comments responses are
provided in italicized text.
Letter 1: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Comment 1:
Watershed
- It is appreciated that a discussion around chloride was included in the
assessment.
- Sullivan Lake is at high risk for becoming impaired for chlorides, so being mindful
of that may help keep it off the impaired waters list. The Minnesota Chloride
Management Plan Designing with snow and ice in mind may help reduce the use
of salt. Plan for where snow will be stored and place it so there is not melting
and refreezing in primary walking areas. Plan for trees and placement of trees
so the sun can melt ice if it forms.
Response: So noted. Thank you for the comment.
Letter 2: Metropolitan Council
The staff review finds that the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional
concerns and does not raise major issues of consistency with Council policie s. An EIS
is not necessary for regional purposes.
We offer the following comments for your consideration.
Comment 1: Page 7, Item 7, Climate Adaptation and Resilience
- The discussion of climate trends and mitigation measures is adequate. Met
Council staff appreciates the commitment to native vegetation and green spaces
to reduce runoff and mitigate the urban heat island effect. Page 8 of the EAW
acknowledges that the site is in an area of high heat vulnerability and also notes
that there will be a 1.6 acre increase in impervious surface with the proposed
project but indicates that impacts will be minimal. Although the existing building
and parking lot contribute to the site’s heat vulnerability, the proposed project
could increase this vulnerability with its nearly 20 percent increase in impervious
surface. While green infrastructure and landscape areas are proposed to
mitigate this impact, Met Council staff strongly encourages commitment to the
necessary resources and ongoing vegetation management to ensure minimal
110
Item 6.
impact from the heat island effect. Additionally, the proposer should consider use
of energy conservation planting strategies, such as vegetation that provides
shade to east and west facing windows while avoiding shade to south facing
windows.
Response: Thank you for your comment. As described in the EAW and recognized with
your comment, the final Landscape Plan will consider energy conservation planting
strategies to mitigate high heat vulnerability and heat islands effect.
Comment 2: Page 33, Item 18, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions/Carbon Footprint
- The discussion of anticipated greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation
measures is adequate; however, the project proposer should also consider
providing adequate storage for bike parking and, in addition to energy efficient
appliances providing for capacity of electrification of appliances.
Response: Thank you for your comment. The Proposer should consider providing
adequate storage for bike parking as the project progresses and to provid e options of
electrification of appliances.
Comment 3: Page 37, Item 20, Transportation
- Staff appreciates the reorienting of the internal street grid to be ready to connect
to a future extension of 52nd Avenue, this will ensure future site connectivity
which will increase the access and mobility of residents and users of the site.
Staff would encourage the city to explore the means to proactively connect the
site to Central Avenue as the site develops. Staff would encourage the city and
applicant to increase non-motorized facilities throughout the site and to connect
to the existing trail and park system directly to the south to encourage greater
walkability in the area.
Response: So noted. Thank you for your comments. A connection to the existing t rail
system to the south should be considered.
Letter 3: Public Citizens, Michelle Brask
Comment 1:
- Impervious surfaces – much complicated study went into the details and I cannot
begin to understand the hows and whys. And, I have concerns about expand ing
the current variance regulations. At the CH Planning Commission Public Hearing
111
Item 6.
July 1st, one of the rationales to expand, making more impervious surfaces,
stated that Minneapolis has a much higher impervious surface percentage. This
does not seem to be a good argument for reducing greenspace and expanding
impervious surfaces in our city. I hope that CH does not want to model its
neighborhoods and businesses after Minneapolis but, rather, make wise
decisions and keep CH’s “small town feel.”
Response: So noted. As noted in the EAW, the city’s Comprehensive Plan was
amended in February 2024 to guide the future land use of the Project site to Transit
Oriented Development (TOD). High density residential is allowed in the TOD as a land
use. An increase in impervious surface is anticipated with this use and the City’s
comprehensive plan. The City Council will consider expanding impervious surfaces as
proposed by the Project and will take your comments into consideration. Approval of
the variance is pending.
Comment 2:
- Water levels have been up – but not to the highest level. According to the EAW,
ground water level ranges from 0 to 10 feet. How will the prediction of increased
precipitation impact ground water? There is a concern that underground parking
will be impacted by water levels. An additional related issue is the concern of
urban heat island effect, that, according to the worksheet, will further be impacted
by increasing impervious surfaces. The report says the buildings could be
constructed with roof-top ready infrastructure…and could be built with green
areas (and a few other coulds – page 8). Does this mean that the contracting
company will make the adaptations or that they might?
Response: Thank you for your comment. As stated in the EAW, precipitation is
anticipated to increase over time. Groundwater is affected by precipitation as
impervious surfaces are increased, however, infiltration practices are being encouraged
to help mitigate that. The groundwater elevation is relative to its flow towards the
Mississippi River and can fluctuate but is not anticipated to change drastically. An EAW
tries not to offer design parameters, but its intent is to identify and offer considerations
to mitigate environmental impacts. The City will continue to consider opportunities for
Climate Adaptation and Resilience in their final adoption of permits and approvals,
including as reasonable permit or approval conditions where appropriate.
Comment 3:
112
Item 6.
- Page 10 of the report talks about the current site providing limited habitat for
animals and birds and then promotes the idea of increasing the impervious
surface and decreasing green space. This will eliminate habitat, while also
increasing the number of humans (and pets) significantly. The impact will most
certainly be felt in the Sullivan Lake Park.
The EAW addresses the issue of potential endangered species in this project.
Please also look beyond the findings and look at the many other species tha t will
be impacted by less green space and more people. Sullivan lake has been
home to deer, raccoons, squirrels and rabbits (more now that the coyotes are
gone), grey fox, red fox, to name some. There are ma ny species of birds –
several kinds of ducks, and geese, egrets, heron, swans, eagles and so many
more. Snapping turtles and “regular” turtles, frogs and toads. The list goes on.
All of these need greenspace – habitat and clean(er) water. Decreasing
greenspace and increasing human and pet numbers will certainly have an
impact. I am not suggesting eliminating the project but using restraint in the re-
development project.
I am confused by and concerned about information on page 14 of the EAW:
“Other environmental effects include some loss of greenspace and intermittent
trees…The redevelopment of the site will include a small increase of hard
surface (according to the variance request, at least 10%!) but will also provide
current stormwater facilities…” These stormwater treatment facilities are a
requirement, no matter what. However, the developer seems to be using the
treatment as if it is a bargaining tool to be able to utilize a higher percentage of
impervious surface (again 10%). Page 14 goes on to state that “Other effects
may include the loss of habitat for animals which live in the green space…” And
page 14 concludes: “The Project will be sensitive to existing green spaces (What
does that mean?). Minimizing increases in impervious surfaces is beneficial to
both preserving existing green spaces and in reducing improvement costs, if not
needed.” This appears to be a double-speak. There is information about the
negative impact, down-playing the % increase in impervious surface, and then
the statement that minimizing increases is beneficial to preserving existing green
spaces. It would be wise to look at preserving what is, rather than pushing the
impervious surface limits and negatively impacting the greenspace/habitat.
Response: Thank you for your comments. The large existing building and contiguous
parking lot offers little value for habitat. The proposed project offers intermittent green
spaces throughout the site which can add value to those spaces. The Project can also
promote native vegetation and plantings compatible to local wildlife. The EAW focuses
on identifying sensitive ecological resources and rare features (both wildlife and plant
113
Item 6.
communities). Your list of more common animals, though no less valuable, should also
be considered. The City will continue to review these opportunities in their final
adoption of permits and approvals.
Comment 4:
- Another concern with the EAW: “No anticipated adverse visual effects from the
project.” Actually, building multiple 6 story apartment buildings in a business and
residential area that is mostly 1 and 2 stories (Medtronic might be considered 3
stories) will have an adverse visual effect. To say nothing of the density impact.
But that’s another issue.
Response: Thank you for your comments. It is recognized that a six-story building will
present a visual affect for certain property owners. The Transit Oriented Development
(TOD) land use designation of the Project site proposes 440 apartment units. Multi-
story vertical housing is proposed to accomplish the higher density in li eu of spreading
out low profile buildings potentially causing additional impacts to open space. Multi -
story buildings also provide operational efficiencies (i.e., mechanicals, infrastructural,
and ventilation equipment). The City and the Proposer will continue to consider any
adverse effects presented with the final adoption of permits and approvals.
Letter 4: Mississippi Watershed Management Organization
Comment 1:
- The City requirement in the stormwater ordinance of treating the first 1.1” of
runoff is based upon studies published by the MPCA based on cost -
effectiveness, i.e. on average, though depending on the land use, runoff above
1.1” has lower concentrations of sediment and nutrients, larger facilities are
needed to remove pollutants from larger volumes of water. However, while
concentrations are somewhat less, MPCA has identified stormwater runoff
volumes greater than 1.1inches – especially up to 2.5 inches as contributing
significantly to sediment and nutrient pollution, particularly total phosp horus (TP)
and total suspended solids (TSS). This additional treatment could be a
significant part of improving the Sullivan Lake’s ecosystems.
Therefore simply meeting the City’s stormwater ordinance requirements may not
advance the City’s goals of improving the water quality of Sullivan Lake to the
degree the City desires and depending on sediment loading it may contribute to
the degradation of Sullivan Lake’s water quality.
114
Item 6.
As such, MWMO staff would recommend the developer should complete an
analysis of total phosphorus and sediment loading in pounds that would have
occurred (1) pre-development, (2) existing conditions, and (3) proposed
conditions, to determine if the best treatment targets for the Lake.
Response: Thank you for your comment. It is noted in the EAW that the stormwater
treatment system will be designed to current standards as required by the MWMO and
the City. Eliminating the direct untreated runoff from the existing site to Sullivan Lake
along with compliant treatment of the proposed Project’s runoff will be a significant
improvement to Sullivan Lake’s ecosystems. The Proposer and the City will review
possible opportunities for additional treatment, where appropriate, through the approval
process to meet the City’s goals of improving the water quality to Sullivan Lake.
Comment 2:
- The potential negative impact on the lakes ecosystems is magnified even more
by the developer’s request for a variance from the City. This request increases
the current impervious limits on this site within the Shoreland Overlay District
from 35% impervious to a site that is 74% impervious per the developers design.
As proposed, this redevelopment has not shown how it will maintain or improve
the lake’s ecosystem over the long term. Furthermore, once completed,
opportunities to maintain or improve the lake’s ecosystem via onsite
modifications will be more expensive and less effective, than changes made to
the original development itself.
Prior to approving any development plans, MWMO staff recommend the City
work with the developer on significantly reducing the site ’s proposed
imperviousness to a percentage much closer to the existing 35% requirement
and go beyond treating the first 1.1” of runoff.
Response: Thank you for your comments. Upon the submittal of a variance application
by the Proposer, the City prepared a Findings of Fact in its review and report which can
be viewed on the City’s website.
https://meetings.municode.com/PublishPage/index?cid=COLUMBHTMN&ppid=97f9add
6-66cc-4ed6-a5c2-2822c0480f65&p=1. The City’s variance review criteria includes the
following statements: “The proposed development, as outlined in the preliminary plat
and development plan represents an efficient and beneficial use of the land, aligning
with the highest and best use principals while also addressing key community needs.”
“While the proposed development will result in a modest increase in impervious surface,
it will also incorporate enhanced stormwater management features.” “The development
115
Item 6.
will incorporate new stormwater filtration systems, which is an improvement over the
current site, which lacks any such infrastructure.” “Granting the shoreland variance
would not be detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the enjoyment,
use, development or value of property in the vicinity.” The Proposer and the City will
review possible opportunities for additional treatment, where appropriate, through the
approval process to meet the City’s goals of improving the water quality to Sullivan
Lake.
Decision Regarding Need for an Environmental Impact Statement
Based on the information contained in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and
the written comments received and the responses to those comments, the City of
Columbia Heights has reached the following conclusions:
1. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet, this Findings of Fact and Record of
Decision document, and related documentation for the project were prepared in
compliance with the procedures set forth by Minnesota Rules 4410.1000 to
4410.1700 and the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board.
2. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet, this Findings of Fact and Record of
Decision document and related documentation for the project have satisfactorily
addressed all of the issues for which existing information could have been
reasonably obtained.
3. The proposed project does not meet any of the mandatory EIS thresholds
contained in Minnesota Rules 4410.4400.
4. The project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects
based upon the above findings and the evaluation of the following four criteria
per Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, subpart 7:
a. The type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects have been
considered, and they do not contain the potential for significant
environmental effects
b. The cumulative potential of environmental effects has been considered,
and the project does not contain the potential for significant environmental
effects.
116
Item 6.
c. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by
ongoing public regulatory authority indicates that this proposed project
does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. The
mitigation of environmental impacts will be designed and implemented in
coordination with regulatory agencies and will be subject to the plan
approval and permitting processes as outlined in Question 8 of the EAW.
d. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and
controlled as a result of other environmental studies undertaken by public
agencies and the project proposed has been considered and it indicates
that this project does not have the potential for significant environmental
effects.
5. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, subpart 5, a copy of this Findings of
Fact and Record of Decision is being provided within 5 days to all persons on the
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board List, the people commenting, and to
persons who requested a copy. This Findings of Fact and Record of Decision will
also be made available on the City of Columbia Heights’ website.
The City makes a Negative Declaration and does not require the development of a n
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project. City Council Resolution 2025 -65
declaring a negative need for an Environmental Impact Statement is attached as part of
this document.
Appendix A: Comment Letters
117
Item 6.
Appendix B City Resolution
118
Item 6.
119
Item 6.
Metropolitan Council (Regional Office & Environmental Services)
390 Robert Street North, Saint Paul, MN 55101-1805
P 651.602.1000 | F 651.602.1550 | TTY 651.291.0904
metrocouncil.org
An Equal Opportunity Employer
July 9, 2025
Mitchell Forney, Community Development Director
City of Columbia Heights
3898 Central Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
RE: City of Columbia Heights – Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) –
800 53rd Avenue NE - Redevelopment to High Density Residential
Metropolitan Council Review No. 23090-1
Metropolitan Council District No. 2
Dear Mitchell Forney:
The Metropolitan Council received the EAW for the 800 53rd Avenue NE – Redevelopment to High
Density Residential project in Columbia Heights on June 5, 2025. The proposed project is located 800
53rd Avenue NE. The proposed project site is 12.5 acres and includes three multi-story residential
apartment buildings (443 units) with surface and underground parking; 58 townhome units; and 12,000
square feet of commercial space.
The staff review finds that the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and does
not raise major issues of consistency with Council policies. An EIS is not necessary for regional
purposes.
We offer the following comments for your consideration.
Item 7 – Climate Adaptation and Resilience (Shawn James, 651-602-1233)
The discussion of climate trends and mitigation measures is adequate. Met Council staff
appreciates the commitment to native vegetation and green spaces to reduce runoff and mitigate
the urban heat island effect. Page 8 of the EAW acknowledges that the site is in an area of high
heat vulnerability and also notes that there will be a 1.6-acre increase in impervious surface with
the proposed project but indicates that impacts will be minimal. Although the existing building and
parking lot contribute to the site’s heat vulnerability, the proposed project could increase this
vulnerability with its nearly 20 percent increase in impervious surface. While green infrastructure
and landscape areas are proposed to mitigate this impact, Met Council staff strongly encourages
commitment to the necessary resources and ongoing vegetation management to ensure minimal
impact from the heat island effect. Additionally, the proposer should consider use of energy
conservation planting strategies, such as vegetation that provides shade to east and west-facing
windows while avoiding shade to south-facing windows.
Item 18 – Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions/Carbon Footprint (Shawn James, 651-602-
1233)
The discussion of anticipated greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation measures is adequate;
however, the project proposer should also consider providing adequate storage for bike parking
and, in addition to energy efficient appliances, providing for capacity of electrification of
appliances.
120
Item 6.
Page - 2 | July 9, 2025 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Item 20 – Transportation (Joseph Widing, 651-602-1822)
Staff appreciate the reorienting of the internal street grid to be ready to connect to a future
extension of 52nd Avenue, this will ensure future site connectivity which will increase the access
and mobility of residents and users of the site. Staff would encourage the city to explore the
means to proactively connect the site to Central Avenue as the site develops. Staff would
encourage the city and applicant to increase non-motorized facilities throughout the site and to
connect to the existing trail and park system directly to the south to encourage greater walkability
in the area.
This concludes the Council’s review of the EAW. The Council will not take formal action on the EAW. If
you have any questions or need further information, please contact Amber Turnquest, Principal
Reviewer, at 651-602-1576 or via email at Amber.Turnquest@metc.state.mn.us.
Sincerely,
Angela R. Torres, AICP, Senior Manager
Local Planning Assistance
CC: Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT - Metro Division
Reva Chamblis, Metropolitan Council District 2
Amber Turnquest, Sector Representative/Principal Reviewer
Reviews Coordinator
N:\CommDev\LPA\Communities\Columbia Heights\Letters\Columbia Heights 2025 800 53rd Avenue NE - Redevelopment to High Density
Residential EAW - Ok_Comments 23090-1.docx
121
Item 6.
July 7, 2025
VIA EMAIL
Mitchell Forney
City of Columbia Heights
2989 Central Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota 55421
mforney@columbiaheightsmn.gov
RE: 800 53rd Avenue Northeast Redevelopment to High Density Residential – Environmental
Assessment Worksheet
Dear: Mitchell Forney
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) for the 800 53rd Avenue Northeast Redevelopment to High Density Residential project (project)
located in Anoka County, Minnesota. The Project consists of three multi-story residential apartment
buildings with surface and underground parking, 58 townhomes and 12,000 square feet of commercial
space. Regarding matters for which the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has regulatory
responsibility and other interests, the MPCA staff has the following comments for your consideration.
Watershed
• It is appreciated that a discussion around chloride was included in the assessment.
• Sullivan Lake is at high risk for becoming impaired for chlorides, so being mindful of that
may help keep it off the impaired waters list. The Minnesota Chloride Management Plan
Designing with snow and ice in mind may help reduce the use of salt. Plan for where snow
will be stored and place it so there is not melting and refreezing in primary walking areas.
Plan for trees and placement of trees so the sun can melt ice if it forms.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this Project. Please be aware that this letter does not
constitute approval by the MPCA of any or all elements of the Project for the purpose of pending or
future permit actions by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Project Proposer to secure
any required permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. If you have any questions
concerning our review of this EAW, please contact me by email at chris.green@state.mn.us or by
telephone at 507-476-4258.
Sincerely,
Chris Green
This document has been electronically signed.
Chris Green, Project Manager
Environmental Review Unit
Resource Management and Assistance Division
122
Item 6.
Mitchell Forney
Page 2
July 7, 2025
CG:rs
Attachment
cc: Dan Card, MPCA (w/ attachment)
Melinda Neville, MPCA (w/ attachment)
Nicole Peterson, MPCA (w/ attachment)
Lauren Dickerson, MPCA (w/ attachment)
Innocent Eyoh, MPCA (w/ attachment)
Deepa deAlwis, MPCA (w/ attachment)
123
Item 6.
7/24/25, 12:39 PM Mail - Mitchell Forney - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADEzZDdlNGIxLTkyZDAtNGU4OC04ODllLWEyMzEzMDYyZjhhNAAuAAAAAACA2BpE4YjZSozd2p50Kud0A…1/3
Outlook
FW: CH Re-development Project -800 53rd Ave NE - EAW
From Sarah LaVoie <SLaVoie@columbiaheightsmn.gov>
on behalf of
CommDev <commdev@columbiaheightsmn.gov>
Date Thu 7/10/2025 9:31 AM
To Mitchell Forney <MForney@columbiaheightsmn.gov>; Emilie Voight <evoight@columbiaheightsmn.gov>
Community Development Licensing and Permit Coordinator
City of Columbia Heights
www.columbiaheightsmn.gov
3989 Central Avenue NE | Columbia Heights, MN 55421
763-706-3670
inspections@columbiaheightsmn.gov
From: Michelle Brask <michelle.brask@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 11:52 PM
To: CommDev <commdev@columbiaheightsmn.gov>
Subject: CH Re-development Project -800 53rd Ave NE - EAW
To: Columbia Heights Community Development Department
Re: 800 53rd Avenue NE Project - Environmental Assessment Worksheet
My husband and I have lived in Columbia Heights since 2013. We appreciate our home and
neighborhood, CH leadership and all who work for the City, and for the CHPD and CHFD. We are proud
to call CH home and love living here. Frankly, we’ve not always been good at saying “thank you” to
those who keep CH running. Thank you!
We really like our neighborhood - just the way it is. And we also realize that change is inevitable since
Medtronic moved out. Again, we say Thank You for looking at ways to u lize the space and reclaim the
tax base while honoring the goal of the City – to be an All American City with the “small town feel.”
We live in Sullivan Shores Townhomes, to the west of Medtronic, and will be impacted by whatever
decisions are made. Following are some notes on the Impervious Surface Variance Commission
mee ng and the 800 53rd Avenue NE Project Environmental Assessment Worksheet:
Impervious surfaces – much complicated study went into the details and I cannot begin to understand
the hows and whys. And, I have concerns about expanding the current variance regula ons. At the CH
Planning Commission Public Hearing July 1st, one of the ra onales to expand, making More impervious
surfaces, stated that Minneapolis has a much higher impervious surface percentage. This does not
seem to be a good argument for reducing greenspace and expanding impervious surfaces in our city. I
hope that CH does not want to model its neighborhoods and businesses a er Minneapolis but, rather,
make wise decisions and keep CH's “small town feel.” 124
Item 6.
7/24/25, 12:39 PM Mail - Mitchell Forney - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADEzZDdlNGIxLTkyZDAtNGU4OC04ODllLWEyMzEzMDYyZjhhNAAuAAAAAACA2BpE4YjZSozd2p50Kud0A…2/3
Water levels have been up – but not to the highest level. According to the EAW, ground water level
ranges from 0 to 10 feet. How will the predic on of increased precipita on impact ground water?
There is concern that underground parking will be impacted by water levels. An addi onal related issue
is the concern of urban heat island effect, that, according to the worksheet, will further be impacted by
increasing impervious surfaces. The report says the buildings could be constructed with roof-top ready
infrastructure… and could be built with green areas (and a few other coulds - page 8). Does this mean
that the contrac ng company will make the adapta ons or that they might?
Page 10 of the report talks about the current site providing limited habitat for animals and birds and
then promotes the idea of increasing the impervious surface and decreasing green space. This will
eliminate habitat, while also increasing the number of humans (and pets) significantly. The impact will
most certainly be felt in the Sullivan Lake Park.
The EAW addresses the issue of poten al endangered species in this project. Please also look beyond
the findings and look at the many other species that will be impacted by less green space and more
people. Sullivan Lake has been home to deer, raccoons, squirrels and rabbits (more now that the
coyotes are gone), grey fox, red fox, to name some. There are many species of birds – several kinds of
ducks and geese, egrets, heron, swans, eagles and so many more. Snapping turtles and “regular ”
turtles, frogs and toads. The list goes on. All of these need greenspace - habitat and clean(er) water.
Decreasing greenspace and increasing human and pet numbers will certainly have an impact. I am not
sugges ng elimina ng the project but using restraint in the re-development project.
I am confused by and concerned about informa on on page 14 of the EAW:
" Other environmental effects include some loss of greenspace and intermi ent trees...The
redevelopment of the site will include a small increase of hard surface [according to the variance
request, at least 10%!] but will also provide current stormwater treatment facili es....." These
stormwater treatment facili es are a requirement, no ma er what. However, the developer seems to
be using the treatment as if it is a bargaining tool to be able to u lize a higher percentage of impervious
surface [again, 10%]. Page 14 goes on to state that "Other effects may include the loss of habitat for
animals which live in the green space...." And page 14 concludes: "The Project will be sensi ve to
exis ng green spaces [What does that mean?]. Minimizing increases in impervious surfaces is beneficial
to both preserving exis ng green spaces and in reducing improvement costs, if not needed." This
appears to be double-speak. There is informa on about the nega ve impact, down-playing the %
increase in impervious surface, and then the statement that minimizing increases is beneficial to
preserving exis ng green spaces. It would be wise to look at preserving what is, rather than pushing
the impervious surface limits and nega vely impac ng the greenspace/habitat.
Another concern with the EAW: “No an cipated adverse visual effects from the project.” Actually,
building mul ple 6 story apartment buildings in a business and residen al area that is mostly 1 and 2
stories (Medtronic might be considered 3 stories) will have an adverse visual effect. To say nothing of
the density impact. But that ’s another issue.
Looking at long range impact and heritage – is it possible to pull back, instead of pushing the limits to do
more, increase impervious surface, and build higher? This would take courage, in the face of “progress”
but would, I believe, ul mately prove that Less is More in the long run.
In conclusion, as the proposal and EAW are reviewed, I urge the Council and any other Deciders to
consider what Columbia Heights will be like 20 or 30 years from now. It will not be possible to take back
“expansion” and reclaim green space. “Less Is More” when looking at development and the heritage we
125
Item 6.
7/24/25, 12:39 PM Mail - Mitchell Forney - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADEzZDdlNGIxLTkyZDAtNGU4OC04ODllLWEyMzEzMDYyZjhhNAAuAAAAAACA2BpE4YjZSozd2p50Kud0A…3/3
leave those who follow. Please do not push this project to the limits but, instead, scale back to make
the project sustainable while reducing poten al long-term nega ve impact.
Thank you for the work that you do and for considering my comments.
Michelle
Michelle Braskth612-267-7276
700 Sullivan Way NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
michelle.brask@gmail.com
126
Item 6.
7/24/25, 12:38 PM Mail - Mitchell Forney - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADEzZDdlNGIxLTkyZDAtNGU4OC04ODllLWEyMzEzMDYyZjhhNAAuAAAAAACA2BpE4YjZSozd2p50Kud0A…1/3
Outlook
MWMO Staff EAW and City Medtronic Site Comments
From Dan Kalmon <DKalmon@mwmo.org>
Date Thu 7/10/2025 4:18 PM
To Mitchell Forney <MForney@columbiaheightsmn.gov>
Cc Kevin Reich <KReich@mwmo.org>; Nancy Stowe <NStowe@mwmo.org>
Mitchell,
Below are MWMO’s EAW comments and also for the City’s consideration.
The City requirement in the stormwater ordinance of treating the first 1.1” of runoff is based on studies published by the
MPCA based on cost-effectiveness, i.e. on average, though depending on the land use, runoff above 1.1” has lower
concentrations of sediment and nutrients, larger facilities are needed to remove pollutants from larger volumes of water.
However, while concentrations are somewhat less, MPCA has identified stormwater runoff volumes greater than 1.1 inches -
especially up to 2.5 inches as contributing significantly to sediment and nutrient pollution, particularly total phosphorus (TP)
and total suspended solids (TSS). This additional treatment could be a significant part of improving the Sullivan lake’s
ecosystems.
Therefore simply meeting City’s stormwater ordinance requirements may not advance the City’s goals of improving the water
quality of Sullivan Lake to the degree the City desires and depending on sediment loading it may contribute to the degradation
of Sullivan Lake’s water quality.
As such, MWMO staff would recommend the developer should complete an analysis of total phosphorus and sediment loading
in pounds that would have occurred (1) pre-development, (2) existing conditions, and (3) proposed conditions, to determine if
the best treatment targets for the Lake.
The potential negative impact on the lakes ecosystems is magnified even more by the developer’s request for a variance from
the City. This request increases the current impervious limits on this site within the Shoreland Overlay District from 35%
impervious to a site that is 74% impervious per the developers design. As proposed, this redevelopment has not shown how it
will maintain or improve the lake’s ecosystem over the long term. Furthermore, once completed, opportunities to maintain or
improve the lake’s ecosystem via onsite modifications will be more expensive and less effective, than changes made to the
original development itself.
Prior to approving any development plans, MWMO staff recommend the City work with the developer on significantly
reducing the site’s proposed imperviousness to a percentage much closer to the existing 35% requirement and go beyond
treating the first 1.1” of runoff.
127
Item 6.
7/24/25, 12:38 PM Mail - Mitchell Forney - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADEzZDdlNGIxLTkyZDAtNGU4OC04ODllLWEyMzEzMDYyZjhhNAAuAAAAAACA2BpE4YjZSozd2p50Kud0A…2/3
The following additional benefits accrue as impervious surfaces are reduced in a community:
Increased natural space for birds, pollinators, amphibians, and small mammals
More green space benefits the communities mental and physical health, and heat relief
Reduced imperviousness allows more parks, trails, and tree canopy
Exposure to green space is linked to lower stress, anxiety, and cardiovascular risks
Encourages walking, community gathering, and recreation—especially for vulnerable populations
If the developer ’s current plan is approved:
There should be mitigation requirements placed on the developer that offset current and future impacts the
development will have on the lake.
Demonstrate how the planned development will improve the lake’s ecosystem over the long term compared to a
revised plan that significantly reduces the site’s proposed imperviousness to a percentage is closer to the existing 35%
requirement.
Daniel Kalmon
Planning Principal 128
Item 6.
7/24/25, 12:38 PM Mail - Mitchell Forney - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADEzZDdlNGIxLTkyZDAtNGU4OC04ODllLWEyMzEzMDYyZjhhNAAuAAAAAACA2BpE4YjZSozd2p50Kud0A…3/3
Upper Harbor District Systems Administrator
Towerside District Systems Administrator
(he/him/his)
(612) 236-3089
Mississippi Watershed Management Organization
2522 Marshall Street NE
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55418-3329
www.mwmo.org
129
Item 6.
130
Item 6.
131
Item 6.
132
Item 6.
133
Item 6.
134
Item 6.
135
Item 6.
136
Item 6.
⁰
⁰
⁰
137
Item 6.
⁰
138
Item 6.
139
Item 6.
140
Item 6.
141
Item 6.
142
Item 6.
143
Item 6.
7 Source: MNDNR Kart Feature Inventory
https://arcgis.dnr.state.mn.us/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9df792d8f86546f2aafc98b3e31adb62
144
Item 6.
145
Item 6.
146
Item 6.
10 Source: MNDNR County Atlas Series C-27, Part B. Groundwater Atlas of Anoka County, MN.
mapping/cga/c27_anoka/anokareport.pdf
11 Source:
147
Item 6.
148
Item 6.
149
Item 6.
150
Item 6.
151
Item 6.
152
Item 6.
153
Item 6.
154
Item 6.
155
Item 6.
156
Item 6.
157
Item 6.
158
Item 6.
159
Item 6.
160
Item 6.
161
Item 6.
162
Item 6.
163
Item 6.
164
Item 6.
165
Item 6.
166
Item 6.
167
Item 6.
168
Item 6.
169
Item 6.
170
Item 6.
ArcGIS Web Map
5/14/2025, 11:01:11 AM
0 450 900225 ft
0 130 26065 m
1:4,800
Web AppBuilder for ArcGIS
LOCATION MAP Figure 1N
171
Item 6.
PARCEL MAP Figure 2N172
Item 6.
SITE PLAN Figure 3N
53rd AVENUE NE
173
Item 6.
HISTORIC AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR ANOKA COUNTY Figure 4
174
Item 6.
PROJECTED FUTURE AVERAGE
TEMPERATURE FOR ANOKA COUNTY Figure 5175
Item 6.
HISTORIC AVERAGE PRECIPITATION FOR ANOKA COUNTY Figure 6
176
Item 6.
PROJECTED FUTURE AVERAGE
PRECIPITATION FOR ANOKA COUNTY Figure 7177
Item 6.
LOCALIZED FLOOD RISK MAP Figure 8N178
Item 6.
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250
Feet
Ü
SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A, V, A99
With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile Zone X
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard Zone X
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes.Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.
The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the
authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map
was exported on 4/7/2025 at 7:42 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and
time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.
This map image is void if the one or more of the following map
elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels,
legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers,
FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for
unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.
Legend
OTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD
OTHER AREAS
GENERAL
STRUCTURES
OTHER
FEATURES
MAP PANELS
8
B 20.2
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
1:6,000
93°15'24"W 45°4'2"N
93°14'46"W 45°3'36"N
Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023 Figure 9
179
Item 6.
COOLING DEGREE DAYS Figure 10
180
Item 6.
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Figure 11N181
Item 6.
ZONING MAP Figure 12N
CITY OF FRIDLEY
R-1 Zone C-3 Zone
C-1
Zone
182
Item 6.
KARST INVENTORY MAP Figure 13
N
PROJECT SITE
183
Item 6.
Soil Map—Anoka County, Minnesota
(800 53rd ave)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
4/29/2025
Page 1 of 3
49
8
9
8
5
0
49
8
9
9
1
0
49
8
9
9
7
0
49
9
0
0
3
0
49
9
0
0
9
0
49
9
0
1
5
0
49
9
0
2
1
0
49
8
9
8
5
0
49
8
9
9
1
0
49
8
9
9
7
0
49
9
0
0
3
0
49
9
0
0
9
0
49
9
0
1
5
0
49
9
0
2
1
0
480000 480060 480120 480180 480240 480300 480360 480420 480480 480540 480600 480660
479940 480000 480060 480120 480180 480240 480300 480360 480420 480480 480540 480600 480660
45° 3' 54'' N
93
°
1
5
'
1
7
'
'
W
45° 3' 54'' N
93
°
1
4
'
4
3
'
'
W
45° 3' 41'' N
93
°
1
5
'
1
7
'
'
W
45° 3' 41'' N
93
°
1
4
'
4
3
'
'
W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 15N WGS84
0 50 100 200 300
Feet
0 25 50 100 150
Meters
Map Scale: 1:1,960 if printed on B landscape (17" x 11") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Figure 14 184
Item 6.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:15,800.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Anoka County, Minnesota
Survey Area Data: Version 22, Sep 7, 2024
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 29, 2023—Sep
13, 2023
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Soil Map—Anoka County, Minnesota
(800 53rd ave)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
4/29/2025
Page 2 of 3
185
Item 6.
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
UuB Urban land-Udorthents (cut
and fill land) complex, 0 to 6
percent slopes
27.4 96.6%
W Water 1.0 3.4%
Totals for Area of Interest 28.4 100.0%
Soil Map—Anoka County, Minnesota 800 53rd ave
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
4/29/2025
Page 3 of 3
186
Item 6.
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY Figure 15N187
Item 6.
1 M
i
l
e
IMPAIRED WATERS INVENTORY MAP Figure 16
N
188
Item 6.
PROJECT SITE
Figure 17 189
Item 6.
WELL INDEX MAP Figure 18N
1/2
M
I
L
E
190
Item 6.
WHAT'S IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD Figure 19N191
Item 6.
What's in My Neighborhood
Help FAQ WIMN Glossar y Feedback New search
Data
Medtronic, Inc.
Location:800 53rd Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55421-1241
Anoka County
Watershed:Mississippi River - Twin Cities (07010206)
Latitude:45.0644445
Longitude:-93.2501573
Coordinate collection
method:Address Matching House Number
Currently active?Yes
Industr y classification:Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic
Apparatus Manufacturing
Institutional controls:No
Search with a map
Activity over view MPCA contacts Alternate names
Owners Documents (0)
Three Rivers Park District, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, …Powered by Esri
192
Item 6.
Hazardous Waste
Hazardous Waste - MND982636995 - Very small quantity
generator
Status: Active
Hazardous waste includes substances that are corrosive,
explosive, toxic and-or fire hazards. Ver y Small Quantity
Generators produce 220 pounds or less of hazardous waste, and
less than 2.2 pounds of acute hazardous waste per month.
Businesses in this classification require a license.
Less Detail ▲
Events
Event Start End
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
07/30/2021 07/30/2021
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
06/04/2021 06/04/2021
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
03/24/2020 03/24/2020
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
07/22/2019 07/22/2019
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
02/13/2019 02/13/2019
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
01/25/2018 01/25/2018
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
07/20/2017 07/20/2017
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
04/19/2017 04/19/2017
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
05/03/2016 05/03/2016
Annual Gen License Report 11/24/2014
Annual Gen License Report 12/16/2013
Annual Gen License Report 01/04/2013
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
01/01/2012 01/01/2012
Annual Gen License Report 12/20/2011
193
Item 6.
Event Start End
Annual Gen License Report 04/19/2010
Annual Gen License Report 05/07/2009
Annual Gen License Report 06/12/2008
Annual Gen License Report 01/28/2008
Links to additional data sources
HW Generator License Application Data - MND982636995
Stormwater
Industrial Stormwater - MNRNE39YF
Status: Inactive
At industrial sites, stormwater may come into contact with
harmful pollutants such as toxic metals, oil, grease and de-icing
salts. Industrial stormwater permits are designed to limit the
contaminants that reach surface and groundwater.
Less Detail ▲
Events
Event Start End
No Exposure Termination 05/05/2021 05/05/2021
No Exposure Exclusion 04/05/2015 03/31/2020
Links to additional data sources
ISW Online Permit Data - MNRNE39YF
Industrial Stormwater - MNRNE34QB
Status: Inactive
At industrial sites, stormwater may come into contact with
harmful pollutants such as toxic metals, oil, grease and de-icing
salts. Industrial stormwater permits are designed to limit the
contaminants that reach surface and groundwater.
Less Detail ▲
194
Item 6.
Events
Event Start End
No Exposure Exclusion 07/16/2010 04/04/2015
No Exposure Exclusion 01/24/2008 04/04/2010
No Exposure Exclusion 04/19/2004 01/23/2008
Links to additional data sources
ISW Online Permit Data - MNRNE34QB
Contact us
651-296-6300 or 800-657-3864
Email us
Regional o ices
Environmental emergencies (24 hrs)
800-422-0798
Follow us
Sign up for Gov Delivery emails on many MPCA topics
Tools
A ssistance (How can we help?)
A sk us a question
Glossary of terms
MPCA website policies and disclaimers
Register to vote
195
Item 6.
What's in My Neighborhood
Help FAQ WIMN Glossar y Feedback New search
Data
North Star Beverages
Location:785 53rd Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55421-1240
Anoka County
Watershed:Mississippi River - Twin Cities
(07010206)
Latitude:45.0646228
Longitude:-93.2507106
Coordinate collection
method:Address Matching House Number
Currently active?No
Institutional controls:No
Search with a map
Activity over view MPCA contacts Alternate names
Owners Documents (1)
Hazardous Waste
Three Rivers Park District, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, …Powered by Esri
196
Item 6.
Hazardous Waste - MND086571601
Status: Inactive
Less Detail ▲
Events
Event Start End
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
01/01/1985 01/01/1985
Links to additional data sources
HW Generator License Application Data - MND086571601
Investigation and Cleanup
Petroleum Remediation - LS0015047 - Leak Site
Status: Inactive
Leak sites are locations where a release of petroleum products
has occurred from a tank system. Leak sites can occur from
aboveground or underground tank systems as well as from spills
at tank facilities.
Less Detail ▲
Events
Event Start End
Site Closed 10/25/2006 10/25/2006
Limited Site Investigation Reviewed 10/11/2006 10/25/2006
Technical Review of Limited Site
Investigation Report Completed
10/11/2006 10/18/2006
Application Completeness
Determined
10/11/2006 10/11/2006
Responsible Party Determined 11/27/2002 11/27/2002
Standard Letter Issued 11/27/2002 11/27/2002
Leak Discovered 11/21/2002 11/21/2002
Leak Reported 11/21/2002 11/21/2002
197
Item 6.
What's in My Neighborhood
Help FAQ WIMN Glossar y Feedback New search
Data
Target Store T2200
Location:755 53rd Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55421-1240
Anoka County
Watershed:Mississippi River - Twin Cities
(07010206)
Latitude:45.064618
Longitude:-93.2516745
Coordinate collection
method:Address Matching House Number
Currently active?Yes
Industr y classification:Department Stores
Department Stores
Institutional controls:No
Search with a map
Activity over view MPCA contacts Alternate names
Owners Documents (0)
Three Rivers Park District, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, …Powered by Esri
198
Item 6.
Hazardous Waste
Hazardous Waste - MND120016480 - Small quantity generator
Status: Active
Hazardous waste includes substances that are corrosive,
explosive, toxic and/or fire hazards. Small Quantity Generators
produce between 220 and 2,200 pounds of hazardous waste per
month, and less than 2.2 pounds of waste classified as acute
hazardous waste. Businesses in this classification require a
license.
Less Detail ▲
Events
Event Start End
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
02/05/2025 02/05/2025
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
10/11/2024 10/11/2024
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
09/19/2023 09/19/2023
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
10/12/2022 10/12/2022
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
06/04/2021 06/04/2021
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
02/05/2021 02/05/2021
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
05/21/2020 05/21/2020
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
03/24/2020 03/24/2020
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
02/13/2019 02/13/2019
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
01/25/2018 01/25/2018
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
04/19/2017 04/19/2017
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
05/03/2016 05/03/2016
199
Item 6.
Event Start End
Annual Gen License Report 11/24/2014
Annual Gen License Report 12/16/2013
Annual Gen License Report 01/04/2013
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
02/20/2012 02/20/2012
Annual Gen License Report 12/20/2011
Annual Gen License Report 04/19/2010
Annual Gen License Report 05/07/2009
Inspections and field work
Type Date
HW Compliance Evaluation Inspection 06/10/2014
Links to additional data sources
HW Generator License Application Data - MND120016480
Contact us
651-296-6300 or 800-657-3864
Email us
Regional o ices
Environmental emergencies (24 hrs)
800-422-0798
Follow us
Sign up for Gov Delivery emails on many MPCA topics
Tools
A ssistance (How can we help?)
A sk us a question
Glossary of terms
MPCA website policies and disclaimers
200
Item 6.
What's in My Neighborhood
Help FAQ WIMN Glossar y Feedback New search
Data
Saint Timothys Lutheran Church
Location:825 51st Ave NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Anoka County
Watershed:Mississippi River - Twin Cities
(07010206)
Latitude:45.061549
Longitude:-93.2493844
Coordinate collection
method:Digitized - MPCA internal map
Currently active?No
Institutional controls:No
Search with a map
Activity over view MPCA contacts Alternate names
Owners Documents (0)
Tanks
Three Rivers Park District, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, …Powered by Esri
201
Item 6.
Underground Tanks - TS0013988
Status: Inactive
An underground storage tank site has at least one tank of a
certain size on the premises. A tank site may have multiple tanks
and these tanks may contain food products, petroleum products
or other substances.
Less Detail ▲
Events
Event Start End
Registration Received 12/08/1992 12/08/1992
Notice Received 11/25/1992 11/25/1992
Registration Received 07/09/1990 07/09/1990
Links to additional data sources
Tank Data - TS0013988
Contact us
651-296-6300 or 800-657-3864
Email us
Regional o ices
Environmental emergencies (24 hrs)
800-422-0798
Follow us
Sign up for Gov Delivery emails on many MPCA topics
Tools
A ssistance (How can we help?)
A sk us a question
Glossary of terms
202
Item 6.
What's in My Neighborhood
Help FAQ WIMN Glossar y Feedback New search
Data
PETCO Store 1646
Location:753 53rd Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55421
Anoka County
Watershed:Mississippi River - Twin Cities
(07010206)
Latitude:45.0644914
Longitude:-93.2519005
Coordinate collection
method:Address Matching House Number
Currently active?Yes
Industr y classification:Pet and Pet Supplies Retailers
Institutional controls:No
Search with a map
Activity over view MPCA contacts Alternate names
Owners Documents (0)
Three Rivers Park District, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, …Powered by Esri
203
Item 6.
Hazardous Waste
Hazardous Waste - MNS000193102 - Very small quantity
generator
Status: Active
Hazardous waste includes substances that are corrosive,
explosive, toxic and-or fire hazards. Ver y Small Quantity
Generators produce 220 pounds or less of hazardous waste, and
less than 2.2 pounds of acute hazardous waste per month.
Businesses in this classification require a license.
Less Detail ▲
Events
Event Start End
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
08/05/2013 08/05/2013
Links to additional data sources
HW Generator License Application Data - MNS000193102
Contact us
651-296-6300 or 800-657-3864
Email us
Regional o ices
Environmental emergencies (24 hrs)
800-422-0798
Follow us
Sign up for Gov Delivery emails on many MPCA topics
Tools
A ssistance (How can we help?)
A sk us a question 204
Item 6.
What's in My Neighborhood
Help FAQ WIMN Glossar y Feedback New search
Data
Columbia Heights Dentistr y
Location:5220 Central Ave NE Ste 240
Columbia Heights, MN 55421-1823
Anoka County
Watershed:Mississippi River - Twin Cities
(07010206)
Latitude:45.06301832
Longitude:-93.24833188
Coordinate collection
method:Address Matching House Number
Currently active?Yes
Industr y classification:O ices of Dentists
Institutional controls:No
Search with a map
Activity over view MPCA contacts Alternate names
Owners Documents (0)
Three Rivers Park District, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, …Powered by Esri
205
Item 6.
Hazardous Waste
Hazardous Waste - MNS000328696 - Minimal quantity generator
Status: Active
Hazardous waste includes substances that are corrosive,
explosive, toxic and-or fire hazards. Minimal Quantity Generators
generate less than 100 pounds per year, none of which is
classified as an acute hazardous waste.
Less Detail ▲
Events
Event Start End
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
04/12/2019 04/12/2019
Links to additional data sources
HW Generator License Application Data - MNS000328696
Contact us
651-296-6300 or 800-657-3864
Email us
Regional o ices
Environmental emergencies (24 hrs)
800-422-0798
Follow us
Sign up for Gov Delivery emails on many MPCA topics
Tools
A ssistance (How can we help?)
A sk us a question
Glossary of terms
206
Item 6.
What's in My Neighborhood
Help FAQ WIMN Glossar y Feedback New search
Data
Dollar Tree
Location:775 53rd Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55421-1240
Anoka County
Watershed:Mississippi River - Twin Cities
(07010206)
Latitude:45.065196
Longitude:-93.249078
Coordinate collection
method:Digitized - MPCA online map
Currently active?Yes
Institutional controls:No
Search with a map
Activity over view MPCA contacts Alternate names
Owners Documents (2)
Stormwater
Three Rivers Park District, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, …Powered by Esri
207
Item 6.
Construction Stormwater - C00060468
Status: Active
When stormwater drains o a construction site, it can carry
sediment and pollutants that harm lakes, streams and wetlands.
Stormwater permit requirements are designed to control
erosion and limit pollution during and a er construction.
Less Detail ▲
Events
Event Start End
Coverage Issuance 05/21/2021 05/21/2025
Links to additional data sources
CSW Online Permit Data - C00060468
Contact us
651-296-6300 or 800-657-3864
Email us
Regional o ices
Environmental emergencies (24 hrs)
800-422-0798
Follow us
Sign up for Gov Delivery emails on many MPCA topics
Tools
A ssistance (How can we help?)
A sk us a question
Glossary of terms
MPCA website policies and disclaimers
Register to vote
208
Item 6.
What's in My Neighborhood
Help FAQ WIMN Glossar y Feedback New search
Data
S.P. 127-319-006, S.P. 113-118-004
Location:
Anoka County
Watershed:Mississippi River - Twin Cities
(07010206)
Latitude:45.064417
Longitude:-93.250158
Coordinate collection
method:Digitized - MPCA online map
Currently active?Yes
Institutional controls:No
Search with a map
Activity over view MPCA contacts Alternate names
Owners Documents (2)
Stormwater
Three Rivers Park District, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, …Powered by Esri
209
Item 6.
Construction Stormwater - C00067294
Status: Inactive
When stormwater drains o a construction site, it can carry
sediment and pollutants that harm lakes, streams and wetlands.
Stormwater permit requirements are designed to control
erosion and limit pollution during and a er construction.
Less Detail ▲
Events
Event Start End
Coverage Termination 11/05/2024 11/05/2024
Coverage Issuance 07/11/2023 11/05/2024
Links to additional data sources
CSW Online Permit Data - C00067294
Contact us
651-296-6300 or 800-657-3864
Email us
Regional o ices
Environmental emergencies (24 hrs)
800-422-0798
Follow us
Sign up for Gov Delivery emails on many MPCA topics
Tools
A ssistance (How can we help?)
A sk us a question
Glossary of terms
MPCA website policies and disclaimers
Register to vote 210
Item 6.
STATE ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY
MN OSA MAP Figure 20N
PROJECT SITE
211
Item 6.
212
Item 6.
ST-1
ST-2
ST-3
ST-4
ST-20
ST-18
ST-7
ST-5
ST-6
ST-11 ST-12
ST-15
ST-8 ST-9 ST-10
ST-14ST-13
ST-16
ST-17
ST-19
ST-21
ST-22
ST-25ST-24
ST-23
ST-26 ST-27
ST-30ST-29ST-28
53RD AVENUE NE
CE
N
T
R
A
L
A
V
E
N
U
E
N
E
SULLIVAN
LAKE
F:
\
2
0
2
4
\
B
2
4
0
2
5
8
5
_
0
0
\
C
A
D
\
B
2
4
0
2
5
8
5
-
0
0
.
d
w
g
,Ge
o
t
e
c
h
,4/
2
1
/
2
0
2
4
2
:
1
5
:
5
7
P
M
braunintertec.com
952.995.2000
Minneapolis, MN 55438
11001 Hampshire Avenue S
Project No:
B2402585-00
Drawn By:
Date Drawn:
Checked By:
Last Modified:4/21/24
Drawing No:
Project Information
Drawing Information
B2402585.00
JAG
4/7/24
IB
Columbia Heights Master
Development
800 53rd Avenue NE
Columbia Heights,
Minnesota
Soil Boring
Location SketchN
DENOTES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORING
0
SCALE:1"= 120'
120'60'
213
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
889.9
0.5
886.4
4.0
883.4
7.0
869.4
21.0
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), with roots, black, moist
(TOPSOIL FILL)
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine-grained, non to
slightly organic, dark brown, moist
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, moist, soft
(ALLUVIUM)
Trace roots at 5 feet
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, brown,
moist, medium to very stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
With Gravel at 20 feet
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
2-3-4
(7)
16"
2-2-2
(4)
15"
2-4-5
(9)
16"
3-3-5
(8)
18"
3-6-7
(13)
18"
5-5-8
(13)
18"
8-8-15
(23)
9"
qₚ
tsf
2
1.5
2.5
3.5
MC
%
15
20
14
Tests or Remarks
OC=2%
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-1
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110497.5 EASTING:503799.4
DRILLER:G. Scallon LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:890.4 ft RIG:7505 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Sunny
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-1 page 1 of 1DRAFT
214
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
887.2
0.5
878.7
9.0
868.7
19.0
866.7
21.0
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), with roots, dark brown,
moist (TOPSOIL)
LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL), reddish brown,
moist, stiff (GLACIOFLUVIUM)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense to very dense (GLACIAL TILL)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, reddish
brown, moist, very stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
4-6-7
(13)
15"
4-11-12
(23)
17"
50/6"
(REF)
2"
36-16-13
(29)
15"
50/5"
(REF)
0"
50/6"
(REF)
3"
44-10-20
(30)
15"
qₚ
tsf
2.5
>4.5
4
MC
%
23
Tests or Remarks
Cobbles and Boulders
possible at 8 feet
Cobbles and Boulders
possible at 12 feet
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-2
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110267.8 EASTING:503838.1
DRILLER:G. Scallon LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:887.7 ft RIG:7505 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Sunny
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-2 page 1 of 1DRAFT
215
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
886.6
0.3
882.9
4.0
877.9
9.0
874.9
12.0
867.9
19.0
865.9
21.0
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), with roots, black, moist
(TOPSOIL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel,
reddish brown, moist, stiff (ALLUVIUM)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, reddish
brown, moist, medium to very stiff (GLACIAL
TILL)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense (GLACIAL TILL)
LEAN CLAY with GRAVEL (CL), reddish brown,
moist, very stiff (GLACIOFLUVIUM)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, dense
(GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
4-4-6
(10)
12"
4-3-3
(6)
12"
7-9-9
(18)
18"
8-10-10
(20)
18"
7-12-12
(24)
14"
6-9-12
(21)
16"
6-13-18
(31)
12"
qₚ
tsf
1
4
>4.5
MC
%
16
12
Tests or Remarks
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-3
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110157.3 EASTING:503942.6
DRILLER:G. Scallon LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:886.9 ft RIG:7505 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Partly Sunny
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-3 page 1 of 1DRAFT
216
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
886.6
0.5
883.1
4.0
875.1
12.0
873.1
14.0
869.1
18.0
866.1
21.0
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), with roots, dark
brown, moist (TOPSOIL FILL)
FILL: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel,
brown and gray, moist
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace roots, brown and
gray, moist, soft to medium (ALLUVIUM)
LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL), reddish brown,
moist, medium to stiff (GLACIOFLUVIUM)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, reddish
brown, moist, stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to
medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, wet,
medium dense (GLACIAL OUTWASH)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
4-3-3
(6)
12"
1-1-1
(2)
16"
2-3-4
(7)
12"
1-2-3
(5)
15"
5-5-7
(12)
16"
6-6-7
(13)
16"
4-8-10
(18)
12"
qₚ
tsf
1
3
2.5
MC
%
12
20
24
23
Tests or Remarks
Water observed at 16.0 feet
while drilling.
Water observed at 8.2 feet
in temporary piezometer
when rechecked on
05/08/2024.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-4
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110085.0 EASTING:504053.4
DRILLER:G. Scallon LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:887.1 ft RIG:7505 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Partly Cloudy
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-4 page 1 of 1DRAFT
217
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
901.2
0.4
894.6
7.0
887.6
14.0
882.6
19.0
877.1
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), with roots, black, moist
(TOPSOIL FILL)
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, trace Gravel, brown, gray and dark
brown, moist
FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, non to
slightly organic, brown, gray and dark brown,
moist
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
brown, moist, medium dense (GLACIAL TILL)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, brown,
moist, stiff to very stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
2-2-2
(4)
8"
3-5-6
(11)
10"
2-2-7
(9)
11"
1-2-3
(5)
10"
2-6-2
(8)
5"
4-10-6
(16)
9"
4-5-6
(11)
16"
4-11-11
(22)
18"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
12
13
14
Tests or Remarks
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-5
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110471.0 EASTING:503952.7
DRILLER:G. Scallon LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:901.6 ft RIG:7505 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Sunny
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-5 page 1 of 1DRAFT
218
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
895.2
1.4
892.6
4.0
889.6
7.0
884.6
12.0
878.6
18.0
868.6
28.0
864.6
32.0
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 6 inches of bituminous over 10
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, trace Gravel, dark brown, moist
FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel,
grayish brown, moist
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, gray, moist
Asphalt debris at 8 feet
ORGANIC CLAY layer at 10 feet
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel,
brownish brown (ALLUVIUM)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
with Sand seams, brown and gray, moist,
medium dense (GLACIAL OUTWASH)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, with Clay seams,
brown, wet, medium dense (GLACIAL
OUTWASH)
Continued on next page
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
2-7-6
(13)
8"
2-2-7
(9)
12"
10-12-13
(25)
18"
10-4-3
(7)
14"
3-3-3
(6)
14"
2-2-4
(6)
12"
3-6-6
(12)
14"
6-7-8
(15)
16"
2-6-10
(16)
18"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
13
18
Tests or Remarks
P200=39%
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-6
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110350.5 EASTING:503991.8
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/17/24 END DATE:04/17/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:896.6 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Overcast
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-6 page 1 of 2DRAFT
219
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
855.6
41.0
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel,
reddish brown, moist, very stiff to hard
(GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
35
40
45
50
55
60
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
6-7-10
(17)
18"
35-19-20
(39)
10"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%Tests or Remarks
Water observed at 30.0 feet
while drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-6
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110350.5 EASTING:503991.8
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/17/24 END DATE:04/17/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:896.6 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Overcast
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-6 page 2 of 2DRAFT
220
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
891.5
0.7
878.2
14.0
874.2
18.0
870.2
22.0
867.7
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace roots, dark brown,
moist (TOPSOIL FILL)
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, trace Gravel, brown to dark brown,
moist
Black CLAY layer at 5 feet
With Limestone fragments at 10 feet
LEAN CLAY (CL), light gray, moist, stiff
(ALLUVIUM)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, brown, wet,
soft (ALLUVIUM)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, reddish
brown, moist, stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
1-3-4
(7)
15"
7-7-7
(14)
16"
5-6-15
(21)
14"
6-6-11
(17)
10"
2-3-3
(6)
0"
3-5-5
(10)
16"
1-1-2
(3)
18"
3-5-7
(12)
16"
qₚ
tsf
0.5
MC
%
13
14
26
19
Tests or Remarks
OC=2%
No recovery
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-7
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110264.5 EASTING:504096.9
DRILLER:M. Takada LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/19/24 END DATE:04/19/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:892.2 ft RIG:7505 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Cloudy/Sun
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-7 page 1 of 1DRAFT
221
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
894.4
0.5
882.9
12.0
880.9
14.0
870.4
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), with roots, dark brown,
moist (TOPSOIL FILL)
FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, non to
slightly organic, dark brown, moist
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine-grained, trace
Gravel, dark brown, moist
FILL: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel,
brown to dark brown, moist
Trace brick fragments at 15 feet
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
3-3-4
(7)
15"
4-4-4
(8)
16"
5-7-6
(13)
16"
6-7-7
(14)
16"
10-8-9
(17)
16"
10-10-9
(19)
12"
7-8-10
(18)
0"
9-9-10
(19)
3"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
17
15
26
Tests or Remarks
OC=3%
OC=3%
No recovery
Possible cobbles below 20
feet
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-8
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110521.4 EASTING:504060.0
DRILLER:M. Takada LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/19/24 END DATE:04/19/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:894.9 ft RIG:7505 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Cloudy/Snow
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-8 page 1 of 1DRAFT
222
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
892.4
1.0
889.4
4.0
886.4
7.0
881.4
12.0
875.4
18.0
871.4
22.0
868.9
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 4 1/2 inches of bituminous over 8
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, brown, moist
FILL: LEAN CLAY (CL), trace roots, slightly
organic, black, wet
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, grayish
brown, moist, medium (GLACIAL TILL)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, loose to
medium dense (GLACIAL TILL)
CLAY layer at 15 feet
LEAN CLAY (CL), reddish brown, moist, very
stiff (GLACIOFLUVIUM)
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to
medium-grained, brown, moist, medium dense
(GLACIAL OUTWASH)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
3-6-3
(9)
10"
1-2-2
(4)
12"
2-2-3
(5)
14"
2-3-4
(7)
16"
4-4-5
(9)
14"
4-5-15
(20)
14"
4-7-9
(16)
18"
8-12-14
(26)
18"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
23
16
Tests or Remarks
OC=4%
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-9
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110528.4 EASTING:504224.3
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/15/24 END DATE:04/15/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:893.4 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-9 page 1 of 1DRAFT
223
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
892.4
1.2
889.6
4.0
886.6
7.0
884.6
9.0
875.6
18.0
869.1
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 4 1/2 inches of bituminous over 10
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-
SM), fine to medium-grained, trace Gravel,
brown, moist
LEAN CLAY (CL), with Sand, and roots, grayish
brown, moist, medium (ALLUVIUM)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine-grained, trace Gravel,
reddish brown, moist, medium dense (GLACIAL
TILL)
LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, moist, stiff to very stiff
(GLACIOFLUVIUM)
Sand seams at 13 feet
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown to
reddish brown, wet, medium dense (GLACIAL
OUTWASH)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
2-3-3
(6)
12"
1-2-4
(6)
12"
4-7-13
(20)
14"
6-8-8
(16)
14"
2-6-9
(15)
16"
3-5-5
(10)
14"
5-13-12
(25)
12"
6-8-8
(16)
16"
qₚ
tsf
1.5
MC
%
27
22
Tests or Remarks
Water observed at 18.0 feet
while drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-10
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110519.3 EASTING:504395.9
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/15/24 END DATE:04/15/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:893.6 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-10 page 1 of 1DRAFT
224
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
894.5
1.2
891.7
4.0
888.7
7.0
881.7
14.0
876.7
19.0
873.7
22.0
871.2
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 5 inches of bituminous over 9
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, trace Gravel, dark brown, moist
FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, non to
slightly organic, dark brown, moist
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, trace to with Gravel, brown to gray,
moist
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
with Clay seams, trace Gravel, brown, moist,
loose (GLACIAL TILL)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, with Gravel, light
brown, moist, medium dense (GLACIAL
OUTWASH)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
with Clay lenses, trace Gravel, brown, moist,
medium dense (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
6-10-10
(20)
14"
13-8-8
(16)
14"
10-12-11
(23)
12"
26-13-14
(27)
0"
5-4-5
(9)
16"
2-4-6
(10)
18"
6-10-13
(23)
12"
9-9-11
(20)
18"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
8
12
Tests or Remarks
OC=2%
Possible cobbles at 10 feet
No recovery
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-11
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110434.5 EASTING:504015.9
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/17/24 END DATE:04/17/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:895.7 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Overcast
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-11 page 1 of 1DRAFT
225
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
892.9
1.3
890.2
4.0
885.2
9.0
880.2
14.0
876.2
18.0
869.7
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 2 1/2 inches of bituminous over 13
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC), with Gravel, dark
brown, moist
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, trace Gravel, brown to dark brown,
moist
FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, dark
brown, moist
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, moist, stiff
(GLACIOFLUVIUM)
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel, brown
to gray, moist, stiff to very stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
3-6-9
(15)
14"
6-7-12
(19)
14"
5-6-11
(17)
16"
3-5-6
(11)
18"
4-6-8
(14)
16"
2-4-7
(11)
16"
3-4-5
(9)
18"
5-6-13
(19)
18"
qₚ
tsf
2.5
MC
%
8
9
11
9
Tests or Remarks
P200=28%
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-12
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110430.1 EASTING:504155.2
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/15/24 END DATE:04/15/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:894.2 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-12 page 1 of 1DRAFT
226
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
892.2
1.2
889.4
4.0
886.4
7.0
875.4
18.0
870.4
23.0
865.4
28.0
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 5 inches of bituminous over 11
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC), non to slightly
organic, dark brown, moist
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown,
moist to wet, medium dense to dense
(GLACIAL OUTWASH)
CLAY layers at 10 feet
Wet at 15 feet
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, reddish
brown, moist, very stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
LEAN CLAY (CL), with Sand seams, reddish
brown, moist, hard (GLACIOFLUVIUM)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist to wet,
medium dense to very dense (GLACIAL TILL)
Continued on next page
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
2-4-7
(11)
12"
9-6-8
(14)
12"
12-10-11
(21)
14"
7-6-10
(16)
14"
10-18-17
(35)
16"
11-8-11
(19)
14"
10-11-13
(24)
16"
10-15-20
(35)
18"
12-14-12
(26)
14"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
12
12
6
Tests or Remarks
OC=3%
P200=10%
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-13
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110432.4 EASTING:504322.2
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/15/24 END DATE:04/15/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:893.4 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-13 page 1 of 2DRAFT
227
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
852.4
41.0
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist to wet,
medium dense to very dense (GLACIAL TILL)
Wet at 40 feet
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
35
40
45
50
55
60
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
10-12-14
(26)
12"
50/4"
(REF)
2"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%Tests or Remarks
Water observed at 15.0 feet
while drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-13
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110432.4 EASTING:504322.2
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/15/24 END DATE:04/15/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:893.4 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-13 page 2 of 2DRAFT
228
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
891.7
1.2
888.9
4.0
885.9
7.0
883.9
9.0
874.9
18.0
868.4
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 4 inches of bituminous over 10
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-
SM), fine to medium-grained, brown, moist
FILL: LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel, and
roots, slightly organic, black, moist
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose (GLACIAL
TILL)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown,
moist to wet, loose (GLACIAL OUTWASH)
Clay seams at 10 feet
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, reddish
brown, moist, very stiff to hard (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
4-5-5
(10)
12"
2-4-6
(10)
14"
3-4-5
(9)
12"
2-3-6
(9)
14"
3-6-4
(10)
12"
4-4-3
(7)
12"
7-10-13
(23)
16"
50/5"
(REF)
4"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
15
11
12
Tests or Remarks
OC=3%
Wet at 12 feet
Water observed at 12.0 feet
while drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-14
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110431.9 EASTING:504459.2
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/16/24 END DATE:04/16/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:892.9 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Overcast/Rain
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-14 page 1 of 1DRAFT
229
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
892.9
0.7
881.1
12.5
879.6
14.0
871.6
22.0
869.1
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 4 inches of bituminous over 4.5
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, trace roots, non to slightly organic,
dark brown and brown, moist
Clay seams and trace roots at 8 feet
LEAN CLAY (CL), with Sand, brown, moist,
medium (ALLUVIUM)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, gray and
brown, moist, medium to stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
2-5-7
(12)
12"
9-9-10
(19)
18"
8-8-7
(15)
18"
3-6-7
(13)
16"
2-3-5
(8)
18"
3-3-3
(6)
16"
2-3-6
(9)
16"
6-10-14
(24)
18"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
9
14
Tests or Remarks
OC=2%
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-15
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110334.3 EASTING:504095.2
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/17/24 END DATE:04/17/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:893.6 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Overcast
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-15 page 1 of 1DRAFT
230
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
890.0
1.3
884.3
7.0
882.3
9.0
879.3
12.0
877.3
14.0
866.8
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 4 inches of bituminous over 12
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, trace Gravel, brown to dark brown,
moist
Clay seams at 5 feet
FILL: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), brown and
gray, moist
CLAYEY SAND (SC), with Sand seams, light
gray, moist (GLACIAL TILL)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
with Clay seams, brown, moist, medium dense
(GLACIAL TILL)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, reddish
brown, moist, stiff to very stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
6-8-11
(19)
16"
3-8-11
(19)
14"
4-4-7
(11)
16"
4-5-6
(11)
18"
5-12-17
(29)
18"
5-7-11
(18)
18"
6-6-5
(11)
14"
10-10-5
(15)
18"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
8
16
Tests or Remarks
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-16
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110334.4 EASTING:504267.2
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/17/24 END DATE:04/17/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:891.3 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Overcasr
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-16 page 1 of 1DRAFT
231
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
890.2
1.3
884.5
7.0
882.5
9.0
879.5
12.0
867.0
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 5 inches of bituminous over 10
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, non to slightly organic, black, moist
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel, grayish
brown, moist, stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, reddish
brown, moist, stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, loose to
very dense (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
4-7-6
(13)
14"
6-12-10
(22)
6"
3-5-4
(9)
14"
2-5-5
(10)
12"
2-4-6
(10)
14"
7-8-8
(16)
14"
50/5"
(REF)
2"
20-20-17
(37)
16"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
10
18
13
Tests or Remarks
OC=2%
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-17
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110325.7 EASTING:504441.3
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/16/24 END DATE:04/16/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:891.5 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Overcast/Rain
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-17 page 1 of 1DRAFT
232
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
888.1
1.0
882.1
7.0
877.1
12.0
875.1
14.0
870.1
19.0
867.1
22.0
864.6
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 4 1/2 inches of bituminous over 8
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel, brown,
moist, stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine-grained, trace Gravel,
reddish brown, moist, medium dense (GLACIAL
TILL)
LEAN CLAY (CL), with Sand, and Silt lenses,
brown, moist, very stiff (GLACIOFLUVIUM)
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to
medium-grained, brown, wet, loose (GLACIAL
OUTWASH)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine-grained, trace Gravel,
reddish brown, wet, loose (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
4-8-10
(18)
16"
15-12-11
(23)
0"
5-6-5
(11)
14"
4-5-9
(14)
16"
7-11-10
(21)
18"
5-10-10
(20)
16"
1-5-5
(10)
16"
2-4-6
(10)
18"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
6
12
Tests or Remarks
Water observed at 17.0 feet
while drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-18
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110265.0 EASTING:504188.3
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/17/24 END DATE:04/17/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:889.1 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Overcast
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-18 page 1 of 1DRAFT
233
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
890.0
1.0
887.0
4.0
882.0
9.0
872.0
19.0
866.5
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 4 1/2 inches of bituminous over 8
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, non to
slightly organic, dark brown, moist
CLAYEY SAND (SC), with Sand seams, trace
Gravel, brown, moist, stiff to very stiff (GLACIAL
TILL)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense to dense (GLACIAL TILL)
Clay seams at 10 feet
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, trace Gravel, reddish
brown, moist, medium dense to dense
(GLACIAL OUTWASH)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
5-5-6
(11)
14"
6-5-6
(11)
12"
6-9-9
(18)
16"
6-12-20
(32)
16"
11-11-12
(23)
14"
6-8-10
(18)
16"
10-14-12
(26)
16"
10-20-15
(35)
16"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
12
14
Tests or Remarks
OC=2%
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-19
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110227.0 EASTING:504470.1
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/16/24 END DATE:04/16/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:891.0 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Rain
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-19 page 1 of 1DRAFT
234
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
885.9
0.4
879.3
7.0
873.8
12.5
864.3
22.0
861.8
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 5 inches of bituminous
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, trace Gravel, dark brown, moist
Asphalt debris at 3 feet
Slightly organic at 5 feet
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, reddish
brown, moist, stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, brown, wet, loose to
medium dense (GLACIAL OUTWASH)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, loose
(GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
3-9-12
(21)
16"
1-2-2
(4)
15"
4-5-6
(11)
16"
8-7-8
(15)
0"
3-4-5
(9)
14"
15-10-8
(18)
0"
3-9-5
(14)
12"
3-4-4
(8)
18"
qₚ
tsf
2
MC
%
19
Tests or Remarks
OC=3%
Wet at 12 feet
Water observed at 12.5 feet
while drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-20
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110147.4 EASTING:504181.9
DRILLER:M. Takada LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/19/24 END DATE:04/19/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:886.3 ft RIG:7505 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Cloudy
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-20 page 1 of 1DRAFT
235
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
886.9
1.3
879.2
9.0
874.2
14.0
869.2
19.0
863.7
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 4 inches of bituminous over 12
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine-grained, grayish
brown to dark brown, moist
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to
medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist to
wet, loose (GLACIAL OUTWASH)
Clay seams at 13 feet
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense (GLACIAL TILL)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, trace Gravel, Clay
seams and layers, brown, moist, medium
dense (GLACIAL OUTWASH)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
11-8-9
(17)
12"
2-2-5
(7)
12"
3-3-3
(6)
4"
4-4-6
(10)
12"
2-2-4
(6)
12"
6-8-8
(16)
12"
10-10-11
(21)
14"
6-9-10
(19)
12"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
13
12
11
Tests or Remarks
OC=2%
Wet at 13 feet
Water observed at 13.0 feet
while drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-21
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110200.5 EASTING:504306.2
DRILLER:K. Caudill LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/19/24 END DATE:04/19/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:888.2 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Cloudy
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-21 page 1 of 1DRAFT
236
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
888.5
0.9
882.4
7.0
880.4
9.0
870.4
19.0
864.9
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 4 inches of bituminous over 7
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace roots,
and Gravel, slightly organic, dark brown, moist
FILL: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), with Sand
seams, gray, moist
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense (GLACIAL TILL)
Sand seams at 10 feet
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, trace Gravel, reddish
brown, moist to wet, medium dense (GLACIAL
OUTWASH)
Wet at 23 feet
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
2-3-4
(7)
12"
4-3-2
(5)
14"
2-2-3
(5)
12"
3-10-7
(17)
14"
7-10-12
(22)
14"
6-10-8
(18)
16"
6-11-10
(21)
14"
5-10-8
(18)
18"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
20
19
Tests or Remarks
OC=2%
Water observed at 23.0 feet
while drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-22
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110136.3 EASTING:504433.4
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/16/24 END DATE:04/16/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:889.4 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Rain
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-22 page 1 of 1DRAFT
237
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
886.4
0.7
880.1
7.0
878.1
9.0
875.1
12.0
862.6
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, dark brown,
moist (TOPSOIL FILL)
FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, dark
brown to gray, moist
Asphalt debris at 5 feet
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, with Gravel, brown, moist
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, brown,
moist (ALLUVIUM)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace to with Gravel, brown to reddish brown,
wet, medium dense to very dense (GLACIAL
TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
2-3-4
(7)
15"
1-2-2
(4)
12"
10-9-9
(18)
3"
2-3-3
(6)
12"
7-7-8
(15)
12"
2-5-8
(13)
14"
4-8-6
(14)
16"
33-38-19
(57)
12"
qₚ
tsf
0.5
MC
%
14
10
20
Tests or Remarks
Wet at 12 feet
P200=26%
Water observed at 12.5 feet
while drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-23
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110012.7 EASTING:504133.8
DRILLER:G. Scallon LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:887.1 ft RIG:7505 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Cloudy
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-23 page 1 of 1DRAFT
238
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
886.9
1.0
883.9
4.0
880.9
7.0
875.9
12.0
865.9
22.0
863.4
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 2 1/2 inches of bituminous over 10
inches of apparent aggregate base
ORGANIC CLAY (OL), black, wet (SWAMP
DEPOSIT)
PEAT (PT), black, wet (SWAMP DEPOSIT)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), with Sand seams, trace
Gravel, reddish brown, moist, stiff (GLACIAL
TILL)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense to dense (GLACIAL TILL)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to coarse-grained, trace Gravel, reddish
brown, wet, dense (GLACIAL OUTWASH)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
1-2-4
(6)
12"
2-1-2
(3)
14"
3-5-7
(12)
14"
5-7-12
(19)
14"
7-13-14
(27)
14"
7-14-18
(32)
12"
10-7-9
(16)
14"
8-15-17
(32)
14"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
62
11
9
Tests or Remarks
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-24
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110003.0 EASTING:504360.3
DRILLER:K. Caudill LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/19/24 END DATE:04/19/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:887.9 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Cloudy
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-24 page 1 of 1DRAFT
239
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
893.2
0.8
882.0
12.0
875.0
19.0
872.0
22.0
869.5
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
LEAN CLAY (CL), with roots, black, moist
(TOPSOIL)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, brown,
moist, medium (GLACIAL TILL)
Trace roots at 2 1/2 feet
Sand seams at 10 feet
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
reddish brown, moist, medium dense (GLACIAL
TILL)
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to
medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist,
medium dense (GLACIAL OUTWASH)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
with Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
1-2-3
(5)
14"
2-3-5
(8)
12"
5-3-4
(7)
12"
2-3-5
(8)
14"
3-12-13
(25)
12"
10-10-12
(22)
12"
4-8-11
(19)
10"
9-14-15
(29)
12"
qₚ
tsf
0.75
1
MC
%
16
11
Tests or Remarks
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-25
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110000.4 EASTING:504587.9
DRILLER:K. Caudill LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:894.0 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Cloudy
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-25 page 1 of 1DRAFT
240
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
884.4
2.0
882.4
4.0
879.4
7.0
872.4
14.0
868.4
18.0
861.9
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
ORGANIC CLAY (OL), black, moist (TOPSOIL)
ORGANIC CLAY (OL), black, wet (SWAMP
DEPOSIT)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, brown, moist, loose
(ALLUVIUM)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense to dense (GLACIAL TILL)
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to
medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, dry,
medium dense (GLACIAL OUTWASH)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense to dense (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
2-2-2
(4)
10"
3-3-4
(7)
12"
8-12-14
(26)
12"
8-10-14
(24)
14"
12-17-18
(35)
14"
9-12-17
(29)
14"
7-8-8
(16)
12"
12-15-17
(32)
8"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
85
14
10
Tests or Remarks
OC=16%
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-26
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:109923.1 EASTING:504260.0
DRILLER:K. Caudill LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:886.4 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Cloudy
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-26 page 1 of 1DRAFT
241
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
888.2
1.3
885.5
4.0
880.5
9.0
870.5
19.0
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), with roots, dark brown,
moist (TOPSOIL FILL)
FILL: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel,
brown to dark brown, moist
PEAT (PT), black, wet (SWAMP DEPOSIT)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, dry
to moist, loose to medium dense (GLACIAL
OUTWASH)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense to very dense (GLACIAL TILL)
Clay seams at 25 feet
Continued on next page
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
1-2-4
(6)
14"
2-2-3
(5)
12"
2-1-2
(3)
14"
19-13-11
(24)
10"
3-5-5
(10)
14"
12-9-8
(17)
14"
5-8-15
(23)
12"
10-12-13
(25)
14"
18-23-28
(51)
14"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
15
138
4
Tests or Remarks
OC=28%
P200=8%
Wet at 12 1/2 feet
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-27
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:109914.6 EASTING:504447.0
DRILLER:M. Takada LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:889.5 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Cloudy
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-27 page 1 of 2DRAFT
242
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
848.5
41.0
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense to very dense (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
35
40
45
50
55
60
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
10-27-30
(57)
17-30-50/5"
(REF)
qₚ
tsf
MC
%Tests or Remarks
Water observed at 12.5 feet
while drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-27
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:109914.6 EASTING:504447.0
DRILLER:M. Takada LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:889.5 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Cloudy
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-27 page 2 of 2DRAFT
243
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
886.2
1.2
883.4
4.0
880.4
7.0
869.4
18.0
862.9
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
LEAN CLAY (CL), with roots, dark brown, moist
(TOPSOIL FILL)
FILL: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel,
non to slightly organic, brown and dark brown,
moist
ORGANIC CLAY with SAND (OL), black, wet
(SWAMP DEPOSIT)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense (GLACIAL TILL)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, with Clay lenses,
reddish brown, wet, medium dense (GLACIAL
OUTWASH)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
2-1-3
(4)
10"
2-2-3
(5)
12"
5-7-12
(19)
14"
12-13-15
(28)
14"
7-7-11
(18)
14"
8-6-7
(13)
16"
4-7-10
(17)
14"
8-12-34
(46)
14"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
14
10
Tests or Remarks
OC=2%
Water observed at 20.0 feet
while drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-28
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:109834.3 EASTING:504121.7
DRILLER:M. Takada LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:887.4 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Cloudy
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-28 page 1 of 1DRAFT
244
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
889.0
0.7
885.7
4.0
881.7
8.0
879.7
10.0
870.7
19.0
867.7
22.0
865.2
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine-grained, with roots,
dark brown, wet (TOPSOIL)
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine-grained,
gray, wet (SWAMP DEPOSIT)
PEAT (PT), with roots, black, wet (SWAMP
DEPOSIT)
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to
medium-grained, brown to reddish brown,
moist, loose (ALLUVIUM)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense (GLACIAL TILL)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, trace Gravel, reddish
brown, wet, medium dense (GLACIAL
OUTWASH)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
with Gravel, reddish brown, wet, dense
(GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
1-2-3
(5)
12"
1-1-2
(3)
12"
0-2-3
(5)
12"
3-5-8
(13)
14"
4-8-11
(19)
14"
7-9-13
(22)
14"
4-6-9
(15)
12"
5-9-37
(46)
14"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
23
181
Tests or Remarks
P200=5%
OC=31%
Temporary piezometer
installed to 14 1/2 feet
Water not observed while
drilling.
Water observed at 14.1 feet
in temporary piezometer
when rechecked on
05/08/2024.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-29
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:109833.0 EASTING:504357.8
DRILLER:M. Takada LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:889.7 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Cloudy
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-29 page 1 of 1DRAFT
245
Item 6.
Elev./
Depth
ft
893.6
0.5
887.1
7.0
882.1
12.0
875.1
19.0
872.1
22.0
869.6
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
with roots, dark brown, moist (TOPSOIL FILL)
FILL: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel,
non to slightly organic, light brown to dark
brown, moist
PEAT (PT), with roots, brown, wet (SWAMP
DEPOSIT)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, brown to reddish brown, moist,
medium dense (GLACIAL TILL)
Clay seams at 15 feet
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine-grained, reddish brown, wet, very dense
(GLACIAL OUTWASH)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
with Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
1-3-4
(7)
12"
2-3-5
(8)
12"
2-2-3
(5)
12"
1-2-3
(5)
12"
3-4-8
(12)
12"
9-10-11
(21)
14"
14-22-29
(51)
12"
9-11-13
(24)
12"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
17
19
105
Tests or Remarks
OC=3%
OC=21%
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-30
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:109833.0 EASTING:504598.6
DRILLER:M. Takada LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:894.1 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Cloudy
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-30 page 1 of 1DRAFT
246
Item 6.
Descriptive Terminology of Soil
Based on Standards ASTM D2487/2488
(Unified Soil Classification System)
Group
Symbol Group NameB
Cu ≥ 4 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3D GW Well‐graded gravelE
Cu < 4 and/or (Cc < 1 or Cc > 3)D GP Poorly graded gravelE
Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelE F G
Fines Classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelE F G
Cu ≥ 6 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3D SW Well‐graded sandI
Cu < 6 and/or (Cc < 1 or Cc > 3)D SP Poorly graded sandI
Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandF G I
Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandF G I
CL Lean clayK L M
PI < 4 or plots below "A" lineJ ML SiltK L M
Organic OL
CH Fat clayK L M
MH Elastic siltK L M
Organic OH
PT Peat Highly Organic Soils
Silts and Clays
(Liquid limit less than
50)
Silts and Clays
(Liquid limit 50 or
more)
Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor
Inorganic
Inorganic
PI > 7 and plots on or above "A" lineJ
PI plots on or above "A" line
PI plots below "A" line
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and
Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA
Soil Classification
Co
a
r
s
e
‐gr
a
i
n
e
d
So
i
l
s
(m
o
r
e
th
a
n
50
%
re
t
a
i
n
e
d
on
No
.
20
0
si
e
v
e
)
Fi
n
e
‐gr
a
i
n
e
d
So
i
l
s
(5
0
%
or
mo
r
e
pa
s
s
e
s
th
e
No
.
20
0
si
e
v
e
)
Sands
(50% or more coarse
fraction passes No. 4
sieve)
Clean Gravels
(Less than 5% finesC)
Gravels with Fines
(More than 12% finesC)
Clean Sands
(Less than 5% finesH)
Sands with Fines
(More than 12% finesH)
Gravels
(More than 50% of
coarse fraction
retained on No. 4
sieve)
Liquid Limit − oven dried
Liquid Limit − not dried <0.75 Organic clay K L M N
Organic silt K L M O
Liquid Limit − oven dried
Liquid Limit − not dried <0.75 Organic clay K L M P
Organic silt K L M Q
ParticleSize Identification
Boulders.............. over 12"
Cobbles................ 3" to 12"
Gravel
Coarse............. 3/4" to 3" (19.00 mm to 75.00 mm)
Fine................. No. 4 to 3/4" (4.75 mm to 19.00 mm)
Sand
Coarse.............. No. 10 to No. 4 (2.00 mm to 4.75 mm)
Medium........... No. 40 to No. 10 (0.425 mm to 2.00 mm)
Fine.................. No. 200 to No. 40 (0.075 mm to 0.425 mm)
Silt........................ No. 200 (0.075 mm) to .005 mm
Clay...................... < .005 mm
Relative ProportionsL, M
trace............................. 0 to 5%
little.............................. 6 to 14%
with.............................. ≥ 15%
Inclusion Thicknesses
lens............................... 0 to 1/8"
seam............................. 1/8" to 1"
layer.............................. over 1"
Apparent Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils
Very loose ..................... 0 to 4 BPF
Loose ............................ 5 to 10 BPF
Medium dense.............. 11 to 30 BPF
Dense............................ 31 to 50 BPF
Very dense.................... over 50 BPF
A. Based on the material passing the 3‐inch (75‐mm) sieve.
B. If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders,
or both" to group name.
C. Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:
GW‐GM well‐graded gravel with silt
GW‐GC well‐graded gravel with clay
GP‐GM poorly graded gravel with silt
GP‐GC poorly graded gravel with clay
D. Cu = D60 / D10 Cc = 𝐷30 2 / ሺ𝐷10 𝑥 𝐷60)
E. If soil contains ≥ 15% sand, add "with sand" to group name.
F. If fines classify as CL‐ML, use dual symbol GC‐GM or SC‐SM.
G. If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name.
H. Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:
SW‐SM well‐graded sand with silt
SW‐SC well‐graded sand with clay
SP‐SM poorly graded sand with silt
SP‐SC poorly graded sand with clay
I. If soil contains ≥ 15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name.
J. If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is CL‐ML, silty clay.
K. If soil contains 15 to < 30% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with gravel", whichever is
predominant.
L. If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.
M. If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to group name.
N. PI ≥ 4 and plots on or above “A” line.
O. PI < 4 or plots below “A” line.
P. PI plots on or above “A” line.
Q. PI plots below “A” line.
Laboratory Tests
DD Dry density,pcf qp Pocket penetrometer strength, tsf
WD Wet density, pcf qU Unconfined compression test, tsf
P200 % Passing #200 sieve LL Liquid limit
MC Moisture content, %PL Plastic limit
OC Organic content, %PI Plasticity index
Consistency of Blows Approximate Unconfined
Cohesive Soils Per Foot Compressive Strength
Very soft................... 0 to 1 BPF................... < 0.25 tsf
Soft........................... 2 to 4 BPF................... 0.25 to 0.5 tsf
Medium.................... 5to 8 BPF .................. 0.5 to 1 tsf
Stiff........................... 9 to 15 BPF................. 1 to 2 tsf
Very Stiff................... 16 to 30 BPF............... 2 to 4 tsf
Hard.......................... over 30 BPF................ > 4 tsf
Drilling Notes:
Blows/N‐value: Blows indicatethe driving resistance recorded
for each 6‐inch interval. The reported N‐value is the blows per
foot recorded by summing the second and third interval in
accordance with the Standard Penetration Test, ASTM D1586.
PartialPenetration:If the sampler could not be driven
through a full 6‐inch interval, the number of blows for that
partial penetration is shown as #/x" (i.e. 50/2"). The N‐value is
reported as "REF" indicating refusal.
Recovery: Indicates the inches of sample recovered from the
sampled interval. For a standard penetration test, full recovery
is 18", and is 24" for a thinwall/shelby tube sample.
WOH: Indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of
hammer and rods alone; driving not required.
WOR: Indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of
rods alone; hammer weight and driving not required.
Water Level: Indicates the water level measured by the
drillers either while drilling ( ), at the end of drilling ( ),
or at some time after drilling ( ).
Moisture Content:
Dry:Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch.
Moist: Damp but no visible water.
Wet: Visible free water, usually soil is below water table.
5/2021
247
Item 6.
248
Item 6.
249
Item 6.
250
Item 6.
251
Item 6.
252
Item 6.
253
Item 6.
254
Item 6.
255
Item 6.
256
Item 6.
257
Item 6.
258
Item 6.
259
Item 6.
260
Item 6.
261
Item 6.
262
Item 6.
263
Item 6.
264
Item 6.
265
Item 6.
266
Item 6.
267
Item 6.
268
Item 6.
269
Item 6.
270
Item 6.
271
Item 6.
272
Item 6.
273
Item 6.
CH - 800 53rd Ave Apts
MCE #: 2025-00353
Page 1 of 4
Formal Natural Heritage Review - Cover Page
See next page for results of review. A draft watermark means the project details
have not been finalized and the results are not official.
Project Name: CH - 800 53rd Ave Apts
Project Proposer: Lincoln Avenue Communities
Project Type: Development, Residential
Project Type Activities: Structure Removal or Bridge Removal
TRS: T30 R24 S26
County(s): Anoka
DNR Admin Region(s): Central
Reason Requested: State EAW
Project Description: redevelopment of existing commercial site to residential. Remove existing building &
parking lot and construct new apartment buildings and townhomes.
Existing Land Uses: Office building with parking lot
Landcover / Habitat Impacted: paved surfaces
Waterbodies Affected: Existing pond receives current runoff. Storm sewer system will be upgraded and
improved with current standards.
Groundwater Resources Affected: No affects to groundwater anticipated.
Previous Natural Heritage Review: No
Previous Habitat Assessments / Surveys: No
SUMMARY OF AUTOMATED RESULTS
Category Results Response By Category
Project Details No Comments No Further Review Required
Ecologically Significant Area No Comments No Further Review Required
State-Listed Endangered or
Threatened Species
Needs Further
Review
State-protected Species - Needs Further
Review
State-Listed Species of Special
Concern
Comments Recommendations
Federally Listed Species No Records Visit IPaC For Federal Review
4/10/2025 01:21 PM
274
Item 6.
CH - 800 53rd Ave Apts
MCE #: 2025-00353
Page 2 of 4
April 10, 2025
Project Name: CH - 800 53rd Ave Apts
Project Proposer: Lincoln Avenue Communities
Project Type: Development, Residential
Project ID: MCE #2025-00353
AUTOMATED RESULTS: FURTHER REVIEW IS NEEDED
As requested, the above project has undergone an automated review for potential impacts to rare features.
Based on this review, one or more rare features may be impacted by the proposed project and further
review by the Natural Heritage Review Team is needed. You will receive a separate notification email when
the review process is complete and the Natural Heritage Review letter has been posted.
Please refer to the table on the cover page of this report for a summary of potential impacts to rare features.
For additional information or planning purposes, use the Explore Page in Minnesota Conservation Explorer
to view the potentially impacted rare features or to create a Conservation Planning Report for the proposed
project.
If you have additional information to help resolve the potential impacts listed in the summary results, please
attach related project documentation in the Edit Details tab of the Project page. Relevant information
includes, but is not limited to, additional project details, completed habitat assessments, or survey results.
This additional information will be considered during the project review.
4/10/2025 01:21 PM
275
Item 6.
CH - 800 53rd Ave Apts
MCE #: 2025-00353
Page 3 of 4
4/10/2025 01:21 PM
276
Item 6.
CH - 800 53rd Ave Apts
MCE #: 2025-00353
Page 4 of 4
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
4/10/2025 01:21 PM
277
Item 6.
278
Item 6.
04/10/2025 18:52:44 UTC
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office
3815 American Blvd East
Bloomington, MN 55425-1659
Phone: (952) 858-0793
In Reply Refer To:
Project code: 2025-0081694
Project Name: 800 53rd Avenue Apts.
Federal Nexus: no
Federal Action Agency (if applicable):
Subject:Record of project representative’s no effect determination for '800 53rd Avenue Apts.'
Dear todd mclouth:
This letter records your determination using the Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPaC) system provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on April 10, 2025, for
'800 53rd Avenue Apts.' (here forward, Project). This project has been assigned Project Code
2025-0081694 and all future correspondence should clearly reference this number. Please
carefully review this letter.
Ensuring Accurate Determinations When Using IPaC
The Service developed the IPaC system and associated species’ determination keys in accordance
with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) and based on a standing analysis. All information submitted by the Project proponent into
IPaC must accurately represent the full scope and details of the Project.
Failure to accurately represent or implement the Project as detailed in IPaC or the Northern
Long-eared Bat and Tricolored Bat Range-wide Determination Key (Dkey), invalidates this
letter. Answers to certain questions in the DKey commit the project proponent to
implementation of conservation measures that must be followed for the ESA determination to
remain valid.
Determination for the Northern Long-Eared Bat and/or Tricolored Bat
Based upon your IPaC submission and a standing analysis, your project has reached the
following effect determinations:
Species Listing Status Determination
Tricolored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus)Proposed
Endangered
No effect
279
Item 6.
Project code: 2025-0081694 IPaC Record Locator: 510-160485360 04/10/2025 18:52:44 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 01/08/2025 2 of 8
▪
▪
▪
Federal agencies must consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7(a)(2) of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) when an action may affect a listed species. Tricolored bat is
proposed for listing as endangered under the ESA, but not yet listed. For actions that may affect a
proposed species, agencies cannot consult, but they can confer under the authority of section 7(a)
(4) of the ESA. Such conferences can follow the procedures for a consultation and be adopted as
such if and when the proposed species is listed. Should the tricolored bat be listed, agencies must
review projects that are not yet complete, or projects with ongoing effects within the tricolored
bat range that previously received a NE or NLAA determination from the key to confirm that the
determination is still accurate.
To make a no effect determination, the full scope of the proposed project implementation (action)
should not have any effects (either positive or negative), to a federally listed species or
designated critical habitat. Effects of the action are all consequences to listed species or critical
habitat that are caused by the proposed action, including the consequences of other activities that
are caused by the proposed action. A consequence is caused by the proposed action if it would
not occur but for the proposed action and it is reasonably certain to occur. Effects of the action
may occur later in time and may include consequences occurring outside the immediate area
involved in the action. (See § 402.17).
Under Section 7 of the ESA, if a federal action agency makes a no effect determination, no
consultation with the Service is required (ESA §7). If a proposed Federal action may affect a
listed species or designated critical habitat, formal consultation is required except when the
Service concurs, in writing, that a proposed action "is not likely to adversely affect" listed species
or designated critical habitat [50 CFR §402.02, 50 CFR§402.13].
Other Species and Critical Habitat that May be Present in the Action Area
The IPaC-assisted determination key for the northern long-eared bat and tricolored bat does not
apply to the following ESA-protected species and/or critical habitat that also may occur in your
Action area:
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Proposed Threatened
Salamander Mussel Simpsonaias ambigua Proposed Endangered
Whooping Crane Grus americana Experimental Population, Non-Essential
You may coordinate with our Office to determine whether the Action may affect the animal
species listed above and, if so, how they may be affected.
Next Steps
If there are no updates on listed species, no further consultation/coordination for this project is
required with respect to the species covered by this key. However, the Service recommends that
project proponents re-evaluate the Project in IPaC if: 1) the scope, timing, duration, or location
of the Project changes (includes any project changes or amendments); 2) new information reveals
the Project may impact (positively or negatively) federally listed species or designated critical
280
Item 6.
Project code: 2025-0081694 IPaC Record Locator: 510-160485360 04/10/2025 18:52:44 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 01/08/2025 3 of 8
habitat; or 3) a new species is listed, or critical habitat designated. If any of the above conditions
occurs, additional coordination with the Service should take place to ensure compliance with the
Act.
If you have any questions regarding this letter or need further assistance, please contact the
Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office and reference Project Code
2025-0081694 associated with this Project.
281
Item 6.
Project code: 2025-0081694 IPaC Record Locator: 510-160485360 04/10/2025 18:52:44 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 01/08/2025 4 of 8
Action Description
You provided to IPaC the following name and description for the subject Action.
1. Name
800 53rd Avenue Apts.
2. Description
The following description was provided for the project '800 53rd Avenue Apts.':
redevelop existing office building and parking lot site to residential apartments
and townhomes.
The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/@45.06326885,-93.25043464759764,14z
282
Item 6.
Project code: 2025-0081694 IPaC Record Locator: 510-160485360 04/10/2025 18:52:44 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 01/08/2025 5 of 8
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DETERMINATION KEY RESULT
Based on the information you provided, you have determined that the Proposed Action will have
no effect on the species covered by this determination key. Therefore, no consultation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (87 Stat. 884, as amended 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is required for those species.
QUALIFICATION INTERVIEW
Does the proposed project include, or is it reasonably certain to cause, intentional take of
listed bats or any other listed species?
Note: Intentional take is defined as take that is the intended result of a project. Intentional take could refer to
research, direct species management, surveys, and/or studies that include intentional handling/encountering,
harassment, collection, or capturing of any individual of a federally listed threatened, endangered or proposed
species?
No
Is the action area wholly within Zone 2 of the year-round active area for northern long-
eared bat and/or tricolored bat?
Automatically answered
No
Does the action area intersect Zone 1 of the year-round active area for northern long-eared
bat and/or tricolored bat?
Automatically answered
No
Does any component of the action involve leasing, construction or operation of wind
turbines? Answer 'yes' if the activities considered are conducted with the intention of
gathering survey information to inform the leasing, construction, or operation of wind
turbines.
Note: For federal actions, answer ‘yes’ if the construction or operation of wind power facilities is either (1) part
of the federal action or (2) would not occur but for a federal agency action (federal permit, funding, etc.).
No
Is the proposed action authorized, permitted, licensed, funded, or being carried out by a
Federal agency in whole or in part?
No
[Semantic] Is the action area located within 0.5 miles of a known bat hibernaculum?
Note: The map queried for this question contains proprietary information and cannot be displayed. If you need
additional information, please contact your State wildlife agency.
Automatically answered
No
283
Item 6.
Project code: 2025-0081694 IPaC Record Locator: 510-160485360 04/10/2025 18:52:44 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 01/08/2025 6 of 8
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
▪
Does the action area contain any winter roosts or caves (or associated sinkholes, fissures,
or other karst features), mines, rocky outcroppings, or tunnels that could provide habitat
for hibernating bats?
No
Does the action area contain (1) talus or (2) anthropogenic or naturally formed rock
shelters or crevices in rocky outcrops, rock faces or cliffs?
No
Will the action cause effects to a bridge?
Note: Covered bridges should be considered as bridges in this question.
No
Will the action result in effects to a culvert or tunnel at any time of year?
No
Are trees present within 1000 feet of the action area?
Note: If there are trees within the action area that are of a sufficient size to be potential roosts for bats answer
"Yes". If unsure, additional information defining suitable summer habitat for the northern long-eared bat and
tricolored bat can be found in Appendix A of the USFWS’ Range-wide Indiana Bat and Northern long-eared bat
Survey Guidelines at: https://www.fws.gov/media/range-wide-indiana-bat-and-northern-long-eared-bat-survey-
guidelines.
No
Does the action area intersect the tricolored bat species list area?
Automatically answered
Yes
[Semantic] Is the action area located within 0.25 miles of a culvert that is known to be
occupied by northern long-eared or tricolored bats?
Note: The map queried for this question contains proprietary information and cannot be displayed. If you need
additional information, please contact your State wildlife agency.
Automatically answered
No
Do you have any documents that you want to include with this submission?
Yes
SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS
23226-AN-ALTA-06-02-23.pdf https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/
7XGYJYXO7FG75PT2F6EGTVGSX4/
projectDocuments/160485317
284
Item 6.
Project code: 2025-0081694 IPaC Record Locator: 510-160485360 04/10/2025 18:52:44 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 01/08/2025 7 of 8
PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE
285
Item 6.
Project code: 2025-0081694 IPaC Record Locator: 510-160485360 04/10/2025 18:52:44 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 01/08/2025 8 of 8
IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency:Private Entity
Name:todd mclouth
Address:12755 Hwy 55, Ste R100
City:Plymouth
State:MN
Zip:55441
Email tmclouth@loucksinc.com
Phone:6122072986
286
Item 6.
287
Item 6.
Emissions Summary
Guidance
(B) The "Go To Sheet" buttons can be used to navigate to the data entry sheets.
Organizational Information:
Organization Name:
Organization Address:
Inventory Reporting Period:
Start: 1/1/2023 End:
Name of Preparer:
Contact Information of Preparer:
Date Prepared:
Summary of Organization's Emissions:
Scope 1 Emissions
CO2-e (metric tons)
Stationary Combustion 1,148
Mobile Sources 2,085
Refrigeration / AC Equipment Use 5,133
Fire Suppression 0
Purchased Gases 0
Gross Offsets Net
Scope 1 Summary 8,366 0 8,366
Scope 2 Emissions
Location-Based Scope 2 Emissions CO2-e (metric tons)
Purchased and Consumed Electricity 2,200
Purchased and Consumed Steam 0
Gross Offsets Net
Location-Based Scope 2 Summary 2,200 0 2,200
Market-Based Scope 2 Emissions CO2-e (metric tons)
Purchased and Consumed Electricity 2,200
Purchased and Consumed Steam 0
Gross Offsets Net
Market-Based Scope 2 Summary 2,200 0 2,200
Scope 1 & 2 Summary
Gross Net
Total Scope 1 & Location-Based Scope 2 10,566 10,566
Total Scope 1 & Market-Based Scope 2 10,566 10,566
Scope 3 Emissions
Gross Offsets Net
Business Travel 0 0 0
Employee Commuting 0 0 0
Upstream Transportation and Distribution 0 0 0
Waste 383 0 383
The total GHG emissions from each source category are provided below. You may also use this summary sheet to fill out the Annual GHG Inventory
Summary and Target Tracking Form (.xls) as this Calculator only quantifies one year of emissions at a time. The form is available here:
(A) Enter organization information into the orange cells. Other cells on this sheet will be automatically calculated from the data entered in the sheets
in this workbook. Blue cells indicate required emission sources if applicable. Green cells indicate scope 3 emission sources and offsets, which
organizations may optionally include in its inventory.
5/20/2025
800 West 53rd Ave. Aprartments
Columbia Heights, MN
2024 EAW Estimator
Loucks
1/1/2024
https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/target-setting
By entering the data below into the appropriate cell of the Annual GHG Inventory Summary and Target Tracking Form, you will be able to compare
multiple years of data.
If you have multiple Calculator files covering sub-sets of your inventory for a particular reporting period, sum each of the emission categories (e.g.
Stationary Combustion) to an organizational total, which then can be entered into the Annual GHG Inventory Summary and Target Tracking Form .
CO2-e (metric tons)
CO2-e (metric tons)
CO2-e (metric tons)
CO2-e (metric tons)
CO2-e (metric tons)
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Back to Intro
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Summary) 1 of 1
288
Item 6.
Scope 1 Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources
Guidance
- Select "Fuel Combusted" from drop down box.
(C) Biomass CO2 emissions are not reported in the total emissions, but are reported separately at the bottom of the sheet.
Table 1. Stationary Source Fuel Combustion
Source Source Source Fuel Fuel State Quantity
ID Description Area (sq ft)Combusted (solid, liquid, gas)Combusted
BLR-012 East Power Plant 12,517 Natural Gas Gas 10,000 MMBtu
Ex. Office Existing Office Building 135,000 Natural Gas Gas 0 Gallons
SCF
Prop1 Apartment Buildings 440,000 Natural Gas Gas 21,072,000 SCF
Prop 2 Commercial/Retail 12,000 Natural Gas Gas 312,000
Prop 3 Multi-Family Townhomes 140,940 Natural Gas Gas 3,480,000
GHG Emissions
Total Organization-Wide Stationary Source Combustion by Fuel Type
Quantity
Combusted
Coal and Coke - Solid
Anthracite Coal 0 short ton
Bituminous Coal 0 short ton
Sub-bituminous Coal 0 short ton
Lignite Coal 0 short ton
Mixed (Commercial Sector)0 short ton
Mixed (Electric Power Sector)0 short ton
Mixed (Industrial Coking)0 short ton
Mixed (Industrial Sector)0 short ton
Coal Coke 0 short ton
Other Fuels - Solid
Municipal Solid Waste 0 short ton
Petroleum Coke (Solid)0 short ton
Plastics 0 short ton
Tires 0 short ton
Units
(B) If fuel is consumed in a facility but stationary fuel consumption data are not available, an estimate should be made
for completeness. See the "Items to Note" section of the Help sheet for suggested estimation approaches.
- Enter "Quantity Combusted" and choose the appropriate units from the drop down box in the unit column. If it's
necessary to convert units, common heat contents can be found on the "Heat Content" sheet and unit conversions
on the "Unit Conversion" sheet.
(A) Enter annual data for each combustion unit, facility, or site (by fuel type) in ORANGE cells on Table 1. Example
entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ).
Fuel Type Units
Back to Intro Back to Summary HelpHeat Content
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 1.0) 1 of 2
289
Item 6.
Biomass Fuels - Solid
Agricultural Byproducts 0 short ton
Peat 0 short ton
Solid Byproducts 0 short ton
Wood and Wood Residuals 0 short ton
Gaseous Fuels
Natural Gas 21,072,000 scf
Propane Gas 0 scf
Landfill Gas 0 scf
Petroleum Products
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 0 gallons
Residual Fuel Oil No. 6 0 gallons
Kerosene 0 gallons
Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG)0 gallons
Biomass Fuels - Liquid
Biodiesel (100%)0 gallons
Ethanol (100%)0 gallons
Rendered Animal Fat 0 gallons
Vegetable Oil 0 gallons
Total Organization-Wide CO2, CH4 and N2O Emissions from Stationary Source Fuel Combustion
CO2 (kg)CH4 (g)N2O (g)
Anthracite Coal 0 0.0 0.0
Bituminous Coal 0 0.0 0.0
Sub-bituminous Coal 0 0.0 0.0
Lignite Coal 0 0.0 0.0
Mixed (Commercial Sector)0 0.0 0.0
Mixed (Electric Power Sector)0 0.0 0.0
Mixed (Industrial Coking)0 0.0 0.0
Mixed (Industrial Sector)0 0.0 0.0
Coal Coke 0 0.0 0.0
Municipal Solid Waste 0 0.0 0.0
Petroleum Coke (Solid)0 0.0 0.0
Plastics 0 0.0 0.0
Tires 0 0.0 0.0
Natural Gas 1,147,160 21,704.2 2,107.2
Propane Gas 0 0.0 0.0
Landfill Gas 0 0.0 0.0
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 0 0.0 0.0
Residual Fuel Oil No. 6 0 0.0 0.0
Kerosene 0 0.0 0.0
Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG) 0 0.0 0.0
Total Fossil Fuel Emissions 1,147,160 21,704.2 2,107.2
Agricultural Byproducts 0 0.0 0.0
Peat 0 0.0 0.0
Solid Byproducts 0 0.0 0.0
Wood and Wood Residuals 0 0.0 0.0
Biodiesel (100%)0 0.0 0.0
Ethanol (100%)0 0.0 0.0
Rendered Animal Fat 0 0.0 0.0
Vegetable Oil 0 0.0 0.0
Total Non-Fossil Fuel Emissions 0 0.0 0.0
Total Emissions for all Fuels 1,147,160 21,704.2 2,107.2
Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Stationary Combustion 1,148.3
Total Biomass CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Stationary Combustion 0.0
Fuel Type
Petroleum Products
Biomass Fuels - Liquid
Coal and Coke - Solid
Gaseous Fuels
Biomass Fuels - Solid
Other Fuels - Solid
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 1.0) 2 of 2
290
Item 6.
Scope 1 Emissions from Mobile Sources
Guidance
Biodiesel Percent:20 %
Ethanol Percent:80 %
Table 1. Mobile Source Fuel Combustion and Miles Traveled
Source Source Vehicle Vehicle Fuel Units Miles
ID Description Type Year Usage Traveled
Fleet-012 HQ Fleet OnRoad Passenger Cars - Gasoline 2019 500 gal 12,400
Construction - Grading Dev. Area NonRoad Construction/Mining Equipment - Diesel Equipment 2023 48,000 gal
Construction - Site Utilities Dev. Area NonRoad Construction/Mining Equipment - Diesel Equipment 2023 32,000 gal
Construction - Roads Dev. Area NonRoad Construction/Mining Equipment - Diesel Equipment 2023 32,000 gal
Construction - Building Sites Dev. Area OnRoad Construction/Mining Equipment - Diesel Equipment 2023 18,000 gal
Construction - Building Sites Dev. Area OnRoad Construction/Mining Equipment - Gasoline (4 stroke)2023 78,000 gal
Reference Table: Average Fuel Economy by Vehicle Type
Passenger Cars 24.8
Other 2-Axle, 4-Tire Vehicles 18.1
Motorcycles 44.0
Single unit 2-Axle 6-Tire or More Trucks 7.9
Combination Trucks 6.9
Diesel Buses (Diesel Heavy-Duty Vehicles)7.4
Average mpg values from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2022 (Updated February 2024), Table VM-1.
GHG Emissions
Total Organization-Wide Mobile Source Fuel Usage and CO2 Emissions (On-Road and Off-Road Vehicles)
Fuel Usage Units
CO2 (kg)
Motor Gasoline 78,000 gallons 684,840
Diesel Fuel 130,000 gallons 1,327,300
Residual Fuel Oil 0 gallons 0
Aviation Gasoline 0 gallons 0
- Enter "Fuel Usage" in appropriate units (units appear when vehicle type is selected).
(C) Biomass CO2 emissions from biodiesel and ethanol are not reported in the total emissions, but are reported separately at the bottom of the sheet.
(B) When using biofuels, typically the biofuel (biodiesel or ethanol) is mixed with a petroleum fuel (diesel or gasoline) for use in vehicles.
Enter the biodiesel and ethanol percentages of the fuel if known, or leave default values shown below.
(A) Enter annual data for each vehicle or group of vehicles (grouped by vehicle type, vehicle year, and fuel type) in ORANGE cells in
Table 1. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ). Only enter vehicles owned or leased by your organization on this
sheet. All other vehicle use such as employee commuting or business travel is considered a scope 3 emissions source and
should be reported in the corresponding scope 3 sheets.
- Select "Vehicle Type" from drop down box (closest type available).
- Note: The latest mobile combustion factors reflect year 2021 data. Therefore, for all vehicle model years 2022 onward,
the 2021 year factor is used.
- Select "On-Road" or "Non-Road" from the drop down box to determine the Vehicle Types available. You must make this selection
before picking the vehicle type.
- Vehicle year and Miles traveled are not necessary for non-road equiment.
- If mileage or fuel usage is unknown, estimate using approximate fuel economy values from the manufacturer,
www.fueleconomy.gov, or the Reference Table below.
Average Fuel Economy (mpg)
Fuel Type
Vehicle Type
On-Road or
Non-Road?
Back to Intro Back to Summary Help
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 2.0) 1 of 5
291
Item 6.
Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel 0 gallons 0
Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG)0 gallons 0
Ethanol 0 gallons 0 Note: emissions here are only for the gasoline portion of the fuel, biogenic CO
Biodiesel 0 gallons 0 Note: emissions here are only for the diesel portion of the fuel, biogenic CO
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)0 gallons 0
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) 0 scf
0
Total Organization-Wide On-Road Gasoline Mobile Source Mileage and CH4/N2O Emissions
Vehicle Year Mileage (miles)
CH4 (g)N2O (g)
Passenger Cars - Gasoline 1984-93 0 0.0 0.0
1994 0 0.0 0.0
1995 0 0.0 0.0
1996 0 0.0 0.0
1997 0 0.0 0.0
1998 0 0.0 0.0
1999 0 0.0 0.0
2000 0 0.0 0.0
2001 0 0.0 0.0
2002 0 0.0 0.0
2003 0 0.0 0.0
2004 0 0.0 0.0
2005 0 0.0 0.0
2006 0 0.0 0.0
2007 0 0.0 0.0
2008 0 0.0 0.0
2009 0 0.0 0.0
2010 0 0.0 0.0
2011 0 0.0 0.0
2012 0 0.0 0.0
2013 0 0.0 0.0
2014 0 0.0 0.0
2015 0 0.0 0.0
2016 0 0.0 0.0
2017 0 0.0 0.0
2018 0 0.0 0.0
2019 0 0.0 0.0
2020 0 0.0 0.0
2021 0 0.0 0.0
2022 0 0.0 0.0
2023 0 0.0 0.0
2024 0 0.0 0.0
Light-Duty Trucks - Gasoline 1987-93 0 0.0 0.0
(Vans, Pickup Trucks, SUVs)1994 0 0.0 0.0
1995 0 0.0 0.0
1996 0 0.0 0.0
1997 0 0.0 0.0
1998 0 0.0 0.0
1999 0 0.0 0.0
2000 0 0.0 0.0
2001 0 0.0 0.0
2002 0 0.0 0.0
2003 0 0.0 0.0
2004 0 0.0 0.0
2005 0 0.0 0.0
2006 0 0.0 0.0
2007 0 0.0 0.0
2008 0 0.0 0.0
2009 0 0.0 0.0
2010 0 0.0 0.0
2011 0 0.0 0.0
2012 0 0.0 0.0
2013 0 0.0 0.0
2014 0 0.0 0.0
Vehicle Type
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 2.0) 2 of 5
292
Item 6.
2015 0 0.0 0.0
2016 0 0.0 0.0
2017 0 0.0 0.0
2018 0 0.0 0.0
2019 0 0.0 0.0
2020 0 0.0 0.0
2021 0 0.0 0.0
2022 0 0.0 0.0
2023 0 0.0 0.0
2024 0 0.0 0.0
Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Gasoline 1985-86 0 0.0 0.0
1987 0 0.0 0.0
1988-1989 0 0.0 0.0
1990-1995 0 0.0 0.0
1996 0 0.0 0.0
1997 0 0.0 0.0
1998 0 0.0 0.0
1999 0 0.0 0.0
2000 0 0.0 0.0
2001 0 0.0 0.0
2002 0 0.0 0.0
2003 0 0.0 0.0
2004 0 0.0 0.0
2005 0 0.0 0.0
2006 0 0.0 0.0
2007 0 0.0 0.0
2008 0 0.0 0.0
2009 0 0.0 0.0
2010 0 0.0 0.0
2011 0 0.0 0.0
2012 0 0.0 0.0
2013 0 0.0 0.0
2014 0 0.0 0.0
2015 0 0.0 0.0
2016 0 0.0 0.0
2017 0 0.0 0.0
2018 0 0.0 0.0
2019 0 0.0 0.0
2020 0 0.0 0.0
2021 0 0.0 0.0
2022 0 0.0 0.0
2023 0 0.0 0.0
2024 0 0.0 0.0
Motorcycles - Gasoline 1960-1995 0 0.0 0.0
1996-2005 0 0.0 0.0
2006-2024 0 0.0 0.0
Total Organization-Wide On-Road Non-Gasoline Mobile Source Mileage and CH4/N2O Emissions
Vehicle Type Fuel Type Vehicle Year Mileage (miles)
CH4 (g)N2O (g)
1960-1982 0 0.0 0.0
1983-2006 0 0.0 0.0
2007-2024 0 0.0 0.0
1960-1982 0 0.0 0.0
1983-2006 0 0.0 0.0
2007-2024 0 0.0 0.0
1960-2006 0 0.0 0.0
2007-2024 0 0.0 0.0
Methanol 0 0.0 0.0
Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0
CNG 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0
Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles - DieselDiesel
Passenger Cars - Diesel Diesel
Light-Duty Trucks - Diesel Diesel
Light-Duty Cars
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 2.0) 3 of 5
293
Item 6.
CNG 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
LNG 0 0.0 0.0
Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0
CNG 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
LNG 0 0.0 0.0
Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0
Methanol 0 0.0 0.0
Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0
CNG 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
LNG 0 0.0 0.0
Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0
Methanol 0 0.0 0.0
Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0
CNG 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
LNG 0 0.0 0.0
Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0
Total Organization-Wide Non-Road Mobile Source Fuel Usage and CH4/N2O Emissions
Vehicle Type Fuel Type Fuel Usage
(gallons)CH4 (g) N2O (g)
Residual Fuel Oil 0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (2 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (4 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Diesel 0 0.0 0.0
Locomotives Diesel 0 0.0 0.0
Jet Fuel 0 0.0 0.0
Aviation Gasoline 0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (2 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (4 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline Off-Road Trucks 0 0.0 0.0
Diesel Equipment 0 0.0 0.0
Diesel Off-Road Trucks 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (2 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (4 stroke)78000 222484.9 114943.3
Gasoline Off-Road Trucks 0 0.0 0.0
Diesel Equipment 130000 131513.1 122386.0
Diesel Off-Road Trucks 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (2 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (4 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Diesel 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline 0 0.0 0.0
Diesel 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (2 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (4 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Diesel 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (2 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (4 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Diesel 0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline 0 0.0 0.0
Diesel 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (2 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (4 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Diesel 0 0.0 0.0
Industrial/Commercial Equipment
Logging Equipment
Railroad Equipment
Recreational Equipment
Construction/Mining Equipment
Lawn and Garden Equipment
Airport Equipment
Ships and Boats
Aircraft
Agricultural Equipment
Heavy-Duty Trucks
Buses
Light-Duty Trucks
Medium-Duty Trucks
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 2.0) 4 of 5
294
Item 6.
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Mobile Sources 2,084.9
Total Biomass CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Mobile Sources 0.0
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 2.0) 5 of 5
295
Item 6.
Scope 1 Emissions from Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
Guidance
(C) Enter annual data in ORANGE cells as appropriate for the selected option.
Option 1. Material Balance Method: Enter organization-wide total gases stored and transferred (by gas) in Table 1.
- Choose the appropriate gas from the Gas drop down menu.
- Inventory Change = difference of gas stored in inventory from beginning to end of reporting period.
(Includes only gas stored on-site (i.e. cylinders) and not gas contained within equipment).
- Transferred Amount = gas purchased minus gas sold/disposed during reporting period.
-- Gas purchased includes: Purchases for inventory, as part of equipment servicing (not from inventory),
within purchased equipment, and gas returned to the site after off-site recycling.
-- Gas sold/disposed includes: Returns to supplier, sales or disposals (including within equipment),
and gas sent off-site for recycling, reclamation, or destruction.
- Capacity Change = capacity of all units at beginning minus capacity of all units at end of reporting period.
(can be assumed to be capacity of retired units minus capacity of new units).
Table 1. Organization-Wide Refrigeration Gas CO2 Equivalent Emissions - Material Balance
Gas Inventory Transferred Capacity CO2 Equivalent
Gas GWP Change Amount Change Emissions
(kg)(kg)(kg)(kg)
Option 2. Material Balance Method (Simplified): Enter organization-wide total gases in units (by gas) in Table 2.
- Choose the appropriate gas from the drop down menu.
- New units are those installed during reporting period (do not include any data for new units pre-charged by
supplier), disposed units were disposed of during the reporting period, and existing units are all others.
- Charge/Recharge = gas added to units by organization or a contractor (do not include pre-charge by manufacturer).
- Capacity = sum of the full capacity for all units (do not include new units pre-charged by manufacturer).
- Amount recovered = total gas recovered from all retired units.
Table 2. Organization-Wide Refrigeration Gas CO2 Equivalent Emissions - Simplified Material Balance
Gas Existing Units CO2 Equivalent
Gas GWP Charge Capacity Recharge Capacity Recovered Emissions
(kg)(kg)(kg)(kg)(kg)(kg)
(A) HFC, PFC, CO2, and SF6 refrigerants from facilities and vehicles are required to be included in the GHG inventory. Ozone depleting
substances, such as CFCs and HCFCs, are regulated internationally and are typically excluded from a GHG inventory or reported
as a memo item.
(B) Select ONE of the three options with which to estimate emissions. Options range from most preferred method (Option 1) to least
preferred method (Option 3). Limited data availability often makes Option 3 an appropriate choice. If Option 3 is used and emissions
are determined to be significant when compared to other emission sources, consider using one of the other methods to calculate
emissions more accurately.
New Units Disposed Units
Back to Intro Back to Summary Help
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 3.0) 1 of 2
296
Item 6.
Option 3. Screening Method: Enter refrigerant information for each unit or group of units (by refrigerant) in Table 3.
- Select the "Type of Equipment" (closest available) and "Gas" from the drop down box.
- Enter amount of refrigerant added to new units by the organization (not pre-charged amount from manufacturer). This will be blank if no refrigerant is added to new units by the organization.
- Enter the Number of Months in Operation - this is the number of months in the year the unit was operating (from 0-12). For example, if the equipment was installed at the beginning of July, enter 6.
- Enter refrigerant capacity (by equipment type and refrigerant) for all units operating and disposed during reporting period.
-- If data entered for multiple units, sum the capacities or charge quantity for all like units.
- See example entry in first row (GREEN Italics ).
Table 3. Source Level Refrigeration Gas CO2 Equivalent Emissions - Screening Method
New Units Number of Months Capacity CO2
Charge in Operation Operating Disposed Equivalent
(kg)in Reporting Year Units Units Emissions
(kg)(kg)(kg)
Bldg-012 Domestic Refrigeration HFC-32 677 1000 12 0.5 0.25 6,812.3
Prop. Apartment Buildings Medium/Large Commercial HFC-32 677 12 18,000.00 4,265,100.0
Props. Commercial Space Medium/Large Commercial HFC-32 677 12 2,000.00 473,900.0
Townhomes Residential/Commercial A/C HFC-32 677 12 5,800.00 392,660.0
Refrigerators Domestic Refrigeration HFC-32 677 12 249.00 842.9
Reference Table: Type of Equipment and Default Capacity Ranges (Lower to Upper Range) for Table 3
Capacity Installation
Emission Factor Operating Emissions Refrigerant Remaining at
Disposal Recovery Efficiency
(kg)K X Y Z
% of Capacity % of Capacity/yr % of Capacity % of Remaining
Domestic Refrigeration Domestic refrigeration units 0.05–0.5 1%1%80%70%
Stand-Alone Commercial Stand alone commercial applications 0.2–6 3%15%80%70%
Medium/Large Commercial Medium and large commercial
refrigeration units 50–2,000 3% 35% 100% 70%
Transport Refrigeration Transportation refrigeration units 3–8 1%50%50%70%
Industrial Refrigeration Industrial, food processing and cold
storage units 10–10,000 3% 25% 100% 90%
Chillers Commercial chillers 10–2,000 1%15%100%95%
Residential/Commercial A/C Residential and commercial units,
including heat pumps 0.5-100 1% 10% 80% 80%
Maritime A/C Units Maritime A/C units 5-6,500 1%40%50%50%
Railway A/C Units Railway A/C Units 10-30 1%20%50%50%
Buses A/C Units Buses A/C Units 4-18 1%20%50%50%
Other Mobile A/C Units All other mobile A/C units 0.5-2 1%20%50%50%
Source: Screening Method of the inventory guidance document Direct Fugitive Emissions from Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, Fire Suppression, and Industrial Gases
https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scope-1-and-scope-2-inventory-guidance
GHG Emissions
5,132.5
Notes:
1. CO2 emissions estimated using emission factors provided in Table 3 of the Center for Corporate Climate Leadership Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance
Direct Fugitive Emissions from Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, Fire Suppression and Industrial Gases. (Dec 2020).
2. GWP values are from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (2011).
-- If no units are disposed, Disposed Units will be blank
Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Refrigeration and AC Equipment
-- If capacity of unit(s) is not known, use upper value of default capacity provided in the Reference Table below.
Source ID Type of Equipment Gas Gas
GWP
Type of Equipment Equipment Description
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 3.0) 2 of 2
297
Item 6.
Scope 2 Emissions from Purchase of Electricity
Guidance
(C) Select "eGRID subregion" from drop box and enter "Electricity Purchased."
https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/
Tips: Enter electricity usage by location and then look up the eGRID subregion for each location.
Table 1. Total Amount of Electricity Purchased by eGRID Subregion
Source Source Source eGRID Subregion Electricity CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O
ID Description Area (sq ft)where electricity is consumed Purchased Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions
(kWh)(lb/MWh)(lb/MWh)(lb/MWh)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)
Bldg-012 East Power Plant 12,517 HICC Miscellaneous 200,000 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 231,097.2 24.8 3.8
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
Prop Apartrment Bldg.Xcel 440,000 MRO West 4,214,400 <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>3,946,722.4 429.9 63.2 3,946,722.4 429.9 63.2
Comm Xcel 12,000 MRO West 232,200 <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>217,451.8 23.7 3.5 217,451.8 23.7 3.5
TH's Xcel 140,940 MRO West 696,000 <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>651,793.6 71.0 10.4 651,793.6 71.0 10.4
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
Total Emissions for All Sources 5,142,600 4,815,967.8 524.5 77.1 4,815,967.8 524.5 77.1
If you purchase renewable energy that is less than 100% of your site's electricity, see the
example in the market-based method Help sheet. Location-Based
Emission Factors Emissions Emissions
Market-Based
Use these cells to enter applicable market-based emission factors
(D) See the market-based emission factor hierarchy on the market-based method Help sheet. If any of the first four types of
emission factors are applicable, enter the factors in the yellow cells marked as "<enter factor>". If not, leave the yellow
cells as is, and eGRID subregion factors will be used for market-based emissions.
Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ) for a facility that purchases RECs for 100% of its consumption, and
therefore has a market-based emission factor of 0.
The Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity Guidance document provides guidance for quantifying two scope 2 emissions totals,
using a location-based method and a market-based method. The organization should quantify and report both totals in its GHG
inventory. The location-based method considers average emission factors for the electricity grids that provide electricity. The market-
based method considers contractual arrangements under which the organization procures electricity from specific sources, such as
renewable energy.
- Use map (Figure 1) at bottom of sheet to determine appropriate eGRID subregion. If subregion cannot be determined
from the map, find the correct subregion by entering the location's zip code into EPA’s Power Profiler:
(A) Enter total annual electricity purchased in kWh and each eGRID subregion for each facility or site in ORANGE cells of Table 1.
(B) If electricity consumption data are not available for a facility, an estimate should be made for completeness.
See the "Items to Note" section of the Help sheet for suggested estimation approaches.
Back to Intro Back to Summary Help Help - Market-Based Method
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Indirect 1.0) 1 of 2
298
Item 6.
GHG Emissions
CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons)
Location-Based Electricity Emissions 2,200.5
Market-Based Electricity Emissions 2,200.5
Notes:
1. CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions are estimated using methodology provided in EPA's Center for Corporate Climate Leadership Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance
- Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity (January 2016).
Figure 1. EPA eGRID2022, January 2024.
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Indirect 1.0) 2 of 2
299
Item 6.
Scope 3 Emissions from Waste
Guidance
Table 1. Waste Disposal Weight by Waste Material and Disposal Method (CO2, CH4 and N2O)
Source ID Source Description Waste Material
Disposal
Method Weight Unit
CO2e Emissions
(kg)
Bldg-012 East Power Plant Finished Goods Copper Wire Landfilled 1,000 metric ton 22,040
Proposed Apartment Blgds.Waste Management Mixed MSW municipal solid waste Landfilled 480 metric ton 306,797
Proposed Commercial Space Waste Management Mixed MSW municipal solid waste Landfilled 44 metric ton 28,123
Proposed Townhomes Waste Management Mixed MSW municipal solid waste Landfilled 75 metric ton 47,937
(B) First, choose the appropriate material then the disposal method from the drop down options. For the average-data method, use one of the mixed material types, such as mixed
MSW. If the exact waste material is not available, consider an appropriate proxy. For example, dimensional lumber can be used as a proxy for wood furniture.
(C) Choose an appropriate disposal method. Note that not all disposal methods are available for all materials. If there is a #NA or # Value error in the emissions column, you must pick a
new material type or appropriate disposal method.
(A) Enter annual waste data in ORANGE cells. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ).
Back to Intro Back to Summary Help
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Optional 3.0) 1 of 2 300
Item 6.
GHG Emissions
Total Emissions by Disposal Method
Waste Material CO2e (kg)
Recycled 0
Landfilled 382857
Combusted 0
Composted 0
Anaerobically Digested (Dry Digestate with Curing)0
Anaerobically Digested (Wet Digestate with Curing)0
Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Waste 382.9
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Optional 3.0) 2 of 2 301
Item 6.
302
Item 6.
LAC-Columbia Heights
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
NOISE ASSESSMENT
Prepared for
Loucks Inc
by
David Braslau Associates, Inc.
6603 Queen Avenue S, Suite M
Richfield, MN 55423
Tel: 612-331-4571
FAX: 612-331-45672
Eml: david@braslau.com
Dr. David Braslau, President
22 April 2025
303
Item 6.
LAC-Comumbia Heights Noise Assessment
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
LAC is a proposed residential development in Columbia Heights, Minnesota. The project
includes a two-six story residential building, a five -story residential building, town homes, a
commercial building with market rate residential units and a large one-story commercial building.
The objective of this noise assessment is to estimate traffic noise impacts on the project from
adjacent roadways, primarily Central Avenue on the east, and mechanical equipment from
commercial buildings between Central Avenue and the project. Determination of compliance
with state noise standards is evaluated.
To comply with Minnesota noise rules, peak daytime traffic noise levels from Central Avenue
and 53rd Avenue North have been evaluated for the 4-5 pm hour and peak nighttime traffic noise
levels for the 6-7 am hour. Traffic L10 and L50 were modeled based on traffic volumes from a
MnDOT traffic flow map. Since the project is located between the round-about and Central
Avenue signalized intersection, noise predictions are overstated.
The predicted 6-7 am or nighttime traffic noise levels exceed the nighttime noise standard and
can be addressed with appropriate construction to comply with exceptions to the noise standards.
Living units with exposure to the commercial buildings immediately east of the project will be
exposed to noise from rooftop mechanical equipment. An estimate of equipment sound levels has
been based on previously monitored rooftop fans or blowers on other projects.
304
Item 6.
LAC-Comumbia Heights Noise Assessment
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Objectives of this Noise Assessment ............................................................................... 1
1.2. Site Location and Plan ..................................................................................................... 1
2.0 TRAFFIC NOISE MODEL PREDICTIONS AND MEASUREMENTS .................... 4
2.1. Traffic Noise Model ........................................................................................................ 4
2.2. Noise Model Predictions ................................................................................................. 4
3.0 MECHANICAL NOISE ASSESSMENT ........................................................................ 8
4.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................... 10
305
Item 6.
LAC-Comumbia Heights Noise Assessment
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Site Location........................................................................................................... 2
Figure 1.2 Project Layout Relative to Central Avenue and 53 St N ................................... 3
Figure 2.1 Model Geometry with 2ND Floor Noise Receptor Sites ....................................... 5
Figure 2.2 Noise Barrier Profile with Buildings and Terrain .............................................. 5
Figure 2.3 Predicted AM L10 Traffic Noise Levels .............................................................. 6
Figure 3.1 Possible Rooftop Views from Upper Floors ........................................................ 9
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Minnesota State Noise Standards ......................................................................... 1
Table 2.1 Assumed Hourly Volume and Vehicle Mix ......................................................... 4
Table 2.2 Predicted Traffic AM L10 Traffic Noise Levels ................................................. 6
Table 3.1 Estimated Rooftop Equipment Noise ................................................................... 8
306
Item 6.
LAC-Columbia Heights Noise Assessment
David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1. Objectives of this Noise Assessment
This Traffic Noise Assessment evaluates the potential impacts of noise from Central Avenue, 53rd
St. North, and adjacent commercial facilities on the proposed LAC -Columbia Heights residential
development in Columbia Heights, Minnesota.
Low traffic noise levels along 53rd Street North are expected due to the Traffic Circle to the west
and signalized intersection with Central Avenue to the east. Projected traffic noise levels from
Central Avenue are based on hourly traffic volumes from an MnDOT Automatic Traffic Recorder
and traffic flow maps. These levels are compared with the Minnesota daytime and nighttime
noise standards to determine the potential for noise impacts and need for any mitigation.
1.2. Site Location and Plan
Location of the development in the City of Columbia Heights is shown in Figure 1.1. The site
plan relative to 53rd St. N and Central Avenue is shown on Figure 1.2.
The Minnesota State Noise Standards are presented in Table 1.1. Residential land uses are
included in the NAC-1 (Noise Area Classification -1) under Minnesota Rule 7030.0040.
Figure 1.1 Minnesota State Noise Standards
L10 is the level exceeded for 10% or 6 minutes of an hour. L50 is the level exceeded for 50% or
30 minutes of an hour. The L10 level, which has been shown to accurately reflect traffic noise
along major highways, is used in this report to determine compliance.
307
Item 6.
LAC-Columbia Heights Noise Assessment
David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 2
Figure 1.2 Site Location
SITE
308
Item 6.
LAC-Columbia Heights Noise Assessment
David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 3
Figure 1.3 Project Layout Relative to Central Avenue and 53 St N
309
Item 6.
LAC Columbia Heights Noise Assessment
David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 4
2.0 TRAFFIC NOISE MODEL PREDICTIONS AND MEASUREMENTS
2.1. Traffic Noise Model
The MinnNoise model was used to predict noise levels associated with vehicle traffic. The traffic noise
model geometry is shown in Figure 2.1. Selected noise receptors are located on the building facades
directly exposed to highway noise and several receptors are located on building facades that are partially
shielded from highway traffic. The extensive noise “barrier” between the project, shown as a light green
line in Figure 2.2 included buildings as well as the higher ground terrain (El 918) relative to the project
base elevation of approximately El 890.
Daily traffic volumes were taken from the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application for 53rd St N and Central
Avenue. Vehicle distribution for Autos, Medium Trucks and Heavy Trucks is based on previous studies
in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. No trucks were assumed on 53rd St. N.
Figure 2.1 Assumed Hourly Volume and Vehicle Mix
53rd St. N
AM PM
Autos 840 1050
MT 27 33
HY 0 0
Central Avenue
AM PM
Autos 2077 2596
MT 66 82
HT 44 55
2.2. Noise Model Predictions
Traffic noise levels have been predicted for noise receptor sites shown in Figure 2.2 for the “Nighttime”
6-7 AM and “Daytime” 4-5 PM peak travel periods. The model assumed a speed of 35 mph on 53rd St. N
and 45 mph on Central Avenue, slightly above posted speeds to ensure realistic noise levels. However,
with the project located on 53rd St. N between the new traffic circle just west of the site and the signalized
intersection with Central Avenue east of the sites, model results for 53rd St N are included for
completeness only since actual levels are closer to area background. Project noise receptors will be
shielded from Central Avenue by existing commerical buildings and terrain. This noise barrier is shown
in Figure 2.3.
Predicted AM L10 levels on second floor receptors are presented in Figure 2.4. The numbers above the
bars are the reduction in traffic noise level provided by the building/terrain barrier. The barrier provides
less shielding at the higher floors. Predicted traffic AM L10 noise levels at receptors by floor level are
presented in Table 2.5 on Page 6. Since the difference between estimated AM and PM traffic volumes is
only 25%, the PM noise levels are only about one decibel higher than the AM levels and not presented
here.
310
Item 6.
LAC Columbia Heights Noise Assessment
David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 5
Figure 2.2 Model Geometry with 2ND Floor Noise Receptor Sites
Figure 2.3 Noise Barrier Profile with Buildings and Terrain
311
Item 6.
LAC Columbia Heights Noise Assessment
David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 6
Figure 2.4 Predicted AM L10 Traffic Noise Levels
The values in shaded boxes would also be partially shielded by the buildings themselves but would
require a much more detailed noise analysis. As noted above, values at receptors 1-3 are likely to be
much lower due to lower speeds. From Figure 2.2, it can be seen that receptors 5 and 6 in the north
family building and receptors 9 and 10 in the south family building are most exposed to traffic noise.
Receptors 11 through 14 are shielded by the building/terrain barrier with lower traffic noise levels.
Figure 2.5 Predicted Traffic AM L10 Traffic Noise Levels
Rec 2nd Floor 4th Floor 6th Floor
1
2
3
4
5 56 56 50
6 55 55 50
7
8
9 52 53 47
10 51 52 49
11 52
12 51
13 51
14 51
Since the 6-7 am period is governed by the state nighttime noise standards, L10 levels above 55 dBA
exceed the standards, and mitigation under state rules will be required. As will be noted in Section 3.1,
window treatment will likely be needed with the addition of rooftop mechanical noise.
312
Item 6.
LAC Columbia Heights Noise Assessment
David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 7
The following excerpts from Minnesota Rule 7030 on noise provide exemptions from the rules providing
certain exterior to interior sound level attenuation can be provided.
Subp. 3. Exceptions. The noise area classification for a land use may be changed in the following
ways if the applicable conditions are met.
A. The daytime standards for noise area classification 1 shall be applied to noise area
classification 1 during the nighttime if the land use activity does not include overnight lodging.
B. The standards for a building in a noise area classification 2 shall be applied to a building in
a noise area classification 1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) the building is constructed in such a way that the exterior to interior sound level
attenuation is at least 30 dB(A);
(2) the building has year-round climate control; and
(3) the building has no areas or accommodations that are intended for outdoor activities.
The exterior-interior noise reduction is based upon several factors:
• Exterior building wall element STC (sound transmission class)
• Exterior building window element STC
• Relative area of each of the exterior building elements
• Composite STC based on acoustical energy transmitted through the building facade.
• Adjustment of STC values to attenuation in dBA, using a factor three for traffic noise
Assuming a typical window-to-wall area of 40%, 6-inch stud walls with 3-pcf insulation, STC 28 rated
windows should provide the 30 dBA exterior to interior noise reduction provided in the state rule.
glazing,
313
Item 6.
LAC Columbia Heights Noise Assessment
David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 8
3.0 MECHANICAL NOISE ASSESSMENT
Buildings normally place mechanical equipment on the roof to minimize impacts on their own occupants.
The new residential buildings that are higher than the roofs of adjacent commercial buildings will
therefore be exposed to noise from this equipment. For this preliminary analysis, sound level data from
previously monitored rooftop equipment have been used to evaluate potential impact on the new
buildings. Two units on the Discount Tire building, one on the US Bank building and two on the
restaurant building have been assumed for this analysis.
Views from upper floors of the family L-shaped buildings adjacent to these buildings are shown in
Figure 3.1. Estimated sound levels from the units are presented in Table 3.1
Receptors 1 through 4 will be shielded by other buildings not likely impacted by rooftop equipment noise.
Receptors 7 and 8 will also be partially shielded by the building itself. With the limited equipment
assumptions used here, sound levels are similar to those predicted for traffic noise in Table 2.5 and
should comply with state rules. However, with multiple pieces of equipment operating on the adjacent
buildings, sound levels could be 3 to 5 dBA higher or even greater.
Figure 3.1 Estimated Rooftop Equipment Noise
L50 Mechanical Level (AM Standard 50 dBA)
Rec 2nd Floor 4th Floor 6th Floor
1 66 57
2 66
3 66 66 57
4 56 56 57
5 56 56 50
6 55 55 50
7 50 50 51
8 51 51 47
9 52 53 47
10 51 52 49
11 52
12 51
13 51
14 51
For units exposed to sound levels from rooftop equipment over the L50 50 dBA nighttime standard, the
state rules described above on Page 7 will also apply. A more detailed study of sound levels from rooftop
equipment may be needed to ensure compliance with state noise standards and acceptable interior sound
levels in the new residential buildings. If tonal noise is associated with rooftop equipment, that may not
be attenuated by the glazing described above, a more extensive assessment of rooftop equipment may also
be appropriate.
314
Item 6.
LAC Columbia Heights Noise Assessment
David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 9
Discount Tires – Rooftop View
Restaurants - Rooftop View
Figure 3.2 Possible Rooftop Views from Upper Floors
315
Item 6.
LAC Columbia Heights Noise Assessment
David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 10
4.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Predicted traffic noise levels from Central Avenue and adjacent rooftop mechanical equipment on the
proposed LAC Columbia Height development have been estimated and compared with state noise
standards.
A total of fourteen noise receptor sites distributed along building façades with some exposure to Central
Avenue and mechanical equipment have been evaluated and compared with the Minnesota noise
standards for residential land use. While some predicted traffic noise levels are in excess of the
residential (NAC-1) state daytime and nighttime noise standards, exceptions to the rules permit the
commercial noise standards (NAC-2) to be applied if a 30 dBA reduction in sound level can be achieved.
Noise from adjacent rooftop mechanical equipment, based on the limited analysis reported here, is also
estimated to exceed the NAC-1 nighttime noise standard and would also require a 30 dBA reduction in
sound level. A more detailed analysis of adjacent rooftop equipment noise may be appropriate.
A 2x6 wall with siding and a 5/8 gypsum interior along with STC 28 windows and any patio door
glazing, will be required to comply with the state noise rules assuming glazing does not exceed 40% of
the exterior wall.
y:\jobs\2025jobs\225009\report\lennar-columbia-hts-noise assessment-042225.doc
316
Item 6.
317
Item 6.
DRAFT REPORT
www.transportationcollaborative.com
To: Todd McLouth, PE
Loucks, Inc.
From: Matt Pacyna, PE, Principal
Transportation Collaborative & Consultants, LLC
Date: May 22, 2025
Subject: 800 53rd Avenue Redevelopment Traffic Study; Columbia Heights, MN
INTRODUCTION
TC2 completed a traffic study for the proposed 800 53rd Avenue redevelopment in Columbia Heights.
The site under consideration, shown in Figure 1, was a former Medtronic office building that is generally
south of 53rd Avenue and west of Central Avenue (Highway 65). The main objectives of the study are to
quantify existing area operations, identify transportation impacts associated with the proposed
redevelopment, and recommend improvements, if necessary, to ensure safe and efficient operations
for all users. This study supports the transportation section of the corresponding environmental
assessment worksheet (EAW). The following study assumptions, methodology, and findings are offered
for consideration.
Figure 1 Subject Site
53rd Ave
Subject Site
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
A
v
e
(
H
wy
65
)
Mo
n
r
o
e
S
t
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
(
H
w
y
4
7
)
52nd Ave
7th
St
51st Ave
318
Item 6.
800 53rd Avenue Redevelopment Traffic Study May 22, 2025
Page 2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Existing conditions were reviewed within the study area to establish current traffic conditions to help
determine impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment. The evaluation of existing conditions
included collecting traffic volumes, observing transportation characteristics, and analyzing crash history
and intersection capacity, which are described in the following sections.
Traffic Volumes
Vehicular intersection turning movement and pedestrian / bicycle counts were collected at the following
locations on Wednesday, April 9, 2025. The counts were generally collected from 7 to 9 a.m. and 4 to
6 p.m. at each location, but also included 13-hour counts (i.e., 6 a.m. to 7 p.m.) as indicated. Note that
two (2) historical turning movement counts from March 2024 and October 2024 were utilized for the
University Avenue (Hwy 47) and 53rd Avenue intersection.
• 53rd Avenue and University Avenue (Hwy 47)*
• 53rd Avenue and Monroe Street NE
• 53rd Avenue and West Site / Target Access*
• 53rd Avenue and East Site / Target Access*
• 53rd Avenue and US Bank Access
• 53rd Avenue and Discount Tire / West Starbucks Access
• 53rd Avenue and Bank of America / East Starbucks Access
• 53rd Avenue and Central Avenue (Hwy 65)*
Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were provided by MnDOT or estimated based on the data collected.
Transportation Characteristics
Observations were conducted within the study area to identify various transportation characteristics
such as roadway geometry, traffic controls, speed limits, and multimodal facilities. A general overview
of key roadways within the study area is as follows:
• University Avenue (Hwy 47) – a 4-lane divided minor arterial roadway with left- and right-turn lanes.
There are no multimodal facilities, except for transit stops at the 53rd Avenue intersection. The speed
limit is 50-mph.
• Central Avenue (Hwy 65) – generally a 4-lane divided minor arterial roadway with left- and right-
turn lanes. There is multiuse trail along the west side of the roadway north of 53rd Avenue, and
sidewalk along both sides of the roadway south of 53rd Avenue; there is also a transit stop in the
southwest quadrant of the 53rd Avenue intersection. The speed limit is 40-mph.
• 53rd Avenue – generally a 2-lane undivided major collector roadway west of the Target access with
limited turn lanes and a 2-lane divided roadway east of the Target access with dedicated turn lanes.
There is a multiuse trail along the south side of the roadway and a sidewalk along the north side;
Metro Transit Route 10 runs along 53rd Avenue about every 30-minutes throughout most of the day.
The speed limit is 30-mph. Note that this roadway was reconstructed in 2023.
All other study roadways are 2-lane undivided local facilities or commercial driveways with limited turn
lanes and/or multimodal facilities. The 53rd Avenue intersections at University Avenue (Hwy 47) and
Central Avenue (Hwy 65) are signalized, while all other study intersections have two-way stop control.
Note that a median U-turn / partial roundabout is located along 53rd Avenue between the west and east
Target driveways. Existing conditions are illustrated in Figure 2.
* Denotes a 13-hour count location
319
Item 6.
Figure 2Existing Conditions
800 53rd Avenue Redevelopment Traffic Study
Legend
AM Peak Hour VolumePM Peak Hour VolumeEstimated ADT VolumeStop SignTraffic SignalRoundabout
XXX(XXX)X,XXX N
53rd Ave
7t
h
S
t
52nd Ave
51st AveUn
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
(
H
w
y
4
7
)
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
A
v
e
(
H
w
y
6
5
)
Mo
n
r
o
e
S
t
W.
S
i
t
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
E.
S
i
t
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
W.
T
a
r
g
e
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
E.
T
a
r
g
e
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
10,650
2
9
,
2
0
0
2
5
,
6
0
0
3
1
,
4
5
0
2
8
,
3
5
0
140 (145)33 (45)70 (90)
60 (50)15 (30)10 (10)
1
0
(
1
0
)
8
7
5
(
8
3
5
)
5
0
(
8
0
)
11
0
(
1
2
0
)
8
5
0
(
8
8
5
)
7
5
(
1
7
0
)
6,250 4,7006,1003,400
98 (118)30 (36)31 (70)
13 (9)132 (217)27 (45)82 (219)
1
(
4
)
10
9
(
1
6
6
)
80
1
(
9
6
6
)
26
(
7
0
)
2
1
6
(
2
6
4
)
7
7
0
(
9
4
7
)
5
5
(
1
1
3
)
6
(
6
)
13 (40)132 (225)
14 (7)184 (282)
1
4
(
4
3
)
1
7
(
2
5
)
20 (60)128 (190)1 (0)
5 (26)171 (211)3 (0)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
2
7
(
7
8
)
0
(
0
)
2
3
(
9
3
)
151 (283)
4 (21)274 (500)0 (0)
94 (269)264 (216)
4
2
(
2
5
9
)
179 (237)127 (238)
140 (52)228 (423)
240 (460)34 (40)
1
3
0
(
6
2
)
0
(
0
)
1
4
(
3
0
)
*
*Approach represents multiple commercial access points within a short distance
*
320
Item 6.
800 53rd Avenue Redevelopment Traffic Study May 22, 2025
Page 4
Crash History
Five years of crash history within the study area (January 2020 through December 2024) was reviewed
using data from MnDOT’s Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT). There was a total of 29 crashes
reported along 53rd Avenue between University Avenue (Hwy 47) and Central Avenue (Hwy 65) during
the review period; none of the crashes were defined as a “severe” crash (i.e., a fatal or serious injury).
Most of the reported crashes (i.e., 26 of the 29) occurred between Monroe Street and Central Avenue
(Hwy 65) with 21 of the 26 occurring prior to the 53rd Avenue reconstruction (i.e., ~ 7 crashes per year).
Since the 53rd Avenue reconstruction there have been five (5) reported crashes, which equates to
approximately 2.5 crashes per year. Note that other intersection crashes at University Avenue (Hwy 47)
and Central Avenue (Hwy 65) were not reviewed in detail given MnDOT’s future planning efforts in this
area associated with the Hwy 47 & Hwy 65 Planning Study.
Intersection Capacity
Intersection capacity was evaluated using Synchro / SimTraffic Software (version 11), which uses
methods outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition. The software is used to develop
calibrated models that simulate observed traffic operations and identify key metrics such as intersection
Level of Service (LOS) and queues. These models incorporate collected traffic, pedestrian, and bicyclist
volumes, traffic controls, peaking characteristics, and driver behavior factors. Level of Service (LOS)
quantifies how an intersection is operating. Intersections are graded from LOS A to LOS F, which
corresponds to the average delay per vehicle values shown. An overall intersection LOS A though
LOS D is generally considered acceptable in the study area. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation,
while LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity.
For side-street stop-controlled intersections,
special emphasis is given to providing an estimate
for the level of service of the side-street approach.
Traffic operations at an unsignalized intersection
with side-street stop control can be described in
two ways. First, consideration is given to the
overall intersection level of service, which takes
into account the total number of vehicles entering
the intersection and the capability of the
intersection to support the volumes. Second, it is
important to consider the delay on the minor approach. Since the mainline does not have to stop, most
delay is attributed to the side-street approaches. It is typical of intersections with higher mainline traffic
volumes to experience high-levels of delay (i.e., poor levels of service) on the side-street approaches,
but an acceptable overall intersection level of service during peak hour conditions.
The existing capacity analysis results, summarized in Table 1, indicate that all study intersections and
approaches generally operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the typical weekday a.m. and
p.m. peak hours. The eastbound approaches of 53rd Avenue at both University Avenue (Hwy 47) and
Central Avenue (Hwy 65) operate near the LOS D / E threshold during the p.m. peak hour, although
these operations are relatively common and don’t typically warrant mitigation. Note that peak westbound
queues along 53rd Avenue from University Avenue (Hwy 47) can extend approximately 300’ during the
p.m. peak hour (i.e., about 10 to 15-vehicles), but generally dissipate within one signal cycle length.
Thus, there are no significant existing intersection capacity issues in the study area.
Level of
Service
Average Delay / Vehicles
Unsignalized Signalized
A < 10 seconds < 10 seconds
B 10 to 15 seconds 10 to 20 seconds
C 15 to 25 seconds 20 to 35 seconds
D 25 to 35 seconds 35 to 55 seconds
E 35 to 50 seconds 55 to 80 seconds
F > 50 seconds > 80 seconds
321
Item 6.
800 53rd Avenue Redevelopment Traffic Study May 22, 2025
Page 5
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT
The proposed redevelopment, which is shown in Figure 3, is south of 53rd Avenue and west of Central
Avenue (Hwy 65). The project would replace the former 144,000 square foot Medtronic office building
with a total of 439 multifamily apartments, 58 townhomes, and approximately 12,000 square feet of retail
space. Two (2) access locations along 53rd Avenue are planned, which are generally in the same
locations as they exist today; note that the eastern site access is proposed to shift about 75 feet to the
east of its current location. Construction was assumed to be fully completed by 2029.
Figure 3 Proposed Site Plan
Table 1 Existing Intersection Capacity
Intersection Traffic
Control
Level of Service (Delay)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
53rd Avenue and University Avenue (Hwy 47) Signal B (15 sec) C (22 sec)
53rd Avenue and Monroe Street SSS A / A (5 sec) A / A (6 sec)
53rd Avenue and West Site / Target Access SSS A / A (5 sec) A / A (9 sec)
53rd Avenue and Roundabout / U-Turn RAB A / A (4 sec) A / A (9 sec)
53rd Avenue and East Site / Target Access SSS A / A (2 sec) A / A (7 sec)
53rd Avenue and Central Avenue (Hwy 65) Signal C (25 sec) C (33 sec)
SSS – Side-Street-Stop RAB - Roundabout
322
Item 6.
800 53rd Avenue Redevelopment Traffic Study May 22, 2025
Page 6
TRAFFIC FORECASTS
Traffic forecasts were developed for year 2030 no build and build conditions, which represents one year
after completion. The forecasts account for general background growth and trip generation from the
proposed redevelopment. The following information summarizes the forecast development process.
Background Growth
To account for general background growth in the study area, an annual growth rate of one-half (0.5)
percent was applied to the existing traffic volumes to develop year 2030 no build conditions. This growth
rate is consistent with historical ADT volumes over the last 20-years, as well as future year 2040 traffic
forecasts within the Columbia Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The year 2030 no build conditions
are shown in Figure 4.
Proposed Redevelopment Trip Generation
The trip generation estimate for the proposed redevelopment was created using the ITE Trip Generation
Manual, 11th Edition and includes trips for typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, as well as daily.
The proposed redevelopment, shown in Table 2, is estimated to generate 239 a.m. peak hour (66 in /
173 out), 282 p.m. peak hour (165 in / 117 out), and 3,000 daily (1,500 in / 1,500 out) trips. This includes
a 10% multi-use reduction, which was only applied to the retail portion of the redevelopment, to account
for residents that would be expected to patronize the retail uses. In addition, a five (5) percent modal
reduction was applied to all trips to account for people that utilize alternative modes of transportation,
such as transit, walk, or bike trips to travel to / from their destinations and other area businesses. The
estimated trip generation potential for the previous office use was provided for comparison purposes;
the previous use was not in operation at the time of data collection and did not generate any trips.
Table 2 Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Type (ITE Code) Size AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out In Out
Previous Use
General Office (710) 144,000 SF 193 26 35 172 1,560
Proposed Redevelopment
Multifamily Housing (221) 439 units 42 140 105 67 2,048
Townhomes (220) 58 units 10 31 29 16 448
Retail (820) 12,000 SF 19 13 44 45 736
Subtotal 71 184 178 128 3,232
Multi-use Reduction - Retail Trips Only (10%) (-2) (-1) (-4) (-4) (-72)
Modal Reduction (5%) (-3) (-10) (-9) (-7) (-160)
Total Site Trips 66 173 165 117 3,000
Site generated trips were distributed throughout the study area using the directional distribution shown
in Figure 5, which is based on a combination of existing area travel patterns and engineering judgment.
The resultant year 2030 build condition traffic forecasts, which include the general background growth
and trip generation from the proposed redevelopment, are illustrated in Figure 6.
323
Item 6.
Year 2030 No Build Conditions
800 53rd Avenue Redevelopment Traffic Study
10,950
2
9
,
9
5
0
2
6
,
2
0
0
3
2
,
2
5
0
2
9
,
1
0
0
143 (150)34 (46)71 (92)
62 (51)15 (31)10 (10)
1
0
(
1
0
)
8
9
7
(
8
5
6
)
5
1
(
8
2
)
11
3
(
1
2
3
)
8
7
1
(
9
0
7
)
7
7
(
1
7
4
)
6,400 4,8506,2503,450
100 (121)31 (37)32 (72)
13 (9)135 (222)28 (46)84 (225)
1
(
4
)
11
1
(
1
7
0
)
82
1
(
9
9
1
)
27
(
7
2
)
2
2
1
(
2
7
1
)
7
9
0
(
9
7
1
)
5
6
(
1
1
6
)
6
(
6
)
13 (41)135 (231)
14 (7)189 (289)
1
4
(
4
4
)
1
7
(
2
6
)
21 (62)130 (195)1 (0)
5 (27)175 (216)3 (0)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
2
8
(
8
0
)
0
(
0
)
2
4
(
9
5
)
154 (290)
4 (22)280 (512)0 (0)
96 (276)270 (221)
4
3
(
2
6
6
)
183 (243)130 (244)
144 (46)232 (441)
245 (471)35 (41)
1
3
4
(
5
6
)
0
(
0
)
1
5
(
3
1
)
Legend
AM Peak Hour VolumePM Peak Hour VolumeEstimated ADT VolumeStop SignTraffic SignalRoundabout
XXX(XXX)X,XXX N
53rd Ave
7t
h
S
t
52nd Ave
51st AveUn
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
(
H
w
y
4
7
)
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
A
v
e
(
H
w
y
6
5
)
Mo
n
r
o
e
S
t
W.
T
a
r
g
e
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
E.
T
a
r
g
e
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
W.
S
i
t
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
E.
S
i
t
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
Figure 4
*
*Approach represents multiple commercial access points within a short distance
*
324
Item 6.
Site Generated Trips
800 53rd Avenue Redevelopment Traffic Study
+1650
+
7
5
0
+
6
0
0
+
7
5
0
43 (29)0 (0)35 (23)
0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
1
3
(
3
3
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
1
7
(
4
2
)
+1,350 +150+0
0 (0)2 (8)0 (0)
0 (0)43 (29)9 (7)43 (29)
0
(
0
)
17
(
4
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
1
7
(
4
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)30 (75)
0 (0)78 (52)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)5 (15)25 (60)
0 (0)0 (0)30 (75)
7
8
(
5
2
)
0
(
0
)
4
0
(
2
5
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
45 (40)
0 (0)40 (25)11 (30)
0 (0)36 (90)
0
(
0
)
30 (75)6 (15)
0 (0)36 (90)
95 (65)0 (0)
0
(
0
)
5
5
(
4
0
)
0
(
0
)
25%
20%
25%
25%
5%
+
7
5
0
+
2
,
2
0
0
+
8
0
0
Legend
AM Peak Hour Site TripsPM Peak Hour Site TripsADT Site TripsStop SignTraffic SignalRoundaboutDirectional Distribution
XXX(XXX)+XXX N
Figure 5
*
*Approach represents multiple commercial access points within a short distance
*
325
Item 6.
Year 2030 Build Conditions
800 53rd Avenue Redevelopment Traffic Study
12,600
3
0
,
7
0
0
2
6
,
8
0
0
3
3
,
0
0
0
2
9
,
8
5
0
186 (179)34 (46)106 (115)
62 (51)15 (31)10 (10)
1
0
(
1
0
)
8
9
7
(
8
5
6
)
6
4
(
1
1
5
)
11
3
(
1
2
3
)
8
7
1
(
9
0
7
)
9
4
(
2
1
6
)
7,750 5,0007,6003,450
100 (121)33 (45)32 (72)
13 (9)178 (251)37 (53)127 (254)
1
(
4
)
12
8
(
2
1
1
)
82
1
(
9
9
1
)
27
(
7
2
)
2
3
8
(
3
1
2
)
7
9
0
(
9
7
1
)
5
6
(
1
1
6
)
6
(
6
)
13 (41)165 (306)
14 (7)267 (341)
1
4
(
4
4
)
1
7
(
2
6
)
21 (62)135 (210)26 (60)
5 (27)175 (216)33 (75)
7
8
(
5
2
)
0
(
0
)
4
0
(
2
5
)
2
8
(
8
0
)
0
(
0
)
2
4
(
9
5
)
199 (330)
4 (22)320 (537)11 (30)
96 (276)306 (311)
4
3
(
2
6
6
)
213 (318)136 (259)
144 (46)268 (531)
340 (536)35 (41)
1
3
4
(
5
6
)
5
5
(
4
0
)
1
5
(
3
1
)
2
,
2
0
0
8
0
0
Legend
AM Peak Hour VolumePM Peak Hour VolumeEstimated ADT VolumeStop SignTraffic SignalRoundabout
XXX(XXX)X,XXX N
53rd Ave
7t
h
S
t
52nd Ave
51st AveUn
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
(
H
w
y
4
7
)
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
A
v
e
(
H
w
y
6
5
)
Mo
n
r
o
e
S
t
W.
T
a
r
g
e
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
E.
T
a
r
g
e
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
W.
S
i
t
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
E.
S
i
t
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
Figure 6
*
*Approach represents multiple commercial access points within a short distance
*
326
Item 6.
800 53rd Avenue Redevelopment Traffic Study May 22, 2025
Page 10
YEAR 2030 CONDITIONS
To understand impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment, year 2030 no build and build
conditions were reviewed from an intersection capacity analysis perspective. Results of the year 2030
analysis, shown Table 3, indicate that all intersections and approaches will generally continue to operate
at an acceptable LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The overall change in operations
between the year 2030 no build and build conditions range from about 2 to 4 seconds without any
changes to the existing signal timing. Note that the capacity analysis is based on signal timing plans for
the area provided by MnDOT.
Westbound queues along 53rd Avenue from University Avenue (Hwy 47) are expected to increase by
approximately 50’ to 75’ during the peak periods (i.e., 2 to 4 vehicles) as a result of the proposed
redevelopment. Note that these queues are expected to extend up to approximately 375’ to 400’ during
the p.m. peak hour. In addition, there is some minor queuing expected during the p.m. peak hour at a
couple site access approaches, but nothing that would warrant any significant changes.
Although not needed from an intersection capacity perspective, left- and / or right-turn lanes along
53rd Avenue at the west site access or a right-turn lane along 53rd Avenue at the east site access could
be considered to reduce potential conflicts. However, since the City recently reconstructed 53rd Avenue
with an emphasis on safety, multimodal connectivity, and access management, there does not appear
to be a significant operational benefit to providing these turn lanes. These turn lanes could result in
increased vehicle speeds and / or longer pedestrian crossing distances. Therefore, since the adjacent
roadway network can support the proposed redevelopment, no additional infrastructure changes are
needed from an intersection capacity perspective.
SITE PLAN / OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A review of the proposed site plan does not indicate any major issues. However, the following items are
offered for further consideration between area agencies and / or the project team.
• Locate signage and landscaping to avoid creating any sight distance issues.
• Provide multimodal connections throughout the site to ensure connectivity with existing and
proposed facilities adjacent to the site.
Table 3 Year 2030 Intersection Capacity
Intersection Traffic
Control
Level of Service (Delay in Seconds)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
No Build Build No Build Build
53rd Avenue and University Avenue (Hwy 47) Signal B (16) B (18) C (23) C (26)
53rd Avenue and Monroe Street SSS A / A (5) A / A (6) A / A (6) A / A (8)
53rd Avenue and West Site / Target Access SSS A / A (5) A / A (7) A / A (9) A / B (13)
53rd Avenue and Roundabout / U-Turn RAB A / A (6) A / A (5) A / B (10) A / B (11)
53rd Avenue and East Site / Target Access SSS A / A (4) A / A (5) A / A (7) A / A (8)
53rd Avenue and Central Avenue (Hwy 65) Signal C (25) C (28) C (32) C (34)
SSS – Side-Street-Stop RAB - Roundabout
327
Item 6.
800 53rd Avenue Redevelopment Traffic Study May 22, 2025
Page 11
• Review truck maneuverability to limit potential internal circulation conflicts.
• Align the northern east-west driveway aisles between the northwest townhomes and the multifamily
apartments to reduce potential conflicts between movements.
In addition to the items noted, preserve the ability to connect the proposed redevelopment with a future
extension of 52nd Avenue.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions are offered for consideration.
1) There does not appear to be any significant safety issues along 53rd Avenue within the study area
from a crash history perspective.
2) All study intersections and approaches generally operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during
the typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours; the eastbound approaches of 53rd Avenue at both
University Avenue (Hwy 47) and Central Avenue (Hwy 65) operate near the LOS D / E threshold
during the p.m. peak hour.
a. Peak westbound queues along 53rd Avenue from University Avenue (Hwy 47) can extend
approximately 300’ during the p.m. peak hour (i.e., about 10 to 15-vehicles), but generally
dissipate within one signal cycle length.
b. There are no significant existing intersection capacity issues in the study area.
3) The proposed redevelopment would replace the former 144,000 square foot Medtronic office
building with a total of 439 multifamily apartments, 58 townhomes, and approximately 12,000 square
feet of retail space; construction was assumed to be fully completed by the year 2029.
4) Traffic forecasts were developed for year 2030 no build and build conditions, which included a one-
half (0.5) percent annual background growth and trip generation from the proposed development.
a. The proposed redevelopment is estimated to generate 239 a.m. peak hour (66 in / 173 out),
282 p.m. peak hour (165 in / 117 out), and 3,000 daily (1,500 in / 1,500 out) trips.
5) Key takeaways from the future year 2030 capacity analysis, include:
a. All intersections and approaches will generally continue to operate at an acceptable LOS D or
better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours; the overall change in operations between the year
2030 no build and build conditions range from about 2 to 4 seconds without any changes to the
existing signal timing.
b. Westbound queues along 53rd Avenue from University Avenue (Hwy 47) are expected to
increase by approximately 50’ to 75’ during the peak periods (i.e., 2 to 4 vehicles) as a result of
the proposed redevelopment; these queues are expected to extend up to approximately 375’ to
400’ during the p.m. peak hour.
c. The overall change in operations as a result of the proposed redevelopment from an intersection
capacity perspective is relatively minimal and no additional infrastructure is needed to support
the proposed redevelopment.
328
Item 6.
800 53rd Avenue Redevelopment Traffic Study May 22, 2025
Page 12
6) A review of the proposed site plan identified the following considerations:
a. Locate signage and landscaping to avoid creating any sight distance issues.
b. Provide multimodal connections throughout the site to ensure connectivity with existing and
proposed facilities adjacent to the site.
c. Review truck maneuverability to limit potential internal circulation conflicts.
d. Align the northern east-west driveway aisles between the northwest townhomes and the
multifamily apartments to reduce potential conflicts between movements.
e. Preserve the ability to connect the proposed redevelopment with an extension of 52nd Avenue.
329
Item 6.
ITEM: Preliminary Plat; Planned Unit Development; Easement Vacations; and a Shoreland Variance to
Allow for the Construction of a Multi-Phased Redevelopment at 800 53rd Avenue NE Including
Two 6-story, 132-Unit Affordable Multifamily Buildings, a Mixed-Use Building with 12,000 sq. ft.
of Commercial Space and a Range of 150-175 Market-Rate Apartments, 58 Townhomes, and
Associated Park and Infrastructure Improvements.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development BY/DATE: Mitchell Forney, CD Director / July 24, 2025
Rita Trapp and Kendra Ellner, HKGi Consulting Planners,
07/21/2025
CORE CITY STRATEGIES:
X Community that Grows with Purpose and Equity
_High Quality Public Spaces
X Safe, Accessible and Built for Everyone
X Engaged, Effective and Forward-Thinking
X Resilient and Prosperous Economy
_Inclusive and Connected Community
BACKGROUND
Kaas Wilson Architects on behalf of Lincoln Avenue Communities have applied for a Preliminary Plat; Planned
Unit Development Mixed Use Development; Easement Vacations; and a Shoreland Variance for the property
located at 800 53rd Avenue. The site is the former 11.74-acre Medtronic corporate campus abutting Sullivan
Lake. The existing building and parking lot would be demolished and redeveloped as part of these requests.
The property is owned by Medtronic, but under a purchase agreement with the applicant/developer.
The proposed project is a multi-phased development entailing two 6-story, 132-unit affordable multifamily
buildings, a mixed-use building with 12,000 sq. ft. of commercial space and a range of 150–175-unit market-
rate apartments, 58 townhomes, and associated park and infrastructure improvements as well as multi-modal
bike and pedestrian transportation facilities. Additional project information for the Preliminary Plat, Planned
Unit Development - Mixed Use Development, Easement Vacations can be found in the attached June 3, 2025
Planning Commission staff report, while information about the Shoreland Variance can be found in the
attached July 1, 2025 Planning Commission staff report.
The Planning Commission held public hearings for all items at their respective June 3rd and July 1st meetings
as required by City Ordinance. At the meetings, the Planning Commission reviewed, and voted unanimously to
recommend with conditions for the Preliminary Plat, Planned Unit Development - Mixed Use Development,
Easement Vacations and the Shoreland Variance to the City Council.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA SECTION PUBLIC HEARINGS
MEETING DATE 07/28/2025
330
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 2
SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
During the June 3rd Planning Commission meeting, commissioners asked several questions and discussed the
proposed project. There were initial comments regarding anticipated traffic and circulation impacts of the
proposed development. The traffic engineer and city staff clarified that while traffic will likely increase, the
projected travel patterns remain within industry-accepted standards. Circulation and access were also
mentioned as concerns with recognition given that MnDOT is planning additional improv ements which will
help resolve connectivity concerns.
Commissioners requested to learn more about the developer’s experience. The developer’s representative
referenced past projects such as Luna Apartments and Sora Apartments in Minneapolis, the Robbinsd ale REV,
and a master planned development in Madison, WI. This will be the developer’s first Planned Unit
Development (PUD) in Minnesota. In response to questions on project phasing, the developer’s representative
mentioned it will be dependent on the timing of bonding and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
allocations. At this time the first phase is expected to begin in the first or second quarter of 2026 with initial
demolition and grading planned. Then construction of the remaining phases would continue through 2028.
The development team is preparing for the possibility of delays due to funding or logistic challenges by having
a strategy to adjust their plans to work on another phase.
As part of the commission discussion, a commissioner noted the review process for the project, noting that
this demonstrated the City’s thorough considerations of the proposed development. Lastly there was a
question regarding the property to the north of the proposed project, near a bus stop which was noted as a
separate project. The Chair mentioned metro transit is engaged in the development review process and there
may be future improvements to compliment this site.
When the public hearing opened, there were several public comments focused on a range of concerns,
including but not limited to, the park improvements, connectivity, parking availability, height, density
reduction, infrastructure, construction, and phasing impacts. There were also concerns about modifying
zoning codes for special projects, emphasizing the protection of Sullivan Lake, and desire for proposing
different housing types instead of apartments. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing and
ultimately recommended approval of all items.
The focus of the July 1st Planning Commission was sole ly on the requested shoreland variance. In their
discussion, Commissioners requested additional information about how the stormwater system will work,
what happens if the site is full, and the depth and vegetative coverage of the stormwater basins. Staff n oted
that the details of the stormwater system are being developed and that there will be an ongoing management
plan with the property owner to ensure the system is working. The developer’s representative provided
technical information about the system design, including noting that the system life expectancy is 50 years
and that the storm basin will likely be more of a rain garden.
Comments during the public hearing included concerns about density, building height, amount of green space,
and environmental impacts. Concerns were also raised about the proposed improvements to Sullivan Park –
particularly those that increase overall impervious surface. After the public hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the shoreland variance with the findings of fact and conditions as provided in the
packet.
331
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 3
Staff received a few comment letters through the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Process. Through
those comments staff have added the below additional conditions to the PUD resolution. These comments
pull from the recommendations made by state agencies and residents alike.
1. The Landscape plan shall be revised to incorporate energy conservation strategies to mitigate high
heat vulnerability and heat island effects.
2. The developer shall explore bike parking for the development.
3. The developer shall revise the site plan to connect to existing trail systems and improve on
connectivity throughout the site.
4. The developer shall delineate areas for snow storage, ensuring ice and snow does not melt and
refreeze along walking areas.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Ordinance No. 1716, PUD District #2025-01; Resolution No.
2025-043, PUD, Planned Unit Development District Plan; Resolution No. 2025 -044, Preliminary Plat; Resolution
No. 2025-045, Easement Vacation, and Resolution 2025-58 Shoreland Variance, as presented.
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
MOTION: Move to close the public hearing and waive the readings of Ordinance No. 1716, PUD District
#2025-01, Rezoning of Property; draft Resolution No. 2025-043 PUD District Plan for #2025-01; draft
Resolution No 2025-044, Preliminary and final Plat Approval; draft Resolutions No 2025-045 Easement
Vacations; and Resolution 2025-058 there being ample copies available to the public.
MOTION: Move to set the second reading of Ordinance No. 171 6, PUD District #2025-01, for August 11,
2025, at approximately 6:00 P.M.
MOTION: Move to approve the PUD District Plan Resolution No. 2025-043 as presented, subject to the
conditions of approval.
MOTION: Move to approve the Preliminary Plat Resolution No. 2025-044 as presented, subject to the
conditions of approval.
MOTION: Move to approve the Easement Vacations Resolution No. 2025-045 as presented, subject to the
conditions of approval.
MOTION: Move to approve the Shoreland Overlay Variance Resolution 2025-058, as presented, subject to
the conditions of approval.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Ordinance No. 1716, PUD District #2025 -01
2. Resolution No. 2025-043, PUD, Planned Unit Development District Plan
3. Resolution No. 2025-044, Preliminary Plat and Final Plat
332
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 4
4. Resolution No. 2025-045, Easement Vacation
5. Resolution 2025-058, Shoreland Variance
7. Public Hearing Notices
8. Comments Submitted to the Council Meeting
6. June 3, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report with Exhibit Attachments
7. July 1, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report with Exhibit Attachments
333
Item 7.
ORDINANCE NO. 1716
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS AND CITY ORDINANCE
RELATING TO ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PERTAINING TO THE REZONING OF A PORTION OF A CERTAIN
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 800 53RD AVENUE NE FROM GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (GB) TO PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD) NUMBER 2025-01.
The City of Columbia Heights does ordain:
Section 1
§ 9.104 ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT (F) ZONING AMENDMENTS.
The “Zoning map” of the Columbia Heights Zoning and Development Ordinance is hereby amended by
rezoning or changing the zoning district designation of the following described property having the property
address of 800 53rd Avenue NE, Columbia Heights MN, 55421, and legally described below from General
Business District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District 2025-01:
Legal description: On file at City Hall
Address Property Tax I.D. No.
800 53rd Avenue NE 26-30-24-11-0020
(the “Property”1)
Section 2
The property is rezoned to PUD, Planned Unit Development District 2025-01 and the allowed uses shall be
multifamily apartments, townhomes, and commercial/retail.
Section 3
Pursuant to Chapter 9, Article I of the Columbia Heights Zoning and Land Development Ordinance, the approval
of any development or redevelopment within Planned Unit Development District 2025-01 shall be subject to the
requirements set forth in Columbia Heights Code Section 9.113 including, but not limited to, the following
performance and design standards and site and building approval:
1. The Property shall be developed or redeveloped in accordance with the final PUD District Plan approved
by the City (“Final Plans”), which include site plans, grading, drainage and storm water management
plans, utility plans, lighting and photometric plans, landscape plans, floor plans, and building elevations.
The Final Plans outline all of the performance standards for development of the Property, including, at a
minimum the following design standards for the Property as set forth below:
Ordinance No.1716 37
334
Item 7.
age 2 City of Columbia Heights - Ordinance P
Minimum Number of Parking Stalls Per Multifamily Unit
1.5
Maximum Residential Density Allowed 65 units per acre
Minimum Number of Enclosed Parking Stalls Per
Townhome Unit 2
Building Height Not to exceed 6 stories
Minimum Number of Enclosed Parking Stalls Per
Multifamily Unit 1
Maximum Number of Compact Parking Stalls 70%
Minimum Non-Residential Building Area 12,000 square feet
Minimum Number of Townhome Units 52
Maximum Number of Multifamily Units 450
Minimum Multifamily Front Yard Setback 10
Minimum Multifamily Parking Setback 0 feet
2. Any applicant for an approval of a development plan or building permit within Planned Unit
Development District 2025-01 shall submit development plans for City review and approval. The City
reserves the right to adjust any performance standards set forth in this ordinance if deemed necessary
to improve the site and building design for the purpose of compatibility, public health, or public safety.
3. Any development or redevelopment plans for the Property including, but not limited to the Final Plans,
that fail to meet the design and performance standards set forth herein shall require a PUD amendment
approved by the City.
4. All conditions of approval set forth in City Council Resolution No. 2025-XXX shall be incorporated herein.
Section 4
The Planning Commission held a public hearing as required by the City’s Zoning Ordinance on June 3, 2025 and
the Commission recommends approval of the proposed rezoning from General Business District (GB) to PUD,
Planned Unit Development District after finding that:
1. The amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
2. The amendment is in the public interest and not solely for the benefit of a single property owner;
3. The amendment is compatible with existing land uses and zoning classifications in the general area;
4. The amendment reflects changes in development trends in the general area.
Section 5
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its passage.
335
Item 7.
age 2 City of Columbia Heights - Ordinance P
Passed this day of , 2025
First Reading:
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Second
Reading:
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Amáda Márquez Simula, Mayor
Attest:
Sara Ion, City Clerk/Council Secretary
336
Item 7.
the
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-043
A resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, approving PUD, Planned Unit
Development District Plan for property located in the City of Columbia Heights, MN
A proposal (Planning Case # 2025-PZ03) has been submitted by Lincoln Avenue Communities to the City Council
requesting approval of a PUD, Planned Unit Development District Plan at the following site:
ADDRESSES: 800 53rd Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING: PUD, Planned Unit Development District Plan per Code Section 9.113.
The Planning and Zoning Commission held an informal public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on
June 3, 2025, recommending approval by the City Council;
The City Council held a formal public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on July 28, 2025;
The City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission
regarding the effect of the proposed PUD, Planned Unit Development District Plan upon the health, safety, and
welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility of uses,
traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrounding areas;
In accordance with the foregoing, and all ordinances and regulations of the City of Columbia Heights, the City
Council of the City of Columbia Heights makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The PUD District Plan conforms to all applicable requirements of the city code;
2. The PUD District Plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
3. The PUD District Plan is consistent with any applicable area plan;
4. The PUD District Plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the
public right-of-way.
Further, be it resolved, that the attached plans, maps, and other information shall become part of this PUD,
Planned Unit Development District Plan; and in granting approval the City and the applicant agree that the PUD,
Planned Unit Development District Plan shall become null and void if the resolution is not recorded with Anoka
County within one (1) calendar year after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal.
CONDITIONS
1. The property owner and the City will enter in to a development contract governing site improvements and
shall be executed by the property owner and the City within 60 days of the PUD approval prior to
337
Item 7.
age 2 City of Columbia Heights - Council Resolution P
issuance of a building permit.
2. The mixed-use building containing the commercial space and 150-175 market-rate apartment units will
provide underground and surface parking shared between the uses as a condition of approval, but will have
a specific calculation and other requirements once an end-user is found. Any loading and unloading shall not
be allowed on 53rd Avenue NE.
3. Developer shall provide financial guarantee in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit for landscaping and
public improvements including multimodal connections through the site to ensure connectivity to existing
and proposed facilities. The guarantee amount is to be determined by the City Engineer.
4. The City Engineer, Watershed District, and MnDot shall review and approve the site grading and storm water
management plans. All storm water best management practices (BMP’s) shall have designated drainage and
utility easements recorded with the Final Plat or as a separate document with Anoka County.
5. The developer shall enter into a storm water maintenance and management agreement with the City, to be
prepared by the City Attorney.
6. The site utility plans shall be subject to review and final approval by the City Engineer and Fire Chief.
7. Developer shall pay park dedication fees as outlined in the City Code.
8. Developer will provide record plans or as-built drawings to the City following project completion.
9. The developer shall align the northern east-west driveway aisles between the northwest townhomes and
the multifamily apartments to reduce potential conflicts between movements.
10. The Landscape plan shall be revised to incorporate energy conservation strategies to mitigate high heat
vulnerability and heat island effects.
11. The developer shall explore bike parking for the development.
12. The developer shall revise the site plan to connect to existing trail systems and improve on connectivity
throughout the site.
13. The developer shall delineate areas for snow storage, ensuring ice and snow does not melt and refreeze
along walking areas.
ORDER OF COUNCIL
338
Item 7.
Passed this day of , 2025
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
____________________________________
Amáda Márquez Simula, Mayor
Attest:
____________________________________
Sara Ion, City Clerk/Council Secretary
339
Item 7.
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-044
A resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, approving a Preliminary Plat for
Lincoln Avenue Communities;
A proposal (Planning Case # 2025-PZ03) has been submitted by Lincoln Avenue Communities to the City Council
requesting Preliminary Plat Approval from the City of Columbia Heights at the following site:
ADDRESS: 800 53rd Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING: Preliminary Plat Approval per Code Section 9.104 (L).
The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on June 3, 2025;
The City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission
regarding the effect of the proposed Preliminary Plat upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community
and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility of uses, traffic, property values,
light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrounding areas;
Now, therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, and all ordinances and regulations of the City of Columbia
Heights, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Section 9.104 (L) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines conditions that must be met in order for the City to grant a
Preliminary Plat. They are as follows:
(a) The proposed Preliminary Plat conforms to the requirements of City Code Section 9.116.
(b) The proposed Subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
(c) The proposed Subdivision contains parcel and land subdivision layout that is consistent with good
planning and site engineering design principles.
Further, be it resolved, that the attached plans, maps, and other information shall become part of this
Preliminary Plat and in granting approval the City and the applicant agree that the Plat shall become null and
void if a Final Plat is not recorded with Anoka County within one (1) calendar year after the approval date,
subject to petition for renewal.
CONDITIONS
1. All required state and local codes, permits, licenses and inspections will be met and in full compliance.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of filing and recording written easements with the Anoka
County Recorder’s Office.
340
Item 7.
age 2 City of Columbia Heights - Council Resolution P
3. An approved Preliminary Plat shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of the approval. In the
event that a Final Plat is not presented for approval within this time period, the Preliminary Plat will
become void.
4. The applicant shall enter into a Developer’s Agreement with the City. Said documentation shall be
reviewed by the City Attorney.
ORDER OF COUNCIL
Passed this day of , 2025
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
__________________________________________
Amáda Márquez Simula, Mayor
Attest:
_______________________________________
Sara Ion, City Clerk/Council Secretary
341
Item 7.
be
RESOLUTION 2025-045
A resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, approving an easement vacation
for property located in the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, described as:
An easement for the installation and continued maintenance of a sanitary sewer line over and across the
following described property: The North 30 feet of the north 267.61 feet of Lots 7 & 8, Auditors
Subdivision Number 51, except the east 75 feet of the north 30 feet of Lot 7, Auditors Subdi vision
Number 51. Said easement shall terminate automatically upon the filing of a certificate by the City
Engineer, attesting that the sewer line installed therein is no longer in service.
A proposal (Planning Case # 2025-PZ03) has been submitted by Lincoln Avenue Communities to the City Council
requesting an easement vacation at the following sites:
ADDRESS: 800 53rd Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING: Easement vacation per Code Section 9.104.-(J), of the above legally
described easement.
The Planning and Zoning Commission held an informal public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on
June 3, 2025;
The City Council held a formal public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on July 28, 2025;
The City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission
regarding the effect of the proposed easement vacation upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community
and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility of uses, traffic, property values,
light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrounding areas;
Now, therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, and all ordinances and regulations of the City of Columbia
Heights, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. No private rights will be injured or endangered as a result of the vacation.
2. The public will not suffer loss or inconvenience as a result of the vacation.
Further, be it resolved, that the attached plans, maps, and other information shall become part of this easement
vacation; and in granting approval the City and the applicant agree that the easement vacation shall become
null and void if the resolution is not recorded with Anoka County within one (1) calendar year after the approval
date, subject to petition for renewal.
CONDITIONS
1. The applicant shall be responsible for providing legal descriptions of all easements that are subject to
created. Said descriptions are subject to review by the City Attorney. 44
342
Item 7.
age 2 City of Columbia Heights - Council Resolution P
2. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the easement vacations with the Anoka County
Recorder’s Office.
ORDER OF COUNCIL
45
Passed this day of , 2025
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
_____________________________________
Amáda Márquez Simula, Mayor
Attest:
_____________________________________
Sara Ion, City Clerk/Council Secretary
343
Item 7.
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-058
A resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, recommending
approval of a Shoreland Variance for the property located at 800 53rd Avenue NE in the City
of Columbia Heights, MN;
A proposal (Planning Case # 2025-PZ04) has been submitted by Kaas Wilson Architects, on
behalf of Lincoln Avenue Communities, to the City Council requesting approval of a Shoreland
Variance at the following location:
ADDRESS: 800 53rd Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING:
1. Shoreland variance to exceed the 35% impervious surface lot coverage limit as
stipulated in City Code Section 9.114 (C) (2) Overlay Districts.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on July 1,
2025;
The City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission
regarding the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the
community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concern related to traffic, property
values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety, in the surrounding area;
In accordance with the foregoing, and all ordinances and regulations of the City of Columbia
Heights, the City of Columbia Heights City Council makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration,
topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence
to the provisions of this article would cause practical difficulties in conforming to the
zoning ordinance. The applicant, however, is proposing to use the property in a
reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance.
2. The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific parcel of land
involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within the same zoning
classifications.
3. The practical difficulties are caused by the provisions of this article and have not been
created by any person currently having a legal interest in the property.
344
Item 7.
4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or
improvements in the vicinity.
CONDITIONS
1. The shoreland variance shall comply with the standards set forth in the Overlay District
Section 9.114 (C) (2):
(i) All structures, additions or expansions shall meet setback and other
requirements of this code.
(ii) The lot shall be served with municipal sewer and water.
(iii) The lot shall provide for the collection and treatment of stormwater in
compliance with Chapter 9 of the city code if determined that the site
improvements will result in increased runoff directly entering a public water. All
development plans shall require review and approval by the City Engineer and
the underlying watershed district.
(iv) Measures will be taken for the treatment of stormwater runoff and/or
prevention of stormwater from directly entering a public water. The measures
may include, but not limited to the following:
A. Appurtenances as sedimentation basins, debris basins, desilting basins, or silt
traps.
B. Installation of debris guards and microsilt basins on store sewer inlets.
C. Use where practical, oil skimming devices or sump catch basins.
D. Direct drainage away from the lake and into pervious, grassed yards through
site grading, use of gutters and down spouts.
E. Construction of sidewalks of partially pervious raised materials such as
decking, which has natural earth or other pervious material beneath or
between the planking.
F. Use grading and construction techniques that encourage rapid infiltration,
such as sand and gravel under impervious materials with adjacent infiltration
swales graded to lead into them.
G. Install berms, water bars, or terraces, which temporarily detain water before
dispersing it into the pervious area.
345
Item 7.
2. The applicant shall adhere to all stormwater requirements and permitting required by state
and local codes, permits, licenses and inspections will be met and in full compliance.
ORDER OF COUNCIL
Passed this day of , 2025
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
_____________________________________
Amáda Márquez Simula, Mayor
Attest:
____________________________________
Sara Ion, City Clerk/Council Secretary
346
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights | Community Development Department
3989 Central Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421 ▪ Ph: 763-706-3670 ▪ www.columbiaheightsmn.gov
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Date of Hearing: Monday July 28th, 2025, 6:00 P.M.
Subject: Public Hearing Notice –Planned Unit Development, Preliminary Plat, Shoreland Overlay Variance,
and Easement Vacation
Subject Properties:
800 53rd Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Dear Resident/Affected Property Owner:
The City of Columbia Heights has received an application for a Planned Unit Development, Preliminary Plat, Shoreland
Overlay District Variance, and vacation of easements in preparation for a redevelopment project at 800 53rd Avenue NE.
Section 9.104, 9.113 and 9.114 of the Zoning Ordinance requires the City Council to hold a formal public hearing and make
a decision on the applications.
You are receiving this notice because the property that you own (Affected Property), and/or reside in, is located within 350
feet of the Subject Property. The City Council of the City of Columbia Heights will hold a Public Hearing on this matter on
Monday, July 28th, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in the City Council Chambers of Columbia Heights City Hall, located
at 3989 Central Avenue NE. A map of the Subject Property and the Official Notice of Public Hearing are attached.
You are welcomed and encouraged to participate in the Public Hearing for this matter by attending the July 28th, 2025 City
Council meeting. If you cannot attend the meeting, but would like to provide input, you can submit correspondence via
email to mforney@columbiaheightsmn.gov by phone at 763-706-3675 or by mail at:
City of Columbia Heights
3989 Central Ave NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
If you have any questions about this notice, please do not hesitate to contact the City of Columbia Heights Community
Development Department at (763) 706-3670.
Sincerely
Mitchell Forney
Community Development Director, City of Columbia Heights
** Landowners (Commercial and Residential): If you do not reside on the Affected Property, located 350 feet from the
Subject Property, it is your responsibility to share this notice with your tenants. This notice should be posted in a public
place on your property or mailed directly to the tenants residing or leasing space on the Affected Property.
347
Item 7.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
-SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION (highlighted in red)-
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights will conduct a public hearing
in the City Council Chambers of City Hall at 3989 Central Avenue NE on Monday, July 28th, 2025 at 6:00
p.m. The order of business is as follows:
The City Council will review and take action on an application for a Planned Unit Development,
Shoreland Overlay District Variance, Preliminary Plat, and a vacation of easements located at 800 53rd
Avenue NE. The applicant is proposing demolition of the existing office building in preparation for a
multi-phase redevelopment that includes two multifamily apartment buildings both containing 132
units, a mixed-use building with a range of 150-175 market-rate units and 12,000 sq. ft. of commercial
space, 58 townhomes and associated park and infrastructure improvements. Section 9.104 (J)(5), (L)(5),
(G)(5), 9.114 Overlay Districts (C)(5)(b), and 9.113 Planned Unit Development (D)(5)(a) of the Zoning
Ordinance, requires that the City Council review, hold public hearings, and take action on the
applications for a Planned Unit Development, Preliminary/Final Plat, and vacation of easements.
Notice is hereby given that all persons having an interest will be given an opportunity to be heard. For
questions or to submit comments for the record, contact Mitchell Forney, Community Development
Director, at (763)706-3675 or at mforney@columbiaheightsmn.gov or by mail at:
City of Columbia Heights
Attn: Community Development
3989 Central Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
348
Item 7.
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights will conduct a
public hearing in the City Council Chambers of City Hall at 3989 Central Avenue NE on
Monday, July 28th, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. The order of business is as follows:
The City Council will review and take action on an application for a Planned
Unit Development, Shoreland Overlay District Variance, Preliminary Plat,
and a vacation of easements located at 800 53rd Avenue NE. The applicant
is proposing demolition of the existing office building in preparation for a
multi-phase redevelopment that includes two multifamily apartment
buildings both containing 132 units, a mixed-use building with a range of
150-175 market-rate units and 12,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, 58
townhomes and associated park and infrastructure improvements. Section
9.104 (J)(5), (L)(5), (G)(5), 9.114 Overlay Districts (C)(5)(b), and 9.113
Planned Unit Development (D)(5)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance, requires that
the City Council review, hold public hearings, and take action on the
applications for a Planned Unit Development, Preliminary/Final Plat, and
vacation of easements.
Notice is hereby given that all persons having an interest will be given an opportunity to
be heard. For questions or to submit comments for the record, contact Mitchell Forney,
Community Development Director, at (763)706-3675 or at
mforney@columbiaheightsmn.gov or by mail at:
City of Columbia Heights
Attn: Community Development
3989 Central Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
349
Item 7.
7/24/25, 10:38 AM Mail - Mitchell Forney - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADEzZDdlNGIxLTkyZDAtNGU4OC04ODllLWEyMzEzMDYyZjhhNAAuAAAAAACA2BpE4YjZSozd2p50Kud0A…1/3
Outlook
CH Re-Development Project - 800 53rd Ave NE - Public Comment - former Medtronic site
From Michelle Brask <michelle.brask@gmail.com>
Date Mon 7/21/2025 8:46 PM
To Mitchell Forney <MForney@columbiaheightsmn.gov>
Cc @ Rollin Brask <rollin.brask@gmail.com>
Thank you, Mitch, for your listening ear and insights and answers to my questions about the former
Medtronic site. I sent a copy of my perspective and concerns to commdev@columbiaheightsmn.gov. I
believe that you are the main reader/recipient. Still, I'm sending a copy to your email as well.
Thanks for all that you do!
Michelle
Michelle Brask 612-267-7276
-----------------------------------------------------
To: Columbia Heights Community Development Department
Re: 800 53rd Avenue NE Re-Development Project – Public Comment
When my husband and I moved to Columbia Heights (CH) in 2013, a city official referred to our
neighborhood and Sullivan Lake as “one of the gems of Columbia Heights.” We really love living in
Columbia Heights and refer to our townhouse as “our lake home,” since we can see the walking path
and Sullivan Lake. It ’s so lovely.
We have appreciated the City and our neighborhood so much! And we realize that change is about to
happen. Medtronic moving certainly made big changes for CH – the finances, the planning, and future.
I cannot imagine the me and thought and effort that has gone into visioning how to move forward.
Thank you.
Thank you also for the opportunity to voice concerns about the proposed plan. I reviewed early
proposals, a ended the May 21st community mee ng, and was present at Public Hearings with The
Planning Commission on June 3 and July 1. Obviously, making 12+ acres into a park is a dream and not
at all fiscally feasible. Following are my observa ons and concerns about the proposed project.
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - former Medtronic site:
Lincoln Avenue Communi es - At the outset, my assump on is that CH has done due diligence about
this property development company. LAC ’s website says the company “invests in affordable housing to
strengthen communi es. Our company develops quality, affordable homes while delivering social,
environmental, and financial returns . . . We work though ully and strategically to maximize value for all
stakeholders — including our residents, nonprofit partners, government agencies, investors, and
neighbors.” I do not see LAC as a villain. I do see them as a company who wants to maximize the space,
ge ng as much out of the investment as possible. This is their business. The City’s business is also to
develop – and to protect.
LAC ’s website includes a pie chart showing “50-60% AMI Lower Income.” The other piece of the pie
shows “<30% AMI Extremely Low Income” and “30 – 50% Very Low Income” [2024-LAC-Impact-Report,
page 11]. Essen ally, LAC and CH will be moving people with great need into the re-development 350
Item 7.
7/24/25, 10:38 AM Mail - Mitchell Forney - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADEzZDdlNGIxLTkyZDAtNGU4OC04ODllLWEyMzEzMDYyZjhhNAAuAAAAAACA2BpE4YjZSozd2p50Kud0A…2/3
project, into the Sullivan Lake neighborhood. Individuals and families with “Very Low Income” and
“Extremely Low Income” generally have numerous other issues and concerns which they may not have
the skills, educa on, or desire to deal with. This is outside the responsibility of Lincoln Avenue
Communi es. How is Columbia Heights prepared (or preparing) to help, encourage, and deal with the
many issues? And how will LAC “work for all involved, including residents . . . and neighbors?”
Many years ago, I lived in what was then called “low-income housing ” and it was so helpful as my young
family worked to make a be er way for ourselves. So please hear me that I am not disparaging offering
affordable housing in CH. I am concerned about the sta s cs. And about the small area (density
concern) that LAC and CH propose.
Density – Informa on about surrounding ci es’ popula on density and the impact of two six story
apartment buildings – plus addi onal townhomes and apartments - was presented to the Planning
Commission. The number of units and townhomes, and thus the number of residents, is a great
concern. Rather than ge ng as many individuals into this space as is possible – including by changing
current code to accommodate more people – as a near-by owner and Columbia Heights resident – I ask
you to decide to scale back the project.
More People in Less Space – Although numerous factors play a role, there is a consensus based on
evidence that “poverty significantly increases the risk of criminal behavior.” [The Rela onship Between
Poverty and Crime February 28, 2025 h ps://www.northwestcareercollege.edu/blog /the-rela onship-
between-poverty-and-crime/]
There are helpful sugges ons in this ar cle – and much require human and financial resources.
What will the impact be for Target and businesses? What resources will CH provide?
And – important to me personally - what about the neighbors and Sullivan Lake Park? We have felt safe
here and enjoyed the beau es of the lake and park and the safety of our quiet neighborhood. As you
look at adding significantly more people, please consider what the City’s role will be, both for the new
residents and for the current neighbors.
Traffic and Safety – Having only two entrances into the development will, no doubt, be a challenge.
Ge ng from Target/Petco to 53rd going east is already a bit precarious with three-way traffic (I’ve
witnessed the a ermath of an accident there and seen numerous near-misses). Traffic entering
53rd from the redevelopment site will definitely complicate issues. What will this mean for emergency
vehicles? Will there be a traffic light to help control? Of course, this could back up west-bound traffic in
the round-about and also affect bus traffic.
I am assuming (which some mes gets me into trouble) that the City of Fridley, Target, and, perhaps
most important, Fridley Police, are involved in planning, along with CH and the CHPD and CHFD. Since
Fridley is on the north side of 53rd, they will feel the impact and repercussions, both posi ve and
nega ve, of the increase in popula on and traffic.
Pedestrian Traffic – From the entrance to Sullivan Shores Townhouses (SST - at the top of the hill,
halfway between Central and University) there are currently no pedestrian crossings un l past the
roundabout. And that is not a safe place to cross 53rd. In fact, the official, lined crossing on the east
end of the roundabout (by Hyperabad Indian Grill) feels like the least safe place to cross. People are
exi ng off Central, looking to either go straight (west) through the roundabout or they are turning to the
right to go into Target. Speaking from experience, both as a driver and as a pedestrian, very li le
a en on is given to anyone wishing to cross. And, if someone does cross from the south (Medtronic)
side of the street to the Target side, there are no sidewalks to navigate from 53rd Avenue to Target,
Hyperabad, Dollar Tree or Pawn America. There is some grass and many parking spaces. Again, drivers
351
Item 7.
7/24/25, 10:38 AM Mail - Mitchell Forney - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkADEzZDdlNGIxLTkyZDAtNGU4OC04ODllLWEyMzEzMDYyZjhhNAAuAAAAAACA2BpE4YjZSozd2p50Kud0A…3/3
do not no ce pedestrians. Walking when there is snow or slush makes things worse. Crossing from the
south to the bus stops creates the same issue. This is already a problem and will only increase.
Drivers on 53rd give li le a en on to would-be pedestrian crossers. A emp ng to cross at the Sullivan
Lake Park walking path (across from Petco) or the 4-way intersec on by Petco and Medtronic is already
not safe for pedestrians. I don’t believe just having a marked crosswalk will be effec ve. Could a
crossing be created (perhaps between the Sullivan Lake walking path and Petco) that has a blinking light
op on that the pedestrian could ac vate to warn/stop drivers? I believe parts of Minneapolis have
these.
Example – my neighbor, who is legally blind, was learning to use her white cane, to be able to safely walk
to Target. While standing with her cane in posi on to signify that she wanted to cross the street,
numerous cars sped on by. Not one driver stopped or even slowed to let her cross. Her teacher decided
that crossing 53rd anywhere from the top of the hill to Central is not safe. (Note - Individuals with
hearing loss cannot rely on “hearing ” a vehicle coming – especially with EV and hybrid vehicles). This is a
current issue that needs to be addressed, both for sight impaired individuals and all others. It is a safety
concern for both Columbia Heights and Fridley, since 53rd Avenue runs between the ci es. It is an issue
now and will burgeon into an even greater issue as construc on traffic begins and then people begin
living in the new development. The higher the density, the more traffic and pedestrians there will be.
Certainly, having a safe crossing for Metro bus riders is also important.
SST Traffic Concern –
A personal driving concern for me will be leaving my townhouse in SST to access 53rd Avenue.
Thankfully, the entrance to where I live is at the top of the hill and I'm able to see traffic coming from
the east. Note: Two large u lity poles on the northwest corner of SST entrance par ally block oncoming
traffic from the west. A clear line-of-sight will be even more important when there is heavier traffic. As
traffic increases from the redevelopment project, the ability to get across the intersec on quickly (and
safely!) will be even more important. Would a lowered speed limit on 53rd help? The street tends to be
a cut-across from Central to University.
As you move forward with redevelopment, Please consider not only what is now but what will be. To
keep Columbia Heights an “All American City ” with a “small town feel” (CH website), please scale back
the project to less stories. Instead of increasing impervious surface from ordinance level of 35% to
current 57% to 67.7% percent – do not expand but instead create greenspace. Like those great
Americans who thought ahead and set aside space for everything from small neighborhood greenspaces
to Theodore Wirth Parkway to Na onal Parks, please look ahead and envision saving the spaces that
Columbia Heights has. We need to treasure and protect what we have, even as we move forward.
In conclusion - Thank you for considering my comments.
Like LAC, I wish to see “Homes that Transform Neighborhoods and Improve Lives” but without pushing
building and occupancy to the limit. Like Columbia Heights Council and residents, I want to protect what
we have here in the Sullivan Lake area and in Columbia Heights.
Respec ully,
Michelle
Michelle Brask
700 Sullivan Way NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421
612-267-7276 michelle.brask@gmail.com
352
Item 7.
July 7, 2025
VIA EMAIL
Mitchell Forney
City of Columbia Heights
2989 Central Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota 55421
mforney@columbiaheightsmn.gov
RE: 800 53rd Avenue Northeast Redevelopment to High Density Residential – Environmental
Assessment Worksheet
Dear: Mitchell Forney
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) for the 800 53rd Avenue Northeast Redevelopment to High Density Residential project (project)
located in Anoka County, Minnesota. The Project consists of three multi-story residential apartment
buildings with surface and underground parking, 58 townhomes and 12,000 square feet of commercial
space. Regarding matters for which the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has regulatory
responsibility and other interests, the MPCA staff has the following comments for your consideration.
Watershed
• It is appreciated that a discussion around chloride was included in the assessment.
• Sullivan Lake is at high risk for becoming impaired for chlorides, so being mindful of that
may help keep it off the impaired waters list. The Minnesota Chloride Management Plan
Designing with snow and ice in mind may help reduce the use of salt. Plan for where snow
will be stored and place it so there is not melting and refreezing in primary walking areas.
Plan for trees and placement of trees so the sun can melt ice if it forms.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this Project. Please be aware that this letter does not
constitute approval by the MPCA of any or all elements of the Project for the purpose of pending or
future permit actions by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Project Proposer to secure
any required permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. If you have any questions
concerning our review of this EAW, please contact me by email at chris.green@state.mn.us or by
telephone at 507-476-4258.
Sincerely,
Chris Green
This document has been electronically signed.
Chris Green, Project Manager
Environmental Review Unit
Resource Management and Assistance Division
353
Item 7.
Mitchell Forney
Page 2
July 7, 2025
CG:rs
Attachment
cc: Dan Card, MPCA (w/ attachment)
Melinda Neville, MPCA (w/ attachment)
Nicole Peterson, MPCA (w/ attachment)
Lauren Dickerson, MPCA (w/ attachment)
Innocent Eyoh, MPCA (w/ attachment)
Deepa deAlwis, MPCA (w/ attachment)
354
Item 7.
7/24/25, 12:47 PM Mail - Mitchell Forney - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADEzZDdlNGIxLTkyZDAtNGU4OC04ODllLWEyMzEzMDYyZjhhNAAQAFb%2FQeMDFUGJjziJXcNBJpE%3D 1/1
Outlook
Imper vious Surface Variance - 800 53rd Ave NE, Columbia Heights
From Selle, Alexander (He/Him/His) (DNR) <Alexander.Selle@state.mn.us>
Date Tue 7/1/2025 3:21 PM
To PJ Disch <pdisch@loucksinc.com>; Mitchell Forney <MForney@columbiaheightsmn.gov>
Good Afternoon, PJ and Mitchell,
Included in this email are preliminary comments from DNR regarding the impervious surface variance for
800 53rd Ave NE, Columbia Heights. Official comments will be submitted by the Department once
notification of an official variance submittal through the city has been completed.
Comments:
Impervious Surfaces
Existing: 292,875 sqft (53.7%)
Proposed: 363,748 sqft (67.1%) increase of 13.4% impervious surfaces from existing to
proposed.
DNR staff review impervious surface totals related to municipalities' shoreland ordinances.
Columbia Heights’ Shoreland ordinance states that coverage cannot exceed 35%. However, the
site was already exceeding these standards.
DNR takes additional review of projects for impervious surface within the Shoreland Impact Zone
(SIZ), which represents 50% of the shoreland structure distances, which would be 25ft from the
OHWL for Sullivan Lake.
No additional impervious surfaces are being proposed within the SIZ
The stormwater management is greatly increased from the existing site, which will likely aid in
greater water quality for Sullivan Lake.
The DNR would want to see no increase in the stormwater being conveyed into a public water.
Feel free to reach out with any further questions.
Thanks for your time,
-Alex Selle
Ale x Selle
Publi c Water s P ro t ec t io n Hyd rologist | EWR
Minnesot a D ep artme nt o f Nat ura l Re so urc es
1200 War ner Rd .
St. Pau l, Min nesota , 551 06
Phon e: 65 1-2 59-5411
Ema il: Al exand er.Sell e@state.mn.u s
mn dnr.go v
355
Item 7.
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA SECTION PUBLIC HEARINGS
MEETING DATE JUNE 3, 2025
ITEM: Preliminary Plat; Planned Unit Development; Easement Vacations to allow for the construction
of a multi-phased redevelopment at 800 53rd Avenue NE including two 6-story, 132-unit
affordable multifamily buildings, a mixed-use building with 12,000 sq. ft. of commercial space
and a range of 150-175 market-rate apartments, 58 townhomes, and associated park and
infrastructure improvements.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development BY/DATE: Andrew Boucher, City Planner, 05/15/25
CASE NUMBER: 2025-PZ03
APPLICANT: Kaas Wilson Architects on behalf of Lincoln Avenue Communities.
DEVELOPMENT: Medtronic Redevelopment
LOCATION: 800 53rd Avenue NE (northern edge of municipal boundary with Fridley along Sullivan
Lake Park)
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat; Planned Unit Development; and Easement Vacations
PREPARED BY: Andrew Boucher, City Planner
INTRODUCTION:
Kaas Wilson Architects on behalf of Lincoln Avenue Communities have applied for a Preliminary Plat; Planned
Unit Development; and Easement Vacations for the property located at 800 53rd Avenue, the site of the vacant
Medtronic corporate campus which would be demolished as part of this request. The property is owned by
Medtronic, but under a purchase agreement with the applicant/developer.
A multi-phased redevelopment is proposed including two 6-story, 132-unit affordable multifamily buildings, a
mixed-use building with 12,000 sq. ft. of commercial space and a range of 150 -175 market-rate apartments,
58 townhomes, and associated park and infrastructure improvements as well as multi-modal transportation
facilities. In addition, Sullivan Lake is identified as an impaired water body, and the described project scope
meets the threshold test identified in MN Rules 4410.4300 Mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Categories, Subpart 19D: 250 unattached units or 375 attached units in a city within the seven -county Twin
Cities metropolitan area that has adopted a comprehensive plan under Minnesota Statutes, section 473.859 .
The site is zoned GB, General Business District, with the R-4 Multiple Family Residential District zoning district
examined as it is most similar to the type of uses being proposed compared to what the applicant is proposing.
The site is adjacent to the City of Fridley and General Business zoned commercial properties to the north and
east; the site has Parks and Open Space zoning to the west in the form of Sullivan Lake Park and residential
districts such as R-2A, R-2B, and R-3 (One/Two Family Residential, Built-as-Duplex, and Limited Multiple Family
Residential) with townhome developments to the west and south. Additionally, there is R-1 (Single-Family
Residential) with more dense districts R-2A, R-2B, and R-3 south of the subject property.
13
Item 3.
356
Item 7.
Page 2
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing lot into four separate parcels based on the phasing of the
development with the latter phases being platted and sold to interested developers. The first two phases
include the two 132 – affordable multifamily apartment buildings starting with the southern building as the
first phase, northern building as the second phase, and the third phase including the 58 townhome units. The
fourth phase includes the mixed-use building containing 150-175 market-rate multifamily units and 12,000 sq.
ft. of speculative commercial space.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT:
In late 2022, Medtronic vacated and listed their Columbia Heights campus located at 800 53rd Avenue NE for
sale. The City hired the consultant, HKGi, that prepared the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, to conduct
community outreach and provide guidance on potential parameters for redevelopment of the site. The entire
11.74-acre site is fully within the Shoreland Overlay District and zoned GB-General Business which allows for a
variety of commercial uses but does not include provisions to allow residential development.
HKGi organized an internal meeting with city staff in October 2023 to discuss potential redevelopment
parameters and historic site/area conditions before holding a Joint Session of the Planning Commission and
City Council along with city staff on November 16, 2023. The Joint Session allowed for some consensus
(attached in the packet as meeting minutes) to be reached regarding the core land use and design elements
that have been established thus far, these core elements include the following:
1. Consider lower density housing near Sullivan Lake and higher density housing away from the lake
towards 53rd and Central (townhomes → high density residential) with six stories being the maximum
for the higher density residential including parking. A minimum of 400 units for the apartments is
acknowledged with a targeted density range between 450-600 units and that commercial activity is
limited by visibility from the street.
2. Public accessibility to the lake edge is a priority and there is a desire to invite activity to the water
feature/lake; stormwater features incorporated into the street does a good job integrating public and
private spaces and was received extremely positively.
3. Improving multi-modal transportation was repeatedly cited as the site provides opportunities to
incorporate transit facilities with the upcoming BRT F Line and provide connections east-west along
52nd Avenue to expand pedestrian and bicycling facilities.
4. Expansion and/or reimagining of Sullivan Lake Park to have some degree of public gathering amenity
such as seating areas or other pedestrian-scale amenities incorporated with the water/stormwater
features and public art components. Needs for updated facilities and parking more in alignment with
the types of programming desired were discussed.
5. Improving the environmental condition of Sullivan Lake Park as an impaired water body is explicitly
identified as a priority.
These land use and design frameworks were refined into two concepts using the responses from the Joint
Session which were presented to the public at an Open House engagement event held on January 9, 2024. The
event was extremely well attended and served as the beginning of a two-week online public engagement
period from January 9th through January 24th where community members provided feedback on the concepts
presented.
The amendment was approved by the Metropolitan Council reguiding the 11.74 acre property from
Commercial to Transit Oriented Development (TOD) land use with an increase in the maximum density for
14
Item 3.
357
Item 7.
Page 3
TOD from 25-50 units per acre to 25-65 units per acre as well as a change in the percentage use from 70%
residential/30% commercial to 85% residential/15% commercial to accommodate future development.
This framework and the associated comments received are reflected in the proposed application(s) showing a
multi-phased redevelopment with a density range on the lower side for the multifamily buildings and a
midpoint density range for the townhomes between the totals described in the preferred concept. Also
included is the desired 12,000 sq. ft. of commercial space and associated park and infrastructure
improvements as well as multi-modal transportation facilities that will be required as part of the PUD.
ZONING ORDINANCE
The site is currently zoned GB, General Business District, and the applicant is proposing to rezone the site to
Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Planned Unit Development District will allow the applicant areas of
flexibility within the following areas as defined by City Code 9.113 (C): building heights, placement, design and
materials, setbacks, landscaping, parking stall design, public spaces and art, densities, and the overall use of
the property. The Planned Unit Development rezoning is discussed later in this report.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
After the amendment was approved, the Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Transit Oriented
Development which seeks to develop properties to have a mix of residential, retail, and office. Transit
Oriented Development also seeks to include pedestrian friendly access and design.
In review of the site and building plans for this project, pedestrian and bicycle facilities are not shown and it is
expected for any proposed facilities to identify and close connectivity gaps that are identified in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan or related city plans. A schematic-level landscaping plan has been provided and defined
park improvements will be required for the proposal to be consistent with the goals of the 2040
Comprehensive Plan.
SITE PLAN
1. Setbacks
The subject property is currently located in the General Business District, which does not allow for residential
uses. The proposed plan is to rezone the site to Planned Unit Development District. The R-4 and GB Districts
are subject to setback standards, while the PUD district is not. Setbacks of properties in the PUD district are
subject to Staff review and Council approval. The following table displays what is currently allowed in the R -4
district versus what is applicant is proposing for their buildings and phases under the rezoned PUD district:
R-4 Building
Setbacks
R-4 (One/Two
Family) Parking
Setbacks
R-4 (Muti
- family)
Parking
Setbacks
Phase 1
(Southern L)
Phase 2
(Northern
L)
Phase 3
(Townhomes)
Phase 4
(Mixed-
Use)
Front Yard –
15 feet
30 feet (excluding
drives/pads)
30 feet Building: 80 feet
Parking: 10 feet
10 feet
12 feet
25 feet
25 feet
80 feet
N/A
Side Yard –
10 feet
3 feet 10 feet Building: N/A
Parking: N/A
80 feet
10 feet
N/A
N/A
20 feet
10 feet
15
Item 3.
358
Item 7.
Page 4
Corner Side
Yard – 15
feet
3 feet 30 feet Building: 10 feet
Parking: 0 feet
80 feet
20 feet
30 feet
30 feet
24 feet
10 feet
Rear Yard –
15 feet
3 feet 10 feet Building: 80 feet
Parking: 20 feet
80 feet
0 feet
> 50 feet
30 feet
15 feet
30 feet
The first two apartment buildings are in the center of the subject property and share zero-lot lines and show a
building control joint connecting the two structures resulting in the proposed setbacks described. The parking
lots abut the property line of the future phases of the development, but are separated. In review of the
proposed setbacks. Staff have identified that the project will need flexibility with regard to setting the
minimum multi-family front yard setback to 10 feet, and setting the multi-family parking setbacks to 0 feet.
2. Lot Area
The property is currently 11.74 acres and the applicant is proposing to acquire 7,147 sq. ft. or .16 acres of City
parkland. There is also a roadway easement (53rd Avenue NE) which is 38,623 sq. ft. or 0.89 acres, utility and
trail easements that account for 51,922 sq. ft. or 1.19 acres., and a combined total buildable property area of
454,752 sq. ft. or 10.44 acres.
City Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot area for Multiple Family Residential District (R-4) zoning of
10,000 square feet for a multi-family dwelling, and a minimum lot width of 70 feet. The proposed lot area for
Lot 1 is 1.81 acres and the proposed lot width is 511.67 feet; Lot 2 is 1.74 acres and 512.46 feet wide; Lot 3
2.47 acres with a lot width of 383.84 feet; and Lot 4 is 5.61 acres with a width of 576. The proposed lot areas
and lot widths meets the minimum dimensions for the proposed use. The proposed lot areas and lot widths
meet the minimum dimensions for the R-4 Zoning District. The proposed plat shows an impervious surface
coverage exceeding the maximum for the Shoreland Overlay District. A Variance will be required to exceed the
35% impervious surface maximum in the Shoreland Overlay District and must be provided to the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources as a condition of approval.
3. Parking
The proposed site plan shows four phases with the first two including two L -shaped apartment buildings both
containing 134 units with surface and underground parking; the third phase containing 58 townhouses with
tuck-under garages and standalone as well as shared driveways; and the last phase, a mixed-use building
containing 12,000 square foot of commercial space (the specific use will have defined parking requirements)
and 150-175 market-rate apartment units with underground and surface parking shared between the uses
which will be an expectation in the development agreement., but will have a specific calculation and other
requirements once an end-user is found. The project will provide approximately 675 parking spaces; 250 stalls
at grade and 425 underground parking spaces. Each of the townhome units will have two garage stalls and 2
driveway parking spaces.
In the first two phases, the applicant is proposing two multifamily buildings identical in layout and unit mix .
City Code 9.106 General Development Standards (L) Off-street parking and loading (10) establishes off-street
parking requirements for the allowed uses within the city.
Residential uses have off-street parking requirements including two enclosed spaces (garages) per single-
family and townhome, but that count is different for multifamily buildings and depending on the unit type.
16
Item 3.
359
Item 7.
Page 5
One bedroom units are required to provided one enclosed parking space (garage); two or more bedroom units
are required to provide two total spaces per unit with one of those being enclosed.
The Council, at its discretion, may reduce the minimum required parking to not less than 1.5 parking spaces
per unit for multifamily structures with seven or more units, after consideration of factors including but not
limited to the present or future availability of transit services, shared parking, pedestria n orientation, and
occupancy characteristics, which is also the intent of the Transit Oriented Development designation.
For the first two phases, the applicant is proposing 268 multifamily units with the unit type counts above.
Based on that configuration, the applicant is required to provide a minimum of 134 enclosed spaces per
building and 82 surface spaces for a total of 270 enclosed spaces and 164 surface spaces totaling 434 stalls
between the two buildings or a parking ratio of 1.6 stalls per 1 unit for both buildings and meet the minimum
of not less than 1.5 parking spaces. There should be determination on whether parking is included in the
rental pricing, and if that is desired, then it should be considered as part of the development agreement.
The third phase includes 58 townhouses showing two-car garages with driveways capable of parking two
passenger vehicles. The applicant is required to provide two parking spaces per townhome unit and both of
them must be enclosed, this configuration meets the minimum required.
The last phase includes a mixed-use building with a range of approximately 150-175 market-rate apartment
units and a 12,000 sq. ft. speculative commercial space. Because the commercial space is without a defined
end user, the space is speculative and numerous commercial uses in the city are held to the 1 per 300 sq. ft.
gross floor area standard, so that is what is being used to estimate the commercial parking requirement with
the understanding that when a defined end user is identified, those parking calculations could chan ge
depending on the type of use. Market-rate apartment units are considered to have more amenities, including
enclosed parking; multifamily units are required to provide at least one enclosed parking space per unit
regardless of the unit type, not to decrease the parking ratio below 1.5 spaces (total) per unit , which is the
minimum standard.
City Code 9.106 (L)(6)(g) and (h) identify provisions allow to allow joint parking between muti-use structures
and proof of parking showing that the anticipated parking demand will be met if the future potential use may
generate additional parking needs. As part of the PUD, the City can accept the amount of parking provided for
the first three phases of residential development with the understanding that the specific unit count
breakdown and definition of the commercial space will require further parking re quirements.
The parking spaces vary in size from nine feet by twenty feet to compact size of nine feet by eighteen feet and
eight feet six inches by eighteen feet . Most of the spaces for residents are undersized. As part of the PUD, the
City can accept the undersized parking for resident spots. Drive aisle depths are noted on the plans at 24 feet
17
Item 3.
360
Item 7.
Page 6
in width. This is consistent with the City’s requirements for drive aisle depths.
4. Traffic
The applicant has prepared a draft of the traffic impact study required as part of the mandatory
Environmental Assessment Worksheet, which is attached for review. The study reviewed existing conditions
within the study area to establish current traffic conditions and determine impacts associated to traffic
volumes, observed transportation characteristics, and analyzing crash history as well as interaction capacity.
Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were provided by MnDOT or estimated based on the data col lected. Two
(2) historical turning movement counts from March 2024 and October 2024 were utilized for the University
(Hwy 47) and 53rd Avenue intersection.
Vehicular intersection turning movement and pedestrian/bicycle counts were collected at the following
locations on Wednesday, April 9, 2025 from 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. at each location as well as 13-hour counts (6
a.m. – 7 p.m. as indicated* for the following locations:
• 53rd Avenue and University Avenue (Hwy 47)*
• 53rd and Monroe Street NE
• 53rd and West Site/Target access*
• 53rd and East Site/Target access*
• 53rd and US Bank access
• 53rd and Discount Tire/West Starbucks access
• 53rd and Bank of America/East Starbucks access
• 53rd and Central Avenue (Hwy 65)*
The roadways observed are described as follows:
• University Avenue (Hwy 47) is a 4-lane divided minor arterial roadway with left- and right-turn lanes
containing no multimodal facilities, except for transit stops at the 53 rd Avenue intersection, and 50
mph speed limits.
• Central Avenue (Hwy 65) is generally a 4-lane divided minor arterial roadway with left- and right-turn
lanes containing a multiuse trail along the west side of the roadway north of 53 rd Avenue, and sidewalk
along both sides of the roadway south of 53rd Avenue with a transit stop in the southwest quadrant of
the 53rd Avenue intersection. The speed limit is 40-mph.
• 53rd Avenue is generally a 2-lane undivided major collector roadway west of the Target access with
limited turn lanes and a 2-lane divided roadway east of the Target access with dedicated turn lanes.
There is a multi-use trail along the south side of the roadway and a sidewalk along the north side.
Metro Transit Route 10 serves 53rd Avenue in 30-minute increments throughout most of the day. The
speed limit is 30-mph and the roadway was recently reconstructed in 2023.
All other study roadways are 2-lane undivided local facilities or commercial driveways with limited turn lanes
and/or multimodal facilities. The 53rd Avenue intersections at University Avenue (Hwy 47) and Central Avenue
(Hwy 65) are signalized, while the other intersections have two-way stop controls with a median U-turn/partial
roundabout is located along 53rd Avenue between the west and east Target driveways. MnDOT has expressed
a willingness to incorporate roadway changes with this project to improve the traffic situation as well as
pedestrian and bicyclist facilities.
18
Item 3.
361
Item 7.
Page 7
After review of five years of crash history (Jan. 2020 – Dec. 2024) using data from MnDOT, there were a total
of 29 crashes reported along 53rd Avenue between University and Central during the review period. None of
the crashes were defined as “severe” (fatal or serious injury) with most of the reported crashes occurring
between Monroe and Central primarily prior to the reconstruction. Since 53rd was reconstructed, there have
been five (5) reported crashes, or 2.5 crashes per year.
Intersection capacity was evaluated using methods outlined in Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition to model
observed traffic operations and identify key metrics such as Level of Service (LOS) and queues using collected
traffic, pedestrian, and bicyclist volumes, traffic controls, peaking characteristics, and driver behavior factors
to quantify how an intersection is operating. Intersections are graded from LOS A to F corresponding to the
average delay per vehicle values shown below . LOS A – D is generally considered acceptable with A indicating
the best traffic operation and F indicating demand exceeds capacity.
On side-street stop-controlled intersections, emphasis is given to providing an estimate for the level of service
of these approaches in one of two ways.
1. Consideration is given to the overall intersection LOS, the total number of vehicles entering compared
to the capability of the intersection to support the volumes.
2. It is important to consider the delay on the minor approach as the mainline does not have to stop,
most delays are attributed to the side-street approaches.
It is also understood that it is typical of intersections with higher mainline traffic volumes to experience high -
levels of delay (poor levels of service) on the side-street approaches, but an acceptable overall intersection
level of service during peak hour conditions. The existing capacity analysis is summarized in the table below:
19
Item 3.
362
Item 7.
Page 8
The table indicates that all study intersections and approaches generally operate at an acceptable LOS D or
better during typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The eastbound approaches of 53rd at both University
(Hwy 47) and Central Avenue (Hwy 65) operate near the LOS D/E threshold during the p.n. peak hour,
although these operations are relatively common and don’t typically require mitigation. However, peak
westbound queues along 53rd from University (Hwy 47) can extend approximately 300’ during the p.m. peak
hour (or approximately 10 – 15 vehicles) and requires one (1) signal cycle length. Otherwise, no other existing
intersection capacity issues are identified in the study area.
The traffic conditions were modeled on no-build conditions and the conditions proposed in the
redevelopment in comparison to the full extent of the peak demands that occurred during Medtronic’s use as
a corporate office building. It is necessary to examine the prior use versus the current vacant lot to understand
the traffic implications.
Proposed Redevelopment Trip Generation
The trip generation estimate was created using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, and includes trips
for typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, as well as daily. The previous use and the proposed
redevelopment are shown below:
The previous use as a 144,000 sq. ft. office building with approximately 605 parking spaces generated an
estimated 1,560 daily trips (780 in/780 out) with an estimated 7:30 – 8:30 a.m. peak hour generating 219 trips
(193 in/26 out) and 5:00 – 6:00 p.m. peak hour generating 207 trips (35 in/172 out), which coincides with the
peak hours of the adjacent roadways.
In consideration of the proposed redevelopment , a 10% multi-use reduction is only applied to the retail
portion to account for residents that are expected to patronize the retail use as well as a 5% modal reduction
is applied to all trips to account for people utilizing different modes of transportation such as a transit, walk, or
bike trips as a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) project. The commercial space is considered speculative
20
Item 3.
363
Item 7.
Page 9
retail for the purposes of the trip generation summary and may require further analysis depending on the end
user if it changes to a use other than retail.
The proposed redevelopment is estimated to generate 3,000 daily (1,500 in / 1,500 out) trips with an
estimated generation of 239 a.m. peak hour trips (66 in / 173 out) and 282 p.m. peak hour trips (165 in / 117
out), but anticipating a overall lower peak demand considering the fixed hours of the previous office building
and the differences in peak trips generated by residential uses.
Results of the no-build and build conditions of the proposed redevelopment indicate that all intersections and
approaches will generally continue to operate at a LOS D or better during peak a.m. and p.m. hours . Overall
changes in operations based on no build and build conditions range from about 2 to 4 seconds without any
changes to the existing signal timing provided by MnDOT. Westbound queues along 53rd Avenue from
University Avenue (Hwy 47) are expected to increase by approximately 50’ to 75’ during the peak periods (2 –
4 vehicles) because of the proposed redevelopment. These queues are expected to increase from 300’ to
approximately 375’ – 400’ during the p.m. peak hour with minor queuing expected at a couple site access
approaches.
Left- and/or right-turn lanes along 53rd Avenue at the west site access or a right-turn lane along 53rd Avenue at
the east site access could reduce potential conflicts, but does not appear to provide much operational benefit
and could result in increased vehicle speeds and/or longer pedestrian crossing distances. Since the adjacent
roadway network can support the proposed redevelopment, no additional infrastructure changes are required
to maintain the current intersection capacity. The applicant is strongly encouraged to coordinate with MnDOT
to identify opportunities to improve the traffic and safety conditions including potential changes to
roundabouts.
Recommendations regarding the site plan identified the following items that should be considered:
• Locate signage and landscaping to avoid creating any sight distance issues.
• Provide multimodal connections throughout the site to ensure connectivity with existing and proposed
facilities adjacent to the site.
• Review truck maneuverability to limit potential internal circulation conflicts.
21
Item 3.
364
Item 7.
Page 10
• Align the northern east-west driveway aisles between the northwest townhomes and the multifamily
apartments to reduce potential conflicts between movements.
• Preserve the ability to connect the proposed redevelopment with an extension of 52nd Avenue.
5. Vehicle Access
The site will served by two existing entrances on the south side of 53rd Avenue NE. These accesses will be
configured to Public Works/Engineering specifications and incorporating as much feedback from MN
Department of Transportation on any restrictions with turns. There are no proposed city streets within the
project area. Internal access will be private drive lanes. There is no proposed connected access to the east or
south.
The Fire Department included review comments that the dead ends for the townhomes cannot be greater
than 300 feet otherwise a turnaround is required. The street width meets the minimum width required to
accommodate a fire apparatus with the parking spaces included.
Minnesota Department of Transportation provided review comments on how this development’s proposed
access aligns with the Central Avenue reconstruction in 2028. MNDOT requests that the applicant continue to
work with area engineer, Chris Bower, to incorporate opportunities to improve traffic mobility and multi-
modal user safety. The intention is to construct a multilane roundabout at the intersection of MN 65 and 53rd
Avenue with a single eastbound lane on 53rd. The eastbound approach is forecasted to operate at Level of
Service D in the PM peak, but while that is an improvement over the LOS E experienced at the signal today,
the eastbound intersection approach is nearing capacity based upon existing traffic volumes. MNDOT
recommends examining the feasibility of upsizing the roundabout at 53rd to handle future traffic growth and
incorporating any development related traffic information into the reconstruction design by the end of July
2025.
The intersection of MN 47 and 53rd Avenue operates at LOS F today and it is MNDOT’s perspective that so long
as there is a traffic signal at this intersection, it will continue to operate at a LOS F. Without eastbound or
westbound turn lanes, the signal functions poorly, and there is no ability to add these lanes without serious
impacts to adjacent properties. MNDOT is considering a roundabout at this intersection after modeling shows
that it would operate at LOS A with current traffic volumes , but that would not occur until at least 2030. The
developer is expected to coordinate with Metro Transit to accommodate the future F -Line BRT into the project
area.
6. Pedestrian Access and Bicycle Access
The City approved a Complete Streets Policy in January 2025 to require public and private development projects
to identify the users of a project area and what mode they use to travel, whether the area has identified conflict
points or is referenced in a citywide plan, if there is a language spoken other than English, and the presence of
transit facilities along the project area or significant destinations where connectivity caps can be closed. The
expectation is to improve connectivity for pedestrian and bicycle access where feasible and practical.
MN65/Central Avenue is identified as a Regional Bicycle Transportation Network (RBTN) Corridor, and has
several transit routes in operation including plans for Metro Transit to introduce a new Bus Rapid Transit Route
F along 53rd Avenue. Both intersections at MN 65/Central and 52 nd have Level 1 (top) scores on Priority Areas
22
Item 3.
365
Item 7.
Page 11
Walking Study (PAWS) combined with the area being designated as Transit Oriented Development, there is
anticipated to be considerable pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
There is an existing trail running along the south side of the property that outlets into the Total Health parking
lot, near Highway 65 and 52nd Avenue. If there is a desire for the trail to connect to Highway 65, then additional
coordination will be required with the cities of Columbia Heights and Fridley, developer, and MNDOT to build a
trail extension with a MNDOT 2028 construction project, but does face challenging grades that would have to
be accommodated in the development plans. MNDOT has also identified the need for a safe and comfortable
crossing of Highway 65 and could include countermeasures such as a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon , high-visibility
crosswalks, and pedestrian level lighting. The development will be required to provide sidewalks or shared use
paths/trails to provide access to the townhomes and multifamily buildings and connectivity to Sullivan Lake
Park. Prioritizing and emphasizing multimodal connections throughout the site to ensure connectivity with
existing and proposed facilities adjacent to the site as part of the park improvements. These are expectations
that will be included in the development agreement.
7. Loading and Deliveries
There are no commercial uses in need of loading/unloading or receiving large deliveries being proposed at this
time which would require compliance with the City Code’s off-street loading requirements. Any non-
residential use that receives or distributes materials or merchandise by trucks or similar vehicles and has a
gross floor area of 5,000 sq. ft. is subject to off-street loading requirements. When the commercial space has a
defined end user, that tenant will be required to meet dimensional standards for loading berths, loc ation, and
access by designating a loading zone. The applicant should consider identifying specific loading and unloading
areas for residents moving in or out as part of the development agreement.
8. Landscaping
The proposed landscaping plan shows a total of 112 trees including a mix of deciduous trees, evergreen trees,
and ornamental trees. The tree sizes and diameters will meet the City’s requirements once soil volumes are
provided. The remaining area on the site will be covered with mulch, stormwater seed mixture, and turf sod.
9. Easement Dedication/Vacation
The existing site has established easements for highway, roadway and Standard Oil Company easements as
well as drainage and utility easements. One easement, Doc. No. 1330239, provided for sanitary sewer is
proposed to be vacated. New easements serving the property will be proposed as part of the final plat.
The applicants have provided legal descriptions of the easement vacations. As a condition of approval, the
applicants shall provide recordable documents of the easement vacations to be recorded at the County
Recorder’s Office. Said legal descriptions are subject to review by the City Attorney.
10. Park Dedication
The proposed plat will not include a park dedication. Instead, the applicants will make a financial contribution
and/or build out amenities from the master plan that was approved for Sullivan Lake Park to satisfy this
requirement which will be included in the development contract.
11. Utility Connections
The site is served by existing utilities but will need to have utility capacity increased to accommodate additional
demand. Existing utilities, such as watermain, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and small utilities such as electric
23
Item 3.
366
Item 7.
Page 12
lines, natural gas, and communication lines will be removed as necessary to accommodate the new project.
The project will include the extension and installation of utilities to serve the site. Watermain will be extended
from the existing watermain within 53rd Avenue to the south into the project site providing water service. The
watermain will connect back to the watermain within 53rd Avenue providing a looped system through the site.
As an option, the watermain could connect to the existing watermain in the far southwest corner of the site
which currently serves the Parkside Village residential site. This would provide an additional looped connection.
Sanitary sewer will be extended into the site from the existing sanitary sewer in the south portion of the site. It
appears that all of the surrounding sanitary sewer lines flow to an existing lift station just off the southwest
corner of the site. Other utilities such as electric, gas, and communication cables will also be installed.
The applicant has provided a utility plan shows new water-main, sanitary, and sewer connections upsized that
will run through the subject property and adjacent properties Central before extending and looping into 53rd
Avenue to serve the building. The utility plan does not show how electrical and gas lines will be connected to
the building; detailed plans will be required once a building permit has been applied for. Utility construction for
phase 1 is estimated to last several months, with the building construction to last one and a half to two years.
12. Drainage.
The previous use of the site with an office building and large parking lot has set a commercial use precedence
on this site. The large, hard-surfaced areas provided little green space for stormwater treatment. In fact,
much of the surface parking lot runoff drains directly to Sullivan Lake with little to no treatment.
Stormwater management is required for the development. The stormwater management plan shows three
proposed underground infiltration storage vaults and an infiltration/filtration basin to increase the amount of
volume control and retention necessary to contain runoff onsite with no increase in the total amounts of
phosphorus and suspended solid states. There is currently no existing treatment on-site, so the proposed rates
will improve from the existing rates reducing runoff volumes and improving water quality. Proposed
stormwater features include grates, ponding areas, outlet control structures which provide pre -treatment,
skimming for floatables and oils, and dead storage volumes for settleable solids.
The Metropolitan Council has a Climate Vulnerability Assessment tool which shows a flood risk on the existing
site mainly within the existing stormwater pond area located in the southeast portion of the site. However,
the FEMA flood map shows the site to be outside the 100 year flood zone. Flood risks from Sullivan Lake are
minimal. Flooding impacts within the proposed development can be mitigated by stormwater management
and building elevations including setting the elevations above the 100-year high water levels of adjacent
ponds. The ponds contain overflows which outlet to sedimentation basins prior to flowing offsite should
higher rainfall events occur with green spaces and landscaping offering additional opportunity for pre-
treatment.
As required by the NPDES permit, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required. The SWPPP will
describe the nature of the construction activity; address the potential for sediment and pollutant discharges
from the site; identify personnel to oversee implementation; identify the permanent stormwater management
system and identify inspection and maintenance practices. The Erosion Control Plan will implement best
management practices (BMPs) such as minimizing disturbed areas, perimeter silt fence, redundant silt fence
24
Item 3.
367
Item 7.
Page 13
along wetlands, temporary sediment ponds, erosion blankets and re-establish vegetation within seven days of
grading completion. The project is not anticipated to negatively affect downstream water bodies.
Storm sewer will collect runoff from the site. The runoff will be treated per the city and watershed
requirements. The applicant is recommended to collaborate with the Mississippi Watershed Organization and
MnDOT as applicable and feasible. Additional stormwater requirements will be guided by the MPCA’s NPDES
stormwater permit requirements including the following requirements:
• The first one inch of runoff from any new impervious surface is required to be infiltrated or filtrated on
site.
• Stormwater runoff rates are required to be limited to be equal to or less than the existing conditions.
• Water quality treatment methods will be included to reduce pollutant loads such as phosphorus,
nitrogen, and total suspended solids in runoff.
13. Fire Department Connection and Fire Hydrants
The Fire Department provided initial comments on the proposed development regarding private streets,
underground EV charging, and hydrant spacing. If the dead ends for townhouses exceed 300 feet, then a
turnaround is required. The street width must be a minimum of 20 feet unobstructed to accommodate fire
apparatus with parking. Concerns related to underground EV charging included smoke control, emergency
shut offs within sight of each group of chargers, and coordinating standpipe hose valves and floor-drains to
manage prolonged water application if a lithium-ion pack ignites. A 8-10 inch pipeline running along 53rd
Avenue carrying non-highly volatile liquid products was identified and poses a risk of vapor cloud s produced if
disrupted.
14. Trash Handling Area
Trash handling areas are shown for the two “L” shaped buildings just outside of the parking garage. Turning
diagrams have been provided showing that a truck can make the necessary maneuvers. If the trash is not located
within the underground parking garage, then the trash and/or recycling collection areas shall be enclosed on at
least three sides by an opaque screening wall or fence no less than six feet in height with the open side of the
enclosure not facing any public street or the front yard of any adjacent property as a condition of approval.
15. Building Design and Materials
The applicant has provided examples of the options for the exterior elevations of the building including but
not limited to glass, brick, cast stone, fiber cement, and metal as well as potential color pallets and roofing
types intended to show the general materials. The expectation is that a high architectural quality is provided
to add to the value of the neighborhood.
16. Signage
Architectural drawings will be required to show the proposed signage. As a condition of approval, the signage
on the building shall comply with the standards of Section 9.106 of the Zoning Ordinance.
17. Floor Area Ratio
The applicants are proposing a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.8 for Lot 1, 2.3 for Lot 2, and 3.3 for Lot 3. This is a
unit of measurement used to measure the amount of square footage in a building compared to the overall
site. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment removed the Floor Area Ratio for transit oriented design areas in
the City. A floor area ratios as presented are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Goals.
25
Item 3.
368
Item 7.
Page 14
18. Lighting
The applicant is required to submit a photometric plan that complies with City Code showing that the exterior
lighting proposed provides ample parking lot lighting for residents and does not emit light onto adjacent
properties. The MN DNR recommends following the Minnesota Department of Transportation approved
products for luminaires which limit the uplight rating to zero and a nominal color temperature below 2700k.
The applicant intends to integrate MnDOT recommended products to the extent possible, conscious of the
change in nighttime light with the Project.
19. Noise
A noise study was conducted for the project identifying the existing noise levels/sources in the area, nearby
sensitive receptors, conformance to state noise standards, and quality of life to make recommendations on
measure to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise. The primary source of noise comes from traffic on Central
Avenue (MN TH 65) east of the project, but separated by a row of commercial buildings and grade changes.
In Minnesota, nighttime (10 pm – 7 am) noise level standards for traffic is 55 decibels and the model predicts a
traffic noise level of 56 decibels at the east end of the apartment buildings at the 2nd and 4th floor levels. Traffic
to the north is slowed by a round-about just west of the project and the signalized interaction with Central
Avenue reducing speeds below the 35 mph used in the model, so the noise levels from 53rd Avenue are below
the 55-decibel level. Noise from nearby commercial rooftop equipment will impact the upper floors at the east
end of the apartment buildings about 5-6 decibels above the standard limits.
The proposed buildings must comply with the Minnesota Residential Noise Standards which are most critical for
the 6-7 am “nighttime” period. The nighttime standards are L10 55 dBA and L50 50 dBA. Proposed building
wall construction and window treatments are possible remedies to meet the noise level standards. Providing a
30 dBA reduction through building walls will comply with the noise standards. A typical window -to-wall area of
40%, 6-inch stud walls with 3-pcf insulation, and STC 28 rated windows should provide a 30 dBA exterior to
interior noise reduction. This should be verified by the Architect upon building design as a condition of approval.
The adjacent residential area to the south will be exposed to construction noise from demolition and removals,
site grading equipment and building construction. Construction noise will be temporary and construction times
will be limited to allowable times as established by the city typically between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00
p.m., Monday through Friday as a condition of approval.
20. Usable Open Space
The site will include enhancements to the Sullivan Lake public park on the west side of the property (labeled
“Park” on the plans). The improvements to the park will be reflective of the master planning that the Parks and
Recreation Commission approved. The residential area of the L-shaped buildings will include private patio and
tot lots, and a courtyard/amenity space above the enclosed garage spaces. The project is anticipated to include
15,600 sq. ft. of trails and walk as well as 212,306 sq. ft. of common open/green space. The park improvements
will be defined as part of the physical development contract as required of the PUD process.
21. Neighborhood Notification
Notifications went out to surrounding property owners within 350 feet of the subject site as well as the
entirety of the townhome developments adjacent to the property . The notice was also posted in “Life”
Newspaper, and posted on the City’s website and social media accounts. A neighborhood meeting was held on
26
Item 3.
369
Item 7.
Page 15
May 21, 2025 and was well attended; the signup sheet, mailer and mailing list, and list of the comments
received are attached.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
In order to accommodate the mixed use development, height of the structures, and the high density at this site,
the applicants are proposing to rezone the property to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The PUD will allow
flexibility with the City’s strict zoning requirements, while also requiring a high standard of building qualit y and
site design. The PUD ordinance requires the Planning Commission to hold an informal public hearing and a
formal hearing at the City Council Meeting.
1. Density / Units-per-Acre.
The following table shows the units per acre for this project and the different types of units available. It should
be noted that units-per-acre is a different measurement than floor area ratio (discussed earlier in this report).
The recent redevelopment of the City Hall at 3989 Central Avenue NE is included as a comparison. Both L-shaped
buildings are anticipated to be identical configurations and unit counts/types. The market-rate is the last phase
and includes an anticipated unit count of 150 -175, the commercial is speculative and will depend on the
developer and market interest in the space. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be required to remove
the commercial space if the last phase were to deviate from the 85% Residential/15% Commercial guiding.
Table Representing Number of Units At 800 53rd
Ave NE and Units Per Acre;
Phase 1 – L Shaped
Building
Phase 3 – Townhomes
1 Bedroom 11 Townhomes 58
2 Bedroom 51 Total 58
3 Bedroom 60
4 Bedroom 12
Total 134
Phase 2 – L Shaped
Building
Phase 4 – Mixed Use
1 Bedroom 11 1 Bedroom N/A
2 Bedroom 51 2 Bedroom N/A
3 Bedroom 60 3 Bedroom N/A
4 Bedroom 12 4 Bedroom N/A
Total 134 Total 175
Total Number of
Units:
443 apartments
58 townhomes
501 total units
Subject Site Acreage
(approx.)
10.4
Units Per Acre 49
27
Item 3.
370
Item 7.
Page 16
Table Representing Number of Units At 3989
Central Ave NE and Units Per Acre
Level 1 Level 4
Townhome 2 Studio 8
Total 2 Alcove 14
1 Bedroom 19
Level 2 2 Bedroom 8
Studio 9 3 Bedroom 3
Alcove 12 4 Bedroom 2
1 Bedroom 18 Total 54
2 Bedroom 5
3 Bedroom 2 Level 5
4 Bedroom 2 Studio 8
Total 48 Alcove 14
1 Bedroom 19
Level 3 2 Bedroom 8
Studio 8 3 Bedroom 3
Alcove 14 4 Bedroom 2
1 Bedroom 19 Total 54
2 Bedroom 8
3 Bedroom 3 Level 6
4 Bedroom 2 Studio 8
Total 54 Alcove 14
1 Bedroom 19
2 Bedroom 8
3 Bedroom 2
4 Bedroom 2
Total 53
Total Number of Rental
Units:
265
Subject Site Acreage
(approx.)
2.3
Units Per Acre 116
49 units per acre fall in line with the target residential density for urban centers adjacent to highways and
transit ways identified in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The project site is well within a half-mile
radius of Central Avenue NE, which aims for 40-75+ units per acre under transit oriented development
guidelines. The table above refers to an analysis of the mixed-use development at 3989 Central Avenue NE as
a comparison of larger density and the development at 825 41st Avenue NE below:
28
Item 3.
371
Item 7.
Page 17
825 41st Avenue NE – Units Per Acre Analysis
Units 62
Site Acreage 1.3
Units Per Acre 48
The development on 40th & Central has a much higher density calculation, but is also immediately adjacent to
a highway. By this comparison, this proposed project has a lower density calculation. Staff has also completed
a bedroom analysis of the first two phases of the site since the apartment complex will offer four different
types of rental units.
800 53rd Avenue NE Bedroom Analysis Phase 1 and 2
Unit Times number
of bedrooms
Total
Bedrooms
1 Bedroom 22 1 22
2 Bedroom 102 2 204
3 Bedroom 120 3 360
4 Bedroom 24 4 96
Total Number
of Units:
268 Total Number of
Bedrooms:
682
2. Parking Stalls per Bedroom.
The first two phases of the site will have a total of 682 bedrooms. The townhomes will include enclosed garages
and driveway spaces; whereas, the mixed-use market-rate is anticipated to share surface parking with the
commercial space and primarily be enclosed parking spaces underground. As noted earlier in this report, the
site will have 434 parking spaces for residents. This equates to 1.57 parking spaces per bedroom. Staff feels that
this is an acceptable amount of parking for the residents as some of the larger units will not need one parking
space per bedroom. For example, a three bedroom apartment may include two adults, and two children; thus
only two parking spaces are needed.
3. Neighborhood Meeting.
As part of the PUD approval, a neighborhood meeting is required as part of the process. The City hosted the
neighborhood meeting on May 21st, 2025 at the Public Library in Columbia Heights with a virtual option that
experienced technical difficulties. Staff contacted those who tried to participate virtually and received the
comments attached. The meeting was well-attended and included members of the immediate neighborhood,
as well as members of the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant presen ted the project to
attendees and answered questions regarding the proposal. Staff heard concerns related to increased traffic
and density, parking, environmental and park conditions, and drainage. Staff noted that traffic is not projected
to increase a detrimental amount, and that the proposed density is in line with what is guided for transit-
oriented development. Staff also noted that this project will actually help alleviate the drainage issues in the
area and offers unique opportunities for stormwater and multi-modal transportation improvements.
Notifications went out to surrounding property owners within 350 feet of the subject site as well as the
entirety of the townhome developments adjacent to the property . The signup sheet, mailer and mailing list,
and list of the comments received are attached.
CONDITIONS THAT WILL BE BROUGHT FORWARD TO FUTURE SITE PLAN OR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS:
29
Item 3.
372
Item 7.
Page 18
1. A Variance will be required to exceed the 35% impervious surface maximum in the Shoreland Overlay
District and must be provided to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources as a condition of
approval.
2. The building and site shall be meet all requirements found in the Fire Code and the Building Code.
3. The signage on the building shall comply with the standards of Section 9.106 of the Zoning Ordinance
and shall avoid creating any sight distance issues.
4. Any proposed exterior lighting shall be reviewed and approved by City Staff before installation.
5. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met at all times.
6. The City shall require a pre-construction conference prior to the start of any land alteration activities.
7. If mechanical screening is to be placed on the roof, it shall comply with the City’s requirements for
screening.
8. Trash and/or recycling collection areas shall be enclosed on at least three sides by an opaque screening
wall or fence no less than six feet in height with the open side of the enclosure not facing any public
street or the front yard of any adjacent property.
9. Verification of the apartment buildings is required by the Architect upon building design as a condition
of approval to confirm that the specifications identified in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet
have been implemented in accordance with the MPCA Noise Standards.
10. Parking for the affordable apartment buildings shall be included in the rental pricing as a Condition of
Approval.
11. The applicants shall provide recordable documents of the easement vacations to be recorded at the
County Recorder’s Office.
12. The applicants shall indicate where the fire department connection is intended to connect to the
building.
13. The applicants shall adhere to any requirements made by the Anoka County Highway Department.
14. The applicants shall adhere to any requirements made by Minnesota Department of Transportation
including recommendations for countermeasures regarding Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, high-visibility
crosswalks, and pedestrian level lighting.
15. The applicant is required to submit a photometric plan that complies with City Code showing that the
exterior lighting proposed provides ample parking lot lighting for residents and does not emit light onto
adjacent properties.
30
Item 3.
373
Item 7.
Page 19
16. MNDOT has also identified the need for a safe and comfortable crossing of Highway 65 and could include
countermeasures such as a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, high-visibility crosswalks, and pedestrian level
lighting. The development will be required to provid e sidewalks or shared use paths/trails to provide
access to the townhomes and multifamily buildings and connectivity to Sullivan Lake Park.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Preliminary Plat
Section 9.104 (L) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines three conditions that must be met in order for the City to
grant a Preliminary Plat. They are as follows:
(a) The proposed Preliminary Plat conforms to the requirements of City Code Section 9.116 [Subdivision
Ordinance].
Staff Comment: In review of the preliminary plat that was submitted, Staff finds that the preliminary plat
generally conforms to the City’s Subdivision Ordinance for a Planned Unit Development. The applicant is
compliant in this regard.
(b) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Comment: The Comprehensive Plan supports the redevelopment of this site. In addition, the
Comprehensive Plan supports a mixed use development and transit-oriented development on this site. The
proposed Subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals.
(c) The proposed subdivision contains parcel and land subdivision layout that is consistent with good
planning and site engineering design principles.
Staff Comment: Staff has reviewed the proposed subdivision plan and feels that the parcel and land layout are
consistent with these principles. Further, the site plan reduces the number of parcels on this site, as well as
removing old easements. The project proposes to improve the area storm water management conditions by
creating treatment opportunities and improved storm water storage capacity that currently exists on the
development site.
Planned Unit Development District Plan
The zoning ordinance contains the following four findings that must be satisfied before the City Council can
approve the PUD District Plan at a City Council Meeting:
(a) The PUD District plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article [Section 9.113, PUD District].
Staff Comment: In review of Section 9.113, Staff finds that the application is consistent with the City’s
requirements.
(b) The PUD District plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan.
31
Item 3.
374
Item 7.
Page 20
Staff Comment: The Comprehensive Plan has this area targeted for redevelopment to a transit-oriented
development project. The proposed PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals.
(c) The PUD District plan is consistent with any applicable area plan.
Staff Comment: The area plan (as noted in the Comprehensive Plan) marks this area and other sites in the area
for redevelopment. The PUD is consistent with the area plan.
(d) The PUD District plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the public
right-of-way.
Staff Comment: The site will utilize underground and at-grade parking to prevent on-street parking on 53rd
and Central Avenue. The PUD District Plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate
vicinity and the public right-of-way.
Rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District
The zoning ordinance contains the following four findings that must be satisfied before the City Council can
approve rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District at a City Council meeting:
(a) The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff comment: The amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
(b) The amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a single property owner.
Staff comment: The amendment is in the public interest and not solely for the benefit of a single property
owner.
(c) Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, the existing use of
the property and the zoning classification of the property within the general area of the property in
question are compatible with the proposed zoning classification.
Staff comment: The amendment is compatible with existing land uses and zoning classifications in the
general area.
(d) Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, there has been a
change in the character or trend of development in the general area of the property in question, which
has taken place since such property was placed in its current zoning classification.
Staff comment: The amendment reflects changes in development trends in the general area.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The applicants are seeking approval of a preliminary; easement vacations; and a rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit
Development District to construct two new 6-story, 132-unit affordable multifamily buildings, a mixed-use
building with 12,000 sq. ft. of commercial space and a range of 150 -175 market-rate apartments, 58 townhomes,
and associated park and infrastructure improvements as well as multi-modal transportation facilities. The
project will include the demolition of a vacant office building and acquisition of parkland to accommodate the
project. The applicants are proposing to construct 443 new apartment units that range from one to four
32
Item 3.
375
Item 7.
Page 21
bedrooms, 58 townhome, and 12,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. The site will utilize underground parking and
surface parking to accommodate users of the commercial space and apartment residencies. Staff is
recommending approval of the project with the conditions outlined below:
Preliminary Plat.
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat as presented subject to the conditions outline below:
1. All required state and local codes, permits, licenses and inspections will be met and in full compliance.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of filing and recording written easements with the Anoka
County Recorder’s Office.
3. An approved Preliminary Plat shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of the approval. In the
event that a Final Plat is not presented for approval within this time period, the Preliminary Plat will
become void.
4. The applicant shall enter into a Developer’s Agreement with the City. Said documentation shall be
reviewed by the City Attorney.
Vacation of Easements.
The applicants are proposing to vacate one easement, Doc. No. 1330239, provided for sanitary sewer is on the
property. The easement vacation is necessary in order accommodate the project. The applicants have provided
legal descriptions of the easements to be vacated.
Staff recommends approval of the Easement Vacations as presented, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall be responsible for providing legal descriptions of all easements that are subject to be
created. Said descriptions are subject to review by the City Attorney.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the easement vacation with the Anoka County
Recorder’s Office.
PUD, Planned Unit Development District
By Code, the Planning Commission shall hold an informal hearing related to the Planned Unit Development. The
Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will hold the formal
hearing for approval of the PUD. Staff recommends approval of the PUD with the following conditions :
1. The property owner and the City will enter in to a development contract governing site improvements
and shall be executed by the property owner and the City within 60 days of the PUD approval prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
2. The mixed-use building containing the commercial space and 150-175 market-rate apartment units will
provide underground and surface parking shared between the uses as a condition of approval, but will
have a specific calculation and other requirements once an end-user is found. Any loading and unloading
33
Item 3.
376
Item 7.
Page 22
shall not be allowed on 53rd Avenue NE.
3. Developer shall provide financial guarantee in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit for landscaping
and public improvements including multimodal connections through the site to ensure connectivity to
existing and proposed facilities. The guarantee amount is to be determined by the City Engineer.
4. The City Engineer, Watershed District, and MnDot shall review and approve the site grading and storm
water management plans. All storm water best management practices (BMP’s) shall have designated
drainage and utility easements recorded with the Final Plat or as a separate document with Anoka
County.
5. The developer shall enter into a storm water maintenance and management agreement with the City,
to be prepared by the City Attorney.
6. The site utility plans shall be subject to review and final approval by the City Engineer, and Fire Chief.
7. Developer shall pay park dedication fees as outlined in the City Code.
8. Developer will provide record plans or as-built drawings to the City following project completion.
9. Align the northern east-west driveway aisles between the northwest townhomes and the multifamily
apartments to reduce potential conflicts between movements.
Rezoning / Ordinance Amendment
34
Item 3.
377
Item 7.
Page 23
Attached to this report is a draft ordinance amendment to allow the site to be rezoned to planned unit
development. The following development standards will serve as the base PUD District Standards.
Minimum Number of Parking Stalls Per
Multifamily Unit
1.5
Maximum Residential Density Allowed 65 units per acre
Minimum Number of Enclosed Parking
Stalls Per Townhome Unit
2
Building Height Not to exceed 6
stories
Minimum Number of Enclosed Parking
Stalls Per Multifamily Unit
1
Maximum Number of Compact Parking
Stalls
70%
Minimum Non-Residential Building Area 12,000 square feet
Minimum Number of Townhome Units 52
Maximum Number of Multifamily Units 450
Minimum Multifamily Front Yard Setback 10
Minimum Multifamily Parking Setback 0 feet
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
MOTION: Move to waive the readings of draft Ordinance No. 1716, PUD District #2025-01, Rezoning of
Property; draft Resolution No. 2025-043 PUD District for #2025-01; draft Resolution No 2025-044,
Preliminary Plat Approval; and draft Resolutions No 2025-045 Easement Vacations; there being ample
copies available to the public.
MOTION: Motion for the Planning Commission to positively recommend City Council approval of the
Ordinance Amendment No. 1716, subject to the conditions of approval.
MOTION: Motion for the Planning Commission to positively recommend City Council approval of the PUD
District Resolution No. 2025-043 as presented, subject to the conditions of approval.
MOTION: Motion for the Planning Commission to positively recommend City Council approval of the
Preliminary Plat Resolution No. 2025-044 as presented, subject to the conditions of approval.
MOTION: Motion for the Planning Commission to positively recommend City Council approval of the
Easement Vacations Resolution No. 2025-045 as presented, subject to the conditions of approval.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Ordinance No. 1716 , PUD District #2025-01
Resolution No. 2025-043, PUD, Planned Unit Development District
Resolution No. 2025-044, Preliminary Plat
Resolution No. 2025-045, Easement Vacation
35
Item 3.
378
Item 7.
Page 24
Applications
Narrative
Elevation Images
Development Plans
Preliminary Plat Drawing
Easement - Doc. No. 1330239
Joint Session Meeting Minutes
Amendment and Attachments
Wetland Delineation Report
Draft Environmental Assessment Work Sheet
Draft Traffic Study
Public Notice to Newspaper
Neighborhood Meeting Notice
Mailing List
Sign-In Sheet for Neighborhood Meeting
Public Comments from Neighborhood Meeting
Ann Pineault – 762 Parkside Lane
Kris Junker – 793 Parkside Lane
Rebecca Wratkowski – 687 Sullivan Drive
Tracy Severson – 4118 Monroe Street
36
Item 3.
379
Item 7.
Ordinance No.1716
DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO. 1716
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS AND CITY ORDINANCE
RELATING TO ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PERTAINING TO THE REZONING OF A PORTION OF A CERTAIN
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 800 53RD AVENUE NE FROM GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (GB) TO PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD) NUMBER 2025-01.
The City of Columbia Heights does ordain:
Section 1
§ 9.104 ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT (F) ZONING AMENDMENTS.
The “Zoning map” of the Columbia Heights Zoning and Development Ordinance is hereby amended by
rezoning or changing the zoning district designation of the following described property having the property
address of 800 53rd Avenue NE, Columbia Heights MN, 55421, and legally described below from General
Business District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District 2025-01:
Legal description: On file at City Hall
Address Property Tax I.D. No.
800 53rd Avenue NE 26-30-24-11-0020
(the “Property”1)
Section 2
The property is rezoned to PUD, Planned Unit Development District 2025-01 and the allowed uses shall be
multifamily apartments, townhomes, and commercial/retail.
Section 3
Pursuant to Chapter 9, Article I of the Columbia Heights Zoning and Land Development Ordinance, the approval
of any development or redevelopment within Planned Unit Development D istrict 2025-01 shall be subject to the
requirements set forth in Columbia Heights Code Section 9.113 including, but not limited to, the following
performance and design standards and site and building approval:
1. The Property shall be developed or redeveloped in accordance with the final PUD District Plan approved
by the City (“Final Plans”), which include site plans, grading, drainage and storm water management
plans, utility plans, lighting and photometric plans, landscape plans, floor plans, and building elevations.
The Final Plans outline all of the performance standards for development of the Property, including, at a
minimum the following design standards for the Property as set forth below:
37
Item 3.
380
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights - Ordinance Page 2
Minimum Number of Parking Stalls Per Multifamily Unit
1.5
Maximum Residential Density Allowed 65 units per acre
Minimum Number of Enclosed Parking Stalls Per
Townhome Unit
2
Building Height Not to exceed 6 stories
Minimum Number of Enclosed Parking Stalls Per
Multifamily Unit
1
Maximum Number of Compact Parking Stalls 70%
Minimum Non-Residential Building Area 12,000 square feet
Minimum Number of Townhome Units 52
Maximum Number of Multifamily Units 450
Minimum Multifamily Front Yard Setback 10
Minimum Multifamily Parking Setback 0 feet
2. Any applicant for an approval of a development plan or building permit within Planned Unit
Development District 2025-01 shall submit development plans for City review and approval. The City
reserves the right to adjust any performance standards set forth i n this ordinance if deemed necessary
to improve the site and building design for the purpose of compatibility, public health, or public safety.
3. Any development or redevelopment plans for the Property including, but not limited to the Final Plans,
that fail to meet the design and performance standards set forth herein shall require a PUD amendment
approved by the City.
4. All conditions of approval set forth in City Council Resolution No. 2025-043 shall be incorporated herein.
Section 4
The Planning Commission held a public hearing as required by the City’s Zoning Ordinance on June 3, 202 5 and
the Commission recommends approval of the proposed rezoning from General Business District (GB) to PUD,
Planned Unit Development District after finding that:
1. The amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
2. The amendment is in the public interest and not solely for the benefit of a single property owner;
3. The amendment is compatible with existing land uses and zoning classifications in the general area;
4. The amendment reflects changes in development trends in the general area.
Section 5
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its passage.
38
Item 3.
381
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights - Ordinance Page 3
Passed this _________ day of ______________________, 2025
First Reading:
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Second
Reading:
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
________________________________
Amáda Márquez Simula, Mayor
Attest:
__________________________________
Sara Ion, City Clerk/Council Secretary
39
Item 3.
382
Item 7.
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-043
A resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, approving PUD, Planned Unit
Development District Plan for property located in the City of Columbia Heights, MN
Whereas, a proposal (Planning Case # 2025-PZ03) has been submitted by Lincoln Avenue Communities to the
City Council requesting approval of a PUD, Planned Unit Development District Plan at the following site:
ADDRESSES: 800 53rd Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING: PUD, Planned Unit Development District Plan per Code Section 9.113.
The Planning and Zoning Commission held an informal public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on
June 3, 2025, recommending approval by the City Council;
The City Council held a formal public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on July 14, 2025;
The City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission
regarding the effect of the proposed PUD, Planned Unit Development District Plan upon the health, safety, and
welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility of uses,
traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrounding areas;
In accordance with the foregoing, and all ordinances and regulations of the City of Columbia Heights, the City
Council of the City of Columbia Heights makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The PUD District Plan conforms to all applicable requirements of the city code;
2. The PUD District Plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
3. The PUD District Plan is consistent with any applicable area plan;
4. The PUD District Plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the
public right-of-way.
Further, be it resolved, that the attached plans, maps, and other information shall become part of this PUD,
Planned Unit Development District Plan; and in granting approval the City and the applicant agree that the PUD,
Planned Unit Development District Plan shall become null and void if the resolution is not recorded with Anoka
County within one (1) calendar year after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal.
CONDITIONS
1. The property owner and the City will enter in to a development contract governing site improvements and
shall be executed by the property owner and the City within 60 days of the PUD approval prior to the
40
Item 3.
383
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights - Council Resolution Page 2
issuance of a building permit.
2. The mixed-use building containing the commercial space and 150-175 market-rate apartment units will
provide underground and surface parking shared between the uses as a condition of approval, but will ha ve
a specific calculation and other requirements once an end-user is found. Any loading and unloading shall not
be allowed on 53rd Avenue NE.
3. Developer shall provide financial guarantee in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit for landscaping and
public improvements including multimodal connections through the site to ensure connectivity to existing
and proposed facilities. The guarantee amount is to be determined by the City Engineer.
4. The City Engineer, Watershed District, and MnDot shall review and approve the site grading and storm water
management plans. All storm water best management practices (BMP’s) shall have designated drainage and
utility easements recorded with the Final Plat or as a separate document with Anoka County.
5. The developer shall enter into a storm water maintenance and management agreement with the City, to be
prepared by the City Attorney.
6. The site utility plans shall be subject to review and final approval by the City Engineer, and Fire Chief.
7. Developer shall pay park dedication fees as outlined in the City Code.
8. Developer will provide record plans or as-built drawings to the City following project completion.
9. Align the northern east-west driveway aisles between the northwest townhomes and the multifamily
apartments to reduce potential conflicts between movements.
ORDER OF COUNCIL
Passed this _______ day of _______ , 2025
First Reading:
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Second Reading:
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Amáda Márquez Simula, Mayor
Attest:
Sara Ion, City Clerk/Council Secretary
41
Item 3.
384
Item 7.
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-044
A resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, approving a Preliminary Plat for
Lincoln Avenue Communities;
A proposal (Planning Case # 2025-PZ03) has been submitted by Lincoln Avenue Communities to the City Council
requesting Preliminary Plat Approval from the City of Columbia Heights at the following site:
ADDRESS: 800 53rd Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING: Preliminary Plat Approval per Code Section 9.104 (L).
The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on June 3, 2025;
The City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission
regarding the effect of the proposed Preliminary Plat upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community
and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility of uses, traffic, property values,
light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrounding areas;
Now, therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, and all ordinances and regulations of the City of Columbia
Heights, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Section 9.104 (L) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines conditions that must be met in order for the City to grant a
Preliminary Plat. They are as follows:
(a) The proposed Preliminary Plat conforms to the requirements of City Code Section 9.116.
(b) The proposed Subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
(c) The proposed Subdivision contains parcel and land subdivision layout that is consistent with good
planning and site engineering design principles.
Further, be it resolved, that the attached plans, maps, and other information shall become part of this
Preliminary Plat and Final Plat; and in granting approval the City and the applicant agree that the Plat shall
become null and void if a Final Plat is not recorded with Anoka County within one (1) calendar year after the
approval date, subject to petition for renewal.
CONDITIONS
1. All required state and local codes, permits, licenses and inspections will be met and in full compliance.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of filing and recording written easements with the Anoka
County Recorder’s Office.
42
Item 3.
385
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights - Council Resolution Page 2
3. An approved Preliminary Plat shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of the approval. In the
event that a Final Plat is not presented for approval within this time period, the Preliminary Plat will
become void.
4. The applicant shall enter into a Developer’s Agreement with the City. Said documentation shall be
reviewed by the City Attorney.
Passed this 3rd day of June, 2025.
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Clara Wolfe, Chair
Sarah LaVoie, Administrative Assistant II
43
Item 3.
386
Item 7.
RESOLUTION 2025-045
A resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, approving an easement vacation
for property located in the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, described as:
An easement for the installation and continued maintenance of a sanitary sewer line over and across the
following described property: The North 30 feet of the north 267.61 feet of Lots 7 & 8, Auditors
Subdivision Number 51, except the east 75 feet of the north 30 feet of Lot 7, Auditors Subdivision
Number 51. Said easement shall terminate automatically upon the filing of a certificate by the City
Engineer, attesting that the sewer line installed therein is no longer in service.
A proposal (Planning Case # 2025-PZ03) has been submitted by Lincoln Avenue Communities to the City Council
requesting an easement vacation at the following sites:
ADDRESS: 800 53rd Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING: Easement vacation per Code Section 9.104.-(J), of the above legally
described easement.
The Planning and Zoning Commission held an informal public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on
June 3, 2025;
The City Council held a formal public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on ______;
The City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission
regarding the effect of the proposed easement vacation upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community
and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility of uses, traffic, property values,
light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrou nding areas;
Now, therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, and all ordinances and regulations of the City of Columbia
Heights, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. No private rights will be injured or endangered as a result of the v acation.
2. The public will not suffer loss or inconvenience as a result of the vacation.
Further, be it resolved, that the attached plans, maps, and other information shall become part of this easement
vacation; and in granting approval the City and the applicant agree that the easement vacation shall become
null and void if the resolution is not recorded with Anoka County within one (1) calendar year after the approval
date, subject to petition for renewal.
CONDITIONS
1. The applicant shall be responsible for providing legal descriptions of all easements that are subject to be
created. Said descriptions are subject to review by the City Attorney.
44
Item 3.
387
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights - Council Resolution Page 2
2. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the easement vacations with the Anoka County
Recorder’s Office.
Passed this 3rd day of June, 2025.
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Clara Wolfe, Chair
Sarah LaVoie, Administrative Assistant II
45
Item 3.
388
Item 7.
Page 1 of 2
Community Development Department
590 40th Ave. NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421
STREET, ALLEY OR EASEMENT VACATION APPLICATION
ORDINANCE NO. 9.104 (J)
This application is subject to review and acceptance by the City. Applications will be processed only if all
required items are submitted.
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Project Address/Location: _________________________________________________________________________
Anoka County Property Identification Number (PIN#): __________________________________________________
Legal Description of Street, Alley, or Easement to be vacated: ____________________________________________
Type of Vacation (street, alley and/or public easement): ________________________________________________
PROPERTY OWNER (As it appears on property title):
Name (please print): ___________________________________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ______________________________________________________________________________
City: ______________________________ State: ____________ Zip: _________________
Daytime Phone: __________________________ Cell Phone: __________________________________
E-mail Address: ______________________________________________________________________________
Signature/Date: ______________________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT:
Company Name (please print): ______________________________________________________________________
Contact Person (please print): ______________________________________________________________________
Mailing Address: _____________________________________________________________________________
City: ______________________________ State:_____________ Zip: _________________
Daytime Phone: __________________________ Cell Phone: __________________________________
Email Address: ______________________________________________________________________________
Signature/Date: _____________________________________________________________________________
Christian Borgan
1301 American Blvd
Bloomington MN 55425
612-284-8226 651-271-1250
christian.borgan@kaaswilson.com
05/05/2025
Kaas Wilson Architects
800 53rd Ave NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421
See attached survey.
26-30-24-11-0020
Steve Fisher, Medtronic, Inc.
710 Medtronic Parkway NE
Fridley MN
steve.d.fisher@medtronic.com
612-963-4946612-963-4946
55432
46
Item 3.
389
Item 7.
Page 2 of 2
REASON FOR REQUEST (Please submit a written narrative that describes the need or desire for the proposed street,
alley, and/or public easement vacation. Please attach additional sheets if necessary.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
CASE NO: _______________________
APPLICATION REC’D BY: ________________________ DATE APPLICATION REC’D: _______________
$150.00 APPLICATION FEE REC’D: _____________________ RECEIPT NUMBER: ____________________
Approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission on __________
Approved by City Council on _____________________________
Revised June 2017
47
Item 3.
390
Item 7.
1 | P a g e
Community Development Department
590 40th Ave. NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Phone: (763) 706-3670
PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT APPLICATION
ORDINANCE NO. 9.104 (L), 9.104 (M), 9.116 (C) – 9.116 (D)
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Proposed Name of Plat: ___________________________________________________________________________
Project Address/Location: _________________________________________________________________________
Legal Description of Property: ______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Present use of property: ___________________________________________________________________________
Proposed use of property: _________________________________________________________________________
PROPERTY OWNER (As it appears on property title):
Company/Individual (please print): __________________________________________________________________
Contact Person (please print): ______________________________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ________________________________________________________________________________
City: ______________________________ State: ____________ Zip: ___________________________________
Daytime Phone: __________________________ Cell Phone: ____________________________________________
E-mail Address: _________________________________________________________________________________
Signature/Date: _________________________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT:
Company/Individual (please print): __________________________________________________________________
Contact Person (please print): ______________________________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ________________________________________________________________________________
City: ______________________________ State: ____________ Zip: ___________________________________
Daytime Phone: __________________________ Cell Phone: ____________________________________________
E-mail Address: _________________________________________________________________________________
Signature/Date: _________________________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: Information submitted, including contact information shall be made available to the public, unless
otherwise noted.
Medtronic, Inc.
710 Medtronic Parkway NE
Fridley MN 55432
Steve Fisher
612-963-4946 612-963-4946
steve.d.fisher@medtronic.com
Multifamily Apartments and Townhomes
Medical Office
800 53rd Ave NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Need this info from the Loucks team.
Need this info from the Loucks team.
Need this info from the LAC team.
KWA can be the applicant if needed, keep this blank if that is the intention.
Docusign Envelope ID: 51E404CC-6FD0-44C4-B938-B687B3BA51DE
5/5/2025
Christian Borgan, AIA, NCARB
Digitally signed by Christian Borgan, AIA, NCARB
DN: C=US, E=christian.borgan@kaaswilson.com,
O=Kaas Wilson Architects, CN="Christian Borgan,
AIA, NCARB"
Date: 2025.05.06 11:13:03-05'00'
48
Item 3.
391
Item 7.
2 | P a g e
REASON FOR REQUEST (please attach a written narrative describing your request and justification for approval. The
narrative must fully describe the proposal to insure its compatibility with the surrounding uses and its consistency
with Zoning requirements and the Comprehensive Plan.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
CASE NO: _______________________
DATE APPLICATION REC’D: ________________________ APPLICATION REC’D BY: _______________
$1000 PRELIM/FINAL PLAT APPL FEE REC’D: ____________ RECEIPT NUMBER: ____________________
Docusign Envelope ID: 51E404CC-6FD0-44C4-B938-B687B3BA51DE
49
Item 3.
392
Item 7.
Page 1 of 2
Community Development Department
590 40th Ave. NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
This application is subject to review and acceptance by the City. Applications will be processed only if all
required items are submitted.
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Proposed name of development: ____________________________________________________________________
Project Address/Location: _________________________________________________________________________
Legal Description of property involved: _______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Present use of property ___________________________________________________________________________
Proposed use of property __________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
PROPERTY OWNER (As it appears on property title):
Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ________________________________________________________________________________
City: ______________________________ State: ____________ Zip: _________________
Daytime Phone: __________________________ Cell Ph one: ____________________________
E-mail Address: __________________________________________________________________________________
Signature/Date: __________________________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT:
Company Name (please print): ______________________________________________________________________
Contact Person (please print): ______________________________________________________________________
Mailing Address: _________________________________________________________________________________
City: ______________________________ State:_____________ Zip: _________________
Daytime Phone: __________________________ Cell Phone: ___________________________
Email Address: ___________________________________________________________________________________
Signature/Date: __________________________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: Information submitted, including contact information shall be made available to the public, unless
otherwise noted.
See attached survey.
Christian Borgan
1301 American Blvd
Bloomington MN 55425
612-284-8226 651-271-1250
christian.borgan@kaaswilson.com
05/05/2025
General Business
Mixed Use
800 53rd Ave NE, Columbia Heights, MN, 55421
Kaas Wilson Architects
Steve Fisher, Medtronic, Inc.
710 Medtronic Parkway NE
Fridley MN 55432
steve.d.fisher@medtronic.com
612-963-4946612-963-4946
50
Item 3.
393
Item 7.
Page 2 of 3
An application shall include a narrative; a vicinity map; an accurately scaled site plan showing the locations of
proposed and existing buildings, existing and proposed topography, vehicular access and parking areas, landscaping,
and other site features; a stormwater management plan; elevation views of all proposed buildings and structures;
and any other information determined by the Zoning Administrator to be necessary. Please use the Site Plan
Application Checklist as a reference for required submittal infor mation.
REASON FOR REQUEST (please attach a written narrative describing your proposal, the intended use of the property
and justification for your request.)
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
CASE NO: _______________________
APPLICATION REC’D BY: ________________________ DATE APPLICATION REC’D: _______________
$2,500.00 APPLICATION FEE REC’D: _____________________ RECEIPT NUMBER: ____________________
51
Item 3.
394
Item 7.
Project Narrative
The Medtronic site is comprised of approximately 12 acres.
The current site plan contains four separate development phases:
- Two “L” shaped 6-story affordable (LIHTC) apartment buildings, each containing
approximately 134 apartment units, centrally located within the overall site –
“Phases 1 and 2”
o These phases also contain their associated parking (underground and
surface) and site amenities including outdoor gathering spaces, landscaping,
utility and stormwater improvements, etc.
- Approximately 58 three-story townhome units adjacent to Sullivan Lake – “Phase 3”
o This phase also contains associated parking (two car tuck-under per unit),
driveways, landscaping, utility and stormwater improvements, etc.
- A single mixed use/market-rate apartment building expected to contain
approximately 100-150 units. – “Phase 4”
o This phase also contains its associated parking (underground and surface),
and site amenities, landscaping, utility and stormwater improvements
Applicant anticipates that these four phases will occur at varying times, with some
potential overlap in construction. Applicant intends to self-develop Phases 1 and 2, and
expects to sell platted lots for Phases 3 and 4 to other builder/developers to complete.
Approximate / targeted phasing as of the date of this application is:
- Phase 1: Begin construction in early 2026
- Phase 2: Begin Construction in early 2027
- Phase 3: Lot development to begin in early 2026, with townhome construction to
begin in spring/summer 2026
- Phase 4: Has the most uncertain timeline as of the date of this PUD
application. Applicant is seeking a developer to start construction in mid-2026, but
due to current market conditions it’s possible that this phase won’t occur for several
years.
52
Item 3.
395
Item 7.
kaas
wilson
architects
LAC-Columbia Heights-800 53rd AptsEXTERIOR INSPIRATION - APARTMENTS
53
Item 3.
396
Item 7.
CENTRAL AVE
MAIN ENTRY
GARAGE
ENTRY
TOWNHOMES
6-UNITS
MARKET RATE APTS
150-175 UNITS @ 5-STORIES
ON TOP OF COMMERCIAL
Phase 1: 132-134 - unit apartment building, affordable
Phase 2: 132-134 - unit apartment building, affordable
Townhomes: 58 units, 3 story buildings
Non-income restricted apartments: 150 units+/-
FAMILY APTS
132-134 UNITS
@ 6-STORIES
FAMILY APTS
132-134 UNITS
@ 6-STORIES
TOWNHOMES
6-UNITS
TOWNHOMES
6-UNITS
T
O
W
N
H
O
M
E
S
6
-
U
N
I
T
S
TOWNHOMES
5-UNITS
TOWNHOMES
5-UNITS
TOWNHOMES
5-UNITS
TOWNHOMES
5-UNITS
TOWNHOMES
5-UNITS
TOWNHOMES
5-UNITS
TOWNHOMES
4-UNITS
PATIO
PATIO
TOT LOT
TOT LOT PLAZA W/
PARKING BELOW
MAIN ENTRY
EXTERIOR
AMENITIES
SULLIVAN LAKE
1”=50’-0”
54
Item 3.
397
Item 7.
8
4
23 25 27 30 35 35 3534 35 33 3335
28 5
35
15
13141414141445
30376
SMH
895.88
30375
STMH
896.81
N
SCALE IN FEET
0 30 60
LOUCKS
W:
\
2
0
2
3
\
2
3
2
2
6
B
\
C
A
D
D
D
A
T
A
\
S
U
R
V
E
Y
\
_
d
w
g
S
h
e
e
t
F
i
l
e
s
\
S
2
3
2
2
6
B
-
A
L
T
A
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
:
04
/
2
8
/
2
0
2
5
4
:
1
6
P
M
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
QUALITY CONTROL
CADD QUALIFICATION
MEDTRONIC
BUILDING
800 53RD AVE NE
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
LINCOLN AVENUE
COMMUNITIES
401 WILSHIRE BLVD
11TH FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401
ALTA/ NSPS
LAND TITLE
SURVEY
1 OF 2
SITE
(Per Schedule A of the herein referenced Title Commitment)
The Land referred to herein below is situated in the County of ANOKA, State of Minnesota, and is described as
follows:
Parcel I:
The north 3.6 Acres of Lots 7 and 8, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 51, Anoka County, Minnesota. (Abstract)
Parcel II:
Tract B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 63, files of the Registrar of Titles of Anoka County, Minnesota.
(Torrens)
NOTE: This property is Abstract and Torrens, the Torrens Certificate No. is 64223.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED
(The following items refer to Table A optional survey responsibilities and specifications)
1.Monuments placed (or a reference monument or witness to the corner) at all major corners of the boundary of the property,
unless already marked or referenced by existing monuments or witnesses to the corner are shown hereon.
2.The address, as disclosed in documents provided to the surveyor, obtained by the surveyor, or observed while conducting
the fieldwork is 800 53rd Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421.
3.This property is contained in Zone X (areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per Flood
Insurance Rate Map No. 27003C0384E, Community Panel No. 0384, effective date of 12/16/15.
4.The Gross land area is 545,297 +/- square feet or 12.52 +/- acres.
6.(a) Zoning information was not provided by the client.
7.(a) Exterior dimensions of all buildings are shown at ground level.
8.Substantial features observed in the process of conducting fieldwork, are shown hereon.
9.Striping of clearly identifiable parking spaces on surface parking areas and lots are shown hereon. The number and type of
clearly identifiable parking stalls on this site are as follows: 802 Regular + 10 Disabled = 812 Total Parking Stalls.
11.(a) We have shown underground utilities on and/or serving the surveyed property per Gopher State One-Call Ticket Nos.
231174158, 231174293, 231174179, 250921869, 250921870, 250921913, & 250921914. The following utilities and
municipalities were notified:
AT & T 571-218-9458 Comcast 800-778-9140
Center Point Energy 612-321-4421 MCI 800-624-9675
Centurylink 877-366-8344 MNDOT 651-366-5750
City of Columbia Heights 763-406-3700 Nustar Pipeline 316-721-7073
City of Fridley 763-572-3566 Xcel Energy 800-895-4999
i. Utility operators do not consistently respond to locate requests through the Gopher State One Call service for surveying
purposes such as this. Those utility operators that do respond, often will not locate utilities from their main line to the
customer's structure or facility. They consider those utilities “private” installations that are outside their jurisdiction.
These “private” utilities on the surveyed property or adjoining properties, may not be located since most operators will
not mark such "private" utilities. A private utility locator may be contacted to investigate these utilities further, if
requested by the client.
ii. Maps provided by those notified above, either along with a field location or in lieu of such a location, are very often
inaccurate or inconclusive. EXTREME CAUTION MUST BE EXERCISED BEFORE AN EXCAVATION TAKES PLACE ON OR
NEAR THIS SITE. BEFORE DIGGING, YOU ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT LEAST
48 HOURS IN ADVANCE AT 811 or (651) 454-0002.
ALTA/NSPS OPTIONAL TABLE A NOTES SURVEY REPORT
1.The Surveyor was not provided utility easement documents for the subject property except for those shown on the Survey.
2.The bearings for this survey are based on the Anoka County Coordinate System NAD 83 (1986 Adjust).
3.Benchmark: MNDOT Benchmark locate in Columbia Heights, 0.6 mile south along Trunk Highway 65 (Central Avenue) from
junction of Trunk Highway 65 and Interstate 694 in Fridley, 33.9 feet east of northbound Trunk Highway 65 Fog Line, 179.6 feet
south of 50th Avenue Northeast, 16.8 feet west of Frontage Road, 14.1 feet east of sidewalk, 1.5 feet south of witness post.
Elevation = 929.32 feet (NGVD29)
Site Benchmark: Top Nut of Hydrant located next to main building in the middle of site.
Elevation = 895.79 feet (NGVD29)
4.Tree diameters shown hereon are measured at breast height.
5.See Sheet 2 for the south side of property.
To Medtronic Inc.; Lincoln Capital Acquisition, LLC; Royal Abstract National, LLC; and First American Title Insurance Company:
This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the 2021 Minimum
Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and
includes Items 1 - 4, 6(a), 7(a), 8, 9 and 11(a) of Table A thereof. The field work was completed on 04/09/25.
Date of Plat or Map: 04/28/25
______________________________________________
Max L. Stanislowski, PLS Minnesota License No. 48988
mstanislowski@loucksinc.com
CERTIFICATION
MATCH LINE
9
15
15
9
9
(Per Schedule B, Part II of the herein referenced Title Commitment)
The property depicted on this survey and the easements of record shown hereon are the same as the property and the
easements described in the Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Royal Abstract National, LLC, as agent for First American
Title Insurance Company, File No. 55547, issued on December 12, 2024. The numbers below correspond to those in the title
commitment.
1-8, 13, & 14 do not require comment.
9.The following Recital(s) appears in the Certificate of Title, and will be carried forward to any Certificate of Title:
Subject to easements to the City of Columbia Heights for highway, highway construction and utility purposes over, under
and across the North 30 feet of Tract B, AND the South 23 feet of the North 53 feet of the East 528 feet of Tract B as set
forth in Warranty Deed filed as Doc. No.100577 on July 13, 1978, shown as a recital on the Certificate of Title No. 64223.
Shown hereon along the north side of property.
Subject to
(1) easement for roadway purposes over and across the North (30) feet of Lot One (1), Auditor's Subdivision No. 51,
shown as a recital on the Certificate of Title No. 64223. Shown hereon along the north side of property.
(2) rights of the Standard Oil Company, an Indiana Corporation, to lay maintain, inspect, operate, replace, change or
remove a pipe line for the transportation of oil, gas or products thereof over and across the North Seventy (70) feet
of Lot One (1), Auditor's Subdivision No. 51, shown as a recital on the Certificate of Title No. 64223.
a. Assignment recorded on February 24, 1961, as Document No. 35077.
Right of Way easement is blanket in nature and is not shown hereon.
b. Partial Release recorded on August 03, 1965, as Document No. 52270.
Shown hereon along the north side of property.
10.Easement for utility purposes, together with any incidental rights, in favor of The City of Columbia Heights, a Minnesota
municipal corporation, as contained in Quit Claim Deed, dated August 27, 1971, recorded August 30, 1971, as Document
No. 354780. Shown hereon in the southeast corner of the site.
11.Covenants and restrictions as contained in Agreement, dated July 7, 1978, recorded September 13, 1978, as Document
No. 507089. The agreement is blanket in nature and not shown hereon. The agreement states to keep the north 3.6
acres of Lots 7 and 8 as a Passive Recreational Area for 20 years after document recorded date, 1978. This expired in
1998.
12.Covenants, conditions, and easements as contained in Declaration of Easement, dated December 3, 1997, recorded March
26, 1998, as Document No. 1330239.0. Shown hereon, sheet 2, along the north, south, and east lines Parcel 1.
15.Easement for water main purposes, together with any incidental rights, in favor of City of Columbia Heights, a Minnesota
municipal corporation, as contained in Quit Claim Deed, dated November 20, 1978, recorded January 15, 1979, as
Document No. 103347. Shown hereon along the north side of property.
TITLE COMMITMENT EXCEPTIONS
04/25/25 SURVEY ISSUED
04/28/25 REVISED PER AS-BUILTS
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the State of
VICINITY MAP
Field Crew
Max L. Stanislowski - PLS
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.
Minnesota.
48988
23226B
MLS
SEK
MLS
SKS
04/25/25
LEGEND
PARKING STALL COUNT
DISABLED PARKING STALL
ASH
2
CATCH BASIN
STORM SEWER
SANITARY SEWER
WATERMAIN
STORM MANHOLE
SANITARY MANHOLE
HYDRANT
GATE VALVE
SET 1/2 INCH X 14 INCH IRON
MONUMENT, MARKED "LS 48988"
SPOT ELEVATION
SIGN
LIGHT POLE
POWER POLE
CONTOUR
CONCRETE CURB
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
CONCRETE
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
UNDERGROUND GAS
OVERHEAD UTILITY
CHAIN LINK FENCE
EXISTING BUILDING
RETAINING WALL
NO PARKING
UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
ELECTRIC METER
GAS METER
CONIFEROUS TREE
TREE LINE
CEDAR
DECIDUOUS TREE
GUY WIRE
1 SCHEDULE B II ITEM
ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
HAND HOLE
FOUND 1/2 INCH OPEN IRON
MONUMENT UNLESS
SHOWN OTHERWISE
ROOF DRAIN
RIP-RAP
TOP OF CURB
VAULT
AIR CONDITIONING UNIT
UTILITY PEDESTAL
UTILITY MANHOLE
TRENCH DRAIN
SPIGOT
FLARED END SECTION
FLAG POLE
CABLE TV PEDESTAL
BENCH
CLEANOUT
GUARD POST
ELECTRIC GENERATOR
ELM
BIRCH
BOXELDER
LOCUST
COTTONWOOD
MAPLE
WALNUT
MISC FRUIT
LINDEN
LILAC
SPRUCE
MAPPED UNDERGROUND GAS
UNDERGROUND CABLE TV
MAPPED UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
MAPPED UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
RECORD DOCUMENT
ALUMINUM DISC
MAPPED WATERMAIN
55
Item 3.
398
Item 7.
15
13141414141445
7
22
2
41796
UMH
886.90
LOUCKS
W:
\
2
0
2
3
\
2
3
2
2
6
B
\
C
A
D
D
D
A
T
A
\
S
U
R
V
E
Y
\
_
d
w
g
S
h
e
e
t
F
i
l
e
s
\
S
2
3
2
2
6
B
-
A
L
T
A
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
:
04
/
2
8
/
2
0
2
5
4
:
2
1
P
M
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
QUALITY CONTROL
CADD QUALIFICATION
MEDTRONIC
BUILDING
800 53RD AVE NE
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
LINCOLN AVENUE
COMMUNITIES
401 WILSHIRE BLVD
11TH FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401
ALTA/ NSPS
LAND TITLE
SURVEY
2 OF 2
SITE
N
SCALE IN FEET
0 30 60
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the State of
VICINITY MAP
Field Crew
Max L. Stanislowski - PLS
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.
Minnesota.
48988
23226B
MLS
SEK
MLS
SKS
04/25/25
SURVEY REPORT
1.The Surveyor was not provided utility easement documents for the subject property except for those shown on the Survey.
2.The bearings for this survey are based on the Anoka County Coordinate System NAD 83 (1986 Adjust).
3.Benchmark: MNDOT Benchmark locate in Columbia Heights, 0.6 mile south along Trunk Highway 65 (Central Avenue) from
junction of Trunk Highway 65 and Interstate 694 in Fridley, 33.9 feet east of northbound Trunk Highway 65 Fog Line, 179.6
feet south of 50th Avenue Northeast, 16.8 feet west of Frontage Road, 14.1 feet east of sidewalk, 1.5 feet south of witness
post.
Elevation = 929.32 feet (NGVD29)
Site Benchmark: Top Nut of Hydrant located next to main building in the middle of site.
Elevation = 895.79 feet (NGVD29)
4.Tree diameters shown hereon are measured at breast height.
5.See Sheet 1 for the north side of the property.
MATCH LINE
12
10
12
12
LEGEND
04/25/25 SURVEY ISSUED
04/28/25 REVISED PER AS-BUILTS
SCHEDULE B II ITEM
PARKING STALL COUNT
DISABLED PARKING STALL
ASH
2
CATCH BASIN
STORM SEWER
SANITARY SEWER
WATERMAIN
STORM MANHOLE
SANITARY MANHOLE
HYDRANT
GATE VALVE
SET 1/2 INCH X 14 INCH IRON
MONUMENT, MARKED "LS 48988"
SPOT ELEVATION
SIGN
LIGHT POLE
POWER POLE
CONTOUR
CONCRETE CURB
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
CONCRETE
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
UNDERGROUND GAS
OVERHEAD UTILITY
CHAIN LINK FENCE
EXISTING BUILDING
RETAINING WALL
NO PARKING
UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
ELECTRIC METER
GAS METER CONIFEROUS TREE
TREE LINE
CEDAR
DECIDUOUS TREE
GUY WIRE
1ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
HAND HOLE
FOUND 1/2 INCH OPEN IRON
MONUMENT UNLESS
SHOWN OTHERWISE
ROOF DRAIN
RIP-RAP
TOP OF CURB
VAULTAIR CONDITIONING UNIT
UTILITY PEDESTAL
UTILITY MANHOLE
TRENCH DRAIN
SPIGOT
FLARED END SECTION
FLAG POLE
CABLE TV PEDESTAL
BENCH
CLEANOUT
GUARD POST
ELECTRIC GENERATOR
ELM
BIRCH
BOXELDER
LOCUST
COTTONWOOD
MAPLE
WALNUT
MISC FRUIT
LINDEN
LILAC
SPRUCE
MAPPED UNDERGROUND GAS
UNDERGROUND CABLE TV
MAPPED UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
MAPPED UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
RECORD DOCUMENT
ALUMINUM DISC
MAPPED WATERMAIN
56
Item 3.
399
Item 7.
31074
NF MAG POPPED OUT
906.75
8
4
23 25 27 30 35 35 3534 35 33 3335
28 5
35
15
13141414141445
7
22
2
30376
SMH
895.88
41796
UMH
886.90
41002
FIP SOLID
892.94
41003
FIP 15480
886.08
41004
FIP 15480
885.85
41005
FIP 15480
886.30
31077
FIP BLOM 21729
899.46
31078
FIP 1/2"OPEN
903.53
41825
FIP OPEN
899.09
25307
FIP 48988
886.40
25308
FIP 15480
885.90
25309
FIP 15480
886.03
25310
FIP 8612
886.58
25311
FIP 15480
886.33
25312
FIP 48988
900.70
25313
FIP REF MON
899.19
25314
FIP REF MON
898.53
25315
FIP 1/2" SOLID
892.97
25316
FIP 1/2" OPEN WITH NAIL
899.00
30375
STMH
896.81
LOUCKS
W:
\
2
0
2
3
\
2
3
2
2
6
C
\
C
A
D
D
D
A
T
A
\
C
I
V
I
L
\
_
d
w
g
S
h
e
e
t
F
i
l
e
s
\
S
D
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
\
C
1
-
1
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
P
L
A
N
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
:
05
/
0
5
/
2
0
2
5
1
2
:
5
7
P
M
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
QUALITY CONTROL
CADD QUALIFICATION
COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS
DEVELOPMENT
800 53rd Ave. NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
LINCOLN AVENUE
COMMUNITIES
401 Wilshire Blvd, 11th Floor
Santa Monica, California 90401
C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
C2-1 SITE PLAN
C3-1 GRADING PLAN
C4-1 SANITARY & WATERMAIN PLAN
C4-2 STORM SEWER PLAN
Review Date
SHEET INDEX
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
PJ Disch - PE
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.
49933
230226C
PJD
DDL
PJD
05/05/25
-
05/05/25 SD - CITY SUBMITTAL
N
SCALE IN FEET
0 40 80
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
PLAN
C1-1
TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166
TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002
Gopher State One Call
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG!
WARNING:
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL
EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN
MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES,
CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE
DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED
DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.
PARKING STALL COUNT
DISABLED PARKING STALL
ASH
2
LEGEND
CATCH BASIN
STORM SEWER
SANITARY SEWER
WATERMAIN
STORM MANHOLE
SANITARY MANHOLE
HYDRANT
GATE VALVE
SET 1/2 INCH X 14 INCH IRON
MONUMENT, MARKED "LS 48988"
SPOT ELEVATION
SIGN
LIGHT POLE
POWER POLE
CONTOUR
CONCRETE CURB
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
CONCRETE
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
UNDERGROUND GAS
OVERHEAD UTILITY
CHAIN LINK FENCE
EXISTING BUILDING
RETAINING WALL
NO PARKING
UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
ELECTRIC METER
GAS METER
CONIFEROUS TREE
TREE LINE
CEDAR
DECIDUOUS TREE
GUY WIRE
1 SCHEDULE B II ITEM
ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
HAND HOLE
FOUND 1/2 INCH OPEN IRON
MONUMENT UNLESS
SHOWN OTHERWISE
ROOF DRAIN
RIP-RAP
TOP OF CURB
VAULT
AIR CONDITIONING UNIT
UTILITY PEDESTAL
UTILITY MANHOLE
TRENCH DRAIN
SPIGOT
FLARED END SECTION
FLAG POLE
CABLE TV PEDESTAL
BENCH
CLEANOUT
GUARD POST
ELECTRIC GENERATOR
ELM
BIRCH
BOXELDER
LOCUST
COTTONWOOD
MAPLE
WALNUT
MISC FRUITLINDEN
LILAC
SPRUCE
MAPPED UNDERGROUND GAS
UNDERGROUND CABLE TV
MAPPED UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
MAPPED UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
RECORD DOCUMENT
57
Item 3.
400
Item 7.
15.0'
40.0'
TH
-
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
#
3
6
U
N
I
T
S
TH-BUILDING #1
6 UNITS
TH-BUILDING #2
5 UNITS
T
H
-
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
#
4
6
U
N
I
T
S
PROPOSED APARTMENT
MULTI-USE
PROPOSED APARTMENT
TH
-
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
#
5
6
U
N
I
T
S
TH-BUILDING #6
5 UNITS
TH-BUILDING #7
4 UNITS
TH-BUILDING #8
5 UNITS
TH-BUILDING #11
5 UNITS
TH-BUILDING #10
5 UNITS
TH-BUILDING #9
5 UNITS
PROPOSED APARTMENT
24.0'
COURTYARD/AMENITY SPACE
(ABOVE GARAGE)
10.0'
24.0'
DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY
DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYDRIVE
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
24.0'
24.0'
24.0'
24.0'
DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAYDRIVE
DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYDRIVEDRIVEDRIVE
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
CITY PROPERTY TO AQUIRE
TOTAL AREA = 7,147 SF=0.16 ACRES
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
24.0'
18.0'
18.0'
TO GARAGE
24.0'
24.0'
24.0'
24.0'
24.0'
PROPOSED
PROPERTY
LINE
PROPOSED
PROPERTY
LINE
PROPOSED
PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING TRAIL TO REMAIN
DRIVE
24.0'
TO GARAGE
24.0'
ROADWAY EASEMENT
UTILITY AND TRAIL
EASEMENT
UTILITY AND TRAIL
EASEMENT
UT
I
L
I
T
Y
A
N
D
T
R
A
I
L
EA
S
E
M
E
N
T
MAIN
DOOR
FFE-895.30
GARAGE
DOOR
FFE-884.0
PATIO
DOORS
FFE-895.30
MAIN
DOOR
FFE-895.30
MAIN
DOOR
FFE-895.30
AMENITY
SPACE
BUIDLING CONTROL JOINT
LOUCKS
W:
\
2
0
2
3
\
2
3
2
2
6
C
\
C
A
D
D
D
A
T
A
\
C
I
V
I
L
\
_
d
w
g
S
h
e
e
t
F
i
l
e
s
\
S
D
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
\
C
2
-
1
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
:
05
/
0
5
/
2
0
2
5
1
2
:
5
8
P
M
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
QUALITY CONTROL
CADD QUALIFICATION
COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS
DEVELOPMENT
800 53rd Ave. NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
LINCOLN AVENUE
COMMUNITIES
401 Wilshire Blvd, 11th Floor
Santa Monica, California 90401
C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
C2-1 SITE PLAN
C3-1 GRADING PLAN
C4-1 SANITARY & WATERMAIN PLAN
C4-2 STORM SEWER PLAN
Review Date
SHEET INDEX
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
PJ Disch - PE
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.
49933
230226C
PJD
DDL
PJD
05/05/25
-
05/05/25 SD - CITY SUBMITTAL
N
SCALE IN FEET
0 40 80
SITE PLAN
C2-1
CURRENT ZONING: GENERAL BUSINESS
PROPOSED ZONING: MIXED USE DISTRICT
PROPERTY AREA BREAKDOWN:
PROPERTY AREA (GROSS): 545,297 SF OR 12.52 ± AC
ROADWAY EASEMENT (53RD AVE. NE): 38,623 SF OR 0.89 ± AC
UTILITY AND TRAIL EASEMENT: 51,922 SF OR 1.19± AC
BUILDABLE PROPERTY AREA (NET): 454,752 SF OR 10.44± AC
ADDITIONAL CITY PROPERTY:7,147 SF OR 0.16± AC
SITE DATA
PARKING STALL COUNT
ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL
2
LEGEND
CATCH BASIN
STORM SEWER
SANITARY SEWER
WATERMAIN
STORM MANHOLE
SANITARY MANHOLE
HYDRANT
GATE VALVE
SPOT ELEVATION
SIGN
LIGHT POLE
POWER POLE
WATER MANHOLE / WELL
CONTOUR
CONCRETE CURB
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
CONCRETE
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
UNDERGROUND GAS
OVERHEAD UTILITY
CHAIN LINK FENCE
BUILDING
RETAINING WALL
NO PARKING
UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
WATER SERVICE
ELECTRIC METER
GAS METER
TREE LINE
EXISTING PROPOSED
972
DRAINTILE
FORCEMAIN
3
7
3
PARKING SETBACK LINE
BUILDING SETBACK LINE
2
FENCE
FLARED END SECTION
POST INDICATOR VALVE
BENCHMARK
SOIL BORING
3
DIRECTION OF FLOW 1.0%
972.5
TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166
TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002
Gopher State One Call
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG!
WARNING:
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL
EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN
MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES,
CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE
DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED
DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.
58
Item 3.
401
Item 7.
31074
NF MAG POPPED OUT
906.75
41796
UMH
886.90
30375
STMH
896.81
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8888
8
8
BRE
A
K
BREAK
BREAKBR
E
A
K
BREAK
BR
E
A
K
8
8
8
8
8
8
EX-885.3
EX-893.3
894.8
883.70
FFE-894.5FFE-893.5
FFE-894.5FFE-892.0 FFE-893.5
F
F
E
-
8
8
9
.
0
MAIN
DOOR
FFE-895.30
GARAGE
DOOR
FFE-884.0
GARAGE DOOR
FFE-884.0
EX-885.0
EX-885.0
EX-884.9
EX-885.9
EX-886.9
EX-886.9
EX-887.3
EX-889.7
EX-885.1
EX-884.9
890.3
EX-891.0
EX-892.7
EX-890.63
EX-892.8
EX-895.2
EX-900.7
EX-898.0
EX-899.4
EX-899.4
EX-899.1
EX-892.94
EX-894.1
EX-893.0 EX-895.0
EX-900.0
EX-903.5
EX-902.0
EX-889.5EX-888.8EX-887.14
EX-886.2
EX-886.7
EX-885.3
EX-884.0
891.5
889.7
889.5
889.9
8.33%
FFE-895.30
GFE-884.0
PATIO
DOORS
FFE-895.30
898.2
895.1
2.
9
%
894.6
FFE-892.0FFE-891.0FFE-891.0FFE-890.0
FFE-891.0FFE-891.0FFE-890.0
FF
E
-
8
9
3
.
5
FF
E
-
8
9
3
.
0
FF
E
-
8
9
2
.
5
F
F
E
-
8
9
1
.
0
F
F
E
-
8
9
3
.
0
STORM
BASIN
892.8
894.7
894.0
892.3
889.4
889.3
FF
E
-
8
8
8
.
5
FF
E
-
8
8
8
.
5
FF
E
-
8
8
9
.
0
1.
8
%
8.
0
%
1.
1
%
893.8 894.0
894.7
892.3
893.0
1.
5
%
893.81.1%
890.5
FFE-891.0
FFE-891.0
FFE-891.0
FFE-891.0
FFE-891.0
891.0
1.0%
1.
8
%
890.5
FFE-895.30
GFE-884.0
FFE-895.30
GFE-884.0
MAIN
DOOR
FFE-895.30
MAIN
DOOR
FFE-895.30
887.7
894.8
COURTYARD
ACCESS
FFE-895.30
894.3
894.3
894.0
894.7
1.5%
2.
0
%
3.
5
%
1.
8
894.0
895.3893.0
890.0
4.
5
%
4.
5
%
1
.
4
%
1.5%
892.3
LOUCKS
W:
\
2
0
2
3
\
2
3
2
2
6
C
\
C
A
D
D
D
A
T
A
\
C
I
V
I
L
\
_
d
w
g
S
h
e
e
t
F
i
l
e
s
\
S
D
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
\
C
3
-
1
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
:
05
/
0
5
/
2
0
2
5
1
:
8
P
M
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
QUALITY CONTROL
CADD QUALIFICATION
COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS
DEVELOPMENT
800 53rd Ave. NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
LINCOLN AVENUE
COMMUNITIES
401 Wilshire Blvd, 11th Floor
Santa Monica, California 90401
C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
C2-1 SITE PLAN
C3-1 GRADING PLAN
C4-1 SANITARY & WATERMAIN PLAN
C4-2 STORM SEWER PLAN
Review Date
SHEET INDEX
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
PJ Disch - PE
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.
49933
230226C
PJD
DDL
PJD
05/05/25
-
05/05/25 SD - CITY SUBMITTAL
N
SCALE IN FEET
0 40 80
GRADING
PLAN
C3-1
TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166
TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002
Gopher State One Call
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG!
WARNING:
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL
EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN
MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES,
CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE
DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED
DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.
PARKING STALL COUNT
ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL
2
LEGEND
CATCH BASIN
STORM SEWER
SANITARY SEWER
WATERMAIN
STORM MANHOLE
SANITARY MANHOLE
HYDRANT
GATE VALVE
SPOT ELEVATION
SIGN
LIGHT POLE
POWER POLE
WATER MANHOLE / WELL
CONTOUR
CONCRETE CURB
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
CONCRETE
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
UNDERGROUND GAS
OVERHEAD UTILITY
CHAIN LINK FENCE
BUILDING
RETAINING WALL
NO PARKING
UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
WATER SERVICE
ELECTRIC METER
GAS METER
TREE LINE
EXISTING PROPOSED
972
DRAINTILE
FORCEMAIN
3
7
3
PARKING SETBACK LINE
BUILDING SETBACK LINE
2
FENCE
FLARED END SECTION
POST INDICATOR VALVE
BENCHMARK
SOIL BORING
3
DIRECTION OF FLOW 1.0%
972.5
59
Item 3.
402
Item 7.
31074
NF MAG POPPED OUT
906.75
30376
SMH
895.88
41796
UMH
886.90
30375
STMH
896.81
8
8
8
8
8
8
84444
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
8
8
8
4
4
4
4
4444444444
8
8
8
8888
8
8
44
44444
8
8
8
8
8
8
SANITARY SEWER
BUILDING
CONNECTION
TYP.
SANITARY SEWER
BUILDING
CONNECTION
TYP.
SANITARY MH
TYP.
SANITARY MH
TYP.
SANITARY MAIN
SEWER
CONNECTION
SANITARY MH
TYP.
SANITARY SEWER
MAIN TYP.
SANITARY SEWER
MAIN TYP.
WATERMAIN
CONNECTION WATERMAIN
CONNECTION
WATERMAIN
DOMESTIC & FIRE
CONNECTION
TYP.
WATERMAIN
DOMESTIC & FIRE
CONNECTION
TYP.
WATERMAIN
DOMESTIC & FIRE
CONNECTION
TYP.
FIRE HYDRANT AT
WATERMAIN
DEAD END
FIRE HYDRANT AT
WATERMAIN
DEAD END
FIRE HYDRANT AT
WATERMAIN
DEAD END
8" WATERMAIN
8" WATERMAIN8" WATERMAIN
LOUCKS
W:
\
2
0
2
3
\
2
3
2
2
6
C
\
C
A
D
D
D
A
T
A
\
C
I
V
I
L
\
_
d
w
g
S
h
e
e
t
F
i
l
e
s
\
S
D
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
\
C
4
-
1
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
A
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
M
A
I
N
P
L
A
N
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
:
05
/
0
5
/
2
0
2
5
1
:
0
P
M
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
QUALITY CONTROL
CADD QUALIFICATION
COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS
DEVELOPMENT
800 53rd Ave. NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
LINCOLN AVENUE
COMMUNITIES
401 Wilshire Blvd, 11th Floor
Santa Monica, California 90401
C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
C2-1 SITE PLAN
C3-1 GRADING PLAN
C4-1 SANITARY & WATERMAIN PLAN
C4-2 STORM SEWER PLAN
Review Date
SHEET INDEX
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
PJ Disch - PE
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.
49933
230226C
PJD
DDL
PJD
05/05/25
-
05/05/25 SD - CITY SUBMITTAL
N
SANITARY
SEWER &
WATERMAIN
PLAN
C4-1
TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166
TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002
Gopher State One Call
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG!
WARNING:
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL
EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN
MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES,
CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE
DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED
DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.SCALE IN FEET
0 40 80
PARKING STALL COUNT
ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL
2
LEGEND
CATCH BASIN
STORM SEWER
SANITARY SEWER
WATERMAIN
STORM MANHOLE
SANITARY MANHOLE
HYDRANT
GATE VALVE
SPOT ELEVATION
SIGN
LIGHT POLE
POWER POLE
WATER MANHOLE / WELL
CONTOUR
CONCRETE CURB
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
CONCRETE
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
UNDERGROUND GAS
OVERHEAD UTILITY
CHAIN LINK FENCE
BUILDING
RETAINING WALL
NO PARKING
UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
WATER SERVICE
ELECTRIC METER
GAS METER
TREE LINE
EXISTING PROPOSED
972
DRAINTILE
FORCEMAIN
3
7
3
PARKING SETBACK LINE
BUILDING SETBACK LINE
2
FENCE
FLARED END SECTION
POST INDICATOR VALVE
BENCHMARK
SOIL BORING
3
DIRECTION OF FLOW 1.0%
972.5
60
Item 3.
403
Item 7.
31074
NF MAG POPPED OUT
906.75
30376
SMH
895.88
41796
UMH
886.90
30375
STMH
896.81
8
8
8
8
8
8
84444
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
8
8
8
4
4
4
4
4444444444
8
8
8
8888
8
8
44
44444
8
8
8
8
8
8
ROOF DRAIN
CONNECTION
TYP.
ROOF DRAIN
CONNECTION
TYP.
ROOF DRAIN
CONNECTION
TYP.
ROOF DRAIN
CONNECTION
TYP.
ROOF DRAIN
CONNECTION
TYP.
ROOF DRAIN
CONNECTION
TYP.
ROOF DRAIN
CONNECTION
TYP.
ROOF DRAIN
CONNECTION
TYP.
UNDERGROUND
INFILTRATION
STORAGE VAULT #1
UNDERGROUND
INFILTRATION
STORAGE VAULT #2
UNDERGROUND
INFILTRATION
STORAGE VAULT #3
INFILTRATION/FILTRATION
BASIN
STORM SEWER
CONNECTION
STORM SEWER
CONNECTION
CB
TYP.
CB
TYP.
CB
TYP.
CB
TYP.
STORM
SEWER
TYP.
STORM
SEWER
TYP.
STORM
SEWER
TYP.
STORM
SEWER
TYP.
STORM
SEWER
TYP.
STMH
TYP.
STMH
TYP.
STMH
TYP.
STMH
TYP.
FES
TYP.
LOUCKS
W:
\
2
0
2
3
\
2
3
2
2
6
C
\
C
A
D
D
D
A
T
A
\
C
I
V
I
L
\
_
d
w
g
S
h
e
e
t
F
i
l
e
s
\
S
D
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
\
C
4
-
2
S
T
O
R
M
S
E
W
E
R
P
L
A
N
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
:
05
/
0
5
/
2
0
2
5
1
:
1
P
M
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
QUALITY CONTROL
CADD QUALIFICATION
COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS
DEVELOPMENT
800 53rd Ave. NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
LINCOLN AVENUE
COMMUNITIES
401 Wilshire Blvd, 11th Floor
Santa Monica, California 90401
C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
C2-1 SITE PLAN
C3-1 GRADING PLAN
C4-1 SANITARY & WATERMAIN PLAN
C4-2 STORM SEWER PLAN
Review Date
SHEET INDEX
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
PJ Disch - PE
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.
49933
230226C
PJD
DDL
PJD
05/05/25
-
05/05/25 SD - CITY SUBMITTAL
N STORM SEWER
PLAN
C4-2
TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166
TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002
Gopher State One Call
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG!
WARNING:
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL
EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN
MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES,
CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE
DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED
DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.SCALE IN FEET
0 40 80
PARKING STALL COUNT
ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL
2
LEGEND
CATCH BASIN
STORM SEWER
SANITARY SEWER
WATERMAIN
STORM MANHOLE
SANITARY MANHOLE
HYDRANT
GATE VALVE
SPOT ELEVATION
SIGN
LIGHT POLE
POWER POLE
WATER MANHOLE / WELL
CONTOUR
CONCRETE CURB
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
CONCRETE
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
UNDERGROUND GAS
OVERHEAD UTILITY
CHAIN LINK FENCE
BUILDING
RETAINING WALL
NO PARKING
UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
WATER SERVICE
ELECTRIC METER
GAS METER
TREE LINE
EXISTING PROPOSED
972
DRAINTILE
FORCEMAIN
3
7
3
PARKING SETBACK LINE
BUILDING SETBACK LINE
2
FENCE
FLARED END SECTION
POST INDICATOR VALVE
BENCHMARK
SOIL BORING
3
DIRECTION OF FLOW 1.0%
972.5
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
EXISTING SITE
SITE AREA:545,297 SF
IMPERVIOUS AREA:292,875 SF (53.7%)
PERVIOUS AREA:252,422 SF (46.3%)
PROPOSED SITE
SITE AREA:545,297 SF
IMPERVIOUS AREA:365,748 SF (67.1%)
PERVIOUS AREA:179,549 SF (32.9%)
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
RATE CONTROL - NO NET INCREASE FOR THE 1-YEAR, 10-YEAR, 100-YEAR, & 100-YEAR, 10 DAY SNOWMELT
VOLUME CONTROL - STORMWATER RUNOFF VOLUME RETENTION SHALL BE ACHIEVED ONSITE IN THE
AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE RUNOFF GENERATED FROM 1.1" EVENT OVER THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
WATER QUALITY - NO INCREASE IN TOTAL TP & TSS FROM EXISTING SITE TO PROPOSED
VOLUME REQUIRED 365,748 SF x 1.1" X 1'/12" = 33,527 CF
ASSUMED INFILTRATION RATE 0.3'/HR
DEPTH OF INFILTRATION IS 0.3"/HR x 48 HR = 14.4 IN OR 1.2 FT
INFILTRATION VOLUME AREAS
UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION STORAGE VAULT #1 VOLUME AT 1.2 FEET = 12,509 CF
UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION STORAGE VAULT #1 VOLUME AT 1.2 FEET = 16,474 CF
UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION STORAGE VAULT #1 VOLUME AT 1.2 FEET = 5,622 CF
INFILTRATION/FILTRATION BASIN = 3,000 CF
TOTAL VAULT INFILTRATION FROM VAULTS = 37,605 CF
RATE CONTROL - WILL BE PROVIDED FROM THE (3) UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION STORAGE VAULTS AND
INFILTRATION/FILTRATION BASIN.
WATER QUALITY - WILL BE PROVIDED FROM THE (3) UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION STORAGE VAULTS AND
INFILTRATION/FILTRATION BASIN. THERE IS NO EXISTING TREATMENT ON-SITE SO THE THE PROPOSED
RATES WILL IMPROVE FROM THE EXISTING RATES.
61
Item 3.
404
Item 7.
31074
NF MAG POPPED OUT
906.75
41796
UMH
886.90
41002
FIP SOLID
892.94
41003
FIP 15480
886.08
41004
FIP 15480
885.85
41005
FIP 15480
886.30
31077
FIP BLOM 21729
899.46
31078
FIP 1/2"OPEN
903.53
41825
FIP OPEN
899.09
25307
FIP 48988
886.40
25308
FIP 15480
885.90
25309
FIP 15480
886.03
25310
FIP 8612
886.58
25311
FIP 15480
886.33
25312
FIP 48988
900.70
25313
FIP REF MON
899.19
25314
FIP REF MON
898.53
25315
FIP 1/2" SOLID
892.97
25316
FIP 1/2" OPEN WITH NAIL
899.00
8
8
8
8
8
8
84444
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
8
8
8
4
4
4
4
4444444444
8
8
8
8888
8
8
44
44444
8
8
8
8
8
8
TH
-
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
#
3
6
U
N
I
T
S
TH-BUILDING #1
6 UNITS
TH-BUILDING #2
5 UNITS
T
H
-
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
#
4
6
U
N
I
T
S
PROPOSED APARTMENT
MULTI-USE
PROPOSED APARTMENT
TH
-
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
#
5
6
U
N
I
T
S
TH-BUILDING #6
5 UNITS
TH-BUILDING #7
4 UNITS
TH-BUILDING #8
5 UNITS
TH-BUILDING #11
5 UNITS
TH-BUILDING #10
5 UNITS
TH-BUILDING #9
5 UNITS
PROPOSED APARTMENT
COURTYARD/AMENITY SPACE
(ABOVE GARAGE)
EDGER-TYP.SOD
MULCH-TYP
STORM
BASIN
SEED
MIXTURE
SOD
SOD
SOD
SOD
SOD
SOD
SOD
SOD
SOD
SOD
SO
D
SO
D
SO
D
SO
D
SOD
MULCH-TYP
FOUNDATION PLANTINGS
AROUND BUILDING
FOUNDATION PLANTINGS
AROUND BUILDING
FOUNDATION PLANTINGS
AROUND BUILDING
MULCH-TYP
UNDERGROUND
STROM CHAMBERS
UNDERGROUND
STROM CHAMBERS
TO GARAGE
PARKING
OVER GARAGE
FOUNDATION PLANTINGS
AROUND TOWNHOMES-TYP
FOUNDATION PLANTINGS
AROUND TOWNHOMES-TYP
PATIOPATIO
PA
T
I
O
UNDERGROUND
STROM CHAMBERS
SYMBOL QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT.SIZE NOTES
DECIDUOUS TREES
11 ACER FREEMANII `ARMSTRONG`ARMSTRONG MAPLE 2.5" CAL.B&B
10 ACER FREEMANII `AUTUMN BLAZE`AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE 2.5" CAL.B&B
14 ACER FREEMANII `SIENNA GLEN`SIENNA GLEN MAPLE 2.5" CAL.B&B
7 BETULA NIGRA RIVER BIRCH 8` HEIGHT B&B CLUMP FORM
10 GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS `IMPCOLE` TM IMPERIAL HONEYLOCUST 2.5" CAL.B&B
8 POPULUS TREMULOIDES QUAKING ASPEN 25 GAL CONT.
6 TILIA CORDATA `GREENSPIRE`GREENSPIRE LINDEN 2.5" CAL.B&B
4 ULMUS AMERICANA `VALLEY FORGE`VALLEY FORGE ELM 2.5" CAL.B&B
EVERGREEN TREES
12 PICEA GLAUCA `DENSATA`BLACK HILLS SPRUCE 6` HEIGHT B&B FULL FORM
5 PINUS NIGRA AUSTRIAN PINE 6` HEIGHT B&B FULL FORM
ORNAMENTAL TREES
6 CRATAEGUS CRUS-GALLI `INERMIS`THORNLESS HAWTHORN 1.5" CAL.B&B
19 MALUS X `SPRING SNOW`SPRING SNOW CRABAPPLE 1.5" CAL.B&B
SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
GROUND COVERS
HARDWOOD/STONE MULCH
MNDOT SEED MIXTURE - STORMWATER
TURF SOD
PLANT SCHEDULE
LOUCKS
W:
\
2
0
2
3
\
2
3
2
2
6
C
\
C
A
D
D
D
A
T
A
\
C
I
V
I
L
\
_
d
w
g
S
h
e
e
t
F
i
l
e
s
\
S
D
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
\
L
1
-
1
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
P
L
A
N
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
:
05
/
1
5
/
2
0
2
5
1
0
:
1
8
A
M
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
QUALITY CONTROL
CADD QUALIFICATION
COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS
DEVELOPMENT
800 53rd Ave. NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
LINCOLN AVENUE
COMMUNITIES
401 Wilshire Blvd, 11th Floor
Santa Monica, California 90401
C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
C2-1 SITE PLAN
C3-1 GRADING PLAN
C4-1 SANITARY & WATERMAIN PLAN
C4-2 STORM SEWER PLAN
L1-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN
Douglas D. Loken - LA
Review Date
SHEET INDEX
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws
of the State of Minnesota.
45591
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.230226C
PJD
DDL
DDL
05/05/25
-
05/05/25 SD - CITY SUBMITTAL
N
SCALE IN FEET
0 40 80
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
L1-1
TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166
TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002
Gopher State One Call
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG!
WARNING:
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL
EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN
MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES,
CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE
DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED
DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.
*THIS PROJECT WILL INCLUDE A FULL COMPLIMENT OF FOUNDATION PLANTINGS THAT WILL INCLUDE DECIDUOUS SHRUBS, CONIFEROUS SHRUBS,
PERENNIALS, PLANTERS, ETC.
62
Item 3.
405
Item 7.
600
SET CAP#
601
SET CAP#602
SET CAP#
603
SET CAP#
604
SET CAP#
605
SET CAP#
CA DD f il es pr epar ed by t he Co ns ul tan t f or th is pr oje ct ar e
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
o f t h i s p r o j e ct b y o t h e r s w i t h o u t w r i t t e n a pp r o va l by t h e
Con su lt ant . W it h the C onsul ta nt 's appr ova l, othe rs ma y be
p e r m i t ted to ob tain co p ies o f t h e C AD D d r a win g f i l e s f o r
inf ormation and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD f iles shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
12755 Highway 55, Suite R100
Plymouth 55441
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
:
05
/
3
0
/
2
0
2
5
1
0
:
8
A
M
W:
\
2
0
2
3
\
2
3
2
2
6
B
\
C
A
D
D
D
A
T
A
\
S
U
R
V
E
Y
\
_
d
w
g
S
h
e
e
t
F
i
l
e
s
\
S
2
3
2
2
6
B
-
P
P
L
A
T
OUCKSL
CADD QUALIFICATION
QUALITY CONTROL
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS
DEVELOPMENT
800 53RD AVENUE NE
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
LINCOLN AVENUE
COMMUNITIES
401 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
11TH FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401
N
SCALE IN FEET
0 50 100
PRELIMINARY
PLAT
1 OF 1
05/30/25 PRELIMINARY PLAT ISSUED
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the State of
VICINITY MAP
Field Crew
Max L. Stanislowski - PLS
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.
Minnesota.
48988
23226B
MLS
SLS
SLS
SKS
05/30/25
Parcel I:
The north 3.6 Acres of Lots 7 and 8, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 51, Anoka County, Minnesota. (Abstract)
Parcel II:
Tract B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 63, files of the Registrar of Titles of Anoka County, Minnesota.
(Torrens)
NOTE:This property is Abstract and Torrens, the Torrens Certificate No. is 64223.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
GENERAL NOTES
SURVEYOR:
Loucks
12755 Highway 55
Suite R100
Plymouth, MN 55441
1.Prepared May 30, 2025.
2.The address, if disclosed in documents provided to or obtained by the surveyor, or observed while conducting
the fieldwork is 800 53rd Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421.
3.The bearings for this survey are based on the Anoka County Coordinate System NAD 83 (1986 Adjust).
4.Benchmark: MNDOT Benchmark locate in Columbia Heights, 0.6 mile south along Trunk Highway 65 (Central
Avenue) from junction of Trunk Highway 65 and Interstate 694 in Fridley, 33.9 feet east of northbound Trunk
Highway 65 Fog Line, 179.6 feet south of 50th Avenue Northeast, 16.8 feet west of Frontage Road, 14.1 feet east
of sidewalk, 1.5 feet south of witness post.
Elevation = 929.32 feet (NGVD29)
Site Benchmark: Top Nut of Hydrant located next to main building in the middle of site.
Elevation = 895.79 feet (NGVD29)
5.This property is contained in Zone X (areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per
Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 27003C0384E, Community Panel No. 0384, effective date of 12/16/15.
6.The field work was completed on 04/09/25.
OWNER/DEVELOPER:
Lincoln Avenue Communities
401 Wilshire Boulevard, 11th Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Areas:
Right of Way Dedication Area = 38,690 +/- square feet or 0.89 +/- acres
Lot 1 = 79,032 +/- square feet or 1.81 +/- acres
Lot 2 = 75,842+/- square feet or 1.74+/- acres
Lot 3 = 107,443+/- square feet or 2.47+/- acres
Lot 4 = 244,290 +/- square feet or 5.61 +/- acres
Total Property Area = 545,297 +/- square feet or 12.52 +/- acres
SITE DATA
SITE
63
Item 3.
406
Item 7.
600
SET CAP#
601
SET CAP#602
SET CAP#
603
SET CAP#
604
SET CAP#
605
SET CAP#
CA DD f il es pr epar ed by t he Co ns ul tan t f or th is pr oje ct ar e
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
o f t h i s p r o j e ct b y o t h e r s w i t h o u t w r i t t e n a pp r o va l by t h e
Con su lt ant . W it h the C onsul ta nt 's appr ova l, othe rs ma y be
p e r m i t ted to ob tain co p ies o f t h e C AD D d r a win g f i l e s f o r
inf ormation and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD f iles shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
12755 Highway 55, Suite R100
Plymouth 55441
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
:
05
/
3
0
/
2
0
2
5
1
0
:
8
A
M
W:
\
2
0
2
3
\
2
3
2
2
6
B
\
C
A
D
D
D
A
T
A
\
S
U
R
V
E
Y
\
_
d
w
g
S
h
e
e
t
F
i
l
e
s
\
S
2
3
2
2
6
B
-
P
P
L
A
T
OUCKSL
CADD QUALIFICATION
QUALITY CONTROL
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS
DEVELOPMENT
800 53RD AVENUE NE
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
LINCOLN AVENUE
COMMUNITIES
401 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
11TH FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401
N
SCALE IN FEET
0 50 100
PRELIMINARY
PLAT
1 OF 1
05/30/25 PRELIMINARY PLAT ISSUED
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the State of
VICINITY MAP
Field Crew
Max L. Stanislowski - PLS
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.
Minnesota.
48988
23226B
MLS
SLS
SLS
SKS
05/30/25
Parcel I:
The north 3.6 Acres of Lots 7 and 8, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 51, Anoka County, Minnesota. (Abstract)
Parcel II:
Tract B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 63, files of the Registrar of Titles of Anoka County, Minnesota.
(Torrens)
NOTE:This property is Abstract and Torrens, the Torrens Certificate No. is 64223.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
GENERAL NOTES
SURVEYOR:
Loucks
12755 Highway 55
Suite R100
Plymouth, MN 55441
1.Prepared May 30, 2025.
2.The address, if disclosed in documents provided to or obtained by the surveyor, or observed while conducting
the fieldwork is 800 53rd Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421.
3.The bearings for this survey are based on the Anoka County Coordinate System NAD 83 (1986 Adjust).
4.Benchmark: MNDOT Benchmark locate in Columbia Heights, 0.6 mile south along Trunk Highway 65 (Central
Avenue) from junction of Trunk Highway 65 and Interstate 694 in Fridley, 33.9 feet east of northbound Trunk
Highway 65 Fog Line, 179.6 feet south of 50th Avenue Northeast, 16.8 feet west of Frontage Road, 14.1 feet east
of sidewalk, 1.5 feet south of witness post.
Elevation = 929.32 feet (NGVD29)
Site Benchmark: Top Nut of Hydrant located next to main building in the middle of site.
Elevation = 895.79 feet (NGVD29)
5.This property is contained in Zone X (areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per
Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 27003C0384E, Community Panel No. 0384, effective date of 12/16/15.
6.The field work was completed on 04/09/25.
OWNER/DEVELOPER:
Lincoln Avenue Communities
401 Wilshire Boulevard, 11th Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Areas:
Right of Way Dedication Area = 38,690 +/- square feet or 0.89 +/- acres
Lot 1 = 79,032 +/- square feet or 1.81 +/- acres
Lot 2 = 75,842+/- square feet or 1.74+/- acres
Lot 3 = 107,443+/- square feet or 2.47+/- acres
Lot 4 = 244,290 +/- square feet or 5.61 +/- acres
Total Property Area = 545,297 +/- square feet or 12.52 +/- acres
SITE DATA
SITE
64
Item 3.
407
Item 7.
65
Item 3.
408
Item 7.
66
Item 3.
409
Item 7.
67
Item 3.
410
Item 7.
68
Item 3.
411
Item 7.
800 Washington Avenue North, Suite 103
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Meeting Notes
November 16, 2023
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS MEDTRONIC SITE
CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MEETING DATE: 11/16/2023 | TIME: 6 PM
LOCATION: COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY HALL
- Consider lower density housing near Sullivan Lake and higher density housing as you
move away from the lake (townhomes → high density residential)
- Apartment buildings – 6 stories max. 6 is probably the magic number with parking
structure.
- Discussion on the pedestrian crossings on northern side of the site. Is it hostile for
pedestrians? New roundabout construction places two designated crossings on the far
east and far west of the roundabout.
- Comment about combining the bottom part of concept #4 with concept #2
- Comment about adding a restaurant on the south side by the lowest stormwater feature
in concept #4.
- Public access to the lake edge is a goal. There is a desire to invite as much activity to
the water feature/lake.
- Having stormwater incorporated into the street does a good job at integrating public and
private.
- Concept #2 and concept #4 were well received.
- Desire to have a view to the woods from rental apartments (4 stories) that could be
placed in the northwest corner of concept #3.
- Comment about having a curve-less street. Possibility of introducing a woonerf. A shared
street could take place in concept #3, in the stormwater street area.
- Positive comment about the ability for the public to enjoy the water feature. Let it be
interactive, as active as possible – Concept #2 does this the best.
- The idea of having a public gathering amenity like an amphitheater or a space for
performances has potential, although in St. Anthony Village, the amphitheater does not
get used – CC and PC do not want to see this happening here.
- What is the right program for this park? Sometimes it feels like spaces like this are
owned by the apartment buildings and are not welcoming to the public.
- How can soundproofing or noise reduction be achieved?
- Comment about having more walking and biking access through the site – this is a
desire CC and PC want to accomplish.
- Does the increase in dwelling units require more park support? How are we
accommodating the public spaces for all the new people that will live here?
- Desire to have more meditative spaces for people to relax and gather.
69
Item 3.
412
Item 7.
11/16/2023
Columbia Heights Medtronic Site
City Council & Planning Commission Work Session
Meeting Notes 2
- Desire to add an art component to the park.
- Potential for little nodes along the trail to incorporate active components.
- Comment about liking more housing than more retail as in concept #1.
- Concept #3 seems very intense from a fire access perspective.
- The patio restaurant idea was well received. Has potential to become a destination.
- Comment from the City staff about expensive costs for renting retail space. $5/SF vs.
$22/SF (vacant coffee shop next to City Hall).
- Are food halls a possibility on the site? Not really feasible since it needs to serve a much
larger area. Conflict with delivery component, access to and from site.
- Can the site have a public tenant like at Sea Salt? A park version of a popup
- When thinking about opening up the street system, the city has gone with these being
private not public. Having them being public will require further conversations.
- Comment about having vertical lit elements to draw people’s attention to the site – a
beacon.
- Comment about Concept #2 feeling already like a second iteration which takes some of
the ideas from Concept #4.
- Water interaction is what makes the lake attractive – Consensus on making the lake
accessible.
- Desire to improve the environmental condition of Sullivan Lake – this should be a must.
Using stormwater treatments for this purpose.
- Comment about all concepts bringing importance to Sullivan Lake, while they also turn
their back on Central. They belong to the lake and the community – lake-focused, which
CC and PC really liked.
- Comment about connecting bike access from Central – very tricky, switch backs?
- Comment about the eastern access to the trail in the easement area – trail ends at a
retaining wall. This needs to be looked at.
- Consensus on the restaurant idea – a sticking point. Let’s not forget about the delivery
component and what that entails from an access perspective. The type of restaurant is
key for this to be successful.
- What is the backup plan if it is not a restaurant? It needs to be an “outside attraction”,
something that brings people in and does not feel private.
- Is Sullivan Lake Park a community destination or a neighborhood destination? Parking
lot is always half full.
- Desire for more picnicking and shade areas. Be mindful of parking needs. Park users will
need designated parking spaces. Incorporate more parking to the park component.
- Desire to have a northern access point to Sullivan Lake Park from 53rd.
- How can the site look good when under drought periods? This is particularly for those
stormwater treatment areas. Think of ways to interact with the stormwater features when
in periods of drought, like Central Park in Maple Grove?
- Consider snow storage!
- For next iteration of concepts, include southern portions of the park to better depict
extent of park.
70
Item 3.
413
Item 7.
11/16/2023
Columbia Heights Medtronic Site
City Council & Planning Commission Work Session
Meeting Notes 3
- Comment about having a grocery store option on the site. People will have the option to
jump on the F line and go to Cub Foods and other.
- Mayor does not really see an amphitheater idea here, but rather an open space for
people to program themselves
- Concern with open lawn and chemicals.
- General comments on concepts:
o Concept 1 – too much on north side.
o Concept 2 – good balance.
o Concept 3 – too much, intense.
o Concept 4 – reconsider NW corner, too many street rows, push density of
apartment building.
- Consider uses for different generations – childcare, senior living, etc.
- Consider a clinic, a hardware store… an anchor store!
- The townhomes give more of a community feel.
- Comment about moving the townhomes from concept #4 to concept #3.
- 400 units min for apartment buildings – this will be a benchmark.
- Comment about converting the SE corner to apartment building in concept #4 – an L-
shaped building coming from the north.
- Tax base – retail/commercial vs. housing.
- Look for liner residential precedents to better depict the scale of buildings and their
variability.
- Desire to move away from the “Lego aesthetic” for buildings.
- Desire for a residential feeling along corridors.
- Look for streetscape precedents to better depict stormwater treatments and feel of
space.
- For next round of concepts, pinpoint precedents to specific areas on plans.
- Comment about asbestos presence in green lot north of the site (Fridley property).
71
Item 3.
414
Item 7.
72
Item 3.
415
Item 7.
73
Item 3.
416
Item 7.
74
Item 3.
417
Item 7.
75
Item 3.
418
Item 7.
76
Item 3.
419
Item 7.
77
Item 3.
420
Item 7.
78
Item 3.
421
Item 7.
79
Item 3.
422
Item 7.
2500 Shadywood Road, Suite 130, Minnesota 55331, Phone: 952-401-8757
Memorandum
Date: May 16, 2025
To: Andrew Boucher, City of Columbia Heights (LGU)
CC: Todd McLouth, Loucks, Inc.
From: Faith Holaday, Kjolhaug Environmental Services (KES)
Re: Site Assessment and No-Loss/Incidental Determination
800 53RD AVENUE NE, COLUMBIA HEIGHTS KES# 2025-052
The 11.7-acre site at 800 53rd Avenue NE was inspected on April 22, 2025 for the presence and
extent of wetlands by Kjolhaug Environmental Services (KES). No wetlands were identified or
delineated on the property.
The site was located in Section 26, Township 30 North, Range 24 West, City of Columbia
Heights, Anoka County, Minnesota. The site was situated approximately 1500 ft south of I-694,
300 ft west of Central Avenue NE/MN 65, and adjacent to and south of 53rd Avenue NE (Figure
1). The site boundaries corresponded to Anoka County PID 26-30-24-11-0020.
The site consisted of a parking lot, office building, meadow, lawn, and planted trees. The
topography at the site sloped from a high of 898-ft MSL in the northwest and northeast portions
of the site to a low of 886-ft MSL in the central and southeast portions of the site. Surrounding
land use was commercial and residential. Existing conditions are shown on Figure 2.
Appendix A of this memo includes a Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water
Resources in Minnesota, which is submitted to the City of Columbia Heights to request
concurrence with the No-Loss/Incidental determinations under the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (WCA).
Wetland Delineation Methodology
Wetlands were identified using the Routine Determination method described in the Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) and the
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region
(Version 2.0) as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act.
80
Item 3.
423
Item 7.
2
Wetland boundaries were identified as the upper-most extent of wetland that met criteria for
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. Wetland-upland boundaries were
marked with pin flags that were located with a sub-meter accuracy GPS unit.
Soils, vegetation, and hydrology were documented at a representative location along the wetland-
upland boundary. Plant species dominance was estimated based on the percent aerial or basal
coverage visually estimated within a 30-foot radius for trees and vines, a 15-foot radius for the
shrub layer, and a 5-foot radius for the herbaceous layer within the community type sampled.
Soils were characterized to a minimum depth of 24 inches (unless otherwise noted) using a
Munsell Soil Color Book and standard soil texturing methodology. Hydric soil indicators used
are from Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric
Soils, Version 8.2, 2010).
Mapped soils are separated into five classes based on the composition of hydric components and
the Hydric Rating by Map Unit color classes utilized on Web Soil Survey. The five classes
include Hydric (100 percent hydric components), Predominantly Hydric (66 to 99 percent hydric
components), Partially Hydric (33 to 65 percent hydric components), Predominantly Non-Hydric
(1 to 32 percent hydric components), and Non-Hydric (less than one percent hydric components).
Plants were identified using standard regional plant keys. Taxonomy and indicator status of plant
species was taken from the 2020 National Wetland Plant List (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2020. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.3, Engineer Research and Development Center,
Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH).
Review of NWI, Soils, DNR, and NHD Information
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (Minnesota Geospatial Commons 2009-2014 and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service) showed a PEM1C/PUBG wetland approximately 100 ft west of the
site (Figure 3).
The Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2015) did not show any hydric or predominantly hydric soils
within the site boundaries. Soil types mapped on or near the property are listed in Table 2 and a
map showing soil types is included in Figure 4.
Table 2. Soil types present on the 800 53rd Avenue site.
Symbol Soil Name Acres in
AOI
Percent of
AOI
%
Hydric Hydric Category
UuB
Urban land-Udorthents
(cut and fill land)
complex, 0 to 6 percent
slopes
11.7 100 0 Non-hydric
The Minnesota DNR Public Waters Inventory (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
2015) showed DNR Public Water Basin 02008000 P (Sandy) approximately 100 ft west of the
site boundaries (Figure 5).
81
Item 3.
424
Item 7.
3
The National Hydrography Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey 2015) showed one pipeline within
site boundaries along the southern site boundary. The dataset also showed a lake/pond feature
corresponding to the DNR Public Water Basin and several HYDRO NET Junctions
approximately 100 to the west of the site (Figure 6).
No-Wetland/Incidental Determination
The site was examined on April 22, 2025 for potential wetlands. At the time of the visit, climatic
conditions were atypical (wet) according to the Antecedent Precipitation Tool (Appendix C).
Buds on most trees and shrubs had burst and early vegetation was actively growing at the time of
the site visit.
Area A (Figure 2) located just south of the parking lot contained a wet spot dominated by
bulrush. The area met all three wetland parameters. A storm pond dominated by narrow-leaved
cattail and open water was also observed west of Area A. This pond also met all three wetland
parameters. However, review of historic aerial photographs shows that the wet spot within Area
A and the stormwater pond were incidentally within former upland when parking lot expansion
occurred 2015-2016. Recent aerial photos are provided in Appendix B.
Per Mn WCA Rules 8420.0105 SCOPE. Subp. 2. Applicability.
D. This chapter does not regulate impacts to incidental wetlands. "Incidental wetlands" are
wetland areas that the landowner can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the local government
unit, were created in nonwetland areas solely by actions, the purpose of which was not to create
the wetland. Incidental wetlands include drainage ditches, impoundments, or excavations
constructed in nonwetlands solely for the purpose of effluent treatment, containment of waste
material, storm water retention or detention, drainage, soil and water conservation practices,
and water quality improvements and not as part of a wetland replacement process that may,
over time, take on wetland characteristics.
The aerial photos from 2010 and 2015 show that no wetlands or water features were present in
the area of the storm pond or in Area A. By 2016, the parking lot expansion appeared to be
complete, standing water and erosion blankets were visible in the storm pond, and wetness was
visible within Area A. Wetness within Area A (from parking lot runoff) has remained and
wetland vegetation has developed through the most recent photographs (2023).
Based on soil survey information (non-hydric mapped soils) and aerial photo review, it appears
that Area A was created in upland through the parking lot expansion and grading activities from
2015-2016, which have caused water to gather and prevented the area from draining as it had
prior to the construction. Based on the same information, it appears that the storm pond was
excavated in upland for stormwater purposes between 2015 and 2016. Appendix A requests
formal WCA concurrence with the No-Loss/Incidental determination.
82
Item 3.
425
Item 7.
4
Requested Approvals
No wetlands were identified or delineated on the 800 53rd Avenue NE property.
Appendix A of this memo includes a Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water
Resources in Minnesota, which is submitted to the City of Columbia Heights to request
concurrence with No-Loss/Incidental determination under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation
Act (WCA).
Certificate of Delineation
The procedures utilized in the described delineation are based on the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. This wetland delineation and report were
prepared in compliance with the regulatory standards in place at the time the work was
performed. Site boundaries indicated on figures within this report are approximate and do not
constitute an official survey product.
Delineation completed by: Faith Holaday, Wetland/Soil Specialist
Minnesota Certified Wetland Professional In-Training No. 5526
Report prepared by: Faith Holaday, Wetland/Soil Specialist
Minnesota Certified Wetland Professional In-Training No. 5526
Report reviewed by: ____________________________________ Date: May 16, 2025
Mark Kjolhaug, Professional Wetland Scientist No. 000845
83
Item 3.
426
Item 7.
5
800 53RD AVENUE NE
No Wetland Determination
Figures:
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Existing Conditions Map
Figure 3 – NWI Map
Figure 4 – Soil Survey Map
Figure 5 – DNR Public Waters Map
Figure 6 – National Hydrography Dataset Map
84
Item 3.
427
Item 7.
85
Item 3.
428
Item 7.
86
Item 3.
429
Item 7.
PEM1C
PU BG
Legend
Site Boundary
PEM1C
PUBG
Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximateand do not constitute an official survey product.
Figure 3 - MnDNR National Wetlands Inventory Update
800 53rd Avenue NE (KES 2025-052)Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Source: MnGeo Spatial Commons, MnDNR
¯
0 500
Feet 87
Item 3.
430
Item 7.
UuB
W
Ma
UzB
Uw
Legend
Site Boundary
Hydric/Predominantly Hydric
Predominantly Non-Hydric/Non-Hydric
Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximateand do not constitute an official survey product.
Figure 4 - Soil Survey
800 53rd Avenue NE (KES 2025-052)Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Source: M nGeo Spatial Commons, USDA's NRCS SSURGO
¯
0 350
Feet
UuB Urban land-Udorthents (cut and fill land) complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes
Map Unit
88
Item 3.
431
Item 7.
Sandy02008000 P
Legend
Site Boundary
Public WaterWatercourse
Public Ditch/AlteredNatural Watercourse
Public Waters Basins
Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximateand do not constitute an official survey product.
Figure 5 - DNR Public Waters Inventory
800 53rd Avenue NE (KES 2025-052)Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Source: MnGeo Spatial Commons, MnDNR
¯
0 1,000
Feet 89
Item 3.
432
Item 7.
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Legend
Site Boundary
!(HYDRO_NET_Junctions
Artificial Path
Pipeline
Lake/Pond
Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximateand do not constitute an official survey product.
Figure 6 - National Hydrography Dataset
800 53rd Avenue NE (KES 2025-052)Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Source: MnGeo Spatial Commons, USGS
¯
0 1,000
Feet 90
Item 3.
433
Item 7.
6
800 53RD AVENUE NE
No Wetland Determination
Appendix A
Joint Application Form for Activities
Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota
91
Item 3.
434
Item 7.
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised May 2021 Page 3 of 12
Project Name and/or Number: 800 53rd Avenue NE, Columbia Heights (KES 2025-052)
PART ONE: Applicant Information
If applicant is an entity (company, government entity, partnership, etc.), an authorized contact person must be identified. If the
applicant is using an agent (consultant, lawyer, or other third party) and has authorized them to act on their behalf , the agent’s
contact information must also be provided.
Applicant/Landowner Name: Lincoln Avenue Communities; c/o Kyle Brasser
Mailing Address:
Phone: 612-351-3411
E-mail Address: kbrasser@lincolnavenue.com
Authorized Contact (do not complete if same as above): Loucks, Inc.; c/o Todd McLouth
Mailing Address:
Phone: 763.496.6742
E-mail Address: TMcLouth@loucksinc.com
Agent Name: Kjolhaug Environmental Services; c/o Faith Holaday
Mailing Address: 2500 Shadywood Road Orono, MN 55331
Phone: (608) 852-2337
E-mail Address: faith@kjolhaugenv.com
PART TWO: Site Location Information
County: Anoka City/Township: Columbia Heights
Parcel ID and/or Address: 800 53rd Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN (PID: 26-30-24-11-0020)
Legal Description (Section, Township, Range): SEC 26, TWP 30N, RNG 24W
Lat/Long (decimal degrees):
Attach a map showing the location of the site in relation to local streets, roads, highways.
Approximate size of site (acres) or if a linear project, length (feet): 11.7 acres
If you know that your proposal will require an individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you must provide the
names and addresses of all property owners adjacent to the project site. This information may be provided by attaching a list to
your application or by using block 25 of the Application for Department of the Army permit which can be obtained at:
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Portals/57/docs/regulatory/RegulatoryDocs/engform_4345_2012oct.pdf
PART THREE: General Project/Site Information
If this application is related to a delineation approval, exemption determination, jurisdictional determination, or other
correspondence submitted prior to this application then describe that here and provide the Corps of Engineers project number.
Describe the project that is being proposed, the project purpose and need, and schedule for implementation and completion. The
project description must fully describe the nature and scope of the proposed activity including a description of all project elements
that effect aquatic resources (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) and must also include plans and cross section or profile drawings
showing the location, character, and dimensions of all proposed activities and aquatic resource impacts.
No-Loss/Incidental concurrence.
92
Item 3.
435
Item 7.
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised May 2021 Page 4 of 12
Project Name and/or Number: 800 53rd Avenue NE, Columbia Heights (KES 2025-052)
PART FOUR: Aquatic Resource Impact1 Summary
If your proposed project involves a direct or indirect impact to an aquatic resource (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) identify each
impact in the table below. Include all anticipated impacts, including those expected to be temporary. Attach an overhead view map,
aerial photo, and/or drawing showing all of the aquatic resources in the project area and the location(s) of the proposed impacts.
Label each aquatic resource on the map with a reference number or letter and identify the impacts in the following table.
Aquatic Resource
ID (as noted on
overhead view)
Aquatic
Resource Type
(wetland, lake,
tributary etc.)
Type of Impact
(fill, excavate,
drain, or
remove
vegetation)
Duration of
Impact
Permanent (P)
or Temporary
(T)1
Size of Impact2
Overall Size of
Aquatic
Resource 3
Existing Plant
Community
Type(s) in
Impact Area4
County, Major
Watershed #,
and Bank
Service Area #
of Impact Area5
1If impacts are temporary; enter the duration of the impacts in days next to the “T”. For example, a project with a temporary access fill that
would be removed after 220 days would be entered “T (220)”.
2Impacts less than 0.01 acre should be reported in square feet. Impacts 0.01 acre or greater should be reported as acres and rounded to the
nearest 0.01 acre. Tributary impacts must be reported in linear feet of impact and an area of impact by indicating first the linear feet of impact
along the flowline of the stream followed by the area impact in parentheses). For example, a project that impacts 50 feet of a stream that is 6
feet wide would be reported as 50 ft (300 square feet).
3This is generally only applicable if you are applying for a de minimis exemption under MN Rules 8420.0420 Subp. 8, otherwise enter “N/A”.
4Use Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3rd Ed. as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp. 2.
5Refer to Major Watershed and Bank Service Area maps in MN Rules 8420.0522 Subp. 7.
If any of the above identified impacts have already occurred, identify which impacts they are and the circumstances associated
with each:
PART FIVE: Applicant Signature
Check here if you are requesting a pre-application consultation with the Corps and LGU based on the information you have
provided. Regulatory entities will not initiate a formal application review if this box is checked.
By signature below, I attest that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further attest that I possess the
authority to undertake the work described herein.
Signature: Date:
I hereby authorize Kjolhaug Environmental Services to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to
furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this application.
1 The term “impact” as used in this joint application form is a generic term used for disclosure purposes to identify
activities that may require approval from one or more regulatory agencies. For purposes of this form it is not meant to
indicate whether or not those activities may require mitigation/replacement.
05/16/2025
93
Item 3.
436
Item 7.
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised May 2021 Page 5 of 12
Project Name and/or Number: 800 53rd Avenue NE, Columbia Heights (KES 2025-052)
Attachment A
Request for Delineation Review, Wetland Type Determination, or
Jurisdictional Determination
By submission of the enclosed wetland delineation report, I am requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District
(Corps) and/or the Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit (LGU) provide me with the following (check all that apply):
Wetland Type Confirmation
Delineation Concurrence. Concurrence with a delineation is a written notification from the Corps and a decision from the LGU
concurring, not concurring, or commenting on the boundaries of the aquatic resources delineated on the property. Delineation
concurrences are generally valid for five years unless site conditions change. Under this request alone, the Corps will not address
the jurisdictional status of the aquatic resources on the property, only the boundaries of the resources within the review ar ea
(including wetlands, tributaries, lakes, etc.).
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) is a non-binding written indication
from the Corps that waters, including wetlands, identified on a parcel may be waters of the United States. For purposes of
computation of impacts and compensatory mitigation requirements , a permit decision made on the basis of a PJD will treat all
waters and wetlands in the review area as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. PJDs are advisory in nature and may not be
appealed.
Approved Jurisdictional Determination. An approved jurisdictional determination (AJD) is an official Corps determination that
jurisdictional waters of the United States are either present or absent on the property. AJDs can generally be relied upon by the
affected party for five years. An AJD may be appealed through the Corps administrative appeal process.
In order for the Corps and LGU to process your request, the wetland delineation must be prepared in accordance with the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, any approved Regional Supplements to the 1987 Manual, and the Guidelines for
Submitting Wetland Delineations in Minnesota (2013).
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/DelineationJDGuidance.aspx
94
Item 3.
437
Item 7.
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised May 2021 Page 6 of 12
Project Name and/or Number: 316 Lake Hazeltine Dr., Chaska (KES 2024-020)
Attachment B
Supporting Information for Applications Involving Exemptions, No Loss
Determinations, and Activities Not Requiring Mitigation
Complete this part if you maintain that the identified aquatic resource impacts in Part Four do not require wetland
replacement/compensatory mitigation OR if you are seeking verification that the proposed water resource impacts are either
exempt from replacement or are not under CWA/WCA jurisdiction.
Identify the specific exemption or no-loss provision for which you believe your project or site qualifies:
Per Mn WCA Rules 8420.0105 SCOPE. Subp. 2. Applicability.
D. This chapter does not regulate impacts to incidental wetlands. "Incidental wetlands" are wetland
areas that the landowner can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the local government unit, were
created in nonwetland areas solely by actions, the purpose of which was not to create the wetland.
Incidental wetlands include drainage ditches, impoundments, or excavations constructed in
nonwetlands solely for the purpose of effluent treatment, containment of waste material, storm water
retention or detention, drainage, soil and water conservation practices, and water quality
improvements and not as part of a wetland replacement process that may, over time, take on wetland
characteristics.
Provide a detailed explanation of how your project or site qualifies for the above. Be specific and provide and refer to attachments
and exhibits that support your contention. Applicants should refer to rules (e.g. WCA rules), guidance documents (e.g. BWSR
guidance, Corps guidance letters/public notices), and permit conditions (e.g. Corps General Permit conditions) to determine the
necessary information to support the application. Applicants are strongly encouraged to contact the WCA LGU and Corps Project
Manager prior to submitting an application if they are unsure of what type of information to provide :
See memo for explanation.
95
Item 3.
438
Item 7.
7
800 53RD AVENUE NE
No Wetland Determination
Appendix B
Historic Aerial Photographs
96
Item 3.
439
Item 7.
Legend
Site Boundary
Area A
Storm Pond
Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximateand do not constitute an official survey product.
May 18, 2010 Google Earth
800 53rd Avenue NE (KES 2025-052)Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Source: MnGeo Spatial Commons
¯
0 300
Feet
Storm pond and wet spot not present.
97
Item 3.
440
Item 7.
Legend
Site Boundary
Area A
Storm Pond
Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximateand do not constitute an official survey product.
August 11, 2015 Google Earth
800 53rd Avenue NE (KES 2025-052)Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Source: MnGeo Spatial Commons
¯
0 300
Feet
Storm Pond and wet spot not present.Parking lot expanded south. Silt fence visible.
98
Item 3.
441
Item 7.
Legend
Site Boundary
Area A
Storm Pond
Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximateand do not constitute an official survey product.
March 11, 2016 Google Earth
800 53rd Avenue NE (KES 2025-052)Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Source: MnGeo Spatial Commons
¯
0 300
Feet
Storm pond visible. Grading activity in Area A.Wetness visible at Area A.
99
Item 3.
442
Item 7.
Legend
Site Boundary
Area A
Storm Pond
Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximateand do not constitute an official survey product.
October 25, 2019 Google Earth
800 53rd Avenue NE (KES 2025-052)Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Source: MnGeo Spatial Commons
¯
0 300
Feet
Storm pond visible. Wet area with wetland vegetation visible within Area A.
100
Item 3.
443
Item 7.
Legend
Site Boundary
Area A
Wetland
Storm Pond
Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximateand do not constitute an official survey product.
May 20, 2023 Google Earth
800 53rd Avenue NE (KES 2025-052)Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Source: MnGeo Spatial Commons
¯
0 300
Feet
Existing conditions.
101
Item 3.
444
Item 7.
8
800 53RD AVENUE NE
No Wetland Determination
Appendix C
Precipitation Data
102
Item 3.
445
Item 7.
Oct
2024
Nov
2024
Dec
2024
Jan
2025
Feb
2025
Mar
2025
Apr
2025
May
2025
Jun
2025
Jul
2025
Aug
2025
Sep
2025
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
(
I
n
c
h
e
s
)
2025-04-22
2025-03-23
2025-02-21
Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network
Daily Total
30-Day Rolling Total
30-Year Normal Range
30 Days Ending 30th %ile (in)70th %ile (in)Observed (in)Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight Product
2025-04-22 2.353937 3.548819 3.590551 Wet 3 3 9
2025-03-23 0.729134 1.502756 0.929134 Normal 2 2 4
2025-02-21 0.302756 0.996457 0.472441 Normal 2 1 2
Result Wetter than Normal - 15
Coordinates 45.06347, -93.25104
Observation Date 2025-04-22
Elevation (ft)893.753
Drought Index (PDSI)Mild drought
WebWIMP H2O Balance Wet Season
Weather Station Name Coordinates Elevation (ft)Distance (mi)Elevation Weighted Days Normal Days Antecedent
U OF MN ST PAUL 44.9903, -93.18 970.144 6.131 76.391 3.227 11308 90
FALCON HEIGHTS 0.4 NNW 44.9956, -93.1793 979.003 0.368 8.859 0.169 2 0
ST PAUL 3SW 44.9311, -93.1539 924.869 4.285 45.275 2.122 31 0
LOWER ST ANTHONY FALLS 44.9786, -93.2469 753.937 3.368 216.207 2.244 12 0
103
Item 3.
446
Item 7.
DRAFT REPORT
www.transportationcollaborative.com
To: Todd McLouth, PE
Loucks, Inc.
From: Matt Pacyna, PE, Principal
Transportation Collaborative & Consultants, LLC
Date: May 22, 2025
Subject: 800 53rd Avenue Redevelopment Traffic Study; Columbia Heights, MN
INTRODUCTION
TC2 completed a traffic study for the proposed 800 53rd Avenue redevelopment in Columbia Heights.
The site under consideration, shown in Figure 1, was a former Medtronic office building that is generally
south of 53rd Avenue and west of Central Avenue (Highway 65). The main objectives of the study are to
quantify existing area operations, identify transportation impacts associated with the proposed
redevelopment, and recommend improvements, if necessary, to ensure safe and efficient operations
for all users. This study supports the transportation section of the corresponding environmental
assessment worksheet (EAW). The following study assumptions, methodology, and findings are offered
for consideration.
Figure 1 Subject Site
53rd Ave
Subject Site
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
A
v
e
(
H
wy
65
)
Mo
n
r
o
e
S
t
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
(
H
w
y
4
7
)
52nd Ave
7th
St
51st Ave
104
Item 3.
447
Item 7.
800 53rd Avenue Redevelopment Traffic Study May 22, 2025
Page 2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Existing conditions were reviewed within the study area to establish current traffic conditions to help
determine impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment. The evaluation of existing conditions
included collecting traffic volumes, observing transportation characteristics, and analyzing crash history
and intersection capacity, which are described in the following sections.
Traffic Volumes
Vehicular intersection turning movement and pedestrian / bicycle counts were collected at the following
locations on Wednesday, April 9, 2025. The counts were generally collected from 7 to 9 a.m. and 4 to
6 p.m. at each location, but also included 13-hour counts (i.e., 6 a.m. to 7 p.m.) as indicated. Note that
two (2) historical turning movement counts from March 2024 and October 2024 were utilized for the
University Avenue (Hwy 47) and 53rd Avenue intersection.
• 53rd Avenue and University Avenue (Hwy 47)*
• 53rd Avenue and Monroe Street NE
• 53rd Avenue and West Site / Target Access*
• 53rd Avenue and East Site / Target Access*
• 53rd Avenue and US Bank Access
• 53rd Avenue and Discount Tire / West Starbucks Access
• 53rd Avenue and Bank of America / East Starbucks Access
• 53rd Avenue and Central Avenue (Hwy 65)*
Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were provided by MnDOT or estimated based on the data collected.
Transportation Characteristics
Observations were conducted within the study area to identify various transportation characteristics
such as roadway geometry, traffic controls, speed limits, and multimodal facilities. A general overview
of key roadways within the study area is as follows:
• University Avenue (Hwy 47) – a 4-lane divided minor arterial roadway with left- and right-turn lanes.
There are no multimodal facilities, except for transit stops at the 53rd Avenue intersection. The speed
limit is 50-mph.
• Central Avenue (Hwy 65) – generally a 4-lane divided minor arterial roadway with left- and right-
turn lanes. There is multiuse trail along the west side of the roadway north of 53rd Avenue, and
sidewalk along both sides of the roadway south of 53rd Avenue; there is also a transit stop in the
southwest quadrant of the 53rd Avenue intersection. The speed limit is 40-mph.
• 53rd Avenue – generally a 2-lane undivided major collector roadway west of the Target access with
limited turn lanes and a 2-lane divided roadway east of the Target access with dedicated turn lanes.
There is a multiuse trail along the south side of the roadway and a sidewalk along the north side;
Metro Transit Route 10 runs along 53rd Avenue about every 30-minutes throughout most of the day.
The speed limit is 30-mph. Note that this roadway was reconstructed in 2023.
All other study roadways are 2-lane undivided local facilities or commercial driveways with limited turn
lanes and/or multimodal facilities. The 53rd Avenue intersections at University Avenue (Hwy 47) and
Central Avenue (Hwy 65) are signalized, while all other study intersections have two-way stop control.
Note that a median U-turn / partial roundabout is located along 53rd Avenue between the west and east
Target driveways. Existing conditions are illustrated in Figure 2.
* Denotes a 13-hour count location
105
Item 3.
448
Item 7.
Figure 2Existing Conditions
800 53rd Avenue Redevelopment Traffic Study
Legend
AM Peak Hour VolumePM Peak Hour VolumeEstimated ADT VolumeStop SignTraffic SignalRoundabout
XXX(XXX)X,XXX N
53rd Ave
7t
h
S
t
52nd Ave
51st AveUn
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
(
H
w
y
4
7
)
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
A
v
e
(
H
w
y
6
5
)
Mo
n
r
o
e
S
t
W.
S
i
t
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
E.
S
i
t
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
W.
T
a
r
g
e
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
E.
T
a
r
g
e
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
10,650
2
9
,
2
0
0
2
5
,
6
0
0
3
1
,
4
5
0
2
8
,
3
5
0
140 (145)33 (45)70 (90)
60 (50)15 (30)10 (10)
1
0
(
1
0
)
8
7
5
(
8
3
5
)
5
0
(
8
0
)
11
0
(
1
2
0
)
8
5
0
(
8
8
5
)
7
5
(
1
7
0
)
6,250 4,7006,1003,400
98 (118)30 (36)31 (70)
13 (9)132 (217)27 (45)82 (219)
1
(
4
)
10
9
(
1
6
6
)
80
1
(
9
6
6
)
26
(
7
0
)
2
1
6
(
2
6
4
)
7
7
0
(
9
4
7
)
5
5
(
1
1
3
)
6
(
6
)
13 (40)132 (225)
14 (7)184 (282)
1
4
(
4
3
)
1
7
(
2
5
)
20 (60)128 (190)1 (0)
5 (26)171 (211)3 (0)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
2
7
(
7
8
)
0
(
0
)
2
3
(
9
3
)
151 (283)
4 (21)274 (500)0 (0)
94 (269)264 (216)
4
2
(
2
5
9
)
179 (237)127 (238)
140 (52)228 (423)
240 (460)34 (40)
1
3
0
(
6
2
)
0
(
0
)
1
4
(
3
0
)
*
*Approach represents multiple commercial access points within a short distance
*
106
Item 3.
449
Item 7.
800 53rd Avenue Redevelopment Traffic Study May 22, 2025
Page 4
Crash History
Five years of crash history within the study area (January 2020 through December 2024) was reviewed
using data from MnDOT’s Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT). There was a total of 29 crashes
reported along 53rd Avenue between University Avenue (Hwy 47) and Central Avenue (Hwy 65) during
the review period; none of the crashes were defined as a “severe” crash (i.e., a fatal or serious injury).
Most of the reported crashes (i.e., 26 of the 29) occurred between Monroe Street and Central Avenue
(Hwy 65) with 21 of the 26 occurring prior to the 53rd Avenue reconstruction (i.e., ~ 7 crashes per year).
Since the 53rd Avenue reconstruction there have been five (5) reported crashes, which equates to
approximately 2.5 crashes per year. Note that other intersection crashes at University Avenue (Hwy 47)
and Central Avenue (Hwy 65) were not reviewed in detail given MnDOT’s future planning efforts in this
area associated with the Hwy 47 & Hwy 65 Planning Study.
Intersection Capacity
Intersection capacity was evaluated using Synchro / SimTraffic Software (version 11), which uses
methods outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition. The software is used to develop
calibrated models that simulate observed traffic operations and identify key metrics such as intersection
Level of Service (LOS) and queues. These models incorporate collected traffic, pedestrian, and bicyclist
volumes, traffic controls, peaking characteristics, and driver behavior factors. Level of Service (LOS)
quantifies how an intersection is operating. Intersections are graded from LOS A to LOS F, which
corresponds to the average delay per vehicle values shown. An overall intersection LOS A though
LOS D is generally considered acceptable in the study area. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation,
while LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity.
For side-street stop-controlled intersections,
special emphasis is given to providing an estimate
for the level of service of the side-street approach.
Traffic operations at an unsignalized intersection
with side-street stop control can be described in
two ways. First, consideration is given to the
overall intersection level of service, which takes
into account the total number of vehicles entering
the intersection and the capability of the
intersection to support the volumes. Second, it is
important to consider the delay on the minor approach. Since the mainline does not have to stop, most
delay is attributed to the side-street approaches. It is typical of intersections with higher mainline traffic
volumes to experience high-levels of delay (i.e., poor levels of service) on the side-street approaches,
but an acceptable overall intersection level of service during peak hour conditions.
The existing capacity analysis results, summarized in Table 1, indicate that all study intersections and
approaches generally operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the typical weekday a.m. and
p.m. peak hours. The eastbound approaches of 53rd Avenue at both University Avenue (Hwy 47) and
Central Avenue (Hwy 65) operate near the LOS D / E threshold during the p.m. peak hour, although
these operations are relatively common and don’t typically warrant mitigation. Note that peak westbound
queues along 53rd Avenue from University Avenue (Hwy 47) can extend approximately 300’ during the
p.m. peak hour (i.e., about 10 to 15-vehicles), but generally dissipate within one signal cycle length.
Thus, there are no significant existing intersection capacity issues in the study area.
Level of
Service
Average Delay / Vehicles
Unsignalized Signalized
A < 10 seconds < 10 seconds
B 10 to 15 seconds 10 to 20 seconds
C 15 to 25 seconds 20 to 35 seconds
D 25 to 35 seconds 35 to 55 seconds
E 35 to 50 seconds 55 to 80 seconds
F > 50 seconds > 80 seconds
107
Item 3.
450
Item 7.
800 53rd Avenue Redevelopment Traffic Study May 22, 2025
Page 5
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT
The proposed redevelopment, which is shown in Figure 3, is south of 53rd Avenue and west of Central
Avenue (Hwy 65). The project would replace the former 144,000 square foot Medtronic office building
with a total of 439 multifamily apartments, 58 townhomes, and approximately 12,000 square feet of retail
space. Two (2) access locations along 53rd Avenue are planned, which are generally in the same
locations as they exist today; note that the eastern site access is proposed to shift about 75 feet to the
east of its current location. Construction was assumed to be fully completed by 2029.
Figure 3 Proposed Site Plan
Table 1 Existing Intersection Capacity
Intersection Traffic
Control
Level of Service (Delay)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
53rd Avenue and University Avenue (Hwy 47) Signal B (15 sec) C (22 sec)
53rd Avenue and Monroe Street SSS A / A (5 sec) A / A (6 sec)
53rd Avenue and West Site / Target Access SSS A / A (5 sec) A / A (9 sec)
53rd Avenue and Roundabout / U-Turn RAB A / A (4 sec) A / A (9 sec)
53rd Avenue and East Site / Target Access SSS A / A (2 sec) A / A (7 sec)
53rd Avenue and Central Avenue (Hwy 65) Signal C (25 sec) C (33 sec)
SSS – Side-Street-Stop RAB - Roundabout
108
Item 3.
451
Item 7.
800 53rd Avenue Redevelopment Traffic Study May 22, 2025
Page 6
TRAFFIC FORECASTS
Traffic forecasts were developed for year 2030 no build and build conditions, which represents one year
after completion. The forecasts account for general background growth and trip generation from the
proposed redevelopment. The following information summarizes the forecast development process.
Background Growth
To account for general background growth in the study area, an annual growth rate of one-half (0.5)
percent was applied to the existing traffic volumes to develop year 2030 no build conditions. This growth
rate is consistent with historical ADT volumes over the last 20-years, as well as future year 2040 traffic
forecasts within the Columbia Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The year 2030 no build conditions
are shown in Figure 4.
Proposed Redevelopment Trip Generation
The trip generation estimate for the proposed redevelopment was created using the ITE Trip Generation
Manual, 11th Edition and includes trips for typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, as well as daily.
The proposed redevelopment, shown in Table 2, is estimated to generate 239 a.m. peak hour (66 in /
173 out), 282 p.m. peak hour (165 in / 117 out), and 3,000 daily (1,500 in / 1,500 out) trips. This includes
a 10% multi-use reduction, which was only applied to the retail portion of the redevelopment, to account
for residents that would be expected to patronize the retail uses. In addition, a five (5) percent modal
reduction was applied to all trips to account for people that utilize alternative modes of transportation,
such as transit, walk, or bike trips to travel to / from their destinations and other area businesses. The
estimated trip generation potential for the previous office use was provided for comparison purposes;
the previous use was not in operation at the time of data collection and did not generate any trips.
Table 2 Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Type (ITE Code) Size AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out In Out
Previous Use
General Office (710) 144,000 SF 193 26 35 172 1,560
Proposed Redevelopment
Multifamily Housing (221) 439 units 42 140 105 67 2,048
Townhomes (220) 58 units 10 31 29 16 448
Retail (820) 12,000 SF 19 13 44 45 736
Subtotal 71 184 178 128 3,232
Multi-use Reduction - Retail Trips Only (10%) (-2) (-1) (-4) (-4) (-72)
Modal Reduction (5%) (-3) (-10) (-9) (-7) (-160)
Total Site Trips 66 173 165 117 3,000
Site generated trips were distributed throughout the study area using the directional distribution shown
in Figure 5, which is based on a combination of existing area travel patterns and engineering judgment.
The resultant year 2030 build condition traffic forecasts, which include the general background growth
and trip generation from the proposed redevelopment, are illustrated in Figure 6.
109
Item 3.
452
Item 7.
Year 2030 No Build Conditions
800 53rd Avenue Redevelopment Traffic Study
10,950
2
9
,
9
5
0
2
6
,
2
0
0
3
2
,
2
5
0
2
9
,
1
0
0
143 (150)34 (46)71 (92)
62 (51)15 (31)10 (10)
1
0
(
1
0
)
8
9
7
(
8
5
6
)
5
1
(
8
2
)
11
3
(
1
2
3
)
8
7
1
(
9
0
7
)
7
7
(
1
7
4
)
6,400 4,8506,2503,450
100 (121)31 (37)32 (72)
13 (9)135 (222)28 (46)84 (225)
1
(
4
)
11
1
(
1
7
0
)
82
1
(
9
9
1
)
27
(
7
2
)
2
2
1
(
2
7
1
)
7
9
0
(
9
7
1
)
5
6
(
1
1
6
)
6
(
6
)
13 (41)135 (231)
14 (7)189 (289)
1
4
(
4
4
)
1
7
(
2
6
)
21 (62)130 (195)1 (0)
5 (27)175 (216)3 (0)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
2
8
(
8
0
)
0
(
0
)
2
4
(
9
5
)
154 (290)
4 (22)280 (512)0 (0)
96 (276)270 (221)
4
3
(
2
6
6
)
183 (243)130 (244)
144 (46)232 (441)
245 (471)35 (41)
1
3
4
(
5
6
)
0
(
0
)
1
5
(
3
1
)
Legend
AM Peak Hour VolumePM Peak Hour VolumeEstimated ADT VolumeStop SignTraffic SignalRoundabout
XXX(XXX)X,XXX N
53rd Ave
7t
h
S
t
52nd Ave
51st AveUn
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
(
H
w
y
4
7
)
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
A
v
e
(
H
w
y
6
5
)
Mo
n
r
o
e
S
t
W.
T
a
r
g
e
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
E.
T
a
r
g
e
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
W.
S
i
t
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
E.
S
i
t
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
Figure 4
*
*Approach represents multiple commercial access points within a short distance
*
110
Item 3.
453
Item 7.
Site Generated Trips
800 53rd Avenue Redevelopment Traffic Study
+1650
+
7
5
0
+
6
0
0
+
7
5
0
43 (29)0 (0)35 (23)
0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
1
3
(
3
3
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
1
7
(
4
2
)
+1,350 +150+0
0 (0)2 (8)0 (0)
0 (0)43 (29)9 (7)43 (29)
0
(
0
)
17
(
4
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
1
7
(
4
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)30 (75)
0 (0)78 (52)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)5 (15)25 (60)
0 (0)0 (0)30 (75)
7
8
(
5
2
)
0
(
0
)
4
0
(
2
5
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
45 (40)
0 (0)40 (25)11 (30)
0 (0)36 (90)
0
(
0
)
30 (75)6 (15)
0 (0)36 (90)
95 (65)0 (0)
0
(
0
)
5
5
(
4
0
)
0
(
0
)
25%
20%
25%
25%
5%
+
7
5
0
+
2
,
2
0
0
+
8
0
0
Legend
AM Peak Hour Site TripsPM Peak Hour Site TripsADT Site TripsStop SignTraffic SignalRoundaboutDirectional Distribution
XXX(XXX)+XXX N
Figure 5
*
*Approach represents multiple commercial access points within a short distance
*
111
Item 3.
454
Item 7.
Year 2030 Build Conditions
800 53rd Avenue Redevelopment Traffic Study
12,600
3
0
,
7
0
0
2
6
,
8
0
0
3
3
,
0
0
0
2
9
,
8
5
0
186 (179)34 (46)106 (115)
62 (51)15 (31)10 (10)
1
0
(
1
0
)
8
9
7
(
8
5
6
)
6
4
(
1
1
5
)
11
3
(
1
2
3
)
8
7
1
(
9
0
7
)
9
4
(
2
1
6
)
7,750 5,0007,6003,450
100 (121)33 (45)32 (72)
13 (9)178 (251)37 (53)127 (254)
1
(
4
)
12
8
(
2
1
1
)
82
1
(
9
9
1
)
27
(
7
2
)
2
3
8
(
3
1
2
)
7
9
0
(
9
7
1
)
5
6
(
1
1
6
)
6
(
6
)
13 (41)165 (306)
14 (7)267 (341)
1
4
(
4
4
)
1
7
(
2
6
)
21 (62)135 (210)26 (60)
5 (27)175 (216)33 (75)
7
8
(
5
2
)
0
(
0
)
4
0
(
2
5
)
2
8
(
8
0
)
0
(
0
)
2
4
(
9
5
)
199 (330)
4 (22)320 (537)11 (30)
96 (276)306 (311)
4
3
(
2
6
6
)
213 (318)136 (259)
144 (46)268 (531)
340 (536)35 (41)
1
3
4
(
5
6
)
5
5
(
4
0
)
1
5
(
3
1
)
2
,
2
0
0
8
0
0
Legend
AM Peak Hour VolumePM Peak Hour VolumeEstimated ADT VolumeStop SignTraffic SignalRoundabout
XXX(XXX)X,XXX N
53rd Ave
7t
h
S
t
52nd Ave
51st AveUn
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
(
H
w
y
4
7
)
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
A
v
e
(
H
w
y
6
5
)
Mo
n
r
o
e
S
t
W.
T
a
r
g
e
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
E.
T
a
r
g
e
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
W.
S
i
t
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
E.
S
i
t
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
Figure 6
*
*Approach represents multiple commercial access points within a short distance
*
112
Item 3.
455
Item 7.
800 53rd Avenue Redevelopment Traffic Study May 22, 2025
Page 10
YEAR 2030 CONDITIONS
To understand impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment, year 2030 no build and build
conditions were reviewed from an intersection capacity analysis perspective. Results of the year 2030
analysis, shown Table 3, indicate that all intersections and approaches will generally continue to operate
at an acceptable LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The overall change in operations
between the year 2030 no build and build conditions range from about 2 to 4 seconds without any
changes to the existing signal timing. Note that the capacity analysis is based on signal timing plans for
the area provided by MnDOT.
Westbound queues along 53rd Avenue from University Avenue (Hwy 47) are expected to increase by
approximately 50’ to 75’ during the peak periods (i.e., 2 to 4 vehicles) as a result of the proposed
redevelopment. Note that these queues are expected to extend up to approximately 375’ to 400’ during
the p.m. peak hour. In addition, there is some minor queuing expected during the p.m. peak hour at a
couple site access approaches, but nothing that would warrant any significant changes.
Although not needed from an intersection capacity perspective, left- and / or right-turn lanes along
53rd Avenue at the west site access or a right-turn lane along 53rd Avenue at the east site access could
be considered to reduce potential conflicts. However, since the City recently reconstructed 53rd Avenue
with an emphasis on safety, multimodal connectivity, and access management, there does not appear
to be a significant operational benefit to providing these turn lanes. These turn lanes could result in
increased vehicle speeds and / or longer pedestrian crossing distances. Therefore, since the adjacent
roadway network can support the proposed redevelopment, no additional infrastructure changes are
needed from an intersection capacity perspective.
SITE PLAN / OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A review of the proposed site plan does not indicate any major issues. However, the following items are
offered for further consideration between area agencies and / or the project team.
• Locate signage and landscaping to avoid creating any sight distance issues.
• Provide multimodal connections throughout the site to ensure connectivity with existing and
proposed facilities adjacent to the site.
Table 3 Year 2030 Intersection Capacity
Intersection Traffic
Control
Level of Service (Delay in Seconds)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
No Build Build No Build Build
53rd Avenue and University Avenue (Hwy 47) Signal B (16) B (18) C (23) C (26)
53rd Avenue and Monroe Street SSS A / A (5) A / A (6) A / A (6) A / A (8)
53rd Avenue and West Site / Target Access SSS A / A (5) A / A (7) A / A (9) A / B (13)
53rd Avenue and Roundabout / U-Turn RAB A / A (6) A / A (5) A / B (10) A / B (11)
53rd Avenue and East Site / Target Access SSS A / A (4) A / A (5) A / A (7) A / A (8)
53rd Avenue and Central Avenue (Hwy 65) Signal C (25) C (28) C (32) C (34)
SSS – Side-Street-Stop RAB - Roundabout
113
Item 3.
456
Item 7.
800 53rd Avenue Redevelopment Traffic Study May 22, 2025
Page 11
• Review truck maneuverability to limit potential internal circulation conflicts.
• Align the northern east-west driveway aisles between the northwest townhomes and the multifamily
apartments to reduce potential conflicts between movements.
In addition to the items noted, preserve the ability to connect the proposed redevelopment with a future
extension of 52nd Avenue.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions are offered for consideration.
1) There does not appear to be any significant safety issues along 53rd Avenue within the study area
from a crash history perspective.
2) All study intersections and approaches generally operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during
the typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours; the eastbound approaches of 53rd Avenue at both
University Avenue (Hwy 47) and Central Avenue (Hwy 65) operate near the LOS D / E threshold
during the p.m. peak hour.
a. Peak westbound queues along 53rd Avenue from University Avenue (Hwy 47) can extend
approximately 300’ during the p.m. peak hour (i.e., about 10 to 15-vehicles), but generally
dissipate within one signal cycle length.
b. There are no significant existing intersection capacity issues in the study area.
3) The proposed redevelopment would replace the former 144,000 square foot Medtronic office
building with a total of 439 multifamily apartments, 58 townhomes, and approximately 12,000 square
feet of retail space; construction was assumed to be fully completed by the year 2029.
4) Traffic forecasts were developed for year 2030 no build and build conditions, which included a one-
half (0.5) percent annual background growth and trip generation from the proposed development.
a. The proposed redevelopment is estimated to generate 239 a.m. peak hour (66 in / 173 out),
282 p.m. peak hour (165 in / 117 out), and 3,000 daily (1,500 in / 1,500 out) trips.
5) Key takeaways from the future year 2030 capacity analysis, include:
a. All intersections and approaches will generally continue to operate at an acceptable LOS D or
better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours; the overall change in operations between the year
2030 no build and build conditions range from about 2 to 4 seconds without any changes to the
existing signal timing.
b. Westbound queues along 53rd Avenue from University Avenue (Hwy 47) are expected to
increase by approximately 50’ to 75’ during the peak periods (i.e., 2 to 4 vehicles) as a result of
the proposed redevelopment; these queues are expected to extend up to approximately 375’ to
400’ during the p.m. peak hour.
c. The overall change in operations as a result of the proposed redevelopment from an intersection
capacity perspective is relatively minimal and no additional infrastructure is needed to support
the proposed redevelopment.
114
Item 3.
457
Item 7.
800 53rd Avenue Redevelopment Traffic Study May 22, 2025
Page 12
6) A review of the proposed site plan identified the following considerations:
a. Locate signage and landscaping to avoid creating any sight distance issues.
b. Provide multimodal connections throughout the site to ensure connectivity with existing and
proposed facilities adjacent to the site.
c. Review truck maneuverability to limit potential internal circulation conflicts.
d. Align the northern east-west driveway aisles between the northwest townhomes and the
multifamily apartments to reduce potential conflicts between movements.
e. Preserve the ability to connect the proposed redevelopment with an extension of 52nd Avenue.
115
Item 3.
458
Item 7.
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Columbia Heights will
conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers of City Hall at 3989 Central Avenue
NE on Tuesday, June 3rd, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. The order of business is as follows:
The Planning Commission will review an application for a Planned Unit
Development, Preliminary/Final Plat, and a vacation of easements located
at 800 53rd Avenue NE and make a recommendation to the City Council.
The applicant is proposing demolition of the existing office building
preparation for a multi-phase redevelopment concept including two
multifamily apartment buildings both containing 132 units, a mixed-use
building with a range of 150-175 market-rate units and 12,000 sq. ft. of
commercial space, 58 townhomesand associated park and infrastructure
improvements. Section 9.104 (J)(4), (L)(4), and 9.113 Planned Unit
Development (4)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance, requires that the Planning
Commission review, hold public hearings, and prepare recommendations
for the City Council on the applications for a Planned Unit Development,
Preliminary/Final Plat, and vacation of easements.
Notice is hereby given that all persons having an interest will be given an opportunity to
be heard. For questions, contact Andrew Boucher, City Planner, at (763) 706-3673 or at
aboucher@columbiaheightsmn.gov or by mail at:
City of Columbia Heights
3989 Central Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
116
Item 3.
459
Item 7.
117
Item 3.
460
Item 7.
118
Item 3.
461
Item 7.
119
Item 3.
462
Item 7.
ABoucher@columbiaheightsmn.gov
120
Item 3.
463
Item 7.
121
Item 3.
464
Item 7.
122
Item 3.
465
Item 7.
123
Item 3.
466
Item 7.
⁰
⁰
⁰
124
Item 3.
467
Item 7.
⁰
125
Item 3.
468
Item 7.
126
Item 3.
469
Item 7.
127
Item 3.
470
Item 7.
128
Item 3.
471
Item 7.
129
Item 3.
472
Item 7.
130
Item 3.
473
Item 7.
7 Source: MNDNR Kart Feature Inventory
https://arcgis.dnr.state.mn.us/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9df792d8f86546f2aafc98b3e31adb62
131
Item 3.
474
Item 7.
132
Item 3.
475
Item 7.
133
Item 3.
476
Item 7.
10 Source: MNDNR County Atlas Series C-27, Part B. Groundwater Atlas of Anoka County, MN.
mapping/cga/c27_anoka/anokareport.pdf
11 Source:
134
Item 3.
477
Item 7.
135
Item 3.
478
Item 7.
136
Item 3.
479
Item 7.
137
Item 3.
480
Item 7.
138
Item 3.
481
Item 7.
139
Item 3.
482
Item 7.
140
Item 3.
483
Item 7.
141
Item 3.
484
Item 7.
142
Item 3.
485
Item 7.
143
Item 3.
486
Item 7.
144
Item 3.
487
Item 7.
145
Item 3.
488
Item 7.
146
Item 3.
489
Item 7.
147
Item 3.
490
Item 7.
148
Item 3.
491
Item 7.
149
Item 3.
492
Item 7.
150
Item 3.
493
Item 7.
151
Item 3.
494
Item 7.
152
Item 3.
495
Item 7.
153
Item 3.
496
Item 7.
154
Item 3.
497
Item 7.
155
Item 3.
498
Item 7.
156
Item 3.
499
Item 7.
157
Item 3.
500
Item 7.
ArcGIS Web Map
5/14/2025, 11:01:11 AM
0 450 900225 ft
0 130 26065 m
1:4,800
Web AppBuilder for ArcGIS
LOCATION MAP Figure 1N
158
Item 3.
501
Item 7.
PARCEL MAP Figure 2N159
Item 3.
502
Item 7.
SITE PLAN Figure 3N
53rd AVENUE NE
160
Item 3.
503
Item 7.
HISTORIC AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR ANOKA COUNTY Figure 4
161
Item 3.
504
Item 7.
PROJECTED FUTURE AVERAGE
TEMPERATURE FOR ANOKA COUNTY Figure 5162
Item 3.
505
Item 7.
HISTORIC AVERAGE PRECIPITATION FOR ANOKA COUNTY Figure 6
163
Item 3.
506
Item 7.
PROJECTED FUTURE AVERAGE
PRECIPITATION FOR ANOKA COUNTY Figure 7164
Item 3.
507
Item 7.
LOCALIZED FLOOD RISK MAP Figure 8N165
Item 3.
508
Item 7.
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250
Feet
Ü
SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A, V, A99
With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile Zone X
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard Zone X
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes.Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.
The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the
authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map
was exported on 4/7/2025 at 7:42 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and
time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.
This map image is void if the one or more of the following map
elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels,
legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers,
FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for
unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.
Legend
OTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD
OTHER AREAS
GENERAL
STRUCTURES
OTHER
FEATURES
MAP PANELS
8
B 20.2
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
1:6,000
93°15'24"W 45°4'2"N
93°14'46"W 45°3'36"N
Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023 Figure 9
166
Item 3.
509
Item 7.
COOLING DEGREE DAYS Figure 10
167
Item 3.
510
Item 7.
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Figure 11N168
Item 3.
511
Item 7.
ZONING MAP Figure 12N
CITY OF FRIDLEY
R-1 Zone C-3 Zone
C-1
Zone
169
Item 3.
512
Item 7.
KARST INVENTORY MAP Figure 13
N
PROJECT SITE
170
Item 3.
513
Item 7.
Soil Map—Anoka County, Minnesota
(800 53rd ave)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
4/29/2025
Page 1 of 3
49
8
9
8
5
0
49
8
9
9
1
0
49
8
9
9
7
0
49
9
0
0
3
0
49
9
0
0
9
0
49
9
0
1
5
0
49
9
0
2
1
0
49
8
9
8
5
0
49
8
9
9
1
0
49
8
9
9
7
0
49
9
0
0
3
0
49
9
0
0
9
0
49
9
0
1
5
0
49
9
0
2
1
0
480000 480060 480120 480180 480240 480300 480360 480420 480480 480540 480600 480660
479940 480000 480060 480120 480180 480240 480300 480360 480420 480480 480540 480600 480660
45° 3' 54'' N
93
°
1
5
'
1
7
'
'
W
45° 3' 54'' N
93
°
1
4
'
4
3
'
'
W
45° 3' 41'' N
93
°
1
5
'
1
7
'
'
W
45° 3' 41'' N
93
°
1
4
'
4
3
'
'
W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 15N WGS84
0 50 100 200 300
Feet
0 25 50 100 150
Meters
Map Scale: 1:1,960 if printed on B landscape (17" x 11") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Figure 14 171
Item 3.
514
Item 7.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:15,800.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Anoka County, Minnesota
Survey Area Data: Version 22, Sep 7, 2024
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 29, 2023—Sep
13, 2023
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Soil Map—Anoka County, Minnesota
(800 53rd ave)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
4/29/2025
Page 2 of 3
172
Item 3.
515
Item 7.
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
UuB Urban land-Udorthents (cut
and fill land) complex, 0 to 6
percent slopes
27.4 96.6%
W Water 1.0 3.4%
Totals for Area of Interest 28.4 100.0%
Soil Map—Anoka County, Minnesota 800 53rd ave
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
4/29/2025
Page 3 of 3
173
Item 3.
516
Item 7.
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY Figure 15N174
Item 3.
517
Item 7.
1 M
i
l
e
IMPAIRED WATERS INVENTORY MAP Figure 16
N
175
Item 3.
518
Item 7.
PROJECT SITE
Figure 17 176
Item 3.
519
Item 7.
WELL INDEX MAP Figure 18N
1/2
M
I
L
E
177
Item 3.
520
Item 7.
WHAT'S IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD Figure 19N178
Item 3.
521
Item 7.
What's in My Neighborhood
Help FAQ WIMN Glossar y Feedback New search
Data
Medtronic, Inc.
Location:800 53rd Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55421-1241
Anoka County
Watershed:Mississippi River - Twin Cities (07010206)
Latitude:45.0644445
Longitude:-93.2501573
Coordinate collection
method:Address Matching House Number
Currently active?Yes
Industr y classification:Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic
Apparatus Manufacturing
Institutional controls:No
Search with a map
Activity over view MPCA contacts Alternate names
Owners Documents (0)
Three Rivers Park District, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, …Powered by Esri
179
Item 3.
522
Item 7.
Hazardous Waste
Hazardous Waste - MND982636995 - Very small quantity
generator
Status: Active
Hazardous waste includes substances that are corrosive,
explosive, toxic and-or fire hazards. Ver y Small Quantity
Generators produce 220 pounds or less of hazardous waste, and
less than 2.2 pounds of acute hazardous waste per month.
Businesses in this classification require a license.
Less Detail ▲
Events
Event Start End
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
07/30/2021 07/30/2021
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
06/04/2021 06/04/2021
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
03/24/2020 03/24/2020
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
07/22/2019 07/22/2019
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
02/13/2019 02/13/2019
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
01/25/2018 01/25/2018
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
07/20/2017 07/20/2017
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
04/19/2017 04/19/2017
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
05/03/2016 05/03/2016
Annual Gen License Report 11/24/2014
Annual Gen License Report 12/16/2013
Annual Gen License Report 01/04/2013
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
01/01/2012 01/01/2012
Annual Gen License Report 12/20/2011
180
Item 3.
523
Item 7.
Event Start End
Annual Gen License Report 04/19/2010
Annual Gen License Report 05/07/2009
Annual Gen License Report 06/12/2008
Annual Gen License Report 01/28/2008
Links to additional data sources
HW Generator License Application Data - MND982636995
Stormwater
Industrial Stormwater - MNRNE39YF
Status: Inactive
At industrial sites, stormwater may come into contact with
harmful pollutants such as toxic metals, oil, grease and de-icing
salts. Industrial stormwater permits are designed to limit the
contaminants that reach surface and groundwater.
Less Detail ▲
Events
Event Start End
No Exposure Termination 05/05/2021 05/05/2021
No Exposure Exclusion 04/05/2015 03/31/2020
Links to additional data sources
ISW Online Permit Data - MNRNE39YF
Industrial Stormwater - MNRNE34QB
Status: Inactive
At industrial sites, stormwater may come into contact with
harmful pollutants such as toxic metals, oil, grease and de-icing
salts. Industrial stormwater permits are designed to limit the
contaminants that reach surface and groundwater.
Less Detail ▲
181
Item 3.
524
Item 7.
Events
Event Start End
No Exposure Exclusion 07/16/2010 04/04/2015
No Exposure Exclusion 01/24/2008 04/04/2010
No Exposure Exclusion 04/19/2004 01/23/2008
Links to additional data sources
ISW Online Permit Data - MNRNE34QB
Contact us
651-296-6300 or 800-657-3864
Email us
Regional o ices
Environmental emergencies (24 hrs)
800-422-0798
Follow us
Sign up for Gov Delivery emails on many MPCA topics
Tools
A ssistance (How can we help?)
A sk us a question
Glossary of terms
MPCA website policies and disclaimers
Register to vote
182
Item 3.
525
Item 7.
What's in My Neighborhood
Help FAQ WIMN Glossar y Feedback New search
Data
North Star Beverages
Location:785 53rd Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55421-1240
Anoka County
Watershed:Mississippi River - Twin Cities
(07010206)
Latitude:45.0646228
Longitude:-93.2507106
Coordinate collection
method:Address Matching House Number
Currently active?No
Institutional controls:No
Search with a map
Activity over view MPCA contacts Alternate names
Owners Documents (1)
Hazardous Waste
Three Rivers Park District, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, …Powered by Esri
183
Item 3.
526
Item 7.
Hazardous Waste - MND086571601
Status: Inactive
Less Detail ▲
Events
Event Start End
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
01/01/1985 01/01/1985
Links to additional data sources
HW Generator License Application Data - MND086571601
Investigation and Cleanup
Petroleum Remediation - LS0015047 - Leak Site
Status: Inactive
Leak sites are locations where a release of petroleum products
has occurred from a tank system. Leak sites can occur from
aboveground or underground tank systems as well as from spills
at tank facilities.
Less Detail ▲
Events
Event Start End
Site Closed 10/25/2006 10/25/2006
Limited Site Investigation Reviewed 10/11/2006 10/25/2006
Technical Review of Limited Site
Investigation Report Completed
10/11/2006 10/18/2006
Application Completeness
Determined
10/11/2006 10/11/2006
Responsible Party Determined 11/27/2002 11/27/2002
Standard Letter Issued 11/27/2002 11/27/2002
Leak Discovered 11/21/2002 11/21/2002
Leak Reported 11/21/2002 11/21/2002
184
Item 3.
527
Item 7.
What's in My Neighborhood
Help FAQ WIMN Glossar y Feedback New search
Data
Target Store T2200
Location:755 53rd Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55421-1240
Anoka County
Watershed:Mississippi River - Twin Cities
(07010206)
Latitude:45.064618
Longitude:-93.2516745
Coordinate collection
method:Address Matching House Number
Currently active?Yes
Industr y classification:Department Stores
Department Stores
Institutional controls:No
Search with a map
Activity over view MPCA contacts Alternate names
Owners Documents (0)
Three Rivers Park District, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, …Powered by Esri
185
Item 3.
528
Item 7.
Hazardous Waste
Hazardous Waste - MND120016480 - Small quantity generator
Status: Active
Hazardous waste includes substances that are corrosive,
explosive, toxic and/or fire hazards. Small Quantity Generators
produce between 220 and 2,200 pounds of hazardous waste per
month, and less than 2.2 pounds of waste classified as acute
hazardous waste. Businesses in this classification require a
license.
Less Detail ▲
Events
Event Start End
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
02/05/2025 02/05/2025
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
10/11/2024 10/11/2024
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
09/19/2023 09/19/2023
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
10/12/2022 10/12/2022
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
06/04/2021 06/04/2021
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
02/05/2021 02/05/2021
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
05/21/2020 05/21/2020
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
03/24/2020 03/24/2020
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
02/13/2019 02/13/2019
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
01/25/2018 01/25/2018
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
04/19/2017 04/19/2017
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
05/03/2016 05/03/2016
186
Item 3.
529
Item 7.
Event Start End
Annual Gen License Report 11/24/2014
Annual Gen License Report 12/16/2013
Annual Gen License Report 01/04/2013
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
02/20/2012 02/20/2012
Annual Gen License Report 12/20/2011
Annual Gen License Report 04/19/2010
Annual Gen License Report 05/07/2009
Inspections and field work
Type Date
HW Compliance Evaluation Inspection 06/10/2014
Links to additional data sources
HW Generator License Application Data - MND120016480
Contact us
651-296-6300 or 800-657-3864
Email us
Regional o ices
Environmental emergencies (24 hrs)
800-422-0798
Follow us
Sign up for Gov Delivery emails on many MPCA topics
Tools
A ssistance (How can we help?)
A sk us a question
Glossary of terms
MPCA website policies and disclaimers
187
Item 3.
530
Item 7.
What's in My Neighborhood
Help FAQ WIMN Glossar y Feedback New search
Data
Saint Timothys Lutheran Church
Location:825 51st Ave NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Anoka County
Watershed:Mississippi River - Twin Cities
(07010206)
Latitude:45.061549
Longitude:-93.2493844
Coordinate collection
method:Digitized - MPCA internal map
Currently active?No
Institutional controls:No
Search with a map
Activity over view MPCA contacts Alternate names
Owners Documents (0)
Tanks
Three Rivers Park District, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, …Powered by Esri
188
Item 3.
531
Item 7.
Underground Tanks - TS0013988
Status: Inactive
An underground storage tank site has at least one tank of a
certain size on the premises. A tank site may have multiple tanks
and these tanks may contain food products, petroleum products
or other substances.
Less Detail ▲
Events
Event Start End
Registration Received 12/08/1992 12/08/1992
Notice Received 11/25/1992 11/25/1992
Registration Received 07/09/1990 07/09/1990
Links to additional data sources
Tank Data - TS0013988
Contact us
651-296-6300 or 800-657-3864
Email us
Regional o ices
Environmental emergencies (24 hrs)
800-422-0798
Follow us
Sign up for Gov Delivery emails on many MPCA topics
Tools
A ssistance (How can we help?)
A sk us a question
Glossary of terms
189
Item 3.
532
Item 7.
What's in My Neighborhood
Help FAQ WIMN Glossar y Feedback New search
Data
PETCO Store 1646
Location:753 53rd Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55421
Anoka County
Watershed:Mississippi River - Twin Cities
(07010206)
Latitude:45.0644914
Longitude:-93.2519005
Coordinate collection
method:Address Matching House Number
Currently active?Yes
Industr y classification:Pet and Pet Supplies Retailers
Institutional controls:No
Search with a map
Activity over view MPCA contacts Alternate names
Owners Documents (0)
Three Rivers Park District, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, …Powered by Esri
190
Item 3.
533
Item 7.
Hazardous Waste
Hazardous Waste - MNS000193102 - Very small quantity
generator
Status: Active
Hazardous waste includes substances that are corrosive,
explosive, toxic and-or fire hazards. Ver y Small Quantity
Generators produce 220 pounds or less of hazardous waste, and
less than 2.2 pounds of acute hazardous waste per month.
Businesses in this classification require a license.
Less Detail ▲
Events
Event Start End
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
08/05/2013 08/05/2013
Links to additional data sources
HW Generator License Application Data - MNS000193102
Contact us
651-296-6300 or 800-657-3864
Email us
Regional o ices
Environmental emergencies (24 hrs)
800-422-0798
Follow us
Sign up for Gov Delivery emails on many MPCA topics
Tools
A ssistance (How can we help?)
A sk us a question 191
Item 3.
534
Item 7.
What's in My Neighborhood
Help FAQ WIMN Glossar y Feedback New search
Data
Columbia Heights Dentistr y
Location:5220 Central Ave NE Ste 240
Columbia Heights, MN 55421-1823
Anoka County
Watershed:Mississippi River - Twin Cities
(07010206)
Latitude:45.06301832
Longitude:-93.24833188
Coordinate collection
method:Address Matching House Number
Currently active?Yes
Industr y classification:O ices of Dentists
Institutional controls:No
Search with a map
Activity over view MPCA contacts Alternate names
Owners Documents (0)
Three Rivers Park District, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, …Powered by Esri
192
Item 3.
535
Item 7.
Hazardous Waste
Hazardous Waste - MNS000328696 - Minimal quantity generator
Status: Active
Hazardous waste includes substances that are corrosive,
explosive, toxic and-or fire hazards. Minimal Quantity Generators
generate less than 100 pounds per year, none of which is
classified as an acute hazardous waste.
Less Detail ▲
Events
Event Start End
Application/Notification/Registration
Received
04/12/2019 04/12/2019
Links to additional data sources
HW Generator License Application Data - MNS000328696
Contact us
651-296-6300 or 800-657-3864
Email us
Regional o ices
Environmental emergencies (24 hrs)
800-422-0798
Follow us
Sign up for Gov Delivery emails on many MPCA topics
Tools
A ssistance (How can we help?)
A sk us a question
Glossary of terms
193
Item 3.
536
Item 7.
What's in My Neighborhood
Help FAQ WIMN Glossar y Feedback New search
Data
Dollar Tree
Location:775 53rd Ave NE
Fridley, MN 55421-1240
Anoka County
Watershed:Mississippi River - Twin Cities
(07010206)
Latitude:45.065196
Longitude:-93.249078
Coordinate collection
method:Digitized - MPCA online map
Currently active?Yes
Institutional controls:No
Search with a map
Activity over view MPCA contacts Alternate names
Owners Documents (2)
Stormwater
Three Rivers Park District, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, …Powered by Esri
194
Item 3.
537
Item 7.
Construction Stormwater - C00060468
Status: Active
When stormwater drains o a construction site, it can carry
sediment and pollutants that harm lakes, streams and wetlands.
Stormwater permit requirements are designed to control
erosion and limit pollution during and a er construction.
Less Detail ▲
Events
Event Start End
Coverage Issuance 05/21/2021 05/21/2025
Links to additional data sources
CSW Online Permit Data - C00060468
Contact us
651-296-6300 or 800-657-3864
Email us
Regional o ices
Environmental emergencies (24 hrs)
800-422-0798
Follow us
Sign up for Gov Delivery emails on many MPCA topics
Tools
A ssistance (How can we help?)
A sk us a question
Glossary of terms
MPCA website policies and disclaimers
Register to vote
195
Item 3.
538
Item 7.
What's in My Neighborhood
Help FAQ WIMN Glossar y Feedback New search
Data
S.P. 127-319-006, S.P. 113-118-004
Location:
Anoka County
Watershed:Mississippi River - Twin Cities
(07010206)
Latitude:45.064417
Longitude:-93.250158
Coordinate collection
method:Digitized - MPCA online map
Currently active?Yes
Institutional controls:No
Search with a map
Activity over view MPCA contacts Alternate names
Owners Documents (2)
Stormwater
Three Rivers Park District, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, …Powered by Esri
196
Item 3.
539
Item 7.
Construction Stormwater - C00067294
Status: Inactive
When stormwater drains o a construction site, it can carry
sediment and pollutants that harm lakes, streams and wetlands.
Stormwater permit requirements are designed to control
erosion and limit pollution during and a er construction.
Less Detail ▲
Events
Event Start End
Coverage Termination 11/05/2024 11/05/2024
Coverage Issuance 07/11/2023 11/05/2024
Links to additional data sources
CSW Online Permit Data - C00067294
Contact us
651-296-6300 or 800-657-3864
Email us
Regional o ices
Environmental emergencies (24 hrs)
800-422-0798
Follow us
Sign up for Gov Delivery emails on many MPCA topics
Tools
A ssistance (How can we help?)
A sk us a question
Glossary of terms
MPCA website policies and disclaimers
Register to vote 197
Item 3.
540
Item 7.
STATE ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY
MN OSA MAP Figure 20N
PROJECT SITE
198
Item 3.
541
Item 7.
199
Item 3.
542
Item 7.
ST-1
ST-2
ST-3
ST-4
ST-20
ST-18
ST-7
ST-5
ST-6
ST-11 ST-12
ST-15
ST-8 ST-9 ST-10
ST-14ST-13
ST-16
ST-17
ST-19
ST-21
ST-22
ST-25ST-24
ST-23
ST-26 ST-27
ST-30ST-29ST-28
53RD AVENUE NE
CE
N
T
R
A
L
A
V
E
N
U
E
N
E
SULLIVAN
LAKE
F:
\
2
0
2
4
\
B
2
4
0
2
5
8
5
_
0
0
\
C
A
D
\
B
2
4
0
2
5
8
5
-
0
0
.
d
w
g
,Ge
o
t
e
c
h
,4/
2
1
/
2
0
2
4
2
:
1
5
:
5
7
P
M
braunintertec.com
952.995.2000
Minneapolis, MN 55438
11001 Hampshire Avenue S
Project No:
B2402585-00
Drawn By:
Date Drawn:
Checked By:
Last Modified:4/21/24
Drawing No:
Project Information
Drawing Information
B2402585.00
JAG
4/7/24
IB
Columbia Heights Master
Development
800 53rd Avenue NE
Columbia Heights,
Minnesota
Soil Boring
Location SketchN
DENOTES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORING
0
SCALE:1"= 120'
120'60'
200
Item 3.
543
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
889.9
0.5
886.4
4.0
883.4
7.0
869.4
21.0
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), with roots, black, moist
(TOPSOIL FILL)
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine-grained, non to
slightly organic, dark brown, moist
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, moist, soft
(ALLUVIUM)
Trace roots at 5 feet
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, brown,
moist, medium to very stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
With Gravel at 20 feet
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
2-3-4
(7)
16"
2-2-2
(4)
15"
2-4-5
(9)
16"
3-3-5
(8)
18"
3-6-7
(13)
18"
5-5-8
(13)
18"
8-8-15
(23)
9"
qₚ
tsf
2
1.5
2.5
3.5
MC
%
15
20
14
Tests or Remarks
OC=2%
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-1
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110497.5 EASTING:503799.4
DRILLER:G. Scallon LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:890.4 ft RIG:7505 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Sunny
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-1 page 1 of 1DRAFT
201
Item 3.
544
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
887.2
0.5
878.7
9.0
868.7
19.0
866.7
21.0
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), with roots, dark brown,
moist (TOPSOIL)
LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL), reddish brown,
moist, stiff (GLACIOFLUVIUM)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense to very dense (GLACIAL TILL)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, reddish
brown, moist, very stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
4-6-7
(13)
15"
4-11-12
(23)
17"
50/6"
(REF)
2"
36-16-13
(29)
15"
50/5"
(REF)
0"
50/6"
(REF)
3"
44-10-20
(30)
15"
qₚ
tsf
2.5
>4.5
4
MC
%
23
Tests or Remarks
Cobbles and Boulders
possible at 8 feet
Cobbles and Boulders
possible at 12 feet
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-2
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110267.8 EASTING:503838.1
DRILLER:G. Scallon LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:887.7 ft RIG:7505 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Sunny
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-2 page 1 of 1DRAFT
202
Item 3.
545
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
886.6
0.3
882.9
4.0
877.9
9.0
874.9
12.0
867.9
19.0
865.9
21.0
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), with roots, black, moist
(TOPSOIL)
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel,
reddish brown, moist, stiff (ALLUVIUM)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, reddish
brown, moist, medium to very stiff (GLACIAL
TILL)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense (GLACIAL TILL)
LEAN CLAY with GRAVEL (CL), reddish brown,
moist, very stiff (GLACIOFLUVIUM)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, dense
(GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
4-4-6
(10)
12"
4-3-3
(6)
12"
7-9-9
(18)
18"
8-10-10
(20)
18"
7-12-12
(24)
14"
6-9-12
(21)
16"
6-13-18
(31)
12"
qₚ
tsf
1
4
>4.5
MC
%
16
12
Tests or Remarks
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-3
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110157.3 EASTING:503942.6
DRILLER:G. Scallon LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:886.9 ft RIG:7505 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Partly Sunny
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-3 page 1 of 1DRAFT
203
Item 3.
546
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
886.6
0.5
883.1
4.0
875.1
12.0
873.1
14.0
869.1
18.0
866.1
21.0
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), with roots, dark
brown, moist (TOPSOIL FILL)
FILL: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel,
brown and gray, moist
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace roots, brown and
gray, moist, soft to medium (ALLUVIUM)
LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL), reddish brown,
moist, medium to stiff (GLACIOFLUVIUM)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, reddish
brown, moist, stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to
medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, wet,
medium dense (GLACIAL OUTWASH)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
4-3-3
(6)
12"
1-1-1
(2)
16"
2-3-4
(7)
12"
1-2-3
(5)
15"
5-5-7
(12)
16"
6-6-7
(13)
16"
4-8-10
(18)
12"
qₚ
tsf
1
3
2.5
MC
%
12
20
24
23
Tests or Remarks
Water observed at 16.0 feet
while drilling.
Water observed at 8.2 feet
in temporary piezometer
when rechecked on
05/08/2024.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-4
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110085.0 EASTING:504053.4
DRILLER:G. Scallon LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:887.1 ft RIG:7505 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Partly Cloudy
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-4 page 1 of 1DRAFT
204
Item 3.
547
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
901.2
0.4
894.6
7.0
887.6
14.0
882.6
19.0
877.1
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), with roots, black, moist
(TOPSOIL FILL)
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, trace Gravel, brown, gray and dark
brown, moist
FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, non to
slightly organic, brown, gray and dark brown,
moist
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
brown, moist, medium dense (GLACIAL TILL)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, brown,
moist, stiff to very stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
2-2-2
(4)
8"
3-5-6
(11)
10"
2-2-7
(9)
11"
1-2-3
(5)
10"
2-6-2
(8)
5"
4-10-6
(16)
9"
4-5-6
(11)
16"
4-11-11
(22)
18"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
12
13
14
Tests or Remarks
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-5
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110471.0 EASTING:503952.7
DRILLER:G. Scallon LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:901.6 ft RIG:7505 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Sunny
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-5 page 1 of 1DRAFT
205
Item 3.
548
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
895.2
1.4
892.6
4.0
889.6
7.0
884.6
12.0
878.6
18.0
868.6
28.0
864.6
32.0
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 6 inches of bituminous over 10
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, trace Gravel, dark brown, moist
FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel,
grayish brown, moist
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, gray, moist
Asphalt debris at 8 feet
ORGANIC CLAY layer at 10 feet
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel,
brownish brown (ALLUVIUM)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
with Sand seams, brown and gray, moist,
medium dense (GLACIAL OUTWASH)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, with Clay seams,
brown, wet, medium dense (GLACIAL
OUTWASH)
Continued on next page
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
2-7-6
(13)
8"
2-2-7
(9)
12"
10-12-13
(25)
18"
10-4-3
(7)
14"
3-3-3
(6)
14"
2-2-4
(6)
12"
3-6-6
(12)
14"
6-7-8
(15)
16"
2-6-10
(16)
18"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
13
18
Tests or Remarks
P200=39%
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-6
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110350.5 EASTING:503991.8
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/17/24 END DATE:04/17/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:896.6 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Overcast
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-6 page 1 of 2DRAFT
206
Item 3.
549
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
855.6
41.0
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel,
reddish brown, moist, very stiff to hard
(GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
35
40
45
50
55
60
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
6-7-10
(17)
18"
35-19-20
(39)
10"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%Tests or Remarks
Water observed at 30.0 feet
while drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-6
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110350.5 EASTING:503991.8
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/17/24 END DATE:04/17/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:896.6 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Overcast
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-6 page 2 of 2DRAFT
207
Item 3.
550
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
891.5
0.7
878.2
14.0
874.2
18.0
870.2
22.0
867.7
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace roots, dark brown,
moist (TOPSOIL FILL)
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, trace Gravel, brown to dark brown,
moist
Black CLAY layer at 5 feet
With Limestone fragments at 10 feet
LEAN CLAY (CL), light gray, moist, stiff
(ALLUVIUM)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, brown, wet,
soft (ALLUVIUM)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, reddish
brown, moist, stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
1-3-4
(7)
15"
7-7-7
(14)
16"
5-6-15
(21)
14"
6-6-11
(17)
10"
2-3-3
(6)
0"
3-5-5
(10)
16"
1-1-2
(3)
18"
3-5-7
(12)
16"
qₚ
tsf
0.5
MC
%
13
14
26
19
Tests or Remarks
OC=2%
No recovery
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-7
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110264.5 EASTING:504096.9
DRILLER:M. Takada LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/19/24 END DATE:04/19/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:892.2 ft RIG:7505 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Cloudy/Sun
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-7 page 1 of 1DRAFT
208
Item 3.
551
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
894.4
0.5
882.9
12.0
880.9
14.0
870.4
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), with roots, dark brown,
moist (TOPSOIL FILL)
FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, non to
slightly organic, dark brown, moist
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine-grained, trace
Gravel, dark brown, moist
FILL: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel,
brown to dark brown, moist
Trace brick fragments at 15 feet
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
3-3-4
(7)
15"
4-4-4
(8)
16"
5-7-6
(13)
16"
6-7-7
(14)
16"
10-8-9
(17)
16"
10-10-9
(19)
12"
7-8-10
(18)
0"
9-9-10
(19)
3"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
17
15
26
Tests or Remarks
OC=3%
OC=3%
No recovery
Possible cobbles below 20
feet
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-8
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110521.4 EASTING:504060.0
DRILLER:M. Takada LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/19/24 END DATE:04/19/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:894.9 ft RIG:7505 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Cloudy/Snow
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-8 page 1 of 1DRAFT
209
Item 3.
552
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
892.4
1.0
889.4
4.0
886.4
7.0
881.4
12.0
875.4
18.0
871.4
22.0
868.9
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 4 1/2 inches of bituminous over 8
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, brown, moist
FILL: LEAN CLAY (CL), trace roots, slightly
organic, black, wet
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, grayish
brown, moist, medium (GLACIAL TILL)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, loose to
medium dense (GLACIAL TILL)
CLAY layer at 15 feet
LEAN CLAY (CL), reddish brown, moist, very
stiff (GLACIOFLUVIUM)
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to
medium-grained, brown, moist, medium dense
(GLACIAL OUTWASH)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
3-6-3
(9)
10"
1-2-2
(4)
12"
2-2-3
(5)
14"
2-3-4
(7)
16"
4-4-5
(9)
14"
4-5-15
(20)
14"
4-7-9
(16)
18"
8-12-14
(26)
18"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
23
16
Tests or Remarks
OC=4%
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-9
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110528.4 EASTING:504224.3
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/15/24 END DATE:04/15/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:893.4 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-9 page 1 of 1DRAFT
210
Item 3.
553
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
892.4
1.2
889.6
4.0
886.6
7.0
884.6
9.0
875.6
18.0
869.1
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 4 1/2 inches of bituminous over 10
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-
SM), fine to medium-grained, trace Gravel,
brown, moist
LEAN CLAY (CL), with Sand, and roots, grayish
brown, moist, medium (ALLUVIUM)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine-grained, trace Gravel,
reddish brown, moist, medium dense (GLACIAL
TILL)
LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, moist, stiff to very stiff
(GLACIOFLUVIUM)
Sand seams at 13 feet
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown to
reddish brown, wet, medium dense (GLACIAL
OUTWASH)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
2-3-3
(6)
12"
1-2-4
(6)
12"
4-7-13
(20)
14"
6-8-8
(16)
14"
2-6-9
(15)
16"
3-5-5
(10)
14"
5-13-12
(25)
12"
6-8-8
(16)
16"
qₚ
tsf
1.5
MC
%
27
22
Tests or Remarks
Water observed at 18.0 feet
while drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-10
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110519.3 EASTING:504395.9
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/15/24 END DATE:04/15/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:893.6 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-10 page 1 of 1DRAFT
211
Item 3.
554
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
894.5
1.2
891.7
4.0
888.7
7.0
881.7
14.0
876.7
19.0
873.7
22.0
871.2
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 5 inches of bituminous over 9
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, trace Gravel, dark brown, moist
FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, non to
slightly organic, dark brown, moist
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, trace to with Gravel, brown to gray,
moist
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
with Clay seams, trace Gravel, brown, moist,
loose (GLACIAL TILL)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, with Gravel, light
brown, moist, medium dense (GLACIAL
OUTWASH)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
with Clay lenses, trace Gravel, brown, moist,
medium dense (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
6-10-10
(20)
14"
13-8-8
(16)
14"
10-12-11
(23)
12"
26-13-14
(27)
0"
5-4-5
(9)
16"
2-4-6
(10)
18"
6-10-13
(23)
12"
9-9-11
(20)
18"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
8
12
Tests or Remarks
OC=2%
Possible cobbles at 10 feet
No recovery
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-11
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110434.5 EASTING:504015.9
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/17/24 END DATE:04/17/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:895.7 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Overcast
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-11 page 1 of 1DRAFT
212
Item 3.
555
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
892.9
1.3
890.2
4.0
885.2
9.0
880.2
14.0
876.2
18.0
869.7
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 2 1/2 inches of bituminous over 13
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC), with Gravel, dark
brown, moist
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, trace Gravel, brown to dark brown,
moist
FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, dark
brown, moist
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, moist, stiff
(GLACIOFLUVIUM)
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel, brown
to gray, moist, stiff to very stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
3-6-9
(15)
14"
6-7-12
(19)
14"
5-6-11
(17)
16"
3-5-6
(11)
18"
4-6-8
(14)
16"
2-4-7
(11)
16"
3-4-5
(9)
18"
5-6-13
(19)
18"
qₚ
tsf
2.5
MC
%
8
9
11
9
Tests or Remarks
P200=28%
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-12
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110430.1 EASTING:504155.2
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/15/24 END DATE:04/15/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:894.2 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-12 page 1 of 1DRAFT
213
Item 3.
556
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
892.2
1.2
889.4
4.0
886.4
7.0
875.4
18.0
870.4
23.0
865.4
28.0
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 5 inches of bituminous over 11
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC), non to slightly
organic, dark brown, moist
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown,
moist to wet, medium dense to dense
(GLACIAL OUTWASH)
CLAY layers at 10 feet
Wet at 15 feet
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, reddish
brown, moist, very stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
LEAN CLAY (CL), with Sand seams, reddish
brown, moist, hard (GLACIOFLUVIUM)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist to wet,
medium dense to very dense (GLACIAL TILL)
Continued on next page
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
2-4-7
(11)
12"
9-6-8
(14)
12"
12-10-11
(21)
14"
7-6-10
(16)
14"
10-18-17
(35)
16"
11-8-11
(19)
14"
10-11-13
(24)
16"
10-15-20
(35)
18"
12-14-12
(26)
14"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
12
12
6
Tests or Remarks
OC=3%
P200=10%
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-13
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110432.4 EASTING:504322.2
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/15/24 END DATE:04/15/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:893.4 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-13 page 1 of 2DRAFT
214
Item 3.
557
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
852.4
41.0
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist to wet,
medium dense to very dense (GLACIAL TILL)
Wet at 40 feet
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
35
40
45
50
55
60
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
10-12-14
(26)
12"
50/4"
(REF)
2"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%Tests or Remarks
Water observed at 15.0 feet
while drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-13
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110432.4 EASTING:504322.2
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/15/24 END DATE:04/15/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:893.4 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-13 page 2 of 2DRAFT
215
Item 3.
558
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
891.7
1.2
888.9
4.0
885.9
7.0
883.9
9.0
874.9
18.0
868.4
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 4 inches of bituminous over 10
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-
SM), fine to medium-grained, brown, moist
FILL: LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel, and
roots, slightly organic, black, moist
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose (GLACIAL
TILL)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown,
moist to wet, loose (GLACIAL OUTWASH)
Clay seams at 10 feet
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, reddish
brown, moist, very stiff to hard (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
4-5-5
(10)
12"
2-4-6
(10)
14"
3-4-5
(9)
12"
2-3-6
(9)
14"
3-6-4
(10)
12"
4-4-3
(7)
12"
7-10-13
(23)
16"
50/5"
(REF)
4"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
15
11
12
Tests or Remarks
OC=3%
Wet at 12 feet
Water observed at 12.0 feet
while drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-14
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110431.9 EASTING:504459.2
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/16/24 END DATE:04/16/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:892.9 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Overcast/Rain
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-14 page 1 of 1DRAFT
216
Item 3.
559
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
892.9
0.7
881.1
12.5
879.6
14.0
871.6
22.0
869.1
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 4 inches of bituminous over 4.5
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, trace roots, non to slightly organic,
dark brown and brown, moist
Clay seams and trace roots at 8 feet
LEAN CLAY (CL), with Sand, brown, moist,
medium (ALLUVIUM)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, gray and
brown, moist, medium to stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
2-5-7
(12)
12"
9-9-10
(19)
18"
8-8-7
(15)
18"
3-6-7
(13)
16"
2-3-5
(8)
18"
3-3-3
(6)
16"
2-3-6
(9)
16"
6-10-14
(24)
18"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
9
14
Tests or Remarks
OC=2%
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-15
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110334.3 EASTING:504095.2
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/17/24 END DATE:04/17/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:893.6 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Overcast
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-15 page 1 of 1DRAFT
217
Item 3.
560
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
890.0
1.3
884.3
7.0
882.3
9.0
879.3
12.0
877.3
14.0
866.8
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 4 inches of bituminous over 12
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, trace Gravel, brown to dark brown,
moist
Clay seams at 5 feet
FILL: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), brown and
gray, moist
CLAYEY SAND (SC), with Sand seams, light
gray, moist (GLACIAL TILL)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
with Clay seams, brown, moist, medium dense
(GLACIAL TILL)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, reddish
brown, moist, stiff to very stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
6-8-11
(19)
16"
3-8-11
(19)
14"
4-4-7
(11)
16"
4-5-6
(11)
18"
5-12-17
(29)
18"
5-7-11
(18)
18"
6-6-5
(11)
14"
10-10-5
(15)
18"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
8
16
Tests or Remarks
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-16
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110334.4 EASTING:504267.2
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/17/24 END DATE:04/17/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:891.3 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Overcasr
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-16 page 1 of 1DRAFT
218
Item 3.
561
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
890.2
1.3
884.5
7.0
882.5
9.0
879.5
12.0
867.0
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 5 inches of bituminous over 10
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, non to slightly organic, black, moist
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel, grayish
brown, moist, stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, reddish
brown, moist, stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, loose to
very dense (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
4-7-6
(13)
14"
6-12-10
(22)
6"
3-5-4
(9)
14"
2-5-5
(10)
12"
2-4-6
(10)
14"
7-8-8
(16)
14"
50/5"
(REF)
2"
20-20-17
(37)
16"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
10
18
13
Tests or Remarks
OC=2%
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-17
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110325.7 EASTING:504441.3
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/16/24 END DATE:04/16/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:891.5 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Overcast/Rain
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-17 page 1 of 1DRAFT
219
Item 3.
562
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
888.1
1.0
882.1
7.0
877.1
12.0
875.1
14.0
870.1
19.0
867.1
22.0
864.6
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 4 1/2 inches of bituminous over 8
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel, brown,
moist, stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine-grained, trace Gravel,
reddish brown, moist, medium dense (GLACIAL
TILL)
LEAN CLAY (CL), with Sand, and Silt lenses,
brown, moist, very stiff (GLACIOFLUVIUM)
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to
medium-grained, brown, wet, loose (GLACIAL
OUTWASH)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine-grained, trace Gravel,
reddish brown, wet, loose (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
4-8-10
(18)
16"
15-12-11
(23)
0"
5-6-5
(11)
14"
4-5-9
(14)
16"
7-11-10
(21)
18"
5-10-10
(20)
16"
1-5-5
(10)
16"
2-4-6
(10)
18"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
6
12
Tests or Remarks
Water observed at 17.0 feet
while drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-18
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110265.0 EASTING:504188.3
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/17/24 END DATE:04/17/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:889.1 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Overcast
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-18 page 1 of 1DRAFT
220
Item 3.
563
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
890.0
1.0
887.0
4.0
882.0
9.0
872.0
19.0
866.5
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 4 1/2 inches of bituminous over 8
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, non to
slightly organic, dark brown, moist
CLAYEY SAND (SC), with Sand seams, trace
Gravel, brown, moist, stiff to very stiff (GLACIAL
TILL)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense to dense (GLACIAL TILL)
Clay seams at 10 feet
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, trace Gravel, reddish
brown, moist, medium dense to dense
(GLACIAL OUTWASH)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
5-5-6
(11)
14"
6-5-6
(11)
12"
6-9-9
(18)
16"
6-12-20
(32)
16"
11-11-12
(23)
14"
6-8-10
(18)
16"
10-14-12
(26)
16"
10-20-15
(35)
16"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
12
14
Tests or Remarks
OC=2%
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-19
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110227.0 EASTING:504470.1
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/16/24 END DATE:04/16/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:891.0 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Rain
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-19 page 1 of 1DRAFT
221
Item 3.
564
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
885.9
0.4
879.3
7.0
873.8
12.5
864.3
22.0
861.8
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 5 inches of bituminous
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, trace Gravel, dark brown, moist
Asphalt debris at 3 feet
Slightly organic at 5 feet
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, reddish
brown, moist, stiff (GLACIAL TILL)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, brown, wet, loose to
medium dense (GLACIAL OUTWASH)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, loose
(GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
3-9-12
(21)
16"
1-2-2
(4)
15"
4-5-6
(11)
16"
8-7-8
(15)
0"
3-4-5
(9)
14"
15-10-8
(18)
0"
3-9-5
(14)
12"
3-4-4
(8)
18"
qₚ
tsf
2
MC
%
19
Tests or Remarks
OC=3%
Wet at 12 feet
Water observed at 12.5 feet
while drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-20
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110147.4 EASTING:504181.9
DRILLER:M. Takada LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/19/24 END DATE:04/19/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:886.3 ft RIG:7505 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Cloudy
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-20 page 1 of 1DRAFT
222
Item 3.
565
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
886.9
1.3
879.2
9.0
874.2
14.0
869.2
19.0
863.7
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 4 inches of bituminous over 12
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine-grained, grayish
brown to dark brown, moist
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to
medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist to
wet, loose (GLACIAL OUTWASH)
Clay seams at 13 feet
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense (GLACIAL TILL)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, trace Gravel, Clay
seams and layers, brown, moist, medium
dense (GLACIAL OUTWASH)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
11-8-9
(17)
12"
2-2-5
(7)
12"
3-3-3
(6)
4"
4-4-6
(10)
12"
2-2-4
(6)
12"
6-8-8
(16)
12"
10-10-11
(21)
14"
6-9-10
(19)
12"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
13
12
11
Tests or Remarks
OC=2%
Wet at 13 feet
Water observed at 13.0 feet
while drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-21
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110200.5 EASTING:504306.2
DRILLER:K. Caudill LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/19/24 END DATE:04/19/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:888.2 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Cloudy
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-21 page 1 of 1DRAFT
223
Item 3.
566
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
888.5
0.9
882.4
7.0
880.4
9.0
870.4
19.0
864.9
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 4 inches of bituminous over 7
inches of apparent aggregate base
FILL: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace roots,
and Gravel, slightly organic, dark brown, moist
FILL: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), with Sand
seams, gray, moist
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense (GLACIAL TILL)
Sand seams at 10 feet
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, trace Gravel, reddish
brown, moist to wet, medium dense (GLACIAL
OUTWASH)
Wet at 23 feet
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
2-3-4
(7)
12"
4-3-2
(5)
14"
2-2-3
(5)
12"
3-10-7
(17)
14"
7-10-12
(22)
14"
6-10-8
(18)
16"
6-11-10
(21)
14"
5-10-8
(18)
18"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
20
19
Tests or Remarks
OC=2%
Water observed at 23.0 feet
while drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-22
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110136.3 EASTING:504433.4
DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/16/24 END DATE:04/16/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:889.4 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Rain
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-22 page 1 of 1DRAFT
224
Item 3.
567
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
886.4
0.7
880.1
7.0
878.1
9.0
875.1
12.0
862.6
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, dark brown,
moist (TOPSOIL FILL)
FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, dark
brown to gray, moist
Asphalt debris at 5 feet
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-
grained, with Gravel, brown, moist
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, brown,
moist (ALLUVIUM)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace to with Gravel, brown to reddish brown,
wet, medium dense to very dense (GLACIAL
TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
2-3-4
(7)
15"
1-2-2
(4)
12"
10-9-9
(18)
3"
2-3-3
(6)
12"
7-7-8
(15)
12"
2-5-8
(13)
14"
4-8-6
(14)
16"
33-38-19
(57)
12"
qₚ
tsf
0.5
MC
%
14
10
20
Tests or Remarks
Wet at 12 feet
P200=26%
Water observed at 12.5 feet
while drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-23
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110012.7 EASTING:504133.8
DRILLER:G. Scallon LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:887.1 ft RIG:7505 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Cloudy
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-23 page 1 of 1DRAFT
225
Item 3.
568
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
886.9
1.0
883.9
4.0
880.9
7.0
875.9
12.0
865.9
22.0
863.4
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
PAVEMENT, 2 1/2 inches of bituminous over 10
inches of apparent aggregate base
ORGANIC CLAY (OL), black, wet (SWAMP
DEPOSIT)
PEAT (PT), black, wet (SWAMP DEPOSIT)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), with Sand seams, trace
Gravel, reddish brown, moist, stiff (GLACIAL
TILL)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense to dense (GLACIAL TILL)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to coarse-grained, trace Gravel, reddish
brown, wet, dense (GLACIAL OUTWASH)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
1-2-4
(6)
12"
2-1-2
(3)
14"
3-5-7
(12)
14"
5-7-12
(19)
14"
7-13-14
(27)
14"
7-14-18
(32)
12"
10-7-9
(16)
14"
8-15-17
(32)
14"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
62
11
9
Tests or Remarks
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-24
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110003.0 EASTING:504360.3
DRILLER:K. Caudill LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/19/24 END DATE:04/19/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:887.9 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Cloudy
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-24 page 1 of 1DRAFT
226
Item 3.
569
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
893.2
0.8
882.0
12.0
875.0
19.0
872.0
22.0
869.5
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
LEAN CLAY (CL), with roots, black, moist
(TOPSOIL)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace Gravel, brown,
moist, medium (GLACIAL TILL)
Trace roots at 2 1/2 feet
Sand seams at 10 feet
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
reddish brown, moist, medium dense (GLACIAL
TILL)
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to
medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist,
medium dense (GLACIAL OUTWASH)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
with Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
1-2-3
(5)
14"
2-3-5
(8)
12"
5-3-4
(7)
12"
2-3-5
(8)
14"
3-12-13
(25)
12"
10-10-12
(22)
12"
4-8-11
(19)
10"
9-14-15
(29)
12"
qₚ
tsf
0.75
1
MC
%
16
11
Tests or Remarks
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-25
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:110000.4 EASTING:504587.9
DRILLER:K. Caudill LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:894.0 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Cloudy
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-25 page 1 of 1DRAFT
227
Item 3.
570
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
884.4
2.0
882.4
4.0
879.4
7.0
872.4
14.0
868.4
18.0
861.9
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
ORGANIC CLAY (OL), black, moist (TOPSOIL)
ORGANIC CLAY (OL), black, wet (SWAMP
DEPOSIT)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, brown, moist, loose
(ALLUVIUM)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense to dense (GLACIAL TILL)
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to
medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, dry,
medium dense (GLACIAL OUTWASH)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense to dense (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
2-2-2
(4)
10"
3-3-4
(7)
12"
8-12-14
(26)
12"
8-10-14
(24)
14"
12-17-18
(35)
14"
9-12-17
(29)
14"
7-8-8
(16)
12"
12-15-17
(32)
8"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
85
14
10
Tests or Remarks
OC=16%
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-26
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:109923.1 EASTING:504260.0
DRILLER:K. Caudill LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:886.4 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Cloudy
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-26 page 1 of 1DRAFT
228
Item 3.
571
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
888.2
1.3
885.5
4.0
880.5
9.0
870.5
19.0
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
CLAYEY SAND (SC), with roots, dark brown,
moist (TOPSOIL FILL)
FILL: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel,
brown to dark brown, moist
PEAT (PT), black, wet (SWAMP DEPOSIT)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, dry
to moist, loose to medium dense (GLACIAL
OUTWASH)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense to very dense (GLACIAL TILL)
Clay seams at 25 feet
Continued on next page
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
1-2-4
(6)
14"
2-2-3
(5)
12"
2-1-2
(3)
14"
19-13-11
(24)
10"
3-5-5
(10)
14"
12-9-8
(17)
14"
5-8-15
(23)
12"
10-12-13
(25)
14"
18-23-28
(51)
14"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
15
138
4
Tests or Remarks
OC=28%
P200=8%
Wet at 12 1/2 feet
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-27
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:109914.6 EASTING:504447.0
DRILLER:M. Takada LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:889.5 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Cloudy
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-27 page 1 of 2DRAFT
229
Item 3.
572
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
848.5
41.0
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense to very dense (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
35
40
45
50
55
60
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
10-27-30
(57)
17-30-50/5"
(REF)
qₚ
tsf
MC
%Tests or Remarks
Water observed at 12.5 feet
while drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-27
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:109914.6 EASTING:504447.0
DRILLER:M. Takada LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:889.5 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Cloudy
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-27 page 2 of 2DRAFT
230
Item 3.
573
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
886.2
1.2
883.4
4.0
880.4
7.0
869.4
18.0
862.9
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
LEAN CLAY (CL), with roots, dark brown, moist
(TOPSOIL FILL)
FILL: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel,
non to slightly organic, brown and dark brown,
moist
ORGANIC CLAY with SAND (OL), black, wet
(SWAMP DEPOSIT)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense (GLACIAL TILL)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, with Clay lenses,
reddish brown, wet, medium dense (GLACIAL
OUTWASH)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
2-1-3
(4)
10"
2-2-3
(5)
12"
5-7-12
(19)
14"
12-13-15
(28)
14"
7-7-11
(18)
14"
8-6-7
(13)
16"
4-7-10
(17)
14"
8-12-34
(46)
14"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
14
10
Tests or Remarks
OC=2%
Water observed at 20.0 feet
while drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-28
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:109834.3 EASTING:504121.7
DRILLER:M. Takada LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:887.4 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Cloudy
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-28 page 1 of 1DRAFT
231
Item 3.
574
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
889.0
0.7
885.7
4.0
881.7
8.0
879.7
10.0
870.7
19.0
867.7
22.0
865.2
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine-grained, with roots,
dark brown, wet (TOPSOIL)
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine-grained,
gray, wet (SWAMP DEPOSIT)
PEAT (PT), with roots, black, wet (SWAMP
DEPOSIT)
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to
medium-grained, brown to reddish brown,
moist, loose (ALLUVIUM)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense (GLACIAL TILL)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine to medium-grained, trace Gravel, reddish
brown, wet, medium dense (GLACIAL
OUTWASH)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
with Gravel, reddish brown, wet, dense
(GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
1-2-3
(5)
12"
1-1-2
(3)
12"
0-2-3
(5)
12"
3-5-8
(13)
14"
4-8-11
(19)
14"
7-9-13
(22)
14"
4-6-9
(15)
12"
5-9-37
(46)
14"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
23
181
Tests or Remarks
P200=5%
OC=31%
Temporary piezometer
installed to 14 1/2 feet
Water not observed while
drilling.
Water observed at 14.1 feet
in temporary piezometer
when rechecked on
05/08/2024.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-29
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:109833.0 EASTING:504357.8
DRILLER:M. Takada LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:889.7 ft RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Cloudy
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-29 page 1 of 1DRAFT
232
Item 3.
575
Item 7.
Elev./
Depth
ft
893.6
0.5
887.1
7.0
882.1
12.0
875.1
19.0
872.1
22.0
869.6
24.5
Wat
e
r
Le
v
e
l
Description of Materials
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM
1110-1-2908)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
with roots, dark brown, moist (TOPSOIL FILL)
FILL: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel,
non to slightly organic, light brown to dark
brown, moist
PEAT (PT), with roots, brown, wet (SWAMP
DEPOSIT)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, brown to reddish brown, moist,
medium dense (GLACIAL TILL)
Clay seams at 15 feet
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM),
fine-grained, reddish brown, wet, very dense
(GLACIAL OUTWASH)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained,
with Gravel, reddish brown, moist, medium
dense (GLACIAL TILL)
END OF BORING
Boring then grouted
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sa
m
p
l
e
Blows
(N-Value)
Recovery
1-3-4
(7)
12"
2-3-5
(8)
12"
2-2-3
(5)
12"
1-2-3
(5)
12"
3-4-8
(12)
12"
9-10-11
(21)
14"
14-22-29
(51)
12"
9-11-13
(24)
12"
qₚ
tsf
MC
%
17
19
105
Tests or Remarks
OC=3%
OC=21%
Water not observed while
drilling.
LOG OF BORING
See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations
Project Number B2402585.00
Geotechnical Evaluation
Columbia Heights Master Development
800 53rd Avenue Northeast
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
BORING:ST-30
LOCATION: Captured with RTK GPS.
DATUM:NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Anoka (US Feet)
NORTHING:109833.0 EASTING:504598.6
DRILLER:M. Takada LOGGED BY:I. Becket START DATE:04/18/24 END DATE:04/18/24
SURFACE
ELEVATION:894.1 ft RIG:75011 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Grass WEATHER:Cloudy
B2402585.00 Braun Intertec Corporation Print Date:05/09/2024 ST-30 page 1 of 1DRAFT
233
Item 3.
576
Item 7.
Descriptive Terminology of Soil
Based on Standards ASTM D2487/2488
(Unified Soil Classification System)
Group
Symbol Group NameB
Cu ≥ 4 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3D GW Well‐graded gravelE
Cu < 4 and/or (Cc < 1 or Cc > 3)D GP Poorly graded gravelE
Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelE F G
Fines Classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelE F G
Cu ≥ 6 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3D SW Well‐graded sandI
Cu < 6 and/or (Cc < 1 or Cc > 3)D SP Poorly graded sandI
Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandF G I
Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandF G I
CL Lean clayK L M
PI < 4 or plots below "A" lineJ ML SiltK L M
Organic OL
CH Fat clayK L M
MH Elastic siltK L M
Organic OH
PT Peat Highly Organic Soils
Silts and Clays
(Liquid limit less than
50)
Silts and Clays
(Liquid limit 50 or
more)
Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor
Inorganic
Inorganic
PI > 7 and plots on or above "A" lineJ
PI plots on or above "A" line
PI plots below "A" line
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and
Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA
Soil Classification
Co
a
r
s
e
‐gr
a
i
n
e
d
So
i
l
s
(m
o
r
e
th
a
n
50
%
re
t
a
i
n
e
d
on
No
.
20
0
si
e
v
e
)
Fi
n
e
‐gr
a
i
n
e
d
So
i
l
s
(5
0
%
or
mo
r
e
pa
s
s
e
s
th
e
No
.
20
0
si
e
v
e
)
Sands
(50% or more coarse
fraction passes No. 4
sieve)
Clean Gravels
(Less than 5% finesC)
Gravels with Fines
(More than 12% finesC)
Clean Sands
(Less than 5% finesH)
Sands with Fines
(More than 12% finesH)
Gravels
(More than 50% of
coarse fraction
retained on No. 4
sieve)
Liquid Limit − oven dried
Liquid Limit − not dried <0.75 Organic clay K L M N
Organic silt K L M O
Liquid Limit − oven dried
Liquid Limit − not dried <0.75 Organic clay K L M P
Organic silt K L M Q
ParticleSize Identification
Boulders.............. over 12"
Cobbles................ 3" to 12"
Gravel
Coarse............. 3/4" to 3" (19.00 mm to 75.00 mm)
Fine................. No. 4 to 3/4" (4.75 mm to 19.00 mm)
Sand
Coarse.............. No. 10 to No. 4 (2.00 mm to 4.75 mm)
Medium........... No. 40 to No. 10 (0.425 mm to 2.00 mm)
Fine.................. No. 200 to No. 40 (0.075 mm to 0.425 mm)
Silt........................ No. 200 (0.075 mm) to .005 mm
Clay...................... < .005 mm
Relative ProportionsL, M
trace............................. 0 to 5%
little.............................. 6 to 14%
with.............................. ≥ 15%
Inclusion Thicknesses
lens............................... 0 to 1/8"
seam............................. 1/8" to 1"
layer.............................. over 1"
Apparent Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils
Very loose ..................... 0 to 4 BPF
Loose ............................ 5 to 10 BPF
Medium dense.............. 11 to 30 BPF
Dense............................ 31 to 50 BPF
Very dense.................... over 50 BPF
A. Based on the material passing the 3‐inch (75‐mm) sieve.
B. If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders,
or both" to group name.
C. Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:
GW‐GM well‐graded gravel with silt
GW‐GC well‐graded gravel with clay
GP‐GM poorly graded gravel with silt
GP‐GC poorly graded gravel with clay
D. Cu = D60 / D10 Cc = 𝐷30 2 / ሺ𝐷10 𝑥 𝐷60)
E. If soil contains ≥ 15% sand, add "with sand" to group name.
F. If fines classify as CL‐ML, use dual symbol GC‐GM or SC‐SM.
G. If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name.
H. Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:
SW‐SM well‐graded sand with silt
SW‐SC well‐graded sand with clay
SP‐SM poorly graded sand with silt
SP‐SC poorly graded sand with clay
I. If soil contains ≥ 15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name.
J. If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is CL‐ML, silty clay.
K. If soil contains 15 to < 30% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with gravel", whichever is
predominant.
L. If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.
M. If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to group name.
N. PI ≥ 4 and plots on or above “A” line.
O. PI < 4 or plots below “A” line.
P. PI plots on or above “A” line.
Q. PI plots below “A” line.
Laboratory Tests
DD Dry density,pcf qp Pocket penetrometer strength, tsf
WD Wet density, pcf qU Unconfined compression test, tsf
P200 % Passing #200 sieve LL Liquid limit
MC Moisture content, %PL Plastic limit
OC Organic content, %PI Plasticity index
Consistency of Blows Approximate Unconfined
Cohesive Soils Per Foot Compressive Strength
Very soft................... 0 to 1 BPF................... < 0.25 tsf
Soft........................... 2 to 4 BPF................... 0.25 to 0.5 tsf
Medium.................... 5to 8 BPF .................. 0.5 to 1 tsf
Stiff........................... 9 to 15 BPF................. 1 to 2 tsf
Very Stiff................... 16 to 30 BPF............... 2 to 4 tsf
Hard.......................... over 30 BPF................ > 4 tsf
Drilling Notes:
Blows/N‐value: Blows indicatethe driving resistance recorded
for each 6‐inch interval. The reported N‐value is the blows per
foot recorded by summing the second and third interval in
accordance with the Standard Penetration Test, ASTM D1586.
PartialPenetration:If the sampler could not be driven
through a full 6‐inch interval, the number of blows for that
partial penetration is shown as #/x" (i.e. 50/2"). The N‐value is
reported as "REF" indicating refusal.
Recovery: Indicates the inches of sample recovered from the
sampled interval. For a standard penetration test, full recovery
is 18", and is 24" for a thinwall/shelby tube sample.
WOH: Indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of
hammer and rods alone; driving not required.
WOR: Indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of
rods alone; hammer weight and driving not required.
Water Level: Indicates the water level measured by the
drillers either while drilling ( ), at the end of drilling ( ),
or at some time after drilling ( ).
Moisture Content:
Dry:Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch.
Moist: Damp but no visible water.
Wet: Visible free water, usually soil is below water table.
5/2021
234
Item 3.
577
Item 7.
235
Item 3.
578
Item 7.
236
Item 3.
579
Item 7.
237
Item 3.
580
Item 7.
238
Item 3.
581
Item 7.
239
Item 3.
582
Item 7.
240
Item 3.
583
Item 7.
241
Item 3.
584
Item 7.
242
Item 3.
585
Item 7.
243
Item 3.
586
Item 7.
244
Item 3.
587
Item 7.
245
Item 3.
588
Item 7.
246
Item 3.
589
Item 7.
247
Item 3.
590
Item 7.
248
Item 3.
591
Item 7.
249
Item 3.
592
Item 7.
250
Item 3.
593
Item 7.
251
Item 3.
594
Item 7.
252
Item 3.
595
Item 7.
253
Item 3.
596
Item 7.
254
Item 3.
597
Item 7.
255
Item 3.
598
Item 7.
256
Item 3.
599
Item 7.
257
Item 3.
600
Item 7.
258
Item 3.
601
Item 7.
259
Item 3.
602
Item 7.
260
Item 3.
603
Item 7.
CH - 800 53rd Ave Apts
MCE #: 2025-00353
Page 1 of 4
Formal Natural Heritage Review - Cover Page
See next page for results of review. A draft watermark means the project details
have not been finalized and the results are not official.
Project Name: CH - 800 53rd Ave Apts
Project Proposer: Lincoln Avenue Communities
Project Type: Development, Residential
Project Type Activities: Structure Removal or Bridge Removal
TRS: T30 R24 S26
County(s): Anoka
DNR Admin Region(s): Central
Reason Requested: State EAW
Project Description: redevelopment of existing commercial site to residential. Remove existing building &
parking lot and construct new apartment buildings and townhomes.
Existing Land Uses: Office building with parking lot
Landcover / Habitat Impacted: paved surfaces
Waterbodies Affected: Existing pond receives current runoff. Storm sewer system will be upgraded and
improved with current standards.
Groundwater Resources Affected: No affects to groundwater anticipated.
Previous Natural Heritage Review: No
Previous Habitat Assessments / Surveys: No
SUMMARY OF AUTOMATED RESULTS
Category Results Response By Category
Project Details No Comments No Further Review Required
Ecologically Significant Area No Comments No Further Review Required
State-Listed Endangered or
Threatened Species
Needs Further
Review
State-protected Species - Needs Further
Review
State-Listed Species of Special
Concern
Comments Recommendations
Federally Listed Species No Records Visit IPaC For Federal Review
4/10/2025 01:21 PM
261
Item 3.
604
Item 7.
CH - 800 53rd Ave Apts
MCE #: 2025-00353
Page 2 of 4
April 10, 2025
Project Name: CH - 800 53rd Ave Apts
Project Proposer: Lincoln Avenue Communities
Project Type: Development, Residential
Project ID: MCE #2025-00353
AUTOMATED RESULTS: FURTHER REVIEW IS NEEDED
As requested, the above project has undergone an automated review for potential impacts to rare features.
Based on this review, one or more rare features may be impacted by the proposed project and further
review by the Natural Heritage Review Team is needed. You will receive a separate notification email when
the review process is complete and the Natural Heritage Review letter has been posted.
Please refer to the table on the cover page of this report for a summary of potential impacts to rare features.
For additional information or planning purposes, use the Explore Page in Minnesota Conservation Explorer
to view the potentially impacted rare features or to create a Conservation Planning Report for the proposed
project.
If you have additional information to help resolve the potential impacts listed in the summary results, please
attach related project documentation in the Edit Details tab of the Project page. Relevant information
includes, but is not limited to, additional project details, completed habitat assessments, or survey results.
This additional information will be considered during the project review.
4/10/2025 01:21 PM
262
Item 3.
605
Item 7.
CH - 800 53rd Ave Apts
MCE #: 2025-00353
Page 3 of 4
4/10/2025 01:21 PM
263
Item 3.
606
Item 7.
CH - 800 53rd Ave Apts
MCE #: 2025-00353
Page 4 of 4
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
4/10/2025 01:21 PM
264
Item 3.
607
Item 7.
265
Item 3.
608
Item 7.
04/10/2025 18:52:44 UTC
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office
3815 American Blvd East
Bloomington, MN 55425-1659
Phone: (952) 858-0793
In Reply Refer To:
Project code: 2025-0081694
Project Name: 800 53rd Avenue Apts.
Federal Nexus: no
Federal Action Agency (if applicable):
Subject:Record of project representative’s no effect determination for '800 53rd Avenue Apts.'
Dear todd mclouth:
This letter records your determination using the Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPaC) system provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on April 10, 2025, for
'800 53rd Avenue Apts.' (here forward, Project). This project has been assigned Project Code
2025-0081694 and all future correspondence should clearly reference this number. Please
carefully review this letter.
Ensuring Accurate Determinations When Using IPaC
The Service developed the IPaC system and associated species’ determination keys in accordance
with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) and based on a standing analysis. All information submitted by the Project proponent into
IPaC must accurately represent the full scope and details of the Project.
Failure to accurately represent or implement the Project as detailed in IPaC or the Northern
Long-eared Bat and Tricolored Bat Range-wide Determination Key (Dkey), invalidates this
letter. Answers to certain questions in the DKey commit the project proponent to
implementation of conservation measures that must be followed for the ESA determination to
remain valid.
Determination for the Northern Long-Eared Bat and/or Tricolored Bat
Based upon your IPaC submission and a standing analysis, your project has reached the
following effect determinations:
Species Listing Status Determination
Tricolored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus)Proposed
Endangered
No effect
266
Item 3.
609
Item 7.
Project code: 2025-0081694 IPaC Record Locator: 510-160485360 04/10/2025 18:52:44 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 01/08/2025 2 of 8
▪
▪
▪
Federal agencies must consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7(a)(2) of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) when an action may affect a listed species. Tricolored bat is
proposed for listing as endangered under the ESA, but not yet listed. For actions that may affect a
proposed species, agencies cannot consult, but they can confer under the authority of section 7(a)
(4) of the ESA. Such conferences can follow the procedures for a consultation and be adopted as
such if and when the proposed species is listed. Should the tricolored bat be listed, agencies must
review projects that are not yet complete, or projects with ongoing effects within the tricolored
bat range that previously received a NE or NLAA determination from the key to confirm that the
determination is still accurate.
To make a no effect determination, the full scope of the proposed project implementation (action)
should not have any effects (either positive or negative), to a federally listed species or
designated critical habitat. Effects of the action are all consequences to listed species or critical
habitat that are caused by the proposed action, including the consequences of other activities that
are caused by the proposed action. A consequence is caused by the proposed action if it would
not occur but for the proposed action and it is reasonably certain to occur. Effects of the action
may occur later in time and may include consequences occurring outside the immediate area
involved in the action. (See § 402.17).
Under Section 7 of the ESA, if a federal action agency makes a no effect determination, no
consultation with the Service is required (ESA §7). If a proposed Federal action may affect a
listed species or designated critical habitat, formal consultation is required except when the
Service concurs, in writing, that a proposed action "is not likely to adversely affect" listed species
or designated critical habitat [50 CFR §402.02, 50 CFR§402.13].
Other Species and Critical Habitat that May be Present in the Action Area
The IPaC-assisted determination key for the northern long-eared bat and tricolored bat does not
apply to the following ESA-protected species and/or critical habitat that also may occur in your
Action area:
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Proposed Threatened
Salamander Mussel Simpsonaias ambigua Proposed Endangered
Whooping Crane Grus americana Experimental Population, Non-Essential
You may coordinate with our Office to determine whether the Action may affect the animal
species listed above and, if so, how they may be affected.
Next Steps
If there are no updates on listed species, no further consultation/coordination for this project is
required with respect to the species covered by this key. However, the Service recommends that
project proponents re-evaluate the Project in IPaC if: 1) the scope, timing, duration, or location
of the Project changes (includes any project changes or amendments); 2) new information reveals
the Project may impact (positively or negatively) federally listed species or designated critical
267
Item 3.
610
Item 7.
Project code: 2025-0081694 IPaC Record Locator: 510-160485360 04/10/2025 18:52:44 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 01/08/2025 3 of 8
habitat; or 3) a new species is listed, or critical habitat designated. If any of the above conditions
occurs, additional coordination with the Service should take place to ensure compliance with the
Act.
If you have any questions regarding this letter or need further assistance, please contact the
Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office and reference Project Code
2025-0081694 associated with this Project.
268
Item 3.
611
Item 7.
Project code: 2025-0081694 IPaC Record Locator: 510-160485360 04/10/2025 18:52:44 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 01/08/2025 4 of 8
Action Description
You provided to IPaC the following name and description for the subject Action.
1. Name
800 53rd Avenue Apts.
2. Description
The following description was provided for the project '800 53rd Avenue Apts.':
redevelop existing office building and parking lot site to residential apartments
and townhomes.
The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/@45.06326885,-93.25043464759764,14z
269
Item 3.
612
Item 7.
Project code: 2025-0081694 IPaC Record Locator: 510-160485360 04/10/2025 18:52:44 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 01/08/2025 5 of 8
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DETERMINATION KEY RESULT
Based on the information you provided, you have determined that the Proposed Action will have
no effect on the species covered by this determination key. Therefore, no consultation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (87 Stat. 884, as amended 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is required for those species.
QUALIFICATION INTERVIEW
Does the proposed project include, or is it reasonably certain to cause, intentional take of
listed bats or any other listed species?
Note: Intentional take is defined as take that is the intended result of a project. Intentional take could refer to
research, direct species management, surveys, and/or studies that include intentional handling/encountering,
harassment, collection, or capturing of any individual of a federally listed threatened, endangered or proposed
species?
No
Is the action area wholly within Zone 2 of the year-round active area for northern long-
eared bat and/or tricolored bat?
Automatically answered
No
Does the action area intersect Zone 1 of the year-round active area for northern long-eared
bat and/or tricolored bat?
Automatically answered
No
Does any component of the action involve leasing, construction or operation of wind
turbines? Answer 'yes' if the activities considered are conducted with the intention of
gathering survey information to inform the leasing, construction, or operation of wind
turbines.
Note: For federal actions, answer ‘yes’ if the construction or operation of wind power facilities is either (1) part
of the federal action or (2) would not occur but for a federal agency action (federal permit, funding, etc.).
No
Is the proposed action authorized, permitted, licensed, funded, or being carried out by a
Federal agency in whole or in part?
No
[Semantic] Is the action area located within 0.5 miles of a known bat hibernaculum?
Note: The map queried for this question contains proprietary information and cannot be displayed. If you need
additional information, please contact your State wildlife agency.
Automatically answered
No
270
Item 3.
613
Item 7.
Project code: 2025-0081694 IPaC Record Locator: 510-160485360 04/10/2025 18:52:44 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 01/08/2025 6 of 8
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
▪
Does the action area contain any winter roosts or caves (or associated sinkholes, fissures,
or other karst features), mines, rocky outcroppings, or tunnels that could provide habitat
for hibernating bats?
No
Does the action area contain (1) talus or (2) anthropogenic or naturally formed rock
shelters or crevices in rocky outcrops, rock faces or cliffs?
No
Will the action cause effects to a bridge?
Note: Covered bridges should be considered as bridges in this question.
No
Will the action result in effects to a culvert or tunnel at any time of year?
No
Are trees present within 1000 feet of the action area?
Note: If there are trees within the action area that are of a sufficient size to be potential roosts for bats answer
"Yes". If unsure, additional information defining suitable summer habitat for the northern long-eared bat and
tricolored bat can be found in Appendix A of the USFWS’ Range-wide Indiana Bat and Northern long-eared bat
Survey Guidelines at: https://www.fws.gov/media/range-wide-indiana-bat-and-northern-long-eared-bat-survey-
guidelines.
No
Does the action area intersect the tricolored bat species list area?
Automatically answered
Yes
[Semantic] Is the action area located within 0.25 miles of a culvert that is known to be
occupied by northern long-eared or tricolored bats?
Note: The map queried for this question contains proprietary information and cannot be displayed. If you need
additional information, please contact your State wildlife agency.
Automatically answered
No
Do you have any documents that you want to include with this submission?
Yes
SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS
23226-AN-ALTA-06-02-23.pdf https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/
7XGYJYXO7FG75PT2F6EGTVGSX4/
projectDocuments/160485317
271
Item 3.
614
Item 7.
Project code: 2025-0081694 IPaC Record Locator: 510-160485360 04/10/2025 18:52:44 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 01/08/2025 7 of 8
PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE
272
Item 3.
615
Item 7.
Project code: 2025-0081694 IPaC Record Locator: 510-160485360 04/10/2025 18:52:44 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 01/08/2025 8 of 8
IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency:Private Entity
Name:todd mclouth
Address:12755 Hwy 55, Ste R100
City:Plymouth
State:MN
Zip:55441
Email tmclouth@loucksinc.com
Phone:6122072986
273
Item 3.
616
Item 7.
274
Item 3.
617
Item 7.
Emissions Summary
Guidance
(B) The "Go To Sheet" buttons can be used to navigate to the data entry sheets.
Organizational Information:
Organization Name:
Organization Address:
Inventory Reporting Period:
Start: 1/1/2023 End:
Name of Preparer:
Contact Information of Preparer:
Date Prepared:
Summary of Organization's Emissions:
Scope 1 Emissions
CO2-e (metric tons)
Stationary Combustion 1,148
Mobile Sources 2,085
Refrigeration / AC Equipment Use 5,133
Fire Suppression 0
Purchased Gases 0
Gross Offsets Net
Scope 1 Summary 8,366 0 8,366
Scope 2 Emissions
Location-Based Scope 2 Emissions CO2-e (metric tons)
Purchased and Consumed Electricity 2,200
Purchased and Consumed Steam 0
Gross Offsets Net
Location-Based Scope 2 Summary 2,200 0 2,200
Market-Based Scope 2 Emissions CO2-e (metric tons)
Purchased and Consumed Electricity 2,200
Purchased and Consumed Steam 0
Gross Offsets Net
Market-Based Scope 2 Summary 2,200 0 2,200
Scope 1 & 2 Summary
Gross Net
Total Scope 1 & Location-Based Scope 2 10,566 10,566
Total Scope 1 & Market-Based Scope 2 10,566 10,566
Scope 3 Emissions
Gross Offsets Net
Business Travel 0 0 0
Employee Commuting 0 0 0
Upstream Transportation and Distribution 0 0 0
Waste 383 0 383
The total GHG emissions from each source category are provided below. You may also use this summary sheet to fill out the Annual GHG Inventory
Summary and Target Tracking Form (.xls) as this Calculator only quantifies one year of emissions at a time. The form is available here:
(A) Enter organization information into the orange cells. Other cells on this sheet will be automatically calculated from the data entered in the sheets
in this workbook. Blue cells indicate required emission sources if applicable. Green cells indicate scope 3 emission sources and offsets, which
organizations may optionally include in its inventory.
5/20/2025
800 West 53rd Ave. Aprartments
Columbia Heights, MN
2024 EAW Estimator
Loucks
1/1/2024
https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/target-setting
By entering the data below into the appropriate cell of the Annual GHG Inventory Summary and Target Tracking Form, you will be able to compare
multiple years of data.
If you have multiple Calculator files covering sub-sets of your inventory for a particular reporting period, sum each of the emission categories (e.g.
Stationary Combustion) to an organizational total, which then can be entered into the Annual GHG Inventory Summary and Target Tracking Form .
CO2-e (metric tons)
CO2-e (metric tons)
CO2-e (metric tons)
CO2-e (metric tons)
CO2-e (metric tons)
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Back to Intro
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
Go To Sheet
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Summary) 1 of 1
275
Item 3.
618
Item 7.
Scope 1 Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources
Guidance
- Select "Fuel Combusted" from drop down box.
(C) Biomass CO2 emissions are not reported in the total emissions, but are reported separately at the bottom of the sheet.
Table 1. Stationary Source Fuel Combustion
Source Source Source Fuel Fuel State Quantity
ID Description Area (sq ft)Combusted (solid, liquid, gas)Combusted
BLR-012 East Power Plant 12,517 Natural Gas Gas 10,000 MMBtu
Ex. Office Existing Office Building 135,000 Natural Gas Gas 0 Gallons
SCF
Prop1 Apartment Buildings 440,000 Natural Gas Gas 21,072,000 SCF
Prop 2 Commercial/Retail 12,000 Natural Gas Gas 312,000
Prop 3 Multi-Family Townhomes 140,940 Natural Gas Gas 3,480,000
GHG Emissions
Total Organization-Wide Stationary Source Combustion by Fuel Type
Quantity
Combusted
Coal and Coke - Solid
Anthracite Coal 0 short ton
Bituminous Coal 0 short ton
Sub-bituminous Coal 0 short ton
Lignite Coal 0 short ton
Mixed (Commercial Sector)0 short ton
Mixed (Electric Power Sector)0 short ton
Mixed (Industrial Coking)0 short ton
Mixed (Industrial Sector)0 short ton
Coal Coke 0 short ton
Other Fuels - Solid
Municipal Solid Waste 0 short ton
Petroleum Coke (Solid)0 short ton
Plastics 0 short ton
Tires 0 short ton
Units
(B) If fuel is consumed in a facility but stationary fuel consumption data are not available, an estimate should be made
for completeness. See the "Items to Note" section of the Help sheet for suggested estimation approaches.
- Enter "Quantity Combusted" and choose the appropriate units from the drop down box in the unit column. If it's
necessary to convert units, common heat contents can be found on the "Heat Content" sheet and unit conversions
on the "Unit Conversion" sheet.
(A) Enter annual data for each combustion unit, facility, or site (by fuel type) in ORANGE cells on Table 1. Example
entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ).
Fuel Type Units
Back to Intro Back to Summary HelpHeat Content
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 1.0) 1 of 2
276
Item 3.
619
Item 7.
Biomass Fuels - Solid
Agricultural Byproducts 0 short ton
Peat 0 short ton
Solid Byproducts 0 short ton
Wood and Wood Residuals 0 short ton
Gaseous Fuels
Natural Gas 21,072,000 scf
Propane Gas 0 scf
Landfill Gas 0 scf
Petroleum Products
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 0 gallons
Residual Fuel Oil No. 6 0 gallons
Kerosene 0 gallons
Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG)0 gallons
Biomass Fuels - Liquid
Biodiesel (100%)0 gallons
Ethanol (100%)0 gallons
Rendered Animal Fat 0 gallons
Vegetable Oil 0 gallons
Total Organization-Wide CO2, CH4 and N2O Emissions from Stationary Source Fuel Combustion
CO2 (kg)CH4 (g)N2O (g)
Anthracite Coal 0 0.0 0.0
Bituminous Coal 0 0.0 0.0
Sub-bituminous Coal 0 0.0 0.0
Lignite Coal 0 0.0 0.0
Mixed (Commercial Sector)0 0.0 0.0
Mixed (Electric Power Sector)0 0.0 0.0
Mixed (Industrial Coking)0 0.0 0.0
Mixed (Industrial Sector)0 0.0 0.0
Coal Coke 0 0.0 0.0
Municipal Solid Waste 0 0.0 0.0
Petroleum Coke (Solid)0 0.0 0.0
Plastics 0 0.0 0.0
Tires 0 0.0 0.0
Natural Gas 1,147,160 21,704.2 2,107.2
Propane Gas 0 0.0 0.0
Landfill Gas 0 0.0 0.0
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 0 0.0 0.0
Residual Fuel Oil No. 6 0 0.0 0.0
Kerosene 0 0.0 0.0
Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG) 0 0.0 0.0
Total Fossil Fuel Emissions 1,147,160 21,704.2 2,107.2
Agricultural Byproducts 0 0.0 0.0
Peat 0 0.0 0.0
Solid Byproducts 0 0.0 0.0
Wood and Wood Residuals 0 0.0 0.0
Biodiesel (100%)0 0.0 0.0
Ethanol (100%)0 0.0 0.0
Rendered Animal Fat 0 0.0 0.0
Vegetable Oil 0 0.0 0.0
Total Non-Fossil Fuel Emissions 0 0.0 0.0
Total Emissions for all Fuels 1,147,160 21,704.2 2,107.2
Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Stationary Combustion 1,148.3
Total Biomass CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Stationary Combustion 0.0
Fuel Type
Petroleum Products
Biomass Fuels - Liquid
Coal and Coke - Solid
Gaseous Fuels
Biomass Fuels - Solid
Other Fuels - Solid
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 1.0) 2 of 2
277
Item 3.
620
Item 7.
Scope 1 Emissions from Mobile Sources
Guidance
Biodiesel Percent:20 %
Ethanol Percent:80 %
Table 1. Mobile Source Fuel Combustion and Miles Traveled
Source Source Vehicle Vehicle Fuel Units Miles
ID Description Type Year Usage Traveled
Fleet-012 HQ Fleet OnRoad Passenger Cars - Gasoline 2019 500 gal 12,400
Construction - Grading Dev. Area NonRoad Construction/Mining Equipment - Diesel Equipment 2023 48,000 gal
Construction - Site Utilities Dev. Area NonRoad Construction/Mining Equipment - Diesel Equipment 2023 32,000 gal
Construction - Roads Dev. Area NonRoad Construction/Mining Equipment - Diesel Equipment 2023 32,000 gal
Construction - Building Sites Dev. Area OnRoad Construction/Mining Equipment - Diesel Equipment 2023 18,000 gal
Construction - Building Sites Dev. Area OnRoad Construction/Mining Equipment - Gasoline (4 stroke)2023 78,000 gal
Reference Table: Average Fuel Economy by Vehicle Type
Passenger Cars 24.8
Other 2-Axle, 4-Tire Vehicles 18.1
Motorcycles 44.0
Single unit 2-Axle 6-Tire or More Trucks 7.9
Combination Trucks 6.9
Diesel Buses (Diesel Heavy-Duty Vehicles)7.4
Average mpg values from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2022 (Updated February 2024), Table VM-1.
GHG Emissions
Total Organization-Wide Mobile Source Fuel Usage and CO2 Emissions (On-Road and Off-Road Vehicles)
Fuel Usage Units
CO2 (kg)
Motor Gasoline 78,000 gallons 684,840
Diesel Fuel 130,000 gallons 1,327,300
Residual Fuel Oil 0 gallons 0
Aviation Gasoline 0 gallons 0
- Enter "Fuel Usage" in appropriate units (units appear when vehicle type is selected).
(C) Biomass CO2 emissions from biodiesel and ethanol are not reported in the total emissions, but are reported separately at the bottom of the sheet.
(B) When using biofuels, typically the biofuel (biodiesel or ethanol) is mixed with a petroleum fuel (diesel or gasoline) for use in vehicles.
Enter the biodiesel and ethanol percentages of the fuel if known, or leave default values shown below.
(A) Enter annual data for each vehicle or group of vehicles (grouped by vehicle type, vehicle year, and fuel type) in ORANGE cells in
Table 1. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ). Only enter vehicles owned or leased by your organization on this
sheet. All other vehicle use such as employee commuting or business travel is considered a scope 3 emissions source and
should be reported in the corresponding scope 3 sheets.
- Select "Vehicle Type" from drop down box (closest type available).
- Note: The latest mobile combustion factors reflect year 2021 data. Therefore, for all vehicle model years 2022 onward,
the 2021 year factor is used.
- Select "On-Road" or "Non-Road" from the drop down box to determine the Vehicle Types available. You must make this selection
before picking the vehicle type.
- Vehicle year and Miles traveled are not necessary for non-road equiment.
- If mileage or fuel usage is unknown, estimate using approximate fuel economy values from the manufacturer,
www.fueleconomy.gov, or the Reference Table below.
Average Fuel Economy (mpg)
Fuel Type
Vehicle Type
On-Road or
Non-Road?
Back to Intro Back to Summary Help
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 2.0) 1 of 5
278
Item 3.
621
Item 7.
Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel 0 gallons 0
Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG)0 gallons 0
Ethanol 0 gallons 0 Note: emissions here are only for the gasoline portion of the fuel, biogenic CO
Biodiesel 0 gallons 0 Note: emissions here are only for the diesel portion of the fuel, biogenic CO
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)0 gallons 0
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) 0 scf
0
Total Organization-Wide On-Road Gasoline Mobile Source Mileage and CH4/N2O Emissions
Vehicle Year Mileage (miles)
CH4 (g)N2O (g)
Passenger Cars - Gasoline 1984-93 0 0.0 0.0
1994 0 0.0 0.0
1995 0 0.0 0.0
1996 0 0.0 0.0
1997 0 0.0 0.0
1998 0 0.0 0.0
1999 0 0.0 0.0
2000 0 0.0 0.0
2001 0 0.0 0.0
2002 0 0.0 0.0
2003 0 0.0 0.0
2004 0 0.0 0.0
2005 0 0.0 0.0
2006 0 0.0 0.0
2007 0 0.0 0.0
2008 0 0.0 0.0
2009 0 0.0 0.0
2010 0 0.0 0.0
2011 0 0.0 0.0
2012 0 0.0 0.0
2013 0 0.0 0.0
2014 0 0.0 0.0
2015 0 0.0 0.0
2016 0 0.0 0.0
2017 0 0.0 0.0
2018 0 0.0 0.0
2019 0 0.0 0.0
2020 0 0.0 0.0
2021 0 0.0 0.0
2022 0 0.0 0.0
2023 0 0.0 0.0
2024 0 0.0 0.0
Light-Duty Trucks - Gasoline 1987-93 0 0.0 0.0
(Vans, Pickup Trucks, SUVs)1994 0 0.0 0.0
1995 0 0.0 0.0
1996 0 0.0 0.0
1997 0 0.0 0.0
1998 0 0.0 0.0
1999 0 0.0 0.0
2000 0 0.0 0.0
2001 0 0.0 0.0
2002 0 0.0 0.0
2003 0 0.0 0.0
2004 0 0.0 0.0
2005 0 0.0 0.0
2006 0 0.0 0.0
2007 0 0.0 0.0
2008 0 0.0 0.0
2009 0 0.0 0.0
2010 0 0.0 0.0
2011 0 0.0 0.0
2012 0 0.0 0.0
2013 0 0.0 0.0
2014 0 0.0 0.0
Vehicle Type
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 2.0) 2 of 5
279
Item 3.
622
Item 7.
2015 0 0.0 0.0
2016 0 0.0 0.0
2017 0 0.0 0.0
2018 0 0.0 0.0
2019 0 0.0 0.0
2020 0 0.0 0.0
2021 0 0.0 0.0
2022 0 0.0 0.0
2023 0 0.0 0.0
2024 0 0.0 0.0
Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Gasoline 1985-86 0 0.0 0.0
1987 0 0.0 0.0
1988-1989 0 0.0 0.0
1990-1995 0 0.0 0.0
1996 0 0.0 0.0
1997 0 0.0 0.0
1998 0 0.0 0.0
1999 0 0.0 0.0
2000 0 0.0 0.0
2001 0 0.0 0.0
2002 0 0.0 0.0
2003 0 0.0 0.0
2004 0 0.0 0.0
2005 0 0.0 0.0
2006 0 0.0 0.0
2007 0 0.0 0.0
2008 0 0.0 0.0
2009 0 0.0 0.0
2010 0 0.0 0.0
2011 0 0.0 0.0
2012 0 0.0 0.0
2013 0 0.0 0.0
2014 0 0.0 0.0
2015 0 0.0 0.0
2016 0 0.0 0.0
2017 0 0.0 0.0
2018 0 0.0 0.0
2019 0 0.0 0.0
2020 0 0.0 0.0
2021 0 0.0 0.0
2022 0 0.0 0.0
2023 0 0.0 0.0
2024 0 0.0 0.0
Motorcycles - Gasoline 1960-1995 0 0.0 0.0
1996-2005 0 0.0 0.0
2006-2024 0 0.0 0.0
Total Organization-Wide On-Road Non-Gasoline Mobile Source Mileage and CH4/N2O Emissions
Vehicle Type Fuel Type Vehicle Year Mileage (miles)
CH4 (g)N2O (g)
1960-1982 0 0.0 0.0
1983-2006 0 0.0 0.0
2007-2024 0 0.0 0.0
1960-1982 0 0.0 0.0
1983-2006 0 0.0 0.0
2007-2024 0 0.0 0.0
1960-2006 0 0.0 0.0
2007-2024 0 0.0 0.0
Methanol 0 0.0 0.0
Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0
CNG 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0
Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles - DieselDiesel
Passenger Cars - Diesel Diesel
Light-Duty Trucks - Diesel Diesel
Light-Duty Cars
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 2.0) 3 of 5
280
Item 3.
623
Item 7.
CNG 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
LNG 0 0.0 0.0
Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0
CNG 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
LNG 0 0.0 0.0
Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0
Methanol 0 0.0 0.0
Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0
CNG 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
LNG 0 0.0 0.0
Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0
Methanol 0 0.0 0.0
Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0
CNG 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
LNG 0 0.0 0.0
Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0
Total Organization-Wide Non-Road Mobile Source Fuel Usage and CH4/N2O Emissions
Vehicle Type Fuel Type Fuel Usage
(gallons)CH4 (g) N2O (g)
Residual Fuel Oil 0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (2 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (4 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Diesel 0 0.0 0.0
Locomotives Diesel 0 0.0 0.0
Jet Fuel 0 0.0 0.0
Aviation Gasoline 0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (2 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (4 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline Off-Road Trucks 0 0.0 0.0
Diesel Equipment 0 0.0 0.0
Diesel Off-Road Trucks 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (2 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (4 stroke)78000 222484.9 114943.3
Gasoline Off-Road Trucks 0 0.0 0.0
Diesel Equipment 130000 131513.1 122386.0
Diesel Off-Road Trucks 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (2 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (4 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Diesel 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline 0 0.0 0.0
Diesel 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (2 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (4 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Diesel 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (2 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (4 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Diesel 0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline 0 0.0 0.0
Diesel 0 0.0 0.0
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (2 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Gasoline (4 stroke)0 0.0 0.0
Diesel 0 0.0 0.0
Industrial/Commercial Equipment
Logging Equipment
Railroad Equipment
Recreational Equipment
Construction/Mining Equipment
Lawn and Garden Equipment
Airport Equipment
Ships and Boats
Aircraft
Agricultural Equipment
Heavy-Duty Trucks
Buses
Light-Duty Trucks
Medium-Duty Trucks
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 2.0) 4 of 5
281
Item 3.
624
Item 7.
LPG 0 0.0 0.0
Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Mobile Sources 2,084.9
Total Biomass CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Mobile Sources 0.0
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 2.0) 5 of 5
282
Item 3.
625
Item 7.
Scope 1 Emissions from Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
Guidance
(C) Enter annual data in ORANGE cells as appropriate for the selected option.
Option 1. Material Balance Method: Enter organization-wide total gases stored and transferred (by gas) in Table 1.
- Choose the appropriate gas from the Gas drop down menu.
- Inventory Change = difference of gas stored in inventory from beginning to end of reporting period.
(Includes only gas stored on-site (i.e. cylinders) and not gas contained within equipment).
- Transferred Amount = gas purchased minus gas sold/disposed during reporting period.
-- Gas purchased includes: Purchases for inventory, as part of equipment servicing (not from inventory),
within purchased equipment, and gas returned to the site after off-site recycling.
-- Gas sold/disposed includes: Returns to supplier, sales or disposals (including within equipment),
and gas sent off-site for recycling, reclamation, or destruction.
- Capacity Change = capacity of all units at beginning minus capacity of all units at end of reporting period.
(can be assumed to be capacity of retired units minus capacity of new units).
Table 1. Organization-Wide Refrigeration Gas CO2 Equivalent Emissions - Material Balance
Gas Inventory Transferred Capacity CO2 Equivalent
Gas GWP Change Amount Change Emissions
(kg)(kg)(kg)(kg)
Option 2. Material Balance Method (Simplified): Enter organization-wide total gases in units (by gas) in Table 2.
- Choose the appropriate gas from the drop down menu.
- New units are those installed during reporting period (do not include any data for new units pre-charged by
supplier), disposed units were disposed of during the reporting period, and existing units are all others.
- Charge/Recharge = gas added to units by organization or a contractor (do not include pre-charge by manufacturer).
- Capacity = sum of the full capacity for all units (do not include new units pre-charged by manufacturer).
- Amount recovered = total gas recovered from all retired units.
Table 2. Organization-Wide Refrigeration Gas CO2 Equivalent Emissions - Simplified Material Balance
Gas Existing Units CO2 Equivalent
Gas GWP Charge Capacity Recharge Capacity Recovered Emissions
(kg)(kg)(kg)(kg)(kg)(kg)
(A) HFC, PFC, CO2, and SF6 refrigerants from facilities and vehicles are required to be included in the GHG inventory. Ozone depleting
substances, such as CFCs and HCFCs, are regulated internationally and are typically excluded from a GHG inventory or reported
as a memo item.
(B) Select ONE of the three options with which to estimate emissions. Options range from most preferred method (Option 1) to least
preferred method (Option 3). Limited data availability often makes Option 3 an appropriate choice. If Option 3 is used and emissions
are determined to be significant when compared to other emission sources, consider using one of the other methods to calculate
emissions more accurately.
New Units Disposed Units
Back to Intro Back to Summary Help
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 3.0) 1 of 2
283
Item 3.
626
Item 7.
Option 3. Screening Method: Enter refrigerant information for each unit or group of units (by refrigerant) in Table 3.
- Select the "Type of Equipment" (closest available) and "Gas" from the drop down box.
- Enter amount of refrigerant added to new units by the organization (not pre-charged amount from manufacturer). This will be blank if no refrigerant is added to new units by the organization.
- Enter the Number of Months in Operation - this is the number of months in the year the unit was operating (from 0-12). For example, if the equipment was installed at the beginning of July, enter 6.
- Enter refrigerant capacity (by equipment type and refrigerant) for all units operating and disposed during reporting period.
-- If data entered for multiple units, sum the capacities or charge quantity for all like units.
- See example entry in first row (GREEN Italics ).
Table 3. Source Level Refrigeration Gas CO2 Equivalent Emissions - Screening Method
New Units Number of Months Capacity CO2
Charge in Operation Operating Disposed Equivalent
(kg)in Reporting Year Units Units Emissions
(kg)(kg)(kg)
Bldg-012 Domestic Refrigeration HFC-32 677 1000 12 0.5 0.25 6,812.3
Prop. Apartment Buildings Medium/Large Commercial HFC-32 677 12 18,000.00 4,265,100.0
Props. Commercial Space Medium/Large Commercial HFC-32 677 12 2,000.00 473,900.0
Townhomes Residential/Commercial A/C HFC-32 677 12 5,800.00 392,660.0
Refrigerators Domestic Refrigeration HFC-32 677 12 249.00 842.9
Reference Table: Type of Equipment and Default Capacity Ranges (Lower to Upper Range) for Table 3
Capacity Installation
Emission Factor Operating Emissions Refrigerant Remaining at
Disposal Recovery Efficiency
(kg)K X Y Z
% of Capacity % of Capacity/yr % of Capacity % of Remaining
Domestic Refrigeration Domestic refrigeration units 0.05–0.5 1%1%80%70%
Stand-Alone Commercial Stand alone commercial applications 0.2–6 3%15%80%70%
Medium/Large Commercial Medium and large commercial
refrigeration units 50–2,000 3% 35% 100% 70%
Transport Refrigeration Transportation refrigeration units 3–8 1%50%50%70%
Industrial Refrigeration Industrial, food processing and cold
storage units 10–10,000 3% 25% 100% 90%
Chillers Commercial chillers 10–2,000 1%15%100%95%
Residential/Commercial A/C Residential and commercial units,
including heat pumps 0.5-100 1% 10% 80% 80%
Maritime A/C Units Maritime A/C units 5-6,500 1%40%50%50%
Railway A/C Units Railway A/C Units 10-30 1%20%50%50%
Buses A/C Units Buses A/C Units 4-18 1%20%50%50%
Other Mobile A/C Units All other mobile A/C units 0.5-2 1%20%50%50%
Source: Screening Method of the inventory guidance document Direct Fugitive Emissions from Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, Fire Suppression, and Industrial Gases
https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scope-1-and-scope-2-inventory-guidance
GHG Emissions
5,132.5
Notes:
1. CO2 emissions estimated using emission factors provided in Table 3 of the Center for Corporate Climate Leadership Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance
Direct Fugitive Emissions from Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, Fire Suppression and Industrial Gases. (Dec 2020).
2. GWP values are from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (2011).
-- If no units are disposed, Disposed Units will be blank
Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Refrigeration and AC Equipment
-- If capacity of unit(s) is not known, use upper value of default capacity provided in the Reference Table below.
Source ID Type of Equipment Gas Gas
GWP
Type of Equipment Equipment Description
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 3.0) 2 of 2
284
Item 3.
627
Item 7.
Scope 2 Emissions from Purchase of Electricity
Guidance
(C) Select "eGRID subregion" from drop box and enter "Electricity Purchased."
https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/
Tips: Enter electricity usage by location and then look up the eGRID subregion for each location.
Table 1. Total Amount of Electricity Purchased by eGRID Subregion
Source Source Source eGRID Subregion Electricity CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O
ID Description Area (sq ft)where electricity is consumed Purchased Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions
(kWh)(lb/MWh)(lb/MWh)(lb/MWh)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)
Bldg-012 East Power Plant 12,517 HICC Miscellaneous 200,000 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 231,097.2 24.8 3.8
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
Prop Apartrment Bldg.Xcel 440,000 MRO West 4,214,400 <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>3,946,722.4 429.9 63.2 3,946,722.4 429.9 63.2
Comm Xcel 12,000 MRO West 232,200 <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>217,451.8 23.7 3.5 217,451.8 23.7 3.5
TH's Xcel 140,940 MRO West 696,000 <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>651,793.6 71.0 10.4 651,793.6 71.0 10.4
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
<enter factor><enter factor><enter factor>
Total Emissions for All Sources 5,142,600 4,815,967.8 524.5 77.1 4,815,967.8 524.5 77.1
If you purchase renewable energy that is less than 100% of your site's electricity, see the
example in the market-based method Help sheet. Location-Based
Emission Factors Emissions Emissions
Market-Based
Use these cells to enter applicable market-based emission factors
(D) See the market-based emission factor hierarchy on the market-based method Help sheet. If any of the first four types of
emission factors are applicable, enter the factors in the yellow cells marked as "<enter factor>". If not, leave the yellow
cells as is, and eGRID subregion factors will be used for market-based emissions.
Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ) for a facility that purchases RECs for 100% of its consumption, and
therefore has a market-based emission factor of 0.
The Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity Guidance document provides guidance for quantifying two scope 2 emissions totals,
using a location-based method and a market-based method. The organization should quantify and report both totals in its GHG
inventory. The location-based method considers average emission factors for the electricity grids that provide electricity. The market-
based method considers contractual arrangements under which the organization procures electricity from specific sources, such as
renewable energy.
- Use map (Figure 1) at bottom of sheet to determine appropriate eGRID subregion. If subregion cannot be determined
from the map, find the correct subregion by entering the location's zip code into EPA’s Power Profiler:
(A) Enter total annual electricity purchased in kWh and each eGRID subregion for each facility or site in ORANGE cells of Table 1.
(B) If electricity consumption data are not available for a facility, an estimate should be made for completeness.
See the "Items to Note" section of the Help sheet for suggested estimation approaches.
Back to Intro Back to Summary Help Help - Market-Based Method
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Indirect 1.0) 1 of 2
285
Item 3.
628
Item 7.
GHG Emissions
CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons)
Location-Based Electricity Emissions 2,200.5
Market-Based Electricity Emissions 2,200.5
Notes:
1. CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions are estimated using methodology provided in EPA's Center for Corporate Climate Leadership Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance
- Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity (January 2016).
Figure 1. EPA eGRID2022, January 2024.
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Indirect 1.0) 2 of 2
286
Item 3.
629
Item 7.
Scope 3 Emissions from Waste
Guidance
Table 1. Waste Disposal Weight by Waste Material and Disposal Method (CO2, CH4 and N2O)
Source ID Source Description Waste Material
Disposal
Method Weight Unit
CO2e Emissions
(kg)
Bldg-012 East Power Plant Finished Goods Copper Wire Landfilled 1,000 metric ton 22,040
Proposed Apartment Blgds.Waste Management Mixed MSW municipal solid waste Landfilled 480 metric ton 306,797
Proposed Commercial Space Waste Management Mixed MSW municipal solid waste Landfilled 44 metric ton 28,123
Proposed Townhomes Waste Management Mixed MSW municipal solid waste Landfilled 75 metric ton 47,937
(B) First, choose the appropriate material then the disposal method from the drop down options. For the average-data method, use one of the mixed material types, such as mixed
MSW. If the exact waste material is not available, consider an appropriate proxy. For example, dimensional lumber can be used as a proxy for wood furniture.
(C) Choose an appropriate disposal method. Note that not all disposal methods are available for all materials. If there is a #NA or # Value error in the emissions column, you must pick a
new material type or appropriate disposal method.
(A) Enter annual waste data in ORANGE cells. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ).
Back to Intro Back to Summary Help
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Optional 3.0) 1 of 2 287
Item 3.
630
Item 7.
GHG Emissions
Total Emissions by Disposal Method
Waste Material CO2e (kg)
Recycled 0
Landfilled 382857
Combusted 0
Composted 0
Anaerobically Digested (Dry Digestate with Curing)0
Anaerobically Digested (Wet Digestate with Curing)0
Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Waste 382.9
EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Optional 3.0) 2 of 2 288
Item 3.
631
Item 7.
289
Item 3.
632
Item 7.
LAC-Columbia Heights
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
NOISE ASSESSMENT
Prepared for
Loucks Inc
by
David Braslau Associates, Inc.
6603 Queen Avenue S, Suite M
Richfield, MN 55423
Tel: 612-331-4571
FAX: 612-331-45672
Eml: david@braslau.com
Dr. David Braslau, President
22 April 2025
290
Item 3.
633
Item 7.
LAC-Comumbia Heights Noise Assessment
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
LAC is a proposed residential development in Columbia Heights, Minnesota. The project
includes a two-six story residential building, a five -story residential building, town homes, a
commercial building with market rate residential units and a large one-story commercial building.
The objective of this noise assessment is to estimate traffic noise impacts on the project from
adjacent roadways, primarily Central Avenue on the east, and mechanical equipment from
commercial buildings between Central Avenue and the project. Determination of compliance
with state noise standards is evaluated.
To comply with Minnesota noise rules, peak daytime traffic noise levels from Central Avenue
and 53rd Avenue North have been evaluated for the 4-5 pm hour and peak nighttime traffic noise
levels for the 6-7 am hour. Traffic L10 and L50 were modeled based on traffic volumes from a
MnDOT traffic flow map. Since the project is located between the round-about and Central
Avenue signalized intersection, noise predictions are overstated.
The predicted 6-7 am or nighttime traffic noise levels exceed the nighttime noise standard and
can be addressed with appropriate construction to comply with exceptions to the noise standards.
Living units with exposure to the commercial buildings immediately east of the project will be
exposed to noise from rooftop mechanical equipment. An estimate of equipment sound levels has
been based on previously monitored rooftop fans or blowers on other projects.
291
Item 3.
634
Item 7.
LAC-Comumbia Heights Noise Assessment
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Objectives of this Noise Assessment ............................................................................... 1
1.2. Site Location and Plan ..................................................................................................... 1
2.0 TRAFFIC NOISE MODEL PREDICTIONS AND MEASUREMENTS .................... 4
2.1. Traffic Noise Model ........................................................................................................ 4
2.2. Noise Model Predictions ................................................................................................. 4
3.0 MECHANICAL NOISE ASSESSMENT ........................................................................ 8
4.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................... 10
292
Item 3.
635
Item 7.
LAC-Comumbia Heights Noise Assessment
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Site Location........................................................................................................... 2
Figure 1.2 Project Layout Relative to Central Avenue and 53 St N ................................... 3
Figure 2.1 Model Geometry with 2ND Floor Noise Receptor Sites ....................................... 5
Figure 2.2 Noise Barrier Profile with Buildings and Terrain .............................................. 5
Figure 2.3 Predicted AM L10 Traffic Noise Levels .............................................................. 6
Figure 3.1 Possible Rooftop Views from Upper Floors ........................................................ 9
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Minnesota State Noise Standards ......................................................................... 1
Table 2.1 Assumed Hourly Volume and Vehicle Mix ......................................................... 4
Table 2.2 Predicted Traffic AM L10 Traffic Noise Levels ................................................. 6
Table 3.1 Estimated Rooftop Equipment Noise ................................................................... 8
293
Item 3.
636
Item 7.
LAC-Columbia Heights Noise Assessment
David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1. Objectives of this Noise Assessment
This Traffic Noise Assessment evaluates the potential impacts of noise from Central Avenue, 53rd
St. North, and adjacent commercial facilities on the proposed LAC -Columbia Heights residential
development in Columbia Heights, Minnesota.
Low traffic noise levels along 53rd Street North are expected due to the Traffic Circle to the west
and signalized intersection with Central Avenue to the east. Projected traffic noise levels from
Central Avenue are based on hourly traffic volumes from an MnDOT Automatic Traffic Recorder
and traffic flow maps. These levels are compared with the Minnesota daytime and nighttime
noise standards to determine the potential for noise impacts and need for any mitigation.
1.2. Site Location and Plan
Location of the development in the City of Columbia Heights is shown in Figure 1.1. The site
plan relative to 53rd St. N and Central Avenue is shown on Figure 1.2.
The Minnesota State Noise Standards are presented in Table 1.1. Residential land uses are
included in the NAC-1 (Noise Area Classification -1) under Minnesota Rule 7030.0040.
Figure 1.1 Minnesota State Noise Standards
L10 is the level exceeded for 10% or 6 minutes of an hour. L50 is the level exceeded for 50% or
30 minutes of an hour. The L10 level, which has been shown to accurately reflect traffic noise
along major highways, is used in this report to determine compliance.
294
Item 3.
637
Item 7.
LAC-Columbia Heights Noise Assessment
David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 2
Figure 1.2 Site Location
SITE
295
Item 3.
638
Item 7.
LAC-Columbia Heights Noise Assessment
David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 3
Figure 1.3 Project Layout Relative to Central Avenue and 53 St N
296
Item 3.
639
Item 7.
LAC Columbia Heights Noise Assessment
David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 4
2.0 TRAFFIC NOISE MODEL PREDICTIONS AND MEASUREMENTS
2.1. Traffic Noise Model
The MinnNoise model was used to predict noise levels associated with vehicle traffic. The traffic noise
model geometry is shown in Figure 2.1. Selected noise receptors are located on the building facades
directly exposed to highway noise and several receptors are located on building facades that are partially
shielded from highway traffic. The extensive noise “barrier” between the project, shown as a light green
line in Figure 2.2 included buildings as well as the higher ground terrain (El 918) relative to the project
base elevation of approximately El 890.
Daily traffic volumes were taken from the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application for 53rd St N and Central
Avenue. Vehicle distribution for Autos, Medium Trucks and Heavy Trucks is based on previous studies
in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. No trucks were assumed on 53rd St. N.
Figure 2.1 Assumed Hourly Volume and Vehicle Mix
53rd St. N
AM PM
Autos 840 1050
MT 27 33
HY 0 0
Central Avenue
AM PM
Autos 2077 2596
MT 66 82
HT 44 55
2.2. Noise Model Predictions
Traffic noise levels have been predicted for noise receptor sites shown in Figure 2.2 for the “Nighttime”
6-7 AM and “Daytime” 4-5 PM peak travel periods. The model assumed a speed of 35 mph on 53rd St. N
and 45 mph on Central Avenue, slightly above posted speeds to ensure realistic noise levels. However,
with the project located on 53rd St. N between the new traffic circle just west of the site and the signalized
intersection with Central Avenue east of the sites, model results for 53rd St N are included for
completeness only since actual levels are closer to area background. Project noise receptors will be
shielded from Central Avenue by existing commerical buildings and terrain. This noise barrier is shown
in Figure 2.3.
Predicted AM L10 levels on second floor receptors are presented in Figure 2.4. The numbers above the
bars are the reduction in traffic noise level provided by the building/terrain barrier. The barrier provides
less shielding at the higher floors. Predicted traffic AM L10 noise levels at receptors by floor level are
presented in Table 2.5 on Page 6. Since the difference between estimated AM and PM traffic volumes is
only 25%, the PM noise levels are only about one decibel higher than the AM levels and not presented
here.
297
Item 3.
640
Item 7.
LAC Columbia Heights Noise Assessment
David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 5
Figure 2.2 Model Geometry with 2ND Floor Noise Receptor Sites
Figure 2.3 Noise Barrier Profile with Buildings and Terrain
298
Item 3.
641
Item 7.
LAC Columbia Heights Noise Assessment
David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 6
Figure 2.4 Predicted AM L10 Traffic Noise Levels
The values in shaded boxes would also be partially shielded by the buildings themselves but would
require a much more detailed noise analysis. As noted above, values at receptors 1-3 are likely to be
much lower due to lower speeds. From Figure 2.2, it can be seen that receptors 5 and 6 in the north
family building and receptors 9 and 10 in the south family building are most exposed to traffic noise.
Receptors 11 through 14 are shielded by the building/terrain barrier with lower traffic noise levels.
Figure 2.5 Predicted Traffic AM L10 Traffic Noise Levels
Rec 2nd Floor 4th Floor 6th Floor
1
2
3
4
5 56 56 50
6 55 55 50
7
8
9 52 53 47
10 51 52 49
11 52
12 51
13 51
14 51
Since the 6-7 am period is governed by the state nighttime noise standards, L10 levels above 55 dBA
exceed the standards, and mitigation under state rules will be required. As will be noted in Section 3.1,
window treatment will likely be needed with the addition of rooftop mechanical noise.
299
Item 3.
642
Item 7.
LAC Columbia Heights Noise Assessment
David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 7
The following excerpts from Minnesota Rule 7030 on noise provide exemptions from the rules providing
certain exterior to interior sound level attenuation can be provided.
Subp. 3. Exceptions. The noise area classification for a land use may be changed in the following
ways if the applicable conditions are met.
A. The daytime standards for noise area classification 1 shall be applied to noise area
classification 1 during the nighttime if the land use activity does not include overnight lodging.
B. The standards for a building in a noise area classification 2 shall be applied to a building in
a noise area classification 1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) the building is constructed in such a way that the exterior to interior sound level
attenuation is at least 30 dB(A);
(2) the building has year-round climate control; and
(3) the building has no areas or accommodations that are intended for outdoor activities.
The exterior-interior noise reduction is based upon several factors:
• Exterior building wall element STC (sound transmission class)
• Exterior building window element STC
• Relative area of each of the exterior building elements
• Composite STC based on acoustical energy transmitted through the building facade.
• Adjustment of STC values to attenuation in dBA, using a factor three for traffic noise
Assuming a typical window-to-wall area of 40%, 6-inch stud walls with 3-pcf insulation, STC 28 rated
windows should provide the 30 dBA exterior to interior noise reduction provided in the state rule.
glazing,
300
Item 3.
643
Item 7.
LAC Columbia Heights Noise Assessment
David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 8
3.0 MECHANICAL NOISE ASSESSMENT
Buildings normally place mechanical equipment on the roof to minimize impacts on their own occupants.
The new residential buildings that are higher than the roofs of adjacent commercial buildings will
therefore be exposed to noise from this equipment. For this preliminary analysis, sound level data from
previously monitored rooftop equipment have been used to evaluate potential impact on the new
buildings. Two units on the Discount Tire building, one on the US Bank building and two on the
restaurant building have been assumed for this analysis.
Views from upper floors of the family L-shaped buildings adjacent to these buildings are shown in
Figure 3.1. Estimated sound levels from the units are presented in Table 3.1
Receptors 1 through 4 will be shielded by other buildings not likely impacted by rooftop equipment noise.
Receptors 7 and 8 will also be partially shielded by the building itself. With the limited equipment
assumptions used here, sound levels are similar to those predicted for traffic noise in Table 2.5 and
should comply with state rules. However, with multiple pieces of equipment operating on the adjacent
buildings, sound levels could be 3 to 5 dBA higher or even greater.
Figure 3.1 Estimated Rooftop Equipment Noise
L50 Mechanical Level (AM Standard 50 dBA)
Rec 2nd Floor 4th Floor 6th Floor
1 66 57
2 66
3 66 66 57
4 56 56 57
5 56 56 50
6 55 55 50
7 50 50 51
8 51 51 47
9 52 53 47
10 51 52 49
11 52
12 51
13 51
14 51
For units exposed to sound levels from rooftop equipment over the L50 50 dBA nighttime standard, the
state rules described above on Page 7 will also apply. A more detailed study of sound levels from rooftop
equipment may be needed to ensure compliance with state noise standards and acceptable interior sound
levels in the new residential buildings. If tonal noise is associated with rooftop equipment, that may not
be attenuated by the glazing described above, a more extensive assessment of rooftop equipment may also
be appropriate.
301
Item 3.
644
Item 7.
LAC Columbia Heights Noise Assessment
David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 9
Discount Tires – Rooftop View
Restaurants - Rooftop View
Figure 3.2 Possible Rooftop Views from Upper Floors
302
Item 3.
645
Item 7.
LAC Columbia Heights Noise Assessment
David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 10
4.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Predicted traffic noise levels from Central Avenue and adjacent rooftop mechanical equipment on the
proposed LAC Columbia Height development have been estimated and compared with state noise
standards.
A total of fourteen noise receptor sites distributed along building façades with some exposure to Central
Avenue and mechanical equipment have been evaluated and compared with the Minnesota noise
standards for residential land use. While some predicted traffic noise levels are in excess of the
residential (NAC-1) state daytime and nighttime noise standards, exceptions to the rules permit the
commercial noise standards (NAC-2) to be applied if a 30 dBA reduction in sound level can be achieved.
Noise from adjacent rooftop mechanical equipment, based on the limited analysis reported here, is also
estimated to exceed the NAC-1 nighttime noise standard and would also require a 30 dBA reduction in
sound level. A more detailed analysis of adjacent rooftop equipment noise may be appropriate.
A 2x6 wall with siding and a 5/8 gypsum interior along with STC 28 windows and any patio door
glazing, will be required to comply with the state noise rules assuming glazing does not exceed 40% of
the exterior wall.
y:\jobs\2025jobs\225009\report\lennar-columbia-hts-noise assessment-042225.doc
303
Item 3.
646
Item 7.
304
Item 3.
647
Item 7.
Neighborhood Meeting Notes from May 21, 2025
The neighborhood meeting held on Wednesday, May 21, 2025 at the City Library from 4pm – 7pm with
options to view the meeting virtually as well as in-person attendance. Approximately 40 people signed
in, but there were roughly 50-60 people throughout the entire session. Staff explained how the
comprehensive plan amendment set redevelopment parameters which is what led to the project as
proposed.
Some of the questions that came up were related to the townhome configuration and how the park is
integrated into the project, what type of park improvement can be expected and how will the trail be
modified. Environmental concerns such as the impact on traffic, stormwater, and how the site receives
both traffic and water from other surrounding areas were heavily emphasized. The types of housing
units provided were also discussed as well as affordable/workforce housing described as Section 42,
townhome units, and market-rate apartment units.
Residents were asked to give feedback on the proposed redevelopment concept regarding what they felt
positively about and what they viewed negatively. Some of the positive feedback includes improved
drainage from the giant parking lot; amount of affordable housing with clarity asked for on the potential
cost of the rental units; more density to support local businesses and the subdivision preparing for
future development such as the mixed-use component.
The components that drew criticism are described as follows with repeated comments summarized:
- Information was requested on other properties the applicant has developed.
- No townhomes on the park side (5 on the west) and a desire to limit the northern structure to
four stories.
- Concern about missed opportunity to improve street grid connectivity, park boundaries, and
expressed a desire to pursue purchasing a portion of the lot to expand the park.
- Questions about what will happen to the trail around the lake and concern about potential for
another empty strip mall.
- Apprehension about the intensity of activity/density for the amount of land on the site.
- Frustration expressed over the lack of home ownership opportunities.
- Worry over the density and the impact on traffic situation 53rd and the prospective of more
assessments, all traffic entering and exiting on 53rd with no other access points to the subject
property.
- Environmental concerns related to wildlife population, coyotes, foxes, and waterfowl and the
potential impact of noise and traffic with a desire to reuse the existing building.
- Question of how the overall project will be a benefit to residents.
305
Item 3.
648
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights | Community Development Department
3989 Central Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421 ▪ Ph: 763-706-3670 ▪ www.columbiaheightsmn.gov
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Date of Hearing: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2025, 6:00 P.M.
Subject: Informal Public Hearing Notice –Planned Unit Development
Subject Properties:
800 53rd Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Dear Resident/Affected Property Owner:
The City of Columbia Heights has received an application for a Planned Unit Development, Preliminary/Final Plat, and
vacation of easements in preparation for a redevelopment project at 800 53rd Avenue NE per Code Section 9.104 and 9.113.
Section 9.104 and 9.113 of the Zoning Ordinance requires the Planning Commission to hold an informal public hearing and
provide a recommendation on the applications.
You are receiving this notice because the property that you own (Affected Property), and/or reside in, is located within 350
feet of the Subject Property. The Planning Commission of the City of Columbia Heights will hold a Public Hearing on this
matter on Tuesday, June 3rd, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in the City Council Chambers of Columbia Heights City
Hall, located at 3989 Central Avenue NE. A map of the Subject Property and the Official Notice of Public Hearing are
attached.
You are welcomed and encouraged to participate in the Public Hearing for this matter by attending the June 3rd, 2025
Planning Commission meeting. If you cannot attend the meeting, but would like to provide input, you can submit
correspondence via email to aboucher@columbiaheightsmn.gov or by phone at 763-706-3673 by mail at:
City of Columbia Heights
3989 Central Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
If you have any questions about this notice, please do not hesitate to contact the City of Columbia Heights Community
Development Department at (763) 706-3670.
Sincerely
Andrew Boucher
City Planner, City of Columbia Heights
** Landowners (Commercial and Residential): If you do not reside on the Affected Property, located 350 feet from the
Subject Property, it is your responsibility to share this notice with your tenants. This notice should be posted in a public
place on your property or mailed directly to the tenants residing or leasing space on the Affected Property.
306
Item 3.
649
Item 7.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
-SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION (highlighted in red)-
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Columbia Heights will conduct a
public hearing in the City Council Chambers of City Hall at 3989 Central Avenue NE on Tuesday, June 3rd,
2025 at 6:00 p.m. The order of business is as follows:
The Planning Commission will review an application for a Planned Unit Development, Preliminary/Final
Plat, and a vacation of easements located at 800 53rd Avenue NE and make a recommendation to the
City Council. The applicant is proposing demolition of the existing office building preparation for a multi-
phase redevelopment concept including two multifamily apartment buildings both containing 132 units,
a mixed-use building with a range of 150-175 market-rate units and 12,000 sq. ft. of commercial space,
58 townhomes and associated park and infrastructure improvements. Section 9.104 (J)(4), (L)(4), and
9.113 Planned Unit Development (4)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance, requires that the Planning Commission
review, hold public hearings, and prepare recommendations for the City Council on the applications for
a Planned Unit Development, Preliminary/Final Plat, and vacation of easements.
Notice is hereby given that all persons having an interest will be given an opportunity to be heard. For
questions, contact Andrew Boucher, City Planner, at (763) 706-3673 or at
aboucher@columbiaheightsmn.gov or by mail at:
City of Columbia Heights
3989 Central Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
307
Item 3.
650
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights | Community Development Department
3989 Central Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421 ▪ Ph: 763-706-3670 ▪ www.columbiaheightsmn.gov
Notice of Neighborhood Meeting
Date of Meeting: May 21, 2025: 4pm – 7pm
Subject: Neighborhood Meeting – Preliminary Plat / Final Plat; Planned Unit
Development; Easement Vacations; and Mixed Use Development
Subject Properties: 800 53rd Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Virtual Participation Information:
Meeting ID: 234 331 907 076 5
Passcode: 9Yu3Yh7A
Dear Resident/Affected Property Owner:
The City of Columbia Heights has received an application for a Preliminary Plat / Final Plat;
Planned Unit Development; and Easement Vacations to allow for the phased construction of two
multifamily apartment buildings both containing 132 units, a mixed -use building with a range of
150-175 market-rate units and 12,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, 58 townhomes, and associated
park and infrastructure improvements per Code Section 9.104, 9.113, and 9.116. Section 9.113-
(D)-(3) of the Zoning Ordinance requires the City and Applicant to hold a neighborhood meeting
to hear questions and concerns related to the project.
You are receiving this notice because the property that you own (Affected Property), and/or
reside in, is located within 350 feet of the Subject Property. The City and the Applicant will hold
a Neighborhood Meeting on this matter on May 21, 2025 from 4:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. at the
Columbia Heights Library, located at 3939 Central Avenue NE. A map of the Subject Property is
attached to this notice.
You are welcomed and encouraged to participate in the Neighborhood Meeting for this matter
by attending the May 21, 2025 meeting either in-person or virtually. If you have any questions
about this proposal, please do not hesitate to contact the City of Columbia Heights Community
Development Division at (763) 706-3670 or email at aboucher@columbiaheightsmn.gov or mail
your comments to the address listed at the top of the header. Please note that this meeting does
not serve as the public hearing for this matter. You will be receiving a separate notice regarding
the public hearing.
308
Item 3.
651
Item 7.
Sincerely,
Andrew Boucher
City Planner, City of Columbia Heights
** Landowners (Commercial and Residential): If you do not reside on the Affected Property,
located 350 feet from the Subject Property, it is your responsibility to share this notice with your
tenants. This notice should be posted in a public place on your property or mailed directly to the
tenants residing or leasing space on the Affected Property.
-SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION (highlighted in red)-
309
Item 3.
652
Item 7.
Name Address
A & S CENTRAL HOLDINGS LLC 6495 CITY WEST PKWY
ACONITUM LLC 1337 MOUNDS TRL
AGREE CENTRAL LLC PO BOX 32547
AGUILERA ALFONSO 5255 7TH ST NE
ALLEN ELIZABETH L 625 SULLIVAN DR NE
ANDERSON GLEN G 667 SULLIVAN DR NE
ANDERSON, KEVIN C 808 51ST AVE NE
APPLEBY HOWARD & JANET A 5100 WASHINGTON ST NE
BAKASS, MAHJOUBA 5046 JACKSON ST NE
BARRON, KYLE A 2662 16TH AVE E
BAUER, JOHN 660 SULLIVAN DR NE
BEAMAN, BRADLEY 782 PARKSIDE LN NE
BORDEWICK, JAMES A 805 50 1/2 AVE NE
BRASK, ROLLIN J 700 SULLIVAN WAY NE
BRODA, MELVIN 725 SULLIVAN WAY NE
BROOKS, ALYSSA K 5048 MONROE ST NE
BURSCH, FREDERICK CHARLES 5136 WASHINGTON ST NE
BURY CARON L 648 SULLIVAN DR NE
BUSSE DANIEL J PO BOX 18672
CAMPBELL JANET M TRUSTEE 742 SULLIVAN WAY NE
CAMPBELL TIMOTHY 572 53 1/2 AVE NE
CAMPOVERDE, JORGE 2105 ARGONNE DR NE
CAMPOVERDE-NISTLER NICOLE M 2105 ARGONNE DR NE
CAPGROW HOLDINGS JV SUB I LLC 320 W OHIO ST STE 650
CARSON, TERESA K 794 PARKSIDE LN NE
CHEEMA-SHRESTHA COMPANY LLC 224 EMERALD ST SE
CHEERY COMPANY 5210 CENTRAL AVE NE STE 100
CHEERY COMPANY & WYDEE CORP 5150 CENTRAL AVE NE
CHOMILO, WANDA 659 SULLIVAN DR NE
CHUBB-WATKINS, LAURETTA G 675 SULLIVAN DR NE
COLLAGUAZO MANUEL MESIAS 724 51ST AVE NE
CONTRERAS, MICHAEL 671 SULLIVAN DR NE
COOK, PEGGY A 8540 WEST RIVER RD
COTNER, SARAH M 565 51ST AVE NE
CROCKETT TONI A 638 SULLIVAN LN NE
DAVIDSON RONALD J & SANDRA 700 51ST AVE NE
DAVIS LOREN D & CHERYL A 532 53 1/2 AVE NE
DAYTON HUDSON CORPORATION
DELICH JOAN 617 SULLIVAN DR NE
DIMOCK TRUSTEE, THOMAS C 620 SULLIVAN DR NE
DODEK O I JR & GOLDSTEIN T D 7695 SW 104TH ST STE 100
EDLUND, LAURIE A 688 SULLIVAN DR NE
ELLIS BRUCE W & SHARON L 672 SULLIVAN DR NE
310
Item 3.
653
Item 7.
EMME, STEPHEN CHARLES 663 SULLIVAN DR NE
ERWIN, ANDREA M 580 53 1/2 AVE N E
EXCHANGERIGHT NET-LEASED PRTFLIO 54 DST 2261 MARKET STREET STE 10364
FELLAND KEITH D & CAROL SUE 733 SULLIVAN WAY NE
FISCUS, SHARON L 692 SULLIVAN DR NE
FIX LAURA J & GEORGE 707 50 1/2 AVE NE
FLINT, MARINA 5130 148TH ST W
FLORES, CARRIE A 5402 MADISON ST NE
FREEMAN ALEAH AMBER 804 51ST AVE NE
FRIDLEY CITY OF 7071 UNIVERSITY AVE NE
FRITZ, JODEAN 637 SULLIVAN DR NE
GAGNON, ANDREW 5056 MADISON ST NE
GALE JERRY 699 SULLIVAN DR NE
GALLEGOS, ANDREA F CERVANTES 715 50 1/2 AVE NE
GARZON, JORGE E 683 SULLIVAN DR NE
GEMLO, JOSEPH 5201 7TH ST NE
GERDEEN ANDREW 750 PARKSIDE LN NE
GIBERSON, THOR F 721 SULLIVAN WAY NE
GIL-MOR INC.6200 OAK TREE BLVD STE 250
GOMEZ MAURO LEONEL BUNAY 826 51ST AVE NE
GOODMANSON VIRGINIA 737 SULLIVAN WAY NE
GORMAN, WILLIAM 643 53RD AVE NE
GOVE JEAN M TRUSTEE 679 SULLIVAN DR NE
GRANT WILLIAM B 655 SULLIVAN DR NE
GRANT, KRISTEN 5111 7TH ST NE
GREGORI MARK 564 53 1/2 AVE NE
GUNDLACH, NICHOLAS A 5147 7TH ST
HADTRATH NICK M 5056 JACKSON ST NE
HALEK, JEFF 825 50 1/2 AVE NE
HALLE PROPERTIES LLC 20225 N SCOTTSDALE RD
HAMILTON TRUSTEE, LYNN C 786 PARKSIDE LN NE
HANDLEY, KATHERINE 809 50 1/2 AVE NE
HANZALIK JACOB 725 50 1/2 AVE NE
HARLAN, BRADLEY J PO BOX 120066
HJELM GAYLEN A & PENNY L 729 SULLIVAN WAY NE
HLAVINKA BENEDICT A 5249 7TH ST NE
HOFFMAN JACLYN 777 PARKSIDE LN NE
HOGLUND TIMOTHY 148 RIVER EDGE WAY NE
HORISHNYK WALTER & JOANNE C 5055 MADISON ST NE
HOWELL ANTOINETTE 621 SULLIVAN DR NE
HUBIN RANDALL 2381 LEHMAN LN NE
HUMENANSKY, KEVIN M 589 53 1/2 AVE NE
IH2 PROPERTY ILLINOIS LP PO BOX 4900
JACKSON TRUSTEE, RALPH W 651 SULLIVAN DRIVE
311
Item 3.
654
Item 7.
JEYLANI ALIYA MOHAMED 781 PARKSIDE LN NE
JIROVEC LINDA J 634 SULLIVAN LANE NE
JOHNSON ARTHUR M 907 51ST AVE NE
JOHNSON JANE E 5031 JACKSON ST NE
JOHNSON, DAVID L 254 IRVING AVE N
JOHNSON, KIRK 11905 RIDGEMOUNT AVE W
JOHNSON, LYNN 642 SULLIVAN LN NE
JUNKER, KRISTIN 793 PARKSIDE LN NE
KANE, MARGARET 701 50 1/2 AVE NE
KING, ZACHARY 5243 7TH ST NE
KIPKOECH, SARAH M 5381 MADISON ST NE
KOPPY, NICHOLAS 664 SULLIVAN DR NE
KOSTICK, DONALD 588 54TH AVE NE
KOWAL TRUSTEE MARK A 818 51ST AVE NE
KRUEGER, JASON D 521 53RD AVE NE
LANTOS, KIM 719 50 1/2 AVE NE
LATHAM KAREN 561 53RD AVE NE
LAZO-CANDO, ROSA E 6863 7TH ST NE
LEDERMANN ROBERT S & BETTI 548 53 1/2 AVE NE
LEE, LOUIS 778 PARKSIDE LN NE
LEEHANE, ASHLEY 5219 7TH ST NE
LEMIEUX ALANNA & FRANKLIN 5371 MADISON ST NE
LOOMIS MATTHEW 730 SULLIVAN WAY NE
LOUDEN, ROBERT J 5135 7TH ST NE
LUKE, ELIZABETH A 613 SULLIVAN DR NE
MALMBERG RICKARD H & CAROL 657 51ST AVE NE
MANNERS LUCAS EDWARD 500 53 1/2 AVE NE
MARQUETTE ST BANK OF C HGTS PO BOX 460169
MARTIN WENDY H 5036 JACKSON ST NE
MATTHES EDWIN A & CHERYL 545 54TH AVE NE
MATZKE, MARKHAM R 706 51ST AVE NE
MEDTRONIC INC 710 MEDTRONIC PKWY NE
MENARD INC
MICHAELS CHELSEA E 5020 FILLMORE ST NE
MITCHELL JAQUINETTA 551 53RD AVE NE
MOHAMED, RAHMO 754 PARKSIDE LN NE
MOORE, CHRISTINE A 501 53RD AVE NE
MORA LUIS 5054 MONROE ST NE
MORENO, JOHN R 5103 WASHINGTON ST NE
MORGAN V LLC 5126 CENTRAL AVE NE
MULLINS DELWIN D & JANE E 649 SULLIVAN DR NE
NNN REIT LP 450 SOUTH ORANGE AVE STE 900
ODEGARD TRUSTEE MARK T 738 SULLIVAN WAY NE
OH HOONSEOK 645 SULLIVAN DR NE UNIT B121
312
Item 3.
655
Item 7.
OHMAN CHERYL 630 SULLIVAN LN NE
O'LEARY MARY 695 SULLIVAN DR NE
OLIN RICHARD W 10682 WASHINGTON BLVD NE
OLIN, CATHLENE J 8245 SPRING LAKE RD
OLSON EDWARD 524 53 1/2 AVE NE
OLSON GARY M & LYNN R 5129 7TH ST NE
OPENDOOR PROPERTY TRUST I 410 N SCOTTSDALE RD STE 1600
OSBORNE, CAROLINE 798 PARKSIDE LN NE
OTTO GEORGE KELM TRUST 685 51ST AVE NE
P&L REAL ESTATE 2 LLC 3312 HIGHLAND DR
PAJIS MN-DE LLC 10 RYE RIDGE PLAZA STE 200
PALMER TRUSTEE LINDA L 716 SULLIVAN WAY NE
PARKER TRUSTEE YUGIN 750 SULLIVAN WAY NE
PARKSIDE VILLAGE TOWNHOMES ASSOCIATION 784 PARKSIDE LN NE BOX 13F
PEREZ JR LUIS 815 50 1/2 AVE NE
PERKINS, KRISTOPHER K 5401 MADISON ST NE
PETERSEN ADAM 18550 OGDEN ST NW
PETERSON ROBERT A 5049 MADISON ST NE
PETERSON TRUSTEE, DARWIN B 2323 145TH LN NE
PINEAULT TRUSTEE, ANN M 762 PARKSIDE LN NE
POMAVILLA, MARTHA RIVERA 649 53RD AVE NE
PRECISION PROPERTIES LLC 3800 N WASHINGTON AVE
PSK DEVELOPMENT LLC PO BOX 2650
PUGO GUAMAN, LIGIA B 5237 7TH ST NE
PURA VIDA LIVING LLC 14505 43RD AVE N
QUINTUNA MIGUEL PEREZ 5159 7TH ST NE
RACSA, TIBERIU 758 PARKSIDE LN NE
REICHERT, RICK A 758 SULLIVAN WAY
REZAIE, KAVAH S 581 53RD AVE NE
RING JOSEPH 734 SULLIVAN WAY NE
RIXMANN-FRIDLEY LLC 181 RIVER RIDGE CIR S
ROBERT HALL CLOTHES-FRIDLEY 10 RYE RIDGE PLAZA STE 200
RODRIGUEZ CISNERO, ANNA FELICIA 508 53 1/2 AVE NE
ROSE, ROGER 644 SULLIVAN DR NE
ROTH, MEGHABHUTI 5361 MADISON ST NE
RUDNITSKI DONALD E & KATHLEEN 4618 4TH ST NE
RYBAK, MARY LYNN 608 SULLIVAN DR NE
SAH PARTNERSHIP 5085 CENTRAL AVE NE
SARMIENTO, IVAN DELGADO 5351 MADISON ST NE
SAUMWEBER COLLEEN 665 51ST AVE NE
SCHAHN JR TRUSTEE LEO F 511 53RD AVE NE
SCHEIBE TRUSTEE GWEN M 770 PARKSIDE LN
SCHMANDT, VERNITA 5117 7TH ST NE
SCHMID ERIC 5039 JACKSON ST NE
313
Item 3.
656
Item 7.
SCHUBICH, JOHN 556 53 1/2 AVE NE
SCHUTTE, LARRY C 693 160TH LN NW
SCOTT SR OLIVER R 650 SULLIVAN LN NE
SFR ACQUISITIONS 6 LLC
SHAIKH TEHSEEN 696 SULLIVAN DR NE
SOLARZ MARY 629 SULLIVAN DR NE
SOLARZ TRUSTEE GARY M 616 SULLIVAN DR NE
SOUTH FRIDLEY APTS LLC 478 HAZEL ST N APT 101
SPORE ANNA 18465 LAKEVIEW POINT DR NE
SPORE ANNA PO BOX 490212
ST TIMOTHYS LUTHERAN CHURCH 825 51ST AVE NE
STAWSKI TRUSTEE, BERNADINE I 588 53 1/2 AVE NE
STOCKWELL GARY R 549 RICE CREEK TER NE
STROMQUIST STEVEN R & JANE A 649 51ST AVE NE
STURGES, ANDREW G 5225 7TH ST NE
SULLIVAN SHORES TWNHS ASSN PO BOX 270436
TACURI COLLAGUAZO JAIME NICOLAS 5411 MADISON ST NE
TASTEL, AMANDA K 5141 7TH ST NE
TCF BANK SAVINGS 1405 XENIUM LN N
TEUNISSEN CASEY T 636 38TH AVE NE
THOMPSON RONALD EUGENE 633 SULLIVAN DR NE
TIMMONS JAMES E 640 SULLIVAN DR
TOTAL HEALTH LLC 5150 CENTRAL AVE NE
TOTEM FOODS INC 4635 CENTRAL AVE NE
TRANTER JOHN 5341 MADISON ST NE
TRENOU JEFF 596 53 1/2 AVE NE
VALTINSON RANDY JAY 5027 7TH ST NE
VAN BUREN, PAMELA A 4088 269TH AVE NE
VANG, LOU 819 50 1/2 AVE NE
VAUGHAN MARILYN ALETHA 797 NE PARKSIDE LN
VINCENT RICHARD D & BETTY S 712 SULLIVAN WAY NE
WADI, LIANNE MAJDI 231 WYNDHAM CIR W
WAHL TRUSTEE SHIRLEY A 785 PARKSIDE LN NE
WALEN TRUSTEE, BARBARA J 540 53 1/2 AVE NE
WEGENER, KIMBERLY A 5248 WASHINGTON ST NE
WEIDLEIN, KRISTIN A 766 PARKSIDE LN NE
WEISS, ANN K 652 SULLIVAN DR NE
WENDELL TRUSTEE DRENDA 646 SULLIVAN LN NE
WHITE CASTLE SYSTEM INC PO BOX 1498
WILLIAMS, WENDY S 641 SULLIVAN DR NE
WILSON, CHRISTINA D 5051 JEFFERSON ST NE
WINSLOW COLIN J 5055 JACKSON ST NE
WIP PETCO LLC 13547 VENTURA BLVD PMB 93
WITTINGER KATHLEEN K 741 SULLIVAN WAY NE
314
Item 3.
657
Item 7.
WOODARD BRANDYN L 612 SULLIVAN DR NE
WORZALA MATTHEW J 800 51ST AVE NE
WRATKOWSKI, REBECCA A 687 SULLIVAN DR NE
WRONSKI, JAMES T 691 SULLIVAN DR NE
WYCKOFF, JULIENNE G 789 PARKSIDE LN NE
YALLA SRIVANI 2704 180TH ST E
YANG LECAS 571 53RD AVE NE
YOUNG BOYD 516 53 1/2 AVE NE
YU NING 641 51ST AVE NE
ZHAGNAY MANUEL JESUS 5101 7TH ST NE
ZHANG JUAN 5213 7TH ST NE
315
Item 3.
658
Item 7.
City
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344
CENTERVILLE, MN 55038
CHARLOTTE, NC 28232
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COL HGTS, MN 55421
COL HGTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HGTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109
COL HGTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HGTS, MN 55421
MPLS, MN 55418
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
CHICAGO, IL 60654
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
BROOKLYN PARK, MN 55444
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HGTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
PINECREST, FL 33156
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
316
Item 3.
659
Item 7.
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94114
COLUMBIA HGTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HGTS, MN 55421
APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HGTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HGTS, MN 55421
INDEPENDENCE, OH 44131
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COL HGTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HGTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HGTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85255
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
NEW BRIGHTON, MN 55112
COL HGTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HGTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
COLUMBIA HGTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
BLAINE, MN 55449
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85261
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
317
Item 3.
660
Item 7.
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HGTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HGTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HGTS, MN 55421
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55405
MINNETONKA, MN 55305
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HGTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
HOUSTON, TX 77056
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
COL HEIGHTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
EAU CLAIRE, WI 54703
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHT, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
ORLANDO, FL 32801
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
318
Item 3.
661
Item 7.
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
BLAINE, MN 55434
MOUNDSVIEW, MN 55112
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HGTS, MN 55421
TEMPE, AZ 85281
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
BURNSVILLE, MN 55337
RYE BROOK, NY 10573
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
ELK RIVER, MN 55330
COLUMBIA HGTS, MN 55421
HAM LAKE, MN 55304
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55412
KLAMATH FALLS, OR 97601
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
PLYMOUTH, MN 55446
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HGTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
BURNSVILLE, MN 55337
RYE BROOK, NY 10573
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HGTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COL HGTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
319
Item 3.
662
Item 7.
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
ANDOVER, MN 55304
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85261
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
ST PAUL, MN 55119
WYOMING, MN 55092
BLAINE, MN 55449
COL HEIGHTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
COL HGTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
VADNAIS HEIGHTS, MN 55127
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
PLYMOUTH, MN 55441
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COL HTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
ISANTI, MN 55040
COLUMBIA HGTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COL HGTS, MN 55421
NEW BRIGHTON, MN 55112
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HGTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBUS, OH 43216
COL HGTS, MN 55421
COL HGTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91423
COLUMBIA HGTS, MN 55421
320
Item 3.
663
Item 7.
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
FRIDLEY, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421
321
Item 3.
664
Item 7.
322
Item 3.
665
Item 7.
323
Item 3.
666
Item 7.
324
Item 3.
667
Item 7.
325
Item 3.
668
Item 7.
1
Andrew Boucher
From:Ann Pineault <pann50@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, May 23, 2025 3:49 PM
To:Andrew Boucher
Subject:Parking on Gould and Peters
Dear Mr. Boucher,
With all the issues with traffic and parking on Gould and Peters, why is the city not considering making
both street no parking zones? Or parking for permitted residents only?
Both streets have been narrow residential streets since their 1930's inception. They are not designed for
high traffic. Nor has the city planned well for such traffic density.
The residents were in place before the city overbuilt the commercial properties in the area. Residents
should get the preferential treatment here.
Commercial property should look elsewhere to accommodate the parking. Expand the parking garage
on the North West Corner of Central and 40th for example. Or expand parking to the open lot across 40th
on the North East side...across from City Hall.
Further given the experience with these residential streets due to overruling and density for the small
area, the Medtronic site should be truly evaluated for the planned density of business and housing. More
green space is needed. The watershed and the park should be enhanced; not disregarded. The city owes
better density and traffic and environmental planning to its existing residents.
And, better plus strict adherence to development contracts and plans is a must. The Hilltop
development of the Kmart site, the Parkside Village site on 51st, the Rainbow site...all suffered
from developer over promising and slow execution execution and follow through. Not to mention
financial bankruptcy.
We in the City of Columbia Heights deserve better and greener solutions.
Sincerely
Ann Pineault
762 Parkside Lane
Columbia Heights, MN
pann50@yahoo.com
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
326
Item 3.
669
Item 7.
1
Andrew Boucher
From:Kris Junker <krisjunker@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 27, 2025 5:43 PM
To:Andrew Boucher
Cc:Mitchell Forney
Subject:Re: Unable to participate in May 21st Neighborhood Meeting
Andrew,
Thank you for the response, and links to more info. At this time a one on one follow up
is not needed.
Kris
On Friday, May 23, 2025 at 02:23:16 PM CDT, Andrew Boucher <aboucher@columbiaheightsmn.gov> wrote:
Kris,
Thank you for reaching out, I apologize for the technical difficulties that were experienced on Wednesday.
Please see the Development & Land Use Items for more information on the Medtronic project along with the
recording of the neighborhood meeting. I also wanted to include the plans that were presented as well as the
narrative describing the phasing of the project and a summary of the comments that were received.
I see that you are in the mailing radius that received the public hearing notice and I want to make sure you
have ample opportunity to engage and provide comments on the project in whatever way you are most
comfortable. If you would like to set up some one-on-one time whether that’s over a phone call or if you would
prefer an in-person meeting prior the June 3, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, then we can set that up. I
understand that business hours can be difficult to make, so if you require accommodation outside of regular
business hours, please let me know and I will work with your schedule accordingly. The described scope of the
project will reach a threshold requiring a Mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet, which will include
a traffic impact study, storm water improvements, and other environmental reviews as applicable. The EAW is
required to be submitted to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board for a mandatory 30-day review period
before the City Council holds a public meeting to make a determination if an Environmental Impact Statement
is necessary. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4411.3100, no final government decisions can be made on a
project until the conclusion of the EAW.
Please let me know if you have any comments or questions that myself or my Community Development
Director, Mitch Forney, can answer. Otherwise, I will stay in touch and make sure you are kept apprised of any
applicable updates as well as answering any specific questions you have for city staff or the developer.
327
Item 3.
670
Item 7.
2
Thank for your understanding and I apologize that you weren’t able to participate in the neighborhood meeting.
Andrew
From: Kris Junker <krisjunker@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2025 4:38 PM
To: Andrew Boucher <ABoucher@columbiaheightsmn.gov>
Subject: Unable to participate in May 21st Neighborhood Meeting
Hello,
I attempted to participate virtually in the May 21st meeting for the Preliminary Plat /Final Plat; Planned unit
Development; Easement Vacations; and Mixed Use Development.
The notice I received provided meeting ID and passcode information, but did not specify that Teams was the platform
used to support this virtual meeting. After a call to the library, I was able to access the meeting, but it seems there was n ot
sound set up in the room, as I was never able to hear any part of the presentation or discussion. I asked about this in the
chat, but there was no response.
Teams said the meeting was being recorded and transcribed, so if this will be made public, please let me know as I would
have liked to participate in this meeting, but now all I can do is listen to the discussion other had.
Andrew Boucher, AICP | City Planner (he/him)
City of Columbia Heights | Community Development Department
3989 Central Avenue NE | Columbia Heights, MN 55421
aboucher@columbiaheightsmn.gov
Direct: 763-706-3673 | Main: 763-706-3670
328
Item 3.
671
Item 7.
3
Kris
CH Resident
Disclaimer: Information in this message or attachment may be government data and thereby subject to the Minnesota Government
Data Practices Act; may be subject to attorney-client or work product privilege; may be confidential, privileged, proprietary, or
otherwise protected. The unauthorized review, copying, retransmission, or other use or disclosure of the information is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and
then promptly delete this message from your computer system.
329
Item 3.
672
Item 7.
1
Andrew Boucher
From:R W <rawratkowski@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 19, 2025 9:14 PM
To:Andrew Boucher; Mitchell Forney
Subject:800 53rd Ave
Dear Mr. Boucher,
I received the neighborhood meeting notice and have serious concerns about the scope of the proposed
development at 800 53rd Ave. I agree something ought to be done, but not this.
First, the water table is pretty close to the surface. I assume Medtronic doesn’t want it for a reason. Have
insurance adjusters evaluated risks to proposed plans?
Where are these new neighbors supposed to park?
A subterranean parking garage is not an option, given the water table. Asking people to depend on the
power grid to keep the whole building upright and the basement watertight is not ok.
53rd cannot accommodate more traffic. I just got assessed to improve it. I was rewarded with a
turnaround that people doing a u-turn do not need to signal on. The clarity on who stops is good, just
insanely irritating when I could go but someone (or a whole string of cars) is going west without a signal. It
still takes multiple signal cycles to get through the 53rd and Central light.
The proposed development adds another huge one-entrance input to 53rd in that tight space, repeating
the one way in/out mistake of the high-traffic Starbucks lot that made my assessment necessary.
The most sustainable option would be to either put in a camera-monitored fenced-off tree nursery,
public (monitored) orchard, or revert low spots back to wetland.
Anyone purchasing property on land that is within at least six feet, if not ten feet, of the lake’s surface
elevation should be advised of basement moisture and/or flooding hazard and the potential for increased
insurance premiums or damage. Please don’t screw my new neighbors.
53rd and Central is already unsafe.
Public transportation in the area is already unsafe.
I already don’t feel safe (and avoid) going to the stores in the La Casita area on foot after a few incidents
(man attacking cars with a knife, auto accidents, peevish person coming after me because they can’t
handle crosswalks saying “wait!” near a bus stop, etc.).
The Metro Transit hub proposal on 53rd near Petco both blocks off traffic instead of a bus pulling off to
the side AND demands foot traffic pass within arm's reach with no alternatives (does not feel safe). I see
families and individuals from all walks of life on 53rd. Distance and clear boundaries give reaction time,
clear nonverbal communication, and safety. Whether a motorist or a pedestrian, the wisdom is to leave
330
Item 3.
673
Item 7.
2
yourself an "out." These proposed hubs leave neither pedestrians nor motorists an "out." Part of what
currently makes the walk past Target to Central (and some segments of Central) feel passably safe is the
wide swath of land available, the high visibility, and the different options for foot traffic. Please don't take
that away.
Thanks,
A neighbor
Rebecca Wratkowski
687 Sullivan Drive NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
331
Item 3.
674
Item 7.
1
Andrew Boucher
From:Tracy Severson <tracyseversonmn@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 16, 2025 6:37 AM
To:Andrew Boucher
Cc:Amáda Márquez Simula; Justice Spriggs; Rachel James; Laurel Deneen; Connie Buesgens
Subject:Concerns Regarding Proposed Multi-Unit Development in Columbia Heights
Dear Community Development Division,
CC: Columbia Heights City Council Members.
I’m writing as a concerned resident regarding the proposed development in Columbia Heights that
includes two multifamily apartment buildings (132 units each), a mixed-use building with up to 175
residential units and 12,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, and 58 townhomes.
While I understand and support the need for strategic growth, I believe this particular project raises
serious concerns regarding traffic, transit capacity, and overall community infrastructure.
Traffic and Road Capacity
The development is planned in an already congested corridor near Central Avenue and University
Avenue. This area includes major retail centers like Target, Dollar Tree, and Petco, generating daily high-
volume traffic. Adding 350+ new residential units could mean hundreds of additional vehicles, leading to
increased congestion, longer commute times, and more wear on city-maintained roads.
Public Transit Limitations
Though some council members have advocated for public transit and biking as alternatives to car traffic,
these aren’t fully viable solutions for Columbia Heights at this time. Minnesota’s climate limits year-
round biking feasibility. Additionally, transit coverage remains limited. According to the Metropolitan
Council’s 2024 Transit Performance Evaluation, Metro Transit systemwide ridership is still only at 65% of
2019 levels, and many routes in the suburbs—including parts of Columbia Heights—suffer from reduced
frequency and limited evening or weekend service. Without significant expansion, our current transit
system simply cannot accommodate the demand this new development would bring.
Walkability & Daily Needs
Columbia Heights has a Walk Score of 28, classified as “car dependent” meaning many errands still
require a car. In practice, sidewalk gaps and limited walkable access to amenities—especially in winter
months—mean that residents will continue to rely heavily on vehicles, further increasing traffic and
parking needs.
Community Infrastructure and Services
Columbia Heights already has a population density of about 6,460 residents per square mile. A
development of this scale will strain our schools, parks, emergency services, and utilities unless the City
takes preemptive action. Growth should be matched with investment—not just in housing but in the
infrastructure that supports healthy, sustainable communities.
332
Item 3.
675
Item 7.
2
I ask the City to pause and fully assess the long-term impacts of this development, including
infrastructure capacity, traffic studies, and transit improvements. Columbia Heights deserves smart,
balanced planning—not just growth for growth’s sake.
Thank you for your time, and I appreciate your commitment to engaging with residents as part of this
process.
Sincerely,
Tracy Severson
4118 Monroe
Tracyseversonmn@gmail.com
333
Item 3.
676
Item 7.
PLANNING COMMISSION
City Hall—Council Chambers, 3989 Central Ave NE
Tuesday, July 01, 2025
6:00 PM
AMENDED AGENDA
ITEM 2 HAS BEEN UPDATED TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
COMMENTS AND A REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE RESOLUTION
NUMBER.
ATTENDANCE INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC
Members of the public who wish to attend may do so in-person, or by using Microsoft Teams Meeting
at ID 236 039 764 586 2, Passcode kY37ma9R. For questions, please contact Administration at 763 -
706-3610.
Auxiliary aids or other accommodations for individuals with disabilities are available upon request when
the request is made at least 72 hours in advance. Please contact Administration at 763 -706-3610 to
make arrangements.
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
APPROVE MINUTES
1. MOTION: Move to approve the June 3rd, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
PUBLIC HEARINGS
This is the public’s opportunity to speak regarding this matter. Speakers that are in -person are asked to
complete a Speaker Form and submit it to City Staff. Speakers attending virtually should send a request
to speak with this information to the moderator using the chat function and wait to be called on to
speak. When speaking, virtual attendees should tur n their camera on. Speakers should limit their
comments to five (5) minutes. Any comments made after the public hearing is closed will not be
considered by the Planning Commission and will not be included as part of the formal record for this
matter as the item will have been voted on and the item formally closed by the Commission.
2. Shoreland Overlay District Variance to exceed the 35% impervious surface lot coverage to
allow for the construction of a multi-phased redevelopment project at 800 53rd Avenue
NE.
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2025-058, there being ample copies
available to the public.
MOTION: Move to recommend that the City Council approve Resolution 2025 -058, a
resolution approving a Shoreland Variance for the property located at 800 53rd Avenue NE
in the City of Columbia Heights, MN
OTHER BUSINESS
1677
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights AGENDA July 01, 2025
Planning Commission Page 2
ADJOURNMENT
Auxiliary aids or other accommodations for individuals with disabilities are available upon request when the request is
made at least 72 hours in advance. Please contact Administration at 763-706-3610 to make arrangements.
2678
Item 7.
MINUTES
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 03, 2025
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm by Chair Wolfe.
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Jeffrey Johnson, Dirk Schmitz, Karl Rehfuss, Clara Wolfe, Ahmed Maameri, and
John Gianoulis
Commissioners absent: Paul Moses
Also present: Andrew Boucher, City Planner; Aaron Chirpich, City Manager; Sarah LaVoie,
Administrative Assistant; Mitch Forney, Community Development Coordinator; Sara Ion, City Clerk;
Laurel Deneen, Council Liaison.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of April 01, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Motion by Schmitz, seconded by Rehfuss, to approve the minutes from the meeting of April 01,
2025. All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Speaking at Board and Commission Guidelines and Form
Introduction: Ion updated the Commission on the Public Hearing process. She noted that there is a
sign-in form for residents or people who are interested in speaking on the topic. Staff can help the
Commission introduce people to the podium. Overall, the Commission is in charge of the hearing.
There are guidelines provided to the Commission if a Public Hearing needs to be postponed,
suspended, or recessed.
OTHER BUSINESS
3. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat; Planned Unit Development; Easement Vacations to allow
for the construction of a multi-phased redevelopment at 800 53rd Avenue NE, including two
6-story, 132-unit affordable multifamily buildings, a mixed -use building with 12,000 sq. ft. of
commercial space, and a range of 150-175 market-rate apartments, 58 townhomes, and
associated park and infrastructure improvements.
Introduction: Boucher stated that Kaas Wilson Architects, on behalf of Lincoln Avenue
Communities, has applied for a Preliminary Plat; Planned Unit Development; and Easement
Vacations for the property located at 800 53rd Avenue, the site of the vacant Medtronic corporate
campus, which would be demolished as part of this request . The property is owned by Medtronic,
but under a purchase agreement with the applicant/developer.
3
Item 1.
679
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 03, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting Page 2
Boucher explained that a multi-phased redevelopment is proposed, including two 6-story, 132-unit
affordable multifamily buildings, a mixed-use building with 12,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, and
a range of 150-175 market-rate apartments, 58 townhomes, and associated park and infrastructure
improvements, as well as multi-modal transportation facilities. In addition, Sullivan Lake is
identified as an impaired water body, and the described project scope meets the threshold test
identified in MN Rules 4410.4300 Mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet Categories,
Subpart 19D: 250 unattached units or 375 attached units in a city within the seven -county Twin
Cities metropolitan area that has adopted a comprehensive plan under Minnesota Statutes, section
473.859.
Boucher noted that the site is zoned GB, General Business District, with the R-4 Multiple Family
Residential District zoning district examined as it is most similar to the type of uses being proposed ,
compared to what the applicant is proposing. The site is adjacent to the City of Fridley and General
Business zoned commercial properties to the north and east; the site has Parks and Open Space
zoning to the west in the form of Sullivan Lake Park and residential districts such as R-2A, R-2B, and
R-3 (One/Two Family Residential, Built-as-Duplex, and Limited Multiple Family Residential) with
townhome developments to the west and south. Additionally, there is R-1 (Single-Family
Residential) with more dense districts R-2A, R-2B, and R-3 south of the subject property.
Boucher mentioned that the applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing lot into four separate
parcels based on the phasing of the development, with the latter phases being platted and sold to
interested developers. The first two phases include the two 132 affordable multifamily apartment
buildings, starting with the southern building as the first phase, the northern building as the second
phase, and the third phase including the 58 townhome units. The fourth phase includes the mixed -
use building containing 150-175 market-rate multifamily units and 12,000 sq. ft. of speculative
commercial space.
Boucher stated in late 2022, Medtronic vacated and listed their Columbia Heights campus, located
at 800 53rd Avenue NE, for sale. The City hired the consultant, HKGi, who prepared the City’s 2040
Comprehensive Plan, to conduct community outreach and provide guidance on potential
parameters for redevelopment of the site. The entire 11.74 -acre site is fully within the Shoreland
Overlay District and zoned GB-General Business, which allows for a variety of commercial uses but
does not include provisions to allow residential development.
Boucher explained that HKGi organized an internal meeting with City staff in October 2023 to
discuss potential redevelopment parameters and historic site/area conditions before holding a
Joint Session of the Planning Commission and City Council, along with city staff, on November 16,
2023. The Joint Session allowed for some consensus to be reached regarding the core land use and
design elements that have been established thus far. These core elements include the following:
1. Consider lower-density housing near Sullivan Lake and higher-density housing away from
the lake towards 53rd Avenue and Central Avenue (townhomes → high-density residential),
with six stories being the maximum for the higher-density residential, including parking. A
minimum of 400 units for the apartments is acknowledged, with a targeted density range
between 450-600 units, and commercial activity is limited by visibility from the street.
2. Public accessibility to the lake edge is a priority, and there is a desire to invite activity to the
4
Item 1.
680
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 03, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting Page 3
water feature/lake; stormwater features incorporated into the street do a good job of
integrating public and private spaces and were received extremely positively.
3. Improving multi-modal transportation was repeatedly cited as the site provides
opportunities to incorporate transit facilities with the upcoming BRT F Line and provide
connections east-west along 52nd Avenue to expand pedestrian and bicycling facilities.
4. Expansion and/or reimagining of Sullivan Lake Park to have some degree of public gathering
amenity, such as seating areas or other pedestrian-scale amenities incorporated with the
water/stormwater features and public art components. Needs for updated facilities and
parking more in alignment with the types of programming desired were discussed.
5. Improving the environmental condition of Sullivan Lake Park as an impaired water body is
explicitly identified as a priority.
Boucher noted that the land use and design frameworks were refined into two concepts using the
responses from the Joint Session, which were presented to the public at an Open House
engagement event held on January 9, 2024. The event was extremely well attended and served as
the beginning of a two-week online public engagement period from January 9th through January
24th, where community members provided feedback on the concepts presented.
Boucher stated the amendment was approved by the Metropolitan Council regarding the 11.74-
acre property from Commercial to Transit Oriented Development (TOD) land use with an increase
in the maximum density for TOD from 25-50 units per acre to 25-65 units per acre as well as a
change in the percentage use from 70% residential/30% commercial to 85% residential/15%
commercial to accommodate future development. This framework and the associated comments
received are reflected in the proposed application(s), showing a multi-phased redevelopment with
a density range on the lower side for the multifamily buildings and a midpoint density range for the
townhomes between the totals described in the preferred concept. Also included is the desired
12,000 sq. ft. of commercial space and associated park and infrastructure improvements, as well as
multi-modal transportation facilities that will be required as part of the PUD .
Boucher stated the site is currently zoned GB, General Business District, and the applicant is
proposing to rezone the site to Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Planned Unit Development
District will allow the applicant areas of flexibility within the following areas as defined by City Code
9.113 (C): building heights, placement, design and materials, setbacks, landscaping, parking stall
design, public spaces and art, densities, and the overall use of the property.
Boucher mentioned that after the amendment was approved, the Comprehensive Plan guides this
area for Transit Oriented Development, which seeks to develop properties to have a mix of
residential, retail, and office. Transit-oriented development also seeks to include pedestrian-
friendly access and design. In review of the site and building plans for this project, pedestrian and
bicycle facilities are not shown, and it is expected that any proposed facilities to identify and close
connectivity gaps that are identified in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan or related city plans. A
schematic-level landscaping plan has been provided, and defined park improvements will be
required for the proposal to be consistent with the goals of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Boucher explained that the subject property is currently located in the General Business District,
5
Item 1.
681
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 03, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting Page 4
which does not allow for residential uses. The proposed plan is to rezone the site to Planned Unit
Development District. The R-4 and GB Districts are subject to setback standards, while the PUD
district is not. Setbacks of properties in the PUD district are subject to Staff review and Council
approval. The first two apartment buildings are in the center of the subject property, share zero-lot
lines, and show a building control joint connecting the two structures, resulting in the proposed
setbacks described. The parking lots abut the property line of the future phases of the
development but are separated. In review of the proposed setbacks. Staff have identified that the
project will need flexibility with regard to setting the minimum multi-family front yard setback to
10 feet, and setting the multi-family parking setbacks to 0 feet.
Boucher noted the property is currently 11.74 acres, and the applicant is proposing to acquire
7,147 sq. ft. or .16 acres of City parkland. There is also a roadway easement (53rd Avenue NE)
which is 38,623 sq. ft. or 0.89 acres, utility and trail easements that account for 51,922 sq. ft. or
1.19 acres, and a combined total buildable property area of 454,752 sq. ft. or 10.44 acres. City
Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot area for Multiple Family Residential District (R -4) zoning
of 10,000 square feet for a multi-family dwelling, and a minimum lot width of 70 feet. The
proposed lot area for Lot 1 is 1.81 acres, and the proposed lot width is 511.67 feet; Lot 2 is 1.74
acres and 512.46 feet wide; Lot 3 is 2.47 acres with a lot width of 383.84 feet; and Lot 4 is 5.61
acres with a width of 576. The proposed lot areas and lot widths meet the minimum dimensions for
the proposed use. The proposed lot areas and lot widths meet the minimum dimensions for the R -4
Zoning District. The proposed plat shows an impervious surface coverage exceeding the maximum
for the Shoreland Overlay District. A Variance will be required to exceed the 35% impervious
surface maximum in the Shoreland Overlay District and must be provided to the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources as a condition of approval.
Boucher stated the proposed site plan shows four phases with the first two including two L-shaped
apartment buildings both containing 134 units with surface and underground parking; the third
phase containing 58 townhouses with tuck-under garages and standalone as well as shared
driveways; and the last phase, a mixed-use building containing 12,000 square foot of commercial
space (the specific use will have defined parking requirements) and 150-175 market-rate
apartment units with underground and surface parking shared between the uses which will be an
expectation in the development agreement., but will have a specific calculation and other
requirements once an end-user is found. The project will provide approximately 675 parking
spaces: 250 stalls at grade and 425 underground parking spaces. Each of the townhome units will
have two garage stalls and 2 driveway parking spaces.
Boucher explained that in the first two phases, the applicant is proposing two multifamily buildings
identical in layout and unit mix. City Code 9.106 General Development Standards (L) Off -street
parking and loading (10) establishes off-street parking requirements for the allowed uses within the
city. Residential uses have off-street parking requirements, including two enclosed spaces (garages)
per single-family and townhome, but that count is different for multifamily buildings , and
depending on the unit type. One-bedroom units are required to provide one enclosed parking
space (garage); two or more bedroom units are required to provide two total spaces per unit , with
one of those being enclosed. The Council, at its discretion, may reduce the minimum required
parking to not less than 1.5 parking spaces per unit for multifamily structures with seven or more
6
Item 1.
682
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 03, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting Page 5
units, after consideration of factors including but not limited to the present or future availability of
transit services, shared parking, pedestrian orientation, and occupancy characteristics, which is also
the intent of the Transit Oriented Development designation.
Boucher noted that for the first two phases, the applicant is proposing 268 multifamily units with
the unit type counts above. Based on that configuration, the applicant is required to provide a
minimum of 134 enclosed spaces per building and 82 surface spaces for a total of 270 enclosed
spaces and 164 surface spaces totaling 434 stalls between the two buildings or a parking ratio of
1.6 stalls per 1 unit for both buildings and meet the minimum of not less than 1.5 parking spaces.
There should be a determination on whether parking is included in the rental pricing, and if that is
desired, then it should be considered as part of the development agreement.
Boucher mentioned the third phase includes 58 townhouses showing two -car garages with
driveways capable of parking two passenger vehicles. The applicant is required to provide two
parking spaces per townhome unit, and both of them must be enclosed. This configuration meets
the minimum required.
Boucher stated the last phase includes a mixed-use building with a range of approximately 150-175
market-rate apartment units and a 12,000 sq. ft. speculative commercial space. Because the
commercial space is without a defined end user, the space is speculative and numero us commercial
uses in the city are held to the 1 per 300 sq. ft. gross floor area standard, so that is what is being
used to estimate the commercial parking requirement with the understanding that when a defined
end user is identified, those parking calculations could change depending on the type of use.
Market-rate apartment units are considered to have more amenities, including enclosed parking;
multifamily units are required to provide at least one enclosed parking space per unit, regardless of
the unit type, not to decrease the parking ratio below 1.5 spaces (total) per unit, which is the
minimum standard.
Boucher explained that City Code 9.106 (L)(6)(g) and (h) identify provisions allow to allow joint
parking between multi-use structures and proof of parking showing that the anticipated parking
demand will be met if the future potential use may generate additional parking needs. As part of
the PUD, the City can accept the amount of parking provided for the first three phases of
residential development with the understanding that the specific unit count breakdown and
definition of the commercial space will require further parking requirements. The parking spaces
vary in size from nine feet by twenty feet to a compact size of nine feet by eighteen feet and eight
feet six inches by eighteen feet. Most of the spaces for residents are undersized. As part of the
PUD, the City can accept the undersized parking for resident spots. Drive aisle depths are noted on
the plans at 24 feet in width. This is consistent with the City’s requirements for drive aisle depths.
Boucher stated that the applicant has prepared a draft of the traffic impact study required as part
of the mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet, which is attached for review. The study
reviewed existing conditions within the study area to establish current traffic cond itions and
determine impacts associated with traffic volumes, observed transportation characteristics, and
analyzed crash history, as well as interaction capacity. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were
provided by MnDOT or estimated based on the data collected. Two (2) historical turning movement
7
Item 1.
683
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 03, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting Page 6
counts from March 2024 and October 2024 were utilized for the University (Hwy 47) and 53 rd
Avenue intersection.
Boucher noted vehicular intersection turning movement and pedestrian/bicycle counts were
collected at the following locations on Wednesday, April 9, 2025, from 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. at
each location, as well as 13-hour counts (6 a.m. – 7 p.m. as indicated* for the following locations:
• 53rd Avenue and University Avenue (Hwy 47)*
• 53rd Avenue and Monroe Street NE
• 53rd Avenue and West Site/Target access*
• 53rd Avenue and East Site/Target access*
• 53rd Avenue and US Bank access
• 53rd Avenue and Discount Tire/West Starbucks access
• 53rd Avenue and Bank of America/East Starbucks access
• 53rd Avenue and Central Avenue (Hwy 65)*
Boucher mentioned that the roadways observed are described as follows:
• University Avenue (Hwy 47) is a 4-lane divided minor arterial roadway with left- and right-turn
lanes containing no multimodal facilities, except for transit stops at the 53 rd Avenue
intersection, and 50 mph speed limits.
• Central Avenue (Hwy 65) is generally a 4-lane divided minor arterial roadway with left- and
right-turn lanes containing a multiuse trail along the west side of the roadway north of 53 rd
Avenue, and sidewalk along both sides of the roadway south of 53 rd Avenue with a transit stop
in the southwest quadrant of the 53rd Avenue intersection. The speed limit is 40 mph.
• 53rd Avenue is generally a 2-lane undivided major collector roadway west of the Target access
with limited turn lanes and a 2-lane divided roadway east of the Target access with dedicated
turn lanes. There is a multi-use trail along the south side of the roadway and a sidewalk along
the north side. Metro Transit Route 10 serves 53rd Avenue in 30-minute increments throughout
most of the day. The speed limit is 30 mph, and the roadway was recently reconstructed in
2023.
Boucher stated that all other study roadways are 2-lane undivided local facilities or commercial
driveways with limited turn lanes and/or multimodal facilities. The 53 rd Avenue intersections at
University Avenue (Hwy 47) and Central Avenue (Hwy 65) are signalized, while the other
intersections have two-way stop controls, with a median U-turn/partial roundabout located along
53rd Avenue between the west and east Target driveways. MnDOT has expressed a willingness to
incorporate roadway changes with this project to improve the traffic situation as well as pedestrian
and bicyclist facilities.
Boucher explained that after a review of five years of crash history (Jan. 2020 – Dec. 2024) using
data from MnDOT, there were a total of 29 crashes reported along 53rd Avenue between University
and Central during the review period. None of the crashes were defined as “severe” (fatal or
serious injury), with most of the reported crashes occurring between Monroe and Central, primarily
prior to the reconstruction. Since the 53rd Avenue was reconstructed, there have been five (5)
reported crashes, or 2.5 crashes per year.
8
Item 1.
684
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 03, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting Page 7
Boucher noted intersection capacity was evaluated using methods outlined in Highway Capacity
Manual, 6th Edition to model observed traffic operations and identify key metrics such as Level of
Service (LOS) and queues using collected traffic, pedestrian, and bicyclist volumes, traffic controls,
peaking characteristics, and driver behavior factors to quantify how an intersection is operating.
Intersections are graded from LOS A to F, corresponding to the average delay per vehicle values
shown below. LOS A–D is generally considered acceptable, with A indicating the best traffic
operation and F indicating demand exceeds capacity.
Boucher mentioned that at side-street stop-controlled intersections, emphasis is given to providing
an estimate for the level of service of these approaches in one of two ways.
1. Consideration is given to the overall intersection LOS, the total number of vehicles entering
compared to the capability of the intersection to support the volumes.
2. It is important to consider the delay on the minor approach as the mainline does not have to
stop; most delays are attributed to the side-street approaches.
Boucher noted it is also understood that it is typical of intersections with higher mainline traffic
volumes to experience high levels of delay (poor levels of service) on the side-street approaches,
but an acceptable overall intersection level of service during peak hour conditions. All study
intersections and approaches generally operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during typical
weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The eastbound approaches of 53rd Avenue at both University
(Hwy 47) and Central Avenue (Hwy 65) operate near the LOS D/E threshold during the p.m. peak
hour, although these operations are relatively common and don’t typically require mitigation.
However, peak westbound queues along 53rd from University (Hwy 47) can extend approximately
300’ during the p.m. peak hour (or approximately 10 – 15 vehicles) and require one (1) signal cycle
length. Otherwise, no other existing intersection capacity issues are identified in the study area.
Boucher stated that the traffic conditions were modeled on no-build conditions and the conditions
proposed in the redevelopment, in comparison to the full extent of the peak demands that
occurred during Medtronic’s use as a corporate office building. It is necessary to examine the prior
use versus the current vacant lot to understand the traffic implications.
Boucher reviewed the proposed redevelopment trip generation. The trip generation estimate was
created using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, and includes trips for typical weekday
a.m. and p.m. peak hours, as well as daily. The previous use as a 144,000 sq. ft. office building with
approximately 605 parking spaces generated an estimated 1,560 daily trips (780 in/780 out) with
an estimated 7:30 – 8:30 a.m. peak hour generating 219 trips (193 in/26 out) and 5:00 – 6:00 p.m.
peak hour generating 207 trips (35 in/172 out), which coincides with the peak hours of the adjacent
roadways.
Boucher noted in consideration of the proposed redevelopment, a 10% multi-use reduction is only
applied to the retail portion to account for residents that are expected to patronize the retail use as
well as a 5% modal reduction is applied to all trips to account for people utilizing different modes of
transportation such as a transit, walk, or bike trips as a Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
project. The commercial space is considered speculative retail for the purposes of the trip
generation summary and may require further analysis depending on the end user if it changes to a
9
Item 1.
685
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 03, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting Page 8
use other than retail.
Boucher explained the proposed redevelopment is estimated to generate 3,000 daily (1,500 in /
1,500 out) trips with an estimated generation of 239 a.m. peak hour trips (66 in / 173 out) and 282
p.m. peak hour trips (165 in / 117 out), but anticipating a overall lower peak demand considering
the fixed hours of the previous office building and the differences in peak trips generated by
residential uses.
Boucher stated results of the no-build and build conditions of the proposed redevelopment
indicate that all intersections and approaches will generally continue to operate at a LOS D or
better during peak a.m. and p.m. hours. Overall changes in operations based on no build and build
conditions range from about 2 to 4 seconds without any changes to the existing signal timing
provided by MnDOT. Westbound queues along 53rd Avenue from University Avenue (Hwy 47) are
expected to increase by approximately 50’ to 75’ during the peak periods (2 – 4 vehicles) because
of the proposed redevelopment. These queues are expected to increase from 300’ to
approximately 375’ – 400’ during the p.m. peak hour, with minor queuing expected at a couple of
site access approaches.
Boucher noted left- and/or right-turn lanes along 53rd Avenue at the west site access or a right-turn
lane along 53rd Avenue at the east site access could reduce potential conflicts, but do not appear to
provide much operational benefit and could result in increased vehicle speeds and/or longer
pedestrian crossing distances. Since the adjacent roadway network can support the proposed
redevelopment, no additional infrastructure changes are required to maintain the current
intersection capacity. The applicant is strongly encouraged to coordinate with MnDOT to id entify
opportunities to improve the traffic and safety conditions, including potential changes to
roundabouts.
Boucher stated that the recommendations regarding the site plan identified the following items
that should be considered:
• Locate signage and landscaping to avoid creating any sight distance issues.
• Provide multimodal connections throughout the site to ensure connectivity with existing
and proposed facilities adjacent to the site.
• Review truck maneuverability to limit potential internal circulation conflicts. Align the
northern east-west driveway aisles between the northwest townhomes and the multifamily
apartments to reduce potential conflicts between movements.
• Preserve the ability to connect the proposed redevelopment with an extension of 52 nd
Avenue.
Boucher explained the site will be served by two existing entrances on the south side of 53rd
Avenue NE. These accesses will be configured to Public Works/Engineering specifications and
incorporating as much feedback from the MN Department of Transportation on any restrictions
with turns. There are no proposed city streets within the project area. Internal access will be
private drive lanes. There is no proposed connected access to the east or south.
Boucher indicated that the Fire Department included review comments that the dead ends for the
10
Item 1.
686
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 03, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting Page 9
townhomes cannot be greater than 300 feet; otherwise, a turnaround is required. The street width
meets the minimum width required to accommodate a fire apparatus with the parking spaces
included.
Boucher stated Minnesota Department of Transportation provided review comments on how this
development’s proposed access aligns with the Central Avenue reconstruction in 2028. MNDOT
requests that the applicant continue to work with area engineer Chris Bower to incorporat e
opportunities to improve traffic mobility and multimodal user safety. The intention is to construct a
multilane roundabout at the intersection of MN 65 and 53rd Avenue with a single eastbound lane
on 53rd Avenue. The eastbound approach is forecasted to operate at Level of Service D in the PM
peak, but while that is an improvement over the LOS E experienced at the signal today, the
eastbound intersection approach is nearing capacity based upon existing traffic volumes. MNDOT
recommends examining the feasibility of upsizing the roundabout at 53rd Avenue to handle future
traffic growth and incorporating any development-related traffic information into the
reconstruction design by the end of July 2025.
Boucher explained that the intersection of MN 47 and 53rd Avenue operates at LOS F today and it is
MNDOT’s perspective that so long as there is a traffic signal at this intersection, it will continue to
operate at a LOS F. Without eastbound or westbound turn lanes, the signal functions poorly, and
there is no ability to add these lanes without serious impacts to adjacent properties. MNDOT is
considering a roundabout at this intersection after modeling shows that it would operate at LOS A
with current traffic volumes, but that would not occur until at least 2030. The developer is
expected to coordinate with Metro Transit to accommodate the future F-Line BRT into the project
area.
Boucher stated the City approved a Complete Streets Policy in January 2025 to require public and
private development projects to identify the users of a project area and what mode they use to
travel, whether the area has identified conflict points or is referenced in a ci tywide plan, if there is
a language spoken other than English, and the presence of transit facilities along the project area or
significant destinations where connectivity caps can be closed. The expectation is to improve
connectivity for pedestrian and bicycle access where feasible and practical.
Boucher explained MN65/Central Avenue is identified as a Regional Bicycle Transportation
Network (RBTN) Corridor, and has several transit routes in operation, including plans for Metro
Transit to introduce a new Bus Rapid Transit Route F along 53 rd Avenue. Both intersections at MN
65/Central and 52nd have Level 1 (top) scores on the Priority Areas Walking Study (PAWS),
combined with the area being designated as Transit Oriented Development, there is anticipated to
be considerable pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
Boucher noted there is an existing trail running along the south side of the property that outlets
into the Total Health parking lot, near Highway 65 and 52nd Avenue. If there is a desire for the trail
to connect to Highway 65, then additional coordination will be requir ed with the cities of Columbia
Heights and Fridley, developer, and MNDOT to build a trail extension with a MNDOT 2028
construction project, but does face challenging grades that would have to be accommodated in the
development plans. MNDOT has also identified the need for a safe and comfortable crossing of
11
Item 1.
687
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 03, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting Page 10
Highway 65, which could include countermeasures such as a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, high-
visibility crosswalks, and pedestrian-level lighting. The development will be required to provide
sidewalks or shared-use paths/trails to provide access to the townhomes and multifamily buildings
and connectivity to Sullivan Lake Park. Prioritizing and emphasizing multimodal connections
throughout the site to ensure connectivity with existing and proposed facilities adjacent to the site
as part of the park improvements. These are expectations that will be included in the development
agreement.
Boucher mentioned the proposed plat will not include a park dedication. Instead, the applicants
will make a financial contribution and/or build out amenities from the master plan that was
approved for Sullivan Lake Park to satisfy this requirement , which will be included in the
development contract. The site will include enhancements to the Sullivan Lake public park on the
west side of the property (labeled “Park” on the plans). The improvements to the park will be
reflective of the master planning that the Parks and Recreation Commission approved. Th e
residential area of the L-shaped buildings will include private patios and tot lots, and a
courtyard/amenity space above the enclosed garage spaces. The project is anticipated to include
15,600 sq. ft. of trails and walk as well as 212,306 sq. ft. of common open/green space. The park
improvements will be defined as part of the physical development contract as required by the PUD
process.
Boucher stated there are no commercial uses in need of loading/unloading or receiving large
deliveries being proposed at this time, which would require compliance with the City Code’s off-
street loading requirements. Any nonresidential use that receives or distributes materials or
merchandise by trucks or similar vehicles and has a gross floor area of 5,000 sq. ft. is subject to off -
street loading requirements. When the commercial space has a defined end user, that tenant will
be required to meet dimensional standards for loading berths, location, and access by designating a
loading zone. The applicant should consider identifying specific loading and unloading areas for
residents moving in or out as part of the development agreement.
Boucher noted that the proposed landscaping plan shows a total of 112 trees, including a mix of
deciduous trees, evergreen trees, and ornamental trees. The tree sizes and diameters will meet the
City’s requirements once soil volumes are provided. The remaining area on the site will be covered
with mulch, stormwater seed mixture, and turf sod. IF mechanical screening is to be placed on the
roof, it shall comply with the City’s requirements for screening as a condition of approval. Trash
handling areas are shown for the two L-shaped buildings just outside the parking garage. Turning
diagrams have been provided showing that a truck can make the necessary maneuvers. If the trash
is not located within the underground parking garage, then the trash and/or recycling collection
areas shall be enclosed on at least three sides by an opaque screening wall or fence no less than six
feet in height with the open side of the enclosure not facing any public street or the front yard of
any adjacent property as a condition of approval.
Boucher stated the site is served by existing utilities but will need to have utility capacity increased
to accommodate additional demand. Existing utilities, such as water main, sanitary sewer, storm
sewer, and small utilities such as electric lines, natural gas, and communication lines, will be
removed as necessary to accommodate the new project. The project will include the extension and
12
Item 1.
688
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 03, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting Page 11
installation of utilities to serve the site. Watermain will be extended from the existing watermain
within 53rd Avenue to the south into the project site, providing water service. The water main will
connect back to the water main within 53rd Avenue, providing a looped system through the site. As
an option, the water main could connect to the existing water main in the far southwest corner of
the site, which currently serves the Parkside Village residential site. This would provide an
additional looped connection.
Boucher explained Sanitary sewer will be extended into the site from the existing sanitary sewer in
the south portion of the site. It appears that all of the surrounding sanitary sewer lines flow to an
existing lift station just off the southwest corner of the site. Other u tilities such as electric, gas, and
communication cables will also be installed. The applicant has provided a utility plan that shows
new water-main, sanitary, and sewer connections upsized that will run through the subject
property and adjacent properties, Central Avenue, before extending and looping into 53rd Avenue
to serve the building. The utility plan does not show how electrical and gas lines will be connected
to the building; detailed plans will be required once a building permit has been applied for. Utility
construction for phase 1 is estimated to last several months, with the building construction to last
one and a half to two years.
Boucher mentioned that the previous use of the site with an office building and large parking lot
has set a commercial use precedence on this site. The large, hard-surfaced areas provided little
green space for stormwater treatment. In fact, much of the surface parking lot runoff drains
directly to Sullivan Lake with little to no treatment. Stormwater management is required for the
development. The stormwater management plan shows three proposed underground infiltration
storage vaults and an infiltration/filtration basin to increase the amount of volume control and
retention necessary to contain runoff onsite with no increase in the total amounts of phosphorus
and suspended solid states. There is currently no existing treatment on-site, so the proposed rates
will improve from the existing rates, reducing runoff volumes and improving water quality.
Proposed stormwater features include grates, ponding areas, outlet control structures that provide
pre-treatment, skimming for floatables and oils, and dead storage volumes for settleable solids.
Boucher stated the Metropolitan Council has a Climate Vulnerability Assessment tool , which shows
a flood risk on the existing site, mainly within the existing stormwater pond area located in the
southeast portion of the site. However, the FEMA flood map shows the site to be outside the 100-
year flood zone. Flood risks from Sullivan Lake are minimal. Flooding impacts within the proposed
development can be mitigated by stormwater management and building elevations, including
setting the elevations above the 100-year high water levels of adjacent ponds. The ponds contain
overflows which outlet to sedimentation basins prior to flowing offsite , should higher rainfall
events occur, with green spaces and landscaping offering additional opportunity for pretreatment.
Boucher explained as required by the NPDES permit, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) is required. The SWPPP will describe the nature of the construction activity; address the
potential for sediment and pollutant discharges from the site; identify personnel to ov ersee
implementation; identify the permanent stormwater management system; and identify inspection
and maintenance practices. The Erosion Control Plan will implement best management practices
(BMPs) such as minimizing disturbed areas, perimeter silt fence, redundant silt fence along
13
Item 1.
689
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 03, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting Page 12
wetlands, temporary sediment ponds, erosion blankets, and re-establish vegetation within seven
days of grading completion. The project is not anticipated to negatively affect downstream water
bodies.
Boucher noted storm sewer will collect runoff from the site. The runoff will be treated per the city
and watershed requirements. The applicant is recommended to collaborate with the Mississippi
Watershed Organization and MnDOT as applicable and feasible. Additional stormwater
requirements will be guided by the MPCA’s NPDES stormwater permit requirements, including the
following requirements:
• The first one inch of runoff from any new impervious surface is required to be infiltrated or
filtered on-site.
• Stormwater runoff rates are required to be limited to be equal to or less than the existing
conditions.
• Water quality treatment methods will be included to reduce pollutant loads such as
phosphorus, nitrogen, and total suspended solids in runoff.
Boucher stated the applicant has provided examples of the options for the exterior elevations of
the building, including but not limited to glass, brick, cast stone, fiber cement, and metal, as well as
potential color pallets and roofing types intended to show the general materials. The expectation is
that a high architectural quality is provided to add to the value of the neighborhood. Architectural
drawings will be required to show the proposed signage. As a condition of approval, the signage on
the building shall comply with the standards of Section 9.106 of the Zoning Ordinance. The
applicants are proposing a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.8 for Lot 1, 2.3 for Lot 2, and 3.3 for Lot 3.
This is a unit of measurement used to measure the amount of square footage in a building
compared to the overall site. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment removed the Floor Area Ratio
for transit-oriented design areas in the City. The floor area ratios as presented are consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan Goals.
Boucher explained that the applicant is required to submit a photometric plan that complies with
City Code, showing that the exterior lighting proposed provides ample parking lot lighting for
residents and does not emit light onto adjacent properties. The MN DNR recommends following
the Minnesota Department of Transportation-approved products for luminaires, which limit the
uplight rating to zero and a nominal color temperature below 2700k. The applicant intends to
integrate MnDOT-recommended products to the extent possible, conscious of the change in
nighttime light with the Project.
Boucher stated that a noise study was conducted for the project, identifying the existing noise
levels/sources in the area, nearby sensitive receptors, conformance to state noise standards, and
quality of life to make recommendations on measures to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise.
The primary source of noise comes from traffic on Central Avenue (MN TH 65) east of the project,
but separated by a row of commercial buildings and grade changes.
Boucher noted that in Minnesota, nighttime (10 pm – 7 am) noise level standards for traffic are 55
decibels, and the model predicts a traffic noise level of 56 decibels at the east end of the apartment
buildings at the 2nd and 4th floor levels. Traffic to the north is slowed by a roundabout just west of
14
Item 1.
690
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 03, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting Page 13
the project and the signalized interaction with Central Avenue , reducing speeds below the 35 mph
used in the model, so the noise levels from 53rd Avenue are below the 55-decibel level. Noise from
nearby commercial rooftop equipment will impact the upper floors at the east end of the
apartment buildings about 5-6 decibels above the standard limits.
Boucher mentioned the proposed buildings must comply with the Minnesota Residential Noise
Standards, which are most critical for the 6:00-7:00 am “nighttime” period. The nighttime
standards are L10 55 dBA and L50 50 dBA. Proposed building wall construction and window
treatments are possible remedies to meet the noise level standards. Providing a 30 dBA reduction
through building walls will comply with the noise standards. A typical window-to-wall area of 40%,
6-inch stud walls with 3-pcf insulation, and STC 28-rated windows should provide a 30 dBA exterior
to interior noise reduction. This should be verified by the Architect upon building design as a
condition of approval. The adjacent residential area to the south will be exposed to construction
noise from demolition and removals, site grading equipment , and building construction.
Construction noise will be temporary, and construction times will be limited to allowable times as
established by the city, typically between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm, Monday through
Friday, as a condition of approval.
Boucher reviewed the density per acre proposed , 49 units per acre, compared to other projects. It
should be noted that units-per-acre is a different measurement from floor area ratio. The recent
redevelopment of the City Hall at 3989 Central Avenue NE is included as a comparison. Both L-
shaped buildings are anticipated to be identical configurations and unit counts/types. The market
rate is the last phase and includes an anticipated unit count of 150 -175. The commercial is
speculative and will depend on the developer and market interest in the space. A Comprehensive
Plan Amendment would be required to remove the commercial space if the last phase were to
deviate from the 85% Residential/15% Commercial guiding. 49 units per acre fall in line with the
target residential density for urban centers adjacent to highways and transit ways identified in the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The project site is well within a half-mile radius of Central
Avenue NE, which aims for 40-75+ units per acre under transit-oriented development guidelines.
The development on 40th & Central has a much higher density calculation, but is also immediately
adjacent to a highway. By this comparison, this proposed project has a lower density calculation.
Staff has also completed a bedroom analysis of the first two phases of the site since the apartment
complex will offer four different types of rental units.
Boucher stated that the first two phases of the site will have a total of 682 bedrooms. The
townhomes will include enclosed garages and driveway spaces, whereas the mixed-use market-
rate is anticipated to share surface parking with the commercial space and primarily be enclosed
parking spaces underground. As noted earlier in this report, the site will have 434 parking spaces
for residents. This equates to 1.57 parking spaces per bedroom. Staff feel that this is an acceptable
amount of parking for the residents, as some of the larger units will not need one parking space per
bedroom. For example, a three-bedroom apartment may include two adults and two children;
thus, only two parking spaces are needed.
Boucher noted that as part of the PUD approval, a neighborhood meeting is required as part of the
process. The City hosted the neighborhood meeting on May 21 st, 2025, at the Public Library in
15
Item 1.
691
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 03, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting Page 14
Columbia Heights with a virtual option that experienced technical difficulties. Staff contacted those
who tried to participate virtually and received the comments, which are attached in the Agenda
Packet. The meeting was well attended and included members of the immediate neighborhood, as
well as members of the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant presented the project
to attendees and answered questions regarding the proposal. Staff heard concerns related to
increased traffic and density, parking, environmental and park conditions, and drainage. Staff
noted that traffic is not projected to increase a detrimental amount, and that the proposed density
is in line with what is guided for transit-oriented development. Staff also noted that this project will
actually help alleviate the drainage issues in the area and offer unique opportunities for
stormwater and multi-modal transportation improvements. Notifications went out to surrounding
property owners within 350 feet of the subject site as well as the entirety of the townhome
developments adjacent to the property. The signup sheet, mailer and mailing list, and list of the
comments received are attached in the Agenda Packet.
Boucher noted that staff received four written comments from residents within the project mailing
range and a few phone calls from residents outside of that range. Boucher read the following
comments:
• Ann Pineault – 762 Parkside Lane expressed concerns that the issues with traffic and
parking on Gould and Peters could spill over to this new development without adequate
parking. She also noted issues with the density, lack of green space, environmental and
traffic concerns, along with a lack of adherence to development contracts.
• Kris Junker – 793 Parkside Lane expressed disappointment in being unable to participate in
the virtual portion of the neighborhood meeting; staff reached out to the resident to
provide the information that was presented in the meeting and to set up a one-to-one
follow-up if it was necessary.
• Rebecca Wratkowski – 687 Sullivan Drive NE expressed concern about the scope of
development with specifics regarding the water table and flow risks, parking, traffic, public
transit, and safety related to Central and 53rd, and desires for a less intense use as well as
explicit concern over flooding.
• Tracy Severson – 4118 Monroe Street expressed concern over the density, traffic, and
transit capacity, infrastructure needs, and safety concerns related to traffic and multimodal
users.
Boucher reviewed the preliminary plat findings of facts. Section 9.104 (L) of the Zoning Ordinance
outlines three conditions that must be met in order for the City to grant a Preliminary Plat. They are
as follows:
a) The proposed Preliminary Plat conforms to the requirements of City Code Section 9.116
[Subdivision Ordinance].
Staff Comment: In review of the preliminary plat that was submitted, Staff finds that the
preliminary plat generally conforms to the City’s Subdivision Ordinance for a Planned Unit
Development. The applicant is compliant in this regard.
b) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
16
Item 1.
692
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 03, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting Page 15
Staff Comment: The Comprehensive Plan supports the redevelopment of this site. In addition,
the Comprehensive Plan supports mixed-use development and transit-oriented development
on this site. The proposed Subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals.
c) The proposed subdivision contains a parcel and land subdivision layout that is consistent
with good planning and site engineering design principles.
Staff Comment: Staff has reviewed the proposed subdivision plan and feels that the parcel and
land layout are consistent with these principles. Further, the site plan reduces the number of
parcels on this site, as well as removing old easements. The project proposes to improve the
area storm stormwater management conditions by creating treatment opportunities and
improving stormwater storage capacity that currently exists on the development site.
Boucher reviewed the Planned Unit Development district plan findings of fact. The zoning
ordinance contains the following four findings that must be satisfied before the City Council can
approve the PUD District Plan at a City Council Meeting:
a) The PUD District plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article [Section 9.113,
PUD District].
Staff Comment: In review of Section 9.113, Staff finds that the application is consistent with the
City’s requirements.
b) The PUD District plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive
plan.
Staff Comment: The Comprehensive Plan has this area targeted for redevelopment to a transit-
oriented development project. The proposed PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s
goals.
c) The PUD District plan is consistent with any applicable area plan.
Staff Comment: The area plan (as noted in the Comprehensive Plan) marks this area and other
sites in the area for redevelopment. The PUD is consistent with the area plan.
d) The PUD District plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity
and the public right-of-way.
Staff Comment: The site will utilize underground and at-grade parking to prevent on-street
parking on 53rd and Central Avenue. The PUD District Plan minimizes any adverse impacts on
property in the immediate vicinity and the public right -of-way.
Boucher reviewed the rezoning to PUD findings of fact. The zoning ordinance contains the
following four findings that must be satisfied before the City Council can approve rezoning to
17
Item 1.
693
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 03, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting Page 16
PUD, Planned Unit Development District, at a City Council meeting:
a) The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff comment: The amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan.
b) The amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a single property
owner.
Staff comment: The amendment is in the public interest and not solely for the benefit of a
single property owner.
c) Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, the
existing use of the property and the zoning classification of the property within the general
area of the property in question are compatible with the proposed zoning classification.
Staff comment: The amendment is compatible with existing land uses and zoning classifications
in the general area.
d) Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, there
has been a change in the character or trend of development in the general area of the
property in question, which has taken place since such property was placed in its current
zoning classification.
Staff comment: The amendment reflects changes in development trends in the general area.
Boucher provided the Commission with a summary of the project. The applicants are seeking
approval of a preliminary; easement vacations; and a rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development
District, to construct two new 6-story, 132-unit affordable multifamily buildings, a mixed-use
building with 12,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, and a range of 150-175 market-rate apartments,
58 townhomes, and associated park and infrastructure improvements as well as multi -modal
transportation facilities. The project will include the demolition of a vacant office building and the
acquisition of parkland to accommodate the project. The applicants are proposing to construct 443
new apartment units that range from one to four bedrooms, 58 townhomes, and 12,000 sq. ft. of
commercial space. The site will utilize underground parking and surface parking to accommodate
users of the commercial space and apartment residences.
Recommendation: Boucher stated staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat as presented ,
subject to the conditions outlined below:
1. All required state and local codes, permits, licenses, and inspections will be met and in full
compliance.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of filing and recording written easements
with the Anoka County Recorder’s Office.
3. An approved Preliminary Plat shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of the
18
Item 1.
694
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 03, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting Page 17
approval. In the event that a Final Plat is not presented for approval within this time period,
the Preliminary Plat will become void.
4. The applicant shall enter into a Developer’s Agreement with the City. Said documentation
shall be reviewed by the City Attorney.
Boucher stated that staff recommends approval of the Easement Vacations as presented, subject
to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall be responsible for providing legal descriptions of all easements that are
subject to be created. Said descriptions are subject to review by the City Attorney.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the easement vacation with the Anoka
County Recorder’s Office.
Boucher stated that staff recommends approval of the PUD with the following conditions:
1. The property owner and the City will enter into a development contract governing site
improvements, and shall be executed by the property owner and the City within 60 days of
the PUD approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The mixed-use building containing the commercial space and 150 -175 market-rate
apartment units will provide underground and surface parking shared between the uses as
a condition of approval, but will have a specific calculation and other requirements once an
end-user is found. Any loading and unloading shall not be allowed on 53rd Avenue NE.
3. Developer shall provide financial guarantee in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit for
landscaping and public improvements, including multimodal connections through the site to
ensure connectivity to existing and proposed facilities. The guarantee amount is to be
determined by the City Engineer.
4. The City Engineer, Watershed District, and MnDOT shall review and approve the site grading
and stormwater management plans. All stormwater best management practices (BMPs)
shall have designated drainage and utility easements recorded with the Final Plat or as a
separate document with Anoka County.
5. The developer shall enter into a stormwater maintenance and management agreement
with the City, to be prepared by the City Attorney.
6. The site utility plans shall be subject to review and final approval by the City Engineer and
the Fire Chief.
7. Developer shall pay park dedication fees as outlined in the City Code.
8. Developer will provide record plans or as-built drawings to the City following project
completion.
9. Align the northern east-west driveway aisles between the northwest townhomes and the
multifamily apartments to reduce potential conflicts between movements.
Questions/Comments from Members:
Gianoulis asked if the impact on traffic was negligible. President of TC2 Matt Pacyna explained that
they were asked to conduct the traffic study for the proposed development. He noted that the
impact on traffic was not negligible, and it remains within industry standards for an acceptable
level of service and operations.
19
Item 1.
695
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 03, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting Page 18
Maameri asked to clarify the findings that the overall changes in operations based on no-build and
build conditions range from two to four seconds without any changes to the existing signal timing
provided by MnDOT. Mr. Pacyna explained that trip generation will be dispersed more since half of
the cars will go east and half will go west.
Maameri noted that the highway is east of the proposed project and did not believe it would be
half of the cars going east or west. He asked if the trip distribution was currently 50/50. Mr. Pacyna
replied that it was close to 50/50 today.
Wolfe asked Mr. Pacyna to comment on the access to the potential new development. She asked if
the western access would feed directly to the roundabout or if adjustments would be needed. Mr.
Pacyna replied that the proposed east access would be a right-in, right-out configuration. The west
access would align with the western Target access. The roundabout is between the two access
points, so there would not be much of a change.
Maameri noted that one of the figures showed a one-way in and out and asked for clarification.
Forney replied that the western access point would be to either turn left or right, and the eastern
access point would be to turn right.
Johnson asked Mr. Pacyna how he thought the traffic flow into the newly developed area
compared to the strip mall on Central Avenue. He mentioned the intersection at the strip mall, and
the parking is awful. He expressed his concern that the traffic and parking would be congested in
the newly developed area. Mr. Pacyna replied that the improvements that were implemented with
medians along 53rd Avenue have improved safety along the corridor. Having right-in, right-out
access points is good access management because it reduces conflicts and increases safety. Forney
added that MnDOT has identified the intersection as a major issue and is working with the
businesses in the area to create a plan to make the intersection better.
Schmitz asked if there could be a southern access point. Forney replied that the area south of the
proposed project is privately owned. It would be up to the property owners if there could be a
southern access point.
Wolfe asked Mr. Pacyna what could be done to increase safety for pedestrians at the intersection
of Central Avenue and 53rd Avenue who are trying to get to Target or Starbucks. Mr. Pacyna replied
that during the 53rd Avenue reconstruction project, there was an enhanced crossing that was
implemented. The east Target access is a safe crossing. If pedestrian traffic increases, it is possible
to implement additional crossing signs that light up.
Johnson asked what other projects and developments Kaas Wilson Architects have done. Vice
President & Regional Development Partner with Lincoln Avenue Community, Kyle Brasser,
explained that they are the developers on the project. He explained that Kaas Wilson Architects
developed dozens of multi-family communities around the metro area. Johnson asked if there was
a previous project that Kaas Wilson Architects had done that would model the proposed project.
Mr. Brasser mentioned that there are a number in M inneapolis, but none of them would look
exactly like the one in Columbia Heights.
20
Item 1.
696
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 03, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting Page 19
Wolfe asked what the expectations would be from the City and the developers if phases three and
four faltered. Mr. Brasser explained that they are in partnership with a couple of different groups.
Ultimately, they would like to filter it down to one additional market-rate developer to do the
building along 53rd Avenue and have one group do the townhomes. He reviewed the ideal
schedule. Construction will most likely begin next summer. The goal is to start the two “L” shape
buildings together, but since the projects are funded with State funds, it is based on the State’s
timing and resources. The buildings take about 18 months to build. The townhome development
group is ready to begin. The wild card will be the market-rate development adjacent to 53rd
Avenue. Realistically, construction could begin in 2026 and end in 2028. He added that they are
prepared for one of the phases to fall out during a negotiation .
Maameri asked for a timeline for the demolition. Mr. Brasser replied that there will be a demolition
of the building and the parking lot. It will occur during the first phase of the project. Demolition will
occur for several months but is included in the 18 months for the entire project.
Schmitz asked if the townhomes would be designed by a different company and architects. Mr.
Brasser replied that they would be. Schmitz asked if it would be possible to have some type of
ground-floor living units for people who have trouble with stairways. Mr. Brasser replied that it is
possible. The current site plan is based on a walk-up with stairs because it would accommodate the
density of the site.
Forney reviewed the timeline for the project. The environmental assessment worksheet has been
submitted for a 30-day review period and then will go to the Council to review the comments. The
Council will approve the final PUD process. Moving forward, the developers will be coming to the
Planning Commission for additional site plan approvals and building permits. A variance for the
project will be processed by the Planning Commission during the next meeting. A bond application
will be presented to the Council. The bond will be just for the project development and will apply to
the State for the tax-exempt bonds.
Public Hearing Opened.
Teresa Carson, City resident, asked if the Planning Commission was the committee that would be
discussing the changes to Sullivan Park. Forney replied that it is not, and it would be the Parks
Commission that would be discussing the changes. Ms. Carson asked if the walking paths would still
be circular around Lake Sullivan. Forney replied that the path would remain around the lake. Ms.
Carson expressed her concern about Sullivan Park being small and that there would be more
people coming into the park from the development. She wondered how the park would
accommodate all of the new people coming in. She added that the park hours are until 11:00 pm.
Forney explained that the park dedication and funds from the development help pay for
improvements. He noted that the City could look into the park hours and potentially make small
changes. Ms. Carson expressed her concern about parking because the streets are already filled
with people parking on the streets. Forney noted that the proposed parking is above what the City
has as a zoning standard.
21
Item 1.
697
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 03, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting Page 20
Anne Pineault, City resident, expressed her concern about the density of the project. A lot of the
area around the proposed development is residential, and it does not have nearly the number of
people that will be coming into the development. She asked the City to consider reducing the
density. She noted that the developers would be owning the infrastructure. She asked if the City
would maintain the containment vaults. Forney replied that the stormwater would be a
management plan between the City and the developer. The water and utilities would be City
owners. Ms. Pino recommended that the City own the sewer. She asked that the City be mindful of
how the street being put in would affect the lake. She added that when a bus is making stops, it
backs up traffic. With the development coming, it will add many more cars to the traffic. She asked
that the City continue to communicate with residents. She noted she would like to see the
developer's plans for noise abatement, dust, garbage, etc. There are some community members
who have discussed putting up a large fence.
Michelle Barasque, City resident, expressed her gratitude that something would happen with the
water quality at Sullivan Lake. She expressed concern regarding the traffic and density. She added
that pedestrian traffic is already a challenge. She hoped that there would be additional attention to
the pedestrian corridor along 53rd Avenue. She asked if there was a plan in place so that the project
would not be ongoing for four years as a construction site. She asked if the area could still look
attractive if the project was delayed.
Sandra Davidson, City resident, stated that what she has taken away from the previous meetings is
that the project is a done deal. She added that in previous meetings, it was discussed that there
was a purchase agreement with the developer, but it was contingent on whether the project met
the City’s code. Currently, the City’s codes would not allow the building to be built. She explained
that it does not make sense to her that the City’s Codes are being changed in order to allow the
project. She expressed her understanding that Medtronic can sell the building to whoever they
want to. However, codes have been put in place for a reason. She explained she has lived in the
City for a long time and has seen many projects in the City that have not been done well due to a
lack of follow-through or foresight. She gave an example of 47th Avenue and mentioned that there
were supposed to be beautiful condos. She added that the Rainbow site has been a disaster. She
provided an example of the townhouses that were built on 53rd Avenue and how phase one went
without a hitch, and the townhomes were sold within a month. During the second phase, the
project went through three bankruptcies, and the project sat there until the City stepped in. She
noted that she needs the security that the project will be completed and will be done accurately.
She mentioned that she had the same question about being able to see previous projects from the
architects to see if any projects have fallen through. She reached out to the architecture company
and was told that they would follow up with her, but it never happened. She expressed her concern
that there is no proof of the building. Columbia Heights has a density consensus of 5,000 people
per square mile, which is considered the high side of a good density amount. The City currently has
6,448 people per square mile. The City is overpopulated compared to surrounding cities. She
expressed her concerns regarding parking on the street and stated that she would like to see no
parking signs on 51st Avenue and St. Timothy’s Church. She noted that the City has explained that
there would be 134 units, but not how many people the building would hold. She noted that there
22
Item 1.
698
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 03, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting Page 21
are 682 bedrooms that would be included in the project. There will be 675 parking spots, which
could be an additional 675 drivers.
Loren Tranberg, City resident, expressed his concern regarding parking and the number of units and
vehicles. He mentioned that Medtronic staged their release of people in order to slow down traffic.
He added that if the units are intended for families, the cars will not be compact. He encouraged
the City to see how many vehicles would be traveling and at what times. He stated that it is way
too many people in a smaller area, and it would cause too much traffic. Forney clarified that the
City Zoning Code considers a normal parking stall at 9 by 20 feet. The project is proposing 9 by 18
feet, which is still a normal size stall. However, the 9 by 18-foot stall is considered compact even
though it still fits most vehicles.
Ann Scamman, City resident, mentioned that Sullivan Park is a great park and should be a highlight
of the community. She expressed her surprise that the City would consider a project as big as it is
because it is not a community; it is a quick way to turn a profit. She explained that she used to
manage an apartment building and noted that a three-bedroom apartment averages 6-10 people
because people have their families stay with them. There are usually four to five cars to a three-
unit apartment. She added that the density of the project is ridiculous. According to the Met
Council, Columbia Heights is considered an Urban Center, which means that the City exceeds the
density proposals. The impact of the proposed apartment building will increase the need for the
Police and Fire Departments. On average, the response time for a fire department should be under
five minutes. She noted that buildings that have one entrance and one exit make it harder to get
onto the site and take more time. She mentioned that she would like to see more parking provided
because she does not want to see parking on the streets. She asked that the residents be
considered. She agreed that something needs to happen at the Medtronic site, but the proposed
project is not it. The project takes away green space from the residents. She added that many
residents would be comfortable with a few townhomes that are ground -level for aging residents
and are lower density.
Karen Smith explained that she works in the St. Timothy Lutheran Church building. She explained
that she is the administrator for the Montessori school in the church. She noted that the school
uses the church space and the playground but also takes walks around Lake Sullivan. She added
that it has been a big part of the community. She noted that the park is already overwhelmed. She
agreed that the park needs redesigning. She wondered if the City would put money into
redesigning the park now, and then, when the project is complete, put money into the park again
to redo the work. Losing Sullivan Lake Park would be a big thing for the community. She stated she
could not believe anyone would say that the project would not affect traffic on 53 rd Avenue. She
explained that she no longer goes shopping on 53rd Avenue because the intersection has been
narrowed at University Avenue, and it can easily get blocked up. She noted that something needs
to be done so that traffic does not get blocked going west. She agreed with the previous comments
regarding density. She asked that the City not put something on the Medtronic site that would hurt
the environment. She asked if the City was taking away the park system behind the businesses that
the church donated to the City. Forney replied that they were not taking that away.
Sarah Rickby, City resident, noted that the meeting was listed as an application for the Planning
23
Item 1.
699
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 03, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting Page 22
Unit Development and a vacation of easements. She mentioned that she did not hear much about
the easements that would be vacated. She stated that staff clarified that there would not be
changes to the path going around Sullivan Lake. She expressed concern about the path going from
St. Timothy Lutheran Church to the east side of the lake, towards Central Avenue. She asked if that
path would be maintained. Forney explained that through the center of the site, there is a parcel of
land that the City has a utility easement, which is the portion that is being vacated. The City is
giving up the right to the parcel so the developer can develop it. As part of the Central Avenue
redevelopment, the stormwater piping will be replaced in order to add filtration, which will affect
the pathways in the area. The paths will be restored after the project. The goal is to make the paths
more walkable and have more connectivity to the businesses.
Carson, expressed concern about flooding. She asked not to rely on the power grid to keep their
building water-tight and structurally sound. She mentioned that the City Code allows for this. She
added that she would like to see the project done with minimal environmental impact.
Walter Horishnik, City resident, asked to reconsider the height of the master plan due to density
concerns. He suggested capping the building off at four stories. He added that the proposed
townhomes should be eliminated or the number of them should be reduced so that there is more
green space between the lake and the building. He agreed with the previous comments regarding
the amount of density in the City. He explained that the increase in density will add strain to the
Fire and Police Department and will increase the use of the park. He asked that the Commission
research the developer and architect more because the follow-through has not been good on
previous projects.
George Fix, City resident, asked if the proposed townhouses would be facing the park. Forney
replied that the back would face the park. Mr. Fix asked how far away the proposed townhomes
would be from the path coming from 53rd Avenue to Central Avenue. Forney replied that the
townhome setback is to the property line. There is no setback to the path. Mr. Fix asked if the
parcel the City owns would narrow the amount of parkland between the path and the edge of the
park when the parcel is sold to the developer. Forney replied that it would not narrow the park
area, and it would not impact the path on the west side of the parcel. The proposed project will be
further from the path than the current Medtronic building.
Public Hearing Closed.
Questions/Comments from Members:
Forney recommended that community members visit the City’s website for additional information
about the project. He noted that staff will post the EAW and will be collecting comments on the
environmental assessment worksheet.
Maameri noted that there is a plot of land north of the proposed development that is near the
parking lot of Target. He asked if there was a plan to use the plot of land to alleviate some of the
residents' concerns. He wondered if it could become a bus terminal or additional parking. Forney
replied that it is not being discussed with the developer since it is not a part of the project. Staff
have been discussing a bus stop location so that it does not block the roundabout.
24
Item 1.
700
Item 7.
City of Columbia Heights MINUTES June 03, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting Page 23
Councilmember Deneen noted that the F line will be coming through, and they will need to build
new infrastructure for a stop there. She added it would make sense to engage with Metro Transit
at that time to see if there could be better access there. Boucher noted that staff have engaged
with Metro Transit during the development review process. It will be an expectation that the City
incorporates the F line facilities into the project.
Motion by Gianoulis, seconded by Rehfuss, to waive the reading of the draft Ordinance No. 1716,
PUD District #2025-01, Rezoning of Property; draft Resolution No. 2025-043 PUD District Plan for
#2025-01; draft Resolution No 2025-044, Preliminary and final Plat Approval; and draft Resolutions
No 2025-045 Easement Vacations, there being ample copies available to the public. All ayes.
MOTION PASSED.
Motion by Johnson, seconded by Rehfuss, to positively recommend City Council approval of the
Ordinance Amendment No. 1716, subject to the conditions of approval. All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
Motion by Schmitz, seconded by Rehfuss, to positively recommend City Council approval of the PUD
District Plan Resolution No. 2025-043 as presented, subject to the conditions of approval. All ayes.
MOTION PASSED.
Motion by Maameri, seconded by Rehfuss, to positively recommend City Council approval of the
Preliminary Plat Resolution No. 2025-044 as presented, subject to the conditions of approval. All
ayes. MOTION PASSED.
Motion by Rehfuss, seconded by Johnson, to positively recommend City Council approval of the
easement vacations Resolution No. 2025-045 as presented, subject to the conditions of approval. All
ayes. MOTION PASSED.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Rehfuss, seconded by Wolfe, to adjourn the meeting at 8:34 pm. All ayes. MOTION PASSED
Respectfully submitted,
__
Sarah LaVoie, Administrative Assistant
25
Item 1.
701
Item 7.
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA SECTION PUBLIC HEARING
MEETING DATE JULY 1, 2025
ITEM: Shoreland Overlay District Variance to exceed the 35% impervious surface lot coverage to allow
for the construction of a multi-phased redevelopment project at 800 53rd Avenue NE.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development BY/DATE: Mitchell Forney, Community
Development Director, 06/26/25
Rita Trapp and Kendra Ellner, HKGi Consulting
Planners, 06/26/2025
CASE NUMBER: 2025-PZ04
APPLICANT: Kaas Wilson Architects on behalf of Lincoln Avenue Communities
DEVELOPMENT: Medtronic Redevelopment
LOCATION: 800 53rd Avenue NE (northern edge of municipal boundary with Fridley along Sullivan
Lake Park)
REQUEST: Shoreland Variance
PREPARED BY: Mitchell Forney, Community Development Director
Rita Trapp and Kendra Ellner, HKGi Consulting Planners, 06/25/2025
INTRODUCTION:
Kaas Wilson Architects, on behalf of Lincoln Avenue Communities, has submitted a shoreland variance
application to exceed the 35% impervious surface lot coverage limit. This request is part of the multi-phase
Medtronic redevelopment project, located at the 11.74-acre vacant Medtronic corporate campus abutting
Sullivan Lake. The entire property is located within the Shoreland Overlay District as it is within 1,000 feet of
the lake. The proposed plans and preliminary plat show an impervious surface coverage exceeding the
maximum allowed under the City’s shoreland regulations. Therefore, a variance is required to permit the
impervious surface beyond the 35% threshold.
The proposed project includes demolishing the existing Medtronic building and redeveloping the site into a
multi-phased project entailing two 6-story, 132-unit affordable multifamily buildings, a mixed-use building
with 12,000 sq. ft. of commercial space and a range of 150–175-unit market-rate apartments, 58 townhomes,
and associated park and infrastructure improvements as well as multi-modal transportation facilities. The
property is still owned by Medtronic, but under a purchase agreement with the applicant/developer. The
Planning Commission has reviewed, and recommended for approval with conditions, the Preliminary Plat,
Planned Unit Development - Mixed Use Development, and Easement Vacation. Additional project information
can be found in the June 3, 2025 Planning Commission staff report.
Shoreland Variance
The current Shoreland Overlay District Ordinance, last amended in 2008, is intended to guide the development
along shoreland of public waters. An overlay buffer is applied on property within 1,000 feet of a designated
waterway, as determined by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Since the proposed project’s
26
Item 2.
702
Item 7.
Page 2
property is abutting Sullivan Lake, which is designated as a General Development Lake, development must
follow the standards of the shoreland overlay district, including the maximum amount of impervious surface.
Currently, the site consists of the former 135,000 square foot Medtronic building and an 812-stall bituminous
parking lot. According to the project’s development plans, there is currently 54% of impervious surface
coverage, which is approximately 296,208 square feet or 6.8 acres. It is important to note that the Medtronic
site was built in 1979 with no stormwater treatment. As this was before the current DNR regulations were
adopted, the property is nonconforming.
The proposed project includes a multi-phase, full site redevelopment with several new buildings and
reconfigured parking and circulation. The proposal increases the existing impervious surface on the property
from 54% to 67.7%. A lot-by-lot impervious surface breakdown is attached. Although the project will be
phased, processing one shoreland variance permit will allow for a streamlined approval process and
construction timeline. In order to meet the City requirements, the project must receive approval of the
shoreland variance and ensure proper stormwater management. As part of the recent approval, the applicant
has demonstrated adequate stormwater management utilizing various infiltration features for the site.
As there is currently no existing treatment on -site, the proposed improvements will reduce runoff volumes
and improve water quality. In addition, the applicant will also meet the MPCA’s NPDES stormwater permit
requirements. It is projected that the stormwater features will be installed in the initial construction phases
with the affordable housing project.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Shoreland Variance
Due to the size and complexity of the project, the shoreland variance requires two tiers of review criteria for
City review and consideration. The first tier are the City’s standard variance criteria and the second tier are the
shoreland overlay district variance requirements.
Below are the provisions from Section 9.104 (G) outlining the City’s standard variance findings of fact that are
required before granting a variance.
(a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or other
conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the provisions of this article would
cause practical difficulties in conforming to the zoning ordinance. The applicant, however, is proposing
to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance.
Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the
zoning ordinance through a unique development proposal that offers higher quality land usage and amenities
that follows the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and city-generated concepts for the site. The approval of a
shoreland variance will allow for the construction of the project as proposed.
(b) The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific parcel of land involved and
are generally not applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification.
Staff Comment: The existing property is a relatively large site that has been vacated and not able to be sold to
a new commercial user. The proposed development, as outlined in the preliminary plat and development plans, 27
Item 2.
703
Item 7.
Page 3
represents an efficient and beneficial use of the land, aligning with the highest and best use principles while also
addressing key community needs.
Importantly, the proposed impervious surfaces will be situated over 200 feet from Sullivan Lake, with Sullivan
Lake Park serving as a natural buffer. The developer has committed to parkland improvements that will help
mitigate runoff and prevent erosion, thereby protecting the lake’s ecological health.
Additionally, the City Engineer has approved the schematic design, and city staff are coordinating with the DNR
and the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization to address any additional stormwater concerns. The
development will incorporate new stormwater filtration systems, which is an improvement over the current
site, which lacks any such infrastructure. Given that Central Avenue currently has no stormwater filtration,
incremental improvements on sites between Central Avenue and Sullivan Lake will contribute positively to the
area’s environmental management.
(c) The practical difficulties are caused by the provisions of this article and have not been created by any
person currently having a legal interest in the property.
Staff Comment: The site presents practical challenges, notably that it currently exceeds the Shoreland District’s
impervious surface limit of 35%, with existing coverage at approximately 54% and no stormwater treatment in
place. While the proposed development will result in a modest increase in impervious surface, it will also
incorporate enhanced stormwater management features. These improvements are designed to offset the net
increase in hard cover by promoting better water quality and providing added environmental and recreational
benefits for the City.
(d) The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Staff Comment: The Comprehensive Plan supports the redevelopment of this site. In addition, the
Comprehensive Plan supports a mixed-use development and transit-oriented development which is
implemented through this proposal.
(e) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious
to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or improvements in the vicinity .
Staff Comment: Granting the shoreland variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or materially
injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property in the vicinity. The project is will improve the
land usage of the site by providing a mix of buildings and use types, as well as amenities, increasing the value of
property and amenities in the city.
As part of the second tier of review criteria, the City may establish reasonable conditions that are deemed
necessary to mitigate adverse impacts directly associated with granting of the variance and to protect
neighboring properties. Since the variance is related to the Shoreland Overlay District, Staff are recommending
that the additional conditions set forth in the Overlay District Section 9.114 (C) shall apply. The provisions below
outline the additional review criteria that must be met in order for the City to grant a variance in the shoreland
and exceed impervious surface. They are as follows:
28
Item 2.
704
Item 7.
Page 4
(i) All structures, additions or expansions shall meet setback and other requirements of this
code.
(ii) The lot shall be served with municipal sewer and water.
(iii) The lot shall provide for the collection and treatment of stormwater in compliance with
Chapter 9 of the city code if determined that the site improvements will result in increased
runoff directly entering a public water. All development plans shall require review and
approval by the City Engineer and the underlying watershed district.
(iv) Measures will be taken for the treatment of stormwater runoff and/or prevention of
stormwater from directly entering a public wat er. The measures may include, but not limited
to the following:
A. Appurtenances as sedimentation basins, debris basins, desilting basins, or silt traps.
B. Installation of debris guards and microsilt basins on store sewer inlets.
C. Use where practical, oil skimming devices or sump catch basins.
D. Direct drainage away from the lake and into pervious, grassed yards through site grading,
use of gutters and down spouts.
E. Construction of sidewalks of partially pervious raised materials such as decking, which has
natural earth or other pervious material beneath or between the planking.
F. Use grading and construction techniques that encourage rapid infiltration, such as sand and
gravel under impervious materials with adjacent infiltration swales graded to lead into them.
G. Install berms, water bars, or terraces, which temporarily detain water before d ispersing it
into the pervious area.
Staff Comment: The proposed project is meeting setback requirements and being processed as Planned Unit
Development. The current estimated setback distance from Sullivan Lakes Ordinary High-Water Level is 180.8
feet. Which city code only requires a setback of 50 ft. The initial review of the project has been recommended
for approval, demonstrating that other requirements have been met or are undergoing separate reviews. The
site is currently served by municipal sewer and water. The proposed development will also provide utility
improvements to expand the capacity and accommodate additional demand and add stormwater management.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The applicants are seeking approval of a shoreland variance to allow the impervious surface to be greater than
the 35% maximum allowed in order to construct two new 6-story, 132-unit affordable multifamily buildings, a
mixed-use building with 12,000 sq. ft. of commercial space and a range of 150-175-unit market-rate apartments,
58 townhomes, and associated park and infrastructure improvements as well as multi-modal transportation
facilities. The project will include the demolition of a vacant office building and acquisition of parkland to
accommodate the project. Staff is recommending approval of the project with the conditions outlined below:
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the shoreland variance as presented subject to the conditions outline below:
1. The applicant shall adhere to all stormwater requirements and permitting required by state and local
codes, permits, licenses and inspections will be met and in full compliance.
29
Item 2.
705
Item 7.
Page 5
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2025-058, there being ample copies available to the
public.
MOTION: Move to recommend that the City Council approve Resolution 2025-058, a resolution approving
a Shoreland Variance for the property located at 800 53rd Avenue NE in the City of Columbia Heights, MN
ATTACHMENT(S):
Resolution 2025-058, Shoreland Variance
Shoreland Variance Applicant Narrative
Redevelopment Storm Sewer Plans C4-2
Ordinary High Water Level Survey
Development Area Exhibit of the Lot-by Lot Impervious Surface Breakdown
Public Notice to Newspaper
Public Comments
30
Item 2.
706
Item 7.
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-058
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA,
APPROVING A SHORELAND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 800 53RD AVENUE NE
IN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN
A proposal (Planning Case # 2025-PZ04) has been submitted by Kaas Wilson Architects, on
behalf of Lincoln Avenue Communities, to the Planning Commission requesting approval of a
Shoreland Variance at the following location:
ADDRESS: 800 53rd Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING:
1. Shoreland variance to exceed the 35% impervious surface lot coverage limit as
stipulated in City Code Section 9.114 (C) (2) Overlay Districts.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on July 1,
2025;
The City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission
regarding the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the
community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concern related to traffic, property
values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety, in the surrounding area;
Now, therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, and all ordinances and regulations of the City
of Columbia Heights, the City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration,
topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence
to the provisions of this article would cause practical difficulties in conforming to the
zoning ordinance. The applicant, however, is proposing to use the property in a
reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance.
2. The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific parcel of land
involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within the same zoning
classifications.
3. The practical difficulties are caused by the provisions of this article and have not been
created by any person currently having a legal interest in the property.
31
Item 2.
707
Item 7.
4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or
improvements in the vicinity.
CONDITIONS
1. The shoreland variance shall comply with the standards set forth in the Overlay District
Section 9.114 (C) (2):
(i) All structures, additions or expansions shall meet setback and other
requirements of this code.
(ii) The lot shall be served with municipal sewer and water.
(iii) The lot shall provide for the collection and treatment of stormwater in
compliance with Chapter 9 of the city code if determined that the site
improvements will result in increased runoff directly entering a public water. All
development plans shall require review and approval by the City Engineer and
the underlying watershed district.
(iv) Measures will be taken for the treatment of stormwater runoff and/or
prevention of stormwater from directly entering a public water. The measures
may include, but not limited to the following:
A. Appurtenances as sedimentation basins, debris basins, desilting basins, or silt
traps.
B. Installation of debris guards and microsilt basins on store sewer inlets.
C. Use where practical, oil skimming devices or sump catch basins.
D. Direct drainage away from the lake and into pervious, grassed yards through
site grading, use of gutters and down spouts.
E. Construction of sidewalks of partially pervious raised materials such as
decking, which has natural earth or other pervious material beneath or
between the planking.
F. Use grading and construction techniques that encourage rapid infiltration,
such as sand and gravel under impervious materials with adjacent infiltration
swales graded to lead into them.
G. Install berms, water bars, or terraces, which temporarily detain water before
dispersing it into the pervious area.
32
Item 2.
708
Item 7.
2. The applicant shall adhere to all stormwater requirements and permitting required by state
and local codes, permits, licenses and inspections will be met and in full compliance.
Passed this ___ day of ___________, 2025
Offered by:
Seconded
by:
Roll Call:
Amáda Márquez Simula, Mayor
Attest:
Sara Ion, City Clerk/Council Secretary
33
Item 2.
709
Item 7.
CIVIL ENGINEERING | LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE | LAND SURVEYING
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mitchell Forney
FROM: PJ Disch
CC: Kyle Brasser
DATE: 6/23/2025
PROJECT: LAC Columbia Heights 800 53rd Ave NE Loucks # 23226.0C
SUBJECT: Shoreland Impervious Variance Narrative
This memo is requested to ask for a variance on the city’s Shoreland District requirement that
limits properties to a maximum of 35% impervious surface. The 35% impervious requirement
was implemented by the city to provide protection to Sullivan Lake for future residential
development as there is typically not the stormwater incorporated into their design as there is
in commercial development.
The existing site is currently a vacant office building with 53.0% impervious and not compliant
with the code. The site is 12.682 acres (includes 0.164 acres of the additional park property)
with 6.723 acres of impervious. Of that impervious, only 0.490 acres goes to an onsite
ponding area before draining to Sullivan Lake. There are 6.233 acres of impervious surface
that drains directly to Sullivan Lake without being treated.
The proposed development is to have 3 apartment buildings and approximately 52-58
townhomes. The proposed site is to have approximately 8.581 acres of impervious surface or
67.7% of the site. The proposed site will meet stormwater requirements of the city of
Columbia Heights, The Mississippi Watershed Management Organization and the MPCA
standards. The standards are to meet for rate control (for the 1-year, 10-year, 100-year and 10
day snowmelt), volume control (stormwater runoff volume retention shall be achieved onsite in
the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from thew 1.1” event over the impervious
surfaces from the proposed development) and water quality (no increase in total TP or TSS
from existing site to proposed site). This will be provided by multiple below ground infiltration
vaults and a infiltration/filtration basin. With only a small part of the existing sites impervious
area being treated, and the proposed site being brought up to today’s standards for
stormwater the water being discharged into Sullivan Lake will be now treated and clean water
to help improve and clean up Sullivan Lake. For the variance the proposed site would like to
get a variance for up to 70% impervious area. We are currently working on the site plan to
minimize the impervious as much as possible.
As part of the variance there are five findings that the city council will review before granting
their variance.
a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration,
topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence
34
Item 2.
710
Item 7.
CIVIL ENGINEERING | LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE | LAND SURVEYING
to the provisions of this article would cause practical difficulties in conforming to the
zoning ordinance.
Response: The proposed site meets the standards of the current multifamily zoning
and comprehensive plan. The project proposes to meet the DNR shoreland ordinance
with a variance to meet the impervious requirements.
b) The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific parcel of
land involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within the same
zoning classification.
Response: The proposed site meets the zoning and density requirements of the
comprehensive plan and therefore needs the variance to comply with those standards.
c) The practical difficulties are caused by the provisions of this article and have not been
created by any person currently having a legal interest in the property.
Response: Noted, there is nothing to the proposed project that is not of a typical use
to the site.
d) The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The variance is needed to meet the needed amount of impervious surface
area for the proposed development.
e) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or
improvements in the vicinity.
Response: The proposed project will improve the Sullivan Lake Park area, improve the
water quality to Sullivan Lake with the proposed treated stormwater from the
proposed site. There will be nothing from the proposed project that will be
detrimental to the public welfare.
35
Item 2.
711
Item 7.
36
Item 2.
712
Item 7.
41796
UMH
886.90
30375
STMH
896.81
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8888
8
8
BRE
A
K
BREAK
BREAKBR
E
A
K
BREAK
BR
E
A
K
8
8
8
8
8
8
EX-885.3
EX-893.3
894.8
883.70
FFE-894.5FFE-893.5
FFE-894.5FFE-892.0 FFE-893.5
F
F
E
-
8
8
9
.
0
MAIN
DOOR
FFE-895.30
GARAGE
DOOR
FFE-884.0
GARAGE DOOR
FFE-884.0
EX-885.0
EX-885.0
EX-884.9
EX-885.9
EX-886.9
EX-886.9
EX-887.3
EX-889.7
EX-885.1
EX-884.9
890.3
EX-891.0
EX-892.7
EX-890.63
EX-892.8
EX-895.2
EX-900.7
EX-898.0
EX-899.4
EX-899.4
EX-899.1
EX-892.94
EX-894.1
EX-893.0 EX-895.0
EX-900.0
EX-903.5
EX-902.0
EX-889.5EX-888.8EX-887.14
EX-886.2
EX-886.7
EX-885.3
EX-884.0
891.5
889.7
889.5
889.9
8.33%
FFE-895.30
GFE-884.0
PATIO
DOORS
FFE-895.30
898.2
895.1
2.
9
%
894.6
FFE-892.0FFE-891.0FFE-891.0FFE-890.0
FFE-891.0FFE-891.0FFE-890.0
FF
E
-
8
9
3
.
5
FF
E
-
8
9
3
.
0
FF
E
-
8
9
2
.
5
F
F
E
-
8
9
1
.
0
F
F
E
-
8
9
3
.
0
STORM
BASIN
892.8
894.7
894.0
892.3
889.4
889.3
FF
E
-
8
8
8
.
5
FF
E
-
8
8
8
.
5
FF
E
-
8
8
9
.
0
1.
8
%
8.
0
%
1.
1
%
893.8 894.0
894.7
892.3
893.0
1.
5
%
893.81.1%
890.5
FFE-891.0
FFE-891.0
FFE-891.0
FFE-891.0
FFE-891.0
891.0
1.0%
1.
8
%
890.5
FFE-895.30
GFE-884.0
FFE-895.30
GFE-884.0
MAIN
DOOR
FFE-895.30
MAIN
DOOR
FFE-895.30
887.7
894.8
COURTYARD
ACCESS
FFE-895.30
894.3
894.3
894.0
894.7
1.5%
2.
0
%
3.
5
%
1.
8
894.0
895.3893.0
890.0
4.
5
%
4.
5
%
1
.
4
%
1.5%
892.3
50.0'
234.3'
180.8'
238.0'
358.5'
OHWL 880.60 (NGVD29)
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
LAKE STRUCTURE
SETBACK 50'
312.1'
EXISTING BULDING
LOUCKS
W:
\
2
0
2
3
\
2
3
2
2
6
C
\
C
A
D
D
D
A
T
A
\
C
I
V
I
L
\
_
d
w
g
S
h
e
e
t
F
i
l
e
s
\
S
D
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
\
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
O
H
W
L
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
:
06
/
2
6
/
2
0
2
5
4
:
3
1
P
M
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
QUALITY CONTROL
CADD QUALIFICATION
COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS
DEVELOPMENT
800 53rd Ave. NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
LINCOLN AVENUE
COMMUNITIES
401 Wilshire Blvd, 11th Floor
Santa Monica, California 90401
C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
C2-1 SITE PLAN
C3-1 GRADING PLAN
C4-1 SANITARY & WATERMAIN PLAN
C4-2 STORM SEWER PLAN
L1-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN
Review Date
SHEET INDEX
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
PJ Disch - PE
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.
49933
230226C
PJD
DDL
PJD
05/28/25
-
05/05/25 SD - CITY SUBMITTAL
05/28/25 SD - CITY RESUBMITTAL
N
SCALE IN FEET
0 40 80
OHWL
SETBACK
EXH
TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166
TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002
Gopher State One Call
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG!
WARNING:
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL
EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN
MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES,
CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE
DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED
DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.
37
Item 2.
713
Item 7.
30376
SMH
895.88
41796
UMH
886.90
30375
STMH
896.81
8
8
8
8
8
8
84444
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
8
8
8
4
4
4
4
4444444444
8
8
8
8888
8
8
44
44444
8
8
8
8
8
8
LOUCKS
W:
\
2
0
2
3
\
2
3
2
2
6
C
\
C
A
D
D
D
A
T
A
\
C
I
V
I
L
\
_
d
w
g
S
h
e
e
t
F
i
l
e
s
\
S
D
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
\
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
-
A
R
E
A
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
:
06
/
2
3
/
2
0
2
5
1
2
:
3
5
P
M
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
QUALITY CONTROL
CADD QUALIFICATION
COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS
DEVELOPMENT
800 53rd Ave. NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
LINCOLN AVENUE
COMMUNITIES
401 Wilshire Blvd, 11th Floor
Santa Monica, California 90401
C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
C2-1 SITE PLAN
C3-1 GRADING PLAN
C4-1 SANITARY & WATERMAIN PLAN
C4-2 STORM SEWER PLAN
L1-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN
Review Date
SHEET INDEX
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
PJ Disch - PE
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.
49933
230226C
PJD
DDL
PJD
05/28/25
-
05/05/25 SD - CITY SUBMITTAL
05/28/25 SD - CITY RESUBMITTAL
N
SITE AREA
EXH
TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166
TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002
Gopher State One Call
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG!
WARNING:
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL
EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN
MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES,
CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE
DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED
DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.SCALE IN FEET
0 40 80
PARKING STALL COUNT
ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL
2
LEGEND
CATCH BASIN
STORM SEWER
SANITARY SEWER
WATERMAIN
STORM MANHOLE
SANITARY MANHOLE
HYDRANT
GATE VALVE
SPOT ELEVATION
SIGN
LIGHT POLE
POWER POLE
WATER MANHOLE / WELL
CONTOUR
CONCRETE CURB
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
CONCRETE
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
UNDERGROUND GAS
OVERHEAD UTILITY
CHAIN LINK FENCE
BUILDING
RETAINING WALL
NO PARKING
UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
WATER SERVICE
ELECTRIC METER
GAS METER
TREE LINE
EXISTING PROPOSED
972
DRAINTILE
FORCEMAIN
3
7
3
PARKING SETBACK LINE
BUILDING SETBACK LINE
2
FENCE
FLARED END SECTION
POST INDICATOR VALVE
BENCHMARK
SOIL BORING
3
DIRECTION OF FLOW 1.0%
972.5
PROPOSED SITE AREAS
PROPOSED TOTAL SITE
SITE AREA:552,440 SF
IMPERVIOUS AREA:373,791 SF (67.7%)
PERVIOUS AREA:178,649 SF (32.3%)
PROPOSED LOT 1
SITE AREA:79,032 SF
IMPERVIOUS AREA:68,570 SF (86.8%)
PERVIOUS AREA:10,462 SF (13.2%)
PROPOSED LOT 2
SITE AREA:75,842 SF
IMPERVIOUS AREA:68,656 SF (90.5%)
PERVIOUS AREA:7,186 SF (9.5%)
PROPOSED LOT 3
SITE AREA:107,443 SF
IMPERVIOUS AREA:94,440 SF (87.9%)
PERVIOUS AREA:13,003 SF (12.1%)
PROPOSED LOT 4
SITE AREA:251,443 SF
IMPERVIOUS AREA:142,125 SF (56.5%)
PERVIOUS AREA:109,381 SF (43.5%)
DEDICATED ROW
AREA: 38,690 SF
38
Item 2.
714
Item 7.
-Public Notice Ad Proof-
Ad ID: 1476628
Copy LIne: July 1 PH Shoreland Overlay Di
PO Number:
Start: 06/20/25
Stop: 06/20/2025
Total Cost: $82.60
# of Lines: 62
Total Depth: 6.889
# of Inserts: 1
Ad Class: 150
Phone # (763) 691-6000
Email: publicnotice@apgecm.com
Rep No: CA700
Date: 06/13/25
Account #: 414681
Customer: CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Address: 3989 CENTRAL AVE NE
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Telephone: (763) 767-6580
Fax: (763) 706-3637
This is the proof of your ad scheduled to run on the dates
indicated below. Please proof read carefully. If changes are needed,
please contact us prior to deadline at
Cambridge (763) 691-6000 or email at publicnotice@apgecm.com
Ad Proof
Not Actual Size
Publications:
BSLP Col Hght Frid Life
Contract-Gross
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the
Planning Commission of the City
of Columbia Heights will conduct
a public hearing in the City Council
Chambers of City Hall at 3989 Cen-
tral Avenue NE on Tuesday, July 1st,
2025 at 6:00 p.m. The order of busi-
ness is as follows:
The Planning Commission will
review an application for a Shore-
land Overlay District Variance lo-
cated at 800 53rd Avenue NE and
make a recommendation to the City
Council. The applicant is proposing
demolition of the existing office
building preparation for a multi-
phase redevelopment concept in-
cluding two multifamily apartment
buildings both containing 132 units,
a mixed-use building with a range
of 150-175 market-rate units and
12,000 sq. ft. of commercial space,
58 townhomes and associated
park and infrastructure improve-
ments. The applicant is requesting
an Impervious Surface Variance
from the City’s impervious surface
requirement of less than 35% as
outlined in Section 9.114, C, (8), (c),
2, a, of the City Code. Pursuant to
Section 9.104 (G)(4) of the Zoning
Ordinance, the Planning Commis-
sion is required to review, hold a
public hearing, and prepare a rec-
ommendation to the City Council
regarding the variance application.
Notice is hereby given that all
persons having an interest will be
given an opportunity to be heard.
For questions, contact Mitchell
Forney, Community Development
Director, at (763) 706-3675 or at
mforney@columbiaheightsmn.gov
or by mail at:
City of Columbia Heights
3989 Central Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Published in
The Life
June 20, 2025
1476628
39
Item 2.
715
Item 7.
Public Comments
Hello,
I live at Sullivan Shores very near the proposed Medtronic site for the housing
development. I have three concerns.
1. Do you need to give out more than 2 variances for the developer to start? Please
keep the variances to a minimum. The developer is going for the maximum amount of
apartments and townhomes, which could amount to over 2000 new residents and
several hundred cars. The developer will need dozens of zoning variance to make this
happen.
2. The proposed map shows the location of 58 Townhomes, some are very close to the
existing trail, there should be a normal set back here from the property line especially
near 53rd Street. 100s of people walk around the lake daily, and the trail should be
more than 100 feet from the proposed townhomes.
3. The developer is asking for the maximum amount of units for the sake of profit.
Everyone understands that. The amount of cars and parking is going to be a problem
that is not being addressed. Please look at compromises to le ssen the amount of cars,
units, and people at this site. Half the amount of cars, half the amount of people, half the
amount of units will give the neighborhood better results.
Thank you for reading this.
Mark Odegard
______________________________________________________________________
______________
Thank you for sending me the information in regard to a variance in preparation for a
redevelopment project at 800 53rd avenue N.E.
My concern has to do with traffic control in this area. Although 53rd Avenue was
recently reconstructed, I don't think its current configuration will be able to handle the
increased traffic associated with this project.
Has the above concern been addressed in the planning, or will it be addressed?
Thank you again for sending out this notice.
John M. Bauer
City of Columbia Heights
Re: Public Hearing July 1, 2025 Impervious Surface Variance.
I am Karen Smith, Administrator of Little Voyageurs' Montessori School located at 825
51st Avenue NE, Columbia Heights in St. Timothy's Lutheran Church.
The public hearing regarding the property (800 53rd Avenue) that is directly north of the
church and our Montessori program.
40
Item 2.
716
Item 7.
I feel that the density of the planned property 1). is too high and 2) there is no green
space in the design which is required. Requesting a variance is telling you that there is
more development planned than there is space. The number of buildings, proposed
residents, and businesses are more than the property size by city code therefore the
variance should not be approved.
It is the responsibility of the Planning Commission and City Council to abide by code.
Yes, variances can be requested. My concern is that no one seems to be listening to
lifetime residences and how it truly affects the lifestyle of the people and the area. The
density of the area will flow over to a nearby park and streets. It appears that the park is
being considered the green space for this development. That is not the purpose of the
city parks. It is additional space to gather. Fam ily homes have some green space and a
development is required to provide some green space, especially one of this size.
The nature and wildlife that is unique to Sullivan Park is used by local families, wildlife,
and area learning programs and it will be overtaken and destroyed. There is a reason
that cities require green space in new developments.
Please do not give up the uniqueness of the area that the city designed for the
community for a developer and their bottom line and the city’s bottom line. Please
maintain quality areas for all families to enjoy and want to live in the area.
The Planning Commission and City Council are responsible for zoning and city codes
and for the quality of life within the city. Do not allow a variance for this project. If the
project needs to go through it can be redesigned to fit the area within the code that
protects the community.
Please consider if this is where you would choose to live either in the development or
beside it. This developer is not from this area and it does not affect their lifestyle.
Please really consider the feedback from the residents, it is their city!
An additional thought. There is NO possible truth that there will not be a big increase in
traffic on 53rd Avenue. Since changes were made at the light on University Avenue, I
avoid that area and use residential streets to get north of 694.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Karen Smith
Please verify that you received this email. I want to be sure that it is in the record.
Karen Smith | Administrator
Little Voyageurs' Montessori School
825 51st Ave NE | Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Staff also received comments over the phone regarding the public hearing. Some of the
complaints covered are below:
41
Item 2.
717
Item 7.
- One resident was concerned about how the development would affect the
pedestrian crossings North to South on 53rd Ave. Staff discussed that this project
and the city's involvement has the ability to add pedestrian crossings. As part of
the project negotiations or in coordination with the City of Fridley as the project is
being developed.
- One resident was concerned that during the construction of the project. There will
be large amounts of dust in the air along with empty fields as the project is
awaiting development. Specifically, parts of the project that are not included in
the initial phases and what will happen with the fields as they await
redevelopment.
- Two residents were concerned about the increase of density to the area and how
that affects the park and traffic. Very similar to the comments listed above.
Mr. Boucher and Mr. Forney,
I was not able to attend the first public hearing on this redevelopment, nor am I able to
attend the July st public hearing so sharing my feedback via email now. Please pass
this along to the city council.
I am a resident of the Parkside Village Townhomes Association, and have had an
expectation that the property at 800 53rd Ave/Medtronic space would be redeveloped in
some way since Medtronic stopped using the facility. I don't understand or support the
current proposed redevelopment as is. The primary focus seems to be on profit for the
developer, with absolutely no consideration for current residents. Why do they need to
put in three 5-6 story apartment buildings? This is not in keeping with the lower density
building in the whole of Columbia Heights. This mass development also does not take
into account the residents who currently live in the areas directly surrounding the
property, nor the impact to Sullivan Lake. I whole hardhearte dly agree that the lake
needs to be remediated, but adding 1,000+ plus people, along with, lets face their
littering and drugs will not actually improve the lake or the park.
I urge the City Council to veto the proposal as is, especially the possibility of giving the
developer any additional part of the park to complete their construction, and look for A. a
local developer who wound have some skin in the game, and 2. a developer who would
look for balance among the current residents and the new development. Why not two
three story apartment buildings with 2+ parking spaces per unit, and a amazing
playground for their residents? This would provide additional housing, but in a way that
is balanced, ensure there is no parking issues for those residing in the new
development or the surrounding neighborhoods, while likely more green -space around
the park and the development itself. A win-win-win.
Lastly, whatever happens with the current or other proposals for the "Medtronic"
property, I vehemently appose the extension of 52nd Avenue. Again the benefits to a
developer or people who are not yet part of the community should not trump the
livability of those currently here, proud community members for years and decades. We
42
Item 2.
718
Item 7.
welcome a reasonable number of new residents, not a land grab by a non MN company
who will make livability impossible for both old and new residents.
Respectfully,
Kris Junker
43
Item 2.
719
Item 7.
ITEM: First Reading of Ordinance 1718, Amending Alcohol Ordinance Restrictions in Silver Lake Beach
Park
DEPARTMENT: Community Development BY/DATE: Mitchell Forney, 07-08-2025
CORE CITY STRATEGIES:
_Community that Grows with Purpose and Equity
XHigh Quality Public Spaces
_Safe, Accessible and Built for Everyone
_Engaged, Effective and Forward-Thinking
_Resilient and Prosperous Economy
_Inclusive and Connected Community
BACKGROUND
In the past, local community organizations have hosted events such as Polar Plunges at Silver Lake Beach Park,
specifically on Silver Lake. Earlier this year, one of those organizations contacted city staff to explore the
possibility of continuing the event. Upon review, staff found that current City ordinanc e prohibits the
possession and consumption of alcohol at Silver Lake Beach Park. This prohibition is inconsistent with past
events and appears to be an outdated code provision that may warrant reconsideration.
Currently, Chapter 10.201, Section (O) of the City Code permits, with an affirmative vote of the City Council, a
variety of events to possess or consume intoxicating malt liquor in City parks between 8:00 a.m. and 9:30 p.m.
However, Silver Lake Beach Park is specifically excluded from this provision, as highlighted in the ordinance
language below. These regulations were established through Ordinance 866, which was adopted in 1977. Staff
reviewed archived records but were unable to determine the original rat ionale for excluding Silver Lake Beach
Park.
Ordinance 1718 would remove the exclusion of Silver Lake Beach Park from Chapter 10.201, Section (O). This
amendment would align the park with the same requirements and opportunities as other City parks. Any
event wishing to possess or consume alcohol would still be required to obtain City Council approval prior to
the event.
Current Ordinance:
(O) No person shall have in their possession or consume any intoxicating liquor or non -intoxicating malt
liquor in or upon any city park, parkway, or bathing beach within the city.
(1) Provided, however, the City Council may by affirmative vote grant permission to persons attending
family gatherings, employees and their families attending gatherings in conjunction with their employment,
and persons attending gatherings of or gatherings sponsored by non-profit public service, charitable,
educational, or religious organizations within the community to possess and consume malt liquor in city parks,
except before 8:00 a.m. and after 9:30 p.m. No such permission may be granted for such possession or
consumption in or upon any public bathing beach or anywhere in Silver Lake Beach Park.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA SECTION ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
MEETING DATE 07/28/2025
720
Item 8.
City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 2
(2) The prohibitions of this division shall not apply on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays to
Huset Park between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., and shall not apply to John Murzyn Hall (Columbia
Heights Fieldhouse) at any time and shall not apply during City-sponsored events at any location.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend approval of Ordinance 1718.
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1718, there being ample copies available to the
public.
MOTION: Move to set the second reading of Ordinance No. 171 8, being an ordinance amending chapter
10.201 of the Columbia Heights City Code to allow, upon council approval, alcohol at events within Silver
Lake Beach Park, for August 11, 2025, at approximately 6:00 P.M.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Ordinance 1718
721
Item 8.
ORDINANCE NO. 1718
BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10.201 OF THE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY CODE TO ALLOW,
UPON COUNCIL APPROVAL, ALCOHOL AT EVENTS WITHIN SILVER LAKE BEACH PARK
The City of Columbia Heights does ordain:
Section 1
10.201 section O of the Columbia Heights City Code is hereby amended to read as follows, to wit:
(O) No person shall have in their possession or consume any intoxicating liquor or non-intoxicating malt
liquor in or upon any city park, parkway, or bathing beach within the city.
(1) Provided, however, the City Council may by affirmative vote grant permission to persons
attending family gatherings, employees and their families attending gatherings in conjunction with their
employment, and persons attending gatherings of or gatherings sponsored by non-profit public service,
charitable, educational, or religious organizations within the community to possess and consume malt
liquor in city parks, except before 8:00 a.m. and after 9:30 p.m. No such permission may be granted for
such possession or consumption in or upon any public bathing beach or anywhere in Silver Lake Beach
Park.
(2) The prohibitions of this division shall not apply on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays
to Huset Park between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., and shall not apply to John Murzyn Hall
(Columbia Heights Fieldhouse) at any time and shall not apply during City-sponsored events at any
location.
722
Item 8.
Section 2
This ordinance shall be in full force and effective from and after 30 days after its passage.
First Reading:
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Second Reading:
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Date of Passage:
______________________________________
Amáda Márquez Simula, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
Sara Ion, City Clerk/Council Secretary
723
Item 8.
ITEM: Consideration of Resolutions 2025-061 and 2025-062, Resolutions of the City Council for the
City of Columbia Heights Identifying the Need for Livable Communities Funding and Authorizing
Application for Grant Funds.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development BY/DATE: CD Coordinator / July 23, 2025
CORE CITY STRATEGIES: (please indicate areas that apply by adding an “X” in front of the selected text below)
X Community that Grows with Purpose and Equity
_High Quality Public Spaces
X Safe, Accessible and Built for Everyone
_Engaged, Effective and Forward-Thinking
_Resilient and Prosperous Economy
X Inclusive and Connected Community
BACKGROUND
Lincoln Avenue Communities is applying for the Metropolitan Council’s 2025 Livable Communities grant
funding program for redevelopment of a site located at 800 53rd Ave NE.
Qualifying applicants for Livable Communities funding include cities or townships in the seven-county metro
region that participate in the Met Council’s Local Housing Incentives program. Since developers cannot apply
directly for this funding, Lincoln Avenue Communities is working with the City of Columbia Heights’
Community Development Department as its government partner in order to apply for these grants.
Pre-Development
The goals of the Pre-Development program are to add new housing types and create affordable housing, to
create or preserve long-term living wage jobs or support economic opportunity for people experiencing the
most economic hardships, to increase density and make it easier for people to travel between housing, jobs,
services, and amenities, to minimize climate impact by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and conserving
natural resources, and to further equity outcomes by fostering regional connections, mitigating climate
impacts and implicit bias, removing barriers to accessing affordable housing, creating living wage jobs, and
supporting the creation of small businesses owned and operated by historically marginalized populations.
Eligible costs for Pre-Development funds include activities like design workshops, financial studies, project
impact analyses, and community engagement.
Development (Livable Communities Demonstration Account/LCDA and Transit-Oriented Development/TOD)
The goals of the LCDA and TOD Development programs are to maximize connections between housing, jobs,
services, and transit and regional amenities like parks, trails, and cultural centers, to create more housing
choices through introducing new housing types or preserving affordable housing, to support dense, diverse
developments that emphasize pedestrian activity, multimodal transportation, and increased transit ridership,
to mitigate climate change through sustainable site design and building practices, to advance racial equity by
increasing access and opportunity for under-represented communities and historically marginalized
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA SECTION ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
MEETING DATE JULY 28, 2025
724
Item 9.
City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 2
populations, and to contribute to an economically prosperous and equitable region by creating living wage
jobs and economic opportunity.
TOD projects are required to meet certain criteria concerning proximity to public transit. Eligible activity c osts
for Development funds may include site preparation, stormwater management systems, renewable energy
systems, utilities, shared infrastructure, and public realm improvements, as well as engineering, design , and
community engagement.
SUMMARY OF CURRENT STATUS
Lincoln Avenue Communities is requesting $300,000.00 in Pre-Development grant funding and $2,000,000.00
in Development grant funding, for a total combined grant request of $2,300,000.00. Funding decisions for
both programs are set to be made in fall 2025.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
In support of Lincoln Avenue Communities’ pursuit of Pre-Development and Development Livable
Communities grant funding for its project at 800 53rd Ave NE, Community Development staff recommend
approval of Resolution 2025-061 and of Resolution 2025-062.
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2025-061 and 2025-62, there being ample copies
available to the public.
MOTION: Move to approve Resolution 2025-061, a resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia
Heights identifying the need for Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding and authorizing
application for Pre-Development grant funds.
MOTION: Move to approve Resolution 2025-062, a resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia
Heights identifying the need for Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding and authorizing
application for Development grant funds.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Resolution 2025-061 for Pre-Development grant funds
2. Resolution 2025-062 for Development (LCDA and TOD) grant funds
725
Item 9.
Resolution 2025-061
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-061
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS IDENTIFYING THE NEED FOR
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR PRE-
DEVELOPMENT GRANT FUNDS
The City of Columbia Heights is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Local Housing Incentives Account
Program for 2025 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible to apply for Livable
Communities Demonstration Account funds; and
The City has identified proposed projects within the City that meet the Demonstration Account's purposes and
criteria and is consistent with and promotes the purposes of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and
the policies of the Metropolitan Council's adopted metropolitan development guide; and
The City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration;
and
The City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the grant agreement;
and
The City agrees to act as legal sponsor for the projects contained in the grant application, anticipated to be
submitted on or before July 21, 2025; and
The City acknowledges Livable Communities Demonstration Account grants are intended to fund projects or
project components that can serve as models, examples or prototypes for development or redevelopment
projects elsewhere in the region, and therefore represents that the proposed projects or key components of
the proposed projects can be replicated in other metropolitan – area communities; and
Only a limited amount of grant funding is available through the Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities
Demonstration Account during each funding cycle and the Metropolitan Council has determined it is
appropriate to allocate those scarce grant funds only to eligible projects that would not occur without the
availability of Demonstration Account grant funding.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, after appropriate examination and due consideration, the City
Council:
1. Finds that it is in the best interests of the City's development goals and priorities for the
proposed projects to occur at these particular sites and at this particular time.
726
Item 9.
Resolution 2025-061
List project or projects applied for here:
Project Name Amount Requested
City of Columbia Heights Lincoln Avenue
Communities Phased Redevelopment
$300,000.00
Total Amount Requested $300,000.00
2. Finds that the project components for which Livable Communities Demonstration Account
funding is sought:
a. will not occur solely through private or other public investment within the reasonably
foreseeable future; and
b. will occur within three years after a grant award only if Livable Communities
Demonstration Account funding is made available for this project at this time.
3. Represents that the City has undertaken reasonable and good faith efforts to procure funding
for the project components for which Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding is
sought but was not able to find or secure from other sources funding that is necessary for
project component completion within three years.
4. Authorizes its Community Development Director to submit on behalf of the City an application
for Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account Pre-Development grant
funds for the project components identified in the application, and to execute such agreements
as may be necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City.
ORDER OF COUNCIL
Passed this 28th day of July, 2025
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
__________________________________
Amáda Márquez Simula, Mayor
Attest:
_______________________________________
Sara Ion, City Clerk/Council Secretary
727
Item 9.
Resolution 2025-062
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-062
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS IDENTIFYING THE NEED FOR
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR
DEVELOPMENT GRANT FUNDS
The City of Columbia Heights is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Local Housing Incentives Account
Program for 2025 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible to apply for Livable
Communities Demonstration Account funds; and
The City has identified proposed projects within the City that meet the Demonstration Account's purposes and
criteria and are consistent with and promote the purposes of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and
the policies of the Metropolitan Council's adopted metropolitan development guide; and
The City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration;
and
The City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the grant agreement;
and
The City agrees to act as legal sponsor for the projects contained in the grant application, anticipated to be
submitted on or before August 11, 2025; and
The City acknowledges Livable Communities Demonstration Account grants are intended to fund projects or
project components that can serve as models, examples or prototypes for development or redevelopment
projects elsewhere in the region, and therefore represents that the proposed projects or key components of
the proposed projects can be replicated in other metropolitan area communities; and
Only a limited amount of grant funding is available through the Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities
Demonstration Account during each funding cycle and the Metropolitan Council has determined it is
appropriate to allocate those scarce grant funds only to eligible projects that would not occur without the
availability of Demonstration Account grant funding.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, after appropriate examination and due consideration, the City
Council:
1. Finds that it is in the best interests of the City's development goals and priorities for the
proposed projects to occur at these particular sites and at this particular time.
728
Item 9.
Resolution 2025-062
List project or projects applied for here:
Project Name Amount Requested
City of Columbia Heights Lincoln Avenue
Communities Phased Redevelopment
$2,000,000.00
Total Amount Requested $2,000,000.00
2. Finds that the project components for which Livable Communities Demonstration Account
funding is sought:
a. will not occur solely through private or other public investment within the reasonably
foreseeable future; and
b. will occur within three years after a grant award only if Livable Communities
Demonstration Account funding is made available for this project at this time.
3. Represents that the City has undertaken reasonable and good faith efforts to procure funding
for the project components for which Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding is
sought but was not able to find or secure from other sources funding that is necessary for
project component completion within three years.
4. Authorizes its Community Development Director to submit on behalf of the City an application
for Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account Development grant
funds for the project components identified in the application, and to execute such agreements
as may be necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City.
ORDER OF COUNCIL
Passed this 28th day of July, 2025
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
__________________________________
Amáda Márquez Simula, Mayor
Attest:
_______________________________________
Sara Ion, City Clerk/Council Secretary
729
Item 9.
ITEM: Consideration of Resolution 2025-064: Safe Streets for All Transportation Safety Action Plan.
DEPARTMENT: Public Works BY/DATE: City Engineer / July 23, 2025
CORE CITY STRATEGIES: (please indicate areas that apply by adding an “X” in front of the selected text below)
_Community that Grows with Purpose and Equity
_High Quality Public Spaces
X Safe, Accessible and Built for Everyone
_Engaged, Effective and Forward-Thinking
_Resilient and Prosperous Economy
_Inclusive and Connected Community
BACKGROUND
The City’s Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Citywide Safety Action Plan project kicked o ff in June 2024 with the help
of the consultant hired, Bolton & Menk. Collection and analysis of crash data is a primary basis for the creation
of the High Injury Network (HIN) in the plan. The consultant worked on multiple community and stakeholder
outreach efforts to gather feedback on areas of concern throughout the City. Extensive public engagement is a
primary component in preparing the plan. The final open house was held the week of June 24 for public
review of the draft plan, and a public invite for review and comment of the plan was pushed through the City’s
social media platforms. Based on the HIN and public feedback, recommendations are then developed in the
plan aimed at reducing crashes and fatalities with the ultimate goal of zero deaths and serious injuries on City
Streets.
At the July 7th work session, Connor Cox from Bolton & Menk reviewed: the community engagement
conducted to prepare the plan, the high injury network, and the draft of the final plan with
discussion/feedback from the Council. The public comment period for the draft plan was open until July 13th.
SUMMARY OF CURRENT STATUS
At the July 7th work session, the Council asked for a redline version of the plan based on the draft plan public
feedback and comment period which closed on July 13th. The redline version, dated June 2025 is attached,
incorporating changes made to the plan from both Council feedback (July work session) and Public comments
(period closed July 13).
The final Safety Action Plan (clean version) dated July 2025, is attached. The Council also indicated support of
formalizing a commitment toward a goal of zero deaths on City streets by 2040, and a 50% reduction in deaths
and serious accidents by 2035. This is now reflected on the attached resolution. Upon approval of the plan,
final documentation will be submitted to the FHWA to meet the grant completion date of September 16,
2025.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve Resolution 2025-064 approving the Transportation Safety Action Plan, dated July 2025.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA SECTION ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
MEETING DATE JULY 28, 2025
730
Item 10.
City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 2
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2025-64, as there are ample copies available to the
public.
MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2025-64 approving the City of Columbia Heights Safety Action Plan and
establishing a goal of zero traffic deaths and serious injuries on all City streets by 2040.
ATTACHMENT(S)
Final Safety Action Plan
Appendices A-D
Resolution 2025-064
731
Item 10.
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-064
ADOPTING THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS TRANSPORTATION SAFETY ACTION PLAN AND COMMITMENT
TOWARD ZERO DEATHS ON CITY STREETS
A resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota,
The City of Columbia Heights has committed to creating a safe, connected transportation system for all modes
of transportation; and
Proven measures exist to reduce the number of crashes on our streets with a data-backed mix of
transportation engineering, enforcement, and education; and
Even one death on the streets of Columbia Heights is one too many; and
People who live work, visit, and play in Columbia Heights deserve to be able to go about the city without fear
of death or serious injury in their travels; and
From 2014 through 2023 there were 2,280 recorded crashes on surface streets in Columbia Heights, including
12 fatalities and 52 serious injury crashes; and
Vulnerable road users – pedestrians in particular – are at a higher risk of injury or death while using the city’s
transportation system; and
Implementing a commitment to and eventually eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries will require
significant participation from and coordination with partner agencies and across city departments; and
The City of Columbia Heights is poised to implement Vison Zero safety -focused projects and strategies in a
variety of ways and is committed to measuring the outcomes of Vison Zero on an annual basis. By making this
commitment the City of Columbia Heights is joining a nationwide and international group of forward -thinking
cities that are also making a commitment to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries on their streets;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
1. That the Columbia Heights City Council hereby commits to a goal of zero traffic deaths and serious
injuries on all surface streets in Columbia Heights by 2040, with an interim goal of 50 percent
reduction in fatal and serious injury crashes by 2035.
2. That the Transportation Safety Action Plan, dated July 2025, is hereby approved.
732
Item 10.
Passed this 28th day of July 2025
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Amáda Márquez Simula, Mayor
Attest:
Sara Ion, City Clerk/Council Secretary
733
Item 10.
Transportation Safety Action Plan - DRAFTJune 2025 734
Item 10.
Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 3
Chapter 2 High Injury Network � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 9
Chapter 3 Speed Limit Evaluation � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 15
Chapter 4 Stop Sign Request Policy � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 19
Chapter 5 Engagement � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �23
Chapter 6 Project Prioritization � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �30
Chapter 7 Safety Countermeasures Toolbox � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �36
Chapter 8 Demonstration Project Recommendations � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �63
Chapter 9 Conceptual Design Options � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �69
Chapter 10 Policy and Progress � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �96
Appendices � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 101
735
Item 10.
Chapter 1
Introduction
736
Item 10.
4 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
The study area includes the entire city limits of the City
of Columbia Heights (Figure 1)� Columbia Heights is a
first ring suburb of the Twin Cities metropolitan area� It
is located directly north of the City of Minneapolis and is
home to approximately 22,000 people, according to the
US Census Bureau� The City has three main roadways, all
north-south routes, University Avenue NE/MN 47, Central
Avenue NE/MN 65, and Stinson Boulevard NE/CR 63�
Interstate 694 is located just north of the city limits�
Study Area
FIGURE 1. STUDY AREA
737
Item 10.
INTRODUCTION
5DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
What is a Safe Streets for All
Action Plan?
A Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Action Plan provides federal
support for planning and infrastructure initiatives aimed
at preventing deaths and serious injuries of all roadway
users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, micro-mobility
users, commercial vehicle operators, transit riders, and
motorists�
The purpose of the Action Plan is to:
• Identify high crash locations�
• Engage the community to receive their input and
direction�
• Recommend design treatments at high crash
locations (both intersections and roadway segments)
aimed at reducing crashes�
Through the completion of this Safe Streets for All Action
Plan, the City of Columbia Heights will continue its
commitment to create a safe transportation system for its
residents, visitors, and businesses�
Introduction & Overview
How do we Achieve Zero
Deaths and Serious Injuries?
A Safe Systems Approach is a guiding model to address
safety on our roads� The Safe System Approach has been
developed and adopted by the United States Department
of Transportation as an effective way to address and
mitigate the safety risks posed by our transportation
systems�
The Safe System Approach includes five objectives that
are reinforced through six principles (Figure 2)� These
objectives and principles create a holistic approach
to make our transportation systems and public rights-
of-way safer for people� Compared to traditional road
safety practices, the Safe System Approach focuses on
the design and operation of our transportation systems
to anticipate human mistakes and lessen the impact of
crashes to save lives�
FIGURE 2. OBJECTIVES
AND PRINCIPLES
OF A SAFE SYSTEMS
APPROACH
738
Item 10.
6 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
This plan is a forward step in Columbia Heights’ commitment to a safer community for all residents� Table 1 summarizes
plans that are related to transportation safety and mobility at the local, regional, and state level to ensure the
Transportation Safety Action Plan aligns its objectives and values with previous planning efforts� Appendix A contains a
full review of previous plans�
Alignment with Other Plans and Policies
Safe Systems
Approach
Ped/Bike
Design
Guidelines
Ped/Bike Network
Recommendations
Universal Design /
ADA Accessibility
Considerations
Land Use
Considerations
Columbia
Heights 2040
Comprehensive
Plan
ADA Transition Plan
Pedestrian &
Bicycle Mobility
Plan (2008)
Retroflectivity Sign
Maintenance Plan
Anoka County 2030
Transportation Plan
Metropolitan
Council Regional
Pedestrian Safety
Action Plan
Minnesota Walks
Strategic Highway
Safety Plan
Pedestrian Safety
Analysis Final
Report
MnDOT Vulnerable
Road User Safety
Assessment
SMTP Minnesota
GO (2022)
TABLE 1. PREVIOUS PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY
739
Item 10.
INTRODUCTION
7DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Columbia Heights Complete Streets Policy
The City adopted their Complete Streets Policy in early
2025.
“This policy defines a process to ensure future street
and transportation projects consider the equity
of all users by incorporating features as necessary
and feasible to implement Complete Streets. The
City views each street and transportation project
as unique and design features will likely differ
from street to street, yet each street may still be
considered ‘complete’.”
Main points from the policy document include:
• For major street reconstruction or new construction
projects, Complete Streets elements will be
incorporated unless an exception is granted�
• For minor maintenance projects such as repaving
or restriping, staff shall document opportunities for
future Complete Streets elements but shall not be
required to implement them unless cost-effective�
• Where a project aligns with existing citywide or
regional plans, city staff shall prioritize the use of
existing design frameworks to reduce redundancy�
• Private development projects shall incorporate
Complete Streets elements as identified by citywide
plans such as Imagine 2050, the City’s 2050
Comprehensive Plan, City Code requirements, and
design guidelines�
Section 7� Create a Network states,
“To ensure safe and convenient access to key
destinations, the City will focus on developing a well-
connected street network that supports multiple modes
of transportation, including walking, biking, public transit,
and driving� The goal is to provide a seamless and safe
experience for users across the network, even if not all
streets accommodate every mode�
Rather than requiring every street to provide separate
facilities for all modes, the City will prioritize connecting
key corridors and destinations where multimodal trips
are most likely� Gaps in connectivity, particularly where
vulnerable users are impacted, will be addressed through
strategic planning and project prioritization�
The City will continue to require developers to implement
Complete Streets elements in new developments
as outlined in this policy� Additionally, City staff will
collaborate with the State of Minnesota, neighboring
communities, and regional partners to extend the
connected network beyond city boundaries when
feasible� Coordination efforts will focus on shared
priorities, such as safe pedestrian crossings and
multimodal access�"
740
Item 10.
8 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
This page intentionally left blank�
741
Item 10.
9DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Chapter 2
High Injury Network
742
Item 10.
10 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
High Injury Network
A High Injury Network (HIN) is a subset of a roadway
network with a disproportionately high number of fatal
and serious injury crashes compared to total crashes in a
community�
Identifying an HIN can help Columbia Heights accomplish
the following:
• Prioritize improvements on roads with high-risk crash
patterns�
• Analyze roadway design features on the HIN to
proactively reconfigure similar roads before crashes
occur�
There is no federally prescribed methodology to identify
an HIN, however some common guidance includes:
• For communities with a smaller geographic footprint
(like Columbia Heights), the HIN should be based on
10 years of crash data�
• The HIN should not include more than 50% of
roadway centerline mileage� 5% to 20% of centerline
mileage is a common target, but not a strict rule�
• The HIN should capture at least 40% of fatal and
serious injury crashes�
HIN Identification
The Columbia Heights HIN was developed using
citywide crash data from 2014 to 2023, sourced from the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)�
Using this data, spatial analysis was conducted with GIS
software to visualize crash locations and identify roadways
with the highest concentration of high-risk crashes� For
this analysis, a high-risk crash is defined as:
• A crash resulting in fatality�
• A crash resulting in a serious injury�
• A crash involving a bicyclist(s) or pedestrian(s),
regardless of crash severity�
• A crash resulting in minor injury�
• Minor injuries were considered to a lesser
degree compared to the three other crash types
listed above, however they were incorporated
due to a generally low representation of fatal,
serious injury, or pedestrian/bicycle crashes
throughout Columbia Heights�
Roadway segments were aggregated together to form the
HIN if the high-risk crashes described above generally
occurred within a half-mile of one another, however some
engineering judgement was also applied�
The HIN is shown in Figure 3 and covers:
• 100% of fatal crashes�
• 88% of serious injury crashes�
• 88% of bicycle crashes�
• 86% of pedestrian crashes�
• 88% of minor injury crashes�
• 25% of centerline mileage�
• If MnDOT jurisdiction corridors are excluded,
due to ongoing, planned projects on TH 47/
University Avenue and TH 65/Central Avenue,
the HIN makes up approximately 21% of the
remaining roadway system�
743
Item 10.
HIGH INJURY NETWORK
11DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
FIGURE 3. HIGH INJURY NETWORK
744
Item 10.
12 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Characteristics of HIN
Roadways
General roadway characteristics on the HIN were
reviewed to identify design features linked to higher
rates of high-risk crashes (see Appendix B for
detailed graphics)� The following roadway types are
disproportionately represented on the HIN:
• Daily traffic volumes over 3,000 vehicles per day�
• Speed limits of 35 mph or higher�
• Presence of two-way left turn lanes�
• This is most likely due to dense access spacing,
which typically requires two-way left-turn lanes,
rather than an issue with the lanes themselves�
• Lack of on-street parking�
• On-street parking can help calm traffic, but
sight lines near intersections should be carefully
reviewed�
• Presence of a roadway median�
• This characteristic is largely due to University
Avenue and Central Avenue being a part of the
HIN�
• Two or more travel lanes in each direction�
• This characteristic is largely due to University
Avenue and Central Avenue being a part of the
HIN�
When planning roadway maintenance or reconstruction,
the City should prioritize roads with these design features
to assess safety needs� Some High Injury Network
corridors, like 37th Avenue NE and 53rd Avenue NE, have
recently been improved� While crashes are expected
to decline due to these upgrades, ongoing monitoring is
recommended to evaluate their safety impact�
Corridors with Elevated
Numbers of High-Risk Crashes
A scoring system was developed to identify roadways with
the most severe safety issues, using the following criteria:
• 2 points per fatal crash�
• 1 point per serious injury crash�
• 1 point per bicycle crash (2 points if crash resulted in
a fatality)�
• 1 point per pedestrian crash (2 points if crash
resulted in a fatality)�
• 0�25 points per minor injury crash�
Once this scoring was applied, the score was divided by
the length of the segment to normalize the score based
on segment length�
Crash scores per mile are shown in Figure 4� Roadways
with the highest crash scores (i�e� highest accumulation of
high-risk crashes) and their jurisdiction are listed below�
MnDOT Roadways
Central Avenue / TH 65
• Improvements are planned for 2028 as part of
the METRO F Line project� These improvements
include bus rapid transit infrastructure and safety
and accessibility improvements for people walking,
rolling, biking, riding transit, and driving�
Anoka County Roadways
40th Avenue NE / CSAH 2
• Improvements identified in the 2024 CSAH 2 / 40th
Avenue Corridor Study are planned for short-term
implementation� These improvements include two
through lanes, parking lanes (on both sides of the
roadway), sidewalks/trail implementation, and raised
crossings on side street intersections�
49th Avenue NE / CSAH 4
City of Columbia Heights Roadways
37th Avenue NE
Improvements were recently implemented (2023/2024),
therefore the number of crashes at this location are
expected to decrease� This corridor should be monitored
to understand the safety benefits of the recent project�
44th Avenue NE
45th Avenue NE
50th Avenue NE
745
Item 10.
HIGH INJURY NETWORK
13DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
FIGURE 4. HIGH INJURY NETWORK CRASH SCORE
746
Item 10.
14 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
This page intentionally left blank�
747
Item 10.
15DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Chapter 3
Speed Limit Evaluation
748
Item 10.
16 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
2019 Legislative Action
In May 2019, the Minnesota legislature passed two
provisions that allow cities increased authority to set their
own speed limits on local roads� These went into effect
August 1, 2019�
Minnesota State Statute, Section 169.14, Subd. 5h.
Speed limits on city streets.
“A city may establish speed limits for city streets under
the city’s jurisdiction other than the limits provided in
subdivision 2 without conducting an engineering and
traffic investigation� This subdivision does not apply to
town roads, county highways, or trunk highways in the
city� A city that establishes speed limits pursuant to
this section must implement speed limit changes in a
consistent and understandable manner� The city must
erect appropriate signs to display the speed limit� A
city that uses the authority under this subdivision must
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Reduced Citywide
Speed Limits
develop procedures to set speed limits based on the city’s
safety, engineering, and traffic analysis� At a minimum,
the safety, engineering, and traffic analysis must consider
national urban speed limit guidance and studies, local
traffic crashes, and methods to effectively communicate
the change to the public�”
The legislature also passed section 169.011, Subd 64,
which expands the definition of a residential roadway
as:
“…a city street or town road that is either (1) less than one-
half mile in total length, or (2) in an area zoned exclusively
for housing that is not a collector or arterial street�”
Together, these changes provide cities with the ability to
set speed limits on local streets, provided that a safety,
engineering, and traffic analysis has been completed and
a policy has been set that establishes speed limits in a
consistent and understandable manner�
Credit: Jeff Wheeler, The Minnesota Star Tribune
749
Item 10.
SPEED LIMIT EVALUATION
17DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Local Jurisdictions Reviewed
The following are a list of peer communities that either
changed their speed limits following the 2019 legislative
action or chose to maintain their speed limits after review�
• City of Edina (Lowered Speeds)
• City of Minneapolis (Lowered Speeds)
• City of Saint Paul (Lowered Speeds)
• City of St� Louis Park (Lowered Speeds)
• City of Richfield (Lowered Speeds)
• City of Bloomington (Lowered Speeds)
• City of St� Anthony Village (Lowered Speeds)
• City of Falcon Heights (Lowered Speeds)
• City of New Brighton (Lowered Speeds)
• City of Shoreview (Maintained Speeds)
Summary and Key Takeaways
Based on a review of peer communities and national
guidance and safety research the following key takeaways
was found�
Studies show Insignificant Impacts from Reduced
Speed Limits
Studies have shown that reducing speed limits alone
does not necessarily lead to significant improvements
in traffic safety� While lower speed limits may seem
like a logical approach to reducing speeds and motor
vehicle accidents, research suggests that driver behavior
is influenced more by factors such as road design,
enforcement, and traffic flow than by posted speed limits�
In fact, studies have found that when speed limits are
lowered without corresponding changes to road design
or enforcement, drivers often ignore the new limits or
drive at speeds they consider safe based on the design
and context of the road� Additionally, changes in speed
between and within municipalities on similar roadway
types can cause confusion or frustration among drivers,
potentially leading to unsafe driving behavior� Therefore,
experts recommend a more comprehensive approach,
addressing road design, visibility, and enforcement, rather
than relying solely on reduced speed limits to improve
safety�
Street Design Changes are More Effective
While there are limited studies proving the effectiveness
of speed limit changes reducing speeds, there is an
abundance of literature supporting physical roadway
changes as a way to slow traffic and make roadways safer
for motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists� FHWA,
NACTO, ITE, and other organizations have published
studies and best practices to show the benefits of
“traffic calming”� Additionally, FHWA has put together a
collection of 28 countermeasures and strategies effective
in reducing roadway fatalities and serious injuries� While
the collection includes ‘Appropriate Speed Limits for All
Road Users’, it also includes ‘Road Diets’, ‘Roundabouts’,
‘Dedicated Left- and Right-Turn Lanes at Intersections’,
and ‘Walkways’� It is recommended these strategies are
used together to have the most effect in making roadways
safer for all users�
Many Local Community Case Studies, Limited Data
Eleven local Twin Cities municipalities were reviewed,
including Edina, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, St� Louis Park,
Richfield, Bloomington, Saint Anthony Village, Falcon
Heights, Shoreview, New Brighton, and Fridley� Out of
these eleven, only a couple communities have collected
and analyzed the results of speed limit changes�
Communities that do have before-and-after speed data
have generally found that average motor vehicle speeds
are not reduced significantly, usually only 1-3 miles
per hour� This suggests that additional strategies are
needed to reduce vehicle speeds, which could include
infrastructure changes, public education/communication,
or speed enforcement�
The full evaluation of reducing citywide speed limits can
be found in Appendix C�
750
Item 10.
18 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
This page intentionally left blank�
751
Item 10.
Chapter 4
Stop Sign Request Policy
752
Item 10.
20 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
The City of Columbia Heights is committed to maintaining
a safe and efficient transportation network for all road
users� This Stop Sign Request Policy provides a procedure
to intake resident and neighborhood requests, complete
an engineering review, provide a decision, and implement
placement of stop signs in a consistent and transparent
manner�
Purpose of Stop Signs
Stop signs are essential regulatory traffic control devices
used to manage right-of-way and access at intersections�
They are not designed for speed control but rather
to improve safety by defining priority for motorists,
pedestrians, and cyclists� Proper stop sign installations
follow national and state standards, which establish
specific warrants to ensure their effectiveness�
Applicability of Policy
This policy applies to all public intersections under the
City’s authority, including residential, commercial, and
mixed-use areas� Stop signs will not be installed arbitrarily�
Instead, the city will base its decision on an engineering
review and criteria contained within the Minnesota
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD)�
Types of Stop Control
The city recognizes two primary types of sign
configurations:
• Minor Road Stop Control: Typically used where a
minor street intersects a major street� The stop signs
are placed on the minor street to assign right-of-way
to the major street�
• All-Way Stop Control: Typically used when traffic
volumes are nearly equal on all approaches, or when
crash history or pedestrian activity justifies it� All-way
stops are also considered at complex intersections
or where visibility is limited in multiple directions�
Evaluation Criteria for Stop
Sign Installation
The Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MN MUTCD) indicates the following factors should be
considered when establishing intersection control:
• Vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic volumes on
all approaches
• Number and angle of approaches
• Approach speeds
• Sight distance available on each approach, and
• Reported crash history
Additional considerations include:
• Roadway function and importance
• Unsignalized intersections within a signalized area
• The need to control left-turn conflicts
• The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts at
locations that generate high pedestrian volumes
• Improvement of operational characteristics of the
intersection
Stop Sign Request Policy
753
Item 10.
21DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
STOP SIGN REQUEST POLICY
Request and Review Process
The following steps are required under this policy:
• STEP 1: Completion of a Stop Sign Request Form
and submittal to the Public Works or Engineering
Department�
• STEP 2: The city will conduct an engineering review
using criteria contained within the Minnesota Manual
of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD)�
• STEP 3: Based on the engineering review, the
city will determine whether stop sign installation
is warranted� The city will then use engineering
judgment to determine whether to advance a
recommendation to install a stop sign�
• STEP 4: If recommended, the findings will be
presented to the City Council and/or Traffic Safety
Committee for review and approval�
• STEP 5: If approved by the Council and/or
Committee, the city will program the installation of
the stop sign(s) as well as the ongoing maintenance�
Note: A petition or neighborhood endorsement with a
minimum of 60% support from households within 300’ of
the requested sign location can be required by the city
ahead of STEP 2 or STEP 4�
Exceptions
Stop signs are not a substitute for speed control� They
will not be installed solely to reduce speeding or as a
response to isolated complaints� Unwarranted stop signs
can lead to driver non-compliance, increased rear-end
collisions, and unnecessary delays�
Maintenance
The Public Works Department is responsible for
maintaining all stop signs in good condition� This includes
ensuring visibility, reflectivity, and compliance with the
Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MN MUTCD)� Regular inspections and prompt repairs
are part of the city’s commitment to traffic safety�
Future Policy Considerations
Stop sign control is used to facilitate the free movement
of traffic along intersecting streets until it is safe to cross�
Stop signs may not be required at every cross street or
driveway intersection� However they should be used on
the minor street approach(es) if engineering judgment
and/or analysis indicates that one or more the following
conditions exist:
• Minor street entering a major through street
• Restricted view or crash records indicate a need for
control by a stop sign
In most cases, the street carrying the lowest volume of
traffic should be stopped� In cases where two intersecting
streets have similar volumes and characteristics,
additional considerations include:
• Controlling the direction that conflicts the most with
established pedestrian crossing activity or school
walking routes
• Controlling the direction that has obscured vision,
dips, or bumps that already require drivers to use
lower operating speeds
• Controlling the direction that has the best sight
distance to observe conflicting traffic
Generally, stop signs will be located on side-street
approaches to collector, arterial, and streets with the
highest volume of through traffic� Stop signs should be
placed in a manner and/or pattern that the driver will
expect to assign right-of-way to crossing traffic� In the
future, the City of Columbia Heights could consider
implementing stop signs every other block in each
direction and designate north-south routes that do not
have stop signs for free flow traffic movements�
754
Item 10.
22 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
This page intentionally left blank�
755
Item 10.
Chapter 5
Engagement
756
Item 10.
24 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Community and Stakeholder Engagement
Community and stakeholder engagement played a critical
role in shaping the Columbia Heights Transportation
Safety Action Plan� By combining data-driven safety
analysis with local insights, the project team gained
a clearer understanding of safety conditions and
challenges citywide� Through a range of in-person and
virtual strategies such as pop-up events, open houses,
stakeholder meetings, and online tools, residents and
other community members identified priority locations
and key concerns� This input directly informed the Project
Prioritization process, as detailed in Chapter 6�
Pop-Up Events
Three pop-up events were held at local community
gatherings to meet people where they were and collect
input in informal, accessible settings� At each event,
participants engaged in an activity to identify locations
with transportation safety concerns� Some of the
comment themes highlighted by community members at
pop up events included:
• Safety at intersections along Central Avenue, 49th
Avenue, and 40th Avenue�
• Biking and driving issues, especially at crossings�
• Infrastructure gaps such as missing sidewalks, poor
lighting, and lack of bike lanes�
• Traffic behavior issues like speeding and failure to
stop at signs�
• Accessibility challenges near parks and libraries�
• Lack of stop signs at some intersections creates
confusion and safety concerns�
Pop-Up #1 (June 20, 2024 – Community Art & Info Fair at
Huset Park)
This popular community event is attended by hundreds
of residents and takes place in Huset Park each year� The
project team attended the event to speak to community
members, gather feedback, and promote the project's
online interactive map�
Pop-Up #2 (July 30, 2024 – Eat and Greet at McKenna
Park)
This event raised awareness of the project and
encouraged participation in the interactive comment map
and upcoming open house� Approximately 20 people
participated in an activity to identify safety issues and
problem areas in the city�
Pop-Up #3 (October 26, 2024 - Truck or Treat, Huset
Park)
Staff attended the Halloween-themed community event,
Truck or Treat, and engaged with children and parents as
they collected candy� Participants ranked intersections
and street segments based on where they most wanted
to see safety improvements� Approximately 60 people
provided feedback at the event, including many youth�
This input informed project prioritization�
757
Item 10.
ENGAGEMENT
25DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Stakeholder Meetings
Targeted meetings were held with key decision-makers
and institutional partners to share updates and gather
input on the Transportation Safety Action Plan� These
sessions helped align the project with broader city and
school priorities�
City Council Work Session (September 3, 2024)
Project staff presented early findings from the crash
analysis and community engagement to the Columbia
Heights City Council� Council members provided
feedback on safety priorities and discussed how the plan
could support citywide goals�
School Board Meeting (September 24, 2024)
Staff met with the Columbia Heights School Board
to discuss school-related safety concerns and Safe
Routes to School opportunities� Board members shared
insights on student travel patterns and priority areas for
improvement�
Open House Events
Two open houses were held to share project updates and
gather feedback at key milestones�
Fall Open House (October 10, 2024 – Columbia Heights
City Hall)
Hosted at Columbia Heights City Hall, this open house
served as a key opportunity to share project updates
and gather community input� The event began with a
presentation from project team members, followed by
informal, one-on-one discussions with attendees� Project
boards were displayed throughout the room, presenting
information on project background, community feedback,
crash analysis, and updates on related transportation
efforts�
Attendees were invited to participate in an interactive
activity where they selected their top four project
locations from a curated list, helping to inform project
prioritization� A total of 18 attendees signed in, and
five comment cards were submitted in response to the
prompt, “How can we improve safety on our streets?”
Project staff were available throughout the event to
answer questions, explain materials, and engage in
meaningful conversations about transportation safety in
Columbia Heights�
Spring Open House (June 24, 2025 – Columbia Heights
City Hall)
• TBD
758
Item 10.
26 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Interactive Comment Map
Community members used an interactive mapping
tool to highlight locations they felt were unsafe, adding
context to the High Injury Network analysis� Nearly 300
comments (shown in Figure 5) were submitted between
July and September 2024 and categorized as Walking,
Driving, Biking, Transit, or Rolling� Key themes included:
Walking
• Crosswalks are often missing or lack visibility�
• Major roads and connectors lack sidewalks�
• Sidewalk gaps and abrupt endings are common�
• Additional Safe Routes to School planning work is
recommended�
• Dangerous driving, minimal traffic calming, and lack
of buffers make walking unsafe�
Rolling
• Lack of sidewalks creates unsafe conditions for
mobility device users, with few safe alternatives�
Driving
• Rolling stops and speeding are widespread,
especially on residential streets�
• Many intersections lack control measures (stop signs
or traffic lights)�
• Wide streets often lack lane striping�
Transit
• Walkways and crossings near stops need
improvement�
Biking
• Desire for north-south biking routes and connections
to regional trails�
• Poor pavement in bike lanes�
• Desire for more protected lane infrastructure�
FIGURE 5.
COMMUNITY-
IDENTIFIED
SAFETY
CONCERNS BY
MODE
759
Item 10.
ENGAGEMENT
27DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Other Engagement Strategies
Project Website
A project website was launched at the start of the
planning process to serve as a central hub for information�
It provided an overview of the project’s goals, key
milestones, and timeline, and was regularly updated
with new content� The site also advertised upcoming
engagement opportunities such as pop-up events and
open houses, and hosted the interactive comment map�
Printed Newsletters and E-Newsletters
Printed newsletters were mailed to residents, and
e-newsletters were sent to individuals who signed up
through the project website or at public events� These
updates included project progress, summaries of
community input, upcoming engagement opportunities,
and reminders to participate in tools like the interactive
comment map�
Standalone Informational Boards
Informational display boards were installed at key
community locations, including City Hall and the Public
Library, to share high-level project information and
increase public awareness� These boards included a
summary of the project goals, timeline, and ways to get
involved, helping to reach residents who may not engage
online or attend in-person events�
760
Item 10.
28 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
“I would love to bike around Columbia Heights
more, but do not feel safe along Central or
crossing Central as people use it as a freeway
to commute from Downtown to the suburbs�
It needs safe bike paths off the road or
separated from the road by physical barriers�”
“Would love to see traffic calming measures
on our streets� This street is often used as
a bypass to get to the high school in the
mornings and it can become quite crazy before
and after school�”
“Bike lanes should be moved inside of parking
so that the parked cars protect the bike
lanes� Pavement of bike lanes in very rough
condition�”
“We need sidewalks in this neighborhood to
improve walkability and keep everyone safe�”
Community Insights
Feedback from community members was collected
through open house meetings, pop-up events, and surveys
in addition to virtual platforms� Some of these comments
are highlighted below�
“Wide turn radii in a residential area with many
pedestrians, children playing, and waiting for
the school bus� Turns should be much tighter
so that cars need to slow down while turning�”
“Add bike lane or path along 44th to connect
to the Mississippi River Trail in Fridley�”
“Library is located on this corner, it would be
great to have a crosswalk here so people can
get there safely, and not have to walk down to
a traffic light�”
“The walk lights across University never give
people enough time to cross�”
“All of 45th Avenue from Main to Stinson
should be narrowed using sidewalk, protected/
raised bike lanes, landscaping, and corner
bump-outs� This street could be beautiful
and used for bike/pedestrians a lot more,
but instead we have unmaintained asphalt
shoulders that are left unused� Prioritize
people over cars�”
761
Item 10.
29DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
This page intentionally left blank�
762
Item 10.
30 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Chapter 6
Project Prioritization
763
Item 10.
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
31DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Prioritization Framework
Creating a system to prioritize safety improvements starts
with developing criteria to identify key projects� Given
the limited funds available for enhancing road safety
and maintaining infrastructure, it is crucial to ensure that
resources are allocated effectively� This begins with a
data-driven scoring system that evaluates all roadway
intersections and segments on the City’s High Injury
Network� By integrating a variety of quantitative and
qualitative factors, the prioritization framework helps
determine which investments provide the best return
on investment� This approach aims to optimize the use
of limited resources� A process flowchart illustrating this
prioritization framework is shown in Figure 6 below�
Project Prioritization
Community
Feedback
(16%)
Equity (14%)
Destination
Connectivity
(18%)
Crash History
and Risk
(52%)
Scoring Criteria
The categories of criteria selected for scoring include
Crash History and Risk, Destination Connectivity,
Community Feedback, and Equity� These elements,
shown in Figure 7 below, are evaluated and weighted
as illustrated in Table 2, with particular emphasis
on documented crash history and risk at each
location� Projects offering greater potential for safety
improvements or addressing known risks are prioritized
over those with lower impact� Additional details on data
sources and the scoring methodology are provided in
Appendix D�
Prioritization Results
Figure 8 shows the results of the initial prioritization of
project locations� Higher scoring locations are illustrated
with thick red lines while lower scoring locations are
illustrated with thinner orange or yellow lines� It is worth
noting that both 37th Ave NE and 53rd Ave NE are shown
on the High Injury Network, but both of these roadways
have had recent project improvements so it is unlikely
that another project will be completed on those corridors
in the near future�
Collect
Community
Input &
Analyze Crash
Data
Map High
Injury
Network
(HIN)
Define
Prioritization
Criteria
Weight
Prioritization
Criteria
Gather
Data from
Identified
Sources
Score HIN
Locations
FIGURE 7.
PRIORITIZATION
FACTORS
Prioritize Locations for
Safety Improvements
FIGURE 6. PROJECT
PRIORITIZATION PROCESS
764
Item 10.
32 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Category
Score Weight Category Criteria Intersection or
Road Segment
Max Possible
Score
52%Crash History
and Risk
Fatal/Serious Crashes Both 14
Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes Both 12
Traffic Volume Both 4
Speed Limit Both 4
Travel Lane Number Both 4
Approach Curvature Intersection 2
Median Segment 2
On-Street Parking Segment 2
Skew Intersection 2
Lighting Presence Intersection 2
Crosswalk Presence Intersection 2
Crossing Distance Intersection 2
18%Destination
Connectivity
Transit - BRT Both 4
Transit - Other Both 2
Activity Generators Both 4
Residential Area Both 4
Existing Bicycle Facilities Both 2
Existing Pedestrian Facilities Both 2
16%Community
Feedback Number of Responses Both 16
14%Equity
Minority Population Both 2
Serves Dependent Populations (Youth and
Senior Citizens)Both 2
Serves People with Disabilities Both 2
Serves People whose First Language is not
English Both 2
Serves Veterans Both 2
Serves Low-Income Populations Both 2
Serves Populations without Motor Vehicle
Access Both 2
TABLE 2. PROJECT PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA
765
Item 10.
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
33DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
FIGURE 8. SEGMENT AND INTERSECTION SCORES ON THE HIGH INJURY NETWORK
766
Item 10.
34 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
High Priority Locations
Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix D illustrate the top 25 highest-
priority intersections and roadway segments on the
High Injury Network (HIN), based on the scoring criteria�
Locations with the highest scores are considered the
most critical for safety improvements� Both maps display
intersections and segments; however, they differ in the
inclusion of two high-scoring corridors:
• Figure 1 (Appendix D) includes all locations, including
two MnDOT highways in the city - University Avenue
NE/TH 47 and Central Avenue NE/TH 65
• Figure 2 (Appendix D) excludes these two corridors
to highlight high-priority areas on the local or County
roadway systems�
Following the maps, Tables 1 through 5 (Appendix D)
present the corresponding data for these locations�
Separate tables are provided to show results including
and excluding the University Avenue NE/TH 47 and
Central Avenue NE/TH 65 corridors, which are outliers
due to their consistently high scores�
Potential Future Updates
The methodology used to determine the High Injury
Network should remain dynamic and adaptable� Future
updates to the prioritization criteria may include:
• Adjusting points and weights to better reflect City
priorities�
• Aligning the process more closely with other
prioritization frameworks, such as CIP prioritization�
• Incorporating or replacing ‘big data’ sources with
insights from local law enforcement and public
feedback to assess crash risks related to speeding or
dangerous driving behaviors�
• Further analyzing safety trends in each project area
to identify appropriate treatments for specific crash
history patterns and refining project prioritization
scoring�
• Evaluating the role of community support and
engagement in project prioritization�
Equity Considerations in
Project Prioritization
Equity was a core component of the project prioritization
framework, ensuring that safety improvements are
directed toward communities with the greatest
transportation needs� Using American Community Survey
(ACS) data derived from Esri Business Analyst, projects
received additional points if they served areas meeting
specific thresholds across the following criteria:
• Minority Population: Areas where more than 20% of
residents identify as non-White� These communities
often face systemic barriers to safe, reliable
transportation and are more likely to rely on walking,
biking, and transit�
• Dependent Populations (Youth and Seniors): Areas
with above-average shares of residents under 18 or
over 65� These age groups are more likely to depend
on non-driving modes and benefit from safer, more
accessible infrastructure�
• People with Disabilities: Areas with disability
rates above the statewide average� Individuals with
disabilities often face additional mobility challenges
and require inclusive, accessible design�
• Limited English Proficiency: Areas where a higher-
than-average share of residents speak English less
than “very well�” Language barriers can limit access
to transportation services and safety information�
• Veterans: Areas with veteran populations above the
statewide average� Veterans may experience unique
mobility needs due to age, disability, or economic
factors�
• Low-Income Households: Areas where 40% or more
of residents live below 185% of the federal poverty
line, a commonly used threshold that includes those
who earn slightly above the poverty line but still face
economic hardship� These populations are more
likely to rely on affordable, non-driving transportation
options�
• No Vehicle Access: Areas with above-average rates
of households without access to a motor vehicle�
These residents are especially dependent on safe
walking, biking, and transit infrastructure�
By incorporating these equity indicators into the scoring
process, the prioritization framework helps ensure that
transportation investments are both data-informed and
socially responsive, supporting a safer, more inclusive
network for all users�
767
Item 10.
35DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
This page intentionally left blank�
768
Item 10.
36 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Chapter 7
Safety Countermeasures
Toolbox
769
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
37DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Safety Countermeasures Toolbox
To effectively reduce roadway fatalities and serious
injuries, Columbia Heights must thoroughly address safety
issues throughout the community� The selection and
design of safety countermeasures for every street project
should be guided by the Safe System Approach, ensuring
that any crashes that do occur do not result in fatalities or
serious injuries� It is crucial that safety countermeasures
are not compromised or simplified during the design or
construction phases, as this would diminish safety for all
road users�
This plan includes a Safety Countermeasures Toolbox,
featuring a variety of design treatments at intersections
or along roadway segments that may be used on
Columbia Heights’ roads� This list of design treatments is
not an exhaustive or comprehensive list, and additional
design treatments that are not listed in this plan may
be appropriate in future projects� Detailed descriptions
of each countermeasure can be found on the following
pages, and additional information sources for each are
provided and referenced in a numbered list on Page 61�
• Walkways
• Bikeways
• Shared Use Paths
• General Lighting
Improvements
• Crosswalk Visibility
Enhancements
• Speed Tables
• Raised Crosswalks
• Curb Extensions
• Medians and
Pedestrian Refuge
Islands
• Leading Pedestrian
Intervals
• Right-Turn on Red
Prohibitions
• Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons
• Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacons
• Bicycle Boxes
• Bicycle Signals
• Road Diets (Roadway
Reconfiguration)
• Lane Diets (Lane
Narrowing)
• Corridor Access
Management
• Driveway
Improvements
• Roundabouts
• Mini Traffic Circles
• Chicanes
• Rumble Strips
770
Item 10.
38 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Safety Statistics (FHWA)
• Sidewalks may reduce crashes involving
pedestrians walking along roadways by 65-89%�
• Paved shoulders may reduce crashes involving
pedestrians walking along roadways by 71%�
Walkways
Overview and Purpose
Walkways are defined spaces or pathways designated for
use by pedestrians or individuals using mobility devices�
These can include, but are not limited to, sidewalks,
shared use paths, or roadway shoulders� Well-designed
walkways enhance pedestrian safety and mobility by
providing a direct and connected network of walking
routes to desired destinations without gaps or abrupt
changes�
Design Considerations
• Ensure network connectivity with direct and
connected walking routes�
• Ensure walkways provide minimum ADA-compliant
widths that are clear of obstructions like signs and
utility poles�
• Provide and maintain accessible walkways along both
sides of the road in urban areas�
• Design walkways to improve safety and mobility,
including features like high-visibility crosswalks,
pedestrian warning signs, and tactile curb ramps�
• Wider walkways are needed in urban areas and
commercial districts�
• Separation between roadways and walkways is
preferred (i�e� grass or concrete boulevards)� This
separation improves pedestrian comfort and also
provides snow storage space in the winter�
Candidate Locations
• All urban streets and suburban arterials and
collectors�
• Streets that connect pedestrian origins and
destinations�
• High-speed and high-volume roadways without
adequate shoulder width�
Resources with Additional Information
• 4, 5, 19, 30, 38
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
771
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
39DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Bikeways
Overview and Purpose
Bikeways enhance safety and comfort for cyclists by
providing dedicated space, reducing interactions and
conflicts with motor vehicles� Buffered bikeways offer
increased separation, especially on roads with higher
volumes and speeds, reducing the risk of conflict between
modes�
Design Considerations
• Include bikeways on new or existing roads through
road diets�
• Use vertical elements or separated lanes on high-
volume roads�
• Avoid rumble strips impacting cyclists in rural areas�
• Provide at least 2 feet of space between roadways
and bikeways to provide buffer space�
Candidate Locations
• On-road bikeways: Suitable for roadways at or
below speeds of 30 MPH and/or AADT volumes of
6,000�
• Separated bikeways: Suitable for roadways at or
above speeds 30 MPH and/or AADT volumes of over
6,000, and areas connecting biking networks�
Resources with Additional Information
• 3, 8, 9, 10, 23, 24, 29, 34
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
Safety Statistics (FHWA)
• Separated bikeways with flexible delineator
posts may reduce bicycle/vehicle crashes by up
to 53%�
• Any bicycle facility addition may reduce total
crashes by 49% on urban 4-lane undivided
collectors and local roads and 30% on urban
2-lane undivided collectors and local roads�
772
Item 10.
40 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Shared Use Paths
Overview and Purpose
Shared use paths are bicycle and pedestrian facilities that
are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by an
open space or barrier� Designed for two-way travel, they
serve various nonmotorized users and can be located
within roadway right-of-way or an independent right-of-
way�
Design Considerations
• Typical widths range from 8 to 15 feet, allowing for
separation of bicyclists and pedestrians�
• ADA accessibility features are required, including
ramps and detectable warnings at intersections�
Candidate Locations
• Roadways with high traffic volumes and speeds�
• Areas with a high volume, mix, and wide travel speed
range of pedestrian and bicyclists�
• Locations where space is limited, shared use paths
can replace separated bike lanes�
• Wider paths are necessary where there are large
numbers of bicyclists or other nonmotorized users�
Resources with Additional Information
• 8, 10, 24
Citations
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
773
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
41DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
General Lighting
Improvements
Overview and Purpose
Roadway lighting improves nighttime visibility, reducing
crash risk by helping drivers and other road users
detect hazards earlier� Lighting is especially beneficial at
intersections, pedestrian crossings, and along high-speed
corridors�
Design Considerations
• At intersections, ensure lighting is adequate for
nighttime visibility and pedestrian safety�
• Use shielded lighting features or place lights far
enough from the roadway to minimize the risk of
fixed-object crashes�
• Use modern lighting technology to minimize light
pollution and excessive spillover to neighboring
properties�
Candidate Locations
• All roadway types, especially in urbanized areas
• Intersections with high traffic volume or known crash
history at night�
• Pedestrian crossings and transit stop areas,
especially in areas with high non-motorized traffic�
Resources with Additional Information
• 30
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
Safety Statistics (FHWA)
Adequate lighting may reduce:
• Nighttime pedestrian injury crashes by up to
42%�
• Crashes by 33-38% at rural and urban
intersections�
• Overall nighttime crashes on highways by 28%�
774
Item 10.
42 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Crosswalk Visibility and
Approach Enhancements
Overview and Purpose
Enhancing crosswalk visibility and vehicle approach
improves safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, mobility device
users, and transit users by making crosswalks more visible
to drivers�
Design Considerations
• Use high-visibility crosswalk patterns like bar pairs,
continental, or ladder�
• Illuminate crosswalks with positive contrast lighting,
ensuring lights are positioned to prevent silhouettes
and keep pedestrians clearly visible to drivers�
• Use “YIELD Here to Pedestrians” or “STOP Here for
Pedestrians” signs in advance of crosswalks�
• Enforce parking restrictions near crosswalks�
• Implement advanced stop lines and install tactile
warning surfaces�
Candidate Locations
• Signalized intersections�
• Unsignalized locations with AADT below 15,000�
• Unsignalized locations (including mid-block locations)
with high pedestrian activity�
• Areas near schools, parks, transit stops, and other
pedestrian generators�
Resources with Additional Information
• 2, 7, 11, 12, 13, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 37
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
Safety Statistics (FHWA)
• High-visibility crosswalks may cut pedestrian
injury crashes by up to 40%�
• Adding lighting at intersections may cut
pedestrian crashes by up to 42%�
• Advance yield or stop markings and signs may
cut pedestrian crash rates by up to 25%�
775
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
43DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Speed Tables
Overview and Purpose
Speed tables are traffic calming devices that raise
the entire wheelbase of a motor vehicle� This vertical
deflection reduces vehicle speeds, enhancing safety for all
road users, especially non-motorized traffic� Unlike speed
humps, which are shorter and curved, speed tables have a
flat top that accommodates the entire vehicle wheelbase�
Design Considerations
• Speed tables are typically 3 to 6 inches high, around
15 to 20 feet long, and nearly the full width of the
road (often allowing for stormwater drainage in
adjacent gutters)�
• Designers should consider drainage needs for all
raised treatments to ensure the roadway still drains
properly�
• May not be appropriate on major streets or on truck
routes�
• Design with pavement markings that make speed
table presence clear to drivers�
Candidate Locations
• Roadways that tend to promote high automotive
speeds�
• Roadways where high-speed automobiles conflict
with crossing pedestrians and/or bicyclists�
• Transition areas from higher-speed to lower-speed
roadways�
Resources with Additional Information
• 21
Citations
• MnDOT — 2024 — Bicycle Facility Design Manual
776
Item 10.
44 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Safety Statistics (MNDOT)
• Raised crosswalks may reduce pedestrian
crashes by 45%�
Raised Crosswalks
Overview and Purpose
Raised crosswalks combine a marked crosswalk with a
speed table that extends the full width of the crossing�
This type of vertical deflection reduces motor vehicle
speeds and improves visibility between drivers, bicyclists,
and pedestrians at crossing locations�
Design Considerations
• Raised crosswalks are typically 3 to 6 inches high�
• Raised crosswalks can be placed mid-block or at an
intersection and are commonly constructed to be
flush with the roadside curb�
• ADA standards should be incorporated�
• Approaches should have approach grades between
4% and 7%�
Candidate Locations
• Locations with high pedestrian or bicycle activity,
such as at school crossings, park entrances, and
commercial shopping districts�
• Crossings around roundabouts�
• Locations where shared use paths cross commercial
driveways or ramps�
Resources with Additional Information
• 33, 37
Citations
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
777
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
45DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Curb Extensions
Overview and Purpose
Curb extensions, also known as bump outs, extend the
sidewalk into the roadway, reducing crossing distances for
pedestrians and improving sightlines between pedestrians
and drivers� They provide visual cues to drivers to reduce
speeds and watch for pedestrians and bicyclists�
Design Considerations
• Extend the full width of a parking lane�
• Maintain proper sight distance between pedestrians
and motorists�
• Consider stormwater runoff and catch basins�
• Curb extensions can be lengthened to include
landscaping, stormwater treatment, transit waiting
areas, and bus shelters�
• Use a compound radius to increase available curb
extension space while allowing large vehicles to turn�
• Choose between raised curb extensions or lower-
cost painted alternatives�
• Consider the potential need for right turn lanes
should be evaluated prior to curb extension
implementation�
Candidate Locations
• Urban settings with on-street parking lanes or
shoulders where the extensions will not impede
bicycle travel�
• Mid-block crossings�
• Bus stops�
Resources with Additional Information
• 27, 30, 35
Citations
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
Safety Statistics (MNDOT)
• Curb extensions may reduce pedestrian crashes
by up to 45%�
778
Item 10.
46 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Medians and Pedestrian Refuge
Islands
Overview and Purpose
Medians and pedestrian refuge islands provide a safe
area for pedestrians to wait while crossing one direction
of traffic at a time� These features are crucial in areas
with high pedestrian and vehicle traffic volumes, reducing
pedestrian crashes and improving safety�
Design Considerations
• Include high-visibility crosswalks, pedestrian warning
signs, and tactile curb ramps�
• Consider pairing with RRFB, especially on higher
volume roadways�
• Ensure maintenance strategies are in place to keep
crossing islands clear of snow and debris�
Candidate Locations
• Mid-block crossing locations�
• High-priority pedestrian crossing locations such as
transit stops, schools, and parks�
• Roads with four or more lanes, speeds greater than
35 mph, and/or AADT greater than 9,000�
Resources with Additional Information
• 1, 13, 14, 37
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
779
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
47DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Safety Statistics (FHWA)
• LPIs may reduce pedestrian-vehicle crashes at
intersections by up to 13%�
Leading Pedestrian Intervals
Overview and Purpose
A Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) allows pedestrians to
enter the crosswalk 3-7 seconds before vehicles receive a
green signal, increasing pedestrian visibility and reducing
conflicts with turning vehicles� LPIs are beneficial at
intersections with high pedestrian and turning vehicle
volumes�
Design Considerations
• Refer to the FHWA’s Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD) for timing guidance�
• LPIs are cost-effective when only signal timing
alterations are required�
• Program LPIs into existing traffic signals, activated by
pedestrian push buttons or automatic recall�
• Ensure pedestrian signals are visible to both
pedestrians and drivers�
Candidate Locations
• Signalized intersections with high crossing volumes�
• Signalized intersections with high turning vehicle
volumes�
• Signalized intersections with patterns of pedestrian
or bicycle conflict with vehicles�
Resources with Additional Information
• 30, 36, 37
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
780
Item 10.
48 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Right-Turn on Red Prohibitions
Overview and Purpose
Right-turn on red (RTOR) prohibitions at signalized
intersections enhances pedestrian and bicyclist safety
by reducing conflicts with turning vehicles� This practice
helps mitigate risks stemming from motorists focusing on
gaps in traffic rather than looking for crossing pedestrians�
Design Considerations
• Install No Turn on Red signs, either static or
electronic�
• Place signs within proper sight lines of potentially
turning drivers�
• RTOR prohibitions may be signed to occur only
during peak travel times�
• No Right-Turn LED Blank-out signs can be
programmed to be activated by pedestrians or
during certain traffic signal phases�
Candidate Locations
• Locations with limited sight distance and/or unusual
geometry�
• School zones, libraries, senior centers, transit
stations, or other pedestrian traffic generators�
• Intersections with exclusive bicycle facilities or trail
crossings�
• Crosswalks meeting MN MUTCD pedestrian volume
and/or school crossing warrant�
Resources with Additional Information
• 6� 31
Citations
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
781
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
49DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacons (RRFB)
Overview and Purpose
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) are
pedestrian-actuated traffic control devices designed
to enhance pedestrian visibility and increase driver
awareness at uncontrolled, marked crosswalks� RRFBs
consist of two rectangular-shaped yellow indications
with LED-array-based light sources that flash with an
alternating high frequency when activated�
Design Considerations
• Install RRFBs on both sides of a crosswalk below
the pedestrian crossing sign and above the diagonal
downward arrow plaque�
• The flashing pattern can be activated with
pushbuttons or passive pedestrian detection
methods�
• Solar panels are recommended to eliminate the need
for a power source�
• RRFBs should be reserved for locations with
significant pedestrian safety issues to avoid
diminishing their effectiveness through overuse�
• Maintenance for RRFBs depends on the power
supply type�
• If placed on roadways with more than one lane in a
single travel direction, advance stop bar pavement
markings should be provided to mitigate potential
sight line issues�
Candidate Locations
• Locations with traffic volumes less than 12,000
vehicles per day�
• Locations with speeds less than 40 MPH�
Resources with Additional Information
• 12, 16
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
Safety Statistics (FHWA)
RRFBs may reduce:
• Pedestrian crashes by up to 47%�
• Increase motorist yielding rates by up to 98%
(depending on speed limit, number of lanes,
crossing distance, and time of day)�
782
Item 10.
50 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
(PHB)
Overview and Purpose
The pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) is a traffic control
device designed to help pedestrians safely cross higher-
speed roadways at midblock crossings and uncontrolled
intersections� The beacon head consists of two red lenses
above a single yellow lens� The lenses remain “dark” until a
pedestrian pushes the call button to activate the beacon,
initiating a yellow to red lighting sequence that directs
motorists to slow and stop, providing the right-of-way to
the pedestrian to cross safely before going dark again�
Design Considerations
• Installation must include a marked crosswalk and
pedestrian countdown signal�
• Agencies should conduct education and outreach if
PHBs are not familiar to the community�
• PHBs are effective at locations with high pedestrian
activity and where gaps in traffic are insufficient for
safe crossing�
Candidate Locations
• Areas with insufficient traffic gaps or speed limits
over 35 mph�
• Locations with three or more lanes or traffic volumes
above 9,000 AADT�
• Midblock crossings and uncontrolled intersections
with high pedestrian volumes�
• Meeting Minnesota MUTCD volume warrants is
typically a precondition for implementing a PHB�
Resources with Additional Information
• 12, 15, 16
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
783
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
51DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Bicycle Boxes
Overview and Purpose
A bicycle box is a set of pavement marking elements
installed at signalized intersections that allows bicyclists
to pull in front of waiting traffic at a red light� This makes
bicyclists more visible to motorists and gives bicyclists a
head start when the light turns green, thus providing the
opportunity to avoid conflicts with turning motor vehicles�
Design Considerations
• Place an advance stop line at least 10 feet from the
intersection stop line�
• Prohibit right-turn on red movements to avoid
conflicts between right-turning motor vehicles and
waiting bicyclists�
• Provide at least 50 feet of a bicycle lane prior to the
bicycle box�
• Coordinate with bicycle signals to provide a leading
bicycle interval�
Candidate Locations
• Signalized intersections�
• Roadways that already have bike lanes and a
substantial volume of bicycle traffic�
• Intersections where a left-turn is necessary to
continue on a dedicated bicycle route or other
shared use path�
• Locations where there are motor vehicle-bicycle
turning conflicts�
• Locations where right turn on red prohibitions for
motor vehicles can be added�
Resources with Additional Information
• 20, 29
Citations
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
Safety Statistics (MNDOT)
• Studies show a 35% reduction in bicycle crashes
where bike boxes have been implemented�
784
Item 10.
52 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Source: www�pedbikeimages�org / Adam Coppola Photography
Bicycle Signals
Overview and Purpose
A separate bicycle signal can improve operations involving
bicycle facilities and designate right-of-way for bicyclists
at locations where their needs may differ from other
roadway users� Bicycle signals help reduce conflicts
between bicycles and motor vehicles, enhancing safety
and efficiency at intersections�
Design Considerations
• Place signal heads in a location visible to
approaching bicycles�
• Implement a bicycle recall phase for each cycle or
install detection and actuation�
• Ensure proper clearance intervals based on bicycle
travel speeds and crossing distance�
• Prohibit right turn on red movements if bicycle
movements conflict with right-turning vehicles�
Candidate Locations
• Intersections with high motor vehicle-bicycle
conflicts�
• Intersections with two-way or contraflow bicycle
movement�
• Bicycle facility transitions requiring bicyclists to cross
through a motor vehicle lane�
• Intersections permitting short cycle lengths with
bicycle detection or a bicycle phase on recall�
Resources with Additional Information
• 20, 23, 24, 29
Citations
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
785
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
53DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Road Diets (Roadway
Reconfiguration)
Overview and Purpose
A road diet, or roadway reconfiguration, is a traffic
management strategy that aims to improve safety, calm
traffic, and provide better mobility and access for all road
users� Most commonly, a road diet involves converting
an existing four-lane undivided roadway into a three-lane
roadway with two through lanes and a center two-way
left-turn lane (TWLTL)�
Design Considerations
• Implement on roadways with a current and future
average daily traffic of 20,000 vehicles or less�
• Provide opportunities to install pedestrian refuge
islands, bicycle lanes, on-street parking, or transit
stops�
• A road diet can be a low-cost safety solution when
planned in conjunction with a simple pavement
overlay�
Candidate Locations
• Roadways with volumes up to 20,000 AADT�
• Maximum daily volume compatible with road diet
could be lower in environments with higher densities
of high-volume access points�
Resources with Additional Information
• 17, 18, 31, 37
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
Safety Statistics (FHWA)
• Road diet conversions from 4-lane to 3-lane may
reduce total crashes by 19-47%�
786
Item 10.
54 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Lane Diets (Lane Narrowing)
Overview and Purpose
Narrowing vehicle lane widths improves safety and
comfort for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and
drivers by lowering vehicle speeds, reducing crossing
widths, and redistributing roadway space for other uses�
Design Considerations
• Consider surrounding land uses, parking turnover,
vehicular speeds, and traffic volumes/types�
• Consider adding low-impact vertical elements (like
flexible bollards) to the edges of the traveled way to
reinforce new lane widths�
• Consider truck turning radii at intersections with
frequent truck movements�
Candidate Locations
• Roadways with safety and speeding issues�
• Areas with lane widths greater than recommended
minimums�
• Locations where space can be redistributed for bike
lanes, parking lanes, transit lanes, widened sidewalks,
landscaped buffers, and curb extensions�
Resources with Additional Information
• 30
Citations
• PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and
Countermeasure Selection System
787
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
55DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Corridor Access Management
Overview and Purpose
Corridor access management refers to the strategic
placement and control of driveways and intersections
along a corridor� Reducing and organizing access points
improves safety, supports walking and biking, and reduces
congestion and delay�
Design Considerations
• Close, consolidate, or relocate driveways to reduce
conflict points�
• Space driveways and intersections according to
minimum clearance standards�
• Restrict movements at driveways (e�g�, right-in/right-
out only)�
• Place driveways on approach corners rather than
receiving corners to reduce crashes�
• Use raised medians to eliminate left-turn and across-
roadway movements�
• Consider roundabouts, U-turn treatments, or access
roads for safe circulation�
• Provide designated turn lanes to separate turning
vehicles from through traffic�
Candidate Locations
• Corridors with high driveway density�
• Areas with closely spaced full-access driveways
• Segments with frequent turning conflicts�
• High-traffic corridors with pedestrian and bike
activity�
Resources with Additional Information
• 29, 30
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
Safety Statistics (FHWA)
Decreased driveway density may reduce:
• Total crashes along 2-lane rural roads by up to
5-23%�
• Fatal and injury crashes along urban/subruban
arterials by up to 25-31%�
788
Item 10.
56 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Driveway Improvements
Overview and Purpose
Driveway design directly affects pedestrian safety and
accessibility� Wide, sloped, or poorly defined driveways
can increase crash risk and create barriers for people
walking or using mobility devices� Improvements help calm
traffic, enhance visibility, and support ADA compliance�
Design Considerations
• Narrow driveways (15–20 ft) and tighten turning radii
to slow vehicles�
• Maintain sidewalk level with max 2% cross slope;
wrap around apron if needed�
• Use continuous sidewalk materials to emphasize
pedestrian priority�
• Clearly define driveway edges with curbs, paint, or
planters�
• Keep sightlines clear by limiting vegetation and
signage near driveways�
Candidate Locations
• Areas with excessively wide or sloped driveways
• Locations with large turning radii, multiple adjacent,
or poorly defined driveways�
• Driveways where motorists focus on finding gaps in
congested traffic�
• Corridors with closely spaced driveways that disrupt
traffic flow or create frequent turning conflicts�
Resources with Additional Information
• 29, 30
Citations
• PEDSAFE — 2013 — Pedestrian Safety Guide and
Countermeasure Selection System
789
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
57DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Safety Statistics (FHWA)
• Converting a two-way stop-controlled
intersection to a roundabout may reduce fatal
and injury crashes by 82%�
• Converting a signalized intersection to a
roundabout may reduce fatal and injury crashes
by 78%�
• Four-legged roundabouts may reduce pedestrian
crashes by approximately 60%�
• Single-lane roundabouts may have an 89%
reduction in fatal crashes�
Roundabouts
Overview and Purpose
Roundabouts are circular intersections designed to
improve traffic flow and safety by reducing speeds and
conflict points� They include channelized approaches and
a center island, with entering traffic yielding to circulating
vehicles� To enhance pedestrian and bicyclist safety,
roundabouts may include raised crosswalks, pedestrian
refuges, and dedicated bicycle lanes� Proper lighting and
clear signage are crucial for user awareness�
Design Considerations
• Roundabouts can be single-lane or multi-lane�
• Single-lane roundabouts are simpler and safer for
pedestrians and bicyclists�
• Multi-lane roundabouts require additional safety
enhancements for pedestrians and bicyclists�
• Proper deflection angles at entries and exits reduce
vehicle speeds�
• Truck aprons accommodate larger vehicles while
maintaining low speeds at conflict points
Candidate Locations
• Intersections with a pattern of fatal, angle, turning,
and head-on crashes�
• Intersections with poor operations under existing
stop control�
• Intersections with unwarranted traffic signals�
• Locations where platoon and gap acceptance
management are beneficial�
Resources with Additional Information
• 24, 27
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
790
Item 10.
58 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Mini Roundabouts
Overview and Purpose
Mini roundabouts slow vehicle speeds at low-volume
intersections, improving safety for all users� They are
compact, cost-effective alternatives to stop signs and
signal controls, ideal for residential streets�
Design Considerations
• Use mini roundabouts with proper clearance and
turning radii to maintain traffic flow�
• Install shared lane or intersection-crossing markings
to guide cyclists�
• Landscape with trees or shrubs while maintaining
clear visibility�
• Define crosswalks clearly and prioritize pedestrian
movement�
• Retrofit within existing footprints or design to
resemble standard single-lane roundabouts�
Candidate Locations
• Residential streets and low-volume intersections�
• Locations where speed control and pedestrian safety
are priorities�
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
• FHWA Developing Crash Modification Factors for
Mini-Roundabouts
Safety Statistics (FHWA)
• Mini roundabouts converted from all-way
stop-controlled intersections may reduce multi-
vehicle crashes by 39%�
791
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
59DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Chicanes
Overview and Purpose
Chicanes are horizontal traffic control measures used
to reduce vehicle speeds on local streets� They create a
horizontal diversion of traffic and can be gentler or more
restrictive depending on the design� A secondary benefit
of chicanes is the ability to add more landscaping to a
street�
Design Considerations
• Shifting a travel lane affects speeds; taper lengths
should reflect the desired speed�
• Shifts can be created by shifting parking and/or
building landscaped islands�
• Chicanes can be combined with other measures,
such as curb extensions�
• Maintain good visibility by planting only low shrubs
or trees with high canopies�
• Ensure bicyclist safety and mobility remain intact�
Candidate Locations
• Residential streets with low traffic volumes�
• Streets with higher volumes, such as collectors, if
there is no restriction on the number of lanes�
Resources with Additional Information
• 29, 30
Citations
• PEDSAFE — 2013 — Pedestrian Safety Guide and
Countermeasure Selection System
792
Item 10.
60 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Safety Statistics (FHWA)
• Centerline rumble strips may reduce head-on
crashes by 44-64%�
• Shoulder rumble strip may reduce run-off-road
crashes by 13-51%�
Rumble Strips
Overview and Purpose
Rumble strips are pavement treatments designed to alert
drivers when they leave their lane through noise and
vibration� They can be placed along the shoulder, edge
line, or centerline of undivided roads� Rumble strips help
reduce roadway departure crashes, which are a leading
cause of fatal accidents�
Design Considerations
• Use centerline rumble strips on two-lane roads,
especially in passing zones�
• Install edge line or shoulder rumble strips with
bicycle gaps in areas prone to run-off-road crashes�
• Consider “mumble strips” (lower noise) where noise
is a concern�
• Develop a maintenance plan to prevent issues with
snow or rain build-up�
Candidate Locations
• Rural roads, highways, and areas with high traffic
volumes�
• Roads undergoing resurfacing or reconstruction�
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
793
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
61DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Resources with Additional Information
1� Americans with Disabilities Act — 2010 — Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities
2� ANSI/IES — 2022 — Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting
3� BIKESAFE — Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System
4� City of Bloomington — 2019 — Urban Forestry Plan
5� City of Bloomington — 2017 — Tree Care Manual
6� City of Chicago — 2013 — Complete Streets Chicago
7� DarkSky — 2024 — Outdoor Lighting Guidelines
8� FHWA — 2019 — Bikeway Selection Guide
9� FHWA — 2015 — Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide
10� FHWA — Shared Use Path Level of Service Calculator
11� FHWA — Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse
12� FHWA — 2025 — Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
13� FHWA — 2022 — Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations
14� FHWA — 2001 — Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access
15� FHWA — 2014 — Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Guide– Recommendations and Case Study
16� FHWA — Center for Accelerating Innovation EDC-4 Innovations
17� FHWA — 2014 — Road Diet Informational Guide
18� FHWA — 2010 — Evaluation of Lane Reduction “Road Diet” Measures on Crashes
19� FHWA — 2015 — Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
20� FHWA — 2025 — Interim Approvals Issued
21� FHWA Safe — 2025 — Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP)
22� ITE — 2022 — A Guide to Vertical Deflection Speed Reduction Techniques: Planning and Design of Speed Humps
23� MassDOT — 2015 — Separated Bicycle Lane Planning and Design Guide
24� MnDOT — 2024 — Bicycle Facility Design Manual
25� MnDOT — 2015 — Traffic Engineering Manual
26� MnDOT — 2017 — County Roadway Safety Plans
27� MnDOT — 2024 — Roadway Design Manual
28� MnDOT — Engineering Solutions for Traffic Safety
29� NACTO — 2025 — Urban Bikeway Design Guide
30� NACTO — 2025 — Urban Street Design Guide
31� NACTO — 2013 — Transit Street Design Guide
32� NCHRP — 2017 — Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments
33� NYDOT — 2011 — Complete Streets
34� ODOT — 2025 — Multimodal Design Guide
35� PedBikeInfo — 2013 — Costs for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Infrastructure Improvements
36� Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center —— Signals and Signs
37� PEDSAFE — 2013 — Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System
38� PROWAG
794
Item 10.
62 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
This page intentionally left blank�
795
Item 10.
63DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Chapter 8
Demonstration Project
Recommendations
796
Item 10.
64 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Demonstration Project Recommendations
As part of Columbia Heights’ ongoing efforts to improve roadway safety and reduce the risk of serious and fatal
crashes, there may be significant value in demonstration projects to test temporary safety treatments� These projects
align with the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program and are designed to test low-cost, quick-build, temporary
interventions that could eventually lead to more permanent improvements� The primary goal is to evaluate these
treatments in real-world settings to measure their effectiveness and inform the development of future infrastructure
projects�
Key Elements for Success
Temporary Materials
Demonstration projects often use paint, plastic
delineators, planters, cones, and other low-cost
materials to simulate improvements like curb extensions,
roundabouts, and high-visibility crosswalks�
Stakeholder Coordination
Coordination with local departments, schools, community
groups, and public safety teams is recommended to
ensure project success and alignment with broader
transportation and safety goals�
Data Collection & Evaluation
Projects should be closely monitored to collect data and
assess safety impacts� Key metrics should be informed
by the intended improvement, and may include vehicle
speeds, crash data, and community feedback to guide
future planning�
Community Involvement
Engaging the community is a key aspect of successful
demonstration projects� Public meetings, surveys, and
interactive tools should inform the design and duration,
and ensure that the community’s concerns and feedback
are incorporated into the decision-making process�
Recommended Demonstration
Projects
Two high-priority demonstration projects are
recommended for implementation — curb extensions
on 49th Avenue NE (Project 1) and an in-street, shared-
use path on Jefferson Street NE (Project 2) — to test
temporary safety treatments and guide future permanent
improvements� More details on these two recommended
demonstration projects are shown on the following pages�
Additional Guidance
For guidance on temporary safety projects, see MnDOT’s Demonstration Project Implementation Guide (2019) and
Street Plan's Tactical Urbanist's Guide to Materials and Design (2016) for best practices on materials and design�
1
2
797
Item 10.
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
65DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Project 1: Curb Extensions on 49th Avenue NE
Location:
Three intersections along 49th Avenue NE near the
Columbia Heights High School, Highland Elementary, and
Columbia Heights Family Center campus�
Rationale:
• Student, faculty, and visitor crossing safety near
schools and community facilities�
• Traffic calming through narrower street design�
• Access to education, recreation, and support
services�
• No parking impacts due to existing yellow curbs�
• Minimal impacts to turn lanes or vehicle movement�
Proposed Treatment:
Implementation of curb extensions at the following
intersections:
• 49th Ave NE & Fillmore St NE – northeast and
southeast corners�
• 49th Ave NE & Columbia Heights High School main
driveway – northwest and northeast corners�
• 49th Ave NE & Johnson St NE – northwest and
southwest corners�
Potential Challenges:
• Turning radius for buses�
• Informal right-turn lanes in conflict with proposed
extensions�
• Possible disruption to loading zones�
• Maintaining traffic flow during peak school hours�
• Snow and ice removal if demonstration project is
continued during winter months�
Data Collection & Evaluation Metrics:
• Vehicle speeds before and after installation�
• Crash incidents, especially pedestrian-related�
• Observed pedestrian behavior and crossing safety�
• Feedback from students, school staff, families, and
community members�
Next Steps:
• Finalize intersection design details�
• Coordinate with Anoka County, Columbia Heights
Public Schools, and community partners�
• Obtain materials for installation�
• Communicate project information with nearby
residents and other stakeholders�
Fi
l
l
m
o
r
e
S
t
N
E
Fi
l
l
m
o
r
e
S
t
N
E
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
S
t
N
E
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
S
t
N
E
Columbia Heights Columbia Heights
High SchoolHigh School
49th Ave NE49th Ave NE
Highland Elementary Highland Elementary
SchoolSchoolProposed Demonstration Project Location
798
Item 10.
66 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Project 2: Shared-Use Path on Jefferson Street NE
Location:
Jefferson Street NE, between 49th Avenue NE and 47th
Avenue NE (west side of street)
Rationale:
• Lack of sidewalks or bicycle facilities�
• Improve connections and access to McKenna Park�
• Proximity to Highland Elementary School�
Proposed Treatment:
Develop a temporary, in-street shared-use path on the
west side of Jefferson St NE to improve pedestrian and
bicyclist access and safety�
Potential Challenges:
• Loss of on-street parking on west side�
• Community awareness and acceptance, particularly
with residents that live on the west side of Jefferson
St NE that would lose parking in front of their homes�
• Safe crossings and visibility at intersections
Data Collection & Evaluation Metrics:
• Vehicle speeds before and after path installation�
• Crash incidents involving pedestrians or cyclists�
• Feedback from residents, park users, and school
staff�
Next Steps:
• Finalize design details�
• Communicate project information with nearby
residents and other stakeholders
• Obtain materials for installation�
49th Ave NE49th Ave NE
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
N
E
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
N
E
48th Ave NE48th Ave NE
47th Ave NE47th Ave NE
McKenna McKenna
ParkPark
Proposed Demonstration Project Location
Source: Google Street View
799
Item 10.
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
67DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Demonstration Project Details and Cost Estimates
The following tables outline key details for the two
proposed demonstration projects in Columbia Heights,
including pavement marking quantities (Table 3),
delineator needs based on spacing (Table 4), and
estimated material costs with project-specific and
combined totals (Table 5; in 2025 dollar values)�
Although Projects 1 and 2 are recommended for near-term
implementation, many other locations across Columbia
Heights could also benefit from similar quick-build safety
treatments� These demonstration efforts will help guide
future investments in safer, more accessible streets
throughout the city�
TABLE 3. ESTIMATED PAVEMENT MARKING TAPE QUANTITIES
Project Estimated Pavement Marking Tape (ft)
49th Ave NE 360
Jefferson St NE 1400
Combined 1880
TABLE 4. ESTIMATED DELINEATOR QUANTITIES
Project Total Length (ft)Delineator
Interval (ft)
Estimated
Delineator Count
Extra
Delineators
Total # of
Delineators
1: 49th Ave NE 360 10 36 4 40
2: Jefferson St NE 1400 15 93 7 100
Combined ----140
TABLE 5. ESTIMATED MATERIAL COSTS BY PROJECT (IN 2025 DOLLAR VALUES)
Item Cost Project 1 (49th Ave
NE)
Project 2 (Jefferson
St NE)Combined
Delineators ~ $25 - $35 ~ $1500 - $2000 ~ $2500 - $3000 ~ $4000 - $5000
Delineator Adhesive ~ $3 - $5 (per unit)~ $500 - $700 ~ $1200 - $1500 ~ $1600 - $2000
Pavement Marking
Tape ~ $1 - $1�50 (per foot)~ $150 - $250 ~ $300 - $400 ~ $450 - $550
Total -~ $2200 - $3000 ~ $4000 - $5000 ~ $6000 - $7500
800
Item 10.
68 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
This page intentionally left blank�
801
Item 10.
69DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Chapter 9
Conceptual Design
Options
802
Item 10.
70 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Conceptual Design Options
Within the High Injury Network, a select number of
intersections and segments were chosen for preliminary
analysis and conceptual design, shown in Figure 9� The
following pages contain conceptual design options that
illustrate potential treatments aimed at reducing crashes
and eliminating injuries or fatalities� All of these locations
have been identified for having a crash history and/or risk,
and most of these locations have also been flagged by
community members and stakeholders as being unsafe or
challenging to travel on�
Each page contains information on what the safety
issue(s) are at that location, a description of the potential
design treatment, a crash reduction score for each
treatment (if available) and a planning level cost estimate
in 2026 dollars� Most treatments have been illustrated
through a conceptual design layout which are also
shown� These layouts are representative of treatments
that could be deployed throughout the segments and at
intersections and additional analysis would be needed
before implementation (full layouts can be found in
Appendix E)� In the top right corner of each page is a
small map highlighting each project location�
Design treatments for each corridor and intersection
were identified based on a review of historic crash
patterns and existing roadway considerations like speed
limits, available rights of way, and network connectivity�
Many of these recommendations are aimed at a major
contributor to safety problems – speed – and seek to use
intersection controls, roadway alignments, and other tools
to encourage drivers to slow down when approaching
intersections with poor safety histories�
At many locations, multiple potential design treatments
are shown� The first design treatment is generally
expected to be the most powerful to address the safety
concerns present at each location� Additional treatments
shown may be possible short-term or interim solutions, or
may be ideas that may prove to be more feasible as more
detailed design is completed for each location�
The following list of segments and intersections are shown
on the following pages�
Segments
• Arthur Street (40th Avenue to 44th Avenue)
• 7th Street (40th Avenue to 53rd Avenue)
• 49th Avenue (4th to Jackson Street)
• 44th Avenue (4th Street to Quincy Street)
• Huset Parkway
• 37th Avenue (Huset Parkway to Van Buren Street)
• 45th Avenue/Arthur Street (Benjamin Street to
Arthur Street)
• Reservoir Boulevard (TH 65 to 44th Avenue
Intersections
• 42nd Avenue / Madison Street
• Reservoir Boulevard / 39th Avenue
• Reservoir Boulevard / 40th Avenue
• Reservoir Boulevard / 42nd Avenue
• TH 47 East Frontage Road / 53rd Avenue
• 42nd Avenue / 7th Street
• TH 47 East Frontage Road / 49th Avenue
• 50th Avenue / Jefferson Street
803
Item 10.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS
71DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
FIGURE 9. HIGH INJURY NETWORK AND DESIGN CONCEPT LOCATIONS
804
Item 10.
72 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Safety Issues
There have been 10 angle crashes and 1 left-turn crash
that have occurred at intersections along this stretch of
roadway since 2014�
Proposed Design Treatment
The treatment for this segment includes adding curb
extensions at side streets along Arthur Street� Curb
extensions will narrow crossing distances for people
walking and rolling while making them more visible to
approaching vehicles� This treatment will also help to
reduce crashes at intersections as corners will become
sharper and will require slower speeds to turn safely�
Treatment Crash
Reduction
Planning-Level
Cost Estimate
($ in 2026)
1 Add curb
extensions at side
streets to narrow
crossing distances
N/A $2,900,000
Alternative Designs
2 Convert
intersections to all-way
stop (if warrented)
75% (of angle
crashes)Low Cost
3 Curb extensions /
chicanes N/A $4,300,000
TABLE 6. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS AND IMPACTS
Arthur Street:
40 th Avenue to 44th Avenue
1 - Preferred Design
805
Item 10.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS
73DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
2 - Alternative Design
3 - Alternative Design
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 36�
806
Item 10.
74 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Safety Issues
There have been 30 angle crashes that have occurred at
intersections along this stretch of roadway since 2014�
Proposed Design Treatment
The treatment for this segment includes adding curb
extensions at intersections� Curb extensions will narrow
crossing distances for people walking and rolling while
making them more visible to approaching vehicles� This
treatment, in addition to chicanes, will also help to reduce
crashes at intersections as corners will become sharper
and will require slower speeds to turn�
Treatment Crash
Reduction
Planning-Level
Cost Estimate
($ in 2026)
1 Curb extensions,
chicanes N/A $8,150,000
Alternative Designs
2 Convert
intersection to all-way
stop (if warrented)
75% (of angle
crashes)Low Cost
TABLE 7. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS AND IMPACTS
7th Street:
40 th Avenue to 53rd Avenue
1 - Preferred Design
807
Item 10.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS
75DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 36�
2 - Alternative Design
808
Item 10.
76 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Safety Issues
There have been 17 angle crashes that have occurred at
intersections along this stretch of roadway since 2014�
There have also been 7 crashes with parked motor
vehicles during that same timeframe�
Proposed Design Treatment
The treatment for this segment includes adding curb
extensions at intersections to reduce crashes by creating
sharper corners that encourage slower, safer turns�
Chicanes are also proposed to help calm traffic as
vehicles approach intersections� This is a County road, so
coordination with Anoka County will be required�
Treatment Planning-Level Cost
Estimate ($ in 2026)
Work with Valley View
Elementary School and
Columbia Academy to
move pick-up/drop-off
queues from 49th Ave
N/A
1 Curb extension and
chicanes $6,000,000
TABLE 8. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS AND IMPACTS
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 36�
49 th Avenue:
4th Street to Jackson Street
1 - Preferred Design
809
Item 10.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS
77DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Safety Issues
There have been 9 angle crashes and 1 left-turn crash
that have occurred at intersections along this stretch of
roadway since 2014� In addition, there are no walking or
biking facilities along the corridor�
Proposed Design Treatment
The proposed design on 44th Ave narrows the roadway
footprint by removing parking on both sides of the street�
The narrower road width provides space for the addition
of a shared use path along the south side of the road,
while also reducing pedestrian crossing distances over
44th Ave and slowing vehicles speeds�
Treatment Planning-Level Cost
Estimate ($ in 2026)
1 Narrow roadway by
removing parking and add
shared use path
N/A
Alternative Designs
2 Review sight lines at
intersection and remove
visual obstacles
N/A
3 Curb extension and
chicanes $2,500,000
TABLE 9. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS AND IMPACTS
44th Avenue:
4th Street to Quincy Street
1 - Preferred Design
810
Item 10.
78 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 36�
3 - Alternative Design
2 - Alternative Design
811
Item 10.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS
79DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Safety Issues
There have been 7 single vehicle crashes that have
occurred since 2014�
Proposed Design Treatment
Potential design treatments include raised pedestrian
crossings in areas of the Parkway with excess pavement�
These crossings support safer pedestrian movement while
also calming traffic� A sight line review is recommended
due to the curved roadway�
Treatment Planning-Level Cost
Estimate ($ in 2026)
1 Develop speed control
program including lane
width reductions, in areas
with on-street parking,
and raised pedestrian
crossings
$220,000
TABLE 10. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS AND IMPACTS
Huset Parkway
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 36�
1 - Preferred Design
812
Item 10.
80 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Safety Issues
There have been 12 angle crashes and 1 left-turn crash that
have occurred at intersections along the corridor since
2014�
Proposed Design Treatment
The treatment for this segment includes adding curb
extensions at intersections� Curb extensions will narrow
crossing distances for people walking and rolling while
making them more visible to approaching vehicles� This
treatment will also help to reduce crashes at intersections
as corners will become sharper and will require slower
speeds to turn�
Treatment Planning-Level Cost
Estimate ($ in 2026)
1 Develop speed
control program including
narrowing crossing
distances
$1,900,000
Alternative Design
2 Review sight lines at
intersection and remove
visual obstacles
N/A
TABLE 11. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS AND IMPACTS
37th Avenue:
Huset Parkway to Van Buren Street
1 - Preferred Design
813
Item 10.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS
81DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
2 - Alternative Design
2 - Alternative Design
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 36�
814
Item 10.
82 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
ARTHUR ST NE
60
SCALE IN FEET
UPGRADE CHEVRON SIGNS
Arthur St NE
No Parking and Signage Upgrades
Safety Issues
There have been 6 single vehicle crashes that have
occurred at this intersection since 2014� Single vehicle
crashes are typically run-off the road incidents or
involving a stationary obstacle�
Proposed Design Treatment
Potential design treatments include upgrade curve
warning chevron signs to include blinking lights and
removing on-street parking to reduce objects in the
roadway along the curve� This would bring more attention
to the changing roadway conditions and narrowing the
roadway would encourage slower speeds�
Treatment Planning-Level Cost
Estimate
1 Upgrade curve warning
chevrons to have blinking
lights� Add additional
chevrons upstream (to the
north)� Consider removing
on-street parking in this
curve
N/A
Develop speed control
program (dynamic speed
display signs, etc�)
N/A
TABLE 12. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS AND IMPACTS
45th Avenue / Arthur Street:
Benjamin Street to Arthur Street
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 36�
1 - Preferred Design
815
Item 10.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS
83DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Safety Issues
There have been 15 single vehicle crashes that have
occurred at this intersection since 2014� Single vehicle
crashes are typically run-off the road incidents or
involving a stationary obstacle�
Proposed Design Treatment
The treatment for this segment includes adding curb
extensions at intersections� Curb extensions will narrow
crossing distances for people walking and rolling while
making them more visible to approaching vehicles� This
treatment will also help to reduce crashes at intersections
as corners will become sharper and will require slower
speeds to turn�
Treatment Planning-Level Cost
Estimate ($ in 2026)
1 Develop speed control
program� See intersection
recommendations
$2,300,000
Alternative Design
2 Review sight lines at
intersections (especially
skewed intersections) and
remove visual obstacles
N/A
TABLE 13. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS AND IMPACTS
Reservoir Boulevard:
TH 65 to 44th Avenue
1 - Preferred Design
816
Item 10.
84 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
2 - Alternative Design
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 36�
817
Item 10.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS
85DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Safety Issues
There have been 7 angle crashes that have occurred at
this intersection since 2014� The calculated crash rate is
above the critical rate�
Proposed Design Treatment
Potential design treatments include converting the
intersection to all-way stop� This would establish which
driver has the right-of-way and help pedestrians crossing
through the intersection�
TABLE 14. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS AND IMPACTS
42nd Avenue / Madison Street
Treatment Crash
Reduction
Planning-Level
Cost Estimate
($ in 2026)
1 Convert to all-way
stop (if warrented)75%Low Cost
Alternative Designs
2 Convert to mini
roundabout 37%$941,000
3 Add stop bars and
increase stop sign size on
minor-street approaches
19%Low Cost
1 - Preferred Design
818
Item 10.
86 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
2 - Alternative Design
3 - Alternative Design
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 36�
819
Item 10.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS
87DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Safety Issues
Modifying this intersection would help mitigate issues
associated with closely spaced intersections� The
intersection could also accommodate revised traffic flows
if the TH 65 and 37th Avenue intersection is reconfigured�
Proposed Design Treatment
Potential design treatments include adding curb
extension to the 39th Avenue approaches which would
increase visibility of other vehicles and pedestrians while
slowing traffic� Drivers would also need to make distinct
movements to continue along 39th Avenue NE, instead of
cutting across�
TABLE 15. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS AND IMPACTS
Reservoir Boulevard / 39th Avenue
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 36�
Treatment Planning-Level Cost
Estimate ($ in 2026)
1 Add curb extensions
to 39th Avenue
approaches
$390,000
1 - Preferred Design
820
Item 10.
88 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Safety Issues
Modifying this intersection would mitigate issues that
arise from the skewed intersection and provide a traffic
calming benefit� 4 of 10 crashes at this intersection have
resulted in minor or possible injuries�
Proposed Design Treatment
Potential design treatments include adding curb
extensions on obtuse angle approaches to narrow the
roadway� This will help slow drivers as they approach
the intersection and reduce crossing distances for
pedestrians�
TABLE 16. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS AND IMPACTS
Reservoir Boulevard / 40th Avenue
Treatment Crash
Reduction
Planning-Level
Cost Estimate
($ in 2026)
1 Curb extensions
on obtuse angle
approaches
N/A $840,000
Alternative Design
2 Add stop bars
and increase stop
sign size on minor-
street approaches
19%Low Cost
1 - Preferred Design
821
Item 10.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS
89DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
2 - Alternative Design
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 36�
822
Item 10.
90 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Safety Issues
Modifying this intersection would mitigate issues that
arise from the skewed intersection and provide a traffic
calming benefit� The crash rate at this intersection is
above the calculated critical crash rate�
Proposed Design Treatment
Potential design treatments include adding curb
extensions on Reservoir Boulevard and placing side street
stop bars further forward to improve visibility�
TABLE 17. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS AND IMPACTS
Reservoir Boulevard / 42nd Avenue
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 36�
Treatment Crash
Reduction
Planning-Level
Cost Estimate
($ in 2026)
1 Curb extensions
on Reservoir, move
side stop bars
inward
N/A $540,000
1 - Preferred Design
823
Item 10.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS
91DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Safety Issues
There have been 6 angle crashes that have occurred at
this intersection since 2014� The calculated crash rate is
above the critical rate�
Proposed Design Treatment
Potential design treatments include converting the
intersection to all-way stop� This would establish which
driver has the right-of-way and help pedestrians crossing
through the intersection�
TABLE 18. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS AND IMPACTS
42nd Avenue / 7th Street
Treatment Crash
Reduction
Planning-Level
Cost Estimate
($ in 2026)
1 Convert to all-way
stop (if warrented)
75% (Of
angle
crashes)
Low Cost
Alternative Designs
2 Modified chicane /
curb extensions N/A $580,000
3 Add stop bars and
increase stop sign size on
minor-street approaches
19%Low Cost
1 - Preferred Design
824
Item 10.
92 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
2 - Alternative Design
3 - Alternative Design
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 36�
825
Item 10.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS
93DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Safety Issues
There have been 4 angle crashes that have occurred at
this intersection since 2014� The calculated crash rate is
above the critical rate�
Proposed Design Treatment
Potential design treatments include converting the
intersection to all-way stop� This would establish which
driver has the right-of-way and help pedestrians crossing
through the intersection�
TABLE 19. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS AND IMPACTS
50th Avenue / Jefferson Street
Treatment Crash
Reduction
Planning-Level
Cost Estimate
($ in 2026)
1 Convert to all-way
stop (if warrented)
75% (of
angle
crashes)
Low Cost
Alternative Designs
2 Modified chicane /
curb extensions N/A $670,000
3 Add stop bars and
increase stop sign size on
minor-street approaches
19%Low Cost
1 - Preferred Design
826
Item 10.
94 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
2 - Alternative Design
3 - Alternative Design
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 36�
827
Item 10.
95DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
This page intentionally left blank�
828
Item 10.
96 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Chapter 10
Policy and Progress
829
Item 10.
POLICY AND PROGRESS
97DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
As outlined in Chapter 1, Columbia Heights has a solid
foundation of existing plans, policies, and community
priorities� Building on this, safer transportation requires
coordinated, sustained action� This section presents
policy recommendations across short-term (0–5 years),
mid-term (5–10 years), and ongoing timelines�
Grounded in frameworks like Vision Zero and SS4A,
these strategies (summarized in Table 22) align with
local goals and proven safety practices� Each action is
clear, measurable, and adaptable—ranging from pilot
projects and plan updates to improved coordination and
engagement�
Policy Recommendations
TABLE 20. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Timing Action
Short-
Term
(0-5
years)
Apply for an SS4A Demonstration Grant for traffic calming pilots at 49th Ave NE & Jefferson St NE
Coordinate safety improvements through the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) process
Create a Fatal Crash Rapid Response Protocol (formalize interdepartmental coordination after severe
crashes to review causes and identify improvements)
Reinstate Traffic Commission with city staff, elected officials, and community members to guide traffic
safety policy and review resident concerns
Update traffic impact study guidelines
Update 2008 Pedestrian & Bicycle Mobility Plan to focus on filling key sidewalk gaps in the community
Mid-
Term
(5-10
years)
Develop a funding strategy and plan that identifies potential funding avenues and resources necessary to
construct future safety improvements
Inventory streetlights, assess intersection lighting needs, and update City's Streetlighting Policy�
Update/expand pavement management program
Update City’s ADA Transition Plan (2008)
Update/expand Safe Routes to School Plans for all schools within city limits
Ongoing
Publish annual safety reports at the end of each fiscal year reporting on the previous year’s progress
Provide quarterly safety updates to City Council and Planning Commission to maintain leadership support
Continue coordination with Anoka County and MnDOT to identify and make safety improvements on
county- and state-owned streets within Columbia Heights
Regularly conduct road safety audits, including walkability and bikeability assessments
Partner with local schools on educational safety campaigns
Conduct a full Transportation Safety Action Plan update every 5 years to formally refresh goals, data,
strategies, and the High Injury Network
830
Item 10.
98 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
To advance safety goals and maintain public trust, it is
essential to track, evaluate, and clearly communicate
progress in a transparent and systematic way� This chapter
presents a comprehensive framework for performance
measurement and public engagement, structured around
two key focus areas that support data-driven decision-
making, promote equitable outcomes, and encourage
sustained community involvement:
• Measuring Progress
• Transparency with the Community
Measuring Progress
Monitoring safety outcomes, infrastructure changes,
and policy implementation helps agencies assess what’s
working and where to adjust� This section outlines
strategies for collecting and analyzing data to track
progress toward Vision Zero and other safety goals� Table
23 summarizes these strategies, offering a framework
for measuring key metrics and guiding continuous
improvement�
Progress & Transparency
TABLE 21. STRATEGIES FOR MEASURING PROGRESS
Category Strategy Description
Data Analysis
Total number of serious injury and
fatal crashes Track overall crashes to measure baseline and progress
Percent change in serious injury and
fatal crashes Evaluate trends in crash reduction over time
Crash breakdowns by mode,
behavior, location, demographics Understand risk by user type, location, and equity factors
Crash equity analysis Identify disparities in crash outcomes across demographic
and geographic groups
Data
Maintenance
Crash, population, and equity data
updates
Ensure datasets are refreshed annually for consistent
evaluation
Pedestrian and bicycle counts/
surveys
Collect ongoing non-motorized user data to inform design
and evaluation
Infrastructure
Improvements at priority HIN
locations
Track number and types of improvements on prioritized
corridors and intersections
Miles of HIN corridors reconfigured Measure progress in safety-focused street design on High
Injury Network
Use of Safety Countermeasures
Toolkit
Track where countermeasures are used and their
effectiveness
Before–after safety evaluations Assess changes in crashes or behavior after countermeasure
implementation
Use of video/sensor analytics Pilot new methods to assess safety behavior (e�g�, near-
misses, compliance)
831
Item 10.
POLICY AND PROGRESS
99DRAFT Transportation Safety Action Plan
Category Strategy Description
Project and funding coordination
with Complete Streets and CIPs
Track integration of safety priorities into broader planning
and funding
Annual strategy and policy progress
check-in Informal but consistent check on plan implementation
Full plan update every 5 years Formal refresh of goals, data, and strategies
Transparency with the Community
Clear, consistent communication with the public and decision-makers builds trust and keeps safety efforts on track�
This section highlights key approaches for sharing progress and engaging the community, summarized in Table 24�
Category Strategy Description
Reporting &
Accessibility
Annual safety report publication Public-facing reports to document implementation and
outcomes
5-year crash and implementation
trend charts Show medium-term progress and trends in implementation
Online dashboard or interactive
map Public-facing visualization of progress and safety data
Community
Engagement &
Advocacy
Residents reached via engagement Measure scale and reach of public involvement efforts
Partnering with community
organizations
Track relationships and engagement with community-based
groups
Comment forms, surveys, open
feedback loops Maintain feedback systems to gather ongoing public input
Regular briefings to elected officials
and stakeholders
Monitor frequency and consistency of communications with
leadership
TABLE 22. STRATEGIES FOR TRANSPARENCY AND FUTURE ENGAGEMENT
832
Item 10.
833
Item 10.
Appendices
Appendix A - Plan Review Memo
Appendix B - HIN Characteristics Summary
Appendix C - Speed Limit Evaluation Memo
Appendix D - Scoring Methodology and Prioritized Intersections and Segments List
Appendix E - Segment and Intersection Conceptual Design Layouts
834
Item 10.
Transportation Safety Action Plan
July 2025835
Item 10.
Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 3
Chapter 2 High Injury Network � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 9
Chapter 3 Speed Limit Evaluation � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 15
Chapter 4 Stop Sign Request Policy � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 19
Chapter 5 Engagement � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �23
Chapter 6 Project Prioritization � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 31
Chapter 7 Safety Countermeasures Toolbox � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �37
Chapter 8 Demonstration Project Recommendations � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �65
Chapter 9 Conceptual Design Options � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 71
Chapter 10 Policy and Progress � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �97
Appendices � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 102
836
Item 10.
Chapter 1
Introduction
837
Item 10.
4 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
The study area includes the entire city limits of the City
of Columbia Heights (Figure 1)� Columbia Heights is a
first ring suburb of the Twin Cities metropolitan area� It
is located directly north of the City of Minneapolis and is
home to approximately 22,000 people, according to the
US Census Bureau� The City has three main roadways, all
north-south routes, University Avenue NE/MN 47, Central
Avenue NE/MN 65, and Stinson Boulevard NE/CR 63�
Interstate 694 is located just north of the city limits�
Study Area
FIGURE 1. STUDY AREA
838
Item 10.
INTRODUCTION
5Transportation Safety Action Plan
What is a Safe Streets for All
(SS4A) Safety Action Plan?
A Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan provides
federal support for planning and infrastructure initiatives
aimed at preventing deaths and serious injuries of all
roadway users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, micro-
mobility users, commercial vehicle operators, transit
riders, and motorists�
The purpose of the Safety Action Plan is to:
• Identify high crash locations�
• Engage the community to receive their input and
direction�
• Recommend design treatments at high crash
locations (both intersections and roadway segments)
aimed at reducing crashes�
Through the completion of this Safe Streets for All Safety
Action Plan, the City of Columbia Heights will continue its
commitment to create a safe transportation system for its
residents, visitors, and businesses�
Introduction & Overview
How do we Achieve Zero
Deaths and Serious Injuries?
A Safe Systems Approach is a guiding model to address
safety on our roads� The Safe System Approach has been
developed and adopted by the United States Department
of Transportation as an effective way to address and
mitigate the safety risks posed by our transportation
systems�
The Safe System Approach includes five objectives that
are reinforced through six principles (Figure 2)� These
objectives and principles create a holistic approach
to make our transportation systems and public rights-
of-way safer for people� Compared to traditional road
safety practices, the Safe System Approach focuses on
the design and operation of our transportation systems
to anticipate human mistakes and lessen the impact of
crashes to save lives�
FIGURE 2. OBJECTIVES
AND PRINCIPLES
OF A SAFE SYSTEMS
APPROACH
839
Item 10.
6 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
This plan is a forward step in Columbia Heights’ commitment to a safer community for all residents� Table 1 summarizes
plans that are related to transportation safety and mobility at the local, regional, and state level to ensure the
Transportation Safety Action Plan aligns its objectives and values with previous planning efforts� Appendix A contains a
full review of previous plans�
Alignment with Other Plans and Policies
Safe Systems
Approach
Ped/Bike
Design
Guidelines
Ped/Bike Network
Recommendations
Universal Design /
ADA Accessibility
Considerations
Land Use
Considerations
Columbia
Heights 2040
Comprehensive
Plan
ADA Transition Plan
Pedestrian &
Bicycle Mobility
Plan (2008)
Retroflectivity Sign
Maintenance Plan
Anoka County 2030
Transportation Plan
Metropolitan
Council Regional
Pedestrian Safety
Action Plan
Minnesota Walks
Strategic Highway
Safety Plan
Pedestrian Safety
Analysis Final
Report
MnDOT Vulnerable
Road User Safety
Assessment
SMTP Minnesota
GO (2022)
TABLE 1. PREVIOUS PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY
840
Item 10.
INTRODUCTION
7Transportation Safety Action Plan
Columbia Heights Complete Streets Policy
The City adopted their Complete Streets Policy in early
2025.
“This policy defines a process to ensure future street
and transportation projects consider the equity
of all users by incorporating features as necessary
and feasible to implement Complete Streets. The
City views each street and transportation project
as unique and design features will likely differ
from street to street, yet each street may still be
considered ‘complete’.”
Main points from the policy document include:
• For major street reconstruction or new construction
projects, Complete Streets elements will be
incorporated unless an exception is granted�
• For minor maintenance projects such as repaving
or restriping, staff shall document opportunities for
future Complete Streets elements but shall not be
required to implement them unless cost-effective�
• Where a project aligns with existing citywide or
regional plans, city staff shall prioritize the use of
existing design frameworks to reduce redundancy�
• Private development projects shall incorporate
Complete Streets elements as identified by citywide
plans such as Imagine 2050, the City’s 2050
Comprehensive Plan, City Code requirements, and
design guidelines�
Section 7� Create a Network states,
“To ensure safe and convenient access to key
destinations, the City will focus on developing a well-
connected street network that supports multiple modes
of transportation, including walking, biking, public transit,
and driving� The goal is to provide a seamless and safe
experience for users across the network, even if not all
streets accommodate every mode�
Rather than requiring every street to provide separate
facilities for all modes, the City will prioritize connecting
key corridors and destinations where multimodal trips
are most likely� Gaps in connectivity, particularly where
vulnerable users are impacted, will be addressed through
strategic planning and project prioritization�
The City will continue to require developers to implement
Complete Streets elements in new developments
as outlined in this policy� Additionally, City staff will
collaborate with the State of Minnesota, neighboring
communities, and regional partners to extend the
connected network beyond city boundaries when
feasible� Coordination efforts will focus on shared
priorities, such as safe pedestrian crossings and
multimodal access�"
841
Item 10.
8 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
This page intentionally left blank�
842
Item 10.
9Transportation Safety Action Plan
Chapter 2
High Injury Network
843
Item 10.
10 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
High Injury Network
A High Injury Network (HIN) is a subset of a roadway
network with a disproportionately high number of fatal
and serious injury crashes compared to total crashes in a
community�
Identifying an HIN can help Columbia Heights accomplish
the following:
• Prioritize improvements on roads with high-risk crash
patterns�
• Analyze roadway design features on the HIN to
proactively reconfigure similar roads before crashes
occur�
There is no federally prescribed methodology to identify
an HIN, however some common guidance includes:
• For communities with a smaller geographic footprint
(like Columbia Heights), the HIN should be based on
10 years of crash data�
• The HIN should not include more than 50% of
roadway centerline mileage� 5% to 20% of centerline
mileage is a common target, but not a strict rule�
• The HIN should capture at least 40% of fatal and
serious injury crashes�
HIN Identification
The Columbia Heights HIN was developed using
citywide crash data from 2014 to 2023, sourced from the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)�
Using this data, spatial analysis was conducted with GIS
software to visualize crash locations and identify roadways
with the highest concentration of high-risk crashes� For
this analysis, a high-risk crash is defined as:
• A crash resulting in fatality�
• A crash resulting in a serious injury�
• A crash involving a bicyclist(s) or pedestrian(s),
regardless of crash severity�
• A crash resulting in minor injury�
• Minor injuries were considered to a lesser
degree compared to the three other crash types
listed above, however they were incorporated
due to a generally low representation of fatal,
serious injury, or pedestrian/bicycle crashes
throughout Columbia Heights�
Roadway segments were aggregated together to form the
HIN if the high-risk crashes described above generally
occurred within a half-mile of one another, however some
engineering judgement was also applied�
The HIN is shown in Figure 3 and covers:
• 100% of fatal crashes�
• 88% of serious injury crashes�
• 88% of bicycle crashes�
• 86% of pedestrian crashes�
• 88% of minor injury crashes�
• 25% of centerline mileage�
• If MnDOT jurisdiction corridors are excluded,
due to ongoing, planned projects on TH 47/
University Avenue and TH 65/Central Avenue,
the HIN makes up approximately 21% of the
remaining roadway system�
844
Item 10.
HIGH INJURY NETWORK
11Transportation Safety Action Plan
FIGURE 3. HIGH INJURY NETWORK
845
Item 10.
12 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Characteristics of HIN
Roadways
General roadway characteristics on the HIN were
reviewed to identify design features linked to higher
rates of high-risk crashes (see Appendix B for
detailed graphics)� The following roadway types are
disproportionately represented on the HIN:
• Daily traffic volumes over 3,000 vehicles per day�
• Speed limits of 35 mph or higher�
• Presence of two-way left turn lanes�
• This is most likely due to dense access spacing,
which typically requires two-way left-turn lanes,
rather than an issue with the lanes themselves�
• Lack of on-street parking�
• On-street parking can help calm traffic, but
sight lines near intersections should be carefully
reviewed�
• Presence of a roadway median�
• This characteristic is largely due to University
Avenue and Central Avenue being a part of the
HIN�
• Two or more travel lanes in each direction�
• This characteristic is largely due to University
Avenue and Central Avenue being a part of the
HIN�
When planning roadway maintenance or reconstruction,
the City should prioritize roads with these design features
to assess safety needs� Some High Injury Network
corridors, like 37th Avenue NE and 53rd Avenue NE, have
recently been improved� While crashes are expected
to decline due to these upgrades, ongoing monitoring is
recommended to evaluate their safety impact�
Corridors with Elevated
Numbers of High-Risk Crashes
A scoring system was developed to identify roadways with
the most severe safety issues, using the following criteria:
• 2 points per fatal crash�
• 1 point per serious injury crash�
• 1 point per bicycle crash (2 points if crash resulted in
a fatality)�
• 1 point per pedestrian crash (2 points if crash
resulted in a fatality)�
• 0�25 points per minor injury crash�
Once this scoring was applied, the score was divided by
the length of the segment to normalize the score based
on segment length�
Crash scores per mile are shown in Figure 4� Roadways
with the highest crash scores (i�e� highest accumulation of
high-risk crashes) and their jurisdiction are listed below�
MnDOT Roadways
• Central Avenue / TH 65
• Note: Improvements are planned for 2028
as part of the METRO F Line project� These
improvements include bus rapid transit
infrastructure and safety and accessibility
improvements for people walking, rolling, biking,
riding transit, and driving�
Anoka County Roadways
• 40th Avenue NE / CSAH 2
• Note: Improvements identified in the 2024
CSAH 2 / 40th Avenue Corridor Study are
planned for short-term implementation� These
improvements include two through lanes,
parking lanes (on both sides of the roadway),
sidewalks/trail implementation, and raised
crossings on side street intersections�
• 49th Avenue NE / CSAH 4
City of Columbia Heights Roadways
• 37th Avenue NE
• Note: Improvements were recently
implemented (2023/2024), therefore the
number of crashes at this location are expected
to decrease� This corridor should be monitored
to understand the safety benefits of the recent
project�
• 44th Avenue NE
• 45th Avenue NE
• 50th Avenue NE
846
Item 10.
HIGH INJURY NETWORK
13Transportation Safety Action Plan
FIGURE 4. HIGH INJURY NETWORK CRASH SCORE
847
Item 10.
14 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
This page intentionally left blank�
848
Item 10.
15Transportation Safety Action Plan
Chapter 3
Speed Limit Evaluation
849
Item 10.
16 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
2019 Legislative Action
In May 2019, the Minnesota legislature passed two
provisions that allow cities increased authority to set their
own speed limits on local roads� These went into effect
August 1, 2019�
Minnesota State Statute, Section 169.14, Subd. 5h.
Speed limits on city streets.
“A city may establish speed limits for city streets under
the city’s jurisdiction other than the limits provided in
subdivision 2 without conducting an engineering and
traffic investigation� This subdivision does not apply to
town roads, county highways, or trunk highways in the
city� A city that establishes speed limits pursuant to
this section must implement speed limit changes in a
consistent and understandable manner� The city must
erect appropriate signs to display the speed limit� A
city that uses the authority under this subdivision must
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Reduced Citywide
Speed Limits
develop procedures to set speed limits based on the city’s
safety, engineering, and traffic analysis� At a minimum,
the safety, engineering, and traffic analysis must consider
national urban speed limit guidance and studies, local
traffic crashes, and methods to effectively communicate
the change to the public�”
The legislature also passed section 169.011, Subd 64,
which expands the definition of a residential roadway
as:
“…a city street or town road that is either (1) less than one-
half mile in total length, or (2) in an area zoned exclusively
for housing that is not a collector or arterial street�”
Together, these changes provide cities with the ability to
set speed limits on local streets, provided that a safety,
engineering, and traffic analysis has been completed and
a policy has been set that establishes speed limits in a
consistent and understandable manner�
Credit: Jeff Wheeler, The Minnesota Star Tribune
850
Item 10.
SPEED LIMIT EVALUATION
17Transportation Safety Action Plan
Local Jurisdictions Reviewed
The following are a list of peer communities that either
changed their speed limits following the 2019 legislative
action or chose to maintain their speed limits after review�
• City of Edina (Lowered Speeds)
• City of Minneapolis (Lowered Speeds)
• City of Saint Paul (Lowered Speeds)
• City of St� Louis Park (Lowered Speeds)
• City of Richfield (Lowered Speeds)
• City of Bloomington (Lowered Speeds)
• City of St� Anthony Village (Lowered Speeds)
• City of Falcon Heights (Lowered Speeds)
• City of New Brighton (Lowered Speeds)
• City of Shoreview (Maintained Speeds)
Summary and Key Takeaways
Based on a review of peer communities and national
guidance and safety research the following key takeaways
was found�
Studies show Insignificant Impacts from Reduced
Speed Limits
Studies have shown that reducing speed limits alone
does not necessarily lead to significant improvements
in traffic safety� While lower speed limits may seem
like a logical approach to reducing speeds and motor
vehicle accidents, research suggests that driver behavior
is influenced more by factors such as road design,
enforcement, and traffic flow than by posted speed limits�
In fact, studies have found that when speed limits are
lowered without corresponding changes to road design
or enforcement, drivers often ignore the new limits or
drive at speeds they consider safe based on the design
and context of the road� Additionally, changes in speed
between and within municipalities on similar roadway
types can cause confusion or frustration among drivers,
potentially leading to unsafe driving behavior� Therefore,
experts recommend a more comprehensive approach,
addressing road design, visibility, and enforcement, rather
than relying solely on reduced speed limits to improve
safety�
Street Design Changes are More Effective
While there are limited studies proving the effectiveness
of speed limit changes reducing speeds, there is an
abundance of literature supporting physical roadway
changes as a way to slow traffic and make roadways safer
for motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists� FHWA,
NACTO, ITE, and other organizations have published
studies and best practices to show the benefits of
“traffic calming”� Additionally, FHWA has put together a
collection of 28 countermeasures and strategies effective
in reducing roadway fatalities and serious injuries� While
the collection includes ‘Appropriate Speed Limits for All
Road Users’, it also includes ‘Road Diets’, ‘Roundabouts’,
‘Dedicated Left- and Right-Turn Lanes at Intersections’,
and ‘Walkways’� It is recommended these strategies are
used together to have the most effect in making roadways
safer for all users�
Many Local Community Case Studies, Limited Data
Eleven local Twin Cities municipalities were reviewed,
including Edina, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, St� Louis Park,
Richfield, Bloomington, Saint Anthony Village, Falcon
Heights, Shoreview, New Brighton, and Fridley� Out of
these eleven, only a couple communities have collected
and analyzed the results of speed limit changes�
Communities that do have before-and-after speed data
have generally found that average motor vehicle speeds
are not reduced significantly, usually only 1-3 miles
per hour� This suggests that additional strategies are
needed to reduce vehicle speeds, which could include
infrastructure changes, public education/communication,
or speed enforcement�
The full evaluation of reducing citywide speed limits can
be found in Appendix C�
851
Item 10.
18 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
This page intentionally left blank�
852
Item 10.
Chapter 4
Stop Sign Request Policy
853
Item 10.
20 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
There are several intersections within Columbia Heights
that are uncontrolled (i�e� no stop signs, yield signs, or
traffic signals)� These intersections can be dangerous and
confusing to drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists alike� To
help the City of Columbia heights address this challenge
and begin eliminating uncontrolled intersections in the
community, this section provides recommendations for
the City to develop a new stop sign request policy�
A Stop Sign Request Policy provides a procedure to
intake resident and neighborhood requests, complete an
engineering review, provide a decision, and implement
placement of stop signs in a consistent and transparent
manner�
Purpose of Stop Signs
Stop signs are essential regulatory traffic control devices
used to manage right-of-way and access at intersections�
They are not designed for speed control but rather
to improve safety by defining priority for motorists,
pedestrians, and cyclists� Proper stop sign installations
follow national and state standards, which establish
specific warrants to ensure their effectiveness�
Applicability of Policy
This policy applies to all public intersections under the
City’s authority, including residential, commercial, and
mixed-use areas� Stop signs will not be installed arbitrarily�
Instead, the city will base its decision on an engineering
review and criteria contained within the Minnesota
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD)�
Types of Stop Control
The city recognizes two primary types of sign
configurations:
• Minor Road Stop Control: Typically used where a
minor street intersects a major street� The stop signs
are placed on the minor street to assign right-of-way
to the major street�
• All-Way Stop Control: Typically used when traffic
volumes are nearly equal on all approaches, or when
crash history or pedestrian activity justifies it� All-way
stops are also considered at complex intersections
or where visibility is limited in multiple directions�
Evaluation Criteria for Stop
Sign Installation
The Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MN MUTCD) indicates the following factors should be
considered when establishing intersection control:
• Vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic volumes on
all approaches
• Number and angle of approaches
• Approach speeds
• Sight distance available on each approach, and
• Reported crash history
Additional considerations include:
• Roadway function and importance
• Unsignalized intersections within a signalized area
• The need to control left-turn conflicts
• The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts at
locations that generate high pedestrian volumes
• Improvement of operational characteristics of the
intersection
Stop Sign Request Policy
854
Item 10.
21Transportation Safety Action Plan
STOP SIGN REQUEST POLICY
Request and Review Process
The following steps are recommended under a Stop Sign
Request policy:
• STEP 1: Completion of an online Stop Sign Request
Form and submittal to the Public Works or
Engineering Department�
• STEP 2: The city will conduct an engineering review
using criteria contained within the Minnesota Manual
of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD)�
• STEP 3: Based on the engineering review, the
city will determine whether stop sign installation
is warranted� The city will then use engineering
judgment to determine whether to advance a
recommendation to install a stop sign�
• STEP 4: If recommended, the findings will be
presented to the City Council for review and
approval�
• STEP 5: If approved by the Council, the city will
program the installation of the stop sign(s) as well as
the ongoing maintenance�
Note: A petition or neighborhood endorsement with a
minimum of 60% support from households within 300’ of
the requested sign location can be required by the city
ahead of STEP 2 or STEP 4�
Exceptions
Stop signs are not a substitute for speed control� They
will not be installed solely to reduce speeding or as a
response to isolated complaints� Unwarranted stop signs
can lead to driver non-compliance, increased rear-end
collisions, and unnecessary delays�
Maintenance
The Public Works Department is responsible for
maintaining all stop signs in good condition� This includes
ensuring visibility, reflectivity, and compliance with the
Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MN MUTCD)� Regular inspections and prompt repairs
are part of the city’s commitment to traffic safety�
Future Policy Considerations
Stop sign control is used to facilitate the free movement
of traffic along intersecting streets until it is safe to cross�
Stop signs may not be required at every cross street or
driveway intersection� However they should be used on
the minor street approach(es) if engineering judgment
and/or analysis indicates that one or more the following
conditions exist:
• Minor street entering a major through street
• Restricted view or crash records indicate a need for
control by a stop sign
In most cases, the street carrying the lowest volume of
traffic should be stopped� In cases where two intersecting
streets have similar volumes and characteristics,
additional considerations include:
• Controlling the direction that conflicts the most with
established pedestrian crossing activity or school
walking routes
• Controlling the direction that has obscured vision,
dips, or bumps that already require drivers to use
lower operating speeds
• Controlling the direction that has the best sight
distance to observe conflicting traffic
Generally, stop signs will be located on side-street
approaches to collector, arterial, and streets with the
highest volume of through traffic� Stop signs should be
placed in a manner and/or pattern that the driver will
expect to assign right-of-way to crossing traffic� In the
future, the City of Columbia Heights could consider
implementing stop signs every other block in each
direction and designate north-south routes that do not
have stop signs for free flow traffic movements�
855
Item 10.
22 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
This page intentionally left blank�
856
Item 10.
Chapter 5
Engagement
857
Item 10.
24 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Community and Stakeholder Engagement
Community and stakeholder engagement was a central
component of the Columbia Heights Transportation
Safety Action Plan� The planning team prioritized
outreach that was inclusive, accessible, and reflective of
the city’s diverse population� Engagement efforts were
designed to ensure that the voices of residents, business
owners, students, and institutional partners helped shape
the plan’s direction and priorities� A variety of strategies
were used to reach people where they are—both in
person and online—including pop-up events, open houses,
stakeholder meetings, and an interactive online comment
map�
The team also coordinated with the City Council, School
Board, and Anoka County to align the plan with broader
safety and mobility goals� Across all engagement activities,
participants were invited to share concerns, identify
unsafe locations, and provide input on potential solutions�
Feedback gathered through this process directly
informed the High Injury Network, project prioritization,
and conceptual design options� This chapter summarizes
the engagement activities, key themes from public input,
and how community feedback was incorporated into the
final recommendations�
858
Item 10.
ENGAGEMENT
25Transportation Safety Action Plan
Pop-Up Events
Three pop-up events were held at local community
gatherings to meet people where they were and collect
input in informal, accessible settings� At each event,
participants engaged in an activity to identify locations
with transportation safety concerns� Some of the
comment themes highlighted by community members at
pop up events included:
• Safety at intersections along Central Avenue, 49th
Avenue, and 40th Avenue�
• Biking and driving issues, especially at crossings�
• Infrastructure gaps such as missing sidewalks, poor
lighting, and lack of bike lanes�
• Traffic behavior issues like speeding and failure to
stop at signs�
• Accessibility challenges near parks and libraries�
• Lack of stop signs at some intersections creates
confusion and safety concerns�
Pop-Up #1 (June 20, 2024 – Community Art & Info Fair at
Huset Park)
This popular community event is attended by hundreds
of residents and takes place in Huset Park each year� The
project team attended the event to speak to community
members, gather feedback, and promote the project's
online interactive map�
Pop-Up #2 (July 30, 2024 – Eat and Greet at McKenna
Park)
This event raised awareness of the project and
encouraged participation in the interactive comment map
and upcoming open house� Approximately 20 people
participated in an activity to identify safety issues and
problem areas in the city�
Pop-Up #3 (October 26, 2024 - Truck or Treat, Huset
Park)
Staff attended the Halloween-themed community event,
Truck or Treat, and engaged with children and parents as
they collected candy� Participants ranked intersections
and street segments based on where they most wanted
to see safety improvements� Approximately 60 people
provided feedback at the event, including many youth�
This input informed project prioritization�
Stakeholder Meetings
Project staff held meetings with key decision-makers and
institutional partners to share updates and gather input�
These meetings helped align the Transportation Safety
Action Plan with broader city, school, and county priorities�
City Council Work Session (September 3, 2024)
Project staff presented early findings from the crash
analysis and community engagement to the Columbia
Heights City Council� Council members provided
feedback on safety priorities and discussed how the plan
could support citywide goals�
School Board Meeting (September 24, 2024)
Staff met with the Columbia Heights School Board
to discuss school-related safety concerns and Safe
Routes to School opportunities� Board members shared
insights on student travel patterns and priority areas for
improvement�
Anoka County Coordination Meeting (June 13, 2025)
City and County staff met to coordinate safety priorities
and ensure alignment between local and county-led
transportation efforts� The discussion focused on shared
corridors, upcoming projects, and opportunities for
collaboration on design and funding strategies�
City Council Work Session (July 7, 2025)
Project staff presented the draft plan, discussed key
outcomes and recommendations, and gathered feedback
on revisions to the draft plan�
859
Item 10.
26 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Open House Events
Two open houses were held to share project updates and
gather feedback at key milestones�
Fall Open House (October 10, 2024 – Columbia Heights
City Hall)
Hosted at Columbia Heights City Hall, this open house
served as a key opportunity to share project updates
and gather community input� The event began with a
presentation from project team members, followed by
informal, one-on-one discussions with attendees� Project
boards were displayed throughout the room, presenting
information on project background, community feedback,
crash analysis, and updates on related transportation
efforts�
Attendees were invited to participate in an interactive
activity where they selected their top four project
locations from a curated list, helping to inform project
prioritization� A total of 18 attendees signed in, and
five comment cards were submitted in response to the
prompt, “How can we improve safety on our streets?”
Project staff were available throughout the event to
answer questions, explain materials, and engage in
meaningful conversations about transportation safety in
Columbia Heights�
SummerOpen House (June 24, 2025 – Columbia Heights
City Hall)
The second open house was held at Columbia Heights
City Hall to present the draft Transportation Safety
Action Plan and gather final community input� The event
began with a presentation from project staff outlining key
elements of the plan, including crash analysis, community
engagement findings, the High Injury Network, and
proposed safety improvements� Attendees reviewed
display boards featuring conceptual design options, policy
recommendations, and project prioritization results�
Roughly 15 people attended, engaging in informal
conversations with City and consultant staff� Participants
asked questions, shared feedback on specific corridors
and intersections, and discussed how the plan could
support safer travel for all users� Attendees were also
encouraged to submit additional comments through the
project website and online survey� Feedback from this
event was used to inform final revisions to the plan ahead
of its presentation to City Council�
860
Item 10.
ENGAGEMENT
27Transportation Safety Action Plan
Interactive Comment Map
Community members used an interactive mapping
tool to highlight locations they felt were unsafe, adding
context to the High Injury Network analysis� Nearly 300
comments (shown in Figure 5) were submitted between
July and September 2024 and categorized as Walking,
Driving, Biking, Transit, or Rolling� Key themes included:
Walking
• Crosswalks are often missing or lack visibility�
• Major roads and connectors lack sidewalks�
• Sidewalk gaps and abrupt endings are common�
• Additional Safe Routes to School planning work is
recommended�
• Dangerous driving, minimal traffic calming, and lack
of buffers make walking unsafe�
Rolling
• Lack of sidewalks creates unsafe conditions for
mobility device users, with few safe alternatives�
Driving
• Rolling stops and speeding are widespread,
especially on residential streets�
• Many intersections lack control measures (stop signs
or traffic lights)�
• Wide streets often lack lane striping�
Transit
• Walkways and crossings near stops need
improvement�
Biking
• Desire for north-south biking routes and connections
to regional trails�
• Poor pavement in bike lanes�
• Desire for more protected lane infrastructure�
FIGURE 5.
COMMUNITY-
IDENTIFIED
SAFETY
CONCERNS BY
MODE
861
Item 10.
28 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Other Engagement Strategies
Project Website
A project website was launched at the start of the
planning process to serve as a central hub for information�
It provided an overview of the project’s goals, key
milestones, and timeline, and was regularly updated
with new content� The site also advertised upcoming
engagement opportunities such as pop-up events and
open houses, and hosted the interactive comment map�
Printed Newsletters and E-Newsletters
Printed newsletters were mailed to residents, and
e-newsletters were sent to individuals who signed up
through the project website or at public events� These
updates included project progress, summaries of
community input, upcoming engagement opportunities,
and reminders to participate in tools like the interactive
comment map�
Standalone Informational Boards
Informational display boards were installed at key
community locations, including City Hall and the Public
Library, to share high-level project information and
increase public awareness� These boards included a
summary of the project goals, timeline, and ways to get
involved, helping to reach residents who may not engage
online or attend in-person events�
862
Item 10.
ENGAGEMENT
29Transportation Safety Action Plan
“I would love to bike around Columbia Heights
more, but do not feel safe along Central or
crossing Central as people use it as a freeway
to commute from Downtown to the suburbs�
It needs safe bike paths off the road or
separated from the road by physical barriers�”
“Would love to see traffic calming measures
on our streets� This street is often used as
a bypass to get to the high school in the
mornings and it can become quite crazy before
and after school�”
“Bike lanes should be moved inside of parking
so that the parked cars protect the bike
lanes� Pavement of bike lanes in very rough
condition�”
“We need sidewalks in this neighborhood to
improve walkability and keep everyone safe�”
Community Insights
Feedback from community members was collected through open house meetings, pop-up events, and surveys in
addition to virtual platforms� Some of these comments are highlighted below�
“Wide turn radii in a residential area with many
pedestrians, children playing, and waiting for
the school bus� Turns should be much tighter
so that cars need to slow down while turning�”
“Add bike lane or path along 44th to connect
to the Mississippi River Trail in Fridley�”
“Library is located on this corner, it would be
great to have a crosswalk here so people can
get there safely, and not have to walk down to
a traffic light�”
“The walk lights across University never give
people enough time to cross�”
“All of 45th Avenue from Main to Stinson
should be narrowed using sidewalk, protected/
raised bike lanes, landscaping, and corner
bump-outs� This street could be beautiful
and used for bike/pedestrians a lot more,
but instead we have unmaintained asphalt
shoulders that are left unused� Prioritize
people over cars�”
863
Item 10.
30 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
This page intentionally left blank�
864
Item 10.
Chapter 6
Project Prioritization
865
Item 10.
32 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Prioritization Framework
Creating a system to prioritize safety improvements starts
with developing criteria to identify key projects� Given
the limited funds available for enhancing road safety
and maintaining infrastructure, it is crucial to ensure that
resources are allocated effectively� This begins with a
data-driven scoring system that evaluates all roadway
intersections and segments on the City’s High Injury
Network� By integrating a variety of quantitative and
qualitative factors, the prioritization framework helps
determine which investments provide the best return
on investment� This approach aims to optimize the use
of limited resources� A process flowchart illustrating this
prioritization framework is shown in Figure 6 below�
Project Prioritization
Community
Feedback
(16%)
Equity (14%)
Destination
Connectivity
(18%)
Crash History
and Risk
(52%)
Scoring Criteria
The categories of criteria selected for scoring include
Crash History and Risk, Destination Connectivity,
Community Feedback, and Equity� These elements,
shown in Figure 7 below, are evaluated and weighted
as illustrated in Table 2, with particular emphasis
on documented crash history and risk at each
location� Projects offering greater potential for safety
improvements or addressing known risks are prioritized
over those with lower impact� Additional details on data
sources and the scoring methodology are provided in
Appendix D�
Prioritization Results
Figure 8 shows the results of the initial prioritization of
project locations� Higher scoring locations are illustrated
with thick red lines while lower scoring locations are
illustrated with thinner orange or yellow lines� It is worth
noting that both 37th Ave NE and 53rd Ave NE are shown
on the High Injury Network, but both of these roadways
have had recent project improvements so it is unlikely
that another project will be completed on those corridors
in the near future�
Collect
Community
Input &
Analyze Crash
Data
Map High
Injury
Network
(HIN)
Define
Prioritization
Criteria
Weight
Prioritization
Criteria
Gather
Data from
Identified
Sources
Score HIN
Locations
FIGURE 7.
PRIORITIZATION
FACTORS
Prioritize Locations for
Safety Improvements
FIGURE 6. PROJECT
PRIORITIZATION PROCESS
866
Item 10.
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
33Transportation Safety Action Plan
Category
Score Weight Category Criteria Intersection or
Road Segment
Max Possible
Score
52%Crash History
and Risk
Fatal/Serious Crashes Both 14
Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes Both 12
Traffic Volume Both 4
Speed Limit Both 4
Travel Lane Number Both 4
Approach Curvature Intersection 2
Median Segment 2
On-Street Parking Segment 2
Skew Intersection 2
Lighting Presence Intersection 2
Crosswalk Presence Intersection 2
Crossing Distance Intersection 2
18%Destination
Connectivity
Transit - BRT Both 4
Transit - Other Both 2
Activity Generators Both 4
Residential Area Both 4
Existing Bicycle Facilities Both 2
Existing Pedestrian Facilities Both 2
16%Community
Feedback Number of Responses Both 16
14%Equity
Minority Population Both 2
Serves Dependent Populations (Youth and
Senior Citizens)Both 2
Serves People with Disabilities Both 2
Serves People whose First Language is not
English Both 2
Serves Veterans Both 2
Serves Low-Income Populations Both 2
Serves Populations without Motor Vehicle
Access Both 2
TABLE 2. PROJECT PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA
867
Item 10.
34 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
FIGURE 8. SEGMENT AND INTERSECTION SCORES ON THE HIGH INJURY NETWORK
868
Item 10.
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
35Transportation Safety Action Plan
High Priority Locations
Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix D illustrate the top 25 highest-
priority intersections and roadway segments on the
High Injury Network (HIN), based on the scoring criteria�
Locations with the highest scores are considered the
most critical for safety improvements� Both maps display
intersections and segments; however, they differ in the
inclusion of two high-scoring corridors:
• Figure 1 (Appendix D) includes all locations, including
two MnDOT highways in the city - University Avenue
NE/TH 47 and Central Avenue NE/TH 65
• Figure 2 (Appendix D) excludes these two corridors
to highlight high-priority areas on the local or County
roadway systems�
Following the maps, Tables 1 through 5 (Appendix D)
present the corresponding data for these locations�
Separate tables are provided to show results including
and excluding the University Avenue NE/TH 47 and
Central Avenue NE/TH 65 corridors, which are outliers
due to their consistently high scores�
Potential Future Updates
The methodology used to determine the High Injury
Network should remain dynamic and adaptable� Future
updates to the prioritization criteria may include:
• Adjusting points and weights to better reflect City
priorities�
• Aligning the process more closely with other
prioritization frameworks, such as CIP prioritization�
• Incorporating or replacing ‘big data’ sources with
insights from local law enforcement and public
feedback to assess crash risks related to speeding or
dangerous driving behaviors�
• Further analyzing safety trends in each project area
to identify appropriate treatments for specific crash
history patterns and refining project prioritization
scoring�
• Evaluating the role of community support and
engagement in project prioritization�
Equity Considerations in
Project Prioritization
Equity was a core component of the project prioritization
framework, ensuring that safety improvements are
directed toward communities with the greatest
transportation needs� Using American Community Survey
(ACS) data derived from Esri Business Analyst, projects
received additional points if they served areas meeting
specific thresholds across the following criteria:
• Minority Population: Areas where more than 20% of
residents identify as non-White� These communities
often face systemic barriers to safe, reliable
transportation and are more likely to rely on walking,
biking, and transit�
• Dependent Populations (Youth and Seniors): Areas
with above-average shares of residents under 18 or
over 65� These age groups are more likely to depend
on non-driving modes and benefit from safer, more
accessible infrastructure�
• People with Disabilities: Areas with disability
rates above the statewide average� Individuals with
disabilities often face additional mobility challenges
and require inclusive, accessible design�
• Limited English Proficiency: Areas where a higher-
than-average share of residents speak English less
than “very well�” Language barriers can limit access
to transportation services and safety information�
• Veterans: Areas with veteran populations above the
statewide average� Veterans may experience unique
mobility needs due to age, disability, or economic
factors�
• Low-Income Households: Areas where 40% or more
of residents live below 185% of the federal poverty
line, a commonly used threshold that includes those
who earn slightly above the poverty line but still face
economic hardship� These populations are more
likely to rely on affordable, non-driving transportation
options�
• No Vehicle Access: Areas with above-average rates
of households without access to a motor vehicle�
These residents are especially dependent on safe
walking, biking, and transit infrastructure�
By incorporating these equity indicators into the scoring
process, the prioritization framework helps ensure that
transportation investments are both data-informed and
socially responsive, supporting a safer, more inclusive
network for all users�
869
Item 10.
36 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
This page intentionally left blank�
870
Item 10.
37Transportation Safety Action Plan
Chapter 7
Safety Countermeasures
Toolbox
871
Item 10.
38 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Safety Countermeasures Toolbox
To effectively reduce roadway fatalities and serious
injuries, Columbia Heights must thoroughly address safety
issues throughout the community� The selection and
design of safety countermeasures for every street project
should be guided by the Safe System Approach, ensuring
that any crashes that do occur do not result in fatalities or
serious injuries� It is crucial that safety countermeasures
are not compromised or simplified during the design or
construction phases, as this would diminish safety for all
road users�
This plan includes a Safety Countermeasures Toolbox,
featuring a variety of design treatments at intersections
or along roadway segments that may be used on
Columbia Heights’ roads� This list of design treatments is
not an exhaustive or comprehensive list, and additional
design treatments that are not listed in this plan may
be appropriate in future projects� Detailed descriptions
of each countermeasure can be found on the following
pages, and additional information sources for each are
provided and referenced in a numbered list on Page 62�
• Walkways
• Bikeways
• Shared Use Paths
• General Lighting
Improvements
• Crosswalk Visibility
Enhancements
• Speed Tables
• Raised Crosswalks
• Curb Extensions
• Medians and
Pedestrian Refuge
Islands
• Leading Pedestrian
Intervals
• Right-Turn on Red
Prohibitions
• Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons
• Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacons
• Bicycle Boxes
• Bicycle Signals
• Road Diets (Roadway
Reconfiguration)
• Lane Diets (Lane
Narrowing)
• Corridor Access
Management
• Driveway
Improvements
• Roundabouts
• Mini Roundabouts
• Chicanes
• Rumble Strips
872
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
39Transportation Safety Action Plan
Safety Statistics (FHWA)
• Sidewalks may reduce crashes involving
pedestrians walking along roadways by 65-89%�
• Paved shoulders may reduce crashes involving
pedestrians walking along roadways by 71%�
Walkways
Overview and Purpose
Walkways are defined spaces or pathways designated for
use by pedestrians or individuals using mobility devices�
These can include, but are not limited to, sidewalks,
shared use paths, or roadway shoulders� Well-designed
walkways enhance pedestrian safety and mobility by
providing a direct and connected network of walking
routes to desired destinations without gaps or abrupt
changes�
Design Considerations
• Ensure network connectivity with direct and
connected walking routes�
• Ensure walkways provide minimum ADA-compliant
widths that are clear of obstructions like signs and
utility poles�
• Provide and maintain accessible walkways along both
sides of the road in urban areas�
• Design walkways to improve safety and mobility,
including features like high-visibility crosswalks,
pedestrian warning signs, and tactile curb ramps�
• Wider walkways are needed in urban areas and
commercial districts�
• Separation between roadways and walkways is
preferred (i�e� grass or concrete boulevards)� This
separation improves pedestrian comfort and also
provides snow storage space in the winter�
Candidate Locations
• All urban streets and suburban arterials and
collectors�
• Streets that connect pedestrian origins and
destinations�
• High-speed and high-volume roadways without
adequate shoulder width�
Resources with Additional Information
• 4, 5, 19, 30, 38
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
873
Item 10.
40 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Bikeways
Overview and Purpose
Bikeways enhance safety and comfort for cyclists by
providing dedicated space, reducing interactions and
conflicts with motor vehicles� Buffered bikeways offer
increased separation, especially on roads with higher
volumes and speeds, reducing the risk of conflict between
modes�
Design Considerations
• Include bikeways on new or existing roads through
road diets�
• Use vertical elements or separated lanes on high-
volume roads�
• Avoid rumble strips impacting cyclists in rural areas�
• Provide at least 2 feet of space between roadways
and bikeways to provide buffer space�
Candidate Locations
• On-road bikeways: Suitable for roadways at or
below speeds of 30 MPH and/or AADT volumes of
6,000�
• Separated bikeways: Suitable for roadways at or
above speeds 30 MPH and/or AADT volumes of over
6,000, and areas connecting biking networks�
Resources with Additional Information
• 3, 8, 9, 10, 23, 24, 29, 34
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
Safety Statistics (FHWA)
• Separated bikeways with flexible delineator
posts may reduce bicycle/vehicle crashes by up
to 53%�
• Any bicycle facility addition may reduce total
crashes by 49% on urban 4-lane undivided
collectors and local roads and 30% on urban
2-lane undivided collectors and local roads�
874
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
41Transportation Safety Action Plan
Shared Use Paths
Overview and Purpose
Shared use paths are bicycle and pedestrian facilities that
are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by an
open space or barrier� Designed for two-way travel, they
serve various nonmotorized users and can be located
within roadway right-of-way or an independent right-of-
way�
Design Considerations
• Typical widths range from 8 to 15 feet, allowing for
separation of bicyclists and pedestrians�
• ADA accessibility features are required, including
ramps and detectable warnings at intersections�
Candidate Locations
• Roadways with high traffic volumes and speeds�
• Areas with a high volume, mix, and wide travel speed
range of pedestrian and bicyclists�
• Locations where space is limited, shared use paths
can replace separated bike lanes�
• Wider paths are necessary where there are large
numbers of bicyclists or other nonmotorized users�
Resources with Additional Information
• 8, 10, 24
Citations
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
875
Item 10.
42 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
General Lighting
Improvements
Overview and Purpose
Roadway lighting improves nighttime visibility, reducing
crash risk by helping drivers and other road users
detect hazards earlier� Lighting is especially beneficial at
intersections, pedestrian crossings, and along high-speed
corridors�
Design Considerations
• At intersections, ensure lighting is adequate for
nighttime visibility and pedestrian safety�
• Use shielded lighting features or place lights far
enough from the roadway to minimize the risk of
fixed-object crashes�
• Use modern lighting technology to minimize light
pollution and excessive spillover to neighboring
properties�
Candidate Locations
• All roadway types, especially in urbanized areas
• Intersections with high traffic volume or known crash
history at night�
• Pedestrian crossings and transit stop areas,
especially in areas with high non-motorized traffic�
Resources with Additional Information
• 30
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
Safety Statistics (FHWA)
Adequate lighting may reduce:
• Nighttime pedestrian injury crashes by up to
42%�
• Crashes by 33-38% at rural and urban
intersections�
• Overall nighttime crashes on highways by 28%�
876
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
43Transportation Safety Action Plan
Crosswalk Visibility and
Approach Enhancements
Overview and Purpose
Enhancing crosswalk visibility and vehicle approach
improves safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, mobility device
users, and transit users by making crosswalks more visible
to drivers�
Design Considerations
• Use high-visibility crosswalk patterns like bar pairs,
continental, or ladder�
• Illuminate crosswalks with positive contrast lighting,
ensuring lights are positioned to prevent silhouettes
and keep pedestrians clearly visible to drivers�
• Use “YIELD Here to Pedestrians” or “STOP Here for
Pedestrians” signs in advance of crosswalks�
• Enforce parking restrictions near crosswalks�
• Implement advanced stop lines and install tactile
warning surfaces�
Candidate Locations
• Signalized intersections�
• Unsignalized locations with AADT below 15,000�
• Unsignalized locations (including mid-block locations)
with high pedestrian activity�
• Areas near schools, parks, transit stops, and other
pedestrian generators�
Resources with Additional Information
• 2, 7, 11, 12, 13, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 37
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
Safety Statistics (FHWA)
• High-visibility crosswalks may cut pedestrian
injury crashes by up to 40%�
• Adding lighting at intersections may cut
pedestrian crashes by up to 42%�
• Advance yield or stop markings and signs may
cut pedestrian crash rates by up to 25%�
877
Item 10.
44 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Speed Tables
Overview and Purpose
Speed tables are traffic calming devices that raise
the entire wheelbase of a motor vehicle� This vertical
deflection reduces vehicle speeds, enhancing safety for all
road users, especially non-motorized traffic� Unlike speed
humps, which are shorter and curved, speed tables have a
flat top that accommodates the entire vehicle wheelbase�
Design Considerations
• Speed tables are typically 3 to 6 inches high, around
15 to 20 feet long, and nearly the full width of the
road (often allowing for stormwater drainage in
adjacent gutters)�
• Designers should consider drainage needs for all
raised treatments to ensure the roadway still drains
properly�
• May not be appropriate on major streets or on truck
routes�
• Design with pavement markings that make speed
table presence clear to drivers�
Candidate Locations
• Roadways that tend to promote high automotive
speeds�
• Roadways where high-speed automobiles conflict
with crossing pedestrians and/or bicyclists�
• Transition areas from higher-speed to lower-speed
roadways�
Resources with Additional Information
• 21
Citations
• MnDOT — 2024 — Bicycle Facility Design Manual
878
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
45Transportation Safety Action Plan
Safety Statistics (MnDOT)
• Raised crosswalks may reduce pedestrian
crashes by 45%�
Raised Crosswalks
Overview and Purpose
Raised crosswalks combine a marked crosswalk with a
speed table that extends the full width of the crossing�
This type of vertical deflection reduces motor vehicle
speeds and improves visibility between drivers, bicyclists,
and pedestrians at crossing locations�
Design Considerations
• Raised crosswalks are typically 3 to 6 inches high�
• Raised crosswalks can be placed mid-block or at an
intersection and are commonly constructed to be
flush with the roadside curb�
• ADA standards should be incorporated�
• Approaches should have approach grades between
4% and 7%�
Candidate Locations
• Locations with high pedestrian or bicycle activity,
such as at school crossings, park entrances, and
commercial shopping districts�
• Crossings around roundabouts�
• Locations where shared use paths cross commercial
driveways or ramps�
Resources with Additional Information
• 33, 37
Citations
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
879
Item 10.
46 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Curb Extensions
Overview and Purpose
Curb extensions, also known as bump outs, extend the
sidewalk into the roadway, reducing crossing distances for
pedestrians and improving sightlines between pedestrians
and drivers� They provide visual cues to drivers to reduce
speeds and watch for pedestrians and bicyclists�
Design Considerations
• Extend the full width of a parking lane�
• Maintain proper sight distance between pedestrians
and motorists�
• Consider stormwater runoff and catch basins�
• Curb extensions can be lengthened to include
landscaping, stormwater treatment, transit waiting
areas, and bus shelters�
• Use a compound radius to increase available curb
extension space while allowing large vehicles to turn�
• Choose between raised curb extensions or lower-
cost painted alternatives�
• Consider the potential need for right turn lanes
should be evaluated prior to curb extension
implementation�
Candidate Locations
• Urban settings with on-street parking lanes or
shoulders where the extensions will not impede
bicycle travel�
• Mid-block crossings�
• Bus stops�
Resources with Additional Information
• 27, 30, 35
Citations
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
Safety Statistics (MnDOT)
• Curb extensions may reduce pedestrian crashes
by up to 45%�
880
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
47Transportation Safety Action Plan
Medians and Pedestrian Refuge
Islands
Overview and Purpose
Medians and pedestrian refuge islands provide a safe
area for pedestrians to wait while crossing one direction
of traffic at a time� These features are crucial in areas
with high pedestrian and vehicle traffic volumes, reducing
pedestrian crashes and improving safety�
Design Considerations
• Include high-visibility crosswalks, pedestrian warning
signs, and tactile curb ramps�
• Consider pairing with RRFB, especially on higher
volume roadways�
• Ensure maintenance strategies are in place to keep
crossing islands clear of snow and debris�
Candidate Locations
• Mid-block crossing locations�
• High-priority pedestrian crossing locations such as
transit stops, schools, and parks�
• Roads with four or more lanes, speeds greater than
35 mph, and/or AADT greater than 9,000�
Resources with Additional Information
• 1, 13, 14, 37
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
881
Item 10.
48 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Safety Statistics (FHWA)
• LPIs may reduce pedestrian-vehicle crashes at
intersections by up to 13%�
Leading Pedestrian Intervals
Overview and Purpose
A Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) allows pedestrians to
enter the crosswalk 3-7 seconds before vehicles receive a
green signal, increasing pedestrian visibility and reducing
conflicts with turning vehicles� LPIs are beneficial at
intersections with high pedestrian and turning vehicle
volumes�
Design Considerations
• Refer to the FHWA’s Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD) for timing guidance�
• LPIs are cost-effective when only signal timing
alterations are required�
• Program LPIs into existing traffic signals, activated by
pedestrian push buttons or automatic recall�
• Ensure pedestrian signals are visible to both
pedestrians and drivers�
Candidate Locations
• Signalized intersections with high crossing volumes�
• Signalized intersections with high turning vehicle
volumes�
• Signalized intersections with patterns of pedestrian
or bicycle conflict with vehicles�
Resources with Additional Information
• 30, 36, 37
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
882
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
49Transportation Safety Action Plan
Right-Turn on Red Prohibitions
Overview and Purpose
Right-turn on red (RTOR) prohibitions at signalized
intersections enhances pedestrian and bicyclist safety
by reducing conflicts with turning vehicles� This practice
helps mitigate risks stemming from motorists focusing on
gaps in traffic rather than looking for crossing pedestrians�
Design Considerations
• Install No Turn on Red signs, either static or
electronic�
• Place signs within proper sight lines of potentially
turning drivers�
• RTOR prohibitions may be signed to occur only
during peak travel times�
• No Right-Turn LED Blank-out signs can be
programmed to be activated by pedestrians or
during certain traffic signal phases�
Candidate Locations
• Locations with limited sight distance and/or unusual
geometry�
• School zones, libraries, senior centers, transit
stations, or other pedestrian traffic generators�
• Intersections with exclusive bicycle facilities or trail
crossings�
• Crosswalks meeting MN MUTCD pedestrian volume
and/or school crossing warrant�
Resources with Additional Information
• 6� 31
Citations
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
883
Item 10.
50 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacons (RRFB)
Overview and Purpose
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) are
pedestrian-actuated traffic control devices designed
to enhance pedestrian visibility and increase driver
awareness at uncontrolled, marked crosswalks� RRFBs
consist of two rectangular-shaped yellow indications
with LED-array-based light sources that flash with an
alternating high frequency when activated�
Design Considerations
• Install RRFBs on both sides of a crosswalk below
the pedestrian crossing sign and above the diagonal
downward arrow plaque�
• The flashing pattern can be activated with
pushbuttons or passive pedestrian detection
methods�
• Solar panels are recommended to eliminate the need
for a power source�
• RRFBs should be reserved for locations with
significant pedestrian safety issues to avoid
diminishing their effectiveness through overuse�
• Maintenance for RRFBs depends on the power
supply type�
• If placed on roadways with more than one lane in a
single travel direction, advance stop bar pavement
markings should be provided to mitigate potential
sight line issues�
Candidate Locations
• Locations with traffic volumes less than 12,000
vehicles per day�
• Locations with speeds less than 40 MPH�
Resources with Additional Information
• 12, 16
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
Safety Statistics (FHWA)
RRFBs may reduce:
• Pedestrian crashes by up to 47%�
• Increase motorist yielding rates by up to 98%
(depending on speed limit, number of lanes,
crossing distance, and time of day)�
884
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
51Transportation Safety Action Plan
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
(PHB)
Overview and Purpose
The pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) is a traffic control
device designed to help pedestrians safely cross higher-
speed roadways at midblock crossings and uncontrolled
intersections� The beacon head consists of two red lenses
above a single yellow lens� The lenses remain “dark” until a
pedestrian pushes the call button to activate the beacon,
initiating a yellow to red lighting sequence that directs
motorists to slow and stop, providing the right-of-way to
the pedestrian to cross safely before going dark again�
Design Considerations
• Installation must include a marked crosswalk and
pedestrian countdown signal�
• Agencies should conduct education and outreach if
PHBs are not familiar to the community�
• PHBs are effective at locations with high pedestrian
activity and where gaps in traffic are insufficient for
safe crossing�
Candidate Locations
• Areas with insufficient traffic gaps or speed limits
over 35 mph�
• Locations with three or more lanes or traffic volumes
above 9,000 AADT�
• Midblock crossings and uncontrolled intersections
with high pedestrian volumes�
• Meeting Minnesota MUTCD volume warrants is
typically a precondition for implementing a PHB�
Resources with Additional Information
• 12, 15, 16
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
885
Item 10.
52 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Bicycle Boxes
Overview and Purpose
A bicycle box is a set of pavement marking elements
installed at signalized intersections that allows bicyclists
to pull in front of waiting traffic at a red light� This makes
bicyclists more visible to motorists and gives bicyclists a
head start when the light turns green, thus providing the
opportunity to avoid conflicts with turning motor vehicles�
Design Considerations
• Place an advance stop line at least 10 feet from the
intersection stop line�
• Prohibit right-turn on red movements to avoid
conflicts between right-turning motor vehicles and
waiting bicyclists�
• Provide at least 50 feet of a bicycle lane prior to the
bicycle box�
• Coordinate with bicycle signals to provide a leading
bicycle interval�
Candidate Locations
• Signalized intersections�
• Roadways that already have bike lanes and a
substantial volume of bicycle traffic�
• Intersections where a left-turn is necessary to
continue on a dedicated bicycle route or other
shared use path�
• Locations where there are motor vehicle-bicycle
turning conflicts�
• Locations where right turn on red prohibitions for
motor vehicles can be added�
Resources with Additional Information
• 20, 29
Citations
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
Safety Statistics (MnDOT)
• Studies show a 35% reduction in bicycle crashes
where bike boxes have been implemented�
886
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
53Transportation Safety Action Plan
Source: www�pedbikeimages�org / Adam Coppola Photography
Bicycle Signals
Overview and Purpose
A separate bicycle signal can improve operations involving
bicycle facilities and designate right-of-way for bicyclists
at locations where their needs may differ from other
roadway users� Bicycle signals help reduce conflicts
between bicycles and motor vehicles, enhancing safety
and efficiency at intersections�
Design Considerations
• Place signal heads in a location visible to
approaching bicycles�
• Implement a bicycle recall phase for each cycle or
install detection and actuation�
• Ensure proper clearance intervals based on bicycle
travel speeds and crossing distance�
• Prohibit right turn on red movements if bicycle
movements conflict with right-turning vehicles�
Candidate Locations
• Intersections with high motor vehicle-bicycle
conflicts�
• Intersections with two-way or contraflow bicycle
movement�
• Bicycle facility transitions requiring bicyclists to cross
through a motor vehicle lane�
• Intersections permitting short cycle lengths with
bicycle detection or a bicycle phase on recall�
Resources with Additional Information
• 20, 23, 24, 29
Citations
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
887
Item 10.
54 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Road Diets (Roadway
Reconfiguration)
Overview and Purpose
A road diet, or roadway reconfiguration, is a traffic
management strategy that aims to improve safety, calm
traffic, and provide better mobility and access for all road
users� Most commonly, a road diet involves converting
an existing four-lane undivided roadway into a three-lane
roadway with two through lanes and a center two-way
left-turn lane (TWLTL)�
Design Considerations
• Implement on roadways with a current and future
average daily traffic of 20,000 vehicles or less�
• Provide opportunities to install pedestrian refuge
islands, bicycle lanes, on-street parking, or transit
stops�
• A road diet can be a low-cost safety solution when
planned in conjunction with a simple pavement
overlay�
Candidate Locations
• Roadways with volumes up to 20,000 AADT�
• Maximum daily volume compatible with road diet
could be lower in environments with higher densities
of high-volume access points�
Resources with Additional Information
• 17, 18, 31, 37
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
Safety Statistics (FHWA)
• Road diet conversions from 4-lane to 3-lane may
reduce total crashes by 19-47%�
888
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
55Transportation Safety Action Plan
Lane Diets (Lane Narrowing)
Overview and Purpose
Narrowing vehicle lane widths improves safety and
comfort for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and
drivers by lowering vehicle speeds, reducing crossing
widths, and redistributing roadway space for other uses�
Design Considerations
• Consider surrounding land uses, parking turnover,
vehicular speeds, and traffic volumes/types�
• Consider adding low-impact vertical elements (like
flexible bollards) to the edges of the traveled way to
reinforce new lane widths�
• Consider truck turning radii at intersections with
frequent truck movements�
Candidate Locations
• Roadways with safety and speeding issues�
• Areas with lane widths greater than recommended
minimums�
• Locations where space can be redistributed for bike
lanes, parking lanes, transit lanes, widened sidewalks,
landscaped buffers, and curb extensions�
Resources with Additional Information
• 30
Citations
• PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and
Countermeasure Selection System
889
Item 10.
56 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Corridor Access Management
Overview and Purpose
Corridor access management refers to the strategic
placement and control of driveways and intersections
along a corridor� Reducing and organizing access points
improves safety, supports walking and biking, and reduces
congestion and delay�
Design Considerations
• Close, consolidate, or relocate driveways to reduce
conflict points�
• Space driveways and intersections according to
minimum clearance standards�
• Restrict movements at driveways (e�g�, right-in/right-
out only)�
• Place driveways on approach corners rather than
receiving corners to reduce crashes�
• Use raised medians to eliminate left-turn and across-
roadway movements�
• Consider roundabouts, U-turn treatments, or access
roads for safe circulation�
• Provide designated turn lanes to separate turning
vehicles from through traffic�
Candidate Locations
• Corridors with high driveway density�
• Areas with closely spaced full-access driveways
• Segments with frequent turning conflicts�
• High-traffic corridors with pedestrian and bike
activity�
Resources with Additional Information
• 29, 30
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
Safety Statistics (FHWA)
Decreased driveway density may reduce:
• Total crashes along 2-lane rural roads by up to
5-23%�
• Fatal and injury crashes along urban/subruban
arterials by up to 25-31%�
890
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
57Transportation Safety Action Plan
Driveway Improvements
Overview and Purpose
Driveway design directly affects pedestrian safety and
accessibility� Wide, sloped, or poorly defined driveways
can increase crash risk and create barriers for people
walking or using mobility devices� Improvements help calm
traffic, enhance visibility, and support ADA compliance�
Design Considerations
• Narrow driveways (15–20 ft) and tighten turning radii
to slow vehicles�
• Maintain sidewalk level with max 2% cross slope;
wrap around apron if needed�
• Use continuous sidewalk materials to emphasize
pedestrian priority�
• Clearly define driveway edges with curbs, paint, or
planters�
• Keep sightlines clear by limiting vegetation and
signage near driveways�
Candidate Locations
• Areas with excessively wide or sloped driveways�
• Locations with large turning radii, multiple adjacent,
or poorly defined driveways�
• Driveways where motorists focus on finding gaps in
congested traffic�
• Corridors with closely spaced driveways that disrupt
traffic flow or create frequent turning conflicts�
Resources with Additional Information
• 29, 30
Citations
• PEDSAFE — 2013 — Pedestrian Safety Guide and
Countermeasure Selection System
891
Item 10.
58 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Safety Statistics (FHWA)
• Converting a two-way stop-controlled
intersection to a roundabout may reduce fatal
and injury crashes by 82%�
• Converting a signalized intersection to a
roundabout may reduce fatal and injury crashes
by 78%�
• Four-legged roundabouts may reduce pedestrian
crashes by approximately 60%�
• Single-lane roundabouts may have an 89%
reduction in fatal crashes�
Roundabouts
Overview and Purpose
Roundabouts are circular intersections designed to
improve traffic flow and safety by reducing speeds and
conflict points� They include channelized approaches and
a center island, with entering traffic yielding to circulating
vehicles� To enhance pedestrian and bicyclist safety,
roundabouts may include raised crosswalks, pedestrian
refuges, and dedicated bicycle lanes� Proper lighting and
clear signage are crucial for user awareness�
Design Considerations
• Roundabouts can be single-lane or multi-lane�
• Single-lane roundabouts are simpler and safer for
pedestrians and bicyclists�
• Multi-lane roundabouts require additional safety
enhancements for pedestrians and bicyclists�
• Proper deflection angles at entries and exits reduce
vehicle speeds�
• Truck aprons accommodate larger vehicles while
maintaining low speeds at conflict points�
Candidate Locations
• Intersections with a pattern of fatal, angle, turning,
and head-on crashes�
• Intersections with poor operations under existing
stop control�
• Intersections with unwarranted traffic signals�
• Locations where managing traffic gaps and vehicle
flow helps improve safety and reduce delays�
Resources with Additional Information
• 24, 27
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
• 2023 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
892
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
59Transportation Safety Action Plan
Mini Roundabouts
Overview and Purpose
Mini roundabouts slow vehicle speeds at low-volume
intersections, improving safety for all users� They are
compact, cost-effective alternatives to stop signs and
signal controls, ideal for residential streets�
Design Considerations
• Use mini roundabouts with proper clearance and
turning radii to maintain traffic flow�
• Install shared lane or intersection-crossing markings
to guide cyclists�
• Landscape with trees or shrubs while maintaining
clear visibility�
• Define crosswalks clearly and prioritize pedestrian
movement�
• Retrofit within existing footprints or design to
resemble standard single-lane roundabouts�
Candidate Locations
• Residential streets and low-volume intersections�
• Locations where speed control and pedestrian safety
are priorities�
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
• FHWA Developing Crash Modification Factors for
Mini-Roundabouts
Safety Statistics (FHWA)
• Mini roundabouts converted from all-way
stop-controlled intersections may reduce multi-
vehicle crashes by 39%�
893
Item 10.
60 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Chicanes
Overview and Purpose
Chicanes are horizontal traffic control measures used
to reduce vehicle speeds on local streets� They create a
horizontal diversion of traffic and can be gentler or more
restrictive depending on the design� A secondary benefit
of chicanes is the ability to add more landscaping to a
street�
Design Considerations
• Shifting a travel lane affects speeds; taper lengths
should reflect the desired speed�
• Shifts can be created by shifting parking and/or
building landscaped islands�
• Chicanes can be combined with other measures,
such as curb extensions�
• Maintain good visibility by planting only low shrubs
or trees with high canopies�
• Ensure bicyclist safety and mobility remain intact�
Candidate Locations
• Residential streets with low traffic volumes�
• Streets with higher volumes, such as collectors, if
there is no restriction on the number of lanes�
Resources with Additional Information
• 29, 30
Citations
• PEDSAFE — 2013 — Pedestrian Safety Guide and
Countermeasure Selection System
894
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
61Transportation Safety Action Plan
Safety Statistics (FHWA)
• Centerline rumble strips may reduce head-on
crashes by 44-64%�
• Shoulder rumble strip may reduce run-off-road
crashes by 13-51%�
Rumble Strips
Overview and Purpose
Rumble strips are pavement treatments designed to alert
drivers when they leave their lane through noise and
vibration� They can be placed along the shoulder, edge
line, or centerline of undivided roads� Rumble strips help
reduce roadway departure crashes, which are a leading
cause of fatal accidents�
Design Considerations
• Use centerline rumble strips on two-lane roads,
especially in passing zones�
• Install edge line or shoulder rumble strips with
bicycle gaps in areas prone to run-off-road crashes�
• Consider “mumble strips” (lower noise) where noise
is a concern�
• Develop a maintenance plan to prevent issues with
snow or rain build-up�
Candidate Locations
• Rural roads, highways, and areas with high traffic
volumes�
• Roads undergoing resurfacing or reconstruction�
Citations
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
895
Item 10.
62 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Countermeasure FHWA Proven Crash Reduction Factor (Average)Cost (Relative)
Walkways Yes 74%Medium
Bikeways Yes 47%Low to High
Shared Use Paths Medium to High
General Lighting Improvements Yes 35%Low to Medium
Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements Yes 30%Low
Speed Tables Yes 58%Medium
Raised Crosswalks Yes 38%Medium
Curb Extensions 30%Low to High
Medians and Pedestrian Refuge Islands Yes 51%Medium to High
Leading Pedestrian Intervals Yes 13%Low
Right-Turn on Red Prohibitions Low
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons Yes 47%High
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons Yes 29%High
Bicycle Boxes 50%Low
Bicycle Signals Low to High
Road Diets (Roadway Reconfiguration)Yes 44%Medium to High
Lane Diets (Lane Narrowing)Yes 34%Low
Corridor Access Management Yes 28%High
Driveway Improvements Yes 48%Low to Medium
Roundabouts Yes 77%High
Mini Roundabouts Yes 39%High
Chicanes Medium
Rumble Strips Yes 43%Low
TABLE 1. COUNTERMEASURE EFFECTIVENESS AND COST OVERVIEW
896
Item 10.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX
63Transportation Safety Action Plan
Resources with Additional Information
1� Americans with Disabilities Act — 2010 — Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities
2� ANSI/IES — 2022 — Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting
3� BIKESAFE — Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System
4� City of Bloomington — 2019 — Urban Forestry Plan
5� City of Bloomington — 2017 — Tree Care Manual
6� City of Chicago — 2013 — Complete Streets Chicago
7� DarkSky — 2024 — Outdoor Lighting Guidelines
8� FHWA — 2019 — Bikeway Selection Guide
9� FHWA — 2015 — Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide
10� FHWA — Shared Use Path Level of Service Calculator
11� FHWA — Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse
12� FHWA — 2025 — Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
13� FHWA — 2022 — Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations
14� FHWA — 2001 — Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access
15� FHWA — 2014 — Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Guide– Recommendations and Case Study
16� FHWA — Center for Accelerating Innovation EDC-4 Innovations
17� FHWA — 2014 — Road Diet Informational Guide
18� FHWA — 2010 — Evaluation of Lane Reduction “Road Diet” Measures on Crashes
19� FHWA — 2015 — Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
20� FHWA — 2025 — Interim Approvals Issued
21� FHWA Safe — 2025 — Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP)
22� ITE — 2022 — A Guide to Vertical Deflection Speed Reduction Techniques: Planning and Design of Speed Humps
23� MassDOT — 2015 — Separated Bicycle Lane Planning and Design Guide
24� MnDOT — 2024 — Bicycle Facility Design Manual
25� MnDOT — 2015 — Traffic Engineering Manual
26� MnDOT — 2017 — County Roadway Safety Plans
27� MnDOT — 2024 — Roadway Design Manual
28� MnDOT — Engineering Solutions for Traffic Safety
29� NACTO — 2025 — Urban Bikeway Design Guide
30� NACTO — 2025 — Urban Street Design Guide
31� NACTO — 2013 — Transit Street Design Guide
32� NCHRP — 2017 — Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments
33� NYDOT — 2011 — Complete Streets
34� ODOT — 2025 — Multimodal Design Guide
35� PedBikeInfo — 2013 — Costs for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Infrastructure Improvements
36� Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center —— Signals and Signs
37� PEDSAFE — 2013 — Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System
38� PROWAG
897
Item 10.
64 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
This page intentionally left blank�
898
Item 10.
65Transportation Safety Action Plan
Chapter 8
Demonstration Project
Recommendations
899
Item 10.
66 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Demonstration Project Recommendations
As part of Columbia Heights’ ongoing efforts to improve roadway safety and reduce the risk of serious and fatal crashes,
there may be significant value in demonstration projects to test temporary safety treatments� These projects align with
the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program and are designed to test low-cost, quick-build, temporary interventions
that could eventually lead to more permanent improvements� The primary goal is to evaluate these treatments in real-
world settings to measure their effectiveness and inform the development of future infrastructure projects�
Key Elements for Success
Temporary Materials
Demonstration projects often use paint, plastic
delineators, planters, cones, and other low-cost
materials to simulate improvements like curb extensions,
roundabouts, and high-visibility crosswalks�
Stakeholder Coordination
Coordination with local departments, schools, community
groups, and public safety teams is recommended to
ensure project success and alignment with broader
transportation and safety goals�
Data Collection & Evaluation
Projects should be closely monitored to collect data and
assess safety impacts� Key metrics should be informed
by the intended improvement, and may include vehicle
speeds, crash data, and community feedback to guide
future planning�
Community Involvement
Engaging the community is a key aspect of successful
demonstration projects� Public meetings, surveys, and
interactive tools should inform the design and duration,
and ensure that the community’s concerns and feedback
are incorporated into the decision-making process�
Recommended Demonstration
Projects
Two high-priority demonstration projects are
recommended for implementation — curb extensions on
49th Avenue NE (Project 1) and an in-street, shared-use
path on 7th Street NE (Project 2) — to test temporary
safety treatments and guide future permanent
improvements� More details on these two recommended
demonstration projects are shown on the following pages�
In addition to these two locations, this plan recommends
the City of Columbia Heights to test demonstration
projects in other locations throughout the city�
Additional Guidance
For guidance on temporary safety projects, see MnDOT’s Demonstration Project Implementation Guide (2019) and
Street Plan's Tactical Urbanist's Guide to Materials and Design (2016) for best practices on materials and design�
1
2
900
Item 10.
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
67Transportation Safety Action Plan
Project 1. Curb Extensions on 49th Avenue NE
Location:
Three intersections along 49th Avenue NE near the
Columbia Heights High School, Highland Elementary, and
Columbia Heights Family Center campus�
Rationale:
• Student, faculty, and visitor crossing safety near
schools and community facilities�
• Traffic calming through narrower street design�
• Access to education, recreation, and support
services�
• No parking impacts due to existing yellow curbs�
• Minimal impacts to turn lanes or vehicle movement�
Proposed Treatment:
Implementation of curb extensions at the following
intersections:
• 49th Ave NE & Fillmore St NE – northeast and
southeast corners�
• 49th Ave NE & Columbia Heights High School main
driveway – northwest and northeast corners�
• 49th Ave NE & Johnson St NE – northwest and
southwest corners�
Potential Challenges:
• Turning radius for buses�
• Informal right-turn lanes in conflict with proposed
extensions�
• Possible disruption to loading zones�
• Maintaining traffic flow during peak school hours�
• Snow and ice removal if demonstration project is
continued during winter months�
Data Collection & Evaluation Metrics:
• Vehicle speeds before and after installation�
• Crash incidents, especially pedestrian-related�
• Observed pedestrian behavior and crossing safety�
• Feedback from students, school staff, families, and
community members�
Next Steps:
• Finalize intersection design details�
• Coordinate with Anoka County, Columbia Heights
Public Schools, and community partners�
• Obtain materials for installation�
• Communicate project information with nearby
residents and other stakeholders�
Fi
l
l
m
o
r
e
S
t
N
E
Fi
l
l
m
o
r
e
S
t
N
E
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
S
t
N
E
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
S
t
N
E
Columbia Heights Columbia Heights
High SchoolHigh School
49th Ave NE49th Ave NE
Highland Elementary Highland Elementary
SchoolSchoolProposed Demonstration Project Location
901
Item 10.
68 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Project 2. Shared-Use Path on 7th Street NE
Location:
7th Street NE, between 49th Avenue NE and 47th Avenue
NE (east side of street)
Rationale:
• Lack of sidewalks or bicycle facilities�
• Improve connections and access to McKenna Park�
• Proximity to Valley View Elementary School�
Proposed Treatment:
Develop a temporary, in-street shared-use path on the
east side of 7th St NE to improve pedestrian and bicyclist
access and safety�
Potential Challenges:
• Loss of on-street parking on east side�
• Community awareness and acceptance, particularly
with residents that live on the east side of 7th St NE
that would lose parking in front of their homes�
• Safe crossings and visibility at intersections
Data Collection & Evaluation Metrics:
• Vehicle speeds before and after path installation�
• Crash incidents involving pedestrians or cyclists�
• Feedback from residents, park users, and school staff�
Next Steps:
• Finalize design details�
• Communicate project information with nearby
residents and other stakeholders
• Obtain materials for installation�
49th Ave NE49th Ave NE
7t
h
S
t
N
E
7t
h
S
t
N
E
48th Ave NE48th Ave NE
47th Ave NE47th Ave NE
McKenna McKenna
ParkPark
Proposed Demonstration Project Location
Source: Google Street View
902
Item 10.
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
69Transportation Safety Action Plan
Demonstration Project Details and Cost Estimates
The following tables outline key details for the two
proposed demonstration projects in Columbia Heights,
including pavement marking quantities (Table 3),
delineator needs based on spacing (Table 4), and
estimated material costs with project-specific and
combined totals (Table 5; in 2025 dollar values)�
Although Projects 1 and 2 are recommended for near-term
implementation, many other locations across Columbia
Heights could also benefit from similar quick-build safety
treatments� These demonstration efforts will help guide
future investments in safer, more accessible streets
throughout the city�
TABLE 3. ESTIMATED PAVEMENT MARKING TAPE QUANTITIES
Project Estimated Pavement Marking Tape (ft)
1� 49th Ave NE 360
2� 7th St NE 1400
Combined 1880
TABLE 4. ESTIMATED DELINEATOR QUANTITIES
Project Total Length (ft)Delineator
Interval (ft)
Estimated
Delineator Count
Extra
Delineators
Total # of
Delineators
1� 49th Ave NE 360 10 36 4 40
2� 7th St NE 1400 15 93 7 100
Combined ----140
TABLE 5. ESTIMATED MATERIAL COSTS BY PROJECT (IN 2025 DOLLAR VALUES)
Item Cost 1. 49th Ave NE 2. 7th St NE Combined
Delineators ~ $25 - $35 ~ $1500 - $2000 ~ $2500 - $3000 ~ $4000 - $5000
Delineator Adhesive ~ $3 - $5 (per unit)~ $500 - $700 ~ $1200 - $1500 ~ $1600 - $2000
Pavement Marking
Tape ~ $1 - $1�50 (per foot)~ $150 - $250 ~ $300 - $400 ~ $450 - $550
Total -~ $2200 - $3000 ~ $4000 - $5000 ~ $6000 - $7500
903
Item 10.
70 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
This page intentionally left blank�
904
Item 10.
71Transportation Safety Action Plan
Chapter 9
Conceptual Design
Options
905
Item 10.
72 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Conceptual Design Options
Within the High Injury Network, a subset of intersections
and segments was selected for preliminary analysis and
conceptual design, as shown in Figure 9� The following
pages present conceptual design options intended to
reduce crashes and eliminate serious injuries or fatalities�
These locations were chosen based on crash history,
risk factors, and input from community members and
stakeholders who identified them as unsafe or difficult to
navigate�
Each page outlines the key safety issues at the location,
describes potential design treatments, and includes
crash reduction scores (if available) along with planning-
level cost estimates in 2026 dollars� Most treatments are
illustrated with conceptual layouts that represent possible
applications across the corridor or intersection� All of the
concepts presented are preliminary and require further
design and analysis before implementation� A small map
in the top right corner of each page highlights the project
location�
Design treatments were developed based on historic
crash patterns and existing roadway conditions such
as speed limits, right-of-way availability, and network
connectivity� Many recommendations target speed
reduction—a major factor in crash severity—through tools
like intersection controls and roadway realignments to
encourage safer driving behavior�
In many cases, multiple design treatments are presented�
The first option is typically the most effective for
addressing the identified safety concerns� Additional
treatments may serve as interim solutions or become
more feasible as detailed design progresses�
The segments and intersections selected for conceptual
design are listed in Tables 6 and 7 on the right� Individual
design concepts for each location are shown on the
following pages�
Segment Extent Jurisdiction
Arthur Street 40th Avenue to
44th Avenue City
7th Street 40th Avenue to
53rd Avenue City
49th Avenue 4th to Jackson
Street Anoka County
44th Avenue 4th Street to
Quincy Street City
Huset Parkway 37th Ave NE to
Jefferson St NE City
37th Avenue Huset Parkway to
Van Buren Street City
45th Avenue/
Arthur Street
Benjamin Street
to Arthur Street City
Reservoir
Boulevard
TH 65 to 44th
Avenue
City / Anoka
County
Intersection Jurisdiction
42nd Avenue / Madison Street City
Reservoir Boulevard / 39th Avenue City
Reservoir Boulevard / 40th Avenue Anoka County /
City
Reservoir Boulevard / 42nd Avenue Anoka County /
City
42nd Avenue / 7th Street City
50th Avenue / Jefferson Street City
TABLE 6. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
LOCATIONS – SEGMENTS
TABLE 7. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
LOCATIONS – INTERSECTIONS
906
Item 10.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS
73Transportation Safety Action Plan
FIGURE 9. HIGH INJURY NETWORK AND DESIGN CONCEPT LOCATIONS
907
Item 10.
74 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Road Jurisdiction: City of Columbia Heights
Safety Issues
There have been 10 angle crashes and 1 left-turn crash
that have occurred at intersections along this stretch of
roadway since 2014�
Proposed Design Treatment
The treatment for this segment includes adding curb
extensions at side streets along Arthur Street� Curb
extensions will narrow crossing distances for people
walking and rolling while making them more visible to
approaching vehicles� This treatment will also help to
reduce crashes at intersections as corners will become
sharper and will require slower speeds to turn safely�
Treatment Crash
Reduction
Planning-Level
Cost Estimate
($ in 2026)
1 Add curb
extensions at side
streets to narrow
crossing distances
N/A $2,900,000
Alternative Designs
2 Convert all
intersections to all-way
stop (if warranted)
75% (of angle
crashes)Low Cost
TABLE 8. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS, IMPACTS AND COSTS
Arthur Street:
40 th Avenue to 44th Avenue
1 - Preferred Design
*The concept shown above only shows a partial segment of this corridor� Planning level cost estimates are for the entire corridor�
908
Item 10.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS
75Transportation Safety Action Plan
2 - Alternative Design
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 37�
909
Item 10.
76 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Road Jurisdiction: City of Columbia Heights
Safety Issues
There have been 30 angle crashes that have occurred at
intersections along this stretch of roadway since 2014�
Proposed Design Treatment
The treatment for this segment includes adding curb
extensions at intersections� Curb extensions will narrow
crossing distances for people walking and rolling while
making them more visible to approaching vehicles� This
treatment, in addition to chicanes, will also help to reduce
crashes at intersections as corners will become sharper
and will require slower speeds to turn�
Treatment Crash
Reduction
Planning-Level
Cost Estimate
($ in 2026)
1 Curb extensions,
chicanes N/A $8,150,000
Alternative Designs
2 Convert
intersection to all-way
stop (if warranted)
75% (of angle
crashes)Low Cost
TABLE 9. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS, IMPACTS, AND COSTS
7th Street:
40 th Avenue to 53rd Avenue
1 - Preferred Design
*The concept shown above only shows a partial segment of this corridor� Planning level cost estimates are for the entire corridor�
910
Item 10.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS
77Transportation Safety Action Plan
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 37�
2 - Alternative Design
911
Item 10.
78 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Road Jurisdiction: Anoka County
Safety Issues
There have been 17 angle crashes that have occurred at
intersections along this stretch of roadway since 2014�
There have also been 7 crashes with parked motor
vehicles during that same timeframe�
Proposed Design Treatment
The treatment for this segment includes adding curb
extensions throughout the corridor to help calm traffic
as vehicles approach intersections, adding enhanced
crosswalks, removing parking on the north side of the
road and adding sidewalks� Further coordination with
Anoka County will be required�
Treatment Planning-Level Cost
Estimate ($ in 2026)
Work with Valley View
Elementary School and
Columbia Academy to
move pick-up/drop-off
queues from 49th Ave
N/A
1 Sidewalks, enhanced
crossings, and curb
extensions
$6,000,000
TABLE 10. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS AND COSTS
49 th Avenue:
4th Street to Jackson Street
1 - Preferred Design
*The concept shown above only shows a partial segment of this corridor� Planning level cost estimates are for the entire corridor�
912
Item 10.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS
79Transportation Safety Action Plan
Road Jurisdiction: City of Columbia Heights
Safety Issues
There have been 9 angle crashes and 1 left-turn crash
that have occurred at intersections along this stretch of
roadway since 2014� In addition, there are no walking or
biking facilities along the corridor�
Proposed Design Treatment
The proposed design on 44th Ave narrows the roadway
footprint by removing parking on both sides of the street�
The narrower road width provides space for the addition
of a shared use path along the south side of the road,
while also reducing pedestrian crossing distances over
44th Ave and slowing vehicles speeds�
Treatment Planning-Level Cost
Estimate ($ in 2026)
1 Narrow roadway by
removing parking and add
shared use path
N/A
Alternative Designs
2 Review sight lines at
intersection and remove
visual obstacles
N/A
3 Curb extensions and
chicanes $2,500,000
TABLE 11. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS AND COSTS
44th Avenue:
4th Street to Quincy Street
1 - Preferred Design
*The concept shown above only shows a partial segment of this corridor� Planning level cost estimates are for the entire corridor�
913
Item 10.
80 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 37�
3 - Alternative Design
2 - Alternative Design
914
Item 10.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS
81Transportation Safety Action Plan
Road Jurisdiction: City of Columbia Heights
Safety Issues
There have been 7 single vehicle crashes that have
occurred since 2014�
Proposed Design Treatment
Potential design treatments include raised pedestrian
crossings in areas of the Parkway with excess pavement�
These crossings support safer pedestrian movement while
also calming traffic� A sight line review is recommended
due to the curved roadway�
Treatment Planning-Level Cost
Estimate ($ in 2026)
1 Develop speed control
program including lane
width reductions and
raised pedestrian crossings
$220,000
TABLE 12. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS AND COSTS
Huset Parkway
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 37�
1 - Preferred Design
915
Item 10.
82 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Road Jurisdiction: City of Columbia Heights
Safety Issues
There have been 12 angle crashes and 1 left-turn crash that
have occurred at intersections along the corridor since
2014�
Proposed Design Treatment
The treatment for this segment includes adding curb
extensions at intersections� Curb extensions will narrow
crossing distances for people walking and rolling while
making them more visible to approaching vehicles� This
treatment will also help to reduce crashes at intersections
as corners will become sharper and will require slower
speeds to turn�
Treatment Planning-Level Cost
Estimate ($ in 2026)
1 Develop speed
control program including
narrowing crossing
distances
$1,900,000
Alternative Design
2 Review sight lines at
intersection and remove
visual obstacles
N/A
TABLE 13. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS AND COSTS
37th Avenue:
Huset Parkway to Van Buren Street
1 - Preferred Design
*The concept shown above only shows a partial segment of this corridor� Planning level cost estimates are for the entire corridor�
916
Item 10.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS
83Transportation Safety Action Plan
2 - Alternative Design
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 37�
917
Item 10.
84 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
ARTHUR ST NE
60
SCALE IN FEET
UPGRADE CHEVRON SIGNS
Arthur St NE
No Parking and Signage Upgrades
Road Jurisdiction: City of Columbia Heights
Safety Issues
There have been 6 single vehicle crashes that have
occurred along this segment since 2014� Single vehicle
crashes are typically run-off the road incidents or
involving a stationary obstacle�
Proposed Design Treatment
This design treatment includes installing new curve
warning chevron signs at MUTCD-recommended
heights to bring more attention to the changing roadway
conditions, and removing on-street parking along the
curves (especially the inside curves) to improve roadway
visibility and driver sightlines�
Treatment Planning-Level Cost
Estimate
1 Install new curve
warning chevron signs�
Add additional chevrons
upstream (to the north)�
Consider removing on-
street parking in the curve
Low Cost
Develop speed control
program (dynamic speed
display signs, etc�)
N/A
TABLE 14. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS AND COSTS
45th Avenue / Arthur Street:
Benjamin Street to Arthur Street
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 37�
1 - Preferred Design
918
Item 10.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS
85Transportation Safety Action Plan
Road Jurisdiction: City / Anoka County
Safety Issues
There have been 15 single vehicle crashes that have
occurred along this segment since 2014� Single vehicle
crashes are typically run-off the road incidents or
involving a stationary obstacle�
Proposed Design Treatment
The treatment for this segment includes adding curb
extensions and enhanced crossings at intersections� Curb
extensions will narrow crossing distances for people
walking and rolling while making them more visible to
approaching vehicles� This treatment will also help to
reduce crashes at intersections as corners will become
sharper and will require slower turning speeds�
Treatment Planning-Level Cost
Estimate ($ in 2026)
1 Curb extensions and
enhanced crossings $2,300,000
Alternative Design
2 Review sight lines at
intersections (especially
skewed intersections) and
remove visual obstacles
N/A
TABLE 15. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS AND COSTS
Reservoir Boulevard:
TH 65 to 44th Avenue
1 - Preferred Design
*The concept shown above only shows one intersection of this corridor� Planning level cost estimates are for the entire corridor�
919
Item 10.
86 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
2 - Alternative Design
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 37�
920
Item 10.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS
87Transportation Safety Action Plan
Road Jurisdiction: City of Columbia Heights
Safety Issues Safety Issues
There have been 7 angle crashes that have occurred at
this intersection since 2014� The calculated crash rate is
above the critical rate�
Proposed Design Treatment
Potential design treatments include converting the
intersection to all-way stop� This would establish which
driver has the right-of-way and help pedestrians crossing
through the intersection�
TABLE 16. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS, IMPACTS, AND COSTS
42nd Avenue / Madison Street
Treatment Crash
Reduction
Planning-Level
Cost Estimate
($ in 2026)
1 Convert to all-way
stop (if warranted)75%Low Cost
1 - Preferred Design
921
Item 10.
88 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Road Jurisdiction: City of Columbia Heights
Safety Issues
Modifying this intersection would help mitigate issues
associated with closely spaced intersections� The
intersection could also accommodate revised traffic
flows if the TH 65 / Reservoir Boulevard / 37th Avenue
intersection is reconfigured�
Proposed Design Treatment
Adding curb extension to the 39th Avenue approaches
would increase visibility of other vehicles and pedestrians
while slowing traffic� Drivers would also need to make
distinct movements to continue along 39th Avenue NE,
instead of cutting across�
TABLE 17. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS AND COSTS
Reservoir Boulevard / 39th Avenue
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 37�
Treatment Planning-Level Cost
Estimate ($ in 2026)
1 Add curb extensions
to 39th Avenue
approaches
$390,000
1 - Preferred Design
922
Item 10.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS
89Transportation Safety Action Plan
Road Jurisdiction: City / Anoka County
Safety Issues
Modifying this intersection would mitigate issues that
arise from the skewed intersection and provide a traffic
calming benefit� 4 of 10 crashes at this intersection have
resulted in minor or possible injuries�
Proposed Design Treatment
Potential design treatments include adding curb
extensions on obtuse angle approaches to narrow the
roadway� This will help slow drivers as they approach
the intersection and reduce crossing distances for
pedestrians�
TABLE 18. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS, IMPACTS, AND COSTS
Reservoir Boulevard / 40th Avenue
Treatment Crash
Reduction
Planning-Level
Cost Estimate
($ in 2026)
1 Curb extensions
on obtuse angle
approaches
N/A $840,000
Alternative Design
2 Add stop bars
and increase stop
sign size on minor-
street approaches
19%Low Cost
1 - Preferred Design
923
Item 10.
90 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
2 - Alternative Design
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 37�
924
Item 10.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS
91Transportation Safety Action Plan
Road Jurisdiction: City / Anoka County
Safety Issues
Modifying this intersection would mitigate issues that
arise from the skewed intersection and provide a traffic
calming benefit� The crash rate at this intersection is
above the calculated critical crash rate�
Proposed Design Treatment
Potential design treatments include adding curb
extensions on Reservoir Boulevard and placing side street
stop bars further forward to improve visibility�
TABLE 19. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS AND COSTS
Reservoir Boulevard / 42nd Avenue
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 37�
Treatment Planning-Level Cost
Estimate ($ in 2026)
1 Curb extensions on
Reservoir, move side stop
bars inward
$540,000
1 - Preferred Design
925
Item 10.
92 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Road Jurisdiction: City of Columbia Heights
Safety Issues
There have been 6 angle crashes that have occurred at
this intersection since 2014� The calculated crash rate is
above the critical rate�
Proposed Design Treatment
Potential design treatments include converting the
intersection to all-way stop� This would establish which
driver has the right-of-way and help pedestrians crossing
through the intersection�
TABLE 20. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS, IMPACTS, AND COSTS
42nd Avenue / 7th Street
Treatment Crash
Reduction
Planning-Level
Cost Estimate
($ in 2026)
1 Convert to all-way
stop (if warranted)
75% (Of
angle
crashes)
Low Cost
Alternative Designs
2 Modified chicane /
curb extensions N/A $580,000
1 - Preferred Design
926
Item 10.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS
93Transportation Safety Action Plan
2 - Alternative Design
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 37�
927
Item 10.
94 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Road Jurisdiction: City of Columbia Heights
Safety Issues
There have been 4 angle crashes that have occurred at
this intersection since 2014� The calculated crash rate is
above the critical rate�
Proposed Design Treatment
Potential design treatments include converting the
intersection to all-way stop� This would establish which
driver has the right-of-way and help pedestrians crossing
through the intersection�
TABLE 21. PROPOSED DESIGN
TREATMENTS, IMPACTS, AND COSTS
50th Avenue / Jefferson Street
Treatment Crash
Reduction
Planning-Level
Cost Estimate
($ in 2026)
1 Convert to all-way
stop (if warranted)
75% (of
angle
crashes)
Low Cost
Alternative Designs
2 Modified chicane /
curb extensions N/A $670,000
1 - Preferred Design
928
Item 10.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS
95Transportation Safety Action Plan
2 - Alternative Design
* Additional information on potential design treatments is available in the Safety Countermeasures Toolbox starting on Page 37�
929
Item 10.
96 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
This page intentionally left blank�
930
Item 10.
POLICY AND PROGRESS
97Transportation Safety Action Plan
Chapter 10
Policy and Progress
931
Item 10.
98 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
As outlined in Chapter 1, Columbia Heights has a solid
foundation of existing plans, policies, and community
priorities� Building on this, safer transportation requires
coordinated, sustained action� This section presents
policy and program recommendations across short-term
(0–5 years), mid-term (5–10 years), and ongoing timelines�
Grounded in frameworks like Vision Zero and SS4A,
these strategies (summarized in Table 22) align with
local goals and proven safety practices� Each action is
clear, measurable, and adaptable—ranging from pilot
projects and plan updates to improved coordination and
engagement�
Policy & Program Recommendations
TABLE 22. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Timing Action
Short-
Term
(0-5
years)
Apply for an SS4A Demonstration Grant for traffic calming pilot project(s)
Coordinate safety improvements through the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) process
Create a Fatal Crash Rapid Response Protocol (formalize interdepartmental coordination after severe
crashes to review causes and identify improvements)
Update traffic impact study guidelines
Implement strategies aimed at reducing speeding, such as installing speed feedback signs
Update 2008 Pedestrian & Bicycle Mobility Plan to focus on filling key sidewalk gaps in the community
Mid-
Term
(5-10
years)
Develop a funding strategy and plan that identifies potential funding avenues and resources necessary to
construct future safety improvements, including Met Council's Regional Solicitation
Inventory streetlights, assess intersection lighting needs, and update City's Streetlighting Policy�
Update/expand pavement management program
Update City’s ADA Transition Plan (2008)
Update/expand Safe Routes to School Plans for all schools within city limits; Apply for MnDOT Safe
Routes to School program funding
Ongoing
Publish annual safety reports at the end of each fiscal year reporting on the previous year’s progress
Provide quarterly safety updates to City Council and Planning Commission to maintain leadership support
Continue coordination with Anoka County and MnDOT to identify and make safety improvements on
county- and state-owned streets within Columbia Heights
Conduct road safety audits, including walkability and bikeability assessments
Partner with local schools on educational safety campaigns
Update the Transportation Safety Action Plan every 5-10 years to refresh goals, data, strategies, and the
High Injury Network
932
Item 10.
POLICY AND PROGRESS
99Transportation Safety Action Plan
To advance safety goals and maintain public trust, it is
essential to track, evaluate, and clearly communicate
progress in a transparent and systematic way� This chapter
presents a comprehensive framework for performance
measurement and public engagement, structured around
two key focus areas that support data-driven decision-
making, promote equitable outcomes, and encourage
sustained community involvement:
• Measuring Progress
• Transparency with the Community
Measuring Progress
Monitoring safety outcomes, infrastructure changes,
and policy implementation helps agencies assess what’s
working and where to adjust� This section outlines
strategies for collecting and analyzing data to track
progress toward Vision Zero and other safety goals� Table
23 summarizes these strategies, offering a framework
for measuring key metrics and guiding continuous
improvement�
Progress & Transparency
TABLE 23. STRATEGIES FOR MEASURING PROGRESS
Category Strategy Description
Data Analysis
Total number of serious injury and
fatal crashes Track overall crashes to measure baseline and progress
Percent change in serious injury and
fatal crashes Evaluate trends in crash reduction over time
Crash breakdowns by mode,
behavior, location, demographics Understand risk by user type, location, and equity factors
Crash equity analysis Identify disparities in crash outcomes across demographic
and geographic groups
Data
Maintenance
Crash, population, and equity data
updates
Ensure datasets are refreshed annually for consistent
evaluation
Pedestrian and bicycle counts/
surveys
Collect ongoing non-motorized user data to inform design
and evaluation
Infrastructure
Improvements at priority HIN
locations
Track number and types of improvements on prioritized
corridors and intersections
Miles of HIN corridors reconfigured Measure progress in safety-focused street design on High
Injury Network
Use of Safety Countermeasures
Toolkit
Track where countermeasures are used and their
effectiveness
Before–after safety evaluations Assess changes in crashes or behavior after countermeasure
implementation
Use of video/sensor analytics Pilot new methods to assess safety behavior (e�g�, near-
misses, compliance)
933
Item 10.
100 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Category Strategy Description
Project and funding coordination
with Complete Streets and CIPs
Track integration of safety priorities into broader planning
and funding
Annual strategy and policy progress
check-in Informal but consistent check on plan implementation
Full plan update every 5 years Formal refresh of goals, data, and strategies
Transparency with the Community
Clear, consistent communication with the public and decision-makers builds trust and keeps safety efforts on track�
This section highlights key approaches for sharing progress and engaging the community, summarized in Table 24�
Category Strategy Description
Reporting &
Accessibility
Annual safety report publication Public-facing reports to document implementation and
outcomes
5-year crash and implementation
trend charts Show medium-term progress and trends in implementation
Online dashboard or interactive
map Public-facing visualization of progress and safety data
Community
Engagement &
Advocacy
Residents reached via engagement Measure scale and reach of public involvement efforts
Partnering with community
organizations
Track relationships and engagement with community-based
groups
Comment forms, surveys, open
feedback loops Maintain feedback systems to gather ongoing public input
Regular briefings to elected officials
and stakeholders
Monitor frequency and consistency of communications with
leadership
TABLE 24. STRATEGIES FOR TRANSPARENCY AND FUTURE ENGAGEMENT
934
Item 10.
935
Item 10.
Appendices
Appendix A - Plan Review Memo
Appendix B - HIN Characteristics Summary
Appendix C - Speed Limit Evaluation Memo
Appendix D - Scoring Methodology and Prioritized Intersections and Segments List
936
Item 10.
Appendix A
Plan Review Memo
937
Item 10.
104 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Appendix B
HIN Characteristics
Summary
938
Item 10.
105Transportation Safety Action Plan
Appendix C
Speed Limit Evaluation
Memo
939
Item 10.
106 Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Appendix D
Scoring Methodology
and Prioritized
Intersections and
Segments List
940
Item 10.
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 2024
To: Sulmaan Khan, PE, Assistant City Engineer, City of Columbia Heights
From: Connor Cox, Project Manager; Zoe Huebner, Transportation Planner
Subject: Safe Streets for All Citywide Action Plan
City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Project No.: 0T4.133688000
Task 3: Integrated Action Plan
The purpose of this memorandum is to review and summarize current policies and plans from the
City and its agency partners (e.g. Anoka County, Metropolitan Council, and MnDOT) as they relate
to roadway safety. The review includes how transportation policies and roadway projects are
implemented as well as their impacts on traffic safety and equity. Additionally, a list of crash
countermeasures and project investments will be developed to address the present and
anticipated safety needs for Columbia Heights. This memorandum is divided into two sections:
A. Assessment of Existing Policies, Plans, and Best Practices
a. A review of plans and policies and their relevance to the study area
B. Strategies and Countermeasures
a. A review of low-cost, high-impact safety treatment recommendations
Plan and Policy Review
This section includes a review of plans and policies and their relevance to the study area. The
purpose, goals, and recommendations of the following plans and policies will be used to
understand how they are implemented, where they are implemented, and how they address traffic
safety issues. A matrix featuring all the plans and specific features can be found at the end of the
memo.
1. Local Plans
a) Columbia Heights 2040 Plan (2021)
(1) The Comprehensive Plan addresses future land use,
transportation, parks, economic development, housing and
infrastructure. The Plan articulates the City’s future vision and is
used to help guide long-term decisions by the Planning Commission
and City Council. The plan identified specific goals and objectives to
promote the safety of residents and bicyclists while expanding the
active transportation network. The Plan also includes a list of safety
measures that can be found in B. Strategies and Countermeasures.
941
Item 10.
Page: 2
b) ADA Transition Plan (2018)
(1) The Plan is a self-evaluation completed by the City of its
current transportation infrastructure policies, practices, and
programs. The goal is to verify that the department is providing
accessibility and not adversely affecting the full participation of
individuals with disabilities.
c) Pedestrian & Bicycle Mobility Plan (2008)
(1) The plan provides guidance and recommendations to the
City on promoting healthy living through an improved pedestrian and
bicycle network. The document lists policies, programs, and
projects that should be implemented to meet the City’s goals and
create a more walkable and bikeable community.
d) Retroreflectivity Sign Maintenance Plan (2014)
(1) The purpose of this policy is to establish how the city will
implement an assessment or management method, or combination
of methods, to meet the minimum sign retroreflectivity requirements
in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN
MUTCD).
2. Anoka County Plans
a) Anoka County 2030 Transportation Plan (2009)
(1) The purpose of the 2030 Transportation Plan is to adequately
prepare the County for the growing and aging population. Chapter 4
summarizes the processes, results, and recommendations of the
safety analysis on the Anoka County roadway network. The plan
recommends the County support land uses and transit facilities that
promote biking and walking as convenient and efficient alternatives
to driving.
3. Regional Plans
a) Metropolitan Council Regional Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (2022)
(1) The Metropolitan Council developed a Regional Pedestrian
Safety Action Plan to improve safety for people walking and using
mobility devices. The vision of the plan is to reduce and ultimately
eliminate pedestrian deaths and serious injuries from traffic crashes
in the region. It also identifies infrastructure countermeasures that
can be implemented to work toward the region’s goals.
4. Statewide Plans
a) Minnesota Walks (2021)
(1) Minnesota Walks is a collaborative effort between MnDOT
and the Minnesota Department of Health that provides a shared
vision for how all Minnesotans can have safe, desirable, and
convenient places to walk where they live, work, learn, and play. The
942
Item 10.
Page: 3
document includes guidance for planning, decision-making, and
collaboration between agencies, advocacy organizations,
policymakers, and public and private entities across the state.
Minnesota Walks established an understanding of pedestrian needs
and challenges in Minnesota rooted in engagement to help MnDOT
and the Minnesota Department of Health better address needs for
people walking. The document is split into multiple categories with
the following applying directly to the Safe Streets for All Plan:
Roadway and Street Design, and Land Use and the Built
Environment.
b) Minnesota 2020-2024 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (2020)
(1) The Minnesota Strategic Highway Safety Plan is Minnesota’s
plan to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes and, over time, to
eliminate the loss of life on Minnesota roads. The plan is designed
for all traffic safety partners at the state, county, and local
government level as well as users of the roadway system. The plan
includes 39 strategies and 168 tactics to foster coordination
between traffic safety partners and improve transportation safety.
The goal is to reach no more than 225 traffic deaths and 980 serious
injuries by 2025, with an ultimate goal of zero.
c) Pedestrian Safety Analysis Final Report (2021)
(1) In 2021 MnDOT conducted a statewide, systemic safety
analysis to identify conditions that create higher risk of pedestrian
deaths or serious injuries. The result was an understanding of the
state’s top pedestrian safety risk factors, and a set of
recommendations intended to proactively identify safety
countermeasures for these contexts.
d) MnDOT Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment (2023)
(1) To improve the safety of vulnerable road users in the state of
Minnesota and satisfy the new federal requirements, the Minnesota
Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT) Office of Traffic
Engineering commissioned a Vulnerable Road User Safety
Assessment (VRUSA), including development of a High Injury
Network for the state and separate studies of bicycling and
pedestrian crashes in urban and rural areas within the state. The
VRUSA will be amended into the 2020–2024 Strategic Highway
Safety Plan as an addendum.
e) Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan - Minnesota Go (2022)
(1) The Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan (SMTP) is a
20-year plan that sets policy direction for the modal and system
plans that make up the statewide transportation plan. It works to
answer the question, “How are we going to achieve a multimodal
transportation system that maximizes the health of people, the
environment and our economy?”
943
Item 10.
Page: 4
5. USDOT Plans
a) Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (2020)
(1) The USDOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan is an overarching
document that guides statewide, regional, and local plans. It
recognizes the challenges of pedestrian safety and has collaborated
with other agencies such as FHWA and NHTSA to complete actions
that will reduce pedestrian deaths and serious injuries. Additionally,
the Safe System Approach has been adopted by USDOT as a system
to achieve their goal and create a safer transportation system.
Strategies and Countermeasures
This section provides an overview of various roadway design countermeasures that can help
address key safety issues related to motor vehicle speed management, pedestrian and bicycle
safety, intersection safety, and roadway departure. Strategies can be both reactive to existing
crash metrics as well as proactive to help prevent future severe and fatal crashes from occurring.
Strategy1 Description
Crash
Modification
Factor (CMF)
Candidate Locations
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
Marked
Crosswalks
Type of pavement
marking that indicates
to pedestrians the
recommended location
to cross the roadway
and alerts approaching
motorists as to where
pedestrians may be
crossing the street.
Varies,
Marked
Crosswalks
alone should
not be
considered a
safety
treatment
Signalized intersections,
unsignalized locations with
AADT below 15,000, school
zone crossings, unsignalized
locations with high
pedestrian activity, and mid-
block crossing locations
Medians and
Crossing
Islands
Raises areas that are
constructed in the
center portion of a
roadway, serving as a
place of refuge for
people who cross the
road mid-block or at an
intersection. They allow
pedestrians and
bicyclists to
concentrate their
attention on one
direction of traffic.
Medians –
0.54 CMF
Crossing
Islands – 0.46
CMF
Mid-block crossing locations,
high-priority pedestrian
crossing locations such as
transit stops, schools and
parks, and on roads with four
or more lanes, speeds greater
than 35 mph and AADT
greater than 9,000
Curb
Extensions
Extension of the
sidewalk into the
roadway to reduce the
crossing distance of a
roadway for pedestrians
0.55 CMF
Mid-block curb extensions or
pinch points, offset curb
extensions or chicanes, and
bus stops
944
Item 10.
Page: 5
and pedestrian
exposure to vehicular
traffic.
Crosswalk
Lighting
Installs streetlights at
and in advance of
intersections and
crosswalks to improve
visibility, safety, and
comfort, especially at
night.
0.55 CMF
Isolated intersections with
crosswalks that are not along
continuously lit roadways,
and mid-block crosswalks
Raised
Crosswalks
Combines marked
crosswalks with speed
tables that extends the
full width of the
crossing.
0.55 CMF
Along 2-lane or 3-lane
roadways with speeds 30
mph or less and with AADT of
9,000 or less, locations with
high pedestrian or bicycle
activity, roundabout crossing
locations, and locations
where shared use paths cross
commercial driveways or
ramps
Co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
Traffic Signals
Assigns right-of-way to
various traffic
movements at
intersections and helps
to reduce conflict
between different
roadway users.
Countdown
Timers – 0.22
CMF
Intersection needs additional
enhancements to improve
motorist yielding rates or
address limited gaps in
traffic, and where there is a
high volume of pedestrian
activity, such as transit stops,
schools, and parks
Leading and
Separate
Exclusive
Signals
Activates the WALK
interval at least 3 to 7
seconds before drivers
are given a green signal.
Gives pedestrians time
to establish their
presence in the
crosswalk and makes
them more visible to
drivers.
Leading
Pedestrian
Signal – 0.87
CMF
Intersections with high
crossing volumes,
intersections with high
turning vehicle volumes, and
intersections with patterns of
pedestrian or bicycle conflict
with vehicles
945
Item 10.
Page: 6
Bicycle
Signals
Allocates dedicated
time for bicyclists to
enter the intersection
prior to vehicles being
given the green
indication.
Bicycle Signal
– 0.55 CMF
Intersections with high motor
vehicle/bicycle conflicts,
intersections with a two-way
or contraflow bicycle
movement, where a bicycle
facility transition requires the
bicyclist to cross through a
motor vehicle lane, and
locations where bicyclists are
required an increase level of
control to facilitate unusual
or unexpected movements
Bicycle Boxes
Set of pavement
marking elements
installed at signalized
intersections that
allows bicyclists to pull
in front of waiting traffic
at a red light.
0.65 CMF
Signalized intersections,
roadways with bike lanes that
experience a substantial
volume of bicycle traffic, and
at intersections with a high
number of motor vehicle
conflicts
Un
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon
Beacon installed at
unsignalized locations
to assist pedestrians in
crossing a street at a
marked crosswalk.
Pedestrian
Crashes –
0.45 CMF
Locations with marked
crosswalks and high traffic
volumes and speeds
combined with high volumes
of pedestrian crossings
Rectangular
Rapid Flashing
Beacon
(RRFB)
Crossing enhancement
at uncontrolled
intersections that can
be activated manually
be a pedestrian using a
pushbutton or by a
pedestrian detection
system.
0.53 CMF
Locations with traffic
volumes less than 12,000
vehicles per day and speeds
less than 40 mph
Grade-
Separated
Crossings
Provides a vertical
separation (overpass or
underpass) between
pedestrian/bicyclists
and motor vehicles.
0.13 CMF
Locations with heavy volumes
of pedestrian and bicycle
traffic crossing a roadway
with high vehicular traffic
volumes, locations where
pedestrian and bicyclists will
want to cross the road, and
locations with difficult terrain
or geographic obstacles to
cross the roadway
946
Item 10.
Page: 7
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
Corridor
Access
Management
Refers to the design,
application, and control
of entry and exit points
along a roadway. This
includes intersection
with other roads and
driveways that serve
adjacent properties.
0.75 CMF
Roadway segments with ten
to twenty-four driveways per
mile or segments where there
is a high number of conflict
points between vehicles,
pedestrians, and bicyclists.
Li
n
e
a
r
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Road Diets
Reconfiguration of a
roadway’s available
width to integrate
additional modes, such
as bike lanes, transit
lanes, pedestrian
crossing islands,
parking, or a
combination thereof.
0.53-0.81
CMF
On roadways with volumes
up to 20,000 ADT
Sidewalks
Type of walkway that
defines a path for
pedestrian travel placed
along the side of a
roadway. Usually
separated from roadway
traffic lanes by curb and
gutter and often by a
planting strip or buffer
zone.
0.11-0.35
CMF
Along all urban streets and
suburban arterials and
collectors, adjacent to
streets that connect
pedestrian origins and
destinations, along high-
speed and high-volume
roadways without shoulder
width, shoulder space should
be considered on any rural or
suburban roadway that
cannot feasibly implement a
sidewalk or walkway
On-Road and
Buffered
Bicycle Lanes
Pavement markings and
signs to designate
exclusive space for
bicyclists. They provide
increased horizontal
separation between
bicyclist, travel lanes,
and/or parking lanes.
0.65 CMF
On roadways with motor
vehicle speeds of 35 MPH or
less. Bike lanes are likely to
be comfortable for bicyclists
of all ages and abilities when
traffic volumes are less than
6,000 vehicles per day and
speeds are 25 mph or lower
1: Strategies are from MnDOT’s Minnesota’s Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety (Jan
2021) and/or FHWA
947
Item 10.
Local Plans County and Regional Plans State Plans
Plan / Policy Name Columbia
Heights 2040
Plan
ADA Transition
Plan
2008
Pedestrian &
Bicycle
Mobility Plan
Retroflectivity
Sign Maintenance
Plan
Anoka County
2030
Transportation
Plan
Metropolitan
Council Regional
Pedestrian
Safety Action
Plan
Minnesota Walk Minnesota 2020-
2024 Strategic
Highway Safety
Plan
Pedestrian
Safety Analysis
Final Report
(2021)
MnDOT Vulnerable
Road User Safety
Assessment
SMTP Minnesota
Go (2022)
Description The
Comprehensiv
e Plan
addresses
future land
use,
transportation,
parks,
economic
development,
housing and
infrastructure.
The Plan
articulates the
City’s future
vision and is
used to help
guide long-
term decisions
by the Planning
Commission
and City
Council.
The Plan is a
self-evaluation
completed by
the City of its
current
transportation
infrastructure
policies,
practices, and
programs. The
goal is to verify
that the
department is
providing
accessibility
and not
adversely
affecting the
full
participation of
individuals
with
disabilities.
The plan
provides
guidance and
recommendati
ons to the City
on promoting
healthy living
through an
improved
pedestrian and
bicycle
network.
The purpose of this
policy is to
establish how the
city will implement
an assessment or
management
method, or
combination of
methods, to meet
the minimum sign
retroreflectivity
requirements in
the Minnesota
Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control
Devices (MN
MUTCD).
The purpose of
the 2030
Transportation
Plan is to
adequately
prepare the
County for the
growing and aging
population.
Chapter 4
summarizes the
processes,
results, and
recommendation
s of the safety
analysis on the
Anoka County
roadway network.
The Metropolitan
Council
developed a
Regional
Pedestrian Safety
Action Plan to
improve safety for
people walking
and using mobility
devices. The
vision of the plan
is to Reduce and
ultimately
eliminate
pedestrian deaths
and serious
injuries from
traffic crashes in
the region.
Minnesota Walks is a
collaborative effort
between MnDOT and
the Minnesota
Department of
Health that provides
a shared vision for
how all Minnesotans
can have safe,
desirable, and
convenient places to
walk where they live,
work, learn, and play.
The document
includes guidance
for planning,
decision-making,
and collaboration
between agencies,
advocacy
organizations,
policymakers, and
public and private
entities across the
state. Minnesota
Walks established an
understanding of
pedestrian needs
and challenges in
Minnesota rooted in
engagement to help
MnDOT and the
Minnesota
Department of
Health better
address needs for
people walking.
The Minnesota
Strategic Highway
Safety Plan is
Minnesota’s plan
to reduce fatal and
serious injury
crashes and, over
time, to eliminate
the loss of life on
Minnesota roads.
The plan is
designed for all
traffic safety
partners at the
state, county, and
local government
level as well as
users of the
roadway system.
The plan includes
39 strategies and
168 tactics to
foster coordination
between traffic
safety partners and
improve
transportation
safety. The goal is
to reach no more
than 225 traffic
deaths and 980
serious injuries by
2025, with an
ultimate goal of
zero.
In 2021 MnDOT
conducted a
statewide,
systemic safety
analysis to
identify
conditions that
create higher risk
of pedestrian
deaths or serious
injuries. The
result was an
understanding of
the state’s top
pedestrian safety
risk factors, and a
set of
recommendation
s intended to
proactively
identify safety
countermeasures
for these
contexts.
To improve the
safety of vulnerable
road users in the
state of Minnesota
and satisfy the new
federal
requirements, the
Minnesota
Department of
Transportation’s
(MnDOT) Office of
Traffic Engineering
commissioned a
Vulnerable Road
User Safety
Assessment
(VRUSA), including
development of a
High Injury Network
for the state and
separate studies of
bicycling and
pedestrian crashes
in urban and rural
areas within the
state. The VRUSA
will be amended
into the 2020–2024
Strategic Highway
Safety Plan as an
addendum.
The Statewide
Multimodal
Transportation
Plan (SMTP) is a
20-year plan that
sets policy
direction for the
modal and
system plans that
make up the
statewide
transportation
plan. It works to
answer the
question, “How
are we going to
achieve a
multimodal
transportation
system that
maximizes the
health of people,
the environment
and our
economy?”
Safe Systems
Approach X X X X
Ped/Bike Design
Guidelines X X X
948
Item 10.
Page: 9
Ped/Bike Network
Recommendations X X X X
Intersection and
Crossing
Treatments
X X X X
Universal Design /
ADA Accessibility
Consideration
X X X X X
Ped/Bike
Maintenance
Policies or
Recommendations
X X X X X X X
Funding
Mechanisms X X X
Land Use
Considerations X X X X X
949
Item 10.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Under 1,500 1,500 - 3,000 3,000 - 5,000 5,000 - 10,000 10,000 - 20,000 Above 20,000
CL
M
i
l
e
s
ADT Range
HIN Centerline Mileage by ADT Range
State Roads County Roads Local Roads
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Under 1,500 1,500 - 3,000 3,000 - 5,000 5,000 - 10,000 10,000 - 20,000 Above 20,000
ADT Range
Percentage of Total Centerline Mileage on HIN -ADT
950
Item 10.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
30 mph or less 35 mph 40 mph 45 mph 50+ mph
CL
M
i
l
e
s
Posted Speed Limit
HIN Centerline Mileage by Posted Speed Limit
State Roads County Roads Local Roads
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
30 mph or less 35 mph 40 mph 45 mph 50+ mph
Posted Speed Limit
Percentage of Total Centerline Mileage on HIN -Speed Limits
951
Item 10.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Two Lane Four Lane
CL
M
i
l
e
s
# of Through Lanes
HIN Centerline Mileage by Number of Through Lanes
State Roads County Roads Local Roads
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Two Lane Four Lane
# of Through Lanes
Percentage of Total Centerline Mileage on HIN -Number of
Through Lanes
952
Item 10.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Median Present No Median
CL
M
i
l
e
s
Median Presence
HIN Centerline Mileage by Median Presence
State Roads County Roads Local Roads
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Median Present No Median
Median Presence
Percentage of Total Centerline Mileage on HIN -Median Presence
953
Item 10.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Present Not Present
CL
M
i
l
e
s
TWLTL Presence
HIN Centerline Mileage by TWLTL Presence
State Roads County Roads Local Roads
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Present Not Present
TWLTL Presence
Percentage of Total Centerline Mileage on HIN -TWLTL Presence
954
Item 10.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Present Not Present
CL
M
i
l
e
s
On-Street Parking Presence
HIN Centerline Mileage by On-Street Parking Presence
State Roads County Roads Local Roads
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Present Not Present
On-Street Parking Presence
Percentage of Total Centerline Mileage on HIN -On-Street Parking
Presence
955
Item 10.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Present Not Present
CL
M
i
l
e
s
Unique Horizontal Geometry Presence
HIN Centerline Mileage With Unique Horizontal Geometry
State Roads County Roads Local Roads
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Present Not Present
Unique Horizontal Geometry Presence
Percentage of Total Centerline Mileage on HIN -Unique Horizontal
Geometry
956
Item 10.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Present Not Present
CL
M
i
l
e
s
Sidewalk Presence
HIN Centerline Mileage by Sidewalk Presence
State Roads County Roads Local Roads
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Present Not Present
Sidewalk Presence
Percentage of Total Centerline Mileage on HIN -Sidewalk
Presence
957
Item 10.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Lo
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
BI
P
O
C
Di
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
De
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
s
i
n
ho
m
e
(
u
n
d
e
r
1
5
,
ov
e
r
6
5
)
La
n
g
u
a
g
e
o
t
h
e
r
th
a
n
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
sp
o
k
e
n
a
t
h
o
m
e
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
CL
M
i
l
e
s
Equity Focus Area
HIN Centerline Mileage by Proximity to Equity Focus Areas (Within
500 feet)
State Roads County Roads Local Roads
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Lo
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
BI
P
O
C
Di
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
De
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
s
i
n
h
o
m
e
(u
n
d
e
r
1
5
,
o
v
e
r
6
5
)
La
n
g
u
a
g
e
o
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
En
g
l
i
s
h
s
p
o
k
e
n
a
t
ho
m
e
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Equity Focus Area
Percentage of Total Centerline Mileage on HIN -Proximity to Equity
Focus Areas
958
Item 10.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Within 0.25 miles of stop Not within 0.25 miles
CL
M
i
l
e
s
Proximity to Transit Stops
HIN Centerline Mileage by Proximity to Transit Stops
State Roads County Roads Local Roads
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Within 0.25 miles of stop Not within 0.25 miles
Proximity to Transit Stops
Percentage of Total Centerline Mileage on HIN -Proxmity to Transit
Stops
959
Item 10.
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 12, 2025
To: Kevin Hansen, Public Works Director/City Engineer, City of Columbia Heights
From: Connor Cox, Project Manager, Bolton & Menk;
Zoe Huebner, Transportation Planner, Bolton & Menk;
Subject: Evaluating Effectiveness of Reduced Citywide Speed Limits
City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Project No.: 0T4.133688.000
2019 Legislative Action
In May 2019, the Minnesota legislature passed two provisions that allow cities increased authority
to set their own speed limits on local roads. These went into effect August 1, 2019.
Minnesota State Statute, Section 169.14, Subd. 5h. Speed limits on city streets.
A city may establish speed limits for city streets under the city's jurisdiction other than the limits
provided in subdivision 2 without conducting an engineering and traffic investigation. This
subdivision does not apply to town roads, county highways, or trunk highways in the city. A
city that establishes speed limits pursuant to this section must implement speed limit changes
in a consistent and understandable manner. The city must erect appropriate signs to display
the speed limit. A city that uses the authority under this subdivision must develop procedures
to set speed limits based on the city's safety, engineering, and traffic analysis. At a minimum,
the safety, engineering, and traffic analysis must consider national urban speed limit guidance
and studies, local traffic crashes, and methods to effectively communicate the change to the
public.
The legislature also passed section 169.011, Subd 64, which expands the definition of a residential
roadway as:
“…a city street or town road that is either (1) less than one-half mile in total length, or (2) in an
area zoned exclusively for housing that is not a collector or arterial street.”
Together, these changes provide local cities with the ability to set speed limits on streets within
their jurisdiction, provided that a safety, engineering, and traffic analysis has been completed and a
policy has been established that establishes speed limits in a consistent and understandable manner.
960
Item 10.
MnDOT Guidance on Speed Limits
Minnesota Statute 169.14 establishes statutory speed limits on most typical roadways under ideal
conditions. Unless otherwise posted:
- 10 mph in alleys
- 30 mph on streets in urban districts
- 55 mph on other roads
- 65 mph on expressways
- 65 mph on urban interstate highways
- 70 mph on rural interstate highways
However, according to the MnDOT Speed Limit Information website, “Lower speed limits don’t reduce
speeds – Studies show that there is little change in speed patterns after posting a lower speed limit.
Drivers are much more influenced by changes to the roadway, its environment and conditions.”
Process for Establishing a Lower Speed Limit
All requirements are laid out in MN Statute 169.14. Specifically, Subdivision 5h outlines what factors the
traffic/engineering study needs to consider. Subdivision 5h can be read above.
Additionally, Section 160.263 also discusses requirements for setting speed limits on roads with on-street
bike lanes.
Local Policies and Plans
Existing city plans, policies, and directions relevant to speed limits are detailed in the following sections.
Current Local Speed Limit Policy
Speed limits on local streets in Columbia Heights are 30 miles per hour (mph) unless posted otherwise.
Prior Speed Limit Considerations
In May 2022, the Columbia Heights Traffic Commission had a public meeting to seek input from residents
and property owners regarding speed limits on city streets after the City Council received authority to set
speed limits on local roads by the state of Minnesota. The meeting was well attended by residents who
were not in favor of lowering the speed limit. Some discussion occurred about other traffic calming
measures that may be more effective in reducing speeds. The meeting concluded with a failed motion to
recommend a twenty-mile-per-hour speed limit.
Columbia Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan
The City of Columbia Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan includes a chapter on transportation,
characterizing existing conditions, the roadway system, and considerations for multi-modal
transportation. The comprehensive plan mentions general speed limits in relation to functional
classification but does not include set guidelines or policies recommendations.
961
Item 10.
The Transportation Chapter (Chapter 6) outlines roadway jurisdictional classification and functional
classification in the city. Three levels of government preside over roadway jurisdiction: the State of
Minnesota (MnDOT), Anoka County, and the City of Columbia Heights. MnDOT maintains the Interstate
and Trunk Highway systems which include University Avenue NE and Central Avenue NE. Anoka County
maintains County State Aid Highway (CSAH) and County Road (CR) systems. County State Aid Highway
roads in Columbia Heights include 49th Avenue NE/Fairway Drive NE, 45th Avenue NE, 40th Avenue NE,
Main Street NE, Reservoir Boulevard NE, and Stinson Boulevard. There are numerous County Roads
within City limits which are displayed in Figure 1. The remaining roadways are maintained by the City.
962
Item 10.
Figure 1: Jurisdictional Classification
963
Item 10.
Functional classification helps to determine where in the hierarchy a roadway is located. Such
classification aids in determining appropriate roadway widths, speed limits, intersection control, design
features, accessibility, and maintenance priorities. Below is a short description of what each functional
classification may include and a map is displayed in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Functional Classification
964
Item 10.
Principal Arterials
These roadways serve major activity centers, higher traffic volumes, longer trips, and carry a higher
proportion of total travel relative to roadway mileage. Access to surrounding land uses is limited and
vehicle mobility is prioritized through higher speed limits. No Principal Arterials exist within the City of
Columbia Heights.
Minor Arterials
Minor Arterials connect urban service areas to cities and towns inside and outside the region and
generally service short to medium trips. Speeds are lower than on Principal Arterials, but mobility is still
a priority. Minor Arterials are divided into subtypes but set speed limits are generally similar across all
types. Numerous Minor Arterials in Columbia Heights include Central Ave, University Ave, and 37th Ave
NE..
Collector Streets
Collector Streets provide more land access than arterials and provide connections to arterials from local
streets. Collectors serve a dual function of accommodating traffic volumes while providing more access
to adjacent land uses. Collectors can be broken into Major and Minor subtypes. There are no Minor
Collectors in Columbia Heights while there are a handful of Major Collectors.
Local Streets
Servicing adjacent land uses is the main goal of Local Streets. They generally have lower speed limits and
serve short trips. These are almost always owned by the local jurisdiction.
Peer Communities
Several Twin Cities municipalities have completed speed and safety studies, and some have also
adopted and implemented reduced speed limit policies since legislation changes in 2019. The section
below describes the approaches to speed limits from other peer communities in the Twin Cities,
including the cities of Edina, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, St. Louis Park, Richfield, Bloomington, Saint
Anthony Village, Falcon Heights, Shoreview, New Brighton, and Fridley.
City of Edina
The City of Edina undertook and prepared a speed limit report and policy in 2020, followed by an
implementation plan, council action, and implementation of the lower speed limits in 2021. Speeds
on most city streets were reduced from 30 to 25 mph, and Edina launched the “Drive 25” campaign
through a variety of media to educate the public about the changes. Staff plan to evaluate data for a
period of two years before and after implementation and recommend additional needs for
enforcement, education, and infrastructure as a result. The total cost of implementing this change
was estimated to be $10,000, consisting of signage and communications efforts.
City of Minneapolis
The City of Minneapolis completed a speed limit evaluation study in 2020 as a component of its
work on a larger Vision Zero plan. The recommendations included setting speed limits to 10 mph
for alleys and Nicollet Mall, 20 mph on minor streets, 25 mph on most major city streets, and 35
mph on several short segments of major city streets based on conditions. This policy did not affect
speed limits for other jurisdictions owning and operating streets in Minneapolis – MnDOT,
Hennepin County, the Minneapolis Parks Board, and the University of Minnesota. Minneapolis
965
Item 10.
made these changes to help manage its public right-of-way to protect the public health,
safety, and welfare; to support city policies; to align with emerging national best practices for urban
street operations; and to support the comprehensive approach to Vision Zero.
City of Saint Paul
The City of Saint Paul completed a speed limit evaluation in March of 2020. The purpose of the
evaluation was to support the city’s goal of zero traffic deaths and severe injuries; improve the
safety and comfort of people of all abilities walking, bicycling, and using public transportation;
support the movement of people and goods; and to be consistent, understandable, reasonable, and
appropriate for an urban context. Saint Paul recommended speed limits of 20 mph on minor streets
and 25 mph on major streets.
Minneapolis partnered with Saint Paul to implement changes on the same timeline in November
2020. This also included a similar approach and communication strategy, with key decisions for
process, analysis, recommendations, and implementation made jointly between both cities. Both
cities rolled out a coordinated communications plan that included neighborhood signage, social
media messaging, and other online content.
City of St. Louis Park
St. Louis Park changed its speed limits in 2021, making 20 mph the default speed on local streets
unless otherwise noted. The city completed its speed limit evaluation in July 2021, with the goals to
eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries, prioritize pedestrians over vehicular traffic, and to
ensure equitable outcomes for all people using the city’s transportation system.
St. Louis Park adopted a category approach for speed limits, with 20 mph for lower traffic roads, 25
mph on medium traffic roads, and 30 mph on high traffic roads. It implemented this policy with a
signage plan, retiming of traffic signals, and communications/outreach. No resources were
anticipated for enforcement activities.
In June 2023, Gary Davis with the University of Minnesota published a technical report sponsored
by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Local Road Research Bureau (LRRB). The
report, titled “Impact of Speed Limit Changes on Urban Streets”, investigated before and after
conditions of speed limit changes on roadways in St. Louis Park. The report found that on average,
speeds were just 1 to 2 mph lower (than the ‘before’ condition) after the speed limit reduction (for
both the changed roadways and the constants), with variability between 7 mph below and 2.4 mph
above. This generally did not align with the magnitude of the speed limit change.
The findings suggested that driver behavior is habitual and may take more time for roadway users
to become familiar and comply with the reduction. Therefore, comparable speed samples should be
collected to track new driver behavior and progression of speed reduction over time.
City of Richfield
In 2024, the City of Richfield implemented its changeover of the city-wide speed limit policy,
which was finalized in late 2023. The speed limit for city owned roads (with the exception of a few
larger roadways noted in its documentation) would be reduced from 30 mph to 25 mph. This was done
based on national research, existing traffic patterns, and historical crash data.
966
Item 10.
Implementation plans included new sign panels, sign removals, and new sign assemblies, to be
completed in stages. The Public Safety Department is in coordination with the city, and has not
recommended additional enforcement during this change, but rather has focused efforts on public
engagement in order to educate the public on the new speed limits. In an effort to do so,
promotional materials were distributed at city facilities, along with a website to
provide information about the reasons for the change.
Credit: Jeff Wheeler, The Minnesota Star Tribune
The City of Richfield has used Streetlight (an on-demand mobility analytics platform) to monitor
roadways with ADTs over 1,000. Fifty different sites are monitored monthly for changes in traveling
speed. From May 2024 to December 2024, the median speed at 39 of 50 sites have decreased (1-2 mph)
with 85th percentile speeds also decreasing at 46 of 50 sites (1-3mph). In addition, 5 of the sites have
experienced 4-5mph decreases in 85th percentile speed. None of the 50 sites saw increases in 85th
percentile speed. However, 3 of the sites had 1 mph increases in median speed.
At the sites that had 4-5mph decreases, no geometric changes or extra enforcement was used. The
decrease has been sustained month-over-month and the City plans to continue to monitor these sites, in
addition to all of the others, throughout the year and warmer months to determine if the speed limit
change will have a lasting effect on drivers.
The City made and installed new signs in-house which helped to keep infrastructure costs down
compared to contracting the work out. The City spent approximately $9,000 on signing materials for 125
signs, and it took two Richfield staff members four days to make the signs. Four staff spent three days to
install the signs, and two staff spent a day making adjustments to the signs. The Police Department has
967
Item 10.
not spent any extra money on enforcement operations (staffing, overtime, or equipment), but they have
spent more of their time on speed-related traffic stops after the decrease in speed limit went into effect.
Richfield went above and beyond the “effective communication” requirements for a speed limit change
and spent about $85,000 on brand development and promotional materials for their public information
campaign. The City did not purchase any speed trailers or dynamic speed signs, but they did spend about
$4,000 on an additional radar data collection device which they have used for their speed studies.
City of Bloomington
While most peer communities focused mainly on local roadways, the City of Bloomington spent a
portion of their speed limit policy efforts on distinguishing speed limits for different classifications. On
August 1st, 2024, the City of Bloomington implemented a city-wide speed limit of 25 mph
(unless otherwise posted).
As part of this, the City took time to study and propose speed limits for its jurisdiction’s roads
outside of the local roadways- including some of its collectors and arterials. The
city proposed that local neighborhood streets are signed at 25 mph, collectors at 30 mph, and
arterials at 35 mph based off speed, volume, and capacity needs of each.
Since the speed limit reduction happened recently, the City of Bloomington plans to collect follow-up
data in the late summer/fall of 2025 to see if changes in speed limits were effective in reducing observed
speeds.
The City spent approximately $300,000 in FY 2024 on items related to the speed limit change. Costs were
divided between traffic maintenance (signage and staff hours), police (speed awareness units, speed
radar trailers), engineering (signal timing updates), and communications to the public about the change.
City of St. Anthony Village
The City of St. Anthony Village set a
citywide speed limit of 25 mph on local
streets. Due to its proximity to
Minneapolis, officials faced pressure from
both the public and elected leaders to
reevaluate their speed limits. After
considering Minneapolis’ 20 mph limit,
they concluded it was too low and opted
for the 25 mph limit instead. The lower
speed limit went into effect at the end of
June 2020. To alert drivers, the city
updated its speed limit signs and added
gateway signs marking the entry into the
25 mph zone. Public notices were also
published in the city newsletter in
advance of the speed change. Since 2020,
no speed studies have been conducted to
analyze changes in speeds as City Council
and residents have been pleased with the
Saint Anthony Village Gateway Sign
Credit: savmn.com
968
Item 10.
results. Costs to implement the new signs were relatively minor as the City produces their own signs in
house, like many other peer communities.
City of Falcon Heights
The City of Falcon Heights adopted a reduced citywide speed limit after reviewing past speed studies.
While the analysis showed no significant speed issues, pressure from the city council led to a change in
the speed limit. The engineering staff referenced state statute Section 169.14, Subd. 2.7b., which
allowed them to lower the speed limit on local streets to 25 mph without conducting a formal
engineering study or establishing a process. To enforce the change, the City installed regulatory speed
limit signs at key entry points and gateways. This approach was attractive to City staff due to its simplicity
and low cost.
City of New Brighton
The City of New Brighton adopted a 25-mph speed limit on most City streets in September 2022. The
new ordinance allows the City Engineer to establish speed limits for city streets under the city’s
jurisdiction in accordance with Minnesota Statues Section 169.14. The new speed limits mandate 20
mph in School Zones, 25 mph on most City-owned streets, and 30-40 miles per hour on County or Border
streets. The reasons the City cited for the speed limit change include protecting the most vulnerable
road users (pedestrians and bikers), an average 85th percentile speed limit of 27.5 mph in the city, and
the fact that lower speeds reduce the severity of crashes. A total of 42 speed limit signs were replaced,
and 19 new signs were added. The City is also looking at long-term strategies such as changing the built
environment to influence driver behavior by creating a Living Streets Plan.
City of Shoreview
The City of Shoreview has chosen to maintain its current speed limits. Unlike Saint Paul and Minneapolis,
Shoreview's speed limits were set more recently, with roadway designs and layouts that align with the
posted limits. Traffic speed data collected throughout the city revealed that the 85th percentile of
speeds ranged from 22 to 28 mph. In addition to these design factors, Shoreview has substantial speed
and crash data that supports keeping the local speed limit at 30 mph. The City Council also considered
two alternatives: setting a citywide speed limit or adopting a category-based approach. Following
recommendations from the engineering staff, the council decided against changing the existing limits. In
January 2021, a motion to maintain the current speed limits was passed, but it also suggested that,
should the council consider reducing the speed limit at a later date, the Public Safety Committee
recommend implementing a uniform 25 mph limit for all residential streets in Shoreview.
National Guidance & Safety Research
Speeding is widely recognized as a significant danger to public health and traffic safety within national
safety research. A variety of national research exists that has evaluated the effectiveness of lowering
speed limits, as well as the policies and procedures used to enact these changes. Historically, Minnesota
has typically used the 85th percentile speed method as the standard for setting speed limits throughout
the state.
969
Item 10.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 966
(2021)
This NCHRP report, entitled “Posted Speed Limit Setting Procedure and Tool: User Guide (2021),”
provides guidance for transportation professionals to make informed decisions on setting speed limits. It
introduces a Speed Limit Setting Procedure and associated Speed Limit Setting Tool. The methodology is
intended for use with any roadway type.
The NCHRP Report 966 discusses the shortcoming in the use of the 85th percentile speed method for
setting speed limits. The 85th percentile method records how fast vehicles travel on a road and then
determines the speed that 85 percent of drivers are traveling at or below. The new speed limit is set to
the nearest 5 mph increment. This method rests upon an assumption that drivers act in a reasonable and
prudent manner. One problem is that drivers may not be aware of all the conditions present within a
corridor, and the 85th percentile doesn’t adequately consider the needs of vulnerable road users.
The NCHRP 966 report presents a procedure to calculate a suggested speed limit, a four-step decision-
making process for calculating a suggested speed limit, variables used within the decision-making
procedure, and an overview of the Speed Limit Setting Tool provided. It includes a literature review and
discussion of the relationship between speed limits and crashes, and the debate about setting speed
limits.
The speed limit setting procedure recommended includes identifying roadway context (a spectrum
ranging from rural to urban core) and roadway type (functional classification ranging from freeways to
local streets). The report suggests a matrix of target speeds based on these two factors, as shown in
Table 1.
Table 1: NCHRP 966 Speed Limit Recommendations
Suggested Target Speed by Roadway Context and Type
Context
and Type
Rural Rural Town Suburban Urban Urban
Core
Limited
Access
Freeway
High
50 mph +
High
50 mph +
High
50 mph +
High
50 mph +
High
50 mph +
Principal
Arterial
High
50 mph +
Low to
Medium
45 mph -
Medium to
High
30 mph +
Low to
Medium
45 mph -
Low
25 mph -
Minor
Arterial
High
50 mph +
Low to
Medium
45 mph -
Medium
30-45 mph
Low to
Medium
45 mph -
Low
25 mph -
Collector Medium
30-45 mph
Low
25 mph -
Medium
30-45 mph
Low
25 mph -
Low
25 mph -
Local Medium
30-45 mph
Low
25 mph -
Low
25 mph -
Low
25 mph -
Low
25 mph -
970
Item 10.
City Limits, 2020 (NACTO)
The National Association of City Transportation Officials, or NACTO, is an association of 92 major North
American cities and transit agencies formed to exchange transportation ideas and work cooperatively to
approach transportation issues relevant to urban areas. One of NACTO’s features over the past decade
has been the production of a wide range of guidance documents on urban transportation issues ranging
from transit to bicycling to connected and autonomous vehicles. NACTO tends to be out in front of the
traditional engineering and policy guidance available.
NACTO published City Limits in 2020 to develop guidance for cities setting speed limits on urban streets
that serve as an alternative to traditional, highway-focused recommendations. As with other resources,
City Limits conveys that motor vehicle speed plays a key role in fatal and serious crashes, and that
changes that effectively reduce speeds help to save lives. However, resources and guidance available to
most transportation planning and engineering practitioners are lacking.
The City Limits document explains why speed is a particular problem and central factor in traffic deaths.
Crashes at higher speeds are more forceful and are therefore more likely to result in serious injury or
fatality. Drivers traveling at high speeds have a narrower field of vision to the front and are therefore less
aware of people, vehicles, and objects in the peripheral. Drivers traveling at high speeds travel a longer
distance before they can react and make a countermeasure to prevent a crash. Once that need for action
is identified, vehicles traveling at high speeds have a longer braking distance before they come to a stop
or slow down enough to effectively reduce the impact of a crash.
City Limits explains that fatal crashes in the U.S. are disproportionately clustered on a small group of high
speed, auto-oriented urban arterial streets, where different types of road users share space and must
interact frequently. These roads tend to have speed limits between 35 and 45 mph, and include features
such as wide lanes, sweeping turn radii, and few places for people to cross on foot.
Traditional speed limits uses the 85th percentile method. The problem with this method, per City Limits,
is that speed limits are set based on driver behavior, rather than to meet safety goals. This method is a
moving target – it rewards extremes by pushing up the legal speed limit based on social behavior that is
dangerous. The 85th percentile originally assumed that people will travel at what might be considered
reasonable speeds, but research now shows that people tend to react to their environment reading the
cues of street design, posted speed limit, and the actions of their fellow drivers more than any
overarching sense of reasonableness.
City Limits provides three tools for setting speed limits on urban streets:
• Setting default speed limits on many streets at once.
• Designating slow zones in sensitive areas.
• Setting corridor speed limits on high priority major streets using a safe speed study.
The general recommendations for urban streets are 10 mph on shared streets and alleys, 20 mph for
minor streets, and 25 mph on major streets. If slow zones are desired, these need to be defined – such
as for a school area, park, neighborhood, or commercial district.
971
Item 10.
Minnesota Local Road Research Board (2023)
In 2023, MnDOT published Guidelines for Determining Speed Limits on Municipal Roadways. This
document reviewed the 2019 Statute change, conducted a review of other speed limit reduction
research, and provided three options to municipalities on how to best navigate the change: Maintain
Status Quo, Reduce Speed Limits, or Invest in Alternative Pedestrian Safety Strategies.
• Maintaining the Status Quo does not mean doing nothing, but to evaluate each problem area on
a case-by-case basis and if deemed to be the best course of action, reduce speeds on certain
streets after conducting an engineering study.
• Reducing speed limits involves following a process that includes documenting existing
conditions, analyzing data, conducting community engagement, developing an implementation
plan, and conducting follow-up assessments.
• Investing in Alternative Pedestrian Safety Strategies means knowing where to make
improvements and what improvements to invest in. Based on their study, using a reactive
approach (making changes to an intersection after a serious or fatal bike or pedestrian crash
occurred) was not effective in identifying high priority locations as these crashes were scattered.
In addition, one serious or fatal crash at a location was not a good predictor of a second serious
crash at the same location. However, their research does suggest that safety improvements
should be made after a systemic review of the road system that is primarily focused on
Minnesota State Aid streets and at signalized intersections with transit stops located nearby.
(Streets on the MSA system account for 3% of statewide road mileage but 26% of serious
pedestrian and bicycle crashes and approximately 80% of locations with a serious pedestrian or
bicycle crash has a transit stop nearby.)
Additionally, the paper references MnDOT conducted experiments in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro
area. Local governments had requested speed limit changes and in each case, MnDOT agreed to a
temporary change given periodic speed surveys and allowing local agencies to apply as much
enforcement as they saw fit. The results of the MnDOT speed surveys show that approximately 85% of
speeds were unchanged and that changing the speed limit through signage did not meaningfully change
driver behavior.
The report concludes by saying that, “There is no evidence to suggest lowering speed limit will result in
lower travel speeds. Reducing speed will require changes to the roadway environment and/or
increased enforcement. However, speeds on local roads in some communities are already lower than
statutory limits lending credibility to reduction in speed limits.”
972
Item 10.
Summary and Key Takeaways
Studies show Insignificant Impacts from Reduced Speed Limits
Studies have shown that reducing speed limits alone does not necessarily lead to significant
improvements in traffic safety. While lower speed limits may seem like a logical approach to reducing
speeds and motor vehicle accidents, research suggests that driver behavior is influenced more by factors
such as road design, enforcement, and traffic flow than by posted speed limits. In fact, studies have
found that when speed limits are lowered without corresponding changes to road design or
enforcement, drivers often ignore the new limits or drive at speeds they consider safe based on the
design and context of the road. Additionally, changes in speed between and within municipalities on
similar roadway types can cause confusion or frustration among drivers, potentially leading to unsafe
driving behavior. Therefore, experts recommend a more comprehensive approach, addressing road
design, visibility, and enforcement, rather than relying solely on reduced speed limits to improve safety.
Street Design Changes are More Effective
While there are limited studies proving the effectiveness of speed limit changes reducing speeds, there is
an abundance of literature supporting physical roadway changes as a way to slow traffic and make
roadways safer for motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. FHWA, NACTO, ITE, and other
organizations have published studies and best practices to show the benefits of “traffic calming ”.
Additionally, FHWA has put together a collection of 28 countermeasures and strategies effective in
reducing roadway fatalities and serious injuries. While the collection includes ‘Appropriate Speed Limits
for All Road Users’, it also includes ‘Road Diets’, ‘Roundabouts’, ‘Dedicated Left- and Right-Turn Lanes at
Intersections’, and ‘Walkways’. It is recommended these strategies are used together to have the most
effect in making roadways safer for all users.
Many Local Community Case Studies, but Limited Data
Eleven local Twin Cities municipalities were reviewed, including Edina, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, St. Louis
Park, Richfield, Bloomington, Saint Anthony Village, Falcon Heights, Shoreview, New Brighton, and
Fridley. Out of these eleven, only a couple communities have collected and analyzed the results of speed
limit changes. Communities that do have before -and-after speed data have generally found that average
motor vehicle speeds are not reduced significantly, usually only 1-3 miles per hour. This suggests that
additional strategies are needed to reduce vehicle speeds, which could include infrastructure changes,
public education/communication, or speed enforcement.
973
Item 10.
FIGURE 1. TOP 25 SEGMENT AND INTERSECTION SCORES ON THE HIN
974
Item 10.
FIGURE 2. TOP 25 SEGMENT AND INTERSECTION SCORES ON THE HIN
(Excluding Central & University Avenues)
975
Item 10.
Category
Score
Weight
Category Criteria Description Data source
Intersection
or Road
Segment
Scoring Method
Max
Possible
Score
52%
Crash
History and
Risk
Fatal/Serious
Crashes
Number of fatal and serious injury
crashes within 100 feet of the
project boundary.
MnDOT MnCMAT Both
0 points: 0 crashes
7 points: <3 crashes
14 point: >=3 crashes
14
Pedestrian and
Bicycle Crashes
Number of crashes involving
pedestrians or cyclists.MnDOT MnCMAT Both
0 points: 0 crashes
6 points: >4 crashes
12 point: >4 crashes
12
Traffic Volume Average daily vehicle traffic
volume.MnDOT AADT Both
0 points: <500 vehicles
2 points: >500 vehicles
4 point: >1000 vehicles
4
Speed Limit
The corridor speed limit in the
project area is greater than 35
miles per hour.
MnDOT Both 4 points: True
0 points: False 4
Travel Lane
Number
Number of travel lanes on one or
more approaches is greater than 2.
MnDOT/Manual
observation Both 4 points: True
0 points: False 4
Approach
Curvature
Horizontal curvature of one
or more approaches to the
intersection.
Manual Observation Intersection 2 points: True
0 points: False 2
Median Project area contains a median.Manual Observation Segment 0 points: True
2 points: False 2
On-Street Parking Project area contains on-street
parking.
Manual Observation
/Functional Class Segment 0 points: True
2 points: False 2
Skew Project area contains a skewed
intersection.Manual Observation Intersection 0 point(s): True
2 points: False 2
Lighting Presence Project area contains fewer than
two lights.Manual Observation Intersection 0 points: True
2 points: False 2
Crosswalk
Presence
Project area is missing a crosswalk
on two or more legs of the
intersection.
Manual Observation Intersection 2 points: True
0 points: False 2
Crossing Distance Crossing distance of more than 33
feet on one or more legs.
Manual Observation/
Functional Class Intersection 2 points: True
0 points: False 2
TABLE 1. PROJECT PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA (WITH DATA SOURCE AND SCORING METHOD)
976
Item 10.
Category
Score
Weight
Category Criteria Description Data source
Intersection
or Road
Segment
Scoring Method
Max
Possible
Score
18%Destination
Connectivity
Transit - BRT Within 500 ft of a planned F Line
BRT station.Met Council Both 4 points: True
0 points: False 4
Transit - Other Within 500 ft of existing Metro
Transit stops.Met Council Both 2 points: True
0 points: False 2
Activity
Generators
Within 500 ft of a commercial
area, public school, park, library,
community center, or grocery
store.
Esri Institutions
Layer/Manual
Observation
Both 4 points: True
0 points: False 4
Residential Area Within 500 ft of residential land
uses.
Anoka County
Parcels Both 4 points: True
0 points: False 4
Existing Bicycle
Facilities Existence of bicycle facilities.
MnDOT/MetCouncil/
Anoka County/
Columbia Heights
Both 2 points: True
0 points: False 2
Existing
Pedestrian
Facilities
Existence of pedestrian facilities.Columbia Heights Both 2 points: True
0 points: False 2
16%Community
Feedback
Number of
Responses
Identified as a safety threat or
an area in need of improvement
through the public engagement
process.
Bolton & Menk
INPUTiD Both
0 points: 0 comments
8 points: >1 comments
16 points: >10
comments
16
977
Item 10.
Category
Weight Category Criteria Description Data Source
Intersection
or Road
Segment
Scoring Method
Max
Possible
Score
14%Equity
Minority
Population
Located within an area where the
minority (i.e. non-white) population
is greater than 20 percent.
Census/ACS Derived
from Esri Business
Analyst
Both 2 points: True
0 points: False 2
Serves Dependent
Populations
(Youth and Senior
Citizens)
Located within an area where the
dependent population (age <18 and
>65) greater than the statewide
average.
Both 2 points: True
0 points: False 2
Serves People
with Disabilities
Located within an area where
the population reporting having
a disability is greater than the
statewide average.
Both 2 points: True
0 points: False 2
Serves People
whose First
Language is not
English
Located within an area where the
population percentage reporting
English proficiency lower than the
statewide average.
Both 2 points: True
0 points: False 2
Serves Veterans
Located within an area where the
veteran population is greater than
the statewide average.
Both 2 points: True
0 points: False 2
Serves Low-
Income
Populations
Located within an area where the
population reporting making less
than 185% of the federal poverty
line is 40% or greater.
Both 2 points: True
0 points: False 2
Serves
Populations
without Motor
Vehicle Access
Located within an area where the
population reporting not having
motor vehicle access is greater
than the statewide average.
Both 2 points: True
0 points: False 2
978
Item 10.
Intersection Priority Score Priority Rank
45th Ave NE & Central Ave NE 78 1
44th Ave NE & University Ave NE 75 2
44th Ave NE & Central Ave NE 73 3
44th Ave NE & University Ave NE Frontage 66 4
46th Ave NE & Central Ave NE 66 5
42nd Ave NE & Central Ave NE 66 6
53rd Ave NE & University Ave NE 64 7
40th Ave NE & Central Ave NE 64 8
37th Ave NE & Central Ave NE & Reservoir Blvd NE 62 9
49th Ave NE & Central Ave NE 62 10
50th Ave NE & Central Ave NE 61 11
49th Ave NE & University Ave NE 60 12
53rd Ave NE & University Ave NE Frontage 60 13
43rd Ave NE & Central Ave NE 59 14
49th Ave NE & University Ave NE Frontage 57 15
40th Ave NE & University Ave NE 55 16
41st Ave NE & Central Ave NE 55 17
47th Ave NE & Central Ave NE 51 18
49th Ave NE & Johnson St NE 50 19
40th Ave NE & Jefferson St NE 50 20
39th Ave NE & Central Ave NE 48 21
40th Ave NE & Madison St NE 48 22
40th Ave NE & Mill St NE & Washington St NE 48 23
40th Ave NE & Van Buren St NE 47 24
53rd Ave NE & Central Ave NE 47 25
TABLE 2. HIGHEST PRIORITY (TOP 25) INTERSECTIONS ON HIN
979
Item 10.
Intersection Priority Score Priority Rank
49th Ave NE & Johnson St NE 50 1
40th Ave NE & Jefferson St NE 50 2
40th Ave NE & Madison St NE 48 3
40th Ave NE & Mill St NE & Washington St NE 48 4
40th Ave NE & Van Buren St NE 47 5
44th Ave NE & Arthur Pl NE & Arthur St NE 46 6
49th Ave NE & Jackson St NE 45 7
53rd Ave NE & Monroe St NE 45 8
44th Ave NE & Van Buren St NE 44 9
49th Ave NE & Fairway Dr NE 44 10
RR & Stinson Blvd NE 43 11
44th Ave NE & 7th St NE 43 12
40th Ave NE & 5th St NE 42 13
40th Ave NE & 7th St NE 42 14
40th Ave NE & Monroe St NE 42 15
40th Ave NE & Quincy St NE 42 16
40th Ave NE & Reservoir Blvd NE 42 17
41st Ave NE & Reservoir Blvd NE 42 18
45th Ave NE & Benjamin St NE & Chatham Rd NE 42 19
40th Ave NE & Main St NE 41 20
4th St NE & 53rd Ave NE 40 21
45th Ave NE & Stinson Blvd NE 40 22
3rd St NE & 44th Ave NE 39 23
37th Ave NE & Tyler St NE 39 24
45th Ave NE & Tyler Pl NE & Tyler St NE 39 25
TABLE 3. HIGHEST PRIORITY (TOP 25) INTERSECTIONS ON HIN
(Excluding University Ave NE & Central Ave NE)
980
Item 10.
Road Extent Priority
Score
Priority
Rank
University Ave NE 49th Ave NE To 53rd Ave NE 79 1
Central Ave NE 45th Ave NE To 46th Ave NE 76 2
University Ave NE 44th Ave NE To 49th Ave NE 76 3
Central Ave NE 37th Ave NE/Reservoir Blvd NE To 39th Ave NE 75 4
Central Ave NE 44th Ave NE To 45th Ave NE 72 5
University Ave NE 40th Ave NE To 44th Ave NE 68 6
45th Ave NE Central Ave NE To Tyler Pl NE/Tyler St NE 66 7
Reservoir Blvd NE Central Ave NE/37th Ave NE To 39th Ave NE 65 8
Central Ave NE 46th Ave Ne To 46 1/2 Ave NE 64 9
Central Ave NE 49th Ave NE To 50th Ave NE 64 10
Central Ave NE 52nd Ave NE To 53rd Ave NE 62 11
Central Ave NE 40th Ave NE To 41st Ave NE 62 12
Central Ave NE 41st Ave NE To 42nd Ave NE 61 13
37th Ave NE Central Ave NE/Reservoir Blvd NE To Tyler St NE 60 14
44th Ave NE Van Buren St NE To Central Ave NE 60 15
Central Ave NE 50th Ave NE To 51st Ct NE 60 16
University Ave NE 37th Ave NE To 40th Ave NE 59 17
Central Ave NE 48th Ave NE To 49th Ave NE 59 18
Central Ave NE 42nd Ave NE To 43rd Ave NE 57 19
Central Ave NE 43rd Ave NE To 44th Ave NE 57 20
40th Ave NE Van Buren St NE To Central Ave NE 54 21
45th Ave NE Van Buren St NE To Central Ave NE 53 22
49th Ave NE Jackson St NE To Central Ave NE 53 23
Central Ave NE 39th Ave NE To Gould Ave NE 52 24
Central Ave NE Gould Ave NE To 40th Ave NE 52 25
TABLE 4. HIGHEST PRIORITY (TOP 25) ROAD SEGMENTS ON HIN
981
Item 10.
Road Extent Priority
Score
Priority
Rank
45th Ave NE Central Ave NE To Tyler Pl NE/Tyler St NE 66 1
Reservoir Blvd NE Central Ave NE/37th Ave NE To 39th Ave NE 65 2
37th Ave NE Central Ave NE/Reservoir Blvd NE To Tyler St NE 60 3
44th Ave NE Van Buren St NE To Central Ave NE 60 4
40th Ave NE Van Buren St NE To Central Ave NE 54 5
45th Ave NE Van Buren St NE To Central Ave NE 53 6
49th Ave NE Jackson St NE To Central Ave NE 53 7
40th Ave NE Central Ave NE To Circle Terrace Blvd NE 52 8
49th Ave NE Central Ave NE To Tyler St NE 52 9
44th Ave NE University Ave NE To 4th St NE 51 10
53rd Ave NE Monroe St NE To Central Ave NE 51 11
53rd Ave NE University Ave NE To 4th St NE 51 12
44th Ave NE 6th St NE To 7th St NE 49 13
49th Ave NE University Ave NE To 4th St NE 48 14
40th Ave NE 7th St NE To Mill St NE/Washington St NE 48 15
40th Ave NE Mill St NE/Washington St Ne To Jefferson St NE 48 16
40th Ave NE Jefferson St NE To Madison St NE 48 17
7th St NE 44th Ave NE To 45th Ave NE 46 18
40th Ave NE University Ave NE To 4th St NE 46 19
40th Ave NE Madison St NE To Monroe St NE 46 20
49th Ave NE Fillmore St NE To Johnson St NE 46 21
49th Ave NE Johnson St NE To Fairway Dr NE 46 22
42nd Ave NE Van Buren St NE To Central Ave NE 45 23
49th Ave NE Monroe St NE To Jackson St NE 45 24
50th Ave NE Jackson St NE To Central Ave NE 44 25
TABLE 5. HIGHEST PRIORITY (TOP 25) ROADWAY SEGMENTS ON HIN
(EXCLUDING UNIVERSITY AVE NE & CENTRAL AVE NE)
982
Item 10.