HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025/12/08 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular (2)AGENDA
DECEMBER 8, 2025
6:15 p.m. Special city council meeting – Council Chambers
1.Call to order
a.Roll call.
b.Pledge of Allegiance.
2.Approve agenda.
3.Presentations – none.
4.Minutes – none.
5.Consent items – none.
6.Public hearings – none.
7.Regular business.
a.Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood – Ward 2
8.Communications and announcements – none.
9.Adjournment.
Following special city council meeting – Study session – Community Room
Discussion item
1. Vision 4.0 final report
Members of the public can attend St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and city council meetings in person. At regular
city council meetings, members of the public may comment on any item on the agenda by attending the meeting in-person or by
submitting written comments to info@stlouisparkmn.gov by noon the day of the meeting. Official minutes of meetings are
available on the city website once approved.
Watch St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority or regular city council meetings live at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil or at
www.parktv.org, or on local cable (Comcast SD channel 14/HD channel 798). Recordings of the meetings are available to watch on
the city's YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/@slpcable, usually within 24 hours of the meeting’s end.
City council study sessions are not broadcast. Generally, it is not council practice to receive public comment during study sessions.
The council chambers are equipped with Hearing Loop equipment and headsets are available to borrow.
If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952.924.2505.
Meeting: Special city council
Meeting date: December 8, 2025
Action agenda item: 7a
Executive summary
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2
Recommended action: Motion to adopt the following resolutions:
• Rescind existing Resolutions No. 1938, 3104, 3823, 4085, 4307, 4326, 4504, 5189, 6254,
6305, 6701, 93-157, 93-218, 94-076, 99-134, 19-149, 02-098, 20-035, 20-036, 20-037,
20-046, 20-054 and 20-154 pertaining to existing stop sign controls in the Minikahda
Vista neighborhood
• Authorizing intersection control in the Minikahda Vista neighborhood
Policy consideration: Does the city council support the installation of alternating stop control as
a systems approach to intersection traffic control in the Minikahda Vista neighborhood?
Summary: During the public engagement and preliminary design process for the 2024
Pavement Management project in the Browndale and Minikahda Vista neighborhoods, staff
received requests to evaluate additional stop signs at various locations in the neighborhood.
Staff provided a written report to the council during the connected infrastructure discussion on
April 15, 2024, that recommended a systems approach for addressing the stop sign requests in
these neighborhoods. The report reviewed past practices, stop sign compliance and findings
from previous studies.
The changes to the Browndale neighborhood were approved by council at the Dec. 16, 2024
city council meeting and implemented in spring of 2025, following the ground thaw.
Staff have completed their review of the Minikahda Vista neighborhood and shared the
recommended intersection control modifications with the neighborhood via a newsletter and a
map illustrating the proposed changes. Staff has received feedback from community members
about the proposed modifications, has made changes and attached is the final
recommendation for the council’s consideration.
If the staff recommendation is approved, staff will coordinate with the public works
department to install the new stop signs in the spring of 2026, once ground conditions are
suitable for sign installation.
Financial or budget considerations: The cost of these traffic control changes is anticipated to
be $4,200 and is expected to come from the public works operating budget. Similar traffic signs
last roughly ten years in the field.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Discussion; Resolutions; Resolutions No. 1938, 3104, 3823, 4085, 4307,
4326, 4504, 5189, 6254, 6305, 6701, 93-157, 93-218, 94-076, 99-134, 19-149, 02-098, 20-035,
20-036, 20-037, 20-046, 20-054 and 20-154 to be rescinded; Area map from April 15, 2024
study session; Newsletter - Traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood Oct. 14,
2025; Minikahda Vista intersection control changes map – Updated recommendation Nov. 8,
2024
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, assistant city engineer
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2
Discussion
Background: During the public engagement and preliminary design process for the 2024
Pavement Management project in the Browndale and Minikahda Vista neighborhoods, staff
received multiple requests to evaluate the need for additional stop signs. These requests were
submitted through the online interactive issues mapping tool, at open house events and via
direct communications.
The changes to the Browndale neighborhood were approved by the city council at the Dec. 16,
2024 council meeting and implemented in the spring of 2025, following the ground thaw.
By completing the Browndale neighborhood first, staff could apply lessons learned and
community feedback to the Minikahda Vista review, ensuring a more informed and coordinated
approach to traffic control.
In the Minikahda Vista neighborhood, the most requested change was to install intersection
control at the intersection of 39th Street and Lynn Avenue. Rather than evaluating this
intersection in isolation, staff used the systems approach to review intersection controls across
the entire neighborhood.
Existing intersection traffic control: To respond to these requests, staff began by mapping the
controlled and uncontrolled intersections in and near the Minikahda Vista neighborhood (see
Area map from April 15, 2024, study session attached). The attached graphic illustrates the
variability in locations, density and types of traffic control used in this neighborhood and
adjacent cities.
The mix of controlled and uncontrolled intersections results in inconsistency and no discernible
pattern. This can lead to confusion for all roadway users (pedestrians, cyclists and motor
vehicles), including:
• Assumptions by users as to who has the right of way.
• Questions from the broader community about why streets with similar characteristics
have different levels of traffic control.
• Low stop sign compliance when unwarranted stop signs are installed.
• Requests from residents for more enforcement since drivers are not stopping at the
signs.
Systems approach: Staff provided a written report to the council during the connected
infrastructure discussion on April 15, 2024, that recommended a systems approach for
addressing the stop sign requests in this neighborhood. The report reviewed past practices,
stop sign compliance and findings from previous studies. The information in the report shows
that stop signs are not meeting the expectations of any roadway users. As a result, staff
recommends the implementation of a basket weave pattern in this neighborhood to provide a
more consistent application of intersection control. A basket weave pattern has alternating
stop sign controls at every other intersection. This staff report will use the term alternating stop
controls throughout the remainder of the report. Area map from April 15, 2024, study session
attachment illustrates the existing intersection control in the Minikahda Vista, the Morningside
(City of Edina) and some of the Linden Hills (City of Minneapolis) neighborhoods.
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2
Stop sign compliance: To better understand stop sign compliance within both neighborhoods,
staff completed a review of controlled intersections at the following locations in the fall of
2023.
Browndale neighborhood:
• 42nd Street and Browndale Avenue – Two-way stop controlled
• 42nd Street and Toledo Avenue – All-way stop controlled
Minikahda Vista neighborhood:
• 37th Street and Glenhurst Avenue – All-way stop controlled
• 38th Street and Inglewood Avenue – All-way stop controlled
• 39th Street and Joppa Avenue – All-way stop controlled
• 40th Street and Quentin Avenue – All-way stop controlled
The averages of all six intersections' stop sign compliance rates over a 24-hour period were:
• 12% full stop (295 vehicles)
• 54% slow rolling (1,428 vehicles)
• 34% no stop (762 vehicles)
In these two neighborhoods, 88% of the vehicles that approached controlled intersections did
not come to a complete stop (see Figure #1).
Figure 1 – Browndale and Minikahda Vista compliance
These compliance rates are consistent with a study completed in 2018 by Spack Consulting (see
Figure #2). They collected data on stop sign compliance in eight cities across two states. The
work reviewed volumes and characteristics of 32 intersections, four intersections in each city.
Across all intersections, 73% of vehicles did not come to a complete stop. The following is a
breakdown of stop sign compliance from that study:
• 27% full stop
• 62% slow rolling
• 11% no stop
Overall Stop Sign Compliance
Full Stop,
12%
No Stop,
34%
Slow
Rolling,
54%
Full Stop Slow Rolling No Stop
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2
Figure 2 - Spack Consulting study*
*See April 15, 2024 report for additional findings from this study.
A review of the intersections across Minikahda Vista reveals that most of these intersections do
not meet established minimum state and federal criteria (known as warrants) for the use of
stop signs. The three warrants for stop sign installation are:
• High likelihood of conflicting vehicles approaching the intersection at the same time.
• Sightline obstructions prevent adequate distance for drivers to yield to conflicting
traffic.
• History of crashes that could be mitigated by the installation of a stop sign to assign
right of way at the intersection.
These findings support the principle that stop signs should be installed only when consistent
with the warrants outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), rather
than being used as a tool for speed control.
In addition to the warrants, state and federal guidance recognize the importance of engineering
judgment in establishing intersection control. This allows professional evaluation to supplement
technical criteria, ensuring decisions reflect both safety standards and local conditions.
When conflicting vehicle volumes are low and sight lines are adequate at all-way intersections,
drivers often treat stop signs as yield signs—slowly rolling through the intersection or failing to
stop altogether. This behavior reduces predictability and can create confusion for pedestrians,
bicyclists and other drivers who expect vehicles to stop.
The locations and direction of stop signs in the Minikahda Vista neighborhood are not meeting
the expectations of community members (pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles). As a result,
staff recommended revising the traffic control in these neighborhoods to:
• Improve safety for all users.
• Make intersection control more predictable for all users of the road.
• Increase compliance at stop sign locations.
• Reduce unnecessary vehicle stopping, noise and carbon emissions.
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a) Page 5
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2
• Create similar expectations for road users as they move between the adjacent
neighborhoods in St. Louis Park, Minneapolis and Edina.
Present considerations: To meet these goals, staff is recommending traffic control changes as
shown in the attached Minikahda Vista neighborhood intersection control changes map. A total
of 39 intersections in the neighborhood were reviewed. The evaluation considered several
factors, including:
• Warrant analysis for stop signs: Based on traffic volumes and sight lines, staff assessed
whether intersections met the criteria for two-way and all-way stop sign installation.
• Neighborhood predictability: Consistency in intersection control was reviewed to
support driver and pedestrian expectations across the neighborhood.
• Neighborhood feedback: Residents frequently expressed a desire for stop-controlled
intersections, particularly at intersections nearest their homes.
This approach ensures that traffic control changes balance resident input with engineering
standards, while maintaining safety and predictability across the neighborhood.
Staff recommendations: The following recommendations were based on data and established
best practices for safety:
Thirty (30) intersections are recommended to have changes to the intersection control.
• Fourteen (14) all-way stop-controlled intersections will change to two-way stop-
controlled intersections.
• Four (4) uncontrolled intersections will change to two-way stop controls.
• Three (3) yield signs will change to two-way stop controls.
• Nine (9) uncontrolled intersections in the neighborhood will change to yield signs to
establish clearer right-of-way, particularly at the shorter street segments.
Nine (9) intersections are recommended to not have any changes to the intersection control.
• Four (4) all-way stop-controlled intersections will remain.
• One (1) side street stop-controlled intersection will remain.
• Four (4) uncontrolled intersections will remain.
No changes are recommended to streets that share ownership with other agencies, including
Excelsior Boulevard, France Avenue and 40th Street. In addition, no changes are recommended
for any of the intersections along Wooddale Avenue.
These recommendations were presented to the traffic committee, an internal workgroup
consisting of representatives from engineering, public works, police and community
development departments. Meeting monthly, the committee reviews traffic-related requests
from across the city and develops recommendations for potential changes. Upon review of the
recommendations, the committee expressed its support for the intersection control changes.
The goal of revising the traffic control in this neighborhood is to:
• Improve safety for all users.
• Make intersection control more predictable for all users of the road.
• Increase compliance at stop sign locations.
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a) Page 6
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2
• Reduce unnecessary vehicle stopping, noise and carbon emissions.
• Create similar expectations for road users as they move between the adjacent
neighborhoods in St. Louis Park, Minneapolis and Edina.
Neighborhood notification: During the April 15, 2024, study session for alternating stop
controls, staff recommended an “inform process” for engagement with the neighborhood due
to these changes being a data-driven, proactive approach with the goal of creating a safer,
more predictable system.
The newsletter titled Traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista was mailed to 987 properties
within the Minikahda Vista neighborhood on Oct. 16, 2025, informing them of the changes to
intersection control, why this is being done, as well as letting community members know that
they can reach out to engineering with questions. This information was also posted on the
engineering construction projects website and sent out to 2,075 recipients via the email listserv
for the project, which included Minikahda Vista and Browndale neighborhoods.
Neighborhood feedback: Staff received direct correspondence from 70 community members in
the Minikahda Vista neighborhood with most of the feedback concentrated on six specific
locations. In addition to individual comments, many signatures were submitted through various
form letters regarding the Quentin Avenue/40th Street and the Natchez Avenue/Vallacher
Street intersections. Most residents focused their feedback on the intersection closest to their
home, while a few identified multiple intersections where they had concerns or suggestions.
The following summary outlines the key themes that emerged from the feedback:
• Eight (8) comments did not want any changes in the Minikahda Vista neighborhood.
• Eleven (11) comments did not agree with the changes to the six-block segment of 38th
Street from Excelsior Boulevard to France Avenue.
• Eight (8) comments did not agree with the changes on 39th Street from France Avenue
to Kipling Avenue.
• Thirty-two (32) comments did not agree with the changes at the intersection of Quentin
Avenue and 40th Street.
• Eight (8) comments did not agree with the changes at the intersection of
Princeton/Quentin Avenues and 42nd Street.
• Six (6) comments did not agree with the changes at the intersection of Natchez Avenue
and Vallacher Street.
• Four (4) comments requested the addition of an all-way stop at the intersection of
Joppa Avenue and 40th Avenue.
• Two (2) comments agreed with the changes at the intersection of Lynn Avenue and 39th
Street.
• One (1) comment agreed with the changes to the neighborhood intersection controls.
Because several intersections are located along the border between the two communities, staff
shared the proposed changes with the Edina Engineering Department. Edina staff did not
suggest any modifications and reported that they had not received feedback from residents in
either city.
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a) Page 7
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2
Modification to recommendation: Although these changes were communicated as an “inform”
process, staff acknowledged the community correspondence and completed a second review of
the neighborhood. The additional review resulted in adjusting the final recommendation at the
following two intersections in the neighborhood:
• Quentin Avenue and 40th Street:
The original staff recommendation was to remove the petitioned all-way stop and
replace it with stop signs on the east and west approaches of 40th Street. Staff
reevaluated the intersection and confirmed that the skew of the intersection and the
small hill on Quentin Avenue just south of the intersection create sightline challenges.
Sightline challenges meet the all-way stop warrants signs at this intersection.
• Princeton/Quentin Avenues and 42nd Street:
The original staff recommendation was to remove the stop signs for north-south traffic
along Princeton and Quentin Avenues. Staff reevaluated the intersection and confirmed
that the sightlines due to the hill on Quentin Avenue just north of the intersection
create sightline challenges. Sightline challenges meet the all-way stop warrants signs at
this intersection.
The following intersections received community feedback requesting changes to the staff
recommendation; however, based on additional engineering review, no modifications are
recommended.
• Natchez Avenue and Vallacher Street:
The intersection has sufficient sightlines, dissimilar vehicle volumes, and no crash
history. Changing the intersection from an all-way stop to a north-south two-way stop
maintains the alternating stop control pattern in the neighborhood. The average speed
on both roads is 17 mph.
• 38th Street from Excelsior Boulevard to France Avenue:
The intersections along 38th Street do not meet warrants for all-way stop control in the
east-west direction but do meet warrants for side street stop signs. As shared, the goals
of this intersection control review are to review warrants, make intersection control
more predictable and recognize community members’ desire for stop-controlled
intersections. In recognition of these goals, rather than removing all stop signs for east–
west traffic, staff recommends alternating the stop controls. This approach removes two
of the five stop conditions for vehicles traveling east–west, while maintaining a
predictable intersection control pattern. The average speed on this segment of road is
16 mph.
• 39th Street from France Avenue to Kipling Avenue:
The intersections along 39th Street do not meet warrants for stop control in any
direction. As shared, the goals of this intersection control review are to review warrants,
make intersection control more predictable and recognize community members’ desire
for stop-controlled intersections. In recognition of these goals, rather than removing all
stop signs in this corridor, staff recommends alternating the stop controls, with an all-
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a) Page 8
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2
way stop at Minikahda Vista Park. This approach maintains a predictable intersection
control pattern. The average speed on this segment of road is 16 mph.
• Joppa Avenue and 40th Avenue:
This tee intersection has stop control on the eastbound approach of 40th Street and
straddles the border between St. Louis Park and Edina. The intersection does not meet
warrants for sightlines, vehicle volume or crash history. The average vehicle speed on
Joppa Avenue is 19 mph.
Creating safe, comfortable and predictable streets is a goal shared by both staff and the
community. Staff recognizes that many community members value the existing all-way stops
because they believe the signs help slow traffic and make streets safer for people walking,
biking and driving.
However, our review of stop signs across the city shows that many current all-way stops are not
achieving those expectations. At intersections where traffic volumes do not justify an all-way
stop, drivers often become less consistent about stopping. This inconsistency can reduce
predictability and safety—especially for pedestrians and bicyclists who expect vehicles to stop.
Additionally, studies by various researchers, including the Institute for Transportation Engineers
(ITE), show that stop signs are not an effective method to consistently reduce speeds on
residential streets.
To improve safety and clarity, staff is recommending a more consistent approach to
intersection traffic control. This will help create intersections that are easier to navigate and
more predictable for everyone—whether they are walking, biking or driving.
To ensure these changes are effective, staff will
• Monitor the intersections following implementation
• Review data to assess traffic patterns and safety outcomes
• Consider modifications if future conditions warrant adjustments
The final recommendations can be found in the attached Minikahda Vista Neighborhood
intersection control map – Nov. 4, 2025, and the table below. The updated recommendation
was posted to the engineering construction projects website, sent out to 2,075 recipients via
the email listserv and communicated directly to the individuals who contacted staff.
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a) Page 9
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2
Street Cross street Action
Sign
Type Sign location
Glenhurst Avenue 37th Street Partial Stop North and south approaches
Glenhurst Avenue 38th Street Partial Stop East and west approaches
Glenhurst Circle 39th Street Partial Stop North and south approaches
Huntington Avenue 37th Street Partial Stop East and west approaches
Huntington Avenue 38th Street Partial Stop North and south approaches
Huntington Avenue 39th Street Partial Stop south approach
Inglewood Avenue 37th Street Partial Stop North and south approaches
Inglewood Avenue 38th Street Partial Stop East and west approaches
Inglewood Avenue 39th Street No change Stop All approaches
Joppa Avenue 37th Street Partial Stop East approach
Joppa Avenue 38th Street Partial Stop North and south approaches
Joppa Avenue 39th Street Partial Stop East and west approaches
Joppa Avenue 40th Street No change Stop West approach
Kipling Avenue 38th Street Partial Stop East and west approaches
Kipling Avenue 39th Street Partial Stop North and south approaches
Kipling Avenue 40th Street No change Stop North and south approaches
Lynn Avenue 39th Street New Stop East and west approaches
Lynn Avenue 40th Street No change Stop North and south approaches
Monterey Avenue 39th Street New Yield South approach
Monterey Avenue 40th Street No change Stop North and south approaches
Natchez Avenue 39th Street New Stop East approach
Natchez Avenue 40th Street No change Stop All approaches
Ottawa Avenue 42nd Street New Stop North and south approaches
Ottawa Avenue 42nd 1/2 Street New Yield North approach
Ottawa Avenue 42nd 1/2 Street New Yield South approach
Ottawa Avenue Morningside Road New Stop North approach
Quentin Avenue 40th Street No change Stop All approaches
Quentin Avenue 40th Lane New Yield East approach
Quentin Avenue 41st Street No change Stop All approaches
Quentin Avenue 42nd Street No change Stop All approaches
Quentin Avenue Raleigh Ave No change None Uncontrolled
Quentin Avenue 42nd 1/2 Street Partial Stop East approach
Vallacher Avenue Lynn Avenue New Yield West approach
Vallacher Avenue Natchez Avenue Partial Stop North and south approaches
Vallacher Avenue Ottawa Avenue New Yield South approach
Vallacher Avenue Princeton Avenue New Stop East and west approaches
Vallacher Avenue Quentin Avenue New Stop East and west approaches
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a) Page 10
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2
There are two resolutions for council to act on. The first resolution will rescind all intersection
controls in the Minikahda Vista neighborhood, and the second resolution will authorize the
installation of intersection controls consistent with the systems approach and information
provided in this report.
Next steps: If the report recommendation is approved, staff will coordinate with public works
to update the signage in the spring of 2026, aligning with other planned street sign updates in
the neighborhood. The installation schedule will be communicated to residents through mailed
letters and the neighborhood email listserv.
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a) Page 11
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2
Resolution No. 25-160
Rescind Resolutions No. 1938, 3104, 3823, 4085, 4307, 4326, 4504, 5189, 6254,
6305, 6701, 93-157, 93-218, 94-076, 99-134, 19-149, 02-098, 20-035, 20-036, 20-
037, 20-046, 20-054 and 20-154
regarding existing stop signs in the Minikahda Vista neighborhood
Whereas, the city received requests to install stop signs within the Minikahda Vista
neighborhood bordered by Excelsior Boulevard to the north, Morningside Road to the south,
Wooddale Avenue to the west and France Avenue to the east; and
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park had established stop signs in the Minikahda Vista
neighborhood in resolutions no. 1938, 3104, 3823, 4085, 4307, 4326, 4504, 5189, 6254, 6305,
6701, 93-157, 93-218, 94-076, 99-134, 19-149, 02-098, 20-035, 20-036, 20-037, 20-046, 20-054
and 20-154; and
Whereas, staff used a systems approach to evaluate intersection controls within the
Minikahda Vista neighborhood; and
Whereas, staff has reviewed the requests and recommended the installation of
modifications to intersection control within the Minikahda Vista neighborhood; and
Whereas, the alternating stop sign pattern will require rescinding twenty-three existing
resolutions, which authorized the installation of stop signs within the Minikahda Vista
neighborhood; and
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park, will establish new resolutions to authorize stop signs
and yield signs in the Minikahda Vista neighborhood; and,
Whereas, staff recommends rescinding Resolutions No. 1938, 3104, 3823, 4085, 4307,
4326, 4504, 5189, 6254, 6305, 6701, 93-157, 93-218, 94-076, 99-134, 19-149, 02-098, 20-035,
20-036, 20-037, 20-046, 20-054 and 20-154,
Now therefore be it resolved by the St. Louis Park City Council that the following
resolutions are hereby rescinded:
Resolutions No. 1938, 3104, 3823, 4085, 4307, 4326, 4504, 5189, 6254, 6305, 6701, 93-
157, 93-218, 94-076, 99-134, 19-149, 02-098, 20-035, 20-036, 20-037, 20-046, 20-054
and 20-154
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council December 8, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a) Page 12
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2
Resolution No. 25-161
Authorize intersection controls
in the Minikahda Vista neighborhood
Whereas, the city received requests to install stop signs within the Minikahda Vista
neighborhood bordered by Excelsior Boulevard to the north, Morningside Road to the south,
Wooddale Avenue to the west and France Avenue to the east; and
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park had established stop signs in the Minikahda Vista
neighborhood in Resolutions No. 1938, 3104, 3823, 4085, 4307, 4326, 4504, 5189, 6254, 6305,
6701, 93-157, 93-218, 94-076, 99-134, 19-149, 02-098, 20-035, 20-036, 20-037, 20-046, 20-054
and 20-154; and
Whereas, staff used a systems approach to evaluate intersection controls; and
Whereas, staff has reviewed the requests and recommended the installation of
modifications to intersection control within the Minikahda Vista neighborhood; and
Whereas, Resolutions No. 1938, 3104, 3823, 4085, 4307, 4326, 4504, 5189, 6254, 6305,
6701, 93-157, 93-218, 94-076, 99-134, 19-149, 02-098, 20-035, 20-036, 20-037, 20-046, 20-054
and 20-154 were rescinded by the St. Louis Park City Council as approved in Resolution No. 25-
160; and
Whereas, the modifications to the intersection control will require resolutions for the
installation of new stop signs in the Minikahda Vista neighborhood,
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
that the engineering director is authorized to install stop signs and yield signs at the following
intersections and directions of travel:
Street Cross street Sign Type Sign location
Glenhurst Avenue 37th Street Stop North and south approaches
Glenhurst Avenue 38th Street Stop East and west approaches
Glenhurst Circle 39th Street Stop North and south approaches
Huntington Avenue 37th Street Stop East and west approaches
Huntington Avenue 38th Street Stop North and south approaches
Huntington Avenue 39th Street Stop south approach
Inglewood Avenue 37th Street Stop North and south approaches
Inglewood Avenue 38th Street Stop East and west approaches
Inglewood Avenue 39th Street Stop All approaches
Joppa Avenue 37th Street Stop East approach
Joppa Avenue 38th Street Stop North and south approaches
Joppa Avenue 39th Street Stop East and west approaches
Joppa Avenue 40th Street Stop West approach
Kipling Avenue 38th Street Stop East and west approaches
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a) Page 13
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2
Kipling Avenue 39th Street Stop North and south approaches
Kipling Avenue 40th Street Stop North and south approaches
Lynn Avenue 39th Street Stop East and west approaches
Lynn Avenue 40th Street Stop North and south approaches
Monterey Avenue 39th Street Yield South approach
Monterey Avenue 40th Street Stop North and south approaches
Natchez Avenue 39th Street Stop East approach
Natchez Avenue 40th Street Stop All approaches
Ottawa Avenue 42nd Street Stop North and south approaches
Ottawa Avenue 42nd 1/2 Street Yield North approach
Ottawa Avenue 42nd 1/2 Street Yield South approach
Ottawa Avenue
Morningside
Road Stop North approach
Quentin Avenue 40th Street Stop All approaches
Quentin Avenue 40th Lane Yield East approach
Quentin Avenue 41st Street Stop All approaches
Quentin Avenue 42nd Street Stop All approaches
Quentin Avenue Raleigh Ave None Uncontrolled
Quentin Avenue 42nd 1/2 Street Stop East approach
Vallacher Avenue Lynn Avenue Yield West approach
Vallacher Avenue Natchez Avenue Stop North and south approaches
Vallacher Avenue Ottawa Avenue Yield South approach
Vallacher Avenue Princeton Avenue Stop East and west approaches
Vallacher Avenue Quentin Avenue Stop East and west approaches
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council December 8, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
ORlGJNAL
RESOLUTION NO, 1938
NOVEMBER 6, 1961
!OB
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PLACEMENT OF STOP SION FOR
TRAFFIC CONTROL AT INTERSECTION OF
WEST 38TH STREET AND JOPPA AVENUE
Wl-!EREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has caused a traffic a.nalysis
to be made of the volume of traffic and accident rate at the intersection of
West 38th Street and Joppa Avenue, and
WHEREAS, said analysis indicates that the following control on
traffic at said intersection is warranted upon the basis of its physical
characteristics and upon driver behavior and traffic conditions, and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. ·1oz, adopted Ju.'l.<!! $, 1q59, by the City
Council provides for installation of traffic control signs, signals and devices
when and as required by reoolution of the City Council, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park
that the City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to install stop
signs on Jo?pa Avenue for north and south bound traffic at its intersec
tion with West 38th Street.
Attest:
City Manager
Adopted by the City Council November 6, 1961.
:ff/ 9iil:f/Wf,l;�1
Approved as to form and legality:
Jltffi.p. City Attorney
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2 Page 14
•
•
•
!ldrd nrtl
RESOLUTION NO, 3104
,\UGUST 1, 1966
7 C
RESOLUTION h UTHORIZING PLACEMENT OF STOP
SIGN FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL /,T INTERSECTION OF
HUNTINGTON /,VENUE AND WEST 38THSTREET
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has caused a traffic analysis
to be made of volume of traffic and accident rate at the intersection
of Huntington Avenue and West 38th Slre-,l, and
WHEREAS, said analysis indicates that the following control on traffic
at said intersection is warranted upon the basis of its physical characteristics
and upon driver behavior and traffic conditions, and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 702., adopted June 8, 1959, by the City Council
provides for installation of traffic control signs, signals and devices
when and as required by resolution of the City Council, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park
that the City Engineer i.s hereby authorized and directed to install stop
signs on Huntington �\venue for north and south bound traffic at its inter
section with West 38th Street,
1\dopted by the City Council ,!;ugust l, 1966
/
Attest:
Reviewed (pr �ministration: /.ppro,·cd as to form :ind legality:
City Ivianngcr
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2 Page 15
•
•
•
') r;,2,7.:! RESOLUTION NO, OJ U ='<,}
RT•;soUJ�•IOrJ I\UTllOfUZ!NG PLI\CEM!lm' OF
STO!' SIGNS FOR TR/\FFIC CON1'ROL /\T
IN'l.'r::11SJlCTIONS OF l·msry• 38Tl'. STR!cf.T I\ND
KIPLING I\VENUE I\ND SIGM.S LIMITING rmTR/\MC!l
OF 1'RI\FPIC FROM FRI\MC!l /\VENUE I\T WEST 37TH,
38TH MID 39'.l'H S'l'RET::'rS
SEPTEMTJER 8, 1969
7G
NM!mF.A":, the City of: st. Louis P11rk has caused 11 traffic ,millysis
to be marlc or volume oJ' traffic ,ma ilCddent rate at the, lnterscctions
on 38th Stt.eet 8n<:1 France Avr:muc, rm(\
t'H·iERF.J\S, said nnalysis indicates: thnt the following control on traffic at said intersect.ions iB warranted upon the basis of its physical
chac·acteristics and upon driver behavior and traffic conditions, and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 702, adopted June 8, 1959, by the City Council provides for installation of traffic control signs, signals and devices when and as required by resolution of the City Council, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to install
the following signs:
Stop signs on West 38th Street at }�ipling Avenue to control eastbcund nna. westbound traffic
"Do Not Enter 7:00 a.rn. - 9:00 a.m." on t·7est 37th, 38th a.nd
39th Streets at France Avenue.
Adopted by the City Council Septe,rnber 8,
·-··,:,,-••-''''"''" .,.-,,,.:·.
v''�_-�
Reviewed fo1 administration: hpproved as to form and legality: --c;f;;;;:t�i�f/��·�----·-
City Manager City i\ttorney
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2 Page 16
•
•
•
RESOLUTION NO. 4085
RESOLUTION AUT!lORIZING PLACEHENT OF STOP SIGN FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL AT INTERSECTION OF HUNTINGTON AVENUE AND WEST 38TH STREET
WHEREAS, Ordinance 702, adopted June 8, 1959, by the City Council provides for instnllation of trnffic control signs, signals, and devices when and as re quired by resolution of the City Council, and.
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has caused a traffic analysis to be made of volume of traffic nnd accident rate nt the intersections of Huntington Avenue and West 38th Street, and
WHEREAS; said analysis indicates that the following control on traffic at said intr.rscction is warranted upon the basis of its physical characteristics and upon driver behavior and traffic conditions, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to install stop signs on West 30th Street for east and west bound traffic at its intersection with Huntington Avenue.
Adopted by the City Council November 2, 1970 .
Attpst:
/:cc,1 f /;' tity Clerk
�....--· _____ ,..-, .-� . . Hayor '
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2 Page 17
RESOLUTION NO. 4 3 0 7
AUGUST 16, 1971 8D
RESOLUTION AUTHORI ZING PLACEMENT OF STOP SIGN FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL AT INTERS ECTION OF NATCHEZ AVENUE AND WEST 40TH STREET
WHEREAS, Ordinance 702, adopted June 8, 1959, by the City Council pr ovides for install ation of traffic control signs, signals and devices when and as required by resolut ion of the City Council, and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has caused a traffic analysis to be made of volume of traffic and acc ident �ate at the intersecti on of Natchez Avenu e and West 40th Street, and
WHEREAS, said analysis indicates that the following control on trJffic at said intersecti on is warranted upon the basis of its physical characteristics and upon driver behavior and traffic conditions, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the City Engineer is here by authorized and directed to install stop sign to control southb ound traffic on Natchez Avenue at 40th StreeL.
Adopted by the City Council August 161 1971,L ./
���
Rey· •istrati on:
'i
Approved as to form and legality: -- '
C • >City "'Attorney
•.'I
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2
Page 18
•
RF.SOLUTION NO. ----
AUGUST 30, 1971
8K
UESOLU'l'ION AUTHORIZING PLACEMENT OF STOP, YIELD AND/OR NO PARKING SIGNS 1"0R TRAFFIC CONTROL
WHERF.AS, the City of St. Louis Park hns c,:mscd a traffic analysis to be made of truffic volumes �nd 3ccitlcnt r�tes ut said inters ections, and
HHEREAS, said analysis indicates that the following control on traf fic at said intersections is warranted upon the basis of its phy�ical characteristi cs and upon driver behavior and traffic conditions, and
HHEREAS, Ordin.:ince No. 702, adopted June 8, 19.J9, by th� City Council provides for installation of traffic control Gigns, signals uncl devices when and as required by resolution of the City Council, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis P;:irk thats the City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to install sizns at the following intersections:
Stop signs at intersection of Princeton and Woo<l<lalc Avenues for control of north and south bound traffic
Stop sign for vehicles enterine Wooddalc Avenue from Princ;clun Avenue
Yield sign for west bound 42\ Street at Princeton Avenue
No Parking on east side of Wooddale Avenue between West 44th S trcet ,:nc.l Toledo Avenue
No Parking on c.:ist side of Quentin and Princeton Avenues between ExcclsiOJ� i3oulcv.:ird .:ind Woodd::ilc :\venue
No Pn1·I�ing on north side of t!cst !�1st Street bet\-lcen Woo<ldule nnd Quentin Avenue�
Four-way stop si��n at intc�scction of 41st Strcc: �nd Quentin Avenue
Hake pcrm.:lnc:1t tcmpo�ary fo�r-wny st�p sign:; :it 41st Street :md Woo<l<la le Avenue
Ador,tccl by the City
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2 Page 19
RESOLUTION NO. 5 J&�
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PLACEMENT
OF YIELD SIGNS
JANUARY 6, 1975
8A
BE IT RESOLVED by the Cicy Council of the City of St. Louis Park.
tha.t a traffic analysi.s having in<lica.ted that placement of yield
signs on Lynn Avenue at West 40th Street is war·�a.nt:ed� the Di.rector
of Public Works is authorized and directed to install such. signs
on th.ese streets.
Adopted by the City Council January 6, 1975.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved as to form and legality:
City Attorney
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2 Page 20
December 12, 1974
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 98
PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
LOCATION: Inte rsection of Lynn Avenue and w. 40th Street.
BACKGROUND: W. 40th Street is a residential border street between St. Louis Park and Edina. Lynn Avenue is also a residential street which approaches W. 40th from both cities. Traffic volume ·counts taken last spring for a 24 hour period confirm the residential function of the streets under study.
W.40th west of Lynn AvenueLynn Ave nue north of w. 40th 689 vehicle s/day 291 vehicles/day
The characteristics of the intersection indicate that there is some lateral sight restrictions in the northwest and northeast corners caused by pine trees. The accident re-cord shows that there were no recorded accidents at this intersect.ion in 1972 and 1973 with 2 recorded accidents in 1974. The ac cidents this year are of a right angle type which indicates some problems .in delineating vehicular rightof-way.
Since 1/2 of the inter section is in Edina, any proposed controls for this intersection should be coordinated with them. They have also studied this .intersection and would agree that in view of the accidents which have occurred some control is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION: Yield signs should be installed on Lynn Avenue at w. 40th Street to help define the vehicular rightof-way. This is the same recommendation which the Edina city staff will make to their City Council.
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2 Page 21
"V r---__ _
TRAFFIC STUDY
N;O. 98
Proposed
"YE IL D11
Sign
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2 Page 22
Decemhe1� LL 1974
Dave r-1udt.ie t:Q
Director of Public works
City of St. r.ouis Park
St� Louis Park, MJ.nnesota
)-'<e: T:caffic Control at Lynn Avern1E: and VIest 40th Street
'l1he Edina 1I1 .rcffic :;afety Committee met on Oecernber 10, 1974 1 and the
follov,.;incJ action v1as taken on a request for traffic control at I,ynn
Aver1ue -· W,, 40th '.::ltreet and/or W .. 40th Street --� I(ipJ inq Avenue (E�r~:e
attz:iched enc:losore of excerpt fror(1 �l:.caff.i c Safety Cnnwnittee .Minutes)�
The aecision was hased on using the STOP si.gn warrants and Yi.eld sign
warrants from The Mi.nnesota ManuaJ. on tJniform Traffic Control Devices a
It was determined or1 the basis of traffic voJ.umes, vi_sual j_nspection�
and accident hj_story that 110 control was warrantea at w. 40th Street
Kipling Avenue. However, usinq the same criteria at W. 40th Street
Lynn J\venue, Warrant '.5 for Yield tdJJns is met,, �rhe j nsta11ation of
Yield signs on Lynn Avenue at W. 40th Street would correct the
problem of defining the ri.ght-of-way for motoristsa H0pefully, this
wilJ. pr2vent accidents si.milar to the two accidents this year at
Lynn Avenue and W. 40th Street in which the motorists on W. 40th
Street failed to yieJ.d to vehicles
non-controlled intersection�
fr:-orn T:vnn Avf�r1ue alreadv j_n the .. -� -• ·'·
Also, the traffic counts used in this determination are attachedA
Sincerely yours 9
cY.;.t; �-;� . ,) "-""') 1,ri?/ , .,. ( _/,;...·u�..-J.,r__.,:'_cy ' /v;,._r(S FVl..-;c;,,_.,,_,.,__,
Franci.s J� Hoffman
Assi.stant city Engineer
Traffir and Transportation
F\JH: Os
Attachrnents
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2 Page 23
EXCERPT FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES
2.Yield Signs on Lynn Avenue at west 40th Street
Mr. Ray Marshall, 4012 Kipling Avenue, requests consideration
on placing a 4-way STOP at 40th and Kipling and/or 40th
and Lynn intersections due to failure of West 40th Street
traffic to yield to traffic in intersection. This has been
deferred until St. Louis Park had determined what action
they were going to take.
Accidents: W. 40th and Kipling
W.40th and Lynn
ACTION TAKEN:
0
0
1971 thru 1974
1971 thru 1973
2 1974
Mr. Dunn moved that the Committee recommend Yield signs
for north and southbound Lynn movement at W. 40th Street
subject to approval by St. Louis Park for the southbound
Yield sign. Mr. Luce seconded the motion. Motion carried.
Mr. Hoffman will forward this recommended action to
st. Louis Park for their approval.
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2 Page 24
RESOLUTION NO. _9_4_-_76_
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS ALONG W. 40TH STREET AT NATCHEZ AVENUE AND A YIELD SIGN ALONG EASTBOUND 40TH LANE AT W. 40TH STREET
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 479
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that a traffic analysis having been completed, the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following controls:
I.Placement of stop signs along W. 40th Street at Natchez Avenue.
2.Placement of a yield sign along eastbound 40th Lane at W. 40thStreet.
Adopted by City Council June 20, 1994
Ma r
City Cl
Review for administration: Approved as to form and execution:
City' Attorney
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2 Page 25
&&&
&&&&
&
&&&&&&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&&
&
&
LY
N
N
A
V
E
S
MORNINGSIDE RD
36 1/2 ST
W
36TH ST W
M
O
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
N
A
T
C
H
E
Z
A
V
E
S
Q
U
E
N
T
I
N
A
V
E
S
PARK CENTER BLVD
R
A
L
E
I
G
H
A
V
E
S
K
I
P
L
I
N
G
A
V
E
S
M
I
NI
KA
H
DA
CT
WO
O
DDALE AVE
G
R
A
N
D
W
A
Y
BE
L
T
L
I
N
E
BLV
D
PA
R
K
N
I
C
O
L
L
E
T
B
L
V
D
WOLFE
PKW
Y
EXCEL
S
I
O
R
BLVD
41ST S
T
W
U
T
I
C
A
A
V
E
S
J
O
P
P
A
A
V
E
S
42 1/2 ST W
PARK COMM
O
N
S
DR
43 1/2 ST W
G
L
E
N
H
U
R
S
T
A
V
E
S
42ND ST W
B
R
O
W
N
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
S
F
R
A
N
C
E
A
V
E
S
O
T
T
A
W
A
A
V
E
S
34TH ST W
DEVANEY
ST
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
L
N
P
R
I
N
C
E
T
O
N
L
N
P
R
I
N
C
E
T
O
N
AV
E
S
VALLA
C
H
E
R
A
V
E
C
O
O
L
I
D
G
E
A
V
E
S
40TH
S
T
W
B
R
O
O
K
A
V
E
S
37TH ST W
39TH ST W
38TH ST
W
M
A
C
K
E
Y
A
V
E
S
AUTO CLUB WAY
D
A
R
T
A
V
E
S
I
N
G
L
E
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
S
M
O
N
T
E
R
E
Y
A
V
E
S
VE
R
N
O
N
AVE S
H
U
N
T
I
N
G
T
O
N
A
V
E
S
TO
L
E
D
O
A
V
E
S
S
A
L
E
M
A
V
E
S
35TH ST
W
PARK G
L
E
N
R
D
40TH
L
N
W
F
R
A
N
C
E
A
V
E
S
E
W
I
N
G
A
V
E
S
D
R
E
W
A
V
E
S
C
H
O
W
E
N
A
V
E
S
42ND ST W
G
R
I
M
E
S
A
V
E
S
A
L
D
E
N
D
R
S
C
O
T
T
T
E
R
R
A
C
E
BRANSON ST
LY
N
N
A
V
E
S
C
R
O
C
K
E
R
A
V
E
S
tŽůĨĞWĂƌŬ
ĂƐƐ>ĂŬĞ
WĂƌŬ
ƌŽǁŶĚĂůĞ
WĂƌŬ
DŝŶŝŬĂŚĚĂ
sŝƐƚĂWĂƌŬ
ĂƐƐ>ĂŬĞ
WƌĞƐĞƌǀĞ
dŽǁŶ'ƌĞĞŶ
WĂƌŬ
>ŝůĂĐWĂƌŬ
ZĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶ
KƵƚĚŽŽƌ
ĞŶƚĞƌ;ZKͿ
0 1,000 2,000500
Feet ´
M
I
N
N
E
A
P
O
L
I
S
E D I N A
Minikahda Vista Neighborhood
ST. LOUIS PARKPP
P
P
&
Uncontrolled intersection
Controlled intersection - all way stop
Controlled intersection - partial
Controlled intersection - yield
Stopping direction
Yielding direction
Traffic signal
P Sign result of petition
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2 Page 26
If you have questions,
contact:
October 2025
Jack Sullivan, PE
Assistant city engineer
Office: 952.924.2691
jsullivan@stlouisparkmn.gov
Engineering department
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
The city will implement a new traffic control model in Minikahda Vista –
alternating stop controls.
Why?During the engagement process for the 2024 pavement management
project, staff received requests for additional stop sign controls in the
neighborhood and concerns about stop sign compliance. To respond to this
feedback, staff conducted a review of the intersection controls in and near the
Minikahda Vista neighborhood.
The review identified inconsistent application of intersection control. The mix
of controlled and uncontrolled intersections results in inconsistency and no
discernible pattern, which leads to confusion for all roadway users
(pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles), including:
Assumptions by users as to who has the right of way.
Questions from the community about why streets with similar
characteristics have different levels of traffic control.
The belief that stop signs help to control speed and reduce cut-through
traffic.
Low stop sign compliance. On average, only 22% of drivers come to a full
stop at stop signs.
Requests from residents for more enforcement since drivers are not
stopping at the signs.
The review and public feedback indicate that stop signs are not meeting the
expectations of any roadway users.
To address this, engineering staff evaluated the neighborhood as a system of
intersections, rather than focusing on each intersection individually. This
approach led to the recommendation of an alternating stop control model.
What is alternating stop controls model? It’s a traffic pattern where
stop signs are placed about every two blocks, with the pattern switching back
and forth between north–south and east–west streets. For Minikahda Vista,
staff is using this as a starting point, while making adjustments to best fit the
site-specific needs of the neighborhood.
Has it been done before? The city has successfully implemented the
alternating stop controls model on 29th Street between Louisiana and Texas
Avenue in Texa Tonka neighborhood and throughout Browndale neighborhood.
When will the change occur?These changes are expected to take place
later this fall. City council provided guidance to staff that these changes were
appropriate for the neighborhood and supported staff’s recommendation to
inform the neighborhood of the new traffic control pattern. City council is
expected to formally approve the changes at the Nov. 17 council meeting, with
sign modifications occurring after that.
Traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2
Page 27
2 3
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2 Page 28
What are the benefits of alternating stop control pattern for the community? This new pattern
will make intersection control more consistent and predictable for everyone using the roads. Benefits
include:
Make intersection control more predictable for all road users.
Improved compliance at stop signs.
Reduce unnecessary vehicle stopping, noise and carbon emissions.
Create consistent driving patterns for road users as they move between St. Louis Park and the adjacent
neighborhoods in Minneapolis and Edina.
How will the change be implemented?To accomplish the installation of the new alternating stop
control pattern, many intersections within the neighborhood will have traffic control modifications. Some
intersections will have stop signs installed; some intersections will have all-way stop signs changed to two-
way stop signs, some intersections will have yield signs installed and some intersections will remain as is.
St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2 Page 29
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&&
&
&
LY
N
N
A
V
E
S
MORNINGSIDE RD
36 1/2 ST W
36TH ST
W
M
O
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
N
A
T
C
H
E
Z
A
V
E
S
Q
U
E
N
T
I
N
A
V
E
S
PARK CENT ER BLVD
R
A
L
E
I
G
H
A
V
E
S
K
I
P
L
I
N
G
A
V
E
S
M
I
NI
KA
H
DA
CT
W
O
O
DDALE AVE
G
R
A
N
D
W
A
Y
BE
L
T
L
I
N
E
BLV
D
PA
R
K
N
I
C
O
L
L
E
T
B
L
V
D
WOLFE
PKW
Y
EXCEL
S
I
O
R BLVD
41ST S
T
W
U
T
I
C
A
A
V
E
S
J
O
P
P
A
A
V
E
S
42 1/2 ST W
PARK COMM
O
N
S
DR
G
L
E
N
H
U
R
S
T
A
V
E
S
42ND ST W
B
R
O
W
N
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
S
F
R
A
N
C
E
A
V
E
S
OT
T
A
W
A
A
V
E
S
DEVANEY
ST
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
L
N
P
R
I
N
C
E
T
O
N
L
N
P
R
I
N
C
E
T
O
N
AV
E
S
VALLA
C
H
E
R
A
V
E
40TH
S
T
W
37TH ST W
39TH ST W
38TH ST W
AUTO CLUB WAY
I
N
G
L
E
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
S
M
O
N
T
E
R
E
Y
A
V
E
S
VE
R
N
O
N
AVE S
H
U
N
T
I
N
G
T
O
N
A
V
E
S
TO
L
E
D
O
A
V
E
S
S
A
L
E
M
A
V
E
S
35TH ST
W
40TH L
N
W
F
R
A
N
C
E
A
V
E
S
E
W
I
N
G
A
V
E
S
42ND ST W
G
R
I
M
E
S
A
V
E
S
A
L
D
E
N
D
R
S
C
O
T
T
T
E
R
R
A
C
E
LY
N
N
A
V
E
S
C
R
O
C
K
E
R
A
V
E
S
Susan Lindgren
Elementary School
tŽůĨĞWĂƌŬ
ĂƐƐ>ĂŬĞ
WĂƌŬ
ƌŽǁŶĚĂůĞ
WĂƌŬ
DŝŶŝŬĂŚĚĂ
sŝƐƚĂWĂƌŬ
ĂƐƐ>ĂŬĞ
WƌĞƐĞƌǀĞ
dŽǁŶ'ƌĞĞŶ
WĂƌŬ
ZĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶ
KƵƚĚŽŽƌ
ĞŶƚĞƌ;ZKͿ
&&&
&&&&
&
&&&&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&&
&
&
LY
N
N
A
V
E
S
MORNINGSIDE RD
36 1/2 ST W
36TH ST W
M
O
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
N
A
T
C
H
E
Z
A
V
E
S
Q
U
E
N
T
I
N
A
V
E
S
PARK CENT ER BLVD
R
A
L
E
I
G
H
A
V
E
S
K
I
P
L
I
N
G
A
V
E
S
M
I
NI
KA
H
DA
CT
WO
O
DDALE AVE
G
R
A
N
D
W
A
Y
BE
L
T
L
I
N
E
BLV
D
PA
R
K
N
I
C
O
L
L
E
T
B
L
V
D
WOLFE
PKW
Y
EXCEL
S
I
O
R BLVD
41ST S
T
W
U
T
I
C
A
A
V
E
S
J
O
P
P
A
A
V
E
S
42 1/2 ST W
PARK COMM
O
N
S
DR
G
L
E
N
H
U
R
S
T
A
V
E
S
42ND ST W
B
R
O
W
N
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
S
F
R
A
N
C
E
A
V
E
S
O
T
T
A
W
A
A
V
E
S
DEVANEY
ST
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
L
N
P
R
I
N
C
E
T
O
N
L
N
P
R
I
N
C
E
T
O
N
AV
E
S
VALLA
C
H
E
R
A
V
E
C
O
O
L
I
D
G
E
A
V
E
S
40TH
S
T
W
37TH ST W
39TH ST W
38TH ST W
M
A
C
K
E
Y
A
V
E
S
AUTO CLUB WAY
I
N
G
L
E
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
S
M
O
N
T
E
R
E
Y
A
V
E
S
VE
R
N
O
N
AVE S
H
U
N
T
I
N
G
T
O
N
A
V
E
S
T
O
L
E
D
O
A
V
E
S
S
A
L
E
M
A
V
E
S
35TH ST
W
40TH
L
N
W
F
R
A
N
C
E
A
V
E
S
E
W
I
N
G
A
V
E
S
D
R
E
W
A
V
E
S
42ND ST W
G
R
I
M
E
S
A
V
E
S
A
L
D
E
N
D
R
S
C
O
T
T
T
E
R
R
A
C
E
LY
N
N
A
V
E
S
C
R
O
C
K
E
R
A
V
E
S
Susan Lindgren
Elementary School
tŽůĨĞWĂƌŬ
ĂƐƐ>ĂŬĞ
WĂƌŬ
ƌŽǁŶĚĂůĞ
WĂƌŬ
DŝŶŝŬĂŚĚĂ
sŝƐƚĂWĂƌŬ
ĂƐƐ>ĂŬĞ
WƌĞƐĞƌǀĞ
dŽǁŶ'ƌĞĞŶ
WĂƌŬ
ZĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶ
KƵƚĚŽŽƌ
ĞŶƚĞƌ;ZKͿ
Minikahda Vista Neighborhood intersection control changes
M
I
N
N
E
A
P
O
L
I
S
S T. L O U I S PA R K
E D I N A
Proposed intersection controlExisting intersection control
M
I
N
N
E
A
P
O
L
I
S
E D I N A
S T. L O U I S PA R K
±
Date: 11/4/2025
0 500 1,000250
Feet
Legend
Uncontrolled intersection
&Controlled intersection - all way stop
Controlled intersection - partial stop
Controlled intersection - partial yield
Stopping direction
Yielding direction
Traffic signals
City Limits
Sidewalks
Yielding direction
Traffic signals
City Limits
Sidewalks
Indicates a change to traffic control
Updated
recommendation
Updated
recommendation
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2 Page 30
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minnikahda Vista neighborhood -Ward 2
Modification to Traffic Control Changes in Minikahda Vista
Page 31
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minnikahda Vista neighborhood -Ward 2 Page 32
•
42nd and Quentin/Princeton
•
Due to the same line of sight issues, the city should make no changes 10 the following intersect ions:
39th and Glenhurst
•
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minnikahda Vista neighborhood -Ward 2 Page 33
39th and Huntington
39th and Joppa
Based on your reasoning regarding Quentin, it appears necessary that a stop sign be added at 40th and Joppa/
Grimes.
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minnikahda Vista neighborhood -Ward 2 Page 34
Overall, the above pho tographs clearly demonstrate that the variances to your propose d changes are not being
implemente d consistently. I urge you to review these interse ctions again and grant variances based on the
demonstrable line of sight concerns these photographs show.
Thank you for your time and promp t attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Hoffmann
Jonathan Hoffmann Fri, Dec 5, 2025 at2:03 PM
To: Lynette Dumalag <LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Paul Baudhuin <pbaudhuin@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Yolanda Farris
<yfarris@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Margaret Rog <MRog@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Sue Budd <SBudd@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Tim
Brausen <TBrausen@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Cindy Walsh <cwalsh@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Mark Elgaard
<melgaar d@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Debra Heiser <dheiser@stlouisparkmn .gov>, nmohamed@stlouisparkmn.gov.
·im 'imeforsl .or . Jack Sullivan <'sullivan stlouis arkmn. ov>
Dear Councilors and Mayor,
...
I am writing this follow up email to bring your awareness to our neighborhood's significant concerns with the proposed
traffic sign reduction proposal. Mr. Sullivan, the City Engineer, is asking the Council to approve drastic, unrequested
changes to the traffic safety patterns rn Minikahda Vista and Brown neighborhoods. I, with support from many of our
neighbors, am asking the Council to reject these proposals for three reasons.
First, starting with the premise that the current intersection control structure was based on proper engineering
standards, the proposed modifications do not meet DOT recommendations. See Section 2B.07 STOP Sign
Applications at https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1/part2/part2b1 .htm. Three factors justifying multiway stop signs
have not been considered by the City Engineer to any extent: 1) the volume of traffic from each direction, (2) the need
to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes and (3) whether an
intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics
where multiway stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection. The City Engineer has
conducted no investigation into the amount of traffic volume in the neighborhood. The City Engineer has refused to
consider the impact on pedestrian foot traffic along these streets. This is esP-ecially concerning as many of these
streets exP-erience significant foot traffic due to their P-roximi!Y. to local P-arks and P-laygrounds. Multiway stop
signs should not be removed where they create the potential to lead to pedestrian accidents. The City Engineer has
made no assessment as to how these modifications will impact vehicle speeds or delays in the neighborhood. A fourth
factor. line of sight concerns, have been applied inconsistently by the City Engineer, as noted in the previous email.
Line of sight concerns also appear at 41 st and Salem; 39th and Kipling; 37th and Joppa, 37th and Inglewo od, and
37th and Glenhurst.
Second, the proposed changes appear to be based entirely on the premise that it will improve stop sign compliance
by "increasing predictability." The City Engineer is basing his concerns about stop sign compliance on a limited 24
hour study of approximately 5 intersections, which is insufficient. However, as noted by other members of the
community, the proposed changes appear to make the traffic patterns less predictable. Further, the City Engineer has
presented no evidence that these modifications have led to greater stop sign compliance in other neighborhoods
where this modification has been implemented.
Third, on a human level, I am asking the Council to take into consideration whether these changes are necessary at
this time. These traffic patterns have been part of this community for decades. As the Council is fully aware, the
proposed changes to our neighborhood has created significant anxiety and negative emotions in members of the
commun ity. Given the level of anxiety all of us are currently experiencing due to national events, it is senseless to
force this unwanted change on the community at this time.
Special city council meeting of December No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minnikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2 Page 35
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minnikahda Vista neighborhood -Ward 2 Page 36
The City Engineer was asked to address a handful of intersections that had no traffic controls. Instead, the City
Engi neer has proposed a dr astic overhaul to the entire community's traffic pattern. The City Engineer has cited no
substantial and compelling basis to make these modifications and has not coNected sufficient data or made
appropriate considerations to support the proposed changes. The proposed changes (with the exception of
addressing uncontrolled intersections) are universally rejected by the community in which it is intended to be
im plemented. For all these reasons, I am asking the Council to reject the City Engineer's proposal.
I appreciate your time and careful consideration of this issue which will ha ve a significant and l asting negative impact
on our community.
Sin cerely,
Jonathan Hoffmann
[Quoted text hidden)
Lynette Dumalag <LDumalag@stl ouisparkmn.gov> Sun, Dec 7, 2025 at 4:35 PM
To : Jonathan Hoffmann <jh64487@gmail.com>. Paul Baudhuin <pbaudhuin@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Yolanda Farris
<yfarris@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Margaret Rog <MRog@stlouisparkmn.gov>. Sue Budd <SBudd@stlouisparkmn.gov>. Tim
Brausen <TBrausen@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Cindy Walsh <CWalsh@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Mark Elgaard
<MElgaard@ stlouisparkmn.gov>, Debra Heiser <DHeiser@ stlouisparkmn.gov>, Nadia Mohamed
<NMohamed@stlouisparkmn.gov>, "jim@jimefo rslp.org" <jim@jimeforslp.org>, Jack Sullivan
<JSullivan _stlouis�arkmn.s:iov>
Thank you, Jonathan. I encourage you and others on this email to come to Council meeting tomorrow
evening. I'll email everyone who have reached out to me shortly.
Lynette Dumalag (she/her/hers)
Saint Louis Park City Council, Ward 2
Id umalag@stlouisparkmn.gov
From: Jonathan Hoffmann< >
Sent: Friday, December 5, 2025 2:03 PM
To: Lynette Dumalag <LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Paul Bau dhuin <pbaudhuin@stlouisparkmn.gov>;
Yolanda Farris <yfar ris@stlouisparkmn.gov >; Margaret Rog <MRog@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Sue Budd
<S8udd@stlouisparkmn .gov>; Tim Brausen <TBr ausen@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Cindy Walsh
<CWal sh@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Mark Elgaard <MElgaard@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Debra Heiser
<DHeiser@stlouisparkmn .go v>; Nadia Mohamed <NMohamed@stlouisparkmn.gov>; jirn@jimeforslp.org
<jim@jimeforslp.org>; Jack Sullivan <JSullivan@stlouisparkmn.gov> ■
Gmail Claudia Johnston-Madison
'I Notes about signage on Joppa Ave-··
1 message
Amy Kinsley To: Claudia Jo
Hi Claudia,
/'
·.e:tt,,• .. z_, ( t;}'\,-1
Sun, Nov 16, 2025 at 7:55 PM
Thank yoo for passing these points along. Please let me �no.v if you need anything else from me.
. .. -�. ·Jt. •
)(,, ; \ _,/
� 7 k'
N_qjes on signage on Joppa Ave S =
J_\,,' f J 1.�e_fy for children and _an:iilies accessing the park
l of2
The stop sign at 39th and Joppa is located along a primary walking and biking route to Minnekahda Vista Park. Families regularly cross Joppa at this intersection, and young child ren are often ahead of their parents on scooters. bikes, or rollerblades. Even when drivers perform a "rolling• stop rather than a full stop, the presence of the sign slows traffic and creates a predictable pause point where both the driver and the child can see one another . . --\o 1..1e c;.1 01 4 This brief reduction in speed and i,hcreased visual attention meaningfully increases safety for ch ild ren who may enter the intersection unpredictably . .Myf son and I have exper ienced this ourselves multi ple times. Removing the stop sign would eliminate that predictable pause. If remo val is still being considered, an alternative. such as a pedestrian crossing sign with flashing beacons. would preserve the visibility and driver awareness needed for families accessing the park..
2.�r.9.tl:.<nion for pets and neighborhood walkers_.,._-_
Our ne ighborhood has many pet owners, and dogs that have gotten loose are not uncommon. I've personally returned several dogs to their owners in the past year. Stop signs provide drivers with a built-in moment to slow down and scan their surroundings. This can prevent injuries to pets that may dart into the road unexpectedly, especially at intersections.
For a nei ghborhood where walking dogs is common. reducing the number of controlled intersections increases risk. without a corresponding safety benefit.
3. ,S.� for elderly residents and vulnerable pedestriansse:-:--
We have several elderly neighbors who walk daily, often with pets. These pedestrians benefit the most from predictable, low-speed intersections. Last year, I encountered an elderly man who had fallen off the sidewalk and into the roadway; he was injured and disoriented. The presence of a stop sign at that intersection ensured that approaching cars were already slowing down, reducing the likelihood of a serious secondary injury.
Removing signage reduces the margin of safety for those with slower reaction times, mobility challenges, or impaired stability. \i; ... '\
4.Limited visibility due to roadway de�.i,Qn ar;i� t�t hflr�"'I -.�f'p� "' a?tJ , ,.i..; .,u, c:::,·o.r--o..o..� .6 .:-b -" ...,,oq::> I\. r Cars lra�ling nactti on Joppa,from-Grimes are challenging to see because of the hill. This reduced sight dist ance
already makes crossing the road difficult for pedestrians and creates tight reaction times for drivers. Children also travel abng this path to get to Weber Park. This area would benefit from additional traffic-calming measures at 4CXh or enhanced vis ibility cues to compensate for the hill's geometry.
Thank you for your consideration.
Warmly,
Amy
11/16/2025, 8:07 PM
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minnikahda Vista neighborhood -Ward 2 Page 37
2 of2
Amy C. Kinsley, DVM, PhD (she/her)
1 I /16/2025, 8:07 PM
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minnikahda Vista neighborhood -Ward 2 Page 38
Council members,
I am unable to join the hearing this evening but want to share, again, my concerns prior
to the council making a decision.
1.As the studies used in developing the current policy state, stop-signs should not be
used for speed deterrence, but rather for regulating right-of-way. This is guidance, but
not permission to remove warranted stop signs. In totality, I read the MUTCD as saying
stop signs must be used where a full stop is needed for safety-in other words, are
there non-vehicle users who rely on the STOP sign, including pedestrians, children
walking to school, etc? If removing the sign would expose them to risk, it stays. The
intersection of 39th and Joppa is the main and only direct pede strian route to
access Minikahda Vista park one block to the east. There was no recorded mention
of any type of study of pedestrian traffic, including by time of day or time of year at this
intersection. There was no discussion or indication of city policies regarding pedestrian
safety and how this weighed in the proposal recommendations. I see reference to the
judgment of city engineers. That judgment should be data driven, not qualitative.
2.The removal of the stop signs on the north and south sides of 39th and Joppa is
inconsistent with the basket weave that's been proposed for the remainder of the
neighborhood. It fails to consider that there is no current stop sign at the intersection of
Grimes/Joppa & 40th Street. This means that elimination of the Joppa stop signs will
result in no traffic control on Joppa/Grimes between the intersection of Inglewood &
Grimes in Edina through to 38th & Joppa.
3.The stated average 19 mph speed of vehicles on Joppa Ave is inconsistent with the
my experience and those of others on this block. When and how was this calculated?
At what point on the block was this measured? What is the average for northbound
versus southbound? What percent of vehicles exceed the 20 mph limit, and of those,
what is the average speed?
4.What specific data did the traffic engineers use in assessing pedestrian volumes by
time of day and time of year at the intersection of 39th and Joppa? Please share that
detailed study and conclusions.
5.Where this alternating stop sign design has recently been implemented, there's
commentary that it's been "well-received". Opinions are fine, but data are the test of
realized benefit. Please share the change (pre v post) in average speed, the percent of
vehicles exceeding the posted speed limit, the average speed of those exceeding the
posted limit, the change in total trafffic volume, when that was measured, what time of
year that was measured, and the duration over which it was measured.
6.The council documents make reference to monitoring changes assuming the stop
sign change is approved. What specific data elements will be measured, how will
impacts to pedestrian safety be measured, at what points in time will they be measured,
and what is the definition of "success", which means how much improvement in each
metric is the counsel committing to? Assuming the measures of improvement are not·--➔
Special city council meeting of December No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minnikahda Vista neighborhood - Ward 2 Page 39
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minnikahda Vista neighborhood -Ward 2 Page 40
met or deterior ate on some or all measures, at what point is the council commit ting to
reinstate stop signs? What is the evaluation criteria and weighting of each measure for
the council to make a data-driven decision? How and when will data be formally
shared with residents?
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minnikahda Vista neighborhood -Ward 2 Page 41
Bridston, Peter
From: Bridston, Peter
Sent: Monday, December 8, 2025 3:05 PM
To:
Cc:
'Lynette Dumalag·; 'Paul Baudhuin'; 'yfarris@stlouisparkmn.gov';
'mrog@stlouisparkmn.gov'; 'sbudd@stlouisparkmn.gov'; 'tbrausen@stlo uisparkmn.gov·
'Jack Sullivan'; 'Cindy Walsh'; 'Debra Heiser'; 'Mark Elgaard';
Subject Proposed Traffic Control Changes in Minikahda Vista -Joppa Ave S & W 39th St
Dear City Council Members: I
My Minikahda Vista neighbors have done a great job presenting thorough, logical arguments as to why removing
the north-south stop signs at W 39 th St & Joppa Ave S is a bad idea, so I am going to keep this email succinct:
1. Joppa Ave Sis undoubtedly the busiest north-south street between Woodale and France Ave for vehicles
moving between the cities of Edina and St. Louis Park.
2.West 39th Street crossing Joppa Ave Sis the major east-west pedestrian route to Minikahda Vista Park.
3.Foot traffic to Minikahda Vista Park across this intersection continues to be busy during winter due to the
large number of walkers, dog walkers and children seeking access to the open space, walking trails and
excellent sledding hill (I would note that not all children on their way to the park are accompanied by
adults, and of course driving and walki ng conditions are often at their most treacherous when sledders are
active).
4.Removing the stop signs in question would create a 3-block north-south straigh taway on Grimes/Joppa Ave
S, not a 2-block straightaway as contemplated in the plan, as there are no stop signs at the Edina border
(40 th and Joppa).
5.If the north-south st op signs at 39"' and Joppa are removed, I will guaranty you that average vehicle speeds
will increase on Joppa, and perhaps most importantly, the speeds of the fastest 10 or so daily cars cutting
through the neighborhood will increase dramatically, well beyond the posted limit.
6.I reject the notion that stop signs can never be used for speed control, but only for right of way. They are in
fact in certain circumstances an effective form of speed contro l, and in my opinion, more palatable than
sp eed bumps, traffic circles, narrowed curb cuts, or even abnormally slow speed limits (which are often
disobeyed).
7.To my knowledge, there is little to no neighborhood dissent on the north-south W 39th St & Joppa Ave S stop
signs issue. I am not aware of any Minikahda Vista resident who thinks the removal of the north-south
stop signs at 39 th and Joppa is a good idea. This is a special circumstance intersection that needs to be
handled as a special case.
Thank you,
Peter Bridston
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control f-�,�nn�hda Vista neighborhood -Ward 2 Page42
Re�
Petition to the St.Louis Park City Council
Regarding the planned traffic control ch anges in the Minikahda Vista Neighborhood
Whereas: a high percentage of traffic leaving the neighborhood already goes north down
Kipling Avenue from 39th street.
Whereas: much of that traffic already uses excessive speed.
Whereas: 12 children live on the 3800 block of Kipling.
Whereas: a school bus stop is located on the SW comer of 39th and Kipling with chi ldren
crossing 39th.
Whereas: the planned changes would remove the stop signs on 39th at Kipling.
Whereas: the planned changes would create an elght block long route through the residential
neighborhood with no stop signs that would entice increased traffic and speed through the
neighborhood. (Excelsior to Princeton to Vallacher to Lynn to 39th to Kipling to Excelsior)
Whereas: the planned changes would remove all three stop si.gns currently on that route and
leave none.
Whereas: this route with no stop signs would entice more traffic through the residential
neighborhood by allowing traffic on Excelsior to divert through the neighborhood to avoid the
two traffic control stop and go lights on Excelsior at Natchez and 38th.
Whereas: the current all-way stop signs at 38th and 39th on Kipling do serve to at least quell traffic and speed somewhat and provide some protection for the children ..
Therefore: we residents of the 3800 block of Kipling strongly. urge that the all-way stop signs
currently at 38th and 39th on Kipling be fully retai ned. We are not asking for anything to be
added, just to retain some protection that currently exists. It could save a child's life.
Vt,(Mtt, 1Z-Klv--ll: f' I ��r ,; o+ 'Y"v-'""',, .� t .,,{'-tkb I oel
1;;:;:u.fi�J. ,,/� ;().�4a?� r-,r 1;,Ay
�(MJb� ,£_ __ --��
,-----·-i' o\f€R-?,
l of2
Gmaii Claudia Johnston-Madison
Updates regard ing traffic control changes in Minikahda Vi sta neighborhood
Mon, Dec 8, 2025 at 9:59 AM
To: Lynette Oumalag <LOumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Paul Baudhuin <pbaudhuin@stlouisparkmn.gov>,
yfarris@stlouisparkmn.gov, mrog@stlouisparkmn.gov. sbudd@stlouisparkmn.gov, tbrausen@stlouisparkmn.gov
Cc: Jack Sullivan <JSullivan@st louisparkmn.gov>. Cindy Walsh <CWalsh@stl ouisparkmn.Qov>. Debra Heiser
< OHeiser@stlouisparkmn.Qov>. Mark EIQaard <M Eloaard@stlouisparkmn. QOv>.
Council members,
I am unable to join the hearing this evening but want to share, again, my concerns prior to the council making a
decision.
1.As the studies used in developing the current policy state, stop-signs should not be used for speed deterrence, but
rather for regulating right-of-way. This is guidance, but not permission to remove warranted stop signs. In totality, I
read the MUTCO as saying stop signs must be used where a full stop is needed for safety---in other words, are there
non-vehicle users who rely on the STOP sign, including pedestrians, children walking to school, etc? If removing the
sign would expose them to risk, it stays. The intersection of 39th and Joppa is the main and only direct
pedestrian route to access Minnekahda Vista park one block to the east There was no recorded mention of any
type of study of pedestrian traffic, including by time of day or time of year at this intersection. There was no
discussion or indication of city policies regarding pedestrian safety and how this weighed in the proposal
recommendations. I see reference to the judgment of city engineers. That judgment should be data driven, not
qualitative.
2.The removal of the stop signs on the north and south sides of 39th and Joppa is inconsistent with the basket weave
that's been proposed for the remainder of the neighborhood. It fails to consider that there is no current stop s ign at
the intersection c:J Grimes/Joppa & 40th Street. This means that elimination of the Joppa stop signs will result in no
traffic control on Joppa/Grimes between the intersection of Inglewood & Grimes in Edina through to 38th & Joppa.
3.The stated average 19 mph speed of vehicles on Joppa Ave is inconsistent with the my experience and those of
others on th is block. When and how was this calculated? At what point on the block was this measured? What is the
average for northbound versus southbound? What percent of vehicles exceed the 20 mph limit, and of those, what is
the average speed?
4.What specific data did the traffic engineers use in assess ing pedestrian volumes by time of day and time of year at
the intersection of 39th and Joppa? Please share that detailed study and conclusions.
5.Where this alternating stop sign design has recently been implemented, there's commentary that it's been "well
received". Opinions are fine, but data are the test of rea lized benefit. Please share the change (pre v post) in average
speed, the percent of vehicles exceeding the posted speed limit, the average speed of those exceeding the posted
limit, the change in tot al trafffic volume, when that was measured, what time of year that was measured, and the
duration over which it was measured.
6.The council documents make reference to monitoring changes assuming the stop sign change is approved. What
specific data elements will be measured, how will impacts to pedestrian safety be measured, at what points in time will
they be measured, and what is the definition of 'success", which means how much improvement in each metric is the
counsel committing to? Assuming the measures of improvement are not met or deteriorate on some or all measures,
at what point is the council committing to reinstate stop signs? V\lhat is the evaluation criteria and weighting of each
measure for the council to make a data-driven decision? How and when will data be formally shared with residents?
12/8/2025, l l :51 AM
Special city council meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolutions authorizing traffic control changes in Minnikahda Vista neighborhood -Ward 2 Page 44
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: December 8, 2025
Discussion item: 1
Executive summary
Title: Vision 4.0 final report
Recommended action: No action is being requested. This item is for discussion purposes only.
Policy consideration: There is no policy consideration at this time. The council will have policy
considerations related to Vision 4.0 in early 2026.
Summary: The community engagement phase of the Vision 4.0 process, which ran from March
through September 2025, has now concluded. During this period, staff and consultants
implemented a wide range of strategies to gather meaningful input from residents and
community members. These efforts included an ambassador cohort, a community committee,
mobile and static engagement activities, virtual outreach and facilitated conversations.
Together, these approaches provided diverse opportunities for residents to share perspectives
and shape the visioning process.
With the engagement phase concluded, staff and the consultant team are prepared to deliver
the final report to the city council. Led by Forecast Public Art and Bolton & Menk staff members
Ebony Dumas, Marcell Walker, Eric Souvannasacd and Candida Gonzalez, the report will provide
a comprehensive overview of the engagement methods used, present community profile data
highlighting who participated, underscore the key themes and feedback gathered, and offer
data-driven recommendations to inform the next stage of the visioning process.
Financial or budget considerations: There are no budget impacts associated with the Vision
4.0 report.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Vision 4.0 Final Report
Prepared by: Pat Coleman, community engagement coordinator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager/deputy community development director
Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Vision 4.0 final report
Discussion
Background: Since 1995, the City of St. Louis Park has demonstrated a deep commitment to
engaging residents, community organizations, businesses and partners through three extensive
ten‑year visioning processes. These efforts have been instrumental in shaping a vibrant,
cohesive community and have led directly to operational changes and policy development.
Operational changes have included revising council reports, budget discussions and
communications to align with strategic priorities, while policies such as the city’s
comprehensive plan, “Connect the Park” and the Climate Action Plan were informed and
strengthened by visioning outcomes. Full reports from each of these visioning processes are
available online through the City of St. Louis Park.
The community is now engaged in the fourth iteration of this process, Vision 4.0, which builds
on this legacy of resident-driven planning. During a study session on Feb. 12, 2024, staff
outlined the initial planning timeline, followed by a Jan. 6, 2025 study session where the council
received details on the engagement plan developed by Forecast Public Art in partnership with
Bolton & Menk. The plan set clear goals: to provide transparent information about the process,
explore the community’s evolving identity, identify aspirations for the future, and ensure
diverse participation—particularly from underrepresented voices, youth, and renters.
To achieve these goals, a variety of engagement methods were employed, including the
formation of an ambassador cohort to guide conversations and strengthen relationships,
facilitation of small-group discussions hosted within community networks, mobile engagement
through the city’s engagement van and city-led events, static outreach via surveys, lawn signs
and posters, open houses and virtual engagement leveraging the city’s strong social media
presence. Since January 2025, staff and consultants have been actively implementing these
strategies, gathering input across the city.
On Sept. 15, 2025, staff provided the council with a report on the progress of Vision 4.0
engagement efforts. The report highlighted the strategies implemented to date, which had
reached approximately 1,600 residents through a variety of activities, primarily mobile
engagement, facilitated small group discussions and survey participation. The report also
included information on who was being engaged, with details on the diversity of participation
across neighborhoods, age groups and racial demographics.
This report builds on the Sept. 15, 2025 update, offering the council a high-level overview of
emerging themes from community input and outlining the next steps in advancing Vision 4.0
toward a comprehensive strategic framework for the city’s future.
Present considerations: From March to September 2025, the Vision 4.0 engagement process
successfully reached residents through a diverse set of methods, ensuring both quantitative
and qualitative levels of community input. The effort captured perspectives from families,
young professionals, renters, homeowners and BIPOC residents, reflecting the city’s
demographic diversity. Feedback consistently expressed St. Louis Park’s identity as a welcoming
and connected community, while also elevating priorities around housing affordability,
mobility, safety and sustainability.
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: Vision 4.0 final report
This comprehensive engagement collected provides city council with a clear, data-driven
foundation to guide the next phase of visioning, ensuring that future strategies are rooted in
resident voices and aligned with the community’s values of inclusivity, trust and belonging.
Engagement highlights: Throughout the engagement process, a total of 2,336 resident
interactions were documented. Recognizing that some individuals may have participated in
multiple activities, the estimated unique reach is approximately 2,000 residents. The following
provides a high-level overview of the collected data, which will serve as a foundation for
guiding the next phase of the visioning process:
• Engagement methods
o Mobile engagement: 19 events, 1,607 interactions. This approach reached
diverse residents, including renters and BIPOC community members.
o Community conversations: 96 residents participated in small-group discussions,
providing nuanced insights in informal settings.
o Community survey: 633 responses. The survey (available in English, Spanish, and
Somali) was distributed citywide through newsletters and social media.
• Demographic insights
o Age: Strong representation from adults aged 25–44 (48.7%), reflecting
participation from young professionals and families.
o Race/ethnicity: Majority of identified participants were White (81.5%). Mobile
engagement notably reached 456 BIPOC residents, representing 28.4% of mobile
interactions.
o Neighborhoods: Broad representation across the city. Fern Hill neighborhood
had the highest survey participation, while targeted renter outreach in the Eliot
neighborhood captured specific concerns.
Themes: With the engagement period now concluded, staff and the consultant have completed
a preliminary review of the input received. Together, they are providing the council with a high-
level summary of the general themes that have emerged from community feedback:
• Safety: Creating a community where all people in the area feel safe.
• Infrastructure: Building and maintaining connected, reliable and people-first public
spaces.
• Sustainability: Leading as responsible stewards of our natural and financial
environment.
• Community and belonging: Fostering a vibrant, connected and inclusive community
where everyone belongs.
• Housing and affordability: Ensuring a diverse and attainable range of housing options
for all.
Next steps: Once this final report is accepted by city council, the second phase of visioning will
commence in 2026 and the council will work to determine and adopt the final set of new
strategic priorities. Staff will then develop an actional strategic plan that includes goals and
metrics based upon the newly adopted set of strategic priorities.
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Title: Vision 4.0 final report
Here is a timeline of the next steps in the process:
January – February 2026 The city council will determine the final set of strategic priorities
through facilitated discussions led by an external consultant
March 2026 The city council adopts new strategic priorities
March – June 2026 Staff, in collaboration with an external consultant, develop a
strategic plan based upon new strategic priorities
Vision 4.0
Leading with Love: A Vision of
Connection for St. Louis Park 4.0
December 2025
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 5
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 4
Introduction 6
1. Project Background
2. Past Visions: A baseline for community connection
3. Past Visions Flowing into the Current
6
8
9
Community Involvement Strategy 10
1. Placing Community at the Center and Throughout
2. Ambassador Cohort
3. Community Conversations
4. Static Engagement
5. Mobile Engagement
6. Open Houses
10
11
14
14
15
17
Engagement Data 17
1. Data Collection
2. Anchoring Questions
3. Analysis Method
17
18
18
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 6
Data-Driven Policy Recommendations 23
1. Safety
2. Infrastructure
3. Sustainability
4. Community & Belonging
5. Housing & Affordability
24
25
26
28
29
Leading with Love: A Vision of
Connection for St. Louis Park 4.0
30
1. Spaces to Belong, Place to Call Home
2. Community Thriving
3. Holistic Safety & Infrastructure
4. Environmental Stewardship
30
31
32
33
Conclusion 34
35Appendix
Previous Visions
Neighborhood Representation
Neighborhood-Specific Analysis
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 7
4 | VISION 4.0
Executive Summary
Emerging from a wide range of comprehensive and creative community engagement, St.
Louis Park Vision 4.0 reveals a proud and caring community that loves their city. This vision
was shaped by the voices of St. Louis Park through traditional, nontraditional, grassroots,
and artist-driven citywide engagements that resulted in a combination of measurable
quantitative data and open-ended qualitative data. Over the course of the project, this
approach reached over 2,000 community members; more than double the amount of
previous Vision process. Given the wide range of engagement methods, some themes and
recommendations are outside of the city’s purview. Each theme that emerged, however,
influences and contributes to the community’s identity and success.
Building on the positive impact of three previous visioning processes, Vision 4.0 serves as
a reflection of the community’s aspirations and values. The Vision 4.0 process centered
community voices to understand the city’s evolving identity, assess its progress, and identify
aspirations for the decade ahead. Through more than 2,000 touchpoints - including artist-
led mobile pop-ups, community conversations, surveys, and open houses - the Vision 4.0
process demonstrated a community that is deeply proud, deeply invested, and deeply
committed to shaping its future together.
Residents overwhelmingly described St. Louis Park as welcoming, diverse, connected, and
community-minded. They expressed pride in the city’s parks, trails, natural resources,
and its strong neighborhood identity. At the same time, they named challenges and
opportunities to improve. People want safe streets and public spaces, a wide range of
housing choices, thriving business districts, and “third places” and events for neighbors
to gather. Young families voiced their desire for high performing schools and housing
affordability; renters and BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) residents emphasized
representation, trust, and equitable access; and residents of all backgrounds stressed the
importance of planning proactively for the next generation.
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 8
ST. LOUIS PARK | 5
Together, these insights shaped a set of forward-looking recommendations that reflect the
community’s shared values and meet the moment. Vision 4.0 calls for:
A holistic and trust-based approach to safety, expanding prevention and non-police
responses and strengthening relationships across public safety systems.
A commitment to people-first infrastructure, with connected sidewalks, protected
bikeways, safe streets, and reliable “invisible” systems that support daily life.
Bold leadership in sustainability, expanding green infrastructure, accelerating climate
action, and ensuring both environmental and financial resilience.
Investment in social infrastructure and belonging, with vibrant public spaces, robust
arts and cultural opportunities, and systems that embed equity and representation
throughout city operations.
A diverse and attainable housing ecosystem, including more “missing middle” options,
strengthened renter stability, and equitable paths to homeownership.
Across every method of engagement, one message was clear: St. Louis Park cares deeply
about maintaining its welcoming spirit while preparing for a changing future. Residents
want proactive leadership that brings people together, builds trust, respects neighborhood
character, and turns shared aspirations into measurable progress. Vision 4.0 affirms that the
city’s path forward will require collaboration across residents, staff, and elected officials—
and that the community is ready to engage in that work.
By following this roadmap, St. Louis Park can honor its history, strengthen what makes it
unique, and create new opportunities that ensure the city remains a place where everyone
can thrive—today and for generations to come.
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 9
6 | VISION 4.0
Introduction
Project Background
For more than 30 years, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, has developed a unifying
community vision by inviting residents to define a shared future direction. This visioning
process emphasizes collaborative problem-solving and genuine community involvement
with city staff, elected officials, and community leaders. Now in its fourth iteration—Vision
4.0—this initiative will inform strategic priorities, steer planning efforts, and shape decisions
for the next decade.
Although every visioning project is distinct and reflects the specific context and needs of
its community at that time, they are considered holistically, building on the successes and
lessons learned from previous efforts.
Previous visions have led to the creation of landmark programs and developments,
including:
Mobility initiatives:
Connect the Park expanded the pedestrian and bicycle facilities, complete streets and living
streets policies that enhance our networks.
Minnehaha Creek re-wilding:
This project improved water quality, habitat and access to this natural resource and
community amenity.
Wolfe Park Redesign:
The transformation of a key public space into a vibrant community hub.
Excelsior & Grand:
A pioneering mixed-use development that brought new life and housing options to the area
and enhanced the community’s image.
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 10
ST. LOUIS PARK | 7
Environmental initiatives:
MN GreenStep Cities, SolSmart, climate action plan, sustainability division staff and
programming, green building policy, and more that have all shaped city operations,
development standards, and tools for businesses and residents.
Housing initiatives:
Move-up in the park program, daown payment assistance for first-time and first generation
homebuyers, rental assistance programs including emergency assistance and the Kids in the
Park program, and the inclusionary housing policy.
Other initiatives:
Adoption of community-oriented policing model, neighborhood-based community
organizing, diversity, equity and inclusion policy.
Children First:
A framework that places the needs of young people at the center of community planning.
This recent chapter in St. Louis Park’s history builds on that legacy, starting with a
committed group of residents who united to establish the groundwork for this vital effort.
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 11
8 | VISION 4.0
Past Visions: A baseline for community connection
This report marks the 30-year evolution of St. Louis Park’s three iterations of the city’s
visioning priorities from 1995 to 2017. Within this progression, St. Louis Park has
consistently and proactively evolved, beginning with self-reflection to understand its needs,
then actively creating physical assets – ‘hardware’ – (Vision 1.0), to fostering community
connections – ‘social nodes’ (Vision 2.0), and most recently identifying and defining ways
to intentionally engage with each other – the ‘software’ – with a focus to explore racial and
elder equity (Vision 3.0).
Discussion on Historical Social Disconnection and Systemic Change
In 2017, Vision 3.0 highlighted a notable gap in resident experiences: 42% of people of
color who attended neighborhood meetings were more likely to describe their feelings
about their community with negative words like “disconnected, sad, lonely, isolated, cold,
frustrated, secluded, nervous, depressed, neglected, or unsupported.” In contrast, 79% of
white respondents used positive terms such as “safe, happy, proud, and good.”
This disparity showed that, despite Vision 1.0’s aim of recognizing diversity (1995) and
Vision 2.0’s aim of establishing an inclusive model (2007), St. Louis Park could make
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 12
ST. LOUIS PARK | 9
more progress toward an inclusive community, which 68.42% of neighborhood meetings
identified as a core value.
Vision 3.0’s response advanced from raising awareness to promoting systemic and
measurable action: grouped into two themes. One focused on systemic change,
encouraging leadership in racial equity to foster an ecosystem where equity becomes a
“way of life,” including hiring a Racial Equity Coordinator and offering extensive training
to community and city leaders. The other theme centered on “software”—residents’
emotional and social bonds—highlighting that collaboration between this ‘software’ and
the physical ‘hardware’ assets is vital for a sustainable city, reflecting the community’s
second most valued aspect, social connections.
Past Visions Flowing into the Current
This dedication to systemic equity and social ties forms the core mandate for any future
visioning effort (Vision 4.0), particularly when viewed alongside ongoing demographic and
economic shifts highlighted in recent data.
Affordability and the Evolving Middle Class
Vision 3.0 highlighted the Changing Middle Class as a significant, certain trend where the
city was underprepared. This trend, characterized by rising costs for middle-class living
outstripping wage increases, deepens wealth gaps and harms social outcomes. Currently,
St. Louis Park reports a Median Household Income of $100,250 and a Median Owner-
Occupied Housing Value of $371,60016. These high economic thresholds likely worsen the
affordability issues identified in 2017, when many residents, especially seniors and low-
income workers, expressed concerns about being “priced out” of the community.
Poverty and Demographics
St. Louis Park’s poverty rate is low at 7.4%, with the largest group in poverty being 25–34
year old females, followed by 18–24 year old females. The city’s diversity grows; in 2023,
77.6% of residents were White (Non-Hispanic), meaning over 22% are from other races
or ethnicities. Vision 4.0 has the opportunity to ensure equitable access to housing and
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 13
10 | VISION 4.0
opportunities for this diversity and address economic pressures on younger residents,
especially women, as seen in poverty data.
Transit and mobility are critical equity issues
Vision 3.0 highlighted that inadequate transit, especially bus frequency and routes,
disproportionately affects people of color who may be more often working non-
traditional hours or multiple jobs. In 2023, 63% of residents still commuted alone by car,
underscoring the continued importance of Future-Focused Transit and Mobility Solutions
(Recommendation #2 in Vision 3.0) that address diverse work schedules.
Community Involvement Strategy
Placing Community at the Center and Throughout
Understanding the “why” behind community contexts, perspectives, and needs is as
crucial as knowing the “what.” Thus, comprehensive and responsive community outreach
and engagement are at the center of St. Louis Park’s Vision 4.0, which was launched in
September 2024. Throughout the project, we offered a variety of arts-based opportunities
for community members to provide input and share their aspirations and recommendations
for St. Louis Park’s Future.
The Vision 4.0 Community Involvement Plan (CIP) identified the goals of the citywide
engagement efforts and the ecosystem of stakeholders.
Goals
● Provide clear information to the community about the process
● Explore the community’s progress and evolving identity
● Identify the community’s aspirations and recommendations for its future
● Gather information from a diverse range of people, with a focus on underrepresented
and emerging voices, youth, and renters
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 14
ST. LOUIS PARK | 11
● Provide a variety of ways for members of the community to share their views
● Utilize cost-effective methods to engage with the community
● Employ diverse methods such as town hall meetings, focus groups, surveys, online
platforms, pop-up events, fun activities, one-on-one interviews and dialogue, and
targeted outreach to underrepresented groups.
Key Stakeholders
● St. Louis Park residents
● St. Louis Park city staff
● St. Louis Park elected officials
● Community Organizations
● Cultural and Arts Organizations
● Educational Institutions
Through the CIP, we laid the groundwork for deploying our mixed-methods engagement
strategy, which combines quantitative data collection with informative human-centered
qualitative methods. This approach effectively captures both the breadth and the nuanced
details of community sentiment.
Ambassador Cohort
To reach a broad audience in St. Louis Park, the engagement began by forming an
Ambassador Cohort to guide the development of engagement content. The Ambassador
Cohort was a diverse group including St. Louis Park residents, city employees, and
Councilmembers. About 30 members attended three interactive sessions—one in
February 2025 and two in March 2025—where they took part in group activities and in-
depth discussions. The insights gained from these sessions provided qualitative data that
informed every Vision 4.0 arts-based activity for Mobile Engagement (e.g., pop-ups), Static
Engagement, and Open Houses.
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 15
12 | VISION 4.0
The Ambassadors developed the following:
Defining the identity of SLP:
In Session 1, participants explored the “personality” of SLP by identifying traits and
values that the community embodies and promotes. A total of 96 traits and values were
recognized, with the most frequently mentioned including caring, convenient, diverse,
engaged, family-focused, friendly, fun, home, innovative, leader, progressive, safe, small
town, supportive, open-mindedness, parks, welcoming, and wellness.
Topic Discovery and Question Development
In Session 2, participants generated and selected questions to engage community members
during different activities in the larger engagement process.
The questions and their uses are as follows:
Community Survey and Facilitated Community Conversation Questions
•What are your dreams for St. Louis Park?
•What keeps you in St. Louis Park?
•How can St. Louis Park support the next generation?
Mobile Pop-Up Engagement
•2030 SLP in and out list - what’s in, what’s out?
•When people come to visit you, where do you take them in SLP?
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 16
ST. LOUIS PARK | 13
•What three words should describe SLP in 2030?
•What is the major headline about SLP in 2030?
Poster and Lawn Sign Content
•How can SLP support the next generation?
•Facilitated Community Conversation refinement: In session 3, participants ran through
the facilitated conversation activity that is part of the following engagement phase and
offered ideas for refinement.
The local artist collective, Studio Thalo, participated in all three sessions to produce a
graphic recording of the process. In the first two sessions, they took notes and created
sketches. During the third session, they brought a canvas and painted a graphic summary of
what they heard across all sessions on-site (‘live’). The completed artwork now hangs in City
Hall, and the digital image was utilized in various ways throughout the engagement phase.
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 17
14 | VISION 4.0
Community Conversations
As part of the Vision 4.0 engagement, we
invited St. Louis Park residents to host
and lead small-group discussions in their
community. To foster a relaxed atmosphere,
these gatherings were suggested for
informal, familiar settings such as dinner
parties, backyards, potlucks, or community
rooms. We conducted three training
sessions covering how to facilitate the
conversations, the questions to ask, and
methods for recording feedback. This
qualitative approach enabled us to gain
a detailed, nuanced understanding of
residents’ experiences, concerns, and goals,
as expressed in their own words.
Static Engagement
Traditional online methods were used to raise awareness and gather feedback by creating a
dedicated project webpage with a community survey. This webpage offered an overview of
the project, updates, and recorded training for those interested in facilitating a Community
Conversation without attending one of the three live sessions. The survey was prominently
placed at the top of the page and available in English, Spanish, and Somali. The site also
featured a translation tool supporting seven languages: English, Spanish, Somali, Amharic,
Russian, Hmong, and Vietnamese.
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 18
ST. LOUIS PARK | 15
To raise awareness in public spaces and
through face-to-face outreach, we created
posters, lawn signs, and business cards
featuring a QR code and URL to the project
webpage. The posters and lawn signs posed
a question chosen by the Ambassador
Cohort: “How can we support the next
generation?” These materials were handed
out at each in-person event and were also
available at City Hall’s front desk during
office hours. Additionally, the posters and
lawn signs were translated into Spanish
and Somali. City staff mainly distributed
the business cards as they engaged with
community members.
Mobile Engagement
To reach a wide range of community
members, we developed arts-based pop-ups to engage people at festivals, celebrations, and
other social events. Four of the pop-ups were led and staffed by local artists.
Mobile pop-ups
Fire Station Open House 6/10/2025
Parktacular 6/14/2025
Parktacular - Elections 6/14/2025
All-Female Swim at the Aquatic Park 6/22/2025
Summer Concert Series 6/25/2025
Fireworks Celebration 7/3/2025
featuring Pedal to the Metal: Traveling Foundry
HOW CAN
THE NEXT
Vision 4.0
For more information scan the
QR code or visit:
bit.ly/StLouisParkVision
WE SUPPORT
Write your answer here!
GENERATION?
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 19
16 | VISION 4.0
Concert in the Park 7/9/2025
Summer Concert Series 7/16/2025
Clothing Swap 7/22/2025
Skateapalooza 7/30/2025
featuring Streetcorner Letter Press
Vision 4.0 Table at Summer Concert Series 7/30/2025
Concert in the park 8/6/2025
Summer Reading Fest - Ice Cream Social 8/10/2025
Tabling Event at Apartment Complex 8/19/2025
Tabling at Apartment Complex 8/20/2025
Basketball in the Park 8/28/2025
featuring Streetcorner Letter Press
High School Back to School Event 8/28/2025
Movies in the Park 8/28/2025
Renter outreach 8/28/2025
Movies in the Park 9/5/2025
featuring Peter Haakon Thompson: Mobile Sign Shop
SLP Art Fair 9/6/2025
Collaborating with artists to develop the pop-up activities offered creative and interactive
opportunities for community members to express their dreams and aspirations for St.
Louis Park. Activities included creating a time capsule with ‘Pedal to the Metal: Traveling
Foundry’ by Jess Bergman Night, onsite printing of commissioned St. Louis Park designs by
Streetcorner Letterpress, and wooden sign carving by Peter Haakon Thompson’s Mobile
Sign Shop.
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 20
ST. LOUIS PARK | 17
City staff participated in many community events and used Vision 4.0 materials and
activities to boost project engagement. This “pop-up” approach allowed us to gather
spontaneous, high-level feedback while lowering barriers to participation by meeting
community members where they are.
Open Houses
Once the mobile engagement activities began, we noticed that youth participation was
low. To gather input from as many St. Louis Park residents as possible, we tailored the open
houses to attract a younger audience. The open houses included presentations and display
boards that showcased an overview of the engagement activities, demographics, and
emerging themes. The in-person open houses were held on a weekend afternoon at Aquila
Park and during St. Louis Park High School’s Back-to-School night.
Engagement Data
To shape the future of St. Louis Park, the Vision 4.0 project employed a community
engagement strategy that involved reaching residents through mobile pop-ups, community
conversations, and a survey. In limited instances, respondents may have participated in
more than one engagement method – for example, someone who participated in an arts-
based engagement at a festival may have also taken the survey. However, when counting
the total number of individuals who engaged in each engagement method, we have 2,336
interactions with Vision 4.0. To account for the potential instances of double counting, we
propose a total reach of approximately 2,000 individuals.
Data Collection
Our analysis draws from three distinct and complementary data collection methods:
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 21
18 | VISION 4.0
Mobile Engagement
Teams engaged residents at a variety of 19 community events and locations, ranging
from large citywide events such as Parktacular and the Fireworks Celebration to hyper-
local tabling opportunities at apartment complexes. This dynamic approach brought
the conversation directly to communities. This “pop-up” method enabled us to capture
spontaneous, high-level feedback from 1,607 interactions with community members.
Community Conversations
After we provided open and accessible in-person and virtual trainings, community
facilitators led small-group conversations with a total of 96 residents. This qualitative
method provided a deep, nuanced understanding of residents’ experiences, concerns, and
aspirations in their own words in comfortable and informal settings.
Community Survey
An online and paper survey was made available city-wide, yielding 633 responses. This
allowed highly engaged residents to provide thoughtful, written feedback on the core
visioning questions. The survey was available in English, Spanish, and Somali. St. Louis Park
Communications staff widely distributed this survey via email newsletters and social media
throughout the project. The online version of this survey was the only anonymous feedback
channel.
Anchoring Questions
Community input centered on three primary questions:
1. What are your dreams for St. Louis Park? (Dreams & Aspirations)
2. What keeps you in St. Louis Park? (Retention & Resilience)
3. How can St. Louis Park support the Next Generation? (Sustainability & Future Proofing)
Analysis Method
We analyzed the data using descriptive statistical summaries to assess participation
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 22
ST. LOUIS PARK | 19
patterns and demographic representation. For the open-ended responses about dreams,
values, and future support, we identified recurring themes by examining the most
frequently mentioned concepts. This thematic analysis helped surface the community’s
collective priorities while honoring individual perspectives.
This process involved:
• Reviewing comments and conversation points.
• Identifying recurring ideas, concerns, values, and tensions.
• Systematically grouping topics into the overarching themes.
• Synthesize the themes into descriptive pillars.
This human-centered analysis ensures that the findings accurately reflect the lived
experiences and priorities of St. Louis Park residents.
Community Profile Data
A. St. Louis Park Demographics*
St. Louis Park, MN, is home to a population of 49,541 people as of 2023, residing in an
area covering 10.6 square miles, with a density of 4,663.2 people per square mile. The
demographic profile is predominantly White (Non-Hispanic), which constitutes 77.6%
(38.5k people) of the population, making this group 15.4 times larger than any other race or
ethnicity. The largest ethnic groups are Two Races Excluding Other & Three or More Races
(Non-Hispanic), at 5.03% (2,490 people), and Asian (Non-Hispanic), at 4.55% (2,260 people).
The median age is 36, which is slightly lower than the Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington
Metro Area (37.8). Furthermore, 96.5% of residents are U.S. citizens, with the foreign-born
population accounting for 8% (3,946 people) of the total population.
*Data: American Community Survey, 2023
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 23
20 | VISION 4.0
B. Respondent & Neighborhood Demographics
Quantitative Analysis: Who We Reached
Our combined engagement methods yielded over 2,000 resident interactions across St.
Louis Park (Table 1). Mobile engagement proved most effective in terms of broad reach,
while the survey captured detailed input from those most motivated to share their views.
Table 1: Total Engagement Interactions
Method
Mobile Pop-Ups
Online Survey
Community Conversations
Total
Count
1,607
633
96
2,336
Share of Total
68.8%
27.1%
4.1%
100%
Demographic & Neighborhood Representation Overview
Demographic data was collected through the Community Survey and Community
Conversations, providing insights into 729 individuals (633 survey respondents + 96
conversation attendees).
Key Demographic Takeaways:
• Age: Adults aged 25-44 were the most represented group (48.7%), suggesting strong
participation from young professionals and families. All adult age groups showed
engagement.
• Race/Ethnicity: While the majority of identified participants were White (approx. 83.1%
where race was specified), the Mobile Engagement strategy notably reached a significant
number of BIPOC residents (456 interactions, or 28.4% of mobile total), especially at
events like the Fireworks Celebration at Aquila Park.
• Neighborhoods: The Fern Hill neighborhood had the highest representation among
survey respondents. Texa-Tonka, Lenox, and Aquila also showed strong participation
rates in the survey and conversations combined.
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 24
ST. LOUIS PARK | 21
Demographic Data – Age and Race
*Most age data came from the survey; conversation data on age was optional captured less consistently.
Table 2: Participant Age
(survey and community conversations, n=729)
Age Group
12-17
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75+
Prefer not to answer/unknown
Total
Count
39
13
141
187
113
109
73
35
19
729
Share of Total
5.3%
1.8%
19.3%
25.7%
15.5%
15.0%
10.0%
4.8%
2.6%
100%
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 25
22 | VISION 4.0
Table 3: Participant race and ethnicity (survey
conversations where specified, n=704)
Category
White
Black / African American
Hispanic / Latino
Asian
Jewish
Two or More Races
Other
Total (specified)
Count
585
36
22
12
8
39
2
704
Share of Total
83.1%
5.1%
3.1%
1.7%
1.1%
5.5%
0.3%
100%
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Based on participants who chose to write-in
race/ethnicity for this optional question. Mobile engagement showed a higher share of BIPOC overall.
Notes on Gender Data:
1. The Mobile Engagement dataset did not collect participant gender.
2. Responses like “Other,” “Nonbinary,” “Gender non-conforming,” etc., have been grouped for conciseness.
3.“Prefer not to answer” includes blank responses or explicit choices not to respond.
Table 4: Participant Gender Demographics
(survey conversations where specified, n=704)
Gender Identity
Female
Male
Nonbinary / Gender Non-Conforming / Other
Prefer not to Answer / Not Specified
Total Participants (Specified)
Count
585
36
22
12
8
Approximate Percentage*
83.1%
5.1%
3.1%
1.7%
1.1%
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 26
ST. LOUIS PARK | 23
Data-Driven Policy Recommendations
The recommendations in this report serve as a strategic framework for the city’s next
decade. They are grounded in the community consensus built through the Vision 4.0
engagement process and structured to be dynamic, flexible, and responsive.
This approach is rooted in the understanding that to achieve large-scale change, all
stakeholders, including residents, City staff, and elected officials, must develop a Shared
Mental Model (SMM). A mental model is the set of beliefs and expectations that shape how
we understand the world and our work. An SMM is a common psychological understanding
that allows everyone to interpret issues similarly, coordinate action, and work efficiently
toward a common vision.
The following recommendations are based on SMM and serve as a guiding framework to
inspire, ideate, and initiate discussion related to the city’s needs, priorities, goals, strategies,
and comprehensive plan.
They are developmental in nature, designed to be:
Aspirational
They articulate the “North Star” or ideal future and state community desires. They focus
on the why and the what, empowering the city to define the how.
Dynamic
These are not rigid, “one-and-done” projects. They are designed to be adaptable to new
data, changing contexts, and emerging community feedback. They encourage a “do more/
less of this” approach rather than a “did we do that?” checklist.
Responsive
The recommendations are nuanced and human-centered, responding directly to the
specific, disaggregated needs of all community members, especially those who have been
historically marginalized.
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 27
24 | VISION 4.0
The community’s vision is organized into the following five themes - Safety, Infrastructure,
Sustainability, Community & Belonging, Housing & Affordability.
Theme 1: Safety
Creating a community where all people are and feel safe.
“Safety” was one of the most consistent and deeply felt themes in our engagement.
Residents described a holistic vision of safety that transcends traditional policing. It includes
personal safety (feeling safe from crime), public infrastructure safety (safe streets for
walking and biking), and psychological safety (feeling a sense of belonging and freedom
from discrimination).
We heard a strong desire for community-oriented safety services, where residents know
their officers and public safety staff are trusted partners invested in community well-being.
Participants also emphasized that the feeling of safety is as important as the statistics, and
this feeling is directly linked to well-lit streets, positive neighborhood activity, and, most
importantly, knowing and trusting one’s neighbors.
What the Data Shows: The Science
The data supports this multi-faceted definition of safety.
• A Top Priority: “Safety & Crime Prevention” was the third most-discussed theme
citywide, appearing in 17% of all qualitative comments.
• A Nuanced View: While traditional crime was a concern, “Traffic & Pedestrian Safety”
was also a dominant theme, with 12.3% of participants naming it as a top priority.
• A Disaggregated View on Trust: BIPOC residents and renters expressed a more complex
view of safety. In community dialogues, they spoke about the need to rebuild trust and
address systemic inequities in public safety systems. Data shows BIPOC residents are
significantly more likely to prioritize “Diverse City Staff” (41.4%) and “Accountability for
City Staff” (16.7%) than white residents (10.9% and 5.5% respectively), linking safety to
representation and trust.
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 28
ST. LOUIS PARK | 25
Directional Recommendations: The Path Forward
• Recommendation 1 (Aspirational): Foster a holistic, community-wide ecosystem of safety
that is rooted in trust, prevention, and well-being for all.
• Recommendation 2 (Dynamic): Continuously adapt and expand the city’s public safety
model to include and appropriately fund non-officer responses for mental health, social
service, and non-emergency calls. This ensures the right response is sent to the right
situation regardless of demographic.
• Recommendation 3 (Responsive): Invest in systemic strategies to build and rebuild trust
between public safety staff and the community, with a specific, data-driven focus on
addressing the unique concerns of BIPOC residents, renters, and youth.
• Recommendation 4 (Dynamic): Prioritize the ongoing investment in “safe infrastructure”
by systemically implementing traffic calming measures, protected bike lanes, and
pedestrian-first street designs identified in the “Infrastructure” goal.
Theme 2: Infrastructure
Building and maintaining a connected, reliable, and people-first public
realm.
What We Heard: The Community Vision
Residents envision a city that “just works.” This means reliable utilities, well-maintained
roads, and, most importantly, physical infrastructure that connects people to places and to
each other. This theme was not just about concrete roads; it was about accessible mobility.
Participants frequently spoke of a desire for a city that is safe and easy to navigate for
everyone, whether they are in a car, on a bike, in a wheelchair, or walking. The community
wants hard infrastructure that encourages people to be out in the community, with safe
sidewalks, bike paths that form a true network, and public spaces that are active and
welcoming.
What the Data Shows: The Science
The call for better mobility and connectivity was a dominant theme.
• Top-Tier Issue: “Traffic & Pedestrian Safety” (12.3%) and “Bike/Ped Infrastructure”
(10.6%) were both top-five priorities for all residents.
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 29
26 | VISION 4.0
• Connectivity is Key: When asked about priorities, participants consistently elevated
“Better sidewalks and walkability” and “Better bike infrastructure”.
• Disaggregated View: Renters were significantly more likely (14.2%) than homeowners
(8.3%) to prioritize “Bike/Ped Infrastructure,” highlighting a strong desire for safe,
reliable transportation alternatives beyond the personal automobile.
Directional Recommendations: The Path Forward
• Recommendation 1 (Aspirational): Reimagine and invest in public streets as “complete
systems” that prioritize the safety and mobility of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit
users, not just the speed of vehicles.
• Recommendation 2 (Dynamic): Accelerate the implementation of the city’s existing
bicycle and pedestrian network plans, focusing on creating fully connected and
protected networks that are safe for users of all ages and abilities, rather than
disconnected segments.
• Recommendation 3 (Responsive): Prioritize systemic traffic calming and pedestrian
safety improvements in all neighborhoods, responding to community-identified
“hot spots” and ensuring that investments in sidewalks and crossings are equitably
distributed.
• Recommendation 4 (Dynamic): Continuously invest in the “invisible infrastructure” of
the city, including high-speed broadband, water systems, and sewer maintenance, to
ensure reliability and resilience for all residents and businesses.
Theme 3: Sustainability
Leading as responsible stewards of our natural and financial
environment.
What We Heard: The Community Vision
St. Louis Park residents are proud of the city’s parks, natural spaces, and legacy of
environmental stewardship. The community vision for the next decade is one of bold,
proactive leadership in the face of climate change. We heard a clear call to protect and
enhance green spaces, expand the city’s tree canopy, and aggressively pursue renewable
energy and sustainability goals. This vision also includes financial sustainability, with
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 30
ST. LOUIS PARK | 27
residents expecting the city to be a responsible manager of public funds to ensure long-
term resilience.
What the Data Shows: The Science
• A Core Value: “Parks & Environment” was a top-four priority for residents, with 16.5% of
all participants naming it.
• Broad Support: Qualitative comments consistently centered on “More trees/green
space” and support for the city’s “Climate Action Plan”.
• Disaggregated View: This is a unifying theme. Data shows that support for “Parks &
Environment” is remarkably consistent across demographic groups, including renters
(16.2%), homeowners (16.7%), BIPOC residents (15.5%), and white residents (16.7%).
This indicates a powerful, shared mandate for action.
Directional Recommendations: The Path Forward
• Recommendation 1 (Aspirational): Position St. Louis Park as a bold and recognized leader
in climate action and environmental sustainability, integrating resilience into all city
policies, operations, and planning.
• Recommendation 2 (Dynamic): Accelerate the implementation of the Climate
Action Plan, focusing on systemic adoption of renewable energy, expansion of green
infrastructure, and city-wide waste reduction programs.
• Recommendation 3 (Responsive): Actively protect, enhance, and expand the city’s
natural assets, including the tree canopy, parks, and waterways, ensuring all residents
have equitable access to high-quality green space.
• Recommendation 4 (Dynamic): Maintain a balanced and transparent approach to
financial stewardship, ensuring the city’s long-term fiscal health to support these
community-driven goals.
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 31
28 | VISION 4.0
Theme 4: Community and Belonging
Fostering a vibrant, connected, and inclusive community where
everyone belongs.
What We Heard: The Community Vision
Beyond infrastructure and housing, residents crave connection. We heard a deep desire
for a city that fosters a “small-town feel” while embracing its “big-city” diversity. This vision
includes vibrant public spaces, a thriving arts and business scene, and more opportunities
for neighbors to simply meet and interact. Participants want a city that actively fights
isolation and builds “social capital.” This theme also includes a strong call for diversity,
equity, inclusion, and belonging, with residents stating that true community connection is
only possible when everyone feels welcome, valued, and safe to be their authentic selves.
What the Data Shows: The Science
• A Human-Centered City: “Community & Public Space” was the #1 priority for residents
(28.5%), and “Economic & Business Development” was also a top-ten theme (9.8%).
• Key Ingredients: Thematic analysis shows this vision is built on “More restaurants/retail”
(9.7%), “Arts & Culture” (6.1%), and a desire for more community events.
• Inclusion as a Prerequisite: The call for “Diversity, Equity & Inclusion” was a powerful and
distinct theme. Data shows BIPOC residents are more than three times as likely (41.4%)
as white residents (10.9%) to name “Diverse City Staff” as a priority, demonstrating a
clear link between connection, belonging, inclusion, and seeing oneself represented in
city leadership.
Directional Recommendations: The Path Forward
• Recommendation 1 (Aspirational): Cultivate a city rich in “social infrastructure”
by investing in vibrant, accessible, and active public spaces, events, and cultural
programming that bring people together and foster a deep sense of belonging.
• Recommendation 2 (Dynamic): Foster a thriving and diverse local economy by
supporting small businesses, simplifying processes for entrepreneurs, and actively
recruiting restaurants, retail, and arts organizations that create “third places” for
community connection.
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 32
ST. LOUIS PARK | 29
• Recommendation 3 (Responsive): Systematically embed the principles of diversity,
equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB) into all city operations—from hiring and
promotions to community engagement and contracting—to ensure the city is a model of
the inclusive community it seeks to foster.
Theme 5: Housing and Affordability
Ensuring a diverse and attainable range of housing options for all.
What We Heard: The Community Vision
Across all forms of engagement, residents expressed a deep desire for a St. Louis Park
where everyone can find a place to call home, regardless of their stage of life, income, or
background. Participants frequently described housing as the foundation for community
stability, economic mobility, and belonging. If one’s housing is not affordable to them,
even low cost or free amenities are less accessible. While many residents value the city’s
vibrant neighborhood character, there is a strong and prevalent concern that rising housing
costs, such as higher property taxes, are impacting the affordability of homeownership.
We heard a clear call for more “missing middle” housing—options like duplexes, triplexes,
and townhomes—that bridge the gap between large apartment buildings and single-
family homes. The community’s vision of housing is not only about affordability; it’s about
attainability and diversity of options. However, there is also a need to balance the tax
impacts on current homeowners and building affordable housing.
What the Data Shows: The Science
The data directly support the community’s narrative. Housing was the most-discussed topic,
appearing in 34.5% of all qualitative comments.
• Affordability is the Top Concern: “Housing Affordability” was the #1 theme citywide,
with 26% of all participants citing it as a top priority.
• Renters Feel the Pressure: This concern is more pronounced among renters.
• The “Missing Middle” is Missing: “Housing Options/Diversity” was the second-most-
coded theme, with participants explicitly naming the need for a wider variety of housing
types.
• A Disaggregated View: BIPOC participants in community conversations spoke to the
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 33
30 | VISION 4.0
systemic barriers that have historically prevented access to homeownership and the
need for new pathways to build generational wealth.
Directional Recommendations: The Path Forward
• Recommendation 1 (Aspirational): Ensure St. Louis Park is a community where people of
all income levels and life stages can find and maintain a home they can afford.
• Recommendation 2 (Dynamic): Systematically increase the diversity and supply
of “missing middle” housing by incentivizing and updating zoning to support the
development of duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
• Recommendation 3 (Dynamic): Expand and promote programs that protect existing
affordable units (both market-rate and subsidized) from conversion and strengthen
renter stability.
• Recommendation 4 (Responsive): Address systemic barriers to building wealth by
developing and promoting accessible and equitable homeownership programs, co-
designed with and targeted to support first-time homebuyers and BIPOC residents.
Leading with Love: A Vision of Connection for St. Louis Park 4.0
The Philosophy: The philosophy of “Lead with Love” recognizes that true improvement
isn’t just about efficiency—it’s about fostering deep connection and belonging. To “lead
with love” means to govern with empathy. It means recognizing that safety is about trust,
housing is about roots, and infrastructure is about connection. The following synthesis
transforms the previous section’s data-driven recommendations into human-centered
community pillars to guide St. Louis Park through the next decade.
We invite the City of St. Louis Park to consider the following commitments.
Community Pillar 1: Spaces to Belong, Place to
Call Home
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 34
ST. LOUIS PARK | 31
Theme: Pathways to Rootedness — From “Building Units” to “Building
Neighbors”
The Synthesis: While the data-driven recommendations identify the need for “Missing
Middle” housing, the community pillar provides the soul of this strategy: protecting the
ability of young families to plant roots and seniors to stay. We are shifting the metric of
success from “units permitted” to “ownership sustained.”
The “Leading with Love” Commitment:
• Protect the Starter Stock (The “North Star”): We will aggressively protect our naturally
occurring affordable housing—the humble starter home—from investor speculation and
teardowns. As one resident noted, this is the “only entry point” for the next generation.
• Support the Lifecycle of Ownership: Affordability doesn’t end at the closing table. We
will support residents through the hidden costs of ownership (repairs, energy upgrades)
to prevent displacement.
Actionable Strategies:
• “First Look” Policy: Partner with land trusts to give income-qualified families an exclusive
window to bid on starter homes before corporate investors.
• “Fixer-Upper” & “Senior Safety” Grants: A matching grant program for essential repairs
(HVAC, insulation) for young families, and accessibility retrofits (ramps, grab bars) for
seniors aging in place.
• Diversify the Middle: Update zoning to incentivize owner-occupied condos and
townhomes (triplexes/duplexes) as a bridge between renting and the single-family
market.
Community Pillar 2: Community Thriving
Theme: Neighborhood Hearts — Fostering “Third Places” Where We
Meet
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 35
32 | VISION 4.0
The Synthesis: The data-driven recommendation highlights “Community & Belonging” as
a top priority. The community pillar diagnoses why some feel disconnected: residents in
neighborhoods like Triangle and Lenox lack intimate gathering spots. Leading with love
means ensuring social connection is walkable and accessible, not just a car ride away to a
large commercial center.
The “Leading with Love” Commitment:
• Combating Isolation: We will treat loneliness as a public health crisis and view “Third
Places” (public parks, coffee shops, small markets) as essential social infrastructure.
• Micro-Scale Vitality: We will not exclusively focus on “commercial corridors,” we will also
support small, neighborhood-scale hubs that anchor social life.
Actionable Strategies:
• “Neighborhood Corner” Zoning: Create overlays that permit low-impact micro-retail
(bakeries, coffee) in specific residential nodes, strictly regulated to protect peace while
promoting connection.
• Adaptive Reuse Grants: Incentivize the conversion of historic/underused structures (e.g.,
old service stations) into community gathering spaces.
• Main Street Micro-Pilots: Test temporary pop-up commercial zones in parks or
intersections to gauge community interest before building permanently.
Community Pillar 3: Holistic Safety and
Infrastructure
Theme: Safety Through Connection and Care
The Synthesis: The data-driven recommendations redefine safety as “holistic”—spanning
physical, infrastructure, and psychological safety. The community pillar adds a crucial layer:
Intergenerational Vitality. Safety isn’t just policing; it’s a youth shoveling a senior’s driveway.
It’s infrastructure that respects the fragile walker as much as the fast car.
The “Leading with Love” Commitment:
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 36
ST. LOUIS PARK | 33
• Trust & Representation: We acknowledge that for BIPOC residents, safety is linked to
representation. We commit to fostering and maintaining an inclusive workplace where
BIPOC individuals belong across all levels and departments.
• Design for the Vulnerable: We will audit our streets and parks not just for “code
compliance,” but for “usability” by our most vulnerable—children and seniors.
Actionable Strategies:
• Intergenerational Service Corps: Create a civic program pairing youth (seeking service
hours/credits) with seniors for snow shoveling and yard work—building safety through
relationships.
• Universal Design Audits: Review infrastructure for “Senior Usability” (shaded seating,
smooth walking loops, longer crosswalk times) to ensure elders can move freely and
safely.
• Maintain and Build Upon an Inclusive Workplace: Develop and/or maintain support at
all levels across all departments for attracting and retaining BIPOC leaders. This may
include, but is not limited to, internship programs for local BIPOC students to build a
leadership pipeline, regular surveys for existing staff to identify BIPOC staff perspectives,
and valuing the often ‘invisible work’ of BIPOC staff.
Community Pillar 4: Environmental Stewardship
Theme: Stewardship as Culture — Incentivizing a Resilient Landscape
The Synthesis: The data-driven recommendations establish St. Louis Park as a “Climate
Leader.” The community pillar matures this vision, moving from top-down mandates to
bottom-up culture. Residents don’t just want the city to manage nature; they want to be
empowered to heal their own patch of earth.
The “Leading with Love” Commitment:
• Ecological Restoration: We view our tree canopy and green spaces not as “decoration,”
but as vital infrastructure for health and resilience.
• Cultural Inclusion: We recognize that connection to the land is cultural. We will support
urban agriculture that reflects the diverse heritage of our immigrant neighbors.
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 37
34 | VISION 4.0
Actionable Strategies:
• “Living Lawns” Ordinance: Ensure city codes protect and encourage native landscapes
and pollinator gardens, replacing punitive “weed” ordinances with educational
“managed landscape” guidelines.
• Culturally Relevant Urban Ag: Allocate plots in community gardens specifically for
culturally relevant crops, turning these spaces into cross-cultural exchange hubs.
• Climate Resilience Cost-Sharing: Launch grants for residents replacing impervious
driveways/patios with rain gardens to manage stormwater locally.
Conclusion
The voices of St. Louis Park residents convey a community that values its distinct identity,
takes pride in its welcoming nature and green areas, shows concern for public safety
and education, and wants to meet community needs respectful of the character of
neighborhoods. While there were diverse reasons and viewpoints for people’s responses,
the response highlights a community that cares deeply and is strongly invested in its future.
The path forward will center on leadership that brings people together and builds bridges.
Focusing on trust, discovering shared ground, and making real progress toward realizing the
community’s vision. By working together, St. Louis Park can capitalize on its strengths and
create a future that respects its history while providing resilience and new opportunities.
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 38
ST. LOUIS PARK | 35
Appendix
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 39
36 | VISION 4.0
To determine our future path, we need to evaluate our past; thus, the next section offers a
brief history of previous visions.
Vision 1.0 (1995) – Acknowledging Diversity
St. Louis Park’s inaugural vision centered on advocating an identity and philosophy that
recognizes "Diversity is a natural part of everyday life," which should enrich the entire
community. Recommendations aimed at fostering acceptance by providing diversity
training for school staff, encouraging the expansion of involvement of religious institutions, and
promoting diverse role models among city and school district employees. Housing goals at the
time aimed to ensure a broad spectrum of quality housing.
A foundational aspiration is manifested in developing key physical assets to foster community
identity through social and cultural hubs, such as downtown areas and recreational centers.
Significant infrastructure suggestions involved establishing these social-cultural hubs within the
area bordered by Excelsior Boulevard, West 36th Street, Highway 100, and Monterey Drive, as
well as expanding the trail network.
Successful Vision 1.0 implementation included significant community developments such as
the Rec Center/Aquatic Center, Wolfe Park, the Amphitheatre, and the Excelsior &
Grand mixed-use development.
Vision 2.0 (2007) – Cultivating Connection
Uniquely, Vision 2.0 engaged residents through a Community-Based Participatory Research
methodology called Appreciative Inquiry, culminating in a community publication: Vision St.
Louis Park: A Book of Dreams.
Vision 2.0 codified the elements of a connected community and created action teams to ensure
progress and accountability. The eight aspects of community vision, paraphrased below:
● Celebration of Arts & Culture
● Community Events
● Built Environment
● Places to Belong
● Gathering Places
● Places to Call Home
● Access to Mobility and Transportation
● Strength in Diversity
Previous Visions
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 40
ST. LOUIS PARK | 37
Vision 3.0 (2017) – Seeking Inclusivity & Equity
Vision 3.0 ‘met people where they are’, especially identities and communities that are often left
out of the decision-making process. Thus, inviting, setting, and making space at the table for
people within their neighborhoods was critical to exploring current needs and future trends.
Equity and Inclusion became the paramount resident value, mentioned at over two-thirds
(68.42%) of neighborhood meetings. The shift focused on developing the community's
"software" (social connections) and explicitly committing to becoming a "Leader in Racial
Equity and Inclusion" and achieving measurable, systemic outcomes. This included
recommendations to hire a Racial Equity Coordinator and implement equity and inclusion
training for city committees, neighborhood leaders, and business leaders. The process also
highlighted that people of color were more likely to feel "disconnected, sad, lonely, or
isolated" compared to white residents.
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 41
38 | VISION 4.0
Community Survey - Neighborhood Representation
Table 5: Representation by Neighborhood
(Survey Only, N=633)
Representation Level
High Representation
(30+ Respondents)
Subtotal (High)
Medium Representation
(15–29 Respondents)
Neighborhood
Fern Hill
Texa-Tonka
Lenox
Aquila
Eliot
Birchwood
Triangle
Minikahda Vista
Sorenson
Bronx Park
Westwood Hills
Oak Hill
Wolfe Park
Elmwood
Pennsylvania Park
Browndale
Cedar Manor
Respondent Count
87
50
47
33
33
32
30
312 (49.3%)
28
25
22
22
21
21
18
16
15
15
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 42
ST. LOUIS PARK | 39
Table 5: Representation by Neighborhood
(Survey Only, N=633)
Representation Level
Subtotal (Medium)
Lower Representation
(<15 Respondents)
Subtotal (Lower)
Other / Non-Specific
Subtotal (Other)
TOTAL
Neighborhood
Willow Park
Cobblecrest
Brooklawns
Lake Forest
Blackstone
Brookside
Minnehaha
Creekside
Cedarhurst
Kilmer
Westdale
Amhurst
Shelard Park
Prefer not to answer
Other (Neighboring
cities, etc.)
Respondent Count
15
218 (34.4%)
14
9
7
6
6
5
4
3
3
2
1
1
61 (9.6%)
29
13
42 (6.6%)
633 (100%)
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 43
40 | VISION 4.0
Participants By Neighborhood Providing Demographic Information
Number of Participants
0-4
5-12
13-19
20-29
Over 30
Total: 633 Participants
rr
W
kkk--
T T
E
Sheland Park 1
Pennsylvania
Park 16
Browndale
15
Brookside6Creekside4
Blackstone 6
Eliot View
0
Cedarhurst3
Lake Forest7
Eliot
33
Fern Hill
87
Birchwood32
Minikahda Vista28
Texa-Tonka50
Aquila
33
Oak Hill21
Lenox
47
Bronx Park22
Westwood Hills
22
Sorenson25
Triangle
30
Willow Park
15
Cobblecrest
14
South Oak Hill0
Meadowbrook
0
Brooklawns9
Elmwood
18
Wolfe Park
21
Minikahda
Oaks 0
Minne-haha 5
Amhurst
1
Cedar Manor
15
Kilmer
3
West-
dale
2
Crest-
view 0
Residents’ reported neighborhoods. The darker the blue is, the greater the concentration of respondents.
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 44
ST. LOUIS PARK | 41
Neighborhood-Specific Analysis
The following sections break down sentiment and perspectives by neighborhood.
Note: Key themes are derived from frequently occurring words and phrases in respondent feedback.
Fern Hill (n=87)
• Themes: Safety, Community Connection, Environmental Sustainability.
• Strengths: Residents value the “community feel” and “location.”
• Question: What keeps you in St. Louis Park?
• Sample response: “Our parks and trails, friendly neighbors, and our shared values.”
• Opportunities for Improvement:
• Traffic & Safety: Strong desire for calmer streets and finished construction.
• Housing: Concerns about property taxes and maintaining affordability.
• Question: What are your dreams for St. Louis Park?
• Sample response: “Safety, cleanliness, peacefulness, no more road construction
PLEASE!!”
Texa-Tonka (n=50)
• Themes: Vibrancy, Local Businesses, Inclusivity.
• Strengths: High appreciation for “proximity to restaurants/shopping” and “parks.”
• Question: What keeps you in St. Louis Park?
• Sample response: “Parks, proximity to restaurants, and recreation.”
• Opportunities for Improvement:
• Community Spaces: Desire for more shared green spaces and community gathering
spots.
• Support for Vulnerable Populations: Calls for mental health support and homeless
housing.
• Question: What are your dreams for St. Louis Park?
• Sample response: “Shared common Green Space/Garden space, intentional
community/living support space.”
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 45
42 | VISION 4.0
Lenox (n=47)
• Themes: Walkability, Small Business Support, Renewable Energy.
• Strengths: Valued for its “open and accepting nature” and convenience.
• Question: What keeps you in St. Louis Park?
• Sample response: “Its open and accepting nature... convenient.”
• Opportunities for Improvement:
• Commercial Vitality: Filling empty storefronts and supporting small businesses.
• Sustainability: Specific requests for solar investments on public buildings.
• Question: What are your dreams for St. Louis Park?
• Sample response: “Investment in small business... Investment in renewable energy
like solar.”
Eliot (n=33)
• Themes: Inclusivity, Pedestrian Access, Aging in Place.
• Strengths: Long-term residents cite “support networks” and location as key anchors.
• Question: What keeps you in St. Louis Park?
• Sample response: “I am now a senior citizen and my support network is here.”
• Opportunities for Improvement:
• Representation: diverse representation in extracurriculars and city programs.
• Pedestrian Safety: Creating more pedestrian-friendly areas.
• Question: What are your dreams for St. Louis Park?
• Sample response: “More inclusive in extra curriculars. More representation and
diversity in theater.”
Aquila (n=32)
• Themes: Economic Diversity, “Urban/Suburban” Balance, Youth Support.
• Strengths: Residents love the “quirky restaurants” and “nice neighborhood parks.”
• Opportunities for Improvement:
• Financial Literacy: Teaching youth about finance and contribution.
• Mixed-Income Housing: Support for housing types that allow economic diversity.
• Question: What are your dreams for St. Louis Park?
• Sample response: “To be a welcoming community with economic diversity...
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 46
ST. LOUIS PARK | 43
embracing both our suburban and urban vibes.”
Birchwood (n=32)
• Themes: Education, Housing Market Stability, Walkability.
• Strengths: Described as a “tight-knit neighborhood” that is safe for families.
• Opportunities for Improvement:
• Housing Balance: Managing the “teardown” trend to maintain character and
affordability.
• School Investment: Keeping education strong is a top priority.
• Question: How can St. Louis Park support the next generation?
• Sample response: “Encourage and maintain home ownership without throwing a
McMansion in the neighborhood.”
Triangle (n=30)
• Themes: “Main Street” Feel, Cultural Spaces, Youth Activities.
• Strengths: The skatepark and respectful neighbors are highlighted highlights.
• Opportunities for Improvement:
• Third Places: Desire for independent coffee shops and cultural gathering spaces.
• Youth Resources: More outdoor resources and affordable activities for kids.
• Question: What are your dreams for St. Louis Park?
• Sample response: “Independent coffeeshops, cultural spaces and a main street.”
Minikahda Vista (n=28)
• Themes: Balance of Growth, School Excellence, Senior Support.
• Strengths: The parks and open spaces are critical for families and grandchildren.
• Opportunities for Improvement:
• Generational Balance: ensuring the city supports seniors as much as youth.
• Charter Schools: Some desire to support alternative schooling options.
• Question: How can St. Louis Park support the next generation?
• Sample response: “The next big generation move is toward seniors. I think that should
be your concern.”
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 47
44 | VISION 4.0
Sorenson (n=25)
• Themes: Nature/Ecology, Civic Excellence, Native Landscaping.
• Strengths: Residents appreciate the “low-key, noncompetitive” excellence and police
service.
• Opportunities for Improvement:
• Ecological Health: Strong push for native plants, reducing turfgrass, and protecting
pollinators.
• Education: Continued support for school excellence.
• Question: How can St. Louis Park support the next generation?
• Sample response: “By reducing turfgrass and increasing plant diversity... we can build
landscapes that clean our air.”
Westwood Hills (n=22)
• Themes: Nature Center Access, Innovation, Cost of Living.
• Strengths: The Westwood Hills Nature Center is a crown jewel for this area.
• Opportunities for Improvement:
• Social Hubs: Desire for a “one-stop shop” for dining/bars that is walkable.
• Innovation: Calls for the city to be a leader in environmental and transport innovation.
• Question: What are your dreams for St. Louis Park?
• Sample response: “A one stop shop for young people/families - shops, restaurants, bar
scene that is walkable.”
Bronx Park (n=21)
• Themes: “Small Town” Feel, Human-Scale Design, Trees.
• Strengths: Valued for feeling like a “small town” despite being close to everything.
• Opportunities for Improvement:
• Urban Design: Preference for “human-scale” retail (sidewalk seating) over large
developments like West End.
• Home Ownership: Reducing rentals to promote stable ownership.
• Question: What are your dreams for St. Louis Park?
• Sample response: “Retail areas designed for people (not cars)... sidewalk seating,
smaller scale.”
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 48
ST. LOUIS PARK | 45
Oak Hill (n=21)
• Themes: Urban Farming, Zoning Reform, Walkability.
• Strengths: Safe, affordable, and highly bikeable/walkable.
• Opportunities for Improvement:
• Food Systems: Dreams of community farming and culturally relevant crops.
• Zoning: Support for ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units) and loosening single-family
zoning.
• Question: How can St. Louis Park support the next generation?
• Sample response: “Support home renovations and expansions, support ADUs, loosen
single-family zoning.”
Wolfe Park (n=21)
• Themes: Sustainability, Walkability, STEM Education.
• Strengths: The Excelsior & Grand area creates a highly valued walkable environment.
• Opportunities for Improvement:
• Green Tech: continued investment in EV charging and trees.
• Education: Balance of STEM, arts, and trades in schools.
• Question: What are your dreams for St. Louis Park?
• Sample response: “Continuing progress for a sustainable walkable community to live
and work in!”
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 49
Study session meeting of December 8, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 4.0 final report Page 50