HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/01/14 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JANUARY 14, 2013
6:00 p.m. BOARDS & COMMISSIONS INTERVIEWS – Westwood Room
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – January 22 & January 28, 2013
2. 6:35 p.m. 2013 Annual Legislative Update
3. 7:35 p.m. Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
4. 8:35 p.m. 2013 City Council Workshop
9:05 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
9:10 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
5. Joint Community Police Partnership (JCPP)
6. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Mobile Pet Vaccinations
7. November 2012 Monthly Financial Report
8. Tobacco-Free Policy for Parks
9. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Student Housing at Educational Facilities
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at
952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting Date: January 14, 2013
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – January 22 and January 28, 2013
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the Special Study Session
scheduled for January 22, 2013 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on January 28, 2013.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion
items for the Special Study Session scheduled for January 22, 2013 and the regularly scheduled
Study Session on January 28, 2013.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – January 22 and January 28, 2013
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – January 22 and January 28, 2013
Special Study Session, January 22, 2013 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Recommendation from Environmental/Sustainability Task Force – Administrative Services
(45 minutes)
Discuss the recommendation of the Environment/Sustainability Task Force with staff and
representatives of the Task Force.
Study Session, January 28, 2013 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Annual Report from Discover St. Louis Park – Administrative Services (30 minutes)
John Basill, President of DSLP will be in attendance to provide an update on the activities of
the visitor’s bureau.
3. Proposed Paraphernalia Ordinance – Inspections/Police (30 minutes)
Discuss amending Chapter 18 Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions making use,
possession or advertisement of drug paraphernalia prohibited.
4. Solid Waste Program Update – Public Works (30 minutes)
Update Council on recent activities and next steps in providing for the proposed 2013-2018
residential curbside collection program and contracts.
5. Sidewalk and Trail Plan Update – Public Works (30 minutes)
Review with Council input received along with proposed next steps associated with
approving the Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation and CIP Plan
Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports
6. December Financial Report
7. Fourth Quarter Investment Report (October – December 2012)
8. Highway 100 Project Update
9. Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG)
End of Meeting: 8:40 p.m.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 14, 2013
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2013 Annual Legislative Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action requested. Staff has prepared a list of
legislative issues for Council’s annual review and discussion with Senator Ron Latz,
Representative Steve Simon, Representative Ryan Winkler, Hennepin County Commissioner
Gail Dorfman, and Metropolitan Council representative Jim Brimeyer.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Staff has attached a draft of 2013 legislative issues for the
Council’s consideration and discussion with the city’s legislators and representatives.
• Is there anything else the City Council would like staff and our legislative delegation to
pursue?
• Does the Council wish to continue retaining legislative consulting assistance for 2013 to
help promote the city’s legislative agenda?
SUMMARY: Staff has prepared the attached preliminary list of legislative issues for the
discussion with our legislators and representatives. As has been the case in previous years, as the
2013 legislative session progresses, additional issues may come to light.
It has been our practice to retain lobbying services to help us with legislative and regulatory
issues. Administrative Services has utilized the legislative services of Doug Franzen and Vic
Moore, Franzen & Associates, and Dennis McGrann and Emily Tranter of Lockridge, Grindal,
and Nauen. Staff requests direction as to continuing on with these services for 2013.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Funding for our lobbyists is included in the
EDA budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Several of the legislative issues are in direct alignment with the
City’s Strategic Directions and none are in conflict.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 2013 Legislative Issues and Priorities (Draft)
Prepared by: Ray French, Administrative Services Intern
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: 2013 Annual Legislative Update
City of St. Louis Park
2013 Legislative Issues and Priorities (Draft)
Transportation Issues and Priorities
A. Southwest LRT
Issue: The Southwest LRT project continues to be of significant interest to the City of St. Louis
Park. The project received authorization to begin Preliminary Engineering in September 2011,
and just concluded public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). As a
whole, the SWLRT project needs matching funds from the State totaling $125 million, or 10% of
the $1.25 billion total estimated project cost. The State has contributed just $7 million of its
matching funds for Preliminary Engineering. An additional $11.6 million is required to be
provided by the State for its share of the cost for Preliminary Engineering and $118 million
overall for the entire project.
Position: The City strongly supports this project and urges the State to provide the remaining
financial match, at least for preliminary engineering. In addition, as voiced in the past by the
City, the most recent of which occurred during the DEIS comment period, the City also has
significant concerns about the impacts relating to addressing freight rail needs as part of the
SWLRT project. The City has identified specific design requirements and mitigation measures
that need to be implemented whether the freight rail is relocated on to the MN&S or co-located
with LRT in the Kenilworth Corridor. The availability of adequate funding for these design
elements and mitigation is of concern to the City and it desires to explore with its legislators and
other parties the concept of a bonding bill request in 2014 to help pay for this mitigation.
B. Dan Patch Commuter Line Study Prohibition
Issue: In the 2002 Regular Session the legislature passed a provision that prohibits any action or
money spent for study, planning, preliminary engineering, final design, or construction of the
Dan Patch commuter rail line. In every session since 2008 there has been a bill introduced that
would repeal or significantly alter that provision.
Position: The City supports the prohibition and opposes any effort to amend or repeal it at this
time.
C. I-394/TH 100 Collector-Distributor Roads
Issue: The Trunk Highway 100 & Interstate 394/Xenia Avenue/Park Place Boulevard Collector-
Distributor Road Improvement Project would add an additional eastbound and westbound lane
on the TH 100 Collector-Distributor (C-D) Road.
Analysis: The traffic analysis indicated that the TH 100 C-D Road currently operates poorly in
the eastbound and westbound directions during the morning and evening peak periods. Further
analysis for year 2027 conditions indicate operations will continue to worsen based on normal
growth of regional trips to a service level of E-F. This project would benefit residents in St.
Louis Park and the metropolitan region by improving the safety of the east and west bound
traffic flow on I-394 and in the vicinity of Park Place and Xenia Avenue, as well as on TH 100.
Position: The City supports securing $1.8 million of a required $2.4 million to make
improvements to the eastbound and westbound lanes of the TH 100 C-D Road at I-394. Our City,
along with Golden Valley and in partnership with Mn/DOT, has been working to find a solution
to the congestion and flow of traffic in the vicinity TH 100 and I-394. This project is supported
by Mn/DOT but is not in their current list of projects due to funding constraints.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: 2013 Annual Legislative Update
D. Transportation or Sidewalk Utility
Issue: The existing special assessment law, Minn. Stat. ch. 429, does not meet cities’ financing
needs because of the requirements for assessing benefitting properties. The law requires a
minimum of 20 percent of such a project to be specially assessed against affected properties. In
practice, however, proof of increased property value to this degree of benefit can rarely be
proven from regular repair or replacement of existing infrastructure such as streets or sidewalks.
Analysis: Successful economic development efforts and community stability are dependent upon
a city’s ability to make infrastructure investments. Current infrastructure funding options
available to cities are inadequate and unsustainable, and funding pressures have been
exacerbated by past levy limits and reductions in local government aid and the market value
homestead credit programs. Alternatives to the Minn. Stat. ch. 429 methods for financing
infrastructure improvements are nearly nonexistent. The Legislature has given cities the authority
to operate utilities for waterworks, sanitary sewers, and storm sewers. The storm sewer authority,
established in 1983, set the precedent for a workable process of charging a use fee on a utility
bill for a city service infrastructure that is of value to everyone in a city. Similar to the storm
sewer authority, a transportation or sidewalk utility would use technical, well-founded
measurements and would equitably distribute the costs of local infrastructure services.
Position: The City supports the legislative authorization for cities to create additional utilities
such as a transportation or sidewalk utility.
Community Development Issues and Priorities
A. 2010 Jobs Act Provisions Extension
Issue: Numerous provisions of the 2010 Jobs Act that are helpful for economic development in
the City of St. Louis Park sunset on July 31, 2012. These include the lengthened duration of
Economic Development TIF Districts to a full 9 years, one more year than is currently allowed,
as well as allowing office projects to qualify as approved developments within Economic
Development TIF Districts. Also under this Act, the Temporary Authority to Stimulate
Construction enabled the EDA to continue its Construction Assistance Program, which has
successfully stimulated additional construction activity and created jobs as originally intended.
Position: The City supports extending these provisions of the 2010 Jobs Act that sunset on July
31, 2012. The City also requests that the extension be retroactive to projects approved prior to
July 31, 2012, which would allow projects like the Oak Hill II Office Building project to qualify
for previously approved TIF assistance if it as able to garner private financing. The City also
supports the extension of the Temporary Authority to Stimulate Construction provisions. While
the City supports the temporary extension of this authorization, it also believes a strong and
convincing case can be made for making the Authority to Stimulate Construction under the Act
permanent.
B. TIF District Statutory Modifications
Issue: There are opportunities for modifications of the Redevelopment TIF statute. First, current
law requires more than 50% of the buildings in a project area be found to be substandard to
qualify. Second, establishing additional forms of TIF districts could support current and future
redevelopment projects in the City of St. Louis Park.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: 2013 Annual Legislative Update
Position: First, the City supports a minor modification of the Redevelopment TIF statute so that
project areas would qualify in which 50% or more of buildings are found to be substandard.
Second, the City further supports the establishment of Compact Development TIF Districts and
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) TIF Districts, which could assist qualified redevelopment
projects in proximity to the future LRT stations planned in the City of St. Louis Park.
C. Special Service Districts
Issue: The legislative authorization to create Special Service Districts expires in 2013. However,
currently, only commercial properties can be required to participate within Special Service
Districts. This is financially challenging for funding additional services within mixed-use project
areas. The City of St. Louis Park has established 6 Special Service Districts, including multiple
sections along Excelsior Boulevard. This has been a very valuable tool for St. Louis Park.
Position: The City supports continuing the authorization for Special Service Districts, as well as
allowing multifamily developments to be charged a fee within Special Service Districts.
D. Housing Improvement Areas Legislation Extension
Issue: In 1996, cities were granted general authority under Minn. Stat. § 428A.11 to § 428A.21
to use Housing Improvement Areas (HIAs) in order to finance housing improvements for
condominium and townhome complexes. The general law will sunset on June 30, 2013. In 2010,
the Legislature passed legislation increasing the required percentage needed to file the initial
petition from 35 to 50 percent. Additionally, they increased the percentages needed for vetoing a
housing improvement area project from 35 to 45 percent. Several cities have used this tool and
found it to be a useful mechanism for maintaining older association homes. The City of St. Louis
Park has designated 7 Housing Improvement Areas, providing loans in excess of $12 million.
This has been a very valuable tool for St. Louis Park.
Position: The City supports making the Housing Improvement Areas statute permanent.
Additionally, the Legislature should consider changes to the statutes that would clarify or add
specificity to the process for using the housing improvement area statute.
Public Safety Issues and Priorities
A. Marijuana Enforcement
Issue: The recent events in Colorado and Washington illustrate the growing national interest in
the legalization of marijuana. Marijuana continues to be a Schedule 1 controlled substance under
federal law, which creates a conflict of law between the federal and more relaxed laws in other
states. These conflicts could lead to confusion among law enforcement and residents as to the
current state of the law, if more relaxed regulations are enacted.
Position: This is an area of concern for the Police Chief but has not been discussed with the
Council. Staff desires direction as to the Councils position on this matter
B. License Plate Readers Private Data
Issue: Current law classifies the information collected by Automated License Plate Readers as
public data, and subject to data requests. Other cities like the City of Minneapolis have requested
an amendment to the Minnesota Data Practices Ac that would classify this data as private.
Position: The City supports this re-classification to protect the public’s safety and privacy, and
particularly that of our more vulnerable residents who may become targets if this information is
public.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Title: 2013 Annual Legislative Update
Financial Issues and Priorities
A. Fiscal Disparities
Issue: The City has been a net contributor to the fiscal disparities program for some time. Given
extensive redevelopment and stronger commercial/industrial property values than most other
metro area communities, the City’s net contribution to the fiscal disparities pool has increased
substantially.
Analysis: Below are some statistics related to St. Louis Park, which denotes the increase in the
City’s net tax capacity contribution over the years:
Pay 2009 1,635,724 Net Contribution
Pay 2010 1,231,482 Net Contribution
Pay 2011 2,775,483 Net Contribution
Pay 2012 3,220,881 Net Contribution
Pay 2013 2,940,678 Net Contribution
From 2009 to 2013, the city has seen a 79.8% Increase in the Net Contribution by St. Louis Park.
Other communities have seen much less volatile changes in the same timeframe, for example:
Bloomington -16.5% Net Contribution Change
Eden Prairie -6.6% Net Contribution Change
Edina -12.4% Net Contribution Change
Maple Grove -12.4% Net Contribution change
Minnetonka +14.7% Net Contribution Change
Plymouth -1.9% Net Contribution change
St. Louis Park +79.8% Net Contribution Change
Position: While the Fiscal Disparity program has many good points, the City asks its legislators
to continue to be aware of the financial implications it represents to St. Louis Park. The City’s
tax rate is higher due to reduced Net Tax Capacity, creating additional burdens on local property
tax payers to pay for local services. The City supports changes to this program that are
prospective in nature and recognize aggressive redevelopment efforts that cities undertake using
tax increment financing.
B. Levy Limits
Issue: During the 2008 legislative session, levy limits were imposed on cities over 2,500 in
population for three years (2009 -2011), and they are not currently in place for 2013. Levy limits
replace local accountability with a state judgment about the appropriate level of local taxation
and local services. Additionally, state restrictions on local budgets can have a negative effect on
a city’s bond rating due to the restriction on revenue flexibility.
Position: The City requests legislative support for not imposing a levy limit for future years.
Other Issues and Priorities
A. Reorganization of the Bassett Creek Water Management Organization (BCWMO)
Issue: The City has been recently informed that Hennepin County Commissioner Jeff Johnson is
considering a plan and possible legislation that would reorganize watershed management in
Hennepin County. As a result of the plan, the BCWMO, along with 11 other watershed
management organizations, would be eliminated and reorganized into three large districts.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Title: 2013 Annual Legislative Update
Analysis: Based on Commission discussions and staff input, it appears many of the member
cities of the BCWMO do not support this proposed reorganization. Numerous concerns have
been expressed by member cities, including a lack of local input, the resulting loss of local
control, and an increase in inefficiencies. The local water quality management, and the local CIP
planning and implementation, are currently acceptable and meeting water quality goals.
Position: The history of the BCWMC demonstrates that local control of water resource
management can be successful in terms of protection of local water bodies while being good
stewards of public funds. City staff and city appointed Commissioners concur with the concerns
identified above and more specifically:
1. There was little to no St. Louis Park input on this proposed change or legislation.
2. It does not appear this would simplify water management within St. Louis Park; currently
we are a part of two watersheds (Minnehaha Creek and Bassett Creek). If the changes are
made as proposed, we would still be in two watersheds: North and Central, but each of those
watersheds would manage a much larger area than what is currently being managed by the
watersheds we are in.
3. Storm water regulation is complex in Minnesota and while it appears that one goal of this
proposed change / legislation is to simplify that, staff does not see that happening as a result
of this proposed change.
B. Legal Notices – Eliminate Requirement for Paid Publication
Issue: Current law requires print ads for “proceedings, official notices, and summaries” in local
newspapers. In the 2011 Session, House File 162 called for allowing political subdivisions
(cities, counties, school boards, etc.) to replace the print ads with a single annual notice stating
that all such notices would appear on the political subdivision’s website (i.e. the city website).
Position: The City continues to support the elimination of this requirement. In addition to saving
cities thousands of dollars in annual publishing costs, the notices would have the potential to
reach a much greater audience than they currently do in St. Louis Park, where the local
newspaper only reaches about half of the community. Additionally, businesses working with the
city or bidding on city projects find it cumbersome to monitor many different publications.
Meeting Date: January 14, 2013
Agenda Item #: 3
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to update Council on the public process, communication and
feedback received to date and to obtain Council direction in the policy areas identified below.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Staff has completed informing residents of the proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan and has
received considerable public input. At the January 14 Study Session staff desires direction in the
following policy areas:
1. Does Council wish to continue implementation of at least some portion of the Pedestrian
and Bicycle Plan?
If so:
2. Does Council have adequate input at this time?
3. Does Council wish to hold a Public Hearing to receive final comments on the proposed
plan? Or,
4. Would Council like to revise the proposed plan prior to holding a Public Hearing? (i.e.,
highly controversial segments could be deleted and requested segments could be added)
5. How would Council like to decide which segments to delete or add to the proposed plan?
BACKGROUND:
History
At the June 11th Study Session staff presented the final proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan
and a ten year prioritized Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Council provided input on the
prioritization of the projects in the CIP as well as discussed possible parking restrictions
associated with utilization of bike lanes. Council requested staff to provide an evaluation of the
proposed bike lanes and parking restriction implications, and also requested staff to prepare a
financial and communications plan for consideration at a future Study Session.
Staff returned to Council on July 16, 2012 with a revised Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan and a ten
year prioritized Capital Improvement Program (CIP). In addition, staff evaluated bike lane
parking restriction impacts and developed and presented a financial and communications plan for
the proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan. Copies of the revised CIP were provided and a
summary of financial options were provided. Among the options presented, General Obligation
(GO) bonds were recommended by staff as the best option for financing the improvements.
A Communications Plan (Exhibit 5) was also provided to Council on July 16. The intent of the
plan was to utilize a broader citywide message to begin the communication effort, and then
follow with more distinct communications aimed at specific project improvements so that every
property owner may assess the entire plan as well as consider personal impacts and concerns. As
a part of the public process, staff and Council anticipated many concerns would be raised and
asked. As a result, a list of Expected Issues and Concerns (Exhibit 9), along with a list of
Guiding Principles (Exhibit 8) was assembled
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
Staff then initiated the communication process of presenting the proposed program to the public
and gathering input. This effort included the launch of a website titled “Connect the Park”
(http://www.stlouispark.org/connect-the-park.html). This site provides comprehensive information,
including a general description of the purposes and goals of the program, maps of proposed
projects and schedule, estimated costs, FAQ’s, notifications of upcoming informational
meetings, and more. Similar information (including a link to the website) was also published in
in the Park Perspective.
Recent Activities
Kick-off Informational Meeting
An initial public informational meeting was held on Tuesday, October 9 in the Council
Chambers. The intent of the meeting was to provide a general overview of the proposed city-
wide program and 10-year capital plan. In addition to the website and other media outlets, all
residents and property owners were notified of the meeting by mass mailing of a specially
prepared “Connect the Park” brochure. Attendance was fair (just over 50 in attendance), and the
general response to the plan at the meeting was very positive. Comment cards received were
more mixed (attached in Appendix A). The meeting was conducted in a general information
open-house style meeting with two short presentations, explaining a general overview of the
plan, development history (through the visioning process), the proposed plan improvements, and
anticipated public process and implementation schedule.
Ward Meetings
The general City-wide kick-off informational meeting was followed by area (ward) specific
informational meetings. The intent of the ward meetings was to present specific projects to
residents in more detail and encourage and receive additional comments and feedback.
The Ward 2 meeting was held on Tuesday, October 23 at the Rec Center and was lightly
attended (about 15 people). In general, the proposed program and Ward 2 projects were well
received by those who attended the meeting. In particular, sidewalks such as 41st Street that
provided links/connections to Susan Lindgren School and other destinations such as Browndale
Park were supported by the residents in attendance. There were also requests to move some
projects such as 41st Street to a higher priority on the proposed implementation schedule.
The Ward 3 meeting was held on Thursday, October 25 at the Municipal Services Center.
Attendance at this meeting was higher than the previous meeting; with over people 30 in
attendance. The vast majority of the residents who attended voiced very strong opposition to the
proposed sidewalk along 31st Street between Texas Avenue and Colorado Avenue. Very few
comments were received with regards to other proposed projects in Ward 3. Although a few
favorable comments to the overall City-wide program were expressed, the vast majority of
feedback received was negative, particularly with regard to the need for a sidewalk along 31st
Street.
The Ward 4 meeting was held on Tuesday, October 30 at the St. Louis Park Middle School.
Similar to Ward 3, the Ward 4 meeting was well attended (40-50 people in attendance) with the
vast majority of the feedback received being strongly negative toward the proposed sidewalk
projects. A small amount of support was expressed regarding on-street bikeways and better
connections to destinations. However, the overall tone of the meeting was negative toward the
proposed sidewalk projects, and in particular the need for sidewalks along Westmoreland Lane,
Pennsylvania Avenue, and Texas Avenue.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
The Ward 1 Meeting, held on November 1 at City Hall was similar to the Ward 2 meeting in that
it was lightly attended (15-20 residents in attendance) with many of those in attendance
expressing positive remarks toward the overall plan. Some residents also expressed requests for
additional sidewalks not proposed in the plan. These included segments in some locations in the
Lake Forest Neighborhood (including Cedarwood Road and Parklands Road) and in the
Sorenson Neighborhood along 35th Street (adjacent to Highway 7). Some residents expressed
concerns with regards to tree impacts along specific segments proposed, such as Quentin Avenue
and Ottawa Avenue.
After completion of the Ward meetings, a notice was mailed to properties along both sides of
streets where specific sidewalk segments are being proposed. Staff felt this additional mailing
was necessary to ensure all residents adjacent to sidewalk installations were informed of this and
provided an opportunity for input. As a result, a significant amount of additional input was
received during late November and early December (most of it negative) toward specific
proposed sidewalk projects.
Summary of Comments
As a general note, the majority of the comments received address specific sidewalk segments
located in residential areas. The comments received in writing have overall been mixed but
leaning much stronger toward opposition to specific segments. In addition, comments
consistently express concerns with regards to property impacts (loss of trees, landscaping,
driveways, privacy, etc.), the overall cost of the projects, maintenance (snow removal) and
questions regarding the overall need of certain sidewalk segments. In addition to letters and E-
Mails from individual property owners, some residents also organized petition drives in their
neighborhoods. For sidewalks proposed in non-residential areas, very few comments were
received.
With the exception of positive feedback received at the October 9 informational meeting,
proposed bikeways and trails received little input during the process. This is presumed to be
because only a few trail projects are being proposed, and they are located in areas where there
generally are no impacts to residential properties (such as Beltline Boulevard). In addition, the
few comments received with regard to bikeways were positive with the exception of locations
where residents expressed concerns with the prospect of parking restrictions.
Appendix A
A compendium of the comments received is attached at the end of this report (Attachment A).
The compendium consists of a consolidation of all communications received, including E-Mails,
letters, comment cards from meetings, telephone calls, petitions, and other. The compendium
has generally been organized by Ward and by specific proposed projects to provide better ease in
tracking feedback for specific areas. Many general or city-wide comments were also received
reflecting both pros and cons with regards to the overall program, its value, and cost. In addition
to reactions to proposed segments, staff also received some requests to review and consider
sidewalk segments not proposed in the plan.
Attachment A is organized as follows:
A. General City Wide Comments
1. Tabulation of comments received at the October 9 General Informational Meeting. In
general, the majority of these comments were very positive toward the program.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
B. Ward 1 Comments
1. Comments specific to proposed segments - organized by pro and con and including:
• France Avenue (26th Street to North City Limits (west side). Note: this
segment was previously adopted and is scheduled for construction this year.
• Joppa Avenue (Mtka Blvd to just north of Sunset (west side)
• Ottawa Avenue (28th to 29th (both sides)
• Quentin Avenue (26th to 27th(east side)
• Zarthan Ave. and Hamilton St. (misc. gaps)
• Proposed Pedestrian Bridges
2. Requested additional sidewalks
Ward 1 General Summary: General support for the overall program was expressed at the
Ward 1 informational meeting on November 1. Additional sidewalk segments have also
been requested for segments where none were proposed. Subsequent communications
received since the Ward 1 meeting have expressed minor concerns (and also opposition)
for specific sidewalk segments where properties may be impacted, such as Ottawa
Avenue and Quentin Avenue.
C. Ward 2 Comments
1. Comments specific to proposed segments - organized by pro and con and including:
• 39th Street (Natchez to France (south side)
• 40th Street (Natchez to Joppa (north side)
• 41st Street (Highway 100 to Wooddale (south side)
• Brookside Avenue (42nd to Yosemite (east side)
• Browndale Ave. (Morningside to Wooddale (east side) and gap at 43 ½ )
• Excelsior Boulevard (W. of Louisiana Avenue (south side)
• Morningside Rd. (Utica to Browndale (north side) and E. of Wooddale)
• Wooddale Ave. at Excelsior Blvd (gap on west side)
Ward 2 General Summary: Strong support for the overall program was expressed at the
Ward 2 informational meeting on October 23 with more mixed and less enthusiastic
support received in comments received in the weeks after. Support was expressed in
particular for sidewalk segments that would provide safer access and connectivity to
certain destinations such as Susan Lindgren School (41st Street). In contrast, strong
opposition was received for the following proposed sidewalk segments:
• 39th Street (Natchez to France (south side)
• 40th Street (Natchez to Joppa (north side)
• Brookside Avenue (42nd to Yosemite (east side)
And, support for some other segments was mixed.
D. Ward 3 Comments
1. Comments specific to proposed segments - organized by pro and con and including:
• 31st Street (Texas to Brunswick (south side)
• 33rd Street (Texas to Rhode Island (south side)
• 33rd Street (Aquila to Virginia (south side)
• 34th Street (Flag to Aquila (south side)
• Aquila Avenue (gaps between 34th and Minnetonka Blvd (east side)
• Flag Avenue (36th to 34th (east side)
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
• Pennsylvania Avenue (south of 31st)
• Virginia and 28th Street (BNSF to Texas (west and south sides)
Ward 3 General Summary: Overall, residents in Ward 3 generally have not expressed
support for the program, particularly for proposed sidewalk segments where their
property may be impacted. In particular, the following segments received very strong
opposition from a majority of residents:
• 31st Street (Texas to Brunswick (south side)
• 33rd Street (Texas to Rhode Island (south side)
• Pennsylvania Avenue (south of 31st)
Some segments such as Aquila Avenue, 34th Street, and Flag Avenue did receive similar
comments but in much smaller numbers.
E. Ward 4 Comments
1. Comments specific to proposed segments - organized by pro and con and including:
• 14th Street (TH 169 to Flag (south side)
• 25th and 26th Streets (between Virginia and Sumter (north and west sides)
• Cedar Lake Road (Boone to Nevada (south side)
• Edgewood Ave. (Cedar Lake Rd. to BNSF (east side)
• Flag Ave (Westmoreland to 14th (east side)
• Hillsboro Ave. (14th to 18th (west side)
• Louisiana Avenue (Cedar Lake Road to Wayzata Blvd. (east side)
• Pennsylvania Avenue (Cedar Lake Road to 16th Street (east side)
• Texas Ave (Cedar Lake Road to Wayzata Blvd (west side)
• Virginia Ave (28th Street to Cedar lake Road)
• Westmoreland Lane (Flag to Westwood Nature Center (north side)
General Ward 4 Summary: Similar to Ward 3, residents in Ward 4 have not expressed
support for the sidewalk portion of the program, particularly for proposed sidewalk
segments where their property may be impacted. This input was received for nearly all of
the sidewalk segments mentioned above. However, the following segments received
very strong opposition in relation to others in Ward 4:
• 25th and 26th Streets (between Virginia and Sumter (north and west
sides)
• Louisiana Avenue (Cedar Lake Road to Wayzata Blvd. (east side)
• Pennsylvania Avenue (Cedar Lake Road to 16th Street (east side)
• Texas Ave (Cedar Lake Road to Wayzata Blvd (west side)
• Virginia Ave (28th Street to Cedar lake Road)
• Westmoreland Lane (Flag to Westwood Nature Center (north side)
Some support was expressed for the bikeway portion of the plan, including proposals that
would provide improved connectivity to destinations such as the North Cedar Lake Trail.
In summary, the majority of the comments received express opposition to specific proposed
sidewalk segments located in residential areas. Residents consistently expressed concerns with
regards to impacts to property, costs, and no overall value or need for the projects. For sidewalks
and trails proposed in non-residential areas, few comments were received. Comments received
with regards to bikeways were generally positive with the exception of locations where residents
expressed concerns with the prospect of parking restrictions.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
Next Steps
Quite a few options are available to Council at this time:
1. Adopt the plan as proposed.
2. Adopt a “minimal” or “intermediate” plan that would consist only of projects known to
have public support or at least little opposition.
3. Conduct a Public Hearing on the proposed plan. The plan could be formally adopted at
the hearing (with or without revisions), or delayed pending further public process, or
terminated.
4. Schedule another study session to consider further refinements to the plan (delete or add
specific segments, revise scheduling, etc.).
5. Revise the proposed plan and conduct a Public Hearing on the revised plan. The plan
could be formally adopted at the hearing (with or without additional revisions), or
delayed pending further public process, or terminated.
6. Conduct further public process prior to scheduling a Public Hearing. Additional public
process could be targeted toward specific project segments where additional feedback or
direction may be needed (for example, areas where sidewalks have been requested at
locations not proposed under the program).
7. Delay or suspend implementation of the plan.
8. Cancel the plan as proposed.
9. Combination of the above.
Staff planned to have the 10-year plan adopted by the end of 2012 or just after the first of the
year so that higher priority projects could be constructed in 2013. If plan adoption is delayed
into the second half of 2013, it is not likely any projects will be able to be constructed in 2013.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:
If Council decides to adopt the system of Community sidewalks and trails via the capital
program as proposed, a source of capital ($18 - $25 million dollar range – spread over ten years)
and maintenance funds ($34,000 annually in present day costs) will be needed. As previously
discussed, the recommended source for the capital costs would be the issuance of GO Bonds.
The likely source for the additional maintenance costs would be the General Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Strategic Direction - The following vision Strategic Direction and focus areas were identified
by Council.
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails.
Attachments: Exhibit 4 - CIP Summary Info
Exhibit 5 - Communications Plan
Exhibit 8 - Guiding Principles
Exhibit 9 - Expected Issues and Concerns
Attachment A – Appendix A
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Jamie Zwilling, Communications Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 7
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
Exhibit 4
CIP Summary Information
Sidewalks, Bikeways, and Trails
Construction
Year
Annual
Construction
Cost
Sidewalk
Costs
Bikeway
Costs
Bike
Lane
Costs
Trail
Costs
Bridge
Costs
2013 $587,500 $228,000 $45,000 $101,500 $213,000 $0
2014 $300,000 $176,000 $44,000 $0 $80,000 $0
2015 $6,729,900 $187,000 $26,400 $247,000 $369,500 $5,900,000
2016 $317,000 $304,000 $13,000 $0 $0 $0
2017 $429,000 $422,000 $7,000 $0 $0 $0
2018 $2,255,000 $240,000 $15,000 $0 $0 $2,000,000
2019 $456,000 $456,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
2020 $237,000 $148,000 $22,000 $28,000 $39,000 $0
2021 $712,500 $692,500 $20,000 $0 $0 $0
2022 $256,000 $244,000 $12,000 $0 $0 $0
2023 $425,000 $425,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
$12,704,900 $3,522,500 $204,400 $376,500 $701,500 $7,900,000
Element
Community
Sidewalks
Neighborhood
Sidewalks Bikeways
Bike
Lanes Trails Bridges
Length (ft.) or
# 57,608 21,169 117,599 44,237 15,572 4
Cost of Neighborhood Sidewalks $1,137,500
Cost of Community Sidewalks $2,385,000
Total Sidewalk Construction Costs $3,522,500
Notes:
1. Costs above do not account for inflation, engineering, contingencies, right-of-way
acquisition and other unknown project costs. Public Works feels these factors will
significantly add to the cost shown and project the total cost to build the improvements
proposed in the $18 - $25 million dollar range.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 8
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
Exhibit 5
Communications Plan
Sidewalk, Trails, and Bikeways
July 2012
A Branded Initiative
As the Sidewalk, Trails and Bikeways plan is a long-term, multi-faceted initiative, it’s important that the
city establish an identity for it that will be recognizable to community members for years to come. This
will also help the public understand that each smaller project is part of something larger. The
Communications Division is currently developing a logo and taglines that will be consistent with the
city’s overall brand but also give an identity to the multi-year initiative under the “Connect the Park”
name. Taglines will focus on the initiatives roots in Vision St. Louis Park and on the specific components
of the initiative.
Three Phases
There are three phases or components of communication messages/deployment. Some overlap and many
tools will be used across phases, but the essential elements are as follows:
Phase One – Educate the public about the roots of the plan (i.e. Vision), explain the work that has been
done and the Council’s goals for the initiative. This is a citywide effort that will also aim to educate the
community about the various components of the plan, the benefits and answer the “why” question and
show the overall picture about this initiative.
Phase Two – Educate the public about the specific elements contained in the initiative, projected costs
and physical impacts (i.e. loss of right of way, parking, etc.). This communication will be tailored to four
quadrants of the city either based on Ward boundaries or other boundaries deemed appropriate by Public
Works staff.
Phase Three – Educate the public about the specific elements affecting them in their neighborhoods or on
their streets. The most local element of the Communication Plan, this portion will be conducted much like
we conduct communications for any street or utility project with meetings and mailings directed at
affected parties.
Goals
• To remind residents about the city’s Vision, previous work already completed on the sidewalks
and trail plan, and the Council’s commitment to the long-term vision of a connected community
• Educate residents about the components of the proposed plan (Sidewalks, trails, bike lanes &
bikeways)
• To inform residents about new proposed Sidewalk, Trails, and Bikeways in St. Louis Park
• To obtain resident input regarding the proposed Sidewalk, Trails, and Bikeways in St. Louis Park
Communication tools to be utilized in plan
• News release
• Website
• Cable Television
• Social Media
• Neighborhood Newsletters
• Park Perspective
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 9
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
• Staff Presentations
o Generate list of organizations
• Brochures/Posters
o Mailed to all residents
o Handed out at city events
• Maps
• Open Houses
Strategies
News Release – The news release will be issued to the Sun-Sailor, Patch, Star Tribune and local
television stations to announce that the city is seeking input on a 10-year plan. A map and project list will
be included. PHASE 1
Website – The city will utilize a project website that will include a main article about the initiative (likely
based off of the original press release), upcoming events, maps, pdf documents of publications and
Council reports related to the initiative, and a list of all of the proposed projects with details (as each
project is undertaken). The site will also include a Frequently Asked Questions area that will develop over
time, and ways to provide feedback (email/phone) will include staff contacts. PHASES 1, 2, 3
The city will use a separate domain name for the initiative – www.ConnectThePark.org in its branding
initiative. This won’t be a separate website, but the domain name will be redirected to the project page on
the city’s website allowing for easy access. The city has used other domain names for marketing purposes
such as beautifythepark.org and parkTV.org in the past with success.
Additionally, the proposal will be highlighted on the spotlight of the homepage of stlouispark.org as space
is available (usually for a couple of weeks at a time), especially around major events such as public
meetings.
Cable Television – We’ll highlight the proposed plan in several ways:
• Scripted Public Service Announcement (Commercial) with voiceovers that will run on the Cable
TV system, be embedded to the website and shared on social media. This will be an introduction
to the “Connect the Park” Initiative and explain how the public can learn more. PHASE 1
• Regular promotion through our weekly “Park Update” program which is shared on the Cable TV
system, the website and social media. PHASES 1, 2, 3
• Create a Cable TV Billboard announcement (the informational screens that run on the Cable TV
system in between programming) Phases 2,3
Social Media – Social media has become a powerful tool for the city now with nearly 4,500 people inside
and outside of the community utilizing them. A series of informal messages linked to our main website
article to promote the proposed plan will be utilized. Phases 1, 2, 3
Neighborhood Newsletters – The content of the initial news release, which contains the basic
information about the proposed plan, plus a link to the website, will be provided to neighborhood leaders
for inclusion in their publications and websites. Additional information will be relayed to the Community
Liaison for inclusion in regular communication with neighborhood leaders. Phases 2, 3
Park Perspective – The content of the initial news release, which contains the basic information about
the proposal, plus a link to the website, will be included in the August Park Perspective. Photos will be
included and the content will be reworked into a basic Q & A format. In the November Park Perspective,
a brief update, including any upcoming meetings will be included in the newsletter. After that time, the
Park Perspective will be used as a tool for printed updates and to reference the website. It’s expected that
at least once annually, probably the spring/summer edition each year, the Park Perspective will be utilized
for a more extensive update that outlines the planned projects for each year. Phases 1, 2, 3
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 10
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
Flyer / Brochure – A full-color educational brochure will be created highlighting the plan elements
proposed for construction, the City’s Vision and overall education about the reasons for creating and
implementing the plan. This brochure will be mailed to all St. Louis Park households and businesses.
Phase 1
Four separate mailings will then be created that deal specifically with projects proposed in the four
separate wards (or other quadrants as determined by staff). These mailings will include maps and specific
project details and timelines in local area. Phase 2
Poster – Staff will create a full-color 11 x 17 poster containing some details of the proposal and
references to ConnectThePark.org and hung in city buildings and other locations throughout the
community. Phase 1
Maps – Staff from the Information Resources and Public Works departments will collaborate on both
printed and interactive online maps for the public to utilize. Phases 1, 2, 3
Staff Presentations – Staff will provide project presentations to neighborhood and community groups as
requested. Phases 1, 2, 3
Open Houses – The city will hold four public meetings (one each in each of the four wards or quadrants
as determined by staff). Phases 2,3
Timeline
July
• Staff prepares communication tools (publications, videos, maps, website, posters etc.)
August
• News release issued
• Park Perspective Article
• Website project page launched
• Initial overview publication sent to neighborhoods
• Posters debut
September
• Public Service Announcement Debuts
• TV Billboard announcements begin (highlight meeting dates, website, maps)
• Information shared with neighborhood leaders
• Ward/Quadrant information sent to residents (prior to Public Meetings)
• Public Meetings Begin
October
• Public meetings continue
November
• Park Perspective article
Ongoing
• Social media
• Cable TV
• Website
• Park Perspective
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 11
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
Exhibit 8
Guiding Principles
Sidewalks, Bikeways, and Trails
Design & Construction:
1. Current Designs:
• Sidewalk - 6' concrete with 7' grass boulevard
• Trail - 10' bituminous with 7' grass boulevard
2. Design Options (when necessary):
• Narrow grass boulevard up to nothing (eliminate)
• Narrow sidewalks up to 5' in width
• Narrow trails up to 8' in width
3. Minimize parking restrictions associated with Bikeway designations
4. Facilities to be ADA accessible.
5. Narrow existing streets to accepted standards
• Restrict or eliminate parking (when necessary).
6. Curve sidewalks/trails to avoid tree removals.
7. Forester determines tree viability (remove or trim).
8. Leave trees, walks, fences, etc. wherever possible.
9. Relocate or bury utilities in lieu of moving walk or trail.
10. Avoid right of way acquisition whenever possible.
11. Improvements should not decrease public safety.
12. Retaining wall need and ownership to be determined per existing Council policy.
13. Design and construct facilities as adopted by Council unless Council directs otherwise.
Maintenance:
1. Facilities to be maintained to Ordinance requirements or better.
2. All sidewalk and trail repairs are City responsibility and at City cost.
3. Community sidewalk and trail snow removal will be by the City at city cost.
4. Neighborhood sidewalk snow removal will be by residents at resident cost.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 12
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
Exhibit 9
Expected Issues and Concerns
Sidewalks, Bikeways, and Trails
Expected issues, concerns, and suggestions related to proposed Sidewalks, Bikeways, and Trails:
1. Sidewalk maintenance (snow removal)
2. Adverse property impacts:
• reduced yard size
• removal of trees
• alterations to walls and fences
• reduced aesthetics
• reduced property values
3. Cost - too costly, do not raise taxes
4. Closeness of walks or trails to homes/buildings
5. Driveways will become too short to park cars
6. Concern over increase in outsiders and crime
7. Necessity - there is no need for walks or trails - walk in the street
8. Safety concerns over:
• additional vehicle/pedestrian conflicts at driveways
• children falling off retaining walls
9. Discourteous or disrespectful use of walks and trails by users
10. Bicycle traffic will cause or increase congestion
11. Adverse impacts to the character or culture of a neighborhood
12. Put walks/trails at the curbline
13. Put walks on just one side of a street
14. Narrow up walks/trails
15. Do more "on street trails"
16. Narrow up streets
17. Consider one-way streets
18. Eliminate or restrict street parking in some areas
19. Some sidewalks should be removed from the proposal
20. Some sidewalks should be added to the Proposal
21. Locate walks/trails elsewhere - where more appropriate
22. Show more importance to major street crossings
23. Let neighborhoods decide what is best in their respective area
24. Do less, this is too much
Page1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Description Page
1.0 Appendix A - Ward 1
1.1 26th St. W. – Bike Trail 2
1.2 Additional Requests 3 – 5
1.3 Brochure – “Get Connected” 5
1.4 France Ave. So. 5 - 6
1.5 Joppa Ave. So. 6
1.6 Ottawa Ave. So. 6 – 7
1.7 Ped Bridges 8
1.8 Quentin Ave. So. 8 – 10
1.9 Zarthan Ave. So. 10 – 12
2.0 Appendix A - Ward 2
2.1 39th St. W. 13 – 16
2.2 40th St. W. 17 – 19
2.3 41st St. W. 20 – 36
2.4 Brookside Ave. 37
2.5 Browndale Ave. 37 – 44
2.6 Excelsior Blvd. 44
2.7 Morningside Rd. 44 – 45
2.8 Wooddale –Excelsior Blvd. 46
3.0 Appendix A - Ward 3
3.1 31st St. W. 47 – 67
3.2 33rd St. W. 68 – 75
3.3 34th St. W. 75 – 77
3.4 Aquila – 31st St. 77 – 78
3.5 Flag Ave. So. 78
3.6 Pennsylvania Ave. So. 79 – 86
3.7 Virginia – 28th St. W. 87 – 95
4.0 Appendix A - Ward 4
4.1 14th St. W. 96
4.2 25th – 26th St. W. 96 – 101
4.3 Cedar Lake Rd. 101 – 102
4.4 Edgewood Ave. So. 102 – 103
4.5 Flag Ave. So. 103 – 104
4.6 Hillsboro Ave. So. 104 – 105
4.7 Louisiana Ave. So. 106 – 111
4.8 Additional Requests 111 – 116
4.9 Pennsylvania Ave. So. 117 – 123
4.10 Texas Ave. So. 123 – 133
4.11 Virginia Ave. So. 133 – 136
4.12 Westmoreland Lane 137 – 142
5.0 Appendix A - General Comments 143
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 13
Page2 APPENDIX A
WARD 1
26TH St. W. – Bike Trail – Pro’s
● I live at the corner of France Ave. and Basswood Road.
It is our understanding that a sidewalk will be placed along this stretch of France, on the west
side of the street.
At our location on France, France is widen beyond the normal two lanes. Will the sidewalk
be incorporated into this widened portion or will it be located west of the current curb line?
Thank you,
• I have a quick question that I didn't get to ask last night at the sidewalks/trails meeting. You
had mentioned that it will be the responsibly of the homeowners to shovel the proposed
sidewalks in front of their houses. I'm wondering if that would be true for France Ave. too
since it is such a major road and I imagine the plows will bury that sidewalk regularly.
Would it get treated more like Mtka. Blvd. and have city clearing or would residents be
responsible for it? Maybe you don't know that answer yet but I want to be able to let the
residents in my neighborhood know what to expect.
● I appreciated talking with you last Thursday at the open house at City Hall. As I noted, I live
on S. Willow Lane in the Lake Forest neighborhood. I ride my bike 44 miles round trip
during reasonable weather to my work. I run frequently around my neighborhood and on the
local trails.
I think the bikeway on France Avenue is a good idea. Here, there is plenty of space, I think
you can simply mark a lane clearly and there are not really any safety issues here. I do not
think it would be worth the cost to try and grade-separate the bikeway from the
roadway. Just one block away on Cedar Lake Pkwy an off road trail is available if one
desires to ride off road.
On Cedar Lake Rd from France Ave to cul de sac, I don't think anything needs done. A sign
or multiple signs on this 1/10th mile, low vehicle used road would just be an eye sore,
clutter. I think in neighborhood streets making markings on the roadway are unnecessary
and would just create up keep costs for the city. All neighborhood streets should be shared
without special markings and money would be better spent on awareness campaigns in this
regard rather than designating certain streets as bikeways. Would that mean other unmarked
streets should be shared in a different way?
Lastly, I think the side walk along France Avenue would see little use, but may still be
worthwhile. In particular, the roadway is enormously wide. I would advocate taking space
from the existing paved area and using this for the sidewalk. I think it would be a shame to
pave over more of the neighbors yards and widen this area even further. Thank you for your
help. Please keep me informed as the plan progresses.
26TH St. W. – Bike Trail – Con’s
• None
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 14
Page3 Ward 1 – Additional Requests – Pro’s
● Yosemite Ave - NW corner at W 34th St. Whole block has sidewalk except this one parcel.
Can we add to our plan?
● I live in Lake Forest. At our latest neighborhood meeting, the idea of having a sidewalk from
the Hwy 100 frontage road through Parkwoods and Forest Road to France was brought up.
Safety seems to be the major concern, but in the fifteen years we have lived there, we have
never heard of a pedestrian accident. When they have tested for average car speed, I believe
the results showed about 25 MPH average. We walk the roads all the time. The woodsy
atmosphere and winding roads are part of the areas charm. Hopefully sidewalks through this
area won’t get much traction. Thank you.
● We were traveling in Tennessee and St Louis during the time when the Connect the Park
meetings were held. So, unfortunately I was unable to attend.
I have reviewed the info received in the mail and I do have a major concern. That would be
the lack of a connection of the existing sidewalks along West 34th Street. I walk this area
almost daily in spring, summer & fall, and have observed a lot of walkers (many students
from the senior high) and a huge amount of cars along this street. West 34th is a direct route
from the high school and McDonalds into this part of the Sorensen Neighborhood.
There are no stop signs along 34th, only a yield sign at Brunswick. There have been a
few accidents at the other intersections, and many near misses. A couple of years ago, we
successfully petitioned for stop signs on Zarthan Avenue (34th Street and Hamilton) and
knocked on many doors, including those required on 34th. This has slowed down the cars on
Zarthan; however there was no impact on 34th, as was expected.
We also attempted to get the basket weave stop signs in the area a few years ago, and failed.
While petitioning, we heard many comments on the level and speed of cars in the area,
especially on 34th.
Connecting the sidewalks on Zarthan will be wonderful. I urge you to consider connecting
the sidewalks along West 34th to make the street more pedestrian friendly and safe in the
neighborhood. Thank you for looking into this request.
● My kitchen window faces the 35th Street service road that's on the north side of Highway 7,
and I walk my dogs through the neighborhood along this road down to Webster Park, up to
Minnketonka Blvd., over to Lake Street and down 35th Street home again. Lots of other
people use the service road as a main walkway, too, including parents with strollers, kids on
bikes, and lots of other dog walkers. The corner of Webster and the service road is especially
dangerous because of the tall pine tree in the northwest corner of the intersection. It's hard
for drivers to see pedestrians there.
At any rate, I think a continuation of the sidewalk along 35th Street down to Webster Park
should be a priority for the City's "Connect the Park" campaign because of the large number
of pedestrians that use it each day combined with the relatively high volume of motor
vehicles that use it daily, as well.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my views.
● I did not attend the November 1 meeting regarding "Connect the Park" as it relates to my
neighborhood - Lake Forest. I appreciate being informed of such a meeting, however,
priorities prevent many of us from attending all meetings.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 15
Page4
Lake Forest residents want to be involved in the neighborhood. In 2011, there were more
residents from Lake Forest at the "Comprehensive Plan" meetings than any other
neighborhood. So I think one could infer that Lake Forest residents are interested in the
neighborhood.
For me, if I understand that my opinions will have an impact, then maybe I'll attend a
meeting (although in this case, I had other priorities).
For over 30 years we have requested a sidewalk around the curve at Cedarwood Road and
Parklands Road. At the 2011 Comprehensive Plan meeting, it ranked right up there with the
request to have an acceleration lane, or other possible methods, to improve access to the
Highway 100 East frontage road going north from Parkwoods Road. However, a sidewalk
again is not mentioned anywhere in the city's sidewalk plan.
Scott, my request is to have a sidewalk around the curve at Cedarwood Road and Parklands
Road as soon as possible. I think this request is consistent with other residents in the
neighborhood. Thanks
● ? Tonight I spoke at the meeting of the Lake Forest neighborhood association, among other
topics about the proposed sidewalks and trail plans. Several folks requested that we add a
sidewalk around the curve at Cedarwoods and Parklands Rd. - not a big surprise since I have
long heard that this is considered to be a hazardous place to walk. But what was really
shocking was that at least four people requested that the city install sidewalks all along the
main route through the neighborhood - from the Highway 100 frontage road along
Parkwoods, Cedarwood, Parklands and Forest Rd. to France Ave. Two of them volunteered
to pay assessments to help make it happen, even though I told them that no special
assessments would be made. While I do not for one minute think that this new attitude is
consistently shared among LF residents, this may be an option that merits further
consideration and discussion among the potentially affected neighbors.
• Today at the Sorensen neighborhood picnic I was repeatedly asked whether the city can
construct a picnic shelter building at Keystone or Webster park. Is that on our CIP?
As a related matter, I'd like to suggest that after MNDOT finalizes its plans for 100, we
pursue turn back of Webster park to the city. Is that realistic?
And I was also asked about the parcel of land just north of Webster park and south of Groves
school. I'm told that that parcel is owned by the state but that in the past the city maintained
it. I'm also told that since last spring, no one has mowed the grass or removed the downed
tree limbs. Is this something we can do?
I was also asked if we could add a sidewalk to our proposed plan - along the north frontage
road of Highway 7, between 100 and Wooddale. You may hear about this directly from
residents as well.
And finally, it was pointed out that the bus stop on the south side of Minnetonka Blvd, just
west of 100, has a lot of junk and litter around it. Who is responsible for cleaning it up?
• Supports plan, but would like to see additional sidewalks in her area. (Basswood Road )
Very concerned for children and Jewish Community members (many dressed in black who
walk in the evenings)
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 16
Page5 Ward 1 – Additional Requests – Cons’s
● None
Ward 1 – Brochure - Pro’s
● We got the brochure about the meeting which we won't be able to attend. I did have one
reaction that I wanted to share. Despite the title, I did not think there was a lot of
connectedness in the map (current and proposed). It seems the trails, especially the smaller
ones, are not connected to each other. It is also very difficult visually to pick out the bikeway
as the sidewalk color is so prominent. Perhaps we will be able to attend the ward meetings.
Ward 1 – Brochure - Pro’s
● None
Ward 1 – France - Pro’s
● I live at the corner of France Ave. and Basswood Road.
It is our understanding that a sidewalk will be placed along this stretch of France, on the west
side of the street.
At our location on France, France is widen beyond the normal two lanes. Will the sidewalk
be incorporated into this widened portion or will it be located west of the current curb line?
Thank you,
• I have a quick question that I didn't get to ask last night at the sidewalks/trails meeting. You
had mentioned that it will be the responsibly of the homeowners to shovel the proposed
sidewalks in front of their houses. I'm wondering if that would be true for France Ave. too
since it is such a major road and I imagine the plows will bury that sidewalk regularly.
Would it get treated more like Mtka. Blvd. and have city clearing or would residents be
responsible for it? Maybe you don't know that answer yet but I want to be able to let the
residents in my neighborhood know what to expect.
• I appreciated talking with you last Thursday at the open house at City Hall. As I noted, I live
on S. Willow Lane in the Lake Forest neighborhood. I ride my bike 44 miles round trip
during reasonable weather to my work. I run frequently around my neighborhood and on the
local trails.
I think the bikeway on France Avenue is a good idea. Here, there is plenty of space, I think
you can simply mark a lane clearly and there are not really any safety issues here. I do not
think it would be worth the cost to try and grade separate the bikeway from the
roadway. Just one block away on Cedar Lake Pkwy an off road trail is available if one
desires to ride off road.
On Cedar Lake Rd from France Ave to cul de sac, I don't think anything needs done. A sign
or multiple signs on this 1/10th mile, low vehicle used road would just be an eye sore,
clutter. I think in neighborhood streets making markings on the roadway are unnecessary
and would just create up keep costs for the city. All neighborhood streets should be shared
without special markings and money would be better spent on awareness campaigns in this
regard rather than designating certain streets as bikeways. Would that mean other unmarked
streets should be shared in a different way?
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 17
Page6 Lastly, I think the side walk along France avenue would see little use, but may still be
worthwhile. In particular, the roadway is enormously wide. I would advocate taking space
from the existing paved area and using this for the sidewalk. I think it would be a shame to
pave over more of the neighbors yards and widen this area even further.
Thank you for your help. Please keep me informed as the plan progresses.
● Very pleased to see sidewalk and bike trail on France Ave. in Lake Forest/Fern Hill area
proposed. There is a huge need for it there. So glad it is scheduled for 2013. Thank you!
For those of us who bike to work and errands, thank you for making it more accessible.
Ward 1 – France - Con’s
● 1) Do not use permiable pavement like exists along France near North Cedar Lake - it's hard
on road bikes and crumbles. 2) Three bridges across BNSF? Why not one across Mtka Blvd.
@ Toledo? 3) Need better North-South grids with actual trails. 4) I moved to St. Louis Park
for the bike trails, no other reason. 5) See #2 - need better crossing across Mtka. Blvd. at
Toledo. 6) Clean up transition from 26th St. to ped bridge across 100.
Ward 1 – Joppa - Pro’s
● None
Ward 1 – Joppa - Con’s
● None
Ward 1 – Ottawa - Pro’s
● Thank you for your letter regarding proposed sidewalks on the 28xx block of Ottawa. I can
understand the general rationale for such a project, namely, that Ottawa likely has more
vehicular and pedestrian traffic than nearby parallel streets. However, it is not possible to
comment on your proposal without more information. For that reason, I would appreciate
answers to the following questions in sufficient time for me to comment by your December 7
deadline.
1. What is the width of the proposed sidewalks? What is the proposed distance between the
sidewalk edge and the curb line?
2. How many trees on the 28xx block of Ottawa would require removal to build the proposed
sidewalks? East side? West side? What would be the impact of the proposed sidewalks on
other landscape features, such as shrubs, retaining walls, etc.?
3. What is the rationale for sidewalks on both sides of the street? Would not a sidewalk on
one side fulfill most of the project aims with reduced cost and impact?
4. What is the estimated cost that would be assessed against properties on the block?
Finally, a related question.
5. If the goal of the sidewalk project is pedestrian safety, why not install north-south stop
signs at the Ottawa-29th Street intersection. Such stop signs would reduce traffic speeds in
the 28xx block. Nearby parallel streets with less traffic have stop signs. Why not Ottawa?
I thank you in advance for your response.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 18
Page7 Ward 1 – Ottawa - Con’s
● The "trail crossing" at Ottawa/Belt Line is literally an anxiety-producer as a motorist. The
trail bicyclists rarely stop, or slow down, sometimes waving to the motorists that illegally
stop, and "flip the bird" to those motorists that continue their prescribed speed and course.
Motorists do not know how to respond to bicyclists approaching or occupying a trail
crossing. How will the trails be marked for direction and type of traffic?
● While I appreciate the progressive ideas of St. Louis Park and have been 100% behind many
of them I am concerned over the proposed for sidewalks between 28th and 29th on Ottawa
Avenue.
I do live on Ottawa Avenue and my first concern was the amount of trees that would be
removed to implement the new sidewalks. The second was I wondered why, being an avid
walker and runner in the city, I notice on streets even where there are sidewalks, most people
do not use them, especially those walking to service.
I understand the safety concerns, I understand change, but are there any other solutions such
as:
No parking on one side of the street
Creating a designated bike or walk lane
Even if they have to be done, only on one side would be better
I feel fortunate to live in this city, and hope there can be some sort of compromise.
●
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 19
Page8 Ward 1 – Ped Bridges - Pro’s
● Thank you for the mailing that went out earlier in October outining future city projects.
I wasn't able to see from the map whether it is on the agenda, but I would support building a
bridge or some sort of crossing to enable our children to walk or bike to school at Peter
Hobart Elementary from the neighborhood south of Cedar Lake Rd. and just north of Peter
Hobart across the railroad tracks.
It is also a MAJOR hassle to try to get onto the Luce Line from our area. We live near the
intersection of Kentucky Ave. S. and Cedar Lake Rd., and in order to access the Luce Line
with our bikes, we have to ride over to Louisiana first, then south to the post office, then east
and north back into the neighborhood to the Luce Line access point near 26th and Georgia or
through the school's ball field.
● My family just bought a house in St Louis Park. I've been reading about the 10 year plan on
sidewalks, bikeways and trails and am excited to see those improvements.
I had a couple quick questions on the plan. I could not figure out when the proposed bridges
are to be put in place. Specifically, when is the bridge over the rail tracks at Edgewood Ave
(Dakota Park/Peter Hobart) planned for completion? Also, when will the bridges on either
side of Hwy 100 at Cedar Lake Road go in?
Lastly, I couldn't find any details for public meetings on the initiative for this fall. Do you
know where I can find out that?
Thank you in advance for your answers.
● A resident has suggested that we pave a short trail between W. 26th St. and the ramp to the
ped bridge over Highway 100 (near Beth El). Right now this is about a 20ft a stretch of
weeds. Seems like a good idea to me. What do you think?
Ward 1 – Ped Bridges - Con’s
● None
Ward 1 – Quentin - Pro’s
● Just wanted to know if we would be taxed for the proposed sidewalk between 26th and 27th
on Quentin Ave. S. I hope this is considered a written request. Thank you,
● At last night’s sidewalk and trail informational meeting, the above resident expressed
concern with regards to an Elm tree they have been treating. A sidewalk is not proposed at
this property until 2016 and any construction might be able to avoid the tree as well, but she
would like to have the tree assessed – would like to know it is worth continuing to put money
into for treatment.
Please contact Kati at your earliest convenience. If you need any assistance from me (come
to the site, etc.), please let me know.
I inspected your elm tree, located on the boulevard, today and found it to be in fine shape.
Your continued commitment to injecting this tree has certainly enhanced its health. I strongly
recommend continued treatment of this tree, if at all possible. I’d be happy to assess it again,
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 20
Page9 come next growing season, when the leaves are on the tree; please contact me with any
questions or concerns.
Thanks for letting me know.
The more broad question/comment would be the hope expressed by us that any sidewalk
construction proposed on our side of Quentin could spare the tree - given our investment
throughout the years with the injection program. I can see that to add a sidewalk, extensive
landscaping will need to be done on our neighbor's property and very close to the location of
the tree.
However, overall my household is very much in favor of the sidewalk continuation project
and look forward to being involved as plans for this specific site evolve. Thanks again.
Ward 1 – Quentin - Con’s
●
● A couple of weeks ago, my husband hand delivered a letter to you and sadly, we have
not had a response of any kind.
We are deeply concerned over the installation of a sidewalk on the east side of Quentin
ave. between 26th and 27th street.
There obviously has been no sidewalk there for over 50 years and cannot understand
why one is needed now. We would like the answer to that, please. Also, why is it
proposed for only the East side? That would look ridiculous!!!
These are the two most important questions that we would appreciate an answer as
soon as possible. Thank you
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 21
Page10 ●
Ward 1 – Zarthan - Pro’s
● We live at 3364 Zarthan Ave S, down the street from Holy Family Academy. When our
children were young we wished there had been a sidewalk all the way along the street. We
know it is a good thing to do and will eventually get used to having the sidewalk in front of
our house.
Unfortunately, we missed the meeting where these questions might have already been
answered.
1. What happens to the trees that are in the way of the sidewalk?
2. What are the costs to the homeowner?
Thank you, in advance, for your answers.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 22
Page11 Ward 1 – Zarthan - Con’s
●
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 23
Page12 ●
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 24
Page13 WARD 2
Ward 2 – 39th St. W. – Pro’s
● Love the sidewalks that are going in on 39th St., when I live. 39th is a busy road with lots of
traffic, so my wifr and I are so happy our children will have a safe place to walk. Can't wait!
Thanks for hosting this meeting.
● You have a big job.
I am running a little behind on the development of the sidewalks in St. Louis Park. Can you
tell me if the proposed sidewalks on 39th will be on the north side or south side of the
street? Depending on that answer I would have a number of other questions.
I know that I have missed the community meetings on this topic. Can you tell me if there are
any additional meetings where I can learn about this some more?
Thanks for getting back to me. What do you think they will do with all the power poles that
are on our side of the street?
● We appreciate the letter to inform us of the upcoming initiative to add more sidewalks to
SLP. This is something we value and believe will improve our neighborhood. Being that said
we have a few comments and/or things to consider.
We live on the Southeast corner of 39th/Natchez. It is being proposed that a sidewalk would
be added to the south-side of 39th from Natchez to France. We have been asking for this
sidewalk between Natchez & Monterey for about 7 years, so we are happy about that.
However as a taxpayer, I was wondering why they would install 2 entire blocks of sidewalk
on the south-side of 39th between Natchez and Lynn, when the north-side of 39th has
sidewalks 2/3 of that distance already in place. Wouldn't it make more sense to just finish up
the north-side of 39th. (Especially since the north-side is already prepped for a sidewalk to be
installed). To be more clear, the north-side of 39th between Natchez and Monterey is a
double block in length but has sidewalk 2/3 of the way and then it just ends....the other few
homes have the spaced left blank for the possible sidewalk. Also note, that when on the
southeast corner on 39th/Lynn it is closer, safer and a more direct way to walk if you go to
the northwest corner of 39th/Lynn (this is because this intersection is oversized and awkward
(it is essentially a parallelogram).
I would also propose adding something for traffic flow (maybe stop signs or crosswalks) on
the 3 corners of 39th and Natchez/Monterey/Lynn. These are over-sized and awkward
intersections which are frankly dangerous for drivers (much less walkers). And when you add
a sidewalk you are going to increase walking traffic. I hope this makes sense, if you need
further clarification please feel free to contact me.
Ward 2 – 39th St. W. – Con’s
● Mr. Brink, sending this Email to you to show my input, that I have lived most on my 62 years
in St.louis park, went to park high as did my father.. I now live at 3971 Natchez I have been
in this home for 32 years Iam telling you this because , your going to give up some of real
charm our city, WHY don’t you call you’re your project “concrete the park”six year ago, I
put in$ 22.000 in landscape Design, Icalled the city if they any plains for sidewalks answer
was no. If this gos through I wil lose part of my landscaping, I also see you would have to
take down some very large trees .. To me that makes any sense at all. What about snow
removal is city going to take of that? The plows put a lot of very heavy snow you are
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 25
Page14 adding well over a 100 feet to remove MR> Brink why don’t you come by my home lets
talk Michael A LANG 3971 Natchez or call any time 952 9206623
● I am writing you to address my concerns regarding the proposed sidewalk on the south side
of 39th street.
Here are my specific concerns:
1. Tree loss - I am concerned that this sidewalk will remove our lovely trees which cannot be
replaced.
2. Increased speed & traffic - I am concerned that if drives see individuals on the sidewalk,
they will increase their driving speed and our neighborhood will be less safe
Although this is not a hardcopy letter, I would like to request this email is consider my
written comments.
● Thank you for your letter November 19th letter regarding the "Connect the Park"
project. You are working hard to get everyone on board for this project.
Attached are some comments from me regarding this project. My main concerns are:
1. Is this project a "Nice to do" or a "Need to do" project in this economic environment?
2. If this project were to meet the scrutiny of some rigorous prioritization of future projects,
can we tighten up the budget further?
3. Can we delete the proposed sidewalk from France to Natchez from the project?
The attached letter addresses these issues.
This brief letter is regarding the “Connect the Park” program that is going to include new
sidewalks from France Avenue to Natchez along 39th street. While I am all for bettering the
community in areas that are needed, this program seems to be a “nice to do” rather than a “need
to do”. Here are a couple of reasons for my concern:
• In 22 years of living on 39th & Joppa, I am not aware of one situation where traffic from a
vehicle and a pedestrian were an issue. Currently everyone seems to “share the road”.
• We have some properties in the neighborhood that are absolutely gorgeous. This is
because the homeowners have invested time and money to make their property beautiful.
I am concerned about how much landscaping will be removed to make room for the
sidewalks.
• There is a maintenance issue. Removing more snow in the winter is an additional burden
that isn’t real appealing. It is time consuming if you do it yourself or expensive if you
hire it done.
• On the south side of 39th this project will be dealing with multiple utilities because we
have a pole for electricity, phone, cable, etc. This could increase the cost of the project.
• Frankly the cost of the “Connect the Park” program is pretty staggering. The
$18,000,000 - $25,000,000 estimate for the program is a huge project. If we have 15,000
tax payers, the average tax payer will be paying $1,433.
• Our taxes have been growing faster than GDP. This program continues with that
unsustainable trend.
The St. Louis Park Vision document was created in 2007. We are in a much different economic
environment now. The planning documents reference other needs that the city will have when
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 26
Page15 this project is being completed. In addition, it is footnoted that inflation, engineering,
contingencies, right-of-way acquisition and other unknown project costs could increase the cost
of this project.
I am asking that the City Council put this project on hold until:
1. The “Connect the Park” project is prioritized against other major capital commitments
that will take place between 2013 and 2025.
2. If the “Connect the Park” program passes the scrutiny of #1, then a more detailed plan is
developed that includes engineering and right-of-way acquisition. Frankly, a hard budget
without any leeway would be my preference.
3. Delete the sidewalk portion of the project that goes from France to Natchez.
If you want to discuss this, don’t hesitate to contact me.
Can you respond to this e-mail acknowledging it's receipt and inclusion in the comments that
will be considered?
Thank you for all your hard work on behalf of all the citizens of St. Louis Park. Sincerely,
● We want to express our concern about the Connect the Park initiative. Our concerns are the
following:
The damage the sidewalks will do to homeowners with modest yards
and established landsdaping.
The sidewalk's impact on the the aesthetic integrity of the neighborhood.
The cost of the program.
In our case we purchased our corner house in 2000. We have invested heavily in a major
remolding of our home as well as landscaping including trees. A sidewalk on the 40th street
side of our property will negatively impact our landscaping as well as our property value. If
our lot had the area to support such a project, we would gladly support the project. As it is
now, a sidewalk will detract not only from our property but from the entire neighborhood.
These lots were not designed for a sidewalk. The previous owner installed tiered beds that
would very likely need to be removed to make way for a sidewalk. We have installed an
irrigation system that will surely need to be repaired or replaced with the installation of a
sidewalk.
At a time when our economy is recovering and our dollars are in demand for so many
programs, it does not seems like a time to embark in a new program like this.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 27
Page16 ●
Action Requested
December 7
Subject: St. Louis Park “Connect the Park”
The City of St. Louis Park is in the final stages of approving an $18,000,000 - $25,000,000 program to
make our city more pedestrian and bike traffic friendly. Who can be against this? But wait; to
accomplish this the city is proposing over 10 years to build more sidewalks, bike paths, bridges and
walking paths. On the surface this appears to be a great idea but when you think about the cost and ask if
this is the best use of our tax money, it becomes mind-boggling.
Here is what we know:
• The cost is estimated to be between $1,200 and $1,433 for a $200,000 home. For those with a
home valued at $400,000 your share would be $2,400 to $2,866. A $600,000 home would pay
$3,600 to $4,299.
• Below is current cost estimate for each portion of the project.
Activity Sidewalks Bikeway Bike Lane Trails Bridges
Cost 3,522,500.00 204,400.00 376,500.00 701,500.00 7,900,000.00
Unaccounted for costs include: inflation, engineering, right-of-way access, etc. get you to $18 - $25 million
• Connect the Park is an outgrowth of a 2007 strategic plan which was developed in an entirely different
economic environment. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth is now closer to 1.5% than the 3 – 4%
growth we were experiencing then.
• To justify this program the city did an online survey of 205 people who said they were in favor of this
project.
• For the homeowner who will have sidewalk put in it in their yard, the character of your home will be
changed. Undoubtedly some trees will be removed. More snow removal will be required.
Questions that need to be answered:
• Is it perfectly clear that this project is one of the highest priority items for the next 10 years? We will
not need significant funds for school improvements, road repair, sewer & water, etc.
• How many safety problems have we had that might have been avoided with more sidewalks? Are we
creating a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist?
• How can we be assured that our homeowner taxes will grow less than GDP rather than exceed the
growth in the economy?
• Did they ask the people who took the online survey if they were willing to pay for the project? Were
they all tax payers? The same questions would apply to those who attended the community meetings on
this topic.
• How can we be assured that the character of our neighborhoods doesn’t change?
• Are the citizens prepared to move the additional snow?
Contact: Steve May at maysteve@comcast.net
To learn more about “Connect the Park” go to: www.stlouispark.org/connect-the-park
Critical Deadline: December 7, 2012 at 5:00 pm.
Send your questions or comments to Scott Brink at the city: sbrink@stlouispark.org
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 28
Page17 Ward 2 – 40th St. W. – Pro’s
● None
Ward 2 – 40th St. W. – Con’s
● Opposed to the sidewalk for the following reasons:
1. Unnecessary – kids going to school and others walk on the grass just fine – there is not a
safety issue.
2. Privacy – if a sidewalk is installed, there will not be much room between the sidewalk
and her house/side door
3. Aesthetics – concerned for the loss of trees
4. Cost-she contracts now for her existing sidewalk on Monterey to be shoveled; 40th would
be an added cost.
● My name is Shawn Jacobson, my family lives at 3945 Lynn ave and we have enjoyed being
St Louis Park residents for more than ten years.
As you are probably aware, Minikahda Vista is a vibrant neighborhood that provides a great
place to raise families, have pets and enjoy neighbors while being close proximity to
restaurants, parks, employment and shopping. Adding sidewalks to this type of
neighborhood sounds in theory like it would further promote the positive characteristics that
we already have. However, I am strongly opposed to it.
My opposition is based on a number things. I had and still have concerns about traffic on
40th. Right now our neighborhood puts walkers first, Traffic is generally modest on 40th
and plenty of people walk on the side of the streets. This includes many pet walkers, kids,
friends, runners, etc that enjoy having the right of way. Cars slow down and drive
sensibly. I do not want to see 40th become a way to bypass the lights on Excelsior Blvd.
We also enjoy a relatively attractive boulevard with grass and trees. I take pride in keeping
up my part of the blvd and recently installed a sprinkler system after watching my neighbors
to my east and west keep their blvd lawns green and lush with inground sprinklers. The
neighborhood kids play on that stretch of grass and I love that.
There is also the issue of winter upkeep. Quite honestly I do my best to keep my front
sidewalk shovelled and clear of snow and ice. My relatively small tract means that I can get
up before work, grab my shovel and try to make at least a passable sidewalk until I can get
home in the evening and do a better job. Having a sidewalk the stretch of one block in
addition to my front sidewalk would be very difficult for me to keep up (provided that we
have a normal snowfall again). Right now, snowplows put mounds of snow on the boulevard
that I can't imagine being responsible for moving. There may be a practical solution to this
but I am not sure what it is.
My family appreciates the efforts that you and the other city officials do on behalf of St
Louis Park. I would respectfully ask that this part of the 'Connect the Park' initiative is
reconsidered. Thank you
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 29
Page18 ●
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 30
Page19 ●
● Sending this Email to you to show my input, that I have lived most on my 62 years in St.
Louis park, went to park high as did my father.. I now live at 3971 Natchez I have been in
this home for 32 years I am telling you this because, you’re going to give up some of real
charm our city, WHY don’t you call you’re your project “concrete the park” six year ago, I
put in$ 22.000 in landscape Design, I called the city if they any plains for sidewalks answer
was no. If this goes through I will lose part of my landscaping, I also see you would have to
take down some very large trees .. To me that makes any sense at all. What about snow
removal is city going to take of that? The plows put a lot of very heavy snow you are
adding well over a 100 feet to remove MR> Brink why don’t you come by my home lets
talk Michael A LANG 3971 Natchez or call any time 952 9206623
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 31
Page20 Ward 2 – 41st St. W. – Pro’s
● 1. Safety of crossing at Wooddale and 41st street. She hopes that Wooddale could be
narrowed or Include other traffic calming devices at the intersection to help pedestrians cross
- maybe shortening the distance to cross or other strategies that would help. In addition, she
felt that kids walking to school along 41st street coming up to Wooddale did not have safe
options other than the street.
2. Browndale Ave and Wooddale Ave intersection safety. There is a long stretch between
41st and 42nd on Wooddale where traffic builds up speed and is not expecting to slow
down. Browndale Ave is where many children cross to get to Browndale Park but it is right
in the middle where traffic speeds are high, and by a curve which makes it hard to see. Some
traffic calming measures at this intersection would be helpful, whether narrowing the
roadway where the crossing is, installing a stop sign, or some other device to cue traffic to
slow and watch for ped crossing.
3. Speed of Wooddale traffic and ignoring stop signs. Her observations are that cars are
rushing through the 41st street stop sign in order to make the Wooddale/Excel. stoplight,
making it dangerous for bikes/pedestrians. Also, because of the long stretch between 41st
and 42nd felt that cars build up a lot of speed and wanted to explore ways for us to think
about how to slow the traffic down a bit.
● I live at 4108 Salem Ave. So. The need for a sidewalk from Hwy. 100 coming down the hill
on Utica, Toledo, and Salem, connecting Wooddale is immensely needed. It has become a
safety issue of great magnitudes. We have watched the increase of cars, people walking, and
walking their pets, taking great chances. Susan Lindgren Primary School now
accommodates the K - 6 and the children are so much more vulnerable. The people that live
on the edges where the sidewalk will be placed should not be accessed any special taxes - but
the City should take on this cost. That is the residents worry and they need to be re-assured
that they wouldn't be put at this risk.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 32
Page21
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 33
Page22
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 34
Page23
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 35
Page24 Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 36
Page25
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 37
Page26
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 38
Page27
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 39
Page28
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 40
Page29
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 41
Page30
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 42
Page31
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 43
Page32 Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 44
Page33 Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 45
Page34
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 46
Page35
● I'm writing to urge you to support sidewalks along 41st Street in the Browndale
neighborhood. The street is narrow, has significant traffic and limited visibility because of
many cars parked on the street. This is the route that many children use to walk to school and
it is dangerous enough that I have had close calls walking along the street even with a double
stroller and 2 big dogs. Please make this a priority. Thank you
● 1. Please move (schedule) the sidewalks proposed for 2014 (41st Street, Salem, Toledo, and
Utica) to 2013. – So Dangerous.
2. Please designate as a community sidewalk, the feeder to Susan Lindgren, and please
bump up to 2013 construction (“Children First”)
3. Fill in gaps on Salem between Morningside and 42nd.
● If you put in sidewalks on 41st, make it one-way going West.
● Who will shovel the sidewalks? Where are cars supposed to park when the sidewalks are
put in? We are on a corner and rumor has it that 41st will be come a no-parking zone. We have
a fire hydrant in front of our house.
● I am here today to support the 41st St. sidewalk. The street is narrow, has parking on both
sides, a curve, and blinding early evening sun. It is a major neighborhood throughfare and
we must walk this street to get to the elementary school, Wooddale Community Nursery
School, and all neighborhood shopping. I avoid this street as much as possible because it is
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 47
Page36 dangerous. Just last week I was nearly hit by a car walking only 1/2 block between Toledo
Ave. and the Utica Ave. alley. Please do what you can to make this sidewalk a priority.
Thank You.
● The sidewalk on 41st needs to be done ASAP. It is treacherous. Parking on both side of
street with relatively blind corners. Major funnel to Elementary School. Should have been
done years ago.
● 41st Sidewalk is a very dangerous situation and should be highest priority. K-5 kids are
using it daily and the street is narrow and thinned farther with parked cars.
Ward 2 – 41st St. W. – Con’s
● Snow
I live on the South East corner of 41st street and Toledo Ave. South. In winters, plows pile
up snow at this corner as well as at the corner back by the alley. I alone am responsible for
the removal of the snow from these corners. With the addition of a sidewalk on the North
side of the house, I will be responsible for clearing that as well.
After shoveling, the snow at the corner may be several feet high. These piles sometimes
amount to mini hills that are substantial enough to attract children interested in sliding. The
additional sidewalk will result in even higher piles of snow at the corner.
Other snow from this sidewalk may have to be thrown in front of our side door and onto the
narrow path from our side door to our garage. This may depend on the distance of the
sidewalk from the street as well as sidewalk width. There was probably little thought given to
such a sidewalk when the house was built in 1941.
Cost
Given difficult economic times and declining property values, it is possible the city will lack
the funds to pay commitments to sidewalk contractors. Since funds from said General
Obligation bonds can be redirected at the discretion of the city council, the city might
reassign funds from public works to more pressing needs in operations, pensions, etc.
It would be nice to see a written statement that the Connect the Park initiative will not be
borne by some residents more than others, by either tax assessments or their own labor.
Connect the Park is, after all, a community project.
The increase in property tax rates in recent years is the result of residential property values
experiencing serious declines while municipal costs have increased. For Hennepin County,
property taxes today are pushing higher and higher extremes relative to median income. As
such, it is conceivable that debts originated for Connect the Park might instead be used for
sustaining a higher general budget and adding to an ever higher debt for the city.
Possible solutions
Narrow 41st street (perhaps as one-way) so that there will be less snow to plow. This could
additionally benefit the neighborhood by slowing eastward traffic and discouraging through
traffic.
Finance the project with a bond offering such that funds are secured exclusively for Connect
the Park. There may be some key marketing appeal as such and it would bulwark the city's
fiscal risks.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 48
Page37 Ward 2 – Brookside – Pro’s
● None
Ward 2 – Brookside – Con’s
● Remember me? Brookside old house next to tracks? OK. Don't need/want a
sidewalk. Went through this just before you became councilperson. Church doesn't want
it. Too many trees wiped out. Outside corner turning left out of the bridge headed west up the
hill isn't where a pedestrian should be. Also-out of the three greens on the map, which green are
we? What's the projected date? Lemme know Thanks
● Thanks for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed sidewalks under the
Connect the Park plan.
I’m writing in regards to the proposed plan to construct a sidewalk on the east side of
Brookside Avenue S. from the existing walk south of 42nd Street to Yosemite Avenue S.
I’ve been a proud St. Louis Park citizen since 2008, and while I appreciate the idea of adding
new trails, sidewalks and bikeways throughout the city, I have several concerns with the
proposed expansion on Brookside Avenue S.
My concerns include:
· Valueless -- there is already an existing sidewalk along Brookside Avenue South on
the west side of the street, so pedestrians already have safe access along the street
· Environmental impacts -- to build a sidewalk on the east side of the street, many
trees (nearly a dozen, including the only tree in my front yard) would be cut down and the
charm and uniqueness of Brookside would be lost
· Safety -- due to the position of my house and the property line, the proposed sidewalk
would be within 8-10 feet of my front screen porch, which concerns me for safety and
security reasons
We appreciate your time, and ask that you do not build a sidewalk on the east side of
Brookside Avenue S. Thank you,
● I received the letter regarding the proposed sidewalk on the east side of Brookside
Avenue S. from Yosemite Ave S to 42nd St. This was proposed several years ago and I
believe that the neighborhood did not want to spend dollars needlessly given there is a
full sidewalk from Interlachen to Excelsior on the West side of Brookside.
The proposed sidewalk would take many trees in the neighborhoods front yards, some of
which are 100+ years old and in good condition. We would also lose significant space in
front yards and I feel the dollars could be put to better use such as stop signs, pedestrian
crossings and funding for school programs.
Ward 2 – Browndale – Pro’s
● Concerned with regards to impacts to his property, but supports the project as he believes it is
needed for safety of children. He believes however, that the east side of the street may be
better (less impacts to properties).
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 49
Page38 ● a. Does 41st Street need a continuous sidewalk from Hwy 100 to Natchez Avenue?
b. Are there any other streets in Browndale that need sidewalks?
1. Yes! There are a lot of kids walking/biking that stretch. (2 likes)
2. Yes, or limit parking to one side only. I'm tired of cars flying through there nearly
clipping oncoming traffic or pedestrians. (1 like)
3. Since it is the main corridor for kids coming from the Brookside and Browndale
neighborhood, it seems like a no brainer to complete the sidewalk to Susan
Lindgren. My kids only walk one block that isn't paved and they have had a few
close encounters with distracted, speeding drivers. Please make this a priority for
our neighborhood.(4 likes)
4. Yes! Definitely! (2 likes)
5. Yes. 41st Street is already narrow in the summer months due to cars parked on
both sides, and even worse during the winter when they're parked farther from the
curb because of piled snow. It has already become a one lane street thanks to
numerous cars parked there.
I've nearly been hit numerous times while exiting the 4100 block Salem/Toledo
alley, thanks to traffic having to navigate cars parked too close to the alley
entrance. If parking on 41st was eliminated, it would make room for the proposed
sidewalk, and would cut down on those close calls.
6. Can we also add to the discussion a basketweave stop sign pattern in Browndale?
We have been trying to get stop signs for Browndale for a number of years to
control the cut through traffic in our neighborhood!
7. Yes, we need a CONTINUOUS sidewalk from 100 to Susan Lindgren school ...
otherwise SOME kids will walk in the street even where there are segments of
sidewalks. For some children, the attention span and focus are not enough to
redirect them over to where the sidewalk starts again. Then add on a few
distractions and see what happens. Personally, I don't want to walk in the street
and I don't want to walk on the grass — I've had enough twisted ankles and
sprains to know better. Heaven forbid a child gets hurt before a proper sidewalk is
installed ... we need a CONTINUOUS sidewalk on 41st Street so children can
walk safely to school. Whatever happened to "CHILDREN FIRST" in St. Louis
Park?? (1 like)
8. Yes!! There needs to be a sidewalk on 41st and also on browndale starting at
wooddale. Cars make that turn onto browndale quickly and wide and it's always
scary hoping they see you and stop. (1 like)
9. Agree a sidewalk is needed on 41st extending west from Wooddale to HW100.
For all the walkers/runners. Don't want someone to have to get hurt before the
right thing is done. Another area where the side walk ends is Morningside, up the
hill from Wooddale. This slope gets icy in winter. And lots of people walk/run
Morningside! (1 like)
10. This lack of sidewalks on 41st is an obvious safety concern for the following
reasons: 1) this intersection is a major route for neighborhood kids walking
to/from school; 2) there is heavy traffic flow as a major entrance for residents
accessing the neighborhood; 3) the street has some quick turn angles once you
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 50
Page39 head west on 41st off of Wooddale 4) parking is allowed on both sides of the
street it makes it narrow and increases blindspots; 5) kids walk on people's lawn is
not a solution, as it may bother some residents to have people on their lawn and to
a larger extent snowbanks will limit that idea in the winter months; 6) with the
east-west direction of the street, there is a glare issue from the sun in the morning
and evening (1 like)
11. Yes we need a continuios sidewalk from the bridge over to Woodale. I live on the
corner of 41st and Utica. I see lots of school children walking over the bridge to
go to school. A CONTINUOS sidewalk will give them a SAFE route to school. I
walk my childrn to school on 41st and it can be tough if the is ice or snow. I
would hate for child to be hit by a car that skidded on ice when it could have been
avoided with a sidewalk. I realize this will mean extra shovling for us but isn't the
SAFETY of our children worth it?
12. There are many reasons why we should have sidewalks on that stretch and why
the city should invest in as many sidewalks as possible. In addition to the obvious
safety issues, sidewalks in a neighborhood enhance the community feeling, and in
fact will help our homes' values. I second the stop sign issue, I know this is not
the topic but it shouldn't be that hard to get figured out, and I know people in the
neighborhood have been working on that issue for years.
13. I was at the nieghborhood discussion on sidewalks and Steve Hllfin was there. He
did not come right out and say he was not in favor but that was the impression I
got from him. I hope this is not the case. I hope this does not effect the outcome of
the situation. He did inform us that he was at the city hall discussions about the
previous sidewalk plans and the only people who came to the meeting (8 years
ago or so) were people who opposed the plan. That is why it did not happen
before. This is why it is so important to speek out know about why we want a
continuious sidewalk!! We need to go to the meetings and tell the City Council
how we feel. I do not want the opinions of a few people who oppose the issue to
effect the many others who want this sidewalk. Does anyone know if the
Brookside neighborhood had a facebook page? I feel they need to put there input
in as well.
14. After reading this today, I contacted Councilman Hallfin asking him to support
the 41st Street sidewalk. He told me that there are other issues (meaning other
than the safety of elementary school children) with that street that need to be
considered. He did not give specifics, but invited us to call and talk about it. My
husband called him this evening and was basically told that the issue is complex
and there is a history. When asked for details, Hallfin cited the concern of his
neighbor across the street on the corner that would lose street parking, that his
neighbor in the red brick house was against it for an undisclosed reason, and that
he personally would lose street parking. He complained about having only a 1 car
garage and a 1 car driveway. Regarding the "history" he said that this issue was
before the city council 8 years ago and that he was okay with it then only because
the city offered him a special carve out for his street parking. He voted against it
in the end because everyone he talked to and everyone who spoke at the meeting
was against the sidewalk. In the end, when asked if he would support the
sidewalk, Hallfin said no but that he would do what's best for the neighborhood.
Let's make it clear to him what is best for the neighborhood and not let this
"history" happen again. There are clearly more than 3 of us who feel strongly
about the need for a sidewalk. We all need to share our opinions with Steve
Hallfin (hallfinslp@gmail.com) and with the other city council members. Anne
Mavity (AnneMavitySLP@comcast.net) represents our ward and is supportive.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 51
Page40 She is collecting our comments to make sure they are in the public record of
neighborhood sentiments. I urge anyone who can attend council and neighborhood meetings to do so.
Phone numbers and e-mail address for all of the council members are available on the city's website.
15. Feel like I'm slow...but don't understand why those living on 41st would have to
lose street parking? Tons of other streets have sidewalks, & parking? Maybe this
could be a compromise? 41st isn't that narrow that one sidewalk would mean no
parking on either side?
16. I live on the 4000 block of Utica. My child attended Susan LIndgren, and quite
frankly, I was absolutely relieved when he didn't have to walk to school any
longer. While the offer for kids to walk on the lawn by Mary Berry is well meant,
I am quite sure Ms. Berry is not prepared to shovel her yard for kids to remain out
of the street in the winter. Nor are her neighbors assuming they are ok with kids
making a trail in their grass. I personally taught my children to stay off of other
people's lawns.
Anyone who drives down 41st street regularly knows that on the east side of
Wooddale Avenue, there is a sidewalk. And there is parking only on one side of
the street as well. Extending the sidewalk doesn't have to be so difficult. I realize
that people don't want to lose their lawns or their trees, and I would hate to see
that as well. There are sidewalks that do not have boulevards on them. If a
sidewalk was put on the south side of 41st street, extended from the existing curb,
then only allow parking on the south side of the street along the side walk, it
keeps the side walk on the same side of the street that it is on the other side of
Wooddale. In the winter, a car barrier would be even better for children walking
on the sidewalk that has no boulevard. No, there is no more parking on the north
side of the street, but with cars parked on both sides of the street on 41st, the
visiblity can be very restricted, particularly if there are large vehicles parked
there, and not close to the curb.
I must say that I am a bit disturbed to hear that Council Member Halfin seems to
be representing only himself and a neighbor or two of his. There is a greater need
for children and adult pedestrians as well to be safe than to lose parking on your
side of the street. If he can't tell people what the problem is readily on what this
history is, why it is so complex with this side walk, then he is not doing his job he
was elected to do.
17. Thanks Julie, you said it well! We've lived on Morningside since before there was
a sidewalk. The sidewalk is now used A LOT by kids, adults, dog walkers, &
people heading to the park. It's on the south side, by the park, goes along the curb.
I know Morningside juts in for parking by the park. But parking is allowed on
areas closer to Wooddale that don't have the jut in. As previous posts, a sidewalk
& parking can actually slow traffic through the area.
● As a member of the Browndale Neighborhood Association Board and a resident of Saint
Louis Park, I am writing to you on behalf of my neighbors in Browndale. We have followed
the process of the Connect the Park initiative the City of Saint Louis Park has proposed with
great interest and concern. We enthusiastically support the goals and the proposals made in
the plan, but we would like to call the Council's attention to one of the items proposed that is
of great importance to our residents.
At long last, a sidewalk is slated to be constructed on 41st Street, between Highway 100 and
Wooddale Avenue. We applaud this plan. This street is the main feeder street for area
children to walk to Susan Lindgren Elementary School at 4801 West 41st Street. Children
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 52
Page41 from 4th through 6th grade have been forced to walk in the street at great risk to themselves
for years, and now with the grade changes at Susan Lindgren, Kindergarteners through 5th
graders are now in the mix. The street is also a feeder street for traffic to the transportation
hubs and shopping areas at Wooddale and Excelsior. Traffic is heavy, overly fast, and there
are many blind spots which further endanger pedestrians.
Our neighborhood is a vital, busy place. 41st Street is used regularly by students, parents
with strollers, dog-walkers, joggers, and seniors. During the winter, all of these groups are
pushed further out into the street due to icy curbs, parked cars, and huge mountains of snow
(which seem to have been dumped there in "holding areas" by the snow removal people. At
the intersection of Salem and 41st Street, for example, cars are coming from 5 different
directions at once due to the intersection of streets and alleys. It is a disaster waiting to
happen. The whole situation is a disaster, and there have been several dangerous close calls
for children and adults in the last couple of years.
The city of Saint Louis Park proudly proclaims itself as a "Kids First" city. The attention to
education, public information, safety, parks and recreation development and maintenance,
and city services are virtually unparalleled. Please continue that tradition and address the 41st
Street sidewalk issue with haste and consideration.
Enclosed, you will find a petition with over 185 names on it, from the residents of Browndale
neighborhood. (There have actually been additional signatures collected, but not yet turned
in.) All of these residents passionately want the following implemented: a sidewalk on 41st
Street, which is installed in the first wave of construction in 2013, and a solution to the snow
removal problem. You must be aware that this student sidewalk's value becomes a mockery
if the children are once again forced into the street because of callous, or mindless snow
removal practices. We understand that the final version of this sidewalk may necessitate
some changes in the street, be they parking alterations, one-way traffic, or tree removal.
However, we trust that the thoughtfulness exhibited by the members of the Connect the Park
planners, and Scott Brink, in particular, at the public meetings earlier this fall, exemplify the
City's mindfulness and flexibility about the project.
Many thanks for your attention to our concerns. Please feel free to contact me if you have
any questions Also, we have the original petitions available should you want/need a hard
copy, or be unable to clearly read any of the signatures that were scanned. Sincerely,
● I live with my husband and two children, ages three and six on Salem Avenue South. I have
two concerns. First, I think there need to be sidewalks all the way down Salem as well as on
Morningside leading to Browndale Park. There are all kinds of kids walking in the street or
riding scooters to the park. I also see parents with strollers in the street every day on the way
to the park. My house, 4236 Salem is where the sidewalk ends. This fact is helpful when I'm
giving directions to my house, but it is not helpful to my kids and other children running to
and from the park. Things have changed dramatically in our neighborhood in the last seven
years. There are suddenly children running around everywhere. For their safety, I see our
street and Morningside as obvious places where sidewalks are needed. Secondly, I think we
need a stop sign at the intersection of Salem and Morningside or at least some Children at
Play signs. There are two children living at the corner of Salem and Morningside and four
children at the corner of Coolidge and Morningside. Both of these homes are popular
destinations for my children and others. This is a strange intersection because Coolidge and
Salem don't line up. Cars have to make this kind of jog to go from Salem to Coolidge and
there are kids going back and forth to these homes as well as the park. It seems it is an
accident waiting to happen. Please consider this area of Browndale for sidewalks and street
signs.
Thank you,
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 53
Page42 ● Her concerns are similar – speeding and cars running or not stopping for stop signs.
Ward 2 – Browndale – Con’s
●
● My name is Mike Schwab and I live on the west side of Browndale Avenue. We recently
received your letter outlining the “Connect the Park” initiative and how it would affect our
street. In fact it looks like the plan is to add sidewalks on our side of the street in 2014. And
in response to your letter I would like to offer the following reasons as to why we oppose this
initiative.
Distance from home to streetOn our side of the street there is very little space between our
house and the street. In fact, with a sidewalk it will feel like people are walking across our
living room. The biggest issue with the distance is tied to the length of our single-car
driveways; a sidewalk would prevent two cars from fitting on the driveway without
obstructing the sidewalk. This becomes an even bigger problem during snowfall because the
city prevents street parking when it snows more than 3”
Destroys new landscaping
Since the time we have moved in, we have made significant upgrades to our home and some
of those upgrades included landscaping. This proposed sidewalk will run directly through a
limestone wall, a beautiful established tree and potentially another tree that was planted this
last summer (The new tree replaced a cottonwood that was absolutely gigantic – the entire
process of removing the cottonwood and planting a new maple cost roughly $5,600)
In addition, the houses that are on the northern end of Browndale will need to build large
retaining walls because their front yards – where the sidewalk would run – are extremely
steep and slopes all the way from the front of their houses to the street. (And I can’t believe
that makes constructing a sidewalk easy)
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 54
Page43 I am curious as to why the west side of the street was chosen and not the east side? The east
side has a lot owned by the city (city water pump) and that would seem like the more natural
fit. It also does not disrupt anywhere near as much landscaping (retaining walls, trees, etc.)
Poor timing for this type of government spending
Lastly, and maybe most importantly, I feel like this initiative, “Connect the Park” could not
have come at a worse time. Economically we are in some of the worst times in our history. I
think that is shared from national to local governments. I realize this initiative was born a few
years ago, but this is the exact type of thing that makes people lose confidence in their
government. Why in times when taxes are being raised and people are struggling for
employment are we trying to add sidewalks? I realize sidewalks add value to a city, but this
isn’t the time to be adding costs to our city’s budget. People are cutting back, families are
cutting back and we see our city government raise taxes and add costs for unnecessary things.
I am using the term unnecessary, because we went without a sidewalk for over 50 years.
Your reply is greatly appreciated.
● a. Does 41st Street need a continuous sidewalk from Hwy 100 to Natchez Avenue?
b. Are there any other streets in Browndale that need sidewalks?
1. We have lived in the area for 38 years and have watched hundreds of kids go by
including our own. They all managed fine, we don't mind them walking on our
grass which a lot of them do. The biggest problem we see are cars running the
stop signs on wood dale and salem. A lot of times even where there are sidewalks,
I see kids walking in the street, so I don't think sidewalks are the answer, teaching
your kids where to walk is. (1 like)
● Snow
I live on the South East corner of 41st street and Toledo Ave. South. In winters, plows
pile up snow at this corner as well as at the corner back by the alley. I alone am
responsible for the removal of the snow from these corners. With the addition of a
sidewalk on the North side of the house, I will be responsible for clearing that as well.
After shoveling, the snow at the corner may be several feet high. These piles sometimes
amount to mini hills that are substantial enough to attract children interested in sliding.
The additional sidewalk will result in even higher piles of snow at the corner.
Other snow from this sidewalk may have to be thrown in front of our side door and onto
the narrow path from our side door to our garage. This may depend on the distance of the
sidewalk from the street as well as sidewalk width. There was probably little thought
given to such a sidewalk when the house was built in 1941.
Cost
Given difficult economic times and declining property values, it is possible the city will
lack the funds to pay commitments to sidewalk contractors. Since funds from said
General Obligation bonds can be redirected at the discretion of the city council, the city
might reassign funds from public works to more pressing needs in operations, pensions,
etc.
It would be nice to see a written statement that the Connect the Park initiative will not be
borne by some residents more than others, by either tax assessments or their own labor.
Connect the Park is, after all, a community project.
The increase in property tax rates in recent years is the result of residential property
values experiencing serious declines while municipal costs have increased. For Hennepin
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 55
Page44 County, property taxes today are pushing higher and higher extremes relative to median
income. As such, it is conceivable that debts originated for Connect the Park might
instead be used for sustaining a higher general budget and adding to an ever higher debt
for the city.
Possible solutions
Narrow 41st street (perhaps as one-way) so that there will be less snow to plow. This
could additionally benefit the neighborhood by slowing eastward traffic and discouraging
through traffic.
Finance the project with a bond offering such that funds are secured exclusively for
Connect the
Park. There may be some key marketing appeal as such and it would bulwark the city's
fiscal risks.
Ward 2 – Excelsior – Pro’s
● Thanks for your letter and information about sidewalk updates. I have a suggestion: My
office is in St. Louis Park and I use the sidewalk along Excelsior Blvd. to get to work. I
would like to see the planned new sidewalk along the south side of Excelsior (from
Meadowbrook Rd. to Louisiana Ave. - connecting St. Louis Park and Hopkins) moved to
Priority 1. It is a busy area along a busy street, with multiple bus stops on the south side of
Excelsior. Thanks for your consideration,
Ward 2 – Excelsior – Con’s
● None
Ward 2 – Morningside – Pro’s
● We are excited and very supportive of the Connect the Park initiative that just began this
year. Our family uses sidewalks walking to school and around the neighborhoods, as well as
trails to bike and run around the city. I was not able the make it to the Ward 2 meeting last
week on October 23rd, but have a question about a segment of sidewalk shown on the
Sidewalk CIP map sent out to homeowners. The section I am concerned about is along
Morningside Road between Wooddale Ave and Ottawa Ave S. It looks like it is either
proposed for 2014 or 2022 - which year is it scheduled? We live at 4257 Ottawa Ave S and
walk along Morningside Rd to get to Browndale Park all the time. We feel this section of
street is very dangerous with the hill coming down from the east and traffic turning onto
Morningside from Wooddale - there is very limited visibility from both directions. I
personally have had to jump out of the way of cars on multiple occasions when running and
walking along this small section of street. Is there any possiblity of getting this sidewalk
built as early as possible in the plan cycle? Can homeowners in this area do anything to
advocate for this section of sidewalk? Thank you for your time! Sincerely,
● We just moved into 4305 Wooddale Ave last August and after some remodeling have
recently moved upstairs from our basement.
I noticed on the sidewalk plan it looks like the in 2022 there is a plan to put a sidewalk
adjacent to the north side of our property on Morningside Rd.
A couple of questions:
While we love the idea of having a sidewalk on busy Morningside Rd, it seems like a waste
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 56
Page45 of money if we can't connect the 1/2 block to the east of us (Edina city limits) with the
sidewalk at the top of the hill. What are the plans to close that gap/ how do we work with
Edina?.
We have already done extensive clean-up on that side of our property and next year we will
be doing significant fence and landscaping in that area to separate our kids from the busy
street. Any idea how much right of way the sidewalk and sidewalk construction will take up,
(i.e. will current fence and Oak trees be effected)?
Looks like we have some time to figure it out but I would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks
● Resident lives at the corner of Utica and Morningside. Mr. Reed suggested placing the
sidewalk on the south side of Morningside (rather than the north), largely because of power
poles on the north side which would appear to require re-location, and space is tight. He
also mentioned that adjacent to Browndale Park, existing sidewalk is already established on
the south side.
● Please consider a bikeway on Morningside West of Browndale or Wooddale.
Ward 2 – Morningside – Con’s
● I believe the proposed sidewalk on the Northside of Morningside Rd. should be better located
on the Southside for safety reasons. There is presently an existing sidewalk on the Southside
of Morningside Rd., running along Browndale Park. It makes most sense to continue the
existing sidewalk on the same side of Morningside. The current proposal requires
pedestrians and bikers to cross Morningside from Hwy. 100 to Wooddale when going to the
park. The intersections are not all "controlled" and would increase the risk of accidents.
Even if they became controlled, they are not straight, so still poses hazard. Most pedestrians
in this area are small children.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 57
Page46 Ward 2 – Wooddale-Excelsior – Pro’s
●
Ward 2 – Wooddale-Excelsior – Con’s
● None
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 58
Page47 WARD 3
Ward 3 – 31st St. W. – Pro’s
● I received the letter regarding the planned public meetings for the proposed upcoming
projects. I am not sure that we will be able to attend the meeting but I see on the the sidewalk
map there is a sidewalk planned along 31st Street on the south side of our house. We are on
the corner lot at 3035 Colorado Avenue South. (Colorado Avenue and 31st Street)
The map is small and not clear and I am guessing that a sidewalk is extending on the south
side of 31st Street. (Across from our house). Can you confirm this or is a sidewalk planned
for both sides or on north side. We are trying to figure out how the plans are going to impact
us.
I'd like to talk to you further regarding this. I can be reached at my work number 612 381
5955 during city hours. If you are unable to make contact with me please reply to this email
with clarification. Thanks!
Ward 3 – 31st St. W. – Con’s
● I live at 3129 Dakota and I do not want to sacrifice on-street parking for a bike line. The
bike lane is fine as long as parking is not restricted or removed.
● No thank-you for a sidewalk on 31st. It will ruin our yards and bring in an element that is
not good. Oak Park Village people are already providing an element we don't want as they
walk on Maryland and to add a sidewalk on 31st would provide a safety issue for us. Our
yards would become smaller at what added value to us - non. Is this also an issue of emient
domain; where is the money for the homeowner?
● No thanks on the sidewalk proposal on 31st between Dakota Ave. - Texas Ave. Don't need
it. There is a sidewalk 1 block North already.
● My neighbor just read me a email she is sending , she's saying that 31st street should be no
parking with a white line on the north side for walking/ biking. I think to make the whole of
31st street no parking is unreasonable, if you went that way perhaps no parking on the south
side for walkers and riders which is the side you guys wanted for a sidewalk, this would be
more reasonable. Anyway, just another suggestion , I'm sure you've had many. Have a great
Friday and I'm looking forward to the meeting that will allow a discussion. Thank you
● Strongly against sidewalk on 31st
● Please find the attached letter I have written in response to the proposal to construct a
sidewalk on 31st Street as a part of the Connect the Park! initiative. The letter outlines many
of my concerns with the sidewalk and I respectfully request that you read and consider it as
you make your final decisions regarding the project. I truly appreciate having a city engineer
and a city council that are willing to engage and listen to the residents they represent in
efforts such as this and I would like to thank you in advance for your time and
consideration. If you have any questions for me or would like to discuss my concerns
further, I would be happy to oblige. Please feel free to contact me using the information
provided below. Thank you very much and happy holidays,
● Thank you for taking the time to personally contact the impacted homeowners about the
sidewalk planned for 31st Street between Texas and Brunswick. I am writing to express my
strong opposition to this stretch of sidewalk. I understand your concern for safety and desire
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 59
Page48 to create a more walkable city, however, I do not believe this sidewalk would help the
neighborhood or community.
My house borders 31st and I would be negatively impacted by this sidewalk. I have heard the
plan is slated for a 7 foot boulevard and 6 foot sidewalk, if the sidewalk is built this way it
would literally be right outside mine and my neighbor's doors. Not only does this negatively
affect my home value, but the proximity to the house would actually be akward for someone
walking on the sidewalk. I can't imagine walking on a sidewalk and being only an arms
length from someone's door or window. This not only makes me feel unsafe and
uncomfortable as a homeowner, but I would feel uncomfortable walking this close to
someone's door.
Also, the amount of street traffic on 31st is very minimal. I walk my dog every day down
this street and have never ONCE thought it needed a sidewalk. I was actually shocked to see
this section on the proposed list. I don't often see other dog walkers or high schoolers on this
street either, they often walk the avenues instead. The street is safe to walk on and there are
minimal cars and other obstacles to avoid. Additionally, this sidewalk would go no where
and would not provide a natural or necessary link to any park or thoroughfare as alternative
sidewalks are already in place.
I also am concerned with my elderly neighbors and the thought of them having to shovel an
additional 50-100 feet or more of sidewalk. The amount of sidewalks we have to clear is
already immense and this would put a huge burden on me and my neighbors.
I know this plan was thought up years ago as part of a bigger plan to improve St. Louis Park
and as a proud resident of this city I want nothing more than for it thrive for many years to
come. If you want to improve my neighborhood, another sidewalk will not do it. What
would greatly help our neighborhood would be additional street lights so we feel safer
walking on the sidewalks that do exist. Unless people have their front lights on it is very
hard to see the sidewalk let alone someone coming near you while you are walking. Using
this money toward additional street lights would improve the walkability of this
neighborhood a greater amount than this stretch of sidewalk.
Please, please re-consider this stretch of sidewalk. It is unnecessary and a burden to the
homeowners. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
● As a resident of St. Louis Park, I have voiced my opinion about the 31st street sidewalk
project several times. I now have another issue that I feel needs to be addressed. When will
the project be discussed in an open meeting with the entire city council? A representative of
the city hall told my neighbor that the issue “may or may not” be discussed at the December
10th meeting and my own Ward 3 council woman has no idea when the meeting is but
“would try and find out.” This leads me to believe that the city council has its own agenda
and wants to discuss this without representation of the resident’s of the city. No wonder
people are suspicious about this project. Please let me know when this sidewalk issue will be
discussed so the people you represent can be present. Those of use in Ward 3 affected by this
project would like the opportunity to be heard in a public forum of record.
● Please do not run a sidewalk down 31st Street as proposed.
I have lived on this street for 20 years and have many great experiences watching what goes
on, on this street. There are many upsides and few downsides to living here. What I have
witnessed is traffic is much slower on 31st than on Hampshire Ave.
Because there aren’t any sidewalks on 31st at this time, families walking their dogs are able
to crisscross the street to pet neighboring dogs and cats on both sides of 31st street. Kids are
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 60
Page49 able to play street hockey, throw frisbees, play ball and skateboard all on 31st as it is right
now.
Full size trees, telephone poles, bushes and fences will have to be removed. I will not be
able to park my full size truck in my driveway, as it will hang over the sidewalk.
Regarding snow removal, the angle of the sun does not melt the snow fast enough on the
south side of the street and throwing the snow closer to my house will create ice
dams. Which in turn, would create ice dams that could potentially flood my basement.
I also have a hard-wired gas grill that would be very close to this proposed sidewalk, which
concerns me.
Minnetonka Boulevard is already set up perfectly for a sidewalk or bike path and is only one
block north.
Going green does not mean removing trees and green grass to replace with concrete. Why do
we need to look like Minneapolis?? For some reason adding concrete to neighborhoods
brings crime and vandalism, which I have witnessed first hand.
After living here for 20 years and potentially loosing that much green grass and trees, I
would not be able to live in my home and enjoy this neighborhood any longer if this project
goes through.
Overall, this sidewalk is not needed or wanted, please spend our tax dollars wisely. I have
viewed the 28th Street sidewalk and it looks out of place and does not add any worth to the
neighborhood. Please do not do this to 31st Street.
Thank you for taking the time to listen and read our concerns regarding the proposed
sidewalk for 31st Street.
● I would like to express my concerns again for the proposed sidewalk for 31st street. I know
you have heard all the safety concerns and driveway concerns and so on, but another concern
I have is break ins. I have lived in my house for 18 years and been burglarized 3 times. If
this sidewalk goes through it will bring much more foot traffic close to my house and that is
something I don't want or need. There is enough trouble makers around here and they don't
need more access to houses. The last break in I had a year ago was in the middle of the
afternoon on a Sunday, so I don't need it to be easier for criminals to walk by and case my
house. Please reconsider this and stop this sidewalk from going in.
● In reviewing the notes I took at the meeting of October 25th, one of the things mentioned was
that the sidewalks for the “connect the park” projects were to be ¼ mile (.25) from each
other. From the Minnetonka Ave sidewalk to 31st street proposed sidewalk there is only 0.1
mile, much less than what was said. If the sidewalk is moved to 32nd street, it would be 0.2
miles, much closer to the proposal. Plus, moving the sidewalk to 32nd street connects it to
lovely walking trails at Oak Hill Park and continues to a direct route to Texas Ave. Please
consider this as an acceptable alternative to the sidewalk project. We DO NOT want a
sidewalk down 31st street that will put an end to people having driveways, destroying age old
trees and beautiful gardens that people of St. Louis Park have spent time and money to
enhance the area.
● It has come to my attention that the city of St. Louis Park is planning a massive project to
construct new sidewalks and trails over the next 10 years as a part of the "Vision St. Louis
Park" initiative. While I enjoy the idea of improving foot travel in our city, as well as some
of the pleasant aesthetic attributes that may be gained through paths and sidewalks, I am
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 61
Page50 concerned that some construction proposals may not only be unnecessary, but also harmful to
some of the residents of this charming city.
Construction of a sidewalk on 31st St. between Dakota Ave. and Louisiana Ave. has been
proposed recently, which I must take a strong position against. My girlfriend and I
purchased a house earlier this year on the corner of Dakota Ave and 31st St, our address
being 3104 Dakota Ave S. We fell in love with the neighborhood, as well as our wonderful
yard with a pretty lattice fence, lilacs, and beautiful trees including a gorgeous maple with
deep mahogany leaves year round. The construction of a sidewalk would force us to re-build
our fence, cut down the afore-mentioned Maple, as well as our beautifully aromatic
flowers. We are young, in our mid-twenties, and would find it unrealistic to be able to afford
to re-landscape our entire yard, even if the work was done ourselves. Also, there is very light
foot traffic along 31st St., as there are sidewalks only 1 block north (along Minnetonka) and
2 blocks south (along 33rd), both running east/west. If a pedestrian wished to get to
Louisiana Ave from this area, both of these routes are well within travel distance with
minimal to no risk to personal safety. The car traffic on 31st is very sparse where we live so
as far as pedestrian safety goes, I would deem sidewalk construction absolutely unnecessary
here. Also, the intersection of Louisiana and 31st St. is an incredibly busy and unsafe place
to direct foot traffic (as it has no crosswalk or traffic light), so this plan could actually be an
endangerment to lives.
Sidewalk construction on 31st St. between Dakota Ave. and Louisiana Ave. would also
decrease home value by shrinking what are already small yards to begin with. Due to our
current housing crisis in this country, I think the only thing worse than incurring unnecessary
expense to construct a sidewalk (and having us pay for it) would be to decrease home values
in an already unstable market. Many homes' driveways along this street would also be
shortened, making it more difficult to have guest parking in a safer spot than the open
street. I also know for a fact that many residents in this neighborhood (ourselves included)
enjoy having our own flower and vegetable gardens, contributing to the charm of our
neighborhood. Many of these beautifying gardens would be ruined by construction of this
sidewalk.
I must restate my position against construction of a sidewalk between Dakota Ave. and
Louisiana Ave. on 31st St., as it would be incredibly detrimental to the neighborhood's home
values, bank accounts, aesthetic appeal, and most importantly, the safety of its citizens. I ask
you please, in recognition of these already hard economic times, to re-think the planning of
some of these city sidewalks and be frugal with our tax dollars, making sure that they are put
to use in keeping our citizens happy and safe. Thank you for your time,
● I am a twelve year old girl that lives on Louisiana Avenue, which is very close to 31st
street. I would like to express my concern about the planned sidewalks of 31st street. I don't
think it is a good idea to put sidewalks 13 feet into people's yards. My neighbors who live on
31street have very small front and side yards as it is. They will have nothing if St. Louis
Park puts a sidewalk in. The sidewalk will be so close to their house, that the people who
walk by will be VERY close. I would also like to ask the people planning this WHY?? Why
do you need a sidewalk? I have lived here since I was 4. We love going to Oak Hill Park,
Louisiana Oaks Park, and Oregon Park. We have never found a problem in getting
there. There are perfectly good sidewalks right off of 32 street. We have always used those
sidewalks and never have had a problem with it.
● I live in St Louis Park and was dismayed to learn last week that there is a plan to add a
sidewalk along my property in 2013. I live on a two-block dead end and this sidewalk will
result in the loss of mature trees, destruction of landscaping, and a reduction in home value.
There is very little traffic along this 2 block area and I cannot see that adding a sidewalk will
be beneficial to anyone. The expense, particularly during this time of economic upheaval,
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 62
Page51 should be avoided and directed toward a more appropriate project. Thank you for your time,
and I hope you will seriously consider the input.
● I just bought my home on 31st and Dakota in March and am dismayed at the proposed
sidewalk addition to the south side of 31st. My house was a foreclosure and the actual home
is small and hasn't been taken care of for years however I chose to purchase the home
anyway because of the beautiful yard. Along 31st, less than five feet from the street there are
beautiful trees, most of which are over fifty years old. In a city as developed as St Louis Park
mature trees are a precious rarity that should be held on to. I even met the man that grew up
in my home in the fifties and he pointed out a tree on the corner, now twice the size of the
house, and told me about the summer it was planted. He still hangs on to a picture of him
next to the newly planted tree, at the time barely taller than he. Any construction, on even the
narrowest of sidewalks, would demolish all of these trees and would quite honestly take
away what is so great about this home.
I also have a fence in my yard running along 31st that would be affected by the construction
of a sidewalk. We just repaired the fence this summer and we would have to take the whole
thing down and try to put it up in a different location if a sidewalk were added. This would
decrease the size of my yard and therefore the value of my property. We could not let our
dog run free during construction or until we had rebuilt the fence which is no small feat.
Further, my driveway is off 31st and is already only about a car-length long. Adding a side
walk would also make parking difficult.
I find no need for a sidewalk! I walk my dog often along 31st and have never once felt the
walk unsafe for her or me. There is little traffic along 31st and the street is plenty wide for a
car to move to the side to give pedestrians extra room. Should I want to walk east-west along
a sidewalk I would only need to walk one block north to Minnetonka boulevard which has a
sidewalk along both sides! And even the walk to Minnetonka Boulevard is already lined with
sidewalks, almost every north-south street on the block already has sidewalks on both sides
of the street. Pedestrians would still need to go to Minnetonka Boulevard to cross a high-
traffic street like Louisiana so why not walk that block to begin with?
This would be a high-cost project for no real gain! I bought my house for 127,000 and paid
taxes last year on 215,000 market value and next year it is still high at 208,000. Taxes are
already high for those of us living in the area, even in a difficult economy. What would be
the additional cost to tax payers like me to add an unnecessary sidewalk to 31st? Increased
taxes along with the decrease in property value makes no fiscal sense for those of us living
along 31st.
I read that the purpose of this sidewalk/bike trail expansion is to increase walkability in St
Louis Park to increase physical activity as well as reduce reliance on automobiles in the city.
While this is an admirable goal, adding a sidewalk to 31st will in no way contribute to
achieving that goal. There are no businesses located on 31st. If someone living in the area
wanted to walk to a restaurant, gas station, dentist, vet, or any other business in the nearby
area, they are all located on Minnetonka Boulevard which has a perfectly safe and usable
existing sidewalk. Children walking to the high school can use the already existing sidewalks
on 33rd right next to the school. The plan also postulates that physical inactivity is a problem
in St Louis Park which I very much disagree with. Living right by the high school I have
witnessed many children walking to and from school. We also have a huge amount of
residents who walk for recreation and physical fitness already and I'm sure most, if not all,
would agree that they feel plenty safe in the neighborhood as it is.
I hope you'll reconsider the plan to add a sidewalk to 31st Street. It is unnecessary and
expensive both financially and to the landscape of the street. It will kill trees and shrink yards
for no gain without improving safety or walkability.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 63
Page52 ● I live at 3056 Oregon Ave. S. I have already emailed Jeff J., Steve H., Jake S. and Susan S.
and I want to let you know also that I am opposed to adding a sidewalk on 31st st. The
properties are far too small for this and from what I can gather this is not needed. The
sidewalk would end up right next to peoples houses which is a huge invasion of our privacy
just to complete this "vision". I think it is a waste of our money.
● We are sending this email to you regarding the proposed sidewalk addition on 31st street on
Dakota Ave to Texas Ave. We DO NOT want this addition to our properties. It will not
enhance our properties, but rather create a blighted look instead.
Since living here for 37 years I have put a lot of money, time and effort to create an
environment that is pleasing to everyone that walks by my property. This would be ruined
with your sidewalk addition. If someone wants to walk on a sidewalk they only need to go
ONE BLOCK North and walk on Minnetonka Blvd. We had plans for a patio in our side yard
which is now on hold, pending your decision. We do not want a sidewalk café.
Take the money you need for this project and put it into use elsewhere with-in the
community. Use it for the removal of buckthorn in Oakhill, update the dating walking bridge
over Louisiana Avenue, and finally fix the current sidewalks that are in need of repair. These
are a few of many areas in need of repair, versus putting in a brand new sidewalk.
In conclusion; we feel us the home homers should be the ones voting for a brand new
sidewalk NOT the city council. We are protesting the addition of a sidewalk on 31st street
from Dakota Ave. to Texas Ave. NO THANK YOU!
● opposed to the sidewalk on 31st Street – it is an unnecessary cost.
● PS I forgot to mention that I still think this WHOLE project should be scraped until we have
the money to pay for it, borrowing money at a time when people are unemployed or under
employed can't afford more taxes to pay for something like this that is an extra not essential.
Again thank you.
● Over the last few days I have been so upset because my property will be ruined and I think I
may have an idea. Not that I want any sidewalk but if you are determined to do this even
though most people I have talked to are against it what if you do a 3 season sidewalk starting
at the curb? Most people don't walk to the parks in the winter because kids are to tired out to
walk home so they drive. Please give this consideration because then the problem of where to
put the snow and additional shoveling would be solved. Thank you.
● As I am sure you can tell by now, I am against the 31st Street sidewalk. In my opinion, SLP
does not need any more concrete sidewalks. We need more grass, trees, flowers, and
gardens. In a couple of words – more green spaces.
We get very little foot traffic down 31st street. There are sidewalks going north/south on
Maryland Ave. and frankly speaking, ¾’s of the people walking down Maryland walk in the
road anyway. So, why do a sidewalk on 31st and have people walk in the road anyway.
If you need an alternate plan, make 31st a no parking street, put the white line for biking and
walking on the north side of the street and people would have a safe place to walk. All of the
people parking in the street have garages and driveways that they can use. Make them do
that and save our grass, trees, and gardens. Forget concrete sidewalks. Let’s make “Connect
the Park” eco friendly
● I know that several of you do not directly represent me but I will be unable to attend
Thursday's city council meeting due to my kids cub scout meeting so I wanted to be heard by
the entire council. I appreciate you taking the time to read this. As a 12 year resident at 31st
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 64
Page53 and Georgia I agree with the plans to continue the sidewalk on Georgia avenue itself. That
corner is used regularly as a grade school bus stop. I don't live directly on 31st street but I
was both surprised by and concerned with the plans to run a side walk down 31st street. The
sidewalk itself is unnecessary as one only has to go to Minnetonka Blvd, 1 block north to
find an existing east/west corridor, or 2 blocks south to 33rd.
Obviously these lots are narrow to begin with. I realize that the city has a 7 foot easement,
but utilizing that for a sidewalk would be extremely intrusive to those homeowners. Several
of those homes have side doors and porches that would be almost within arms reach of the
new sidewalk. Particularly at 31st and Georgia, there is a hill that would require some sort of
retaining wall on both sides, causing both cost and safety concerns. Privacy is an issue to
begin with, and adding a sidewalk so close is unfair to those residents.
In past city meetings I've heard talk that it's difficult to maintain a lawn with a 3 or 4 ft blvd
between the sidewalk and street, and at the same time placing the sidewalk right up against
the road has safety concerns in addition to looking ridiculous and cheap. With either option
at least 15-20 established trees will be lost in addition to several fences and retaining
walls. Those trees are part of what makes St. Louis Park a desired community as compared
to newer suburbs as well as providing the "calming effect" that naturally slows traffic. In
addition, with Dutch Elm we've already lost enough established trees in this neighborhood.
I talked with over a dozen residents tonight, several long term. None remember any
pedestrians being struck on 31st street. I was surprised at how many people initially liked the
idea, but quickly realized what this plan would mean to the homeowners directly affected. I
urge you to take a walk along 31st street. Imagine yourself living in one of those homes and
what a sidewalk would do to your privacy and home value, especially considering there is so
little to gain from this project. I myself would move, and likewise I wouldn't purchase a
home with a sidewalk that close except to be used as a rental.
I don't know the cost of just the sidewalk proposal and it sounds like the specifics are yet to
be determined. What I do know for sure is that that money could be better used
elsewhere. We have aging water delivery and other infrastructure throughout the
city. Homeowners are constantly getting slapped with increases in everything from taxes to
groceries to gas. This sidewalk project is one that seems to do more harm than good. The
money could be better spent elsewhere, or not spent at all
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 65
Page54 ●
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 66
Page55
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 67
Page56 ●
● I appreciate you returning my call yesterday and answering my questions regarding the
proposed sidewalk on 31st Avenue South. Per your request please use this email to document
my concerns.
My biggest concern is for the amount of yard and privacy I will lose if a sidewalk is installed.
Even with a reduction in size and no blvd, it will still encroach upon mine and my neighbors
personal sidewalks, doorsteps and bedroom windows. The yards in my neighborhood are
small and to install another sidewalk leaves me with less space for quiet enjoyment of my
property. I understand the concerns for safety that the city has, however there is a sidewalk
covering the same east/west distance just ONE block north and another TWO blocks south.
In these difficult economic times the city could better utilize the funds elsewhere.
Another very large concern is snow removal. Per the documents included in the mailing, it
would be the home owners responsibility to shovel these new sidewalks. Given the proximity
of the sidewalk to the streets all the snow from the street plows would be dumped onto these
new sidewalks, which would create an unnecessary burden to all homeowners in my
neighborhood, including myself, to remove the mountains of snow left by the plows.
I have a strong opposition to this sidewalk and will actively participate to stop the approval
of the project.I appreciate your help with this matter.
● I'm not sure if the SLP council people watch the news, but yesterday morning on local news
channels it was reported that our Governor stated we have a deficit in the state. With the
"fiscal cliff" looming, personal income is looking at a 4% drop. Yet the city of SLP with the
"connect the park" project will be raising taxes.
Council people, this does not make sense. Your residents will experience a drop in income
and you want us to pay for a project that is not necessary. Drop this unnecessary project and
protect your own residents from paying more taxes.
● Yesterday we received your notice regarding your proposed changes. I would not have been
aware of it - if several neighbors had not called upset about the sidewalks.
We do not need or want a sidewalk on 31st.
There is absolutely no need for the sidewalk when there is an east/west sidewalk one block to
the north on Minnetonka Blvd., & another sidewalk 2 blocks to the south along the high
school.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 68
Page57 31st is not a high traffic pedestrian and street use area.
Those of us who live between Dakota and Louisiana usually go south to the parks by the high
school, or north of Minnetonka Blvd. to the parks by the elementary school, and dog park.
A sidewalk along 31st does not provide a safe link to school. Our high school students are
either walking up the "named streets", or alleys, or driving to school. Parents walk or drive
their younger children to the bus stops or school.
Having a sidewalk at 31st would not improve safety. Most of us do not cross the road at
31st. We cross at the corner of Minnetonka & Louisiana, or use the walking bridge south of
Library Road.
We live on postage size lots. Most of exhaust ourselves keeping the sidewalks clear of snow
in the winter. Adding sidewalks on the long side of our lots will add a physical burden to
many. Even if the city was to do this snow removal...the city would have claims annually for
damaged property, because our homes are so close to the road.
When the city removes the snow from the alleys - they are currently dumping this snow on
our yards. So this is additional snow on top of the proposed sidewalks - where are we
suppose to put it?
Privacy & Security Concerns: It is one thing to have sidewalks on the north/south named
streets...most of the homes are set back 30 feet from the "named" streets. On the other hand
most of our homes are very close to the side streets, and most of us do not want people so
close to our homes that they can see into our living rooms, kitchens, bedrooms, and baths.
Most of the lots on 31st are only 40 feet wide. For most of us this would mean:
40.0 Wide Lot
-6.0 Less 6' Setback on side away from street
-26-30' Less 26-30 ft wide houses
2-6' Street side Setback
In your cities Exhibit 8: you are calling for 6 ft wide concrete sidewalks with a 7 ft grass
boulevard this is UNACCEPTABLE!
On my corner yard alone - if a sidewalk was put in - it would not enhance my property but
ruin it. I have a 25'+ Red Maple, a 35'+ Linden, and a 50'+ Silver Maple trees that could all
potentially die. A few years ago when you redid the streets on Dakota that cause one of my
30' maples to die. This tree was several feet in my yard, but the roots went into the street.
Your proposed plans adversely affect my property. It will not only reduce the
aesthetics of my yard, and my neighbors yards, but you will cause our property values
to go down.
Oh lets not forget the driveways on 31st. Many driveways will become too short to have
cars parked in them.
This proposed plan is horrible, and will adversely impact our neighborhoods. If you go
through with this - I personally will be talking to a lawyer for having my property de-
valued this way. There is not one thing about this proposed plan that is acceptable.
This evening - several of us neighbors are going to be knocking on doors to make sure
others know what is going on.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 69
Page58 ● I am writing you to beg you to reconsider your proposed plan to run a sidewalk along 31st
street.
I apologize that this is a long letter, but I ask you please read it completely. As a sickened
homeowner whose love of her home, neighborhood and city will be destroyed with this
sidewalk, I ask you to consider some of my reasons for not proceeding with this sidewalk. I
would also ask you to consider at least one alternative sidewalk.
I am the homeowner that lives at 3101 Rhode Island Ave. S. (the south east corner lot on
Rhode Island Ave and 31st Street.) I am a single, working woman. I have lived in St. Louis
Park since October of 1996. I first rented a home on Dakota Ave just opposite 31st street and
quickly decided I wanted to live in this community. I had started shopping for a home of my
own in SLP. It was on one of my nightly walks with my dogs that I was thrilled to find a
home on a quiet cross street, with an attached garage, flat driveway to the street (not an
alley), a fenced yard and a yard that I could landscape, care for and enjoy. I bought this
property November 1996. I now live and work in SLP (I work at Japs Olson Co), shop and
find most of my life is centered in this city. Over the years, I have enjoyed investing into
improvements to my home and yard, walking the neighborhood streets & parks and I have
hopes of enjoying my home & yard into my old age…However, your current proposal to run
a sidewalk down 31st Street from Dakota Ave to Texas Ave. may change this plan…
Due to my work hours, I have been unable to attend the recent ward meetings on this subject.
Talking to neighbors and others who live on 31st Street who were able to attend and express
their disapproval of your plan for this street, I was shocked when they shared with me that
you really think this is a street in need of a sidewalk.
In the literature you sent out telling about Connect the Park, it is stated that your purpose and
goal with this program is to develop “sidewalks that provide local and regional connectivity,
improves safety and accessibility, and enhances overall community livability.” You also
state that the routes are to provide “links to transit systems and provide options to automobile
dependence.”
This proposed stretch of sidewalk down 31st street will not accomplish any of this!
As a matter of fact in many aspects it does the opposite…
● I live on the corner of 31st Street and Idaho Avenue, and recently received a notice indicating
that there are plans to seriously change the appearance of my neighborhood by adding
sidewalks where there have previously been none.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE -- I URGE YOU TO VOTE "NO" or SAY "NO" to this
measure. I couldn't possibly be more strongly AGAINST this proposal!! IF YOU CLAIM
TO REPRESENT ME IN ANY WAY, PLEASE DO EVERYTHING IN YOUR
POWER TO STOP THIS WHILE YOU CAN!
If a city wishes to have sidewalks, then they should be put in when that city is first
designed. It is completely inconceivable to me that I should purchase a property in this city
and then be told later that my space could be encroached upon in this manner. As I look
around my neighborhood, I have huge concerns about the impact that adding sidewalks will
have on existing trees, landscape plantings, fences, driveways, garages, and privacy. Many
of the houses along 31st Street are built very close to the road, and to bring pedestrian traffic
any closer to our windows than it already is will represent a HUGE loss of privacy -- and,
almost assuredly, property value. I think most of us have already lost more than enough
property value in the last few years to not need any more assistance in THAT area.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 70
Page59 I've lived in Saint Louis Park long enough to remember that many years ago there was a city-
wide vote asking whether sidewalks should be implemented. I don't recall all the details but
I'm sure I remember that proposal failing. I don't recall seeing this matter go up for a public
vote since then, so I'd like to know how or why this upheaval of our neighborhood -- AND
the expense -- has somehow been put back on the schedule even though the residents don't
seem to have had our fair say in the matter. Perhaps I haven't been paying close enough
attention, but this week's mailing was the very first time I have heard about this sidewalk
plan.
If the purpose of this mailing was to see how many people complain or object to this plan,
please consider me among those who object VERY strongly. Adding sidewalks that
encroach onto our lots many decades after the structures have already been placed or after
permanent plantings and landscaping have been installed is COMPLETELY
unacceptable! Please do NOT approve or go forward with these changes to 31st Street.
● I am sending this email to you regarding the proposed sidewalk addition on 31st street, from
Dakota Ave to Texas Ave. I DO NOT want this addition to 31st street. It will not enhance
the properties but rather create a blighted look instead. This proposed sidewalk goes
nowhere. It does not connect to bus stops, shopping areas or parks.
I have lived here for over 20 years and have put a lot of money, time and effort to create a
pleasant area that my neighbors can enjoy. Many people that walk by comment on the lovely
landscaping and flowers, all of which will be gone with the addition of a sidewalk. Plus with
the sidewalk so close to the houses, it will create an unsafe environment in the neighborhood.
I already have items stolen from my yard, why would I want people to walk even closer to
my house to steal more items or gaze into my living space.
Please take the proposed money and spend it more wisely within the community. Use it for
the removal of buckthorn at Oakhill Park, update the walking bridge over Louisiana Ave. or
repair the current sidewalks, many of them need repair and actually cause a hazard to current
pedestrians. Add more police patrols, or more civic functions that bring SLP together, not
tear us apart with expensive, unnecessary projects.
In conclusion, I feel that the home owners should be the ones voting for the new sidewalk,
not the city council members, all of whom do not live in the area and will not be affected by
the sidewalks.
● I have just been informed by my neighbors that live on" 31st street" of your sidewalk
proposal. They do not want this, we don't want this! From someone who lives very close by
on Louisiana Avenue I know our yards have very little Green Space already, how could
anyone be expected to loose another 13 feet, especially for something we do not want...
Please scrap this plan, and please start working towards saving money, so when we do need
something necessary we will be able to afford it. Thank You
● I have attached a letter for you all to view on the proposed sidewalk on 31st street from
Dakota Avenue to Texas Avenue. Please take a moment out of your day to read it. I thank
you for your time.
● Regarding the proposed sidewalk on 31st Street from Dakota to Texas -
I have resided at 3048 Edgewood for 29 years and completely disagree with the need for a
sidewalk on 31st Street.
- It is a well-used street for walkers or bikers, and safety has never been an issue.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 71
Page60 - It would be a sidewalk to nowhere.
- The east/west sidewalk of Minnetonka Blvd. is only one block away.
- The proposed sidewalk would be highly intrusive of the property rights of homeowners.
- The lots adjacent to 31st were not laid out to accommodate additional easements for
sidewalks, thereby putting pedestrians too close to homes and garages.
- Homeowners along 31st would be subject to increased safety issues due to increased
pedestrian traffic in close proximity of their homes and property.
- Taking out trees, landscaping, driveway access, parking, fences, etc. is not in the best
interest of the neighborhood.
- Snow removal would have huge consequences on homeowners whose lots abut both the
street and the alley.
- Too many homeowners would not, or cannot, take responsibility for clearing snow from
the additional sidewalk, thereby making the sidewalk impassable in the winter.
- Some of the tax money saved on this project can be better spent on a clearly marked
pedestrian crossing at 31st and Louisiana.
- Please reconsider and remove this specific item from the Ward 3 proposed projects. Thank
you.
● We ask that Ward 3, particularly 31st Street and any other east-west streets in the Lenox
community be eliminated from the 'Connect the Park' tax-increase project.
Please take notice of what the City did to the residents of 28th street, with the 6 foot sidewalk
plus boulevard. There's no place left for snow, or parking in front of many garages.
The Lenox community is already virtually sidewalked up. Please spare us from more of this.
In the winter, the City does harm to us in 2 ways. The City keeps plowing us in. The City
fines people if sidewalks are not shoveled to the full width, even if the City plowed them in.
So it appears the City has figured out how to monetize snow. 'Connect the Park' makes the
problem worse. If we could have our existing sidewalks removed, we would.
The City has become increasingly unresponsive to residents. While the City goes through the
motions and acts like it is getting resident input, it appears our input goes into the waste
basket. One example of many is the Freight Rail Reroute. The City sold us out. Quality of
life is dropping. We just don't trust the City anymore.
Most sincerely and with kind regards,
● My name is Zach Schauf and I live on 31st. I wanted to be sure to voice my opinion that I
would very much AGAINST the Connect the Park project, especially the new sidewalk down
31st.
Homes along 31st are too close to the road already. Adding a sidewalk would have people
walking right next to home windows. This would be extremely uncomfortable as a
homeowner and in my opinion a huge invasion of privacy. My neighbors would also not be
able to park in their driveways as they would then be blocking the sidewalks.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 72
Page61 The idea of spending the money to put in this sidewalk, that decreases the feeling of security,
decreases yard sizes therefore decreasing property value, and prevents us from being able to
park in owner's own driveways... would be a huge mistake. There is absolutely no need for a
sidewalk. I work from home and foot traffic and vehicle traffic across 31st is minimal and
does not need a sidewalk.
Please reconsider this addition and do not put a sidewalk down 31st.
Thanks for allowing me to voice my opinion.
● Please take the time to read this attached letter I have written and am sending to you, with
hopes that you will reconsider your propose sidewalk on 31st street.
● Thank you so much for responding to my email.
I realize this is a huge project and making everyone happy never works, but I really hope that
running sidewalks on 3st Street doesn’t become a reality. Have a good evening.
● I received the letter of 11/19/12 informing me of the proposal for a sidewalk on the south
side of 31st street between Texas Ave S and Brunswick Ave S
After receiving the letter I chatted with Susan Santa regarding my thoughts and she suggested
I send this to you to ensure I have visibility to the city council.
I live at 3050 Quebec Ave So. My name is Judy Christensen. My parents, Sylvester and
Lois Christensen were the original buyers of this home and moved in here December 11,
1050. When my father passed away in 1997, I then bought the house from my Mom, so
basically I have spent my entire life here. My Mom is 91 and still living here with me. Just a
quick trip down memory lane for you, when my parents moved in here they had a phone they
shared with the entire block on a phone poll at the corner and there were pastures and cows
on the north side of Minnetonka Blvd. Pictures reveal a start of community, no fences,
etc. We have come a long way!
Now in regards to the proposed sidewalk, my thoughts are mixed as I want people to be able
to walk safely, myself included, yet I have never viewed 31st Street as a dangerous road to
walk on. First off the road is wide and it is very easy to walk on the side, secondly there are
ample stop signs on 31st that has slowed traffic down over the years, and lastly there is not
that much traffic - mainly the residents - it is just not that heavily of traveled road. I want to
also point out that I am not the most nimble walker as I have had 1 total knee replacement
and am having the other one done 12/6, so I limp, use a cane, and am slower than the average
walker - and I still feel safe on 31st St.
I do walk a lot, as I have 3 dogs, and my main destination (99% of the time) is Oak Hill Park
or Louisiana Oaks. From my house on the corner of Quebec Ave So and 31st St, I walk
south on Rhode Island to Oak Hill or east on 31st to Oregon and catch the trails there. In my
opinion, I don't understand why Rhode Island or Oregon have a sidewalk leading to these
places, as us walkers like to go this way. My first preference would be to propose a sidewalk
on Rhode Island from Minnetonka Blvd to 36th. That would connect for the vast majority of
people, and put some lights in as it is very dark between 31st and 32 1/2 st when you walk at
night (trees on both sides after the houses). This seems like a more pressing need than on
31st St.
I understand from Susan, that the schools thought it would be good to have a safe path for
kids to walk to and from school, hence one of the reasons 31st was choosen. Since she told
me that I have taken to observing kids walking - and I simply don't see it. I see kids at the
bus stop, many parents there waiting for them, but I see very few just walking by.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 73
Page62
So, I strongly oppose spending my tax dollars on a project I just don't see the benefit or need
for. An alternative would be to draw a line for walkers / bikers and not allow parking on one
side of the street. Since the streets are wide, that seems like a cost effective solution to me as
it would satisfy the need to have just an area for walkers / bikers and allow us to spend our
money where truly needed.
If you would like to chat regarding my input, I am certainly open to that. My cell is
952.607.5825. Just a reminder that I am have total knee replacement Dec 6th, so I won't be
responding to my cell until I am out of the hospital and in the transitional care unit for rehab.
● Please do not run a sidewalk down 31st Street as proposed.
I have lived on this street for 20 years and have many great experiences watching what goes
on, on this street. There are many upsides and few downsides to living here. What I have
witnessed is traffic is much slower on 31st than on Hampshire Ave.
Because there aren’t any sidewalks on 31st at this time, families walking their dogs are able to
crisscross the street to pet neighboring dogs and cats on both sides of 31st street. Kids are able
to play street hockey, throw frisbees, play ball and skateboard all on 31st as it is right now.
Full size trees, telephone poles, bushes and fences will have to be removed. I will not be able
to park my full size truck in my driveway, as it will hang over the sidewalk.
Regarding snow removal, the angle of the sun does not melt the snow fast enough on the
south side of the street and throwing the snow closer to my house will create ice dams. Which
in turn, would create ice dams that could potentially flood my basement.
I also have a hard-wired gas grill that would be very close to this proposed sidewalk, which
concerns me.
Minnetonka Boulevard is already set up perfectly for a sidewalk or bike path and is only one
block north.
Going green does not mean removing trees and green grass to replace with concrete. Why do
we need to look like Minneapolis?? For some reason adding concrete to neighborhoods
brings crime and vandalism, which I have witnessed first hand.
After living here for 20 years and potentially loosing that much green grass and trees, I would
not be able to live in my home and enjoy this neighborhood any longer if this project goes
through.
Overall, this sidewalk is not needed or wanted, please spend our tax dollars wisely. I have
viewed the 28th Street sidewalk and it looks out of place and does not add any worth to the
neighborhood. Please do not do this to 31st Street.
Thank you for taking the time to listen and read our concerns regarding the proposed sidewalk
for 31st Street.
● I am writing to you today about concerns so many of us have about the proposed sidewalk
for 31st street from Dakota Avenue to Texas Avenue. I understand the idea behind it to try
and connect the city, but we (all of us affected by it) feel the issues and concerns out way the
benefits. This will have such a negative impact on our properties starting with reducing the
size of our yards; taking out trees and landscaping that so many of us have spent a lot of time
and money on to beautify our properties. Almost all of us will lose the opportunity to park in
our driveways anymore which will lower our property values and make our houses very
unmarketable. It will take away privacy because the sidewalk will be 10 feet or less from
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 74
Page63 many of our houses. It will cause our taxes to go up causing more stress on families who are
already struggling financially. It will be more snow removal for those of us who are getting
older and already struggle with it. This is a street that does not have much traffic so a
sidewalk is not needed, plus it is a sidewalk that doesn't connect anything or go
anywhere. There is a greater need for a sidewalk on Rhode Island Avenue from Minnetonka
Blvd to Oak Hill Park. This makes much more sense because it connects a main road to the
park and will get people off Rhode Island which has very heavy traffic on it and is much
more dangerous. I am asking each one of you to please reconsider this. Please take a drive
or walk down this street and look at each property and put yourself in our place. Would you
really want this sidewalk to come through your property like this? It will totally change the
appearance of these properties that we all love and call home.
● I am writing to state my opposition to the proposal of a sidewalk on 31st Street from Dakota
to Texas Avenues. Generally, I believe this to be unnecessary. Other parts of the city have
no sidewalks whatsoever (Nevada, Oregon Streets) so if the concern is "connectedness" those
streets pose a larger concern. My specific objections are as follows:
1) This is the sidewalk to No Where - it connects no major features of the city, including
schools and parks (specifically Oak Hill Park).
2) Cost - it means additional taxation, on top of federal tax increases hitting citizens January
1, 2013. Our property taxes are already doubling roughly every 10 years, while household
incomes are dropping and unemployment remains high.
3) Privacy Issues - this proposed sidewalk would result in a massive loss of privacy in a
neighborhood where homes are already closely spaced on 40 foot wide lots. My neighbor's
house to the north is 8 feet from mine. I live on a corner lot, which gives some privacy to the
south. However, with 20 feet from curb to house, a 7 foot boulevard and 6 foot wide
sidewalk means people may be walking a mere 7 feet from our windows at any time of day
or night. This would be a great advantage for criminals wishing to target homes for
robberies. Problems already in progress.
4) Driveways will become too short to park our cars. This fact is one of several deal
breakers. When we can't use our own driveway, it is a serious threat to property values and
our lifestyles. There are reasons why we live in homes and not apartments or condos! This
creates problems related to snowplowing, which I think SLP does a fantastic job at snow
removal. Snow removal is one reason I refuse to live in the city of Minneapolis.
5) Snow Removal - shoveling out another 150 feet of sidewalk would be backbreaking. In
2010, we had one storm which dumped 22 inches. My husband was out of town on
business. I spent seven hours that day keeping our sidewalk and driveway open. I don't want
or expect the city to handle snow removal, but the reality is SLP residents do a lousy job
keeping front sidewalks clear and ice free.
Also, in years of heavy snowfall, city crews scrape down the ends of alleys when visibilty is
impaired by high snowbanks. This snow is deposited on the setback where this sidewalk is
proposed. This will force city crews to remove this snow by dumptruck, adding costs to
snow removal.
6) Landscaping - Many residents make beautiful improvements to their lots with a great deal
of sweat equity. This sidewalk results in loss of landscaping, trees which shade our homes,
and result in increased costs to homeowners who have fences and/or retaining walls.
7) One of the major paths of building personal wealth is through home ownership. The idea
of a city puposefully doing things which result in deceased property values is just idiotic.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 75
Page64 I live at 3057 Edgewood Ave. south. Our home has been in my family since 1946 when my
grandparents purchased it. I bought it in 1997 after the death of my grandmother Agnes
Harding. I've lived in St. Louis Park over half my life (I'm 47). My husband and I have
invested tens of thousands and hours of sweat equity improving our home. We are ideal
citizens who pay taxes, keep the storm drain clear, help shovel out our neighbors, and cause
no trouble. In short, we are the kind of people a city desires as its residents.
Now we are in the position of fighting the city over sidewalks 7 feet from our living room
windows and fighting city, county and (unnecessary) regional government who want freight
trains blasting horns, threatening our property values and the high school students. Proceed
with these things, and it will be easy for us to leave St. Louis Park forever.
● I am writing as a long-time resident of our city with serious concerns about the proposed 31st
Street sidewalk component of the “Connect the Park” project.
My house sits irregularly on 31st Street. My property was part of a larger lot that was split in
the 1950s; afterward, a second house was built next to my house on what was once part of
that larger lot. The result is an unusual configuration, with my house facing 31st Street and
my neighbor’s house facing Maryland Avenue. For most of the families in this area, 31st
Street runs along the side of their homes. But for me, 31st Street is directly in front of my
house.
The proposed sidewalk would take 13 feet from my front yard. By my measurement it would
potentially put passersby within four feet of my bedroom window. And because it’s my front
yard (not the side of my house like my neighbors), I can’t realistically install the type of
privacy fence that a person would usually build in such a case. Can you imagine a six-foot-
tall privacy fence only four feet from your front door?
I’m also concerned with safety. I run a daycare service from my home, and I am worried
about increasing the number of strangers walking within feet of my house and the children
whose safety I keep. In addition, the proposal looks like it will cut down driveway space in a
neighborhood where off-street parking is at a premium. (One of my neighbors is a family
with six cars parked at their house.) The bus drivers and parents who drop off children in
front of my house already have trouble finding space; I don’t think this proposal will make
the situation any better, only worse.
Looking beyond my own issues, I think you need to consider the cost of this proposal. State
budget cuts have reduced the amount of local government aid that cities receive, and I can’t
think this proposal is a very wise use of the St. Louis Park taxpayers’ money, especially in
the midst of a slow recovery from a deep recession and with unemployment at eight percent.
Some of us have walked and driven up and down 31st Street, from Dakota to Texas avenues,
and we just can’t see why it’s necessary to spend so much money on a project of such limited
benefits when the city has greater needs. I look forward to your response.
● I was looking the planned sidewalk for 31st . It's crazy to begin with and how are you going
to handle shorten drive to nothing. During winter months my snow banks are higher than
snow can throw it. Should I just plow the snow back into street? Backing out the drive way
would turning around in the street. I think this crazy and needs to be cancel. !!
● I live on the corner of Maryland Ave and 31st street - I am writing to say I am against the
proposed sidewalk. There are several reasons why I think it is a bad idea including:
- It is unnecessary given that it is a low traffic route and there are alternative east west routes
existing (such as Minnetonka Blvd).
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 76
Page65 - many residents, myself included, do not want to give up a section of our property and in
addition lose some privacy.
at any rate, just wanted to voice my opinion -
thanks for reading and I hope you'll take this into
consideration.
● Mr. Brink I live on the corner of 31st and Quebec Ave So. If the proposed sidewalk is put in
place my driveway becomes useless, I will be nose to nose with anyone on the sidewalk as I
do my dishes in Kitchen and my property will almost certainly become Unsellable. Please
don’t go through with this. I have heard nothing but complaints from all of my neighbors. If
you want to do it Please have the city buy my property beforehand at pre-proposal prices as I
am sure if I tried to sell it now it would already be At a lower market value then before the
proposal.
● I live at the corner of 31st and Jersey in St. Louis Park.
Currently there is a sidewalk going East and West one block North of 31st on Minnetonka
Blvd. North - South sidewalks on Jersey and Kentucky. People often walk or run in the
street day and night even if there is a sidewalk! More sidewalk means more snow to shovel,
trees taken down, my lot getting smaller, and more garbage to pick up. The value of my
house has gone down in the past years even though I have put up a double garage, re-roofed,
and done many other improvements over the past 14 years.
How about saving the funds for a future, critical need, instead of putting in sidewalks on 31st
Street? Fixing and improving existing sidewalks?
Please do not put in sidewalks on 31st Street in St. Louis Park. Thank you for reading this e-
mail.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 77
Page66 ●
● I received the letter of 11/19/12 informing me of the proposal for a sidewalk on the south
side of 31st street between Texas Ave S and Brunswick Ave S
After receiving the letter I chatted with Susan Santa regarding my thoughts and she suggested
I send this to you to ensure I have visibility to the city council.
I live at 3050 Quebec Ave So. My name is Judy Christensen. My parents, Sylvester and
Lois Christensen were the original buyers of this home and moved in here December 11,
1050. When my father passed away in 1997, I then bought the house from my Mom, so
basically I have spent my entire life here. My Mom is 91 and still living here with me. Just a
quick trip down memory lane for you, when my parents moved in here they had a phone they
shared with the entire block on a phone poll at the corner and there were pastures and cows
on the north side of Minnetonka Blvd. Pictures reveal a start of community, no fences,
etc. We have come a long way!
Now in regards to the proposed sidewalk, my thoughts are mixed as I want people to be able
to walk safely, myself included, yet I have never viewed 31st Street as a dangerous road to
walk on. First off the road is wide and it is very easy to walk on the side, secondly there are
ample stop signs on 31st that has slowed traffic down over the years, and lastly there is not
that much traffic - mainly the residents - it is just not that heavily of traveled road. I want to
also point out that I am not the most nimble walker as I have had 1 total knee replacement
and am having the other one done 12/6, so I limp, use a cane, and am slower than the average
walker - and I still feel safe on 31st St.
I do walk a lot, as I have 3 dogs, and my main destination (99% of the time) is Oak Hill Park
or Louisiana Oaks. From my house on the corner of Quebec Ave So and 31st St, I walk
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 78
Page67 south on Rhode Island to Oak Hill or east on 31st to Oregon and catch the trails there. In my
opinion, I don't understand why Rhode Island or Oregon have a sidewalk leading to these
places, as us walkers like to go this way. My first preference would be to propose a sidewalk
on Rhode Island from Minnetonka Blvd to 36th. That would connect for the vast majority of
people, and put some lights in as it is very dark between 31st and 32 1/2 st when you walk at
night (trees on both sides after the houses). This seems like a more pressing need than on
31st St.
I understand from Susan, that the schools thought it would be good to have a safe path for
kids to walk to and from school, hence one of the reasons 31st was choosen. Since she told
me that I have taken to observing kids walking - and I simply don't see it. I see kids at the
bus stop, many parents there waiting for them, but I see very few just walking by.
So, I strongly oppose spending my tax dollars on a project I just don't see the benefit or need
for. An alternative would be to draw a line for walkers / bikers and not allow parking on one
side of the street. Since the streets are wide, that seems like a cost effective solution to me as
it would satisfy the need to have just an area for walkers / bikers and allow us to spend our
money where truly needed.
If you would like to chat regarding my input, I am certainly open to that. My cell is
952.607.5825. Just a reminder that I am have total knee replacement Dec 6th, so I won't be
responding to my cell until I am out of the hospital and in the transitional care unit for rehab.
Regards,
● Connect the Park is an excellent idea. Having access to sidewalks and trails to get to the
many parks and other destinations is safer for my kids and myself, as opposed to walking in
the road. However, the traffic is still low enough on 31st that I don't believe a sidewalk is
needed. It's relatively save to walk in the road on 31st. Also, a crossing at Louisiana would
be dangerous.
● No sidewalk on 31st St. from Texas to Dakota. People walk in the street because the street is
smooth, plowered, and salted. Snow removal is problematic - no more shoveling. This
would radically diminish property values; no one wants people walking 7' from their houses
at all hours of the day. Diminish our property values significantly; it ends all further home
improvement. Splitting driveways in half is unacceptable. This is an assult on the
neighborhood. We are ideal citizens who chop ice, clear storm drains of debris, cause no
trouble, pay our taxes and spend thousands remodeling our homes - often with sweat equity
and if this sidewalk goes forward, I'm moving out.
● No to the sidewalk! A sidewalk will destroy all my gardens, remove my trees and lower my
property value. My driveway would not allow me to park my car. The sidewalk would be
right outside my living room creating an unsafe place for me. No to the sidewalk on 31st.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 79
Page68 Ward 3 – 33rd St. W. – Pro’s
● None
Ward 3 – 33rd St. W. – Con’s
● Please scuttle "A52". Totally unnecessary expense. There exists a new sidewalk on North
side of 33rd (Aquila Park).
● Attached is a letter concerning the proposed 33rd Street sidewalk between Texas Ave and
Rhode Island and our combined objections to it. The people it represents live on or near the
area and are listed on the last page which includes our signatures.
This people included in the CC line of this email are following:
St Louis Park Council Members:
St Louis Park Mayor: Jeffrey Jacobs
SLP At -large A Council Member: Steve Hallfin
SLP At -large B Council Member: Jake Spano
SLP Ward 3 Representative: Susan Santa
Residents (with home addresses are listed in the letter)
Marty and Darlene Knoll
Chris Iverson
Nathan and Sarah Trulen
Lisa Locher
Senia and Nathan Janiga
Terry and Connie Nesbit
Dave and Erica Krocak
Billy Morris
Lance and Emily Meyer
Adam and Leah Storry
Should you have questions or if you would like to discuss further with me or any person
included in this email, please feel free to reach out to us.
Can you please let us know when this will be a discussion item at a council meeting so we
can make sure we have a group there for the discussion? Cheers,
● I understand you have had some conversations with my neighbor, Marty about his concerns
with the proposed addition of a sidewalk along 33rd St. All the neighbors along 33rd St are
in communication and you will be getting a letter soon voicing our concerns. In addition to
my input into the letter, I also want to directly make you aware of my concerns.
The proposed sidewalk will run directly along side my property. My biggest concern is the
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 80
Page69 devastation this plan would have on the trees in my yard. It appears that I would lose five (5)
very mature trees. Trees that have been in this yard for 50+ years including one that my
father planted. I would lose a Chinese Elm, a Black Walnut, an Apple, a Pine and a Birch
tree...essentially wiping out all the trees on the north side of my house. In addition...I would
have public traffic 11 feet from my bedroom windows in addition to losing the use of my
driveway. I would also have to have my yard completely torn up as my yard is the only one
on the street that is above street grade. This effort would have devastating impact to my
property and its value.
My family has owned this property since 1978. I grew up here and in 35 years there has
never been an issue with traffic, pedestrians and bikers sharing the space effectively. Adding
this sidewalk seems strange to me as there are only random sidewalks throughout the entire
neighborhood. Anyone approaching 33rd from the north on any street...Texas, Sumter or
Rhode Island...has to walk blocks in the street to be able to use two short blocks of sidewalk.
I was having a conversation with my neighbors about this project. Ten minutes into the
discussion, we all realized we were standing IN the street having the discussion about a need
for a sidewalk. There is so little traffic on this street that we don't really think much about
standing in the street when we interact with neighbors.
I would really like to understand the motivation for this major and invasive effort for a
solution to a problem that does not seem to exist. I look forward to hearing more about the
motivation for the city to move this project forward. It is clear that none of the neighbors
directly impacted by the effort are in favor of the project. Best,
● I understand the process and effort that goes into this kind of planning and implementation
for city improvements. I was an adviser to the SLP planning commissions many, many years
ago when I was a student. So, I have a little bit of perspective.
I guess when you live in a place and use the resources daily, that perspective can make a plan
seem kind of strange. As a biker and walker...and someone who uses the trails here in the
city and around the metro area...I understand the concept of connectivity. This particular
instance of connectivity seems to make more sense on a map than it does in reality. Unless
the plan includes adding sidewalks on Sumter, Texas and Rhode Island...I am not sure I see
the benefit. I access the trail in Oak Hill and the trails through Aquila with no challenge and
I live right on the connecting section of street.
I assume public records will show that the Texas/33rd St intersection would be the only place
there has been any risk to personal safety related to this particular part of the plan. The
current plan with the sidewalk on the South side of the street would only compound that as
pedestrians and bikers would have to reconnect to the trail on the opposite corner of that
intersection. The trail coming out of Oak Hill is also oriented to the North side of 33rd.
In addition...I don't believe any trees would be lost if the sidewalk were on the North side and
there is better visibility crossing the alley between Sumter and Texas on the North side, too.
There just seems to be a lot of things that do not make much sense related to this effort even
though there was some level of due diligence put into the city-wide plan.
I have just completed plans for a $75K renovation to the property I purchased from my
parents. I am not feeling comfortable that making an investment in this property is a wise
idea at this time as the impact of the effort to my property would be significant.
I will look forward to further discussion on the matter. Being that I have just returned to SLP
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 81
Page70 after 20+ years in S Mpls, I was not around to offer input into this plan in earlier stages.
Thanks for your consideration and attention to my communications on the matter. Regards,
● This letter is in response to the sidewalk being proposed on the south side of 33rd Street
between Aquila Avenue South and Virginia Avenue South. We, Don and Joyce Kotz at 3301
Wyoming Avenue, have listed why we don’t need or want a sidewalk.
1. We already have a walking/biking path across the street. Since this part of the path is
not part of the main biking path, there is very little bike traffic along this stretch of the
path. Therefore having to share this path with pedestrians is not a problem at all. Also,
since the proposal includes ending the path at Virginia, this means that pedestrians
would have to switch to the opposite side of the road at Virginia. Why would anyone
switch sides of the street instead of staying on the path that continues all the way from
Texas Avenue to Aquila Avenue? It makes no sense.
2. All of the mature boulevard trees would have to be removed. Clearly, a tree lined street
adds beauty to the neighborhood and adds value to our property. With a sidewalk, we
would no longer be able to have trees along the boulevard since there would not be
sufficient room to plant them. Trees look best along the boulevard when they are
centered on the boulevard.
3. The sidewalk would be too close to our bedroom windows. According to my
measurements, even if the edge of the sidewalk started at the curb, the sidewalk would
be only 12 feet from the bedroom windows for all the houses along 33rd Street. In
comparison, for residents that already have sidewalks in front of their houses, it is 50
feet from the curb to the house. That is a significant difference in distance and makes a
big difference in noise level outside the house. For people that work the nightshift like
I do, having a sidewalk 12 feet or less from their bedroom window would make it
difficult to sleep, when people are walking and talking by the window.
4. A sidewalk would create a lot of additional maintenance during the winter. The
snowplow creates a huge ridge of snow that I would then be responsible for clearing
from the sidewalk. Plus, I would have to be salting the sidewalk also at added time and
expense. This additional maintenance would reduce the desirability and value of our
property. It is much better for pedestrians to use the walking/bike path on the north
side of 33rd street where the city can properly maintain it using their equipment.
5. The sidewalk would go across all the driveways. This would decrease the length of the
driveway and therefore its usefulness and value. In 2007, we had a beautiful stamped
concrete driveway installed by Hage with a 75 year warranty against cracking. This
was very expensive, costing about $12,000. This is a multicolor driveway, with one
color for the border and another color for the main driveway. Having a sidewalk cut
across our double wide driveway would significantly reduce its beauty and
value. There is no way the driveway could be fixed and look good as a result of the
damage caused by installing a sidewalk. It would not be possible to match the colors if
part of the driveway had to be redone and the cutting of the concrete would make it
look patched. I had a stamped concrete driveway installed for its beauty and this
clearly would ruin it. Any repair work would have to be done by Hage in order to
maintain the 75 year warranty.
6. The sprinkler system would be damaged and have to be redone as a result of the
sidewalk. Both, our property and our neighbors at 3300 Virginia Avenue have
sprinkler systems installed that include the boulevard. This was an expensive upgrade
to our property that we wanted done because we take pride in a well maintained yard
and boulevard. Also, this would make it difficult to water since we would not be able
to water in the morning or evening when people are using the sidewalk. Watering at
night is not healthy for the lawn since it promotes disease. Furthermore, having to salt
the sidewalk during the winter would kill the lawn and require additional maintenance
to repair all the dead grass.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 82
Page71 7. There is a telephone box that would have to be moved as a result of the
sidewalk. When this telephone box was installed, the digging killed the boulevard tree
that was near it. We have two remaining mature trees in our yard that could be in
danger depending on where the telephone box is relocated.
8. We have a Blue Spruce tree in the corner of our yard by 33rd and Wyoming
Avenue. The branches extend on to the boulevard. We have already complied with the
requirement to have the branches trimmed 5 feet off the ground to maintain visibility
for traffic. We are concerned that having a sidewalk running under the tree branches
will require us to trim the branches even higher. Trimming the Blue Spruce branches
any higher will ruin the beauty of the tree. Blue Spruce trees are planted for their
beauty, not because they are good shade trees. Sincerely,
● I would like to add some additional comments regarding the sidewalk being proposed on the
south side of 33rd Street between Aquila Avenue South and Virginia Avenue South. As I
stated in my original letter, I am strongly opposed to a sidewalk on the south side of 33rd
Street. What I would like to see done is to keeping using the walking/biking path on the
north side of 33rd Street but also have a short sidewalk that would connect this
walking/biking path to the curb at each block. In other words, have a short sidewalk at
Wyoming, Xylon, Yukon and Zinran that connects the walking/biking path to the north side
curb of 33rd Street. At Wyoming Avenue, only a very short sidewalk would be needed
since the walking/bike path is only about 3 feet from the curb. These short sidewalks at
Wyoming, Xylon, Yukon and Zinran would be installed so pedestrians would not have to
climb over a snow bank to get to 33rd Street from the walking/biking path. Since the city
already has all the equipment to clear the walking/biking path, only minimal additional work
would be needed to clear these short sidewalks. The very undesirable alternative would be
for each homeowner along 33rd Street to have over a 100 feet of sidewalk added which
would require a considerable amount of work to keep maintained in the winter, plus all the
additional negative consequences that I stated in my original letter. With all the money saved
from this simple alternative to the proposal, perhaps lighting could be added along the
biking/walking path.
Clearly, with all the things I have pointed out, having a sidewalk on the south side of 33rd
Street makes absolutely no sense. The existing walking/biking path is sufficient from
Virginia Avenue to Texas Avenue and it should also be sufficient from Virginia Avenue to
Aquila Avenue. Plus, as I stated earlier, using the existing walking/biking path make the
most sense since you then have a single contiguous path from Texas Avenue to Aquila
Avenue. There would be no need to cross 33rd Street at Virginia to get from Aquila Avenue
to Texas Avenue. I suspect the city would not maintain the walking/biking path in the winter
between Virginia Avenue and Aquila Avenue if there were a sidewalk on the south side of
33rd Street so pedestrians would be forced to cross over at Virginia Avenue.
I am confident all the homeowners along 33rd Street would be in favor of these short
sidewalks on the north side of 33rd Street versus the very long, high maintenance sidewalks
on the south side of 33rd Street. Sincerely,
● Please find my attached comments regarding the Connect the Park plan for 33rd Street.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
● This letter is in regards to the “Connect the Park” initiative, and in particular, the proposed
sidewalk on the south side of 33rd St. between Aquila Ave S and Virginia Ave S. As a
resident and homeowner, I have a few concerns about this sidewalk.
First, there is already a path on the north side of 33rd St between Aquila Ave S and Virginia
Ave S. I don’t think that it is necessary to have sidewalks/paths on both sides of 33rd St;
these paths are not busy and do not warrant another sidewalk.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 83
Page72 Second, the homes along 33rd St are already significantly close to the street. Adding a
sidewalk on the south side of 33rd St would encourage people to walk within 15 feet of our
homes. Since many of us have our bedrooms on that side of our homes, I feel that this may
become a violation of our privacy and could potentially affect the resale value of our
properties. As a single female, it makes me uncomfortable to have people walking that
closely to my home.
Third, all of the properties along 33rd St have three trees along their property, and many of us
have utility equipment along the boulevard where a sidewalk would go. Losing that many
trees would be a significant loss to the city and our property value. Avoiding the trees and
the utility boxes would mean needing to narrow the street. In the summer, there are many
people who park on both sides of the 33rd St for softball games and other park events. In the
winter there are cars parked on both sides of the street for sledding. By narrowing the street,
you would be creating traffic and parking conflicts. Thank you for taking the time to
consider my concerns.
● This letter is being written on behalf of the residents and voters who live both on and near
33rd Street between Rhode Island Avenue South and Texas Avenue South in response to the
proposed sidewalk on the south side of 33rd Street.
We have read the online information at www.ConnectThePark.org and agree that one of the
great benefits of living in St. Louis Park is the engaged citizenry that enjoy the livability,
active community, and neighborhood offerings.
We are made up of homeowners who have lived in SLP anywhere from 3 months to 48 years.
Those of us who have lived here longest have seen the neighborhood grow and have stayed
because of the strong sense of community and safety it has afforded us through the years. We
who have recently moved here have done so for the amenities the city offers, proximity of
parks and entertainment venues, among other reasons. However, to the extent that we have
enjoyed the benefits SLP offers, together we object to the sidewalk currently being proposed
on 33rd Street.
The reasons for our objection to the sidewalk are as follows:
(1) Trees: There are two arguments related to the trees lining the street.
a. The proposed sidewalk will have 7 feet of boulevard grass and 6 feet of sidewalk. (1)
The total easement of 13 feet would result in the loss of 12 trees and also threaten
trees along the south side of the street. The Iverson yard would be decimated with the
loss of five trees – a Chinese Elm, a Black Walnut, an apple, a pine and a birch tree.
So too the Troulans would lose four. Of these 9 trees, 8 of them are estimated to be
over 40 years old. The City is a proponent of mature trees and it is aware that the
mature canopy they provide is diminishing. (2) While we assume the City would replace
those trees on the boulevard, they would hardly compare to those lost. Homeowners who
choose to replace the shade trees with something larger than a sapling would find that
trees with a 2-3” diameter and 12-18’ tall cost upwards of $400.00. (3)b. Sidewalks built
near mature trees pose problems to both the tree root system and to the sidewalk itself.
Damage to the root system could cause tree failure. Tree roots have and will cause
damage to the sidewalk due to heaving, causing liability issues and needed repair. While
the proposed sidewalk maintenance will be the responsibility of the city, associated costs
would be spread to the citizenry.
(2) Privacy: Due to the setback of houses from the street, the distance of the proposed
sidewalk to our houses would cause foot traffic to be within 10 feet of our bedrooms and
living rooms.
This is not acceptable to us. Those of us who have recently moved here (Locher and Trulen)
would have reconsidered our decision to purchase our homes had we known of this proposal.
Locher - 3301 Texas Jun-12 10 ft
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 84
Page73 Trulen - 3300 Sumter Aug-12 10 ft
Iverson - 3301 Sumter 1978 10 ft
Noll - 3300 Rhode Island 1964 10 ft
Distance from sidewalk to house
(3) Property Usage Loss: The sidewalk easement of 13 feet would cause us to lose the usage
of nearly 20% of our lots. The Noll Family on Rhode Island would lose a garden that has
been carefully tended each season. The City has the Evergreen Awards that recognize
gardens that are “well maintained with an emphasis on landscaping that is visible to the
passerby.” (4) While they may not have won an award, their garden follows those tenents and
positively affects all those that pass by. Losing that garden would be destroying one of the
positive sights the City offers to those out walking. The below chart represents the property
usage loss we would incur should the sidewalk go in.
Locher - 3301 Texas 1,300 19%
Trulen - 3300 Sumter 1,300 19%
Iverson - 3301 Sumter 1,300 20%
Noll - 3300 Rhode Island 1,300 20%
(4) Driveway Loss: Along with the above property usage loss, the proposed sidewalk would
cause us to lose a significant portion of our driveways. Our driveways face 33rd Street. The
installation of a sidewalk would cut across our driveways, shorting it. Two of which are one
car width wide. This would present difficulties to park our cars in our driveways out of the
sidewalk right-of-way because as it is stated in the St Louis Park Zoning Code, “In no event
can a vehicle be parked in such a manner as to block a public sidewalk.” (6)
Locher - 3301 Texas 29 ft 13 ft 16 ft
Trulen - 3300 Sumter 33 ft 13 ft 20 ft
Iverson - 3301 Sumter 24 ft 13 ft 11 ft
Noll - 3300 Rhode Island 37 ft 13 ft 24 ft
(5) Safety: We all walk, run, and/or bike along 33rd Street between the two proposed
avenues
and know that daily it is active among many community members. The street is more than
accommodating to both traffic and pedestrians. In our time here there have not been any
incidents between the two that would necessitate a sidewalk for safety reasons. This is based
on both Nesbits and Nolls living here for over 40 years along with the 35 years that the
Iverson household has been here.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 85
Page74 ●
● It was recently brought to the attention of our neighborhood that there is a plan for the City to
install a sidewalk in our area. Upon calling the City council person to obtain details, I was
left with many unanswered questions since she was not aware of this project.\
I then called Scott Brink to see if he could supply any information. He also was unaware of
the details, but stated that there was a meeting held regarding this topic a few weeks ago. He
did state that letters were sent out for this meeting. We have confirmed that many of our
neighbors did not receive this letter prior to the meeting to enable us to attend. When this
was relayed to Scott, he confirmed that there was a problem with the mailing. Scott did state
that the engineering department has not yet been out to check the street for this project.
Neighborhood Findings-Several of the neighbors completed our own research and have
discovered the following:
The proposed plan is to install a 6 foot sidewalk on the South side of 33rd street with
a boulevard.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 86
Page75 • To install the sidewalk, the City would have to remove twelve (12) mature trees.
• Four (4) driveways will also be affected and reduced.
• The main entrance into the alley between Sumter and Rhode Island would need to be
replaced.
• The installation of this sidewalk would be (11 ft) right next to all of the bedrooms on the
South side of 33rd street, resulting in a loss of privacy for these residents.
• The sidewalk coming down to Texas is on North side which means a person would have to
cross 33rd roadway to the South side at Texas Ave. Then at Rhode Island, pedestrians would
have to cross back to the North side of 33rd to match up with the driveway leading to the
park.
Neighborhood Proposal-
Our neighbors met and believe the best solution is to re-install what the council agreed to a
few years ago: the placement of a white line on the street for pedestrians and bikers, which
would separate them from vehicle traffic and parking on the roadway. We still believe this is
the best solution due to the limited amount of traffic we have on 33rd street.
We respectfully request that there is another meeting held to discuss this project. If this is
possible, we also request that a letter with the date/time of this meeting is sent to all of the
residents that would be affected by this project so they can attend and be actively involved in
their community.
Please forward this email to all City Council members involved. We look forward to
working together to reach an agreeable decision that will result in our ability to keep our
mature trees and one that is a benefit to all. Thank you for your time and consideration,
● Very upset at the City and the process (says poor or no notification to affected residents) with
regards to the proposed sidewalk along 33rd. Although upset, he did not specifically state any
support or no support with regards to the proposed 33rd sidewalk (east of Texas).
Ward 3 – 34th St. W. – Pro’s
● I am in receipt of the subject notification.
If there is NO ASSESSMENT for this, then I would be in favor of it. If there is an
assessment, I vote a resounding NO! My property value has dropped SIGNIFICANTLY
since moving into this home and I can afford no more additional charges. Thank you.
● I think that is a great idea to have a side walk, and much safer than walking on the street. The
main difficulty I have had with walkers is that their dogs leave poop on my lawn, or urinate
so the edge has died despite my putting it in twice.
Since the laws that exist have not deterred the pet owners would the added sidewalk be An
argument for them to allow the dogs to urinate more in the middle of the lawn; this is not
easily monitored, except as The lawn dies away. I find the ones who walk after dark are
particularly sneaky. And when I monitor it, I find that folks are furious that they get
criticized. Lots of problems with pets.
Anyway, I like the idea of increased safety and think it would encourage walkers to get out
and exercise.
But If this is going to pose increasing Pet problems, then I am not in favor.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 87
Page76 I have found that almost 100 percent of residents are rude if called to curb their pet’s taking a
leak on the lawn.
It is not a very courteous group here in SLP
● I live at 3411 Aquila Lane. I am pleased we are going to eventually have a sidewalk on our
street. We have many people who walk in the neighborhood and currently must walk on the
street. Although I am not opposed to having a sidewalk on my side of the street, the South
side has some steep slopes as compared to the North side. Even if you do not set back the
sidewalk for snow piling, there will be a significant expense for retaining walls. If you do set
back the sidewalk to allow for snow piling the cost for retaining walls due to the slopes will
be very high. The North side of the street would be lower cost, but if you decide on the
South side, it is fine with me. Just be aware of the costs. You may want to take a short drive
down the street and take a look at the grades on the North and South sides of the
street. Respectfully
● I got the informational letter. I guess that a sidewalk is proposed in front of my house which
is 9031 West 34th street. Is that accurate?
Ward 3 – 34th St. W. – Con’s
● I recently was looking through my mail and came across the letter about the sidewalk plan
for St Louis Park. Unfortunately, I did not see the letter before your requested date of
December 7, so apologies for the late note.
I have some great concern as it appears one of the new sidewalks will be constructed on my
property.
Two major concerns:
1) If a sidewalk was to be erected on this side of our property, it would be very close to our
house--within 5 feet or closer.
2) There is a significant slope to our back yard that makes it hard to imagine how a new
sidewalk might be constructed without being very invasive to our backyard and landscaping.
I am wondering if you can confirm that our property is indeed part of the new sidewalk plan
(for 2017). And, how we might be able to participate or have a discussion about how this
proposed sidewalk would not adversely affect the appearance of our property and the comfort
of our privacy.
● Our neighbor received a letter from the city telling us you were going to put sidewalks on our
block.
We have very few walkers on our street and the expense could be better used for purposes
that would benefit our community, i.e. schools for instance. Our tax money should not be
spent foolishly. It would mean many of us would loose allot of our landscaping, front
lights,silent fencing for dogs etc. Many of us are very upset about this proposal. I look
forward to hearing from you.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 88
Page77 ●
Ward 3 – Aquila – 31st St. – Pro’s
● We recently received the "Connect the Park" brochure, but will not be able to attend the
meeting. However, we would like to share an idea or two.
We have lived near Aquila School (31st& Xylon) for almost 10 years. Crossing Xylon Ave
to get to the parks and playgrounds, and crossing 32nd St W to get to the tennis courts can be
quite intense. With 3 little boys (and we have taught them to watch, etc) cars still move fast. I
would like to propose a crosswalk AND stop sign at the junction of 32nd St. W. and Xylon
Ave S. OR--a four way stop at 31st St. W and Xylon Ave S where there are already
crosswalks. If you stand at this intersection (corner of 32nd and Xylon) you will notice cars
travel down hill from Minnetonka BLVD and Texas Ave S before they reach this
intersection, often much faster than 30 MPH.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 89
Page78 Thanks for taking time to read this email, consider it, and possibly present it for us at this
meeting.We'd be happy to correspond further if you have any questions. Sincerely
Ward 3 – Aquila – 31st St. – Con’s
I received your letter today regarding the Connect the Park proposal.
Please note that I left a comment with the department of Public Works at City Hall a couple of
weeks ago. If you have not seen my comments please let me know and I will respond again.
I live on Aquila between Minnetonka and 31st. There is a perfectly adequate sidewalk across the
street and I do not see the need for one on my side. I listed my objections in my comment that I
left at City Hall. I'll be waiting to hear from you.
Ward 3 – Flag Ave. – Pro’s
● We received a letter in the mail notifying us that a new sidewalk is proposed for 2017. It is
unclear on the map if it is actually on our property, or across the street (Flag Ave.). Could
you let me know? Our property is on a rather severe slope on that side of the yard and would
require a retaining wall, etc. if a sidewalk is to be put in place. Thanks!
● Great! Thanks for clearing that up! Have a great afternoon
Ward 3 – Flag Ave. – Con’s
● I live at 9021 S. Minnehaha Circle in the Minnehaha Neighborhood of St. Louis Park. We
recently received notification in the mail of a proposed sidewalk to be added to the east side
of Flag Ave. S. from 34th to 36th Streets, and I would like to let you know of our opposition
to the segment from S. Minnehaha Circle to 36th Street of that proposed sidewalk.
The west side of Flag Ave. S. already has a sidewalk running from Knollwood Green Park to
36th street, and that sidewalk begins/ends at the intersection of Flag Ave. S. and S.
Minnehaha Circle. Therefore, while we support the proposed sidewalk segment from 34th
Street to S. Minnehaha Circle (since no sidewalk currently exists on either side of Flag Ave.
S. between those two streets), we are opposed to the proposed sidewalk segment on the east
side of Flag Ave. S. from S. Minnehaha Circle to 36th Street.This segment from S.
Minnehaha Circle to 36th Street would provide little benefit to the city or the neighborhood
(since there is already a sidewalk on the west side of Flag Ave. S.), and City resources could
seemingly be put to better use elsewhere. While adding this sidewalk would not detract from
the neighborhood, on a very personal note, it would directly negatively impact our home, our
yard, and our daily lives, as we would have pedestrians walking within 25 feet of our living
and dining room windows, which is too close for our personal comfort level.
While we realize that sacrifices need to sometimes be made to benefit the neighborhood or
City, and admire and champion the cause of connecting the Park, the cost of this sidewalk
segment (in terms of financial costs to the City and personal privacy costs to us) seems
unnecessary given that a sidewalk already exists on the opposite side of the street. We
certainly do not know all of the inputs and details of this project, and we would welcome a
response with further information on why this segment would be preferred.
Thank you for notifying us of this proposal, and for asking for feedback. For the reasons
noted above, we hope that you will adjust the proposed sidewalk to remove the segment from
S. Minnehaha Circle to 36th Street because of its redundancy, and also because of the costs
to us and to the City.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely yours,
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 90
Page79 Ward 3 – Pennsylvania Ave. – Pro’s
● None
Ward 3 – Pennsylvania – Con’s
●
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 91
Page80 ●
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 92
Page81 ●
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 93
Page82 Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 94
Page83 ● I am writing to express my concern for the proposed sidewalk for the west side of
Pennsylvania Ave, south of 31st street. I have lived here since 1991 and have not had any
incident to warrant the need for a sidewalk. The residents on the block all have driveways so
there is limited on-street parking that would cause visibility or spacial issues. I have never
been hindered by pedestrians on the street in my attempt to get to or from my residence. I
understand that public safety is a prime concern and one would think that a sidewalk would
provide that safety barrier. I am convinced that the pedestrian traffic would still utilize the
street as the primary path used as it is a dead end and there is not heavy, fast moving
traffic. With the street leading directly into the park path, we often see large groups, bikes,
strollers and many other modes of transportation going by.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 95
Page84 the pedestrian traffic feels safe using the street as their path to the park, and would continue
to do so with or without a sidewalk, making the addition of a sidewalk a poor choice for
these public funds.
I know there are other high pedestrian use streets that have a high speed/high volume traffic
pattern that would be more ideally suited for this expenditure. For example, Rhode Island
from 31st south past Oak Hill Park is a prime example as the traffic volume is heavy and the
hills and street lights do not provide ample visibility for other automobiles, let alone
pedestrian traffic.
Thank you for notification and invitation to respond to this proposal. Please continue to
provide feedback as this process progresses. Sincerely,
● I live at 3144 Pennsylvania ave south and I'm writing to oppose the proposed sidewalk on my
street.
Pennsylvania ave is a dead end street. As a result, it receives very little auto traffic. The few
pedestrians who use our quiet little road do so without fear of cars.
My wife and I moved to Pennsylvania Ave three years ago because it is a quiet street. With
our first baby due in March, the noise and hassle of constructing a sidewalk threaten the
solitude and comfort of our new home.
In short, the proposed construction of a sidewalk on the 3100 block of Pennsylvania is an
expensive and noisy project with very few benefits to St. Louis Park. Please do not build it.
● We are writing in response to the proposed sidewalk in the 3100 block of Pennsylvania Ave
South in St. Louis Park, MN.
We have lived on this block for over 25 years and observed many people in our
neighborhood walking down the street to access the trail at the dead end into Oak Hill Park.
We truly believe a sidewalk would be detrimental to the experience walkers have as they go
to and from Oak Hill Park. Our street is a dead end with minimal vehicular traffic. The
street is truly ruled by the pedestrian and vehicles yield to them. As groups walk south to the
park they are often 4-5 wide and enjoying casual conversation. Watching the street on
Thanksgiving day large extended families could be seen passing by enjoying the safety we
have here. Dog walkers let their dogs go long on the leash. Often we see dog walkers with
2-4 dogs spreading out across the street. Groups going in opposite directions meet and chat
in the middle of the street. We have a "Little Library" in the middle of the block next to the
street on the east side. A generous neighbor purchased and installed it a few years ago. It
has been very popular and a regular stop for many walkers. This library is on the opposite
side of the street from the proposed sidewalk. People leaving the park are often on bicycles
or skateboard or roller blades. The high school Nordic ski team used the hill to practice for
over an hour just last week. They all enjoy going the hill towards 31st street and feel safe
doing this. A sidewalk will be seldom used. Walkers also come from the middle of the trail
aligned with the middle of the street and meander casually down the road enjoying the homes
and the neighborly atmosphere they find on our quaint little block, isolated from the busy
streets just beyond.
We oppose any sidewalk on our block and would like to see this money better spent in
another location. Please keep us informed on further discussion of this issue.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 96
Page85 ● This letter is in response to your letter about the addition of a sidewalk on the west side of
Pennsylvania Avenue South.
I am opposing this.
I have lived at this address for the past 20 years, it is a beautiful street that dead ends.
The vast majority of the traffic is from the home owners.
1. People walk in the street because it is safe, a dead end street limits both the quantity and
the speed of vehicle traffic.
2. The cost of putting in a sidewalk could be better used in the areas of personnel:
firefighters, police, and their equipment.
3. People have always had the option of walking on the grass and yet no one does, they all
walk in the street. Adding a sidewalk will not change their habits.
4. Children play ball in the street because the parents and he children feel that it is safe.
● Thanks for the letter notifying of planned sidewalk expansion in St. Louis Park, including the
one on Pennsylvania Avenue, the street of my mother and fathers home. A couple of
questions:
1. It is hard to read the color to identify the year of this sidewalk add. Could you tell us
when that is planned?
2. It seems odd it says “east side” of Pennsylvania. I would assume it more logical it
should have said west side in that today there is a sidewalk on that side already all along
18th that is also a path around the lake (Lamplighter). There is already an existing path
on lake between 16th and 18th. This path likely would continue to flow to Cedar Lake
Road without having to make bikers or pedestrians cross the road at both 18th as well as
Franklin and have associated safety concerns. Additionally, it would save limited city
funds to add path where one with connections already exist.
Could you let us know your thoughts on this. Thank you Scott.
● I am opposed to sidewalks on Pennsylvania.
● I live at 3144 Pennsylvania Ave S, and current city maps are proposing the addition of a
sidewalk down our street. I do not think a sidewalk is necessary. I realize the city probably
wants to add one since Pennsylvania dead-ends into the trail leading into Oak Hill Park.
However, since Pennsylvania is a dead end, there is very little vehicle traffic on our block.
The traffic that does exist is already traveling very slow since it is leaving or entering a
parked position and since we all have driveways there are rarely cars parked on both sides of
the street that would force pedestrians into the center of the road. Therefore, a sidewalk
doesn't seem necessary for safety purposes. In addition, the traffic from the park trail often
includes family groups of strollers, bikes, dogs, etc. It is unlikely that these large groups
would consolidate and walk in a long line down a sidewalk when they can use the low-traffic
street that allows them more space. There is a sidewalk, in fact, on the 3000 block of
Pennsylvania and I rarely see these groups navigate from street to sidewalk when they hit
that block. I love owning a home on this block and talking with people as they walk to the
park. Our street is already extremely pedestrian friendly and I'd hate for the city to waste
money and time on an unnecessary sidewalk. Thank you for your time and consideration
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 97
Page86 ●
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 98
Page87 Ward 3 – Virginia – 28th St. – Pro’s
●
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 99
Page88 ●
●
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 100
Page89
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 101
Page90 ●
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 102
Page91 ● I am writing to express my concern for the proposed sidewalk for the west side of
Pennsylvania Ave, south of 31st street. I have lived here since 1991 and have not had any
incident to warrant the need for a sidewalk. The residents on the block all have driveways so
there is limited on-street parking that would cause visibility or spacial issues. I have never
been hindered by pedestrians on the street in my attempt to get to or from my residence. I
understand that public safety is a prime concern and one would think that a sidewalk would
provide that safety barrier. I am convinced that the pedestrian traffic would still utilize the
street as the primary path used as it is a dead end and there is not heavy, fast moving
traffic. With the street leading directly into the park path, we often see large groups, bikes,
strollers and many other modes of transportation going by.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 103
Page92 the pedestrian traffic feels safe using the street as their path to the park, and would continue
to do so with or without a sidewalk, making the addition of a sidewalk a poor choice for
these public funds.
I know there are other high pedestrian use streets that have a high speed/high volume traffic
pattern that would be more ideally suited for this expenditure. For example, Rhode Island
from 31st south past Oak Hill Park is a prime example as the traffic volume is heavy and the
hills and street lights do not provide ample visibility for other automobiles, let alone
pedestrian traffic.
Thank you for notification and invitation to respond to this proposal. Please continue to
provide feedback as this process progresses. Sincerely,
● I live at 3144 Pennsylvania ave south and I'm writing to oppose the proposed sidewalk on my
street.
Pennsylvania ave is a dead end street. As a result, it receives very little auto traffic. The few
pedestrians who use our quiet little road do so without fear of cars.
My wife and I moved to Pennsylvania Ave three years ago because it is a quiet street. With
our first baby due in March, the noise and hassle of constructing a sidewalk threaten the
solitude and comfort of our new home.
In short, the proposed construction of a sidewalk on the 3100 block of Pennsylvania is an
expensive and noisy project with very few benefits to St. Louis Park. Please do not build it.
● We are writing in response to the proposed sidewalk in the 3100 block of Pennsylvania Ave
South in St. Louis Park, MN.
We have lived on this block for over 25 years and observed many people in our
neighborhood walking down the street to access the trail at the dead end into Oak Hill Park.
We truly believe a sidewalk would be detrimental to the experience walkers have as they go
to and from Oak Hill Park. Our street is a dead end with minimal vehicular traffic. The
street is truly ruled by the pedestrian and vehicles yield to them. As groups walk south to the
park they are often 4-5 wide and enjoying casual conversation. Watching the street on
Thanksgiving day large extended families could be seen passing by enjoying the safety we
have here. Dog walkers let their dogs go long on the leash. Often we see dog walkers with
2-4 dogs spreading out across the street. Groups going in opposite directions meet and chat
in the middle of the street. We have a "Little Library" in the middle of the block next to the
street on the east side. A generous neighbor purchased and installed it a few years ago. It
has been very popular and a regular stop for many walkers. This library is on the opposite
side of the street from the proposed sidewalk. People leaving the park are often on bicycles
or skateboard or roller blades. The high school Nordic ski team used the hill to practice for
over an hour just last week. They all enjoy going the hill towards 31st street and feel safe
doing this. A sidewalk will be seldom used. Walkers also come from the middle of the trail
aligned with the middle of the street and meander casually down the road enjoying the homes
and the neighborly atmosphere they find on our quaint little block, isolated from the busy
streets just beyond.
We oppose any sidewalk on our block and would like to see this money better spent in
another location. Please keep us informed on further discussion of this issue.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 104
Page93 ● This letter is in response to your letter about the addition of a sidewalk on the west side of
Pennsylvania Avenue South.
I am opposing this.
I have lived at this address for the past 20 years, it is a beautiful street that dead ends.
The vast majority of the traffic is from the home owners.
1. People walk in the street because it is safe, a dead end street limits both the quantity and
the speed of vehicle traffic.
2. The cost of putting in a sidewalk could be better used in the areas of personnel:
firefighters, police, and their equipment.
3. People have always had the option of walking on the grass and yet no one does, they all
walk in the street. Adding a sidewalk will not change their habits.
4. Children play ball in the street because the parents and he children feel that it is safe.
● Thanks for the letter notifying of planned sidewalk expansion in St. Louis Park, including the
one on Pennsylvania Avenue, the street of my mother and fathers home. A couple of
questions:
1. It is hard to read the color to identify the year of this sidewalk add. Could you tell us
when that is planned?
2. It seems odd it says “east side” of Pennsylvania. I would assume it more logical it
should have said west side in that today there is a sidewalk on that side already all along
18th that is also a path around the lake (Lamplighter). There is already an existing path
on lake between 16th and 18th. This path likely would continue to flow to Cedar Lake
Road without having to make bikers or pedestrians cross the road at both 18th as well as
Franklin and have associated safety concerns. Additionally, it would save limited city
funds to add path where one with connections already exist.
Could you let us know your thoughts on this. Thank you Scott.
● I live at 3144 Pennsylvania Ave S, and current city maps are proposing the addition of a
sidewalk down our street. I do not think a sidewalk is necessary. I realize the city probably
wants to add one since Pennsylvania dead-ends into the trail leading into Oak Hill Park.
However, since Pennsylvania is a dead end, there is very little vehicle traffic on our block.
The traffic that does exist is already traveling very slow since it is leaving or entering a
parked position and since we all have driveways there are rarely cars parked on both sides of
the street that would force pedestrians into the center of the road. Therefore, a sidewalk
doesn't seem necessary for safety purposes. In addition, the traffic from the park trail often
includes family groups of strollers, bikes, dogs, etc. It is unlikely that these large groups
would consolidate and walk in a long line down a sidewalk when they can use the low-traffic
street that allows them more space. There is a sidewalk, in fact, on the 3000 block of
Pennsylvania and I rarely see these groups navigate from street to sidewalk when they hit
that block. I love owning a home on this block and talking with people as they walk to the
park. Our street is already extremely pedestrian friendly and I'd hate for the city to waste
money and time on an unnecessary sidewalk. Thank you for your time and consideration
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 105
Page94 ●
Ward 3 – Virginia – 28th St. – Con’s
● Thank you for returning my call and assuring me that 12/7 was not a formal deadline for
written submissions for comments regarding the proposed sidewalk on the south side of 28th
Street between Texas and Virginia Avenues. We have been residents of St. Louis Park for
over 18 years having lived the entire time at 2801 Virginia Ave. S. and strongly feel that the
proposed sidewalk would not yield the commensurate benefit to the community, especially
considering its investment. I am one of two properties affected by this proposal and the
availability of a pedestrian walkway across the street seems sufficient given the observed
frequency of its use. Access to the trails and parks in my neighborhood south of 28th Street
is easier and safer (being a dead end street) via Virginia Avenue running in front of my
house, despite the absence of sidewalks on either side of the street. My house is situated on
an irregular lot and pedestrian traffic on the south side of 28th Street would put people right
in our backyard and walking right past our house. We already have people cutting through
our front yard who are either accessing Virginia Avenue via 28th Street or vice versa, and a
sidewalk in that location would invite increased pedestrian traffic to traverse our private
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 106
Page95 property. The proposal would also mandate the removal of some of the tree line along our
property which would deprive us of any outdoor (and potentially indoor) seclusion
whatsoever. If at all possible, I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this further with
you in person on the property, where we could look at firsthand all of the implications of this
proposal. Please feel free to contact us at your convenience, and we would be willing to
accommodate your schedule if need be. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 107
Page96 WARD 4
Ward 4 – 14th St. W. – Pro’s
● None
Ward 4 – 14th St. W. – Con’s
● Seldom do I have a strong opinion about local government and their ability to do what is
right for the community but in the case of the "connect the park" initiative, I am compelled to
voice my concern. I admit that some of the project has merit, yet much of what is proposed is
nothing more than a waste of taxpayer money. Specifically, I am selfishly concerned about
the sidewalk proposed between hwy 169 and Flag Ave.
This is a beautiful neighborhood that has mature trees and nice lawns. The idea of putting a
sidewalk down a 3 block stretch of road is akin to the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" or
putting a bridge in the middle of a lake,. Destroying mature trees and relocating fire hydrants
(which I assume will be necessary), for a few people to walk off road for a few blocks is
nothing short of absurd. Additionally, the burden placed on the affected residents with
respect to sidewalk snow removal and shrinkage of already small yards is just not right. I
simply cannot understand the merit of this project given the costs, disruption and very little
benefit to the residents. respectfully,
Ward 4 – 25th – 26th – Pro’s
● We have received the letter showing the proposed sidewalks on our street (W. 25th St.
between Sumter and Virginia). We cannot tell from the map legend whether the sidewalk
would be built in 2014, 2022, or 2023 because the green lines are indistinguishable on our
printed copy. Also, we assume that the description in the letter should read "on the west side
of Sumter Ave. S. between Cedar Lake Road and 25th," not "35th."
Can you clarify what the construction year would be? I cannot find a similar map on the St.
Louis Park web site. Are residents assessed for the cost of the sidewalk?
Although we are in favor of more sidewalks and trails, we question the choice of adding a
sidewalk on W. 25th St. We feel that it would be much more important to complete
sidewalks onboth sides of Cedar Lake Rd. all the way from the West End shopping area to
Highway 169. Currently, W. 25th St. is a very quiet street with absolutely no through
traffic. The only traffic we see is from people who actually live on the street, where there are
only about ten houses on each side. Whether in a car, on a bicycle, or on foot, people who
want to get from the intersection of Cedar Lake Rd. and Sumter to Virginia - and from there
to connect to the regional trail system - will take Cedar Lake Rd. Although there is a
sidewalk on the north side of Cedar Lake Rd., the safest place to cross from north to south is
at the light at Texas, but then there are no sidewalks on the south side. It is true that there is a
marked crosswalk at Sumter, but cars simply do not stop at the marked crosswalk. We
frequently walk from our house to the shops at Cedar Lake Rd. and Louisiana, and we have
observed the situation closely. If we were to try to cross during rush hour, it would be
extremely unsafe, if not impossible. Thank you for considering our comments.
● Put sidewalks on Huntington Ave. & 26th so we don't have to walk in the road.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 108
Page97 ● I receive a letter notification regarding a proposed sidewalk between 25th and 26th Streets
between Virginia and Sumter. It says " on the north side," and the map is terrible....can't
make out a thing. What side of the street is that? The odd or even side?
Ward 4 – 25th – 26th – Con’s
● Attached is a letter with comments, recommendations, and requests regarding the sidewalk
that is proposed on the north sides of 26th and 25th Streets between Virginia and Sumter, and
on the west side of Sumter, between Cedar Lake Road and 25th.
● I write concerning the proposal for addition of a sidewalk to the Willow Park neighborhood,
which is proposed on the north sides of 26th and 25th Streets between Virginia and Sumter,
and on the west side of Sumter, between Cedar Lake Road and 25th. I have several concerns
regarding the proposal, both at the neighborhood level, for my family’s particular lot, and
with a city-wide view of the Connect the Park initiative.
Willow Park Neighborhood
The segment of new sidewalk is proposed to be located in the southeast corner of the
neighborhood on streets that are not used as through streets. My experience of the
neighborhood is that 25th and 26th Streets, where the sidewalk is proposed, are only used for
vehicle traffic by residents of the neighborhood and their guests. The vehicle traffic is
exceedingly low. For example, over a two hour period one recent afternoon, only 13 vehicles
traveled drove past our house.1
1 I observed 13 vehicles between 2:45 p.m. and 4:45 p.m. on Wednesday, November 28,
2012. The vehicles included a UPS truck, two school buses (one long and one short), five
vehicles I definitely know belong to neighbors and five vehicles I couldn’t definitively
identify as belong to neighbors.
My wife and I have a young son and enjoy walking around the neighborhood, including
walking from our home to the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail that crosses Virginia, and
also the other direction to Walgreens and beyond. These walks take us on the exact route of
the proposed sidewalk. In the time that we’ve lived in the house, we’ve never been concerned
about walking with our son on the side of the road because of the very low volume of vehicle
traffic. In addition, there are several older children down the block who play in the road on
25th because of the street is safe enough to do so. My impression of the proposed sidewalk
on 25th is that it would be akin to installing a sidewalk in a cul-de-sac.
7930 West 25th Street
I have two concerns about the new sidewalk proposal related to my family’s particular lot.
First, we have a large maple tree in the front yard, which is very close to the road. While we
have two other trees in the front yard, they are much small and add very little canopy. I am
very concerned with any proposal that would remove this tree. I’ve been proud of our city’s
commitment to maintaining a strong tree presence. Removing this tree to put in a sidewalk
that, I believe, is unnecessary in light of the very low traffic in the area, would be very much
against the tree-city philosophy.
Second, we have what I believe is the steepest sloped driveway on the north side of 25th.
Presuming the tree described above was not to be removed, the sidewalk would likely need to
be placed at least 6 and a half feet from the road (and 7 feet to accommodate the second
smaller tree). The driveway has a slope of approximately 1.5 inches per foot. This would
result in a rise of 6 inches over a run of 4 feet (which I presume would be the width of a new
sidewalk). While I am not an engineer, I would believe that this degree of sideways slope in a
new sidewalk would be unacceptable. I am very much concerned about any lot alteration that
would flatten the area for a sidewalk and increase the slope of our existing driveway, as well
as any cost from such alteration.
City-wide View
My understanding of the Connect the Park initiative is that it is a plan to add new sidewalks,
trails, and bike paths throughout St. Louis Park. I surmise from the name that the purpose is
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 109
Page98 to make the city more pedestrian and bike friendly, which is a laudable goal. However, I am
unclear as to how addition of this segment of sidewalk would add benefit for connecting the
park and it seems unnecessary from the perspective of pedestrians walking through the area,
whether a pedestrian is coming from the north or the south of our area of the Willow Park
neighborhood.
From the south, to reach places such as Walgreens on Louisiana and beyond, pedestrians can
currently chose to walk up Virginia to Cedar Lake Road, to walk along 28th Street and up
Louisiana, or take the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail to Louisiana (either connecting via
27th Street by the post office2 or by climbing the stairs from the trail, if they are able3). It is
unclear how this additional segment would be of much benefit with these three existing
routes.
2 Because of the amount of vehicle traffic and on street parking on 27th Street, the city might
consider a new segment from the trail access near the 27 West Business Center to the post
office. This segment would add benefit for residents from the northwest who walk to the post
office via the trail.
3 Perhaps improvement to the trail access from Louisiana would be the best focus of the
Connect the Park initiative in this area of the city.
From the north, pedestrians walking down Texas toward the trail would not logically walk
further east to Sumter and backtrack to Virginia. From the west, pedestrians walking down
Cedar Lake Road toward Louisiana would not logically jog off of Cedar
Lake Road for a couple of blocks just to jog back again. From the north, then, that would
seem to leave residents who are either directly north of Sumter or pedestrians coming from
the northeast on Cedar Lake Road from Louisiana as the potential beneficiaries from the
north. The residents directly north do not have sidewalks, so it is unclear how addition of this
sidewalk segment would be of benefit from a connection point of view, and there is existing
sidewalk on Cedar Lake Road all the way from Louisiana to Virginia, as previously
described.
The proposed segment seems unnecessary, whether coming from the north or the south. To
my knowledge, other than on Texas, Virginia, and Cedar Lake Road, there is no other
sidewalk in Willow Park neighborhood. If the purpose of running a new sidewalk through the
southeast section of the neighborhood would be to move pedestrians off of Cedar Lake Road,
it would seems more logical to start the segment on Quebec, since that would result in a
longer non-Cedar Lake Road route.4
4 In light of the Pennsylvania segment proposed for 2016 north of Cedar Lake Road, a
Quebec segment seems even more logical, since the roads are nearly aligned. Another
alternate for a longer non-Cedar Lake Road route would be to extend the existing sidewalk
south on Nevada to intersect with the trail, though this would involve railroad right of way,
which may be problematic. In any case, there is already access to the trail via Louisiana,
which can be used to reach Virginia bypassing the entire section of Cedar Lake Road at issue
in this letter. See footnote 3.
To reiterate, though, from the discussions above, in my experience, all of the roads in our
area of Willow Park neighborhood that do not currently have sidewalks are quite pedestrian
friendly because of the very low volume of vehicle traffic. My family walks frequently along
Cedar Lake Road in both directions; we have not found the level of traffic to be unpleasant.
For the portion that we do walk through the neighborhood, we have no more concern for our
safety when walking on the side of the road than we would in walking through a cul-de-sac.
Recommendations and Requests
Based on the information above, I recommend that the city:
Delete the proposed segment on the north sides of 26th and 25th Streets between Virginia
and Sumter, and on the west side of Sumter, between Cedar Lake Road and 25th Street.
If the segment is not deleted,
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 110
Page99 o Conduct a traffic study to determine whether the addition of a sidewalk is justifiable based
on any safety concerns.
o Consider running the segment along Quebec and 26th Street, between Cedar Lake Road
and Virginia as a logical alternative to the proposed location.
In addition, I respectfully request that the city:
Provide me with a written response that addresses my concerns about the impact of the
proposed segment on my family’s particular lot.
Provide me, consistent with the Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13,
copies of all public input received by the City of St. Louis Park related to this proposed
segment (whether submitted in writing or as documented by city staff).
Provide me with a rough estimate of the cost (at today’s rate) of installing the propose
segment.
Thank you for your letter of November 19th and the informational meetings. I look
forward to hearing from you with regard to my requests. Please continue to notify me of
any future meetings and actions related to the Connect the Park initiative. If you have any
questions about this information or my requests, please feel free to contact me at 651-
214-8343 or at the addresses listed above. Sincerely,
● Thank you for the prompt response and the website link with the estimated construction
costs. I look forward to receiving copies of whatever public comments have been received
about this proposed segment thus far. If the city's designated data practices compliance
official will be responsible for responding to my request for information under the Minnesota
Data Practices Act, please let me know who that person is. Thanks,
●
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 111
Page100 ●
●
● We just received the letter regarding proposed sidewalks on the north side of 26th and 25th
streets between Virginia and Sumter, and on Sumter.
Please find a better use for our tax money. There is currently pedestrian, bike and auto traffic
on these streets, and no usage issues that I’m aware of. We don’t need the added hassles of
construction, maintenance and expense of sidewalks.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 112
Page101 I couldn’t think of a more wasteful use of funds….. Nobody would use the sidewalks if they
were there; bikes are supposed to be on the street, and pedestrian traffic is not great enough to
warrant them. We’d have vacant “Sidewalks to Nowhere.” Thanks for listening,
● 25th St. W.: 1)There are 13 trees on North side which are less than 10' from curb. 2) 25th St.
W. is 2 blocks long with no street light - dark. 3) Walkers don't use 25th St. W. 4) Bikers
don't use 25th St. W. 5) Liability 6) To go to Jr. High use Virginia to Cedar Lake Rd. then
Texas - they wouldn't take 25th St. W. to Sumter to Cedar Lake Rd. (they would be back-
tracking) - Cedar Lake Rd. has sidewalks and lights. 7) Has any "Use Study" been done?
● 25th St. W: 1) Would be waste of money to put in sidewalk. 2) All driveways are on a slope - if
sidewalk is put in, 1st panel of driveways would have to be replaced.
Ward 4 – Cedar Lake Rd. – Pro’s
● As a resident of Cedar Lake Rd. & Brunswick, the bridge to Dakota Park is important to my
family for two reasons. Walking dog and high schoolers riding bike to school would be a
plus for us. Thank you for your consideration. I will keep track on the website for further
developments.
● We have received the letter showing the proposed sidewalks on our street (W. 25th St.
between Sumter and Virginia). We cannot tell from the map legend whether the sidewalk
would be built in 2014, 2022, or 2023 because the green lines are indistinguishable on our
printed copy. Also, we assume that the description in the letter should read "on the west side
of Sumter Ave. S. between Cedar Lake Road and 25th," not "35th."
Can you clarify what the construction year would be? I cannot find a similar map on the St.
Louis Park web site. Are residents assessed for the cost of the sidewalk?
Although we are in favor of more sidewalks and trails, we question the choice of adding a
sidewalk on W. 25th St. We feel that it would be much more important to complete
sidewalks onboth sides of Cedar Lake Rd. all the way from the West End shopping area to
Highway 169. Currently, W. 25th St. is a very quiet street with absolutely no through
traffic. The only traffic we see is from people who actually live on the street, where there are
only about ten houses on each side. Whether in a car, on a bicycle, or on foot, people who
want to get from the intersection of Cedar Lake Rd. and Sumter to Virginia - and from there
to connect to the regional trail system - will take Cedar Lake Rd. Although there is a
sidewalk on the north side of Cedar Lake Rd., the safest place to cross from north to south is
at the light at Texas, but then there are no sidewalks on the south side. It is true that there is a
marked crosswalk at Sumter, but cars simply do not stop at the marked crosswalk. We
frequently walk from our house to the shops at Cedar Lake Rd. and Louisiana, and we have
observed the situation closely. If we were to try to cross during rush hour, it would be
extremely unsafe, if not impossible. Thank you for considering our comments.
● Thank you for sending the letter to our home about the proposed sidewalk on the south side
of Cedar Lake Road between Boone Av. S and Nevada Ave. S. My husband and I live at
2514 Aquila Ave S. While we support the project in general, we are curious about its affect
on our property. We were unable to make it to the open house.
Could you please tell me how much right-of-way the sidewalk will require? Will the
sidewalk be immediately adjacent to the curb or slightly setback, as it is on the north side of
Cedar Lake Road? I understand some trees/shrubbery will be affected throughout the
corridor, but am hoping a very large maple tree between our house and Cedar Lake Road
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 113
Page102 would be out of harm's way. I have not measured, but would guess that tree's trunk is at least
8-10 feet from the road. If trees are removed to make way for the sidewalk, will the city be
replacing them?
Also, will there be any individual assessments to properties along the sidewalk to pay for its
construction? I'm unaware of St. Louis Park's policy in this regard and would rather know
now than be surprised on the tax bill. Thank you, again, for the notice and for helping us
understand how this affects our home.
● I Provide Bikeway striping that crosses the bridge on Cedar Lake Road over Hwy 169.
Eastbound ride is very difficult during the 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. rush hour.
Ward 4 – Cedar Lake Rd. – Con’s
● I own the home at 2515 Aquila Ave. S. which is on the corner of Cedar Lake Rd and Aquila
Ave S. My home will be impacted as part of the Connect The Park initiative. I am against
adding a sidewalk to the south side of Cedar Lake Road. I do not see a need for an additional
sidewalk nor tearing out relatively large trees or my sprinkler system. I chose this property
because it didn't have a sidewalk and was relatively quiet. If the project goes through I will
look to sell my home and relocate to a quieter property. Regards,
● Thanks for sending out the flyer about this program.
While I generally support this program, I have a few concerns:
• I'm not sure if a bike pathway along Dakota Avenue will hinder automobile travel along
one of the few north-south routes in the Park. I'm also concerned that, with one-car
garages and limited driveway areas, a Dakota Avenue bike pathway will allow enough
street parking.
• Relative to the sidewalk designated along west Cedar Lake Road, I'm not sure if the City
is proposing adding a sidewalk on the south side of this street. If so, it's really not needed
and would not be a prudent of City funding. Also, please keep the following in mind
about turning left onto Cedar Lake from Pennsylvania or Oregon Avenues. Turning
left is very treacherous because it's nearly impossible to see cars or bikes coming east on
Cedar Lake Road.
Thanks for your understanding. Let me know if you have any questions about my concerns
● We live on Cedar Lake Rd. at 9315. We want more information about the proposed Bikeway
on Cedar Lake Rd. between Hwy. 169 and Louisiana - specifically which side of the road is
it proposed and how would it affect parking. If a bikeway is built along this corridor, which
will encourage more traffic, what will be done about the speed limit and the current speeding
that happens right now.
Ward 4 – Edgewood Ave. – Pro’s
● Sorry I missed the trail meeting. Sharon recommended that we contact you with any
suggestions.
As a frequent bike rider, I would appreciate a grade-level crossing on either side of Highway
100 between the Cedar Lake trail and the path along Cedar Lake Road. Currently too many
people trespass across the BNSF tracks, which is not only dangerous, but also damages the
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 114
Page103 vegetation, paved trail borders, and rail-bed. Although not as safe as a bridge, there are many
roads where cars cross rail-tracks; a well-marked trail with warning signs would be safer than
the current situation. I have used the north frontage road bridge on occasion, but that gets
pretty scary when there is any traffic. The pedestrian bridge connecting the Cedar Lake
Roads adds a lot of travel time if you are walking from Benilde to West End.
I really appreciate the bike trails in SLP and Minneapolis; I use them almost every day.
Thanks for keeping them so well-maintained.
● Thank you for the mailing that went out earlier in October outining future city projects.
I wasn't able to see from the map whether it is on the agenda, but I would support building a
bridge or some sort of crossing to enable our children to walk or bike to school at Peter
Hobart Elementary from the neighborhood south of Cedar Lake Rd. and just north of Peter
Hobart across the railroad tracks.
It is also a MAJOR hassle to try to get onto the Luce Line from our area. We live near the
intersection of Kentucky Ave. S. and Cedar Lake Rd., and in order to access the Luce Line
with our bikes, we have to ride over to Louisiana first, then south to the post office, then east
and north back into the neighborhood to the Luce Line access point near 26th and Georgia or
through the school's ball field.
● My family just bought a house in St Louis Park. I've been reading about the 10 year plan on
sidewalks, bikeways and trails and am excited to see those improvements.
I had a couple quick questions on the plan. I could not figure out when the proposed bridges
are to be put in place. Specifically, when is the bridge over the rail tracks at Edgewood Ave
(Dakota Park/Peter Hobart) planned for completion? Also, when will the bridges on either
side of Hwy 100 at Cedar Lake Road go in?
Lastly, I couldn't find any details for public meetings on the initiative for this fall. Do you
know where I can find out that? Thank you in advance for your answers. Sincerely,
Ward 4 – Edgewood Ave. – Con’s
● Spoke today with SLP Transportation (has bus stg. Facility on Edgewood). Has strong
concerns with regards to safety (ped and bike usage) going through an industrial area.
Ward 4 – Flag Ave. – Pro’s
● None
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 115
Page104 Ward 4 – Flag Ave. – Con’s
●
Ward 4 – Hillsboro – Pro’s
● I am commenting on the sidewalk that is being proposed on the west side of Hillsboro
Avenue S. between 14th St. and 18th St.
I live at 1600 Hillsboro, on the corner of 16th and Hillsboro. Motivated by a desire to
beautify the neighborhood and to address the matter of rainwater runoff, my family and I
decided to install a rain garden after I attended a workshop by Metroblooms at the Rec
Center.
Many neighbors have commented positively on the garden, which is positioned on a built up
berm and can be viewed from both 16th and Hillsboro. I'm hoping there is some way this
garden may be preserved in the face of the sidewalk project. Sincerely,
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 116
Page105 Ward 4 – Hillsboro – Con’s
●
● Expressed displeasure of proposed sidewalk on Hillsboro (loss of trees)
● I live on 1600 Hillsboro ave. So. We have 60 year oldl boulevard streets on both sides of our
street. There is a beautiful canopy going south on Hillsboro on both 16th and 18th St. It's
one reason we bought the home. The trees are right on the street. A sidewalk would have to
go into the yard. The roots would then destroy the sidewalks. There is a beautiful retaining
wall two houses south of us that would be destroyed. Look at the street. It doesn't need a
sidewalk. There is more than enough room for everyone.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 117
Page106 Ward 4 – Louisiana Ave. – Pro’s
● None
Ward 4 – Louisiana Ave. – Con’s
●
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 118
Page107 ●
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 119
Page108 ●
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 120
Page109 ● We are concerned about the proposal to add a sidewalk in front of our home on Lousiana
Ave S.
There is no street parking near us on Louisiana, so the only parking we have is in our
driveway in front of our home. If you add a sidewalk there, you will cut our parking capacity
in half. This would be a hardship for us, as we would have to park one car on the street every
day.
We also think that limiting our parking in this way may decrease the resale potential of our
home, because, when we bought our home, the abitility to park multiple cars in the driveway
was very important to us.
Many of our neighbors also park multiple cars in their driveways, so I believe this sidewalk
would negatively affect them as well.
There is already a sidewalk across the street from us, so I don't feel that one is needed on our
side of the street.
Please acknowledge receipt of our concerns. Thank you.
● I am writing you as a follow up to a letter we received on November 19, 2012 under the
subject of the “Connect the Park” initiative proposal.
I understand the nature of the initiative is a 10 year “improvement project, but the letter
submitted really does not give sufficient detail on the project. I am in favor of neighborhood
improvements as we should see some value for the tax dollars paid, but also do not see any
reference to the funding of the proposed improvements.
I live on the East side of Louisiana and do have concerns about putting in a sidewalk on that
side. The map on the rear of the November 19th letter was not legible enough even when
enlarged to allow an understanding of when various areas are proposed for the changes.
Some of my basic concerns with limited information are noted below.
• As I drive down from Wayzata to Cedar Lake, I see a large number of trees that will
need to be removed.
• I see based on the slope and configuration of many of the lots, there will be the
additional costs of building some sort of retaining walls to allow for a level side walk
and not disturb the contour of the lot.
• I have questions on what this will do to property valuations, lot sizes, and easement
rights based on the addition of the construction.
• What are the estimates of the costs, and who will bear those costs.
I think that this is a discussion with concerns that are not unique to myself.
I can be reached at the phone number or e-mail below. Respectfully,
● I reside at 2005 Louisiana Ave S and received your letter to the property owners and want to
thank you for keeping us informed, especially us new folks. What do the sidewalks mean for
the city and whats the staff's take on the sidewalks? My initial feeling is that a sidewalk is not
needed on the East side. The walk on the West side is not used that much.Outside of a few
idiots who will always use the street vs sidewalk, the vast majority use the West side for
walking, biking, running, skipping, skateboarding, or what have you. I would suggest if
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 121
Page110 something needs to be done, replace the one on the West side as it is uneven and heaving in
some places.
What effect would these proposed sidewalks mean to property taxes? Special assessment?
● Regarding the sidewalk proposed on the east side of Louisiana Ave. S. between
Wayzata Blvd. and Cedar Lake Road.
As the property owner of 2045 Louisiana Ave. S., for the past 25 years, I am concerned about
the access and value of my property by the proposed sidewalk. Let me
explain. My property line along Louisiana Ave is steep now. Where it meets Louisiana
Avenue, there is no space for a sidewalk. The grade of my driveway is now about as steep as
it can be, to allow safe entry and exit to Louisiana Ave.
It is hard for me to see how this project, could and would, work out on my property, without
major reconstruction and property loss. While I understand the city, wanting to improve the
neighborhoods, I am not in favor of this sidewalk proposal.
Are there any other possible solutions?
There is now a sidewalk on the west side of Louisiana Ave. It is used, but because Louisiana
is a very busy street at times, it is hard to cross against the traffic.
Maybe add a signal controlled crossing at a location or two along this route?
Move the sidewalk route over, a block or so east of Louisiana? Further to walk, but safer, lot
less traffic?
Just ideas from what I see... No easy solutions, this is a old neighborhood, I don't think in it's
day they ever thought about sidewalks, when they layed this all out.
Thank-you for reading through my concerns, comments and notes. Please keep me posted as
updates to this proposal become available. Sincerely,
● After attending the meeting on October 30th regarding proposed sidewalks, bikeways and
trails my wife Barbara and myself go on record as strongly opposed to sidewalks proposed
for the east side of Louisiana Avenue north of Cedar Lake Road. Granted the idea may have
come out of the Visions of St. Louis Park process some years ago and may only address the
wish list of a few in a City of 44,000. I can assure you that a great majority of my immediate
neighbors are also opposed to the sidewalk.
Going back to the early 1990's we along with our neighbors were on the task force that
helped redesign Louisiana Avenue and as part of that process to get a new roadway as narrow
as we could we gave up virtually all on-street parking and accepted sidewalks only on the
west side. This was to accommodate those walking to the Transit Station up at 394. Even
then sidewalks were not endorsed.
I believe a better approach to the subject would have been attained by surveying the residents
in each neighborhood to see how receptive they would be to these or any proposed features
being installed in the first place. Folks have a hard time with City officials telling them they
need something they don't want.
Granted in our case the City will maintain the sidewalk when it comes to snow
removal. Well, I have seen that effort on the west side of Louisiana Avenue and it is not
pretty. It is so bad folks will walk in the street because it is never cleaned properly or
timely. The plows go up and down Louisiana quite often and even if the sidewalk was just
cleared, 10 minutes latter the plow fills it back in again. And by the way who clears the
residue left in our driveways after the sidewalk plow goes by? Many of us are reaching our
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 122
Page111 golden years and this just creates another burden on us. Believe us, we have seen it all in the
40 years we have resided on this block of Louisianan Avenue.
I do have areas of the City where I think the time, money and effort would be better
spent. All you need to do is ask me. And just to review our concerns on the subject....we are
strongly opposed to sidewalks on the east side of Louisiana Avenue.
● Attached communication in relation to "Connect the Park" initiative.
Ward 4 – Additional Requests – Pro’s
● A trail bridge at Edgewood to Peter Hobart would be great. Thank You.
● I am curious if there will be some attempt as part of "Connect the Park" to allow easier, safer
access to the West End by bike and pedestrian traffic.
We live in the Fern Hill neighborhood and our children would like very much to be able to
bike there for movies, food, shopping, etc. However, we have not figured out a safe route for
them to do so. The railroad tracks are also a hindrance (although they can be gotten over by
the JCC bridge).
We would like to support our local businesses and offering safer options for biker and
walkers to get to the West End and nearby businesses seems like an important step.
I have a conflict on Tuesday 10/9 which will make it difficult for me to get to the
informational meeting, but wanted to provide some input.
● Hello, I live in the Kilmer Pond Neighborhood. I noticed that our neighborhood was
overlooked for sidewalks and/or bike paths. I would just like to request that sidewalks are
considered for Ford Road (maybe in cooperation with the City of Minnetonka, since the road is
shared by both cities) and 16th St. These are two very busy roads that carry both a large quantity of
vehicle traffic and pedestrian traffic. I know that several studies have been done by the city verifying
the amount of traffic. Thank you for considering sidewalks on these busy roads.
● We live in Ward 4 and there was no meeting for connect the park. Why? I see on the map that there
is a proposed sidewalk going in front of my house in 2016 - I live at 1811 Pennsylvania Avenue
S. How is this going to affect my taxes? Boulevard trees? Also, why are they planning on putting in
a sidewalk when there is one across the street from my house? Thank you for your time.
● I noticed in the park map/plan that I received in the mail today that there isn’t a sidewalk planned for
the east side of 169 frontage road on the south side of Cedar Lake Road. Our neighborhood on 28th
Street which is a dead end and the only way in and out of the neighborhood is to walk on the freeway
entrance & exit on Jordan Ave. This is unsafe and unacceptable. It is frightening to walk out of our
neighborhood on the street while cars are exiting and entering the freeway. It is even worse as the
winter gets closer and we have to do it in the dark. Our neighbors on the west side of 169 in
Minnetonka are getting a sidewalk built on their block. Thanks for adding this to the plan.
● I did not attend the November 1 meeting regarding "Connect the Park" as it relates to my
neighborhood - Lake Forest. I appreciate being informed of such a meeting, however, priorities
prevent many of us from attending all meetings.
Lake Forest residents want to be involved in the neighborhood. In 2011, there were more residents
from Lake Forest at the "Comprehensive Plan" meetings than any other neighborhood. So I think one
could infer that Lake Forest residents are interested in the neighborhood.
For me, if I understand that my opinions will have an impact, then maybe I'll attend a meeting
(although in this case, I had other priorities).
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 123
Page112 For over 30 years we have requested a sidewalk around the curve at Cedarwood Road and Parklands
Road. At the 2011 Comprehensive Plan meeting, it ranked right up there with the request to have an
acceleration lane, or other possible methods, to improve access to the Highway 100 East frontage
road going north from Parkwoods Road. However, a sidewalk again is not mentioned anywhere in the
city's sidewalk plan.
Scott, my request is to have a sidewalk around the curve at Cedarwood Road and Parklands Road as
soon as possible. I think this request is consistent with other residents in the neighborhood. Thanks
Ward 4 – Additional Requests – Con’s
● As per the discussion on Oct 30th Ward #4 meeting, this message is in response to the St
Louis Park Connect the Park sidewalk initiative.
My family and I happen to live on Westmoreland Lane, but there were also members from
other streets, which included but not limited to Pennsylvania and Texas. I did not hear 1
person speak in favor of the plan presented at the above referenced meeting. I wanted to
make sure that you had note of my opposition to this project before spending any money on
the design phase. Further, I find it frustrating that we have lived on Westmoreland for 16
years and this proposal to add sidewalks came up about 10 years ago, and we were not in
favor of it then either. Below find the list of reasons as to why I am not in favor of this
project.
1. My Number 1 reason is: the total Conservative Cost of the 10 year project is
$25,409,800.00. This amount does “not account for inflation, engineering, contingencies,
right-of-way acquisition, and other unknown project costs. Public Works feels these
factors will significantly add to the cost shown and project the total cost to build
improvements proposed in the $18 - $25 million dollar range.
2. There is no Budget set aside for this “vision”. “The recommended source for the capital
costs would be the issuance of GO Bonds.” The last thing we should do is to go into debt
for something that the neighborhood did not want 10 years ago, nor do we want it now.
3. Further to present day construction costs is the additional estimated $34,000.00
maintenance costs that would be supported by the General Fund. This is an annual
expense that will only increase.
4. I also believe that the above referenced maintenance cost does not include, replacement
due to tree upheaval, and increased liability insurance for injuries that could occur on the
city property.
5. On Westmoreland Lane, we are currently replacing sewer lines at least 2 per year, this
will add an extra financial burden to the homeowner.
6. There is no safety reason for the sidewalks, at least on Westmoreland, as the street is
more than wide enough for people to walk safely in the street. Further, I was shocked that
the 10 year plan includes adding sidewalk to streets that already have a sidewalk on the
other side of the street? Why would we go into debt and plan on maintenance expense for
the addition of sidewalk on a street that already has a sidewalk on the other side?
7. The kids on Westmoreland are bused to the Middle School, therefore, walking to school
does not present a safety issue.
8. In the Westmoreland specific neighborhood, there is a complete lack of population
density that would require or use the sidewalks as we are surrounded by the Westwood
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 124
Page113 Hills Nature Center and the Minneapolis Golf Course. This is not a high traffic pedestrian
and street use area.
9. There is not sufficient volume of traffic so as to require additional sidewalk to the other
side of Texas that runs along the golf course. There is no point in creating duplicate city
sidewalk cost and maintenance in either of these locations (#8 & #9).
10. We were told at the Oct 30th meeting, that the optimal design would be a 6’ wide
sidewalk, and a 0’ to 7’ boulevard. This would cut 6’ – 13’ into the homeowners yard,
driveway, possible trees, and mailbox gardens. There was no one at the meeting that was
in favor of any of this design.
11. Further to the design issue, the winter snow will be plowed up onto the sidewalk. It is all
that I can do to manage the end of my driveway, I have no desire to add a sidewalk to my
list of chores. Nor do I want my 75year old mother or our older neighbors to attempt to
keep the walk clear. If they don’t do it for themselves, then the snow removal companies
will increase their fees to do it for them. Again, more money being spent on something
that we do not want.
12. The sidewalk would not lead anyone to anything. Westmoreland and 14th lead to a
frontage road that does not contain anything. There is no park and ride at the end of the
trail, there is nothing. Therefore, it seems like the design is for a sidewalk to nowhere.
13. As far as the Bike Paths, little time was spent on what that “vision” would look like at
the Oct 30th meeting. I am not in favor of a dedicated Bike Path on our street, as I doubt
that most people would use it. Again the street is wide enough to accommodate the car
traffic and the occasional biker. Further, I do not appreciate parking being restricted to
one side of the street. I feel we have plenty of beautiful bike paths in St Louis Park.
14. Last, my favorite quote from the Oct 30th meeting was “the sidewalk proposal seems to
be a solution looking for a problem.”
My final thought, is that I am in favor of the walk/bike bridge over the railroad tracks down
by Cedar Lake Road and Highway 100. I see people carrying their bikes over the tracks and
that is dangerous. However in looking at the Bike Map Plan, it does not look like you plan to
put the bridge there. Therefore, I would have approved a bridge, if it was located near that
area, and it was a ramp style so that people could walk or ride their bikes over the railroad
tracks safely. Kind regards,
● I am sending this email in response to the Ward 4 meeting on 10/30/12 regarding proposed
sidewalks and bike paths in our ward. Although no straw vote was taken at this very well-
attended meeting, it was very clear that there was an overwhelming negative reaction toward
the sidewalk proposal. In fact, I did not hear a single positive statement regarding sidewalks.
The reaction to the bike paths could be considered lukewarm, in part due to the absence of
clarity as to what design would be adopted for these bike “paths,” “lanes,” or “trails. For
example, would such bike paths be “dedicated” paths for bike use only? Would there be
street parking in front of private homes at the site of these bike paths?
My husband and I live on Westmoreland Lane, but, those in attendance were from many
other streets as well, including, but not limited to, Texas and Pennsylvania Avenues. It was
very clear from the onset that the residents of these many streets share similar concerns and
issues regarding the proposed sidewalks.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 125
Page114 Many of the concerns expressed at the meeting are listed below in no special order. I will
focus primarily on the issue of sidewalks as opposed to bike paths but many of the stated
concerns apply to both.
1. The sidewalk proposal seems to be “a solution looking for a problem.”
2. Not only are the sidewalks not needed and not wanted, in some cases they make no sense
whatsoever, as “the sidewalks lead to nowhere.”
3. Although special assessments to cover the cost of sidewalk installation are unlikely,
taxpayer dollars would most certainly be used to cover the cost. The prevailing view at
the meeting was that there are many more significant needs for taxpayer dollars.
4. Some of the proposed sidewalks would be maintained by the city, but, others, we were
told, would require shoveling by the homeowners. For many of the older homeowners in
St. Louis Park (or in the case of disabled homeowners), shoveling could be a dangerous
or difficult task. In such cases, the homeowner might assume the additional expense of
paying to have the sidewalk cleared of snow and ice.
5. For many homeowners, sidewalks installed in front of their homes would likely mean a
loss of trees, gardens and mail boxes.
6. There are liability issues related to sidewalks. An accident occurring on a homeowner’s
portion of a sidewalk can, in some cases, be the responsibility of the homeowner. One
resident said she already has called her insurance company about this issue and was told
that when assessing a homeowner’s premium, one of the factors is the existence of a
sidewalk.
7. Recently there have been several water line issues in St. Louis Park. A sidewalk would
only add to the affected homeowner’s cost of repairing these water leaks.
8. Sidewalks can detract from the beauty and “charm” of neighborhoods. In the case of
Westmoreland Lane, upgraded paths in the nature center might provide a better solution –
one which could potentially benefit all the residents of St. Louis Park.
The above represents a summary of concerns about which I, and apparently many others at
last week’s meeting, feel very strongly. No doubt there are other concerns as well. We hope
that these issues and concerns will be given due consideration and attention by the St. Louis
Park City Engineer and by the City Council. Thank you very much.
● Hi Scott, as long as you asked hers my thoughts. Stop spending money on everything not
essential to operations of the Park. We are over taxed and getting tired of it. If you can get
donations from people interested in these Sidewalks and Bike Paths more power to you. The
city and county have already screwed up Excelsior Blvd by installing Islands in the middle
where the Ambulances used to go the get injured people to the Hospital during rush hour and
traffic back ups. Also they extend into the intersection so west turns from the south are
difficult to stay in the left lane. Lets take a few years to stop spending and get our finances in
order, or lets use this money you intend to spend on aesthetics and pay our Police, Fire and
City Employees. I wonder how close to bankruptcy we are.
● I recently became aware of the “Connect the Park” program, and I wanted to take this
opportunity to provide my feedback and express my concerns. Attached is a brief letter
outlining my concerns.
I appreciate the intent of the City Council to improve the community, however, I believe this
program needs to be put on-hold pending further review and thorough vetting within the
community. Thank you for your continued support of SLP. I welcome your feedback.
● I hope it isn't too late to submit comments for the meeting tomorrow. I just finished looking
over the charts of proposed sidewalks and trails yesterday. Here are some ideas on what I
like and dislike.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 126
Page115 A coordinated citywide system of sidewalks may sound good in theory, but in reality I don't
think it would work.
It doesn't make sense to force a sidewalk on a neighborhood which is opposed to it and will
never use it. Then, if it is a neighborhood sidewalk, the residents end up shoveling a sidewalk
they never wanted in the first place. I came to the Ward 4 meeting in favor of more sidewalks
and left more neutral after hearing some of the comments from other residents. Sidewalks are
good on the major roads like 36th Street, Texas, Minnetonka and Cedar Lake which have
major bus route. It allows people a safe way to get the the bus. On roads with little traffic, I
am not sure if it is worth the expense of installing sidewalk just for the sake of a coordinated
system. Then, the city would also have the continuing expense of plowing it out in the winter.
Most of the bikeway proposals sound good. If bike lanes are put in on some roads, it will
mean elimination of on-street parking. This will probably create hostility from the affected
residents.
One of the biggest bottlenecks for bicyclists is Cedar Lake Road between Virginia and 1/2
block east of Texas. The shoulder is fairly wide east and west of this stretch of road. Then the
shoulder suddenly disappears without any warning. Bicyclists who aren't paying attention
find themselves in the traffic lane. I usually ride this around 6:30 to 7 am when traffic is light,
so it doesn't affect me much.
A sidewalk for pedestrians on this stretch of Cedar Lake Road on the south side makes sense
to connect up with the existing sidewalk to 28th Street. The only alternative now is walking
on lawns until reaching Virginia. Going west on the north sidewalk of Cedar Lake Road, one
can cross at the light at Texas and then must walk in the traffic lane to reach Virginia. On a
dark, snowy winter evening, this is very dangerous. Some drivers are not watching for
pedestrians even if they have flashlights and reflective clothing.
I like the bridge idea connecting Dakota Park to the north side of the city. This would provide
a much needed northbound trail exit from the Cedar Lake Trail. Currently, there is no way to
get north of the tracks from Virginia to the Jewish Community Center. Louisiana is a
possiblity for getting between the north and south sides of Saint Louis Park. In rush hour, this
is only for the very brave or foolhardy. I have seen a number of people cutting the fence or
climbing over the fence in this area to get across the railroad tracks. There seems to be
demand for a way to cross that people would go to to such extremes. It is hazardous on dark
mornings to have people suddenly appear on the trail after an illegal crossing of the tracks
coming out of nowhere.
France south of Franklin has good shoulders and is fine for bicycling. North of here, the
should narrows significantly. Part of this stretch has a permeable pavement trail. This may
work for pedestrians but is too rough and crumbly to be good for bicycling. Bike lanes on
both sides of the street would require cooperation with Minneapolis on the east side of the
street.
I like the idea of a trail connecting Twin Lakes Park to Westridge Lane to improve access.
A bike lane on Ottawa from Minnetonka to CSAH 25 would be controversial, since it would
be necessary to eliminate on street parking. Unless a trail on the west side of Beltline were
built, a bike lane wouldn't be very useful. on Ottawa. With the amount of traffic on Beltline,
few would want to bicycle on this road. A trail along Beltline on the west side would be
useful to bicyclists who take the pedestrian/bicycle bridge across Highway 7 and want to go
south. Currently, they would have to make a hazardous crossing to the east side of Beltline to
access the trail there to get to 36th Street.
I live on 36th Street near the Supertarget but rarely use this road for bicycling. The constant
traffic in and out of Cub is too much hassle. When I head west on 36th, I take the sidewalk to
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 127
Page116 the 36th Street frontage Road to Aquila. If I need to go east, I take the bike trail to 34th and
ride east on this road. The traffic is much lighter. Even if there were bike lanes east of
Aquila, I'm not sure if I would use them due to the traffic from Cub and the shopping center.
Bicycling on Minnetonka Boulevard west of Vernon is fairly good especially since the
railroad bridge near Dakota was rebuilt eliminating a reduction in the shoulder. East of
Vernon, the road become four lane and not very hospitable for bicycling. If there were some
type of bike lane, I might consider bicycling east of Vernon. Now, I rarely consider it except
on weekends when traffic is lighter.
● I am writing to you in response to your flyer-“connect the park” I have lived in St. Louis Park
since 1951. My husband and I raised our three children here- owned my own business, and
created wonderful memories and friends. I really do not understand how you could suggest a
project like this wide range and expensive- Did you take a survey amongst the tax payers who
live in the city as to whether or not we want or need sidewalks? Is there concrete data of how
many accidents stemmed from not having a sidewalk? I raised three children, with out
incident, in my neighborhood. They were happily playing in the yards or on the street- What
concerns me about the sidewalks – we, as home owners, water, prune, and treat our trees as
though they were an addition to our family or as an investment! The trees have created charm
and intrigue in our neighborhoods- hence- the amazing turnover of the houses for sale- By
installing the sidewalks how many trees do we have to sacrifice? Living on a tree-lined street
being Brook Ave- I can share with you the sadness every time we would loose a tree to fight
off dutch elm disease-or lightening. Our street was stripped bare of the wonderful canopy of
trees along the route to W44th street ! Fortunately, we survived the loss of all of the trees-
hence- the real estate remains solid here. I fear that we will look like any other sub-division in
the city with all of the charm gone!!!! I guess the phrase “if it ain’t broken why fix it?” We
suffered through the bad idea for a sound wall that was installed for the hwy 100 project
which by no means, cut down the noise! How much more can we tolerate, tax wise,? If the
taxes continue to go up I am afraid I will be forced to sell my home – Leaving my
neighborhood is not the main reason that I wrote to you I feel protective of my space and it
will be really sad to see the neighborhood drastically changed Please consider this as a plea to
reconsider your plans. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 128
Page117 Ward 4 – Pennsylvania Ave. – Pro’s
● Resident at this address questions proposed sidewalk along Pennsylvania. Very supportive
of the City in general, and even the City-wide sidewalk and trail plan, but questions the value
of this particular walk
Ward 4 – Pennsylvania Ave. – Con’s
●
● Since the day I got your CONNECT THE PARK ! pamphlet describing your planned
construction projects, including the sidewalk proposal, I spent quite a bit of
time observing the Pennsylvania Ave between Cedar Lake Road and 22nd Street where I
live. I counted an average 20 (TWENTY) people walking Pennsylvania Ave per day (and
some of them were counted twice). The walkers were, overwhelmingly, residents of the
street or people passing through when walking their dogs.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 129
Page118
The stretch of Pennsylvania you are proposing to build the sidewalk on does not
lead anywhere; it is almost a cul de sac. There are almost no kids walking the street to the
middle school because Pennsylvania does not lead to the school (Quebec Ave.
does). Building the sidewalk on Pennsylvania makes absolutely no sense. Much of
Pennsylvania north of Franklin already has a sidewalk (which, by the way, almost no one
uses). There is also an asphalt path that runs, for the most part, parallel to Pennsylvania by
the lake and then to the Middle School. There are no shops on Wayzata that people could
walk to and no one walks from the Louisiana Transit Center for any distance on
Pennsylvania or elsewhere: overwhelmingly, people exit their bus at the shortest possible
distance from their homes and, therefore, there is minimal pedestrian traffic by the bus
commuters.
I do not see ANY possible benefits in outfitting Pennsylvania Ave with a sidewalk, not to
the people who live there, nor to the wider community which simply does not use the street at
all. Moreover, the entire area between the Middle School and Cedar Lake Road is quite
unstable, a large number of the houses are built on an old marsh, steps leading to houses
have to be periodically replaced or rebuilt, driveways are cracking, some foundations need
extensive repair. Every two or three years, I have to bring more top soil and put it around
some of my trees as the upper roots become more and more exposed. In short, any
sidewalk on Pennsylvania (or any other part of the neighborhood, for that matter) is bound
to start sagging, to become uneven, and require regular costly repairs and present the
residents and/or the city with a possible legal challenge in case of pedestrian accidents. I
recommend that you examine the sidewalk by the nursing facility between Pennsylvania and
Nevada on 22nd Street to see what building sidewalks on unstable terrain does: that
sidewalk has become completely tilted to one side.
May I remind you that for a couple of years I had to look from my window at a pole with a
solar panel. The panel is gone, as is the whole crackpot wireless project, and it is no time to
replace it by a costly sidewalk to nowhere that benefits nobody. For a change, let's not waste
money, much needed elsewhere, on a useless project. One of the lessons we are supposed to
teach our kids is to make rational economic decisions in the difficult times we are all going
through. Individuals as well as governments at every level must participate in making
rational economic decisions.
Last but not least there is the problem of trees. The city engineer conducting the meeting on
October 30 mentioned an effort will be done to determine where in St. Louis Park "sacred"
trees exist. Well, I might not have any sacred trees in front of my house, but I have two
beautiful spruces planted there by my parents twenty years ago shortly after we bough the
house. A 4-foot sidewalk could put in jeopardy one of them and a 6-foot sidewalk, both.
In case SLP suffers from an excess of money, there are a number of projects you should
consider. For example, install more street lights in the neighborhood because it is very
dark. Do a better job de-icing the existing sidewalks and pathways to permit people to walk
during the winter without a fear of breaking their legs. Improve deicing techniques to spare
our dogs' paws. Put shelters on the busier bus stops. Install additional garbage cans around
the lake by Pennsylvania to encourage dog owners to clean up after their dogs.
In summary, I strongly urge you to abandon the planned sidewalk expansion on Pennsylvania
Ave. as it is completely unnecessary and costly. I would also urge you to critically evaluate
the need to build any sidewalks in the area when it is very clear that, overwhelmingly, very
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 130
Page119 people actually need and will use such sidewalks. You should consider building sidewalks
when there is evidence that there are significant numbers of walkers in need of a
sidewalk. For now, you seem to be simply hoping that walkers will miraculously appear
after the sidewalks are put in place. I hope you can see that this kind of approach simply
makes no economic or, in fact, any sense. Please let me know if you have any questions. I
would also recommend that you convene a meeting with Ward 4 residents to see how little, if
any, support there is for your sidewalk project. Sincerely -
● I am a St. Louis Park resident of the 1600 block of Pennsylvania Ave and wanted to provide
a few comments regarding the proposed sidewalk project.
1. As a public health professional, I certainly support improving the walk-ability of a
neighborhood; however, Pennsylvania Ave is a very quiet street with sidewalks or the path
around Lamplighter Pond covering the walk-ability of nearly the entire neighborhood. It is
very rare that I see people walking on the street of the 1600 block of Pennsylvania, as they
are usually on the path around the pond or on the other sections of sidewalk.
2. The loss of boulevard trees to install the sidewalks would take away from the natural
beauty of the neighborhood.
3. We, as well as a few of our neighbors, have had to replace sections of our sewer lines in
the past few years. Our specific sewer line replacement required digging up the line all the
way to the street. What additional costs would we have incurred if we also had to replace a
section of the City's sidewalk? I assume this would be quite costly on top of an already
expensive cost we incurred for the sewer line replacement.
4. We already live on small lots in our neighborhood. Adding a sidewalk will diminish our
current green space.
● Below and attached is a photo of the 1800 block of Pennsylvania Avenue. The city is
proposing a sidewalk being built on the East side of the street. I am very against this
idea. As you can see in the photo there is already a nice sidewalk across the street on the
west side. My other concern is that you will have to cut all of the trees down on the east side
and then there will be no boulevard trees on that block on either side of the street. I think this
is a boonedoggle and I cannot see why or how the city would want to spend money on
this. We have more needs than a sidewalk on our 1800 block of Pennsylvania. Thank you
and please take this into consideration.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 131
• I am writing to express my concern for the proposed sidewalk for the west side of
Pennsylvania Ave, south of 31st street. I have lived here since 1991 and have not had any
incident to warrant the need for a sidewalk. The residents on the block all have driveways so
there is limited on-street parking that would cause visibility or special issues. I have never
been hindered by pedestrians on the street in my attempt to get to or from my residence. I
understand that public safety is a prime concern and one would think that a sidewalk would
provide that safety barrier. I am convinced that the pedestrian traffic would still utilize the
Page 120 Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 132
Page121 street as the primary path used as it is a dead end and there is not heavy, fast moving
traffic. With the street leading directly into the park path, we often see large groups, bikes,
strollers and many other modes of transportation going by.
the pedestrian traffic feels safe using the street as their path to the park, and would continue
to do so with or without a sidewalk, making the addition of a sidewalk a poor choice for
these public funds.
I know there are other high pedestrian use streets that have a high speed/high volume traffic
pattern that would be more ideally suited for this expenditure. For example, Rhode Island
from 31st south past Oak Hill Park is a prime example as the traffic volume is heavy and the
hills and street lights do not provide ample visibility for other automobiles, let alone
pedestrian traffic.
Thank you for notification and invitation to respond to this proposal. Please continue to
provide feedback as this process progresses.
● I appreciate you taking the time to read my letter. As a homeowner and block captain living
between 16th Street and 18th Street on Pennsylvania Avenue S, I do not see the reason for
adding more sidewalk access to the neighborhood. This is also the consensus of everyone I
have spoken to on our block. There is already a walking path that runs around Lamplighter
Pond that is connected to the current sidewalk. I understand the reasoning behind making
access easier for most people, but there is absolutely no need for the overkill. I am sure most
people would rather keep their trees along the street than to lose them to just add another
sidewalk. Plus, I can think of a myriad of different ways to spend the money in our
neighborhood. I hope that you will give consideration to my opinion. Have a wonderful day
and feel free to contact me with any questions.
● I have a concern about the proposed sidewalk changes for the "Connect the Park" plan,
specifically regarding Pennsylvania Avenue, between 16th St. and Franklin. The
neighborhood would lose a vast majority of its trees if sidewalks were installed on the East
side. Also, a lovely path already exists on the West side -- the walkway that follows
Lamplighter Pond. Shouldn't this be considered part of "connecting the park?"
I support the idea of increased accessibility, but new sidewalks seem redundant in this case,
and I ask that these blocks remain unchanged. Thank you for your consideration.
● As I stated during the meeting I see absolutely no need for the sidewalk building frenzy.
Nor do my neighbors from Pennsylvania Ave.
The slogan CONNECT THE PARK is as catchy as it is meaningless. Saint Louis Park is an
older hood - all the connections needed are already here.
We are not talking about one of the many communities build ten years ago in the middle of
pastures.
Didn't we have an equally catchy slogan while installing the solar panels here and there ?
For a WIFI system that never took off? I saw one of the panels glancing through my living
window.
The panel is gone, I will be looking not - if you have your way - at a sidewalk going from
nowhere to nowhere..
I remember the discussion about building a bridge to nowhere in Alaska .. Due to the public
outcry the bridge was never build... Perhaps part of your sidewalk vision should be
reconsidered as well ..
As it should be perhaps time to re-realize that we spend money we do not have .,. That we are
in recession .. That at every level - federal, state, county the deficit is getting deeper in large
part due to reckless spending of public money by public officials ..
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 133
Page122 At the time where we all - and certainly the private sector employees - will have to do more
with less..
Lets be therefore sure that the MORE is more of what people need indeed ...
There is a giant cotton tree growing on Pennsylvania Ave (one block North of Cedar lake
Road) ....Its branches are hanging quite dangerously over the street.
A couple of month ago one fell some fifty yards in front of my car ..I called the City Hall
letting them know about the danger. Nobody paid attention. Please have a city inspector look
at the tree ..The branches hanging over the house were neatly cut. The branches hanging over
the street are just hanging there ..And half of them are already broken and went do .. right on
the street below,, Under the weight of the snow and ice..Taking care of the giant tree will
cost a small fraction of a fraction of building a sidewalk ..And may actually save lives ..
● I really appreciated you returning my call today. As I told you, I grew up in St. Louis Park
and moved back to raise my children. It is a wonderful place to live. There is a strong sense
of community. I was very excited when I saw the map that went out with all of the planned
projects and improvements. I am a walker and very much appreciate all of the sidewalks on
the main streets. It was brought to my attention by a neighbor that there are plans to put
sidewalks on Pennsylvania. I feel that these are unnecessary and that the money could be
spent better in other areas.
● This letter is in response to your letter about the addition of a sidewalk on the west side of
Pennsylvania Avenue South.
I am opposing this.
I have lived at this address for the past 20 years, it is a beautiful street that dead ends.
The vast majority of the traffic is from the home owners.
1. People walk in the street because it is safe, a dead end street limits both the quantity and
the speed of vehicle traffic.
2. The cost of putting in a sidewalk could be better used in the areas of personnel:
firefighters, police, and their equipment.
3. People have always had the option of walking on the grass and yet no one does, they all
walk in the street. Adding a sidewalk will not change their habits.
4. Children play ball in the street because the parents and he children feel that it is safe.
● Thank you for the information at the meeting the other night. I spoke at the meeting and
voiced my opinion about a sidewalk on the east side of Pennsylvania Avenue. I live on the
1800 block of Pennsylvania (1811 to be exact) and can see a sidewalk from my front
window. The sidewalk is across the street and goes around the pond (Lamplighter
Pond/Lake). I feel the foot traffic is on that side of the street and not on mine. Please take
this into consideration when making final decisions. I DO NOT WANT A SIDEWALK
going through my yard!!!! My yard is small enough and I also don't want to lose my
boulevard tree, or the other trees on the street.
●
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 134
Page123
Ward 4 – Texas Ave. – Pro’s
● My wife, Rachael, and I received your letter regarding the potential for a sidewalk to be
added to the properties on the left west side of Texas Av S. We live at 1650 Texas Av S. Our
property is significantly elevated from street level, and we have a large tree in the vicinity of
where I suspect a sidewalk would be built.
We’re very concerned, and would like more information on a proposed plan for adding a
sidewalk into our steeply sloped front yard without harming our tree or significantly cutting
into our hill.
Ward 4 – Texas Ave. – Con’s
● Ward 4 called today to express some objections he had on the sidewalk/bike plan presented
tonight. He said he shared his thoughts with staff tonight but had a question that I could not
answer. Namely, on Texas Ave it's currently configured for one lane of parking and two
lanes of traffic. Can we have a lane of parking, two lanes of traffic, and a bike lane in the
current footprint of Texas by narrowing lanes down or would we widen Texas to
accommodate the changes suggested?
● We live on the West side of Texas Avenue. We do not support putting a sidewalk in. There
is already a sidewalk on the East side. When we bought our house, the previous owner made
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 135
Page124 us aware of the fact that when Texas was widened, a larger portion of the West properties
were taken. They were told that additional "changes" to Texas would be taken on East side
only. The City has large retaining walls on our property now and there is no room or flat
space to accommodate a new sidewalk.
●
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 136
Page125 ●
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 137
Page126 ●
● My wife, Rachael, and I received your letter regarding the potential for a sidewalk to be
added to the properties on the left west side of Texas Av S. We live at 1650 Texas Av S. Our
property is significantly elevated from street level, and we have a large tree in the vicinity of
where I suspect a sidewalk would be built.
We’re very concerned, and would like more information on a proposed plan for adding a
sidewalk into our steeply sloped front yard without harming our tree or significantly cutting
into our hill.
● We have lived next door to the Ericksons at 1340 Texas Avenue South for 16 years. I’m
hoping they don’t mind me “piggy-backing” off their email, since I support their view on the
sidewalk proposal on the west side of Texas Avenue.
My husband and I would like to add our opinion as parents of one of the only school-aged
children that live on the west side of Texas all the way down to Cedar Lake Road. We have
thought about this extensively over the years since our son does have to walk down to the
Middle School. We believe that putting a sidewalk on the west side would actually put
students in more danger. Right now all students coming from the Westwood Hills area
come out of two “feeder” (for lack of a better word) side streets – Franklin and Westwood
Hills Drive. Both of these streets are a safe distance from the bus and car drop off locations
at the Middle School. If you haven’t witnessed a drop off/pick up – I suggest that you do. It
is very busy and I’m surprised there are not more accidents. Cars pulling out in front of
traffic, congestion, etc. I see it every day. Do you really want students trying to cross Texas
any closer than they are now? The cars pulling in/out are looking for other cars, not for
students. Winter would be even worse with snow piles impeding views. All of the students
will continue to cross at those side streets since their parents are going to direct them to do so
because of the safety issue.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 138
Page127 We also have concerns along with the Ericksons - Do we want to lose the trees that actually
make this an attractive neighborhood? Do we want to lose street parking privileges on both
sides of the street? Do we need a sidewalk along the Mpls Golf Course property line? Isn’t
one side of sidewalk enough on Texas? I’m sure I was one of those respondents that said –
“Yes, I like sidewalks”. But I do know that I wasn’t asked if I wanted a sidewalk specifically
in front of my property, and that does change my answer. I understand that sidewalks are
“good”, but not when you already have one on the other side of the street and the property
owners resounding do not wish them to be installed.
I was at the meeting at the Middle School and not one person attending (while I was there)
was in support. If a neighborhood wishes to have sidewalks , then by all means, they should
be built, but not when they don’t.
We see that the Ericksons would like a meeting face-to-face to discuss further and we would
like to be included.
Our property, by far, would be the most affected by the sidewalk and we would like to see
preliminary plans on how the city intends to build a sidewalk on a property that has 4’-
5’ high retaining walls, no level area to locate it, plus a fire hydrant area that extends about
6’ into our hillside. We would also hope that the city would not want to place a sidewalk
street-level with the traffic levels/speeds we have coming from Wayzata Blvd. It would
create another dangerous situation that we hope you would wish to avoid.
I do hope that our concerns are taken seriously. We love St Louis Park and plan on staying
here. We have a vested interest in what happens to our neighborhood. I hope the planners
take that into consideration. We are the ones that will have to deal with any decisions made
and that is why they are so important to us. Thank you,
● While I am not opposed to sidewalks or bicycles I am at a loss as to why the great concern to
push these items when there is reallyno need. As one person at the meeting remarked
it "appears that this is a solution looking for a problem." And much of it at a
significantunneed expense.
Where are all the bikers coming from? On Texas Ave. where I live, I haven't seen more than
a couple of dozen riders all season (it is a seasonal activity) and very few in the last couple of
months.
Sidewalks: I believe that we need them, but why in excess? Again there are not a lot of
walkers, at least not enough to require walks on both sides of a street. One side is more than
adequate. We have some joggers come by, but when they do, they do their running in the
street. Excessive sidewalks are an unnecessary expense, both in construction and
maintenance. In addition, sidewalks are not attractive. When first installed thery are not bad,
but in a short time they crack up, they get dirty and grow weeds. Boulevards, if used,
are ugly unless they are at least 10 yards wide, because people don't take care of them and
tree roots have a huge effect on the sidewalks.
In particular, however, I am most concerned about the affect your plan has on my immediate
area, 13th and Texas. The plan states that in 2013 there is to be bike lane on Texas from
Wayzata Blvd. to Cedar Lake Road. There is no room to add such a lane without eliminating
partking on both sides of the street from 13th to 14th. At present there are two traffic
lanes and one parking lane. Local residents need the parking lane! There is a sidewalk on
the east side. this should be adeiquate; we don't need a second one on the west side. If you
would examine the area, you would see that it would be very expensive to add this second
walk. Retaining walls will be required and several large trees rermoved. Additional
sidewalks will require additional City maintenance such as snow removal.
I have two proposals that might help the situation.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 139
Page128 First: Use Pennsylvania Ave. and Wayzata as the starting point for the bike lane. Head south
on Pennslyvania to 16th and join the existing pathways around Pennslyvania Lake to about
16th street and join ithe pathway that joins Pennslyvania and Texas Ave. From here the bike
lane can continue west to the nature center and/or turn south on Texas to join in with the
bikeway on Cedar Lake Road. ( what is the difference between a bikeway and a bike lane?).
This location for a bike lane will cause no interference with residential street parking.
Second:Relocate the existing sidewalk on Texas to the east a distance to accomodate a bike
lane. A bike lane on the east side of Texas would be a better location as less residential
parking would be lost because of the church and the Jr. H.S..
I would appreciate a chance to talk in person with you about these proposals
● This is in response to your November 19 request for comments on the proposed addition of
sidewalks, in particular, for Texas Ave. between Wayzata Blvd. and Cedar Lake Rd.
First of all,I am not opposed to sidewalks. I believe the common criteria for sidewalks could
require every street in the city to have one. ONE, I believe is the answer. One per street East
and West as well as for those in the N/S direction. For the amount of walking taking place,
one sidewalk should be adequate. I think these walks, where possible, should be located on
the east side of N/S streets and on the north side of E/W streets to take advantage of the sun
to help keep them usable in the winter.
The cost of installing and then maintaining a second sidewalk on a street such as Texas,
could be better spent on adding walks to streets that do not already have one, such as
Pennsylvania or 14th between Texas and Pennsylvania, or any other street in the Park. Also,
you should think about keeping the Park 'green': additions of unneeded hard surface
sidewalks will only increase water run off to city sewers.
Second, where are all the walkers coming from or going to that would require more than a
single sidewalk per street. Most of Texas Ave. is over a mile from a shopping center. The
morning papers are delivered by car; Mail carriers walk the lawns not the sidewalks.
Recreational walkers are at the Health clubs.
There is a bus line on Wayzata but no real bus stop. There is a church (Park Assembly),
however, they have few if any walkers . There is the Middle school but its location so far to
the extreme north and west of the school district that there are very few students in the area
nor will there ever be many from this area, north and west of Texas and Franklin, due in
large part to Westwood Nature Center.
Finally, I am deeply concerned about my personal location (1344 Texas); any sidewalk
located on the west side of the street would greatly encroach on my property and severely
hamper my access. I currently have less than 40 feet of frontage. Addition of a sidewalk
would be bad, a sidewalk with a boulevard would be a disaster. It is important to note that
the last expansion of Texas Ave. took most, if not all, of the street right-of-way from the west
side of the street. This left large front yards for the east side properties and bare minimum on
the west side. I'm hoping any proposed changes and or additions will take this into account
and be more equitable.
I would greatly appreciate an on site discussion with you and or other staff to show first
hand the inconvenience the city's sidewalk proposal would cause.
● In reference to your letter about the proposed sidewalks between Cedar Lake Rd. and
Wayzata Blvd. on the west side of Texas Ave.: I would like to point out that although it
would be relatively easy to pour concrete from Cedar Lake Rd. to Franklin Ave. on the west
side, from there on things would be difficult.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 140
Page129 The yards from there on are all, or almost all, on hills, not bumps, but BIG HILLS, and it
would involve great expense and huge earthmoving equipment to cut down these retaining-
walled yards.
My house at 2006 Texas does not have a hill, but for all the years I have lived here, (over 40)
when the city plows snow, they dump veritable Mt. Everest size banks in the area where the
sidewalk would go.
Wouldn't it be better to instead put in more crosswalks between Cedar Lake Rd. and Wayzata
Blvd? People can't cross safely unless they walk a half mile down the street ti Franklin,
where drivers are mindlessly turning right onto Texas, You have to cross Franklin to get to
the while lined crosswalk, and look out, Grandma! Crosswalks would slow traffic,making the
street safer.
Please save the city money by forgetting about the sidewalk part and instead put in a couple
of crosswalks, and double the one leading from Franklin to the other side of the street.
In summary, Help! My aged back can't shovel those frozen banks the snowplows leave,
much less a sidewalk full of them! My social security can't handle the assessment either!
● I am very apposed to this expansion. First there is an existing sidewalk on the East side of
Texas Ave along the proposed route. If you walk that sidewalk you will notice that with
minor exceptions it has not been repaired since it was installed. As I have been a resident at
2048 Texas Ave since 1976 I can state that it is at least 36 years old and is in need of repair.
Lets repair the existing aset first. Also a walk down the proposed route you will notice large
areas of deep rich loam. This has caused areas of the East sidewalk to settle. Presently the
Existing East side walk is placed 5 feet from curb line and is 5 feet wide. If that is matched
on the West side it will interfere with several large elms trees along the route. It should also
be noted that the water shut offs for my home and 4 of my neighbors that I can locate are
presently 7 feet from curb line. They will need to be relocated or placed in the sidewalk. Soil
preparation will be needed as much of this area is unstable soil as I have discovered over that
last 32 years. I have replaced driveways twice and the last time removed 2 feet of black dirt
and replaced it with recycle to crate a stable base. Also the removal of many existing trees ( I
alone would lose 5 thirty foot pines) and the landscaping many have installed along the route
would be cost prohibitive to replace. Lastly a second sidewalk is simply not necessary the
heaviest use of the existing sidewalk takes place in the morning and afternoon on school
days. There is almost no through foot traffic. Walkers and joggers make up the majority of
the total use. I trust take these concerns will be taken under advisement. With respect
● A resident on the west side of Texas. Expressed comments and questions with regards to
impacts to trees, slopes, etc. and snow removal. Overall did not see a need for the sidewalk.
● I love the idea of new ways to walk and bike through the city. I love that St. Louis Park is
thinking about how to make a great city even better. I love biking, running, and walking with
my family. However, I recently got a letter informing me that a sidewalk is planned for the
west side of Texas Avenue between Cedar Lake Road and Wayzata Boulevard. This is a
horrible idea with no benefit.
I regret missing the public meetings about the "Connect the Park" initiative. I didn't go
because I never imagined something so costly and pointless would be part of the plan. As
you may be aware, there is already a complete sidewalk on Texas Avenue between Cedar
Lake Road and Wayzata Boulevard. If there is a benefit to adding an additional sidewalk,
perhaps it was explained at the public meetings. Perhaps you could expain it to me in a letter
or email. As it is, I can see no benefit, but I can see a lot of problems. These boil down to
cost, safety, and geography.
Cost. This redundant sidewalk will be very costly to the city in the short term and the long
term. There will be construction costs in the short term. There will be permanently reduced
revenue from property taxes as the property values of everyone on my street drop and some
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 141
Page130 very small front yards shrink to almost nothing. I have two kids in public schools in St. Louis
Park and another who will likely start in a few years. I am very aware that the schools are
already starved for resources. Please don't cut their revenue further. It's probably naive to
hope that all the money potentially wasted on this redundant sidewalk would go right to
schools, but a guy can wish.
It will also be personally costly to me. I assume I'll have to keep our long stretch of that
sidewalk free of snow and ice. My wife and I would like to live in this house for the rest of
our lives. Thinking about spending time and/or money over the decades clearing a pointless,
redundant stretch of sidewalk drives me nuts. Also, as I mentioned, our property value will
go down. I can even imagine being hit with a special assessment to force us to pay for this
horrible waste, which frankly makes me furious.
Safety. A few years ago, a pedestrian was killed while walking across Texas Avenue near the
hill on the south end. Making both sides of the street into public space will encourage more
people to walk across the street where there is no crosswalk. I can tell you from constant
personal experience that cars absolutely race down that street, ignoring speed limits,
crosswalks, and the stop sign in our yard. A hill at the south end and curves at the north end
limit driver visibility. It is likely that more people will die.
Geographically speaking, a casual walk down the street reveals multiple trees, lampposts, fire
hydrants, electrical boxes, retaining walls, and extremely hilly and uneven ground. The
terrain itself does not invite or welcome a sidewalk, not to mention the 36 driveways (I
counted) that will have to be torn up and altered. Changing all this seems an incredibly
expensive waste. I just can't imagine anyone taking an honest, thoughtful look at this stretch
of street and saying, "Yeah, we need a sidewalk on that side too."
You know what I would actually like to see? You know what would not bother me at all?
You know what makes sense for Texas Avenue under the "Connect the Park" initiative? I
think a five foot wide bike lane painted on the existing street would be terrific. People
(including me) bike on that street all the time. No one walks on it because THERE IS
ALREADY A SIDEWALK THERE.
Honestly, I feel hopeless because it seems like people in power a) get all excited about a
plan, b) invite public comment, then c) ignore public comment and do the plan they are so
excited about no matter what the cost. And if there is an underlying "ideology" or "vision", as
there is here, then God help us because there's no amount of "public comment" that can stop
it. I pray that you will prove me wrong in this case.
As I said, I love the idea behind "Connect the Park". I would love to see a bike lane painted
on the wide road as part of the plan. However, please, PLEASE remove the proposed
redundant sidewalk on the west side of Texas Avenue between Wayzata Boulevard and
Cedar Lake Road from the "Connect the Park" initiative. Thank you. Sincerely,
● As the owners/residents of 2206 Texas Avenue South, we are not in favor of the sidewalk
proposal for our street.
There are many young trees on the west side, most planted by the City, that would need to be
removed. There are also many mature
trees that would have to come down, making the street less green.
The loss of trees means the loss of shade. Tree removal makes it more likely that yards will
require more watering and more air conditioning will be required to keep our homes cool.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 142
Page131 There are many homes located on raised yards that would require significant landscaping
costs and labor hours to make them sidewalk friendly.
The yards on the west side are well taken care of and many have perennial gardens by their
driveways that would be lost and instead replaced by ugly cement slabs.
It seems like a great deal of unnecessary expense for something that is not actually needed
and would not be an improvement to the appearance of our community.
Instead we recommend the sidewalk on the east side should be resurfaced and improved to
handle any additional traffic. This seems like the most economically sound solution.
Sincerely,
● I recently received your letter requesting feedback on the Connect the Park project, specially
the potential addition of the bike lane and sidewalk to Texas Ave South.
I’m opposed to a sidewalk being added to the west side of Texas Ave for a number of
reasons.
• As a resident of Texas Ave S, I see the foot traffic that’s currently on the east side of the
sidewalk. There is very limited use of the sidewalk to warrant the tax payers’ expense and
disruption to the neighborhood to have the sidewalk on the other side of the street.
• Texas Ave is a busy street, but by vehicles and bikes only, so there’s no need for more
sidewalk space.
• Residents and visitors use and need the street parking. If a sidewalk is added, there won’t
be any room for parking on the street, causing for Texas Ave to be unnecessarily
congested.
• Cutting into yards and driveway space – my front yard and driveway are small enough as
it is. To have a sidewalk added to the west side would eliminate even more space for us
making it difficult to park cars in our driveway.
I’m not opposed to the addition of a bike lane being added to Texas Ave, as long as it doesn’t
restrict street parking. Both are important for Texas Ave – the safety of bikers and room for
cars to park. What isn’t important and needed is a sidewalk on both sides of the street.
Thanks for soliciting feedback on the changes to the neighborhood. Let me know if you have
any questions.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 143
Page132 ●
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 144
Page133 ●
Ward 4 – Virginia Ave. – Pro’s
● I just received the letter re. the proposed sidewalk on the west side of Virginia Ave. S.
between Cedar Lake Rd. and 28th Street. I am neutral re. the sidewalk, since we have one on
the east side of Virginia. I am wondering if there are any plans to improve or change the
railroad bridge on Virginia. It seems dangerous for bikers going to and from the trail, given
how narrow the tunnel is. Will Virginia still act as a car route to Texas Ave. in the
foreseeable future?
I also see that a sidewalk is proposed on Cedar Lake Rd. between Virginia Ave. S. and
Texas. I assume this will be on the south side on Cedar Lake Road. This would be such a
wonderful improvement. Pedestrian crossing at Virginia and Cedar Lake Road is so difficult
and dangerous, but necessary to reach the sidewalk on the north side of Cedar Lake Road. A
sidewalk extending up to the stoplight on Texas would improve safety and relieve confusion
with pedestrian and car traffic at our corner. It would also make it a much safer route for
students from our side of Cedar Lake Road walking to the Middle School.
● I was just riding the trail along the south 394 frontage road. It begins on the north side of the
road. Then by the nature center, it crosses to the south. On dark evenings in spring or fall in
rush hour, it is almost impossible to safely cross the road due to traffic even with a marked
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 145
Page134 crosswalk. I don't trust drivers to see me in the dark even with very bright lights and
reflective clothes.
The road under railroad bridge across Virginia just north of the Cedar Lake Trail is very
hazardous in the dark. underneath the bridge, there is only enough room for a car or a
bicycle to cross under not both at the same time. When I need to go under the bridge, I
bicycle down the center of the road to keep cars from trying to pass me until the road widens
out. This area definitely needs work when the railroad bridge is replaced to widen the road
and eliminate the concrete barrier in the middle.
Ward 4 – Virginia Ave. – Con’s
● St. Louis Park has been our home for over 32 years. We are very pleased with how the city
is maintained and developed. It is easy to see that the people who work for the city take
pride in their work because it shows.
We have not been involved in any city projects in the past but we did attend the “Connect the
Park” meeting for Ward 4 on October 20th because we have concerns regarding the changes
the city has in mind for new or improved sidewalks, bikeways and bike trails.
Our main concern is the proposal to add another sidewalk to our street. We already have a
very small front yard which has a beautiful maple tree along the boulevard which would have
to be sacrificed if the sidewalk is added. The sidewalk that already exists across the street is
more than adequate for the number of people who use it. Plus, the BNSF railroad bridge
down the road from us, as it stands now, will not accommodate any lane or sidewalk
changes. It would need to be replaced first.
However, it seems right and necessary to us that the city should make the proposed
improvements to connect sidewalks to schools for children’s safety. And if some of the
neighborhoods truly desire and support the improvements proposed for them, we would be in
favor of those plans being realized.
Our final thought about the “Connect the Park” project is that our economy is not as healthy
as it was seven years ago when the project started. In the current economic conditions many
of these proposed changes in sidewalks, bikeways, and bike trails appear to be more of a
luxury than a necessity.
● 2512 Virginia Avenue has been our home since August of 1991. It is a great neighborhood
on a fairly busy street that has managed quite nicely with a sidewalk on the east side of the
street only. Most of the traffic on this street is car and bike traffic. Obviously there is some
pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk, but minimal. Putting another sidewalk on the west side of
the street between Cedar Lake Road and 28th street would be a waste of money that could be
spent for a much more worthy cause. I also see this as a hazard for the pedestrian. The
sidewalk will end at 28th Street forcing the pedestrian to cross this busy street just north of
the train overpass (an obstructed view) in order to continue on the sidewalk that goes along
the east side of Virginia Avenue. This now continues on to the walking trail or Texas
Avenue.
Please reconsider this proposal. Besides the very real concerns I have already outlined, I
cannot even imagine a sidewalk almost under our front windows! It may be enough to
consider relocating away from the park.
We will be talking to neighbors and can assure you they will NOT be in support of this
sidewalk addition.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 146
Page135 ● I received your letter suggesting that a sidewalk is being proposed along Virginia Avenue
South between Cedar Lake Road and 28th St. - the proposed sidewalk is not the answer as
there are larger issues in place:
1. At Cedar Lake Road and Virginia Ave.S. the street intersection is horrible - for cars,
pedestrians and bikers... The intersection is uncontrolled and literally there are cars coming
into that intersection from four different directions with a dozen different turn options..left
onto Cedar /right onto Cedar/ left to Virginia etc etc. Cars are going 40 mph or more in
general on Cedar Lake Road past this intersection. This has to be one of the worst
intersections in the city. I have seen bikers and pedestrians hit in that crosswalk just while
raking leaves or cutting my grass - the first car stops at the crosswalk and the next one goes
by on the inside and does the damage to the biker etc...just awful. I tell my kid if he uses that
crosswalk to assume no one is going to stop. So now you are proposing adding another
traffic interaction variable to the intersection by now having someone walking east across
Virginia from that proposed west sidewalk to the east sidewalk to get to the lone crosswalk
there. That car making a left turn onto Virginia in front of that 40 mph oncoming traffic now
has to stop midturn for that pedestrian and is hit straight on. That is making it worse..not a
good idea. Additionally - bikers going through that intersection during the warmer months
throw in yet connectivity distraction as they in general have their own set of road rules..So
you do the math - cars from four directions - bikes from four directions - walkers/runners
from four directions from four different corners.. busses two directions...each with four
direction options - my bad math suggests almost a hundred different interaction possibilities
there. - I would suggest that this corner needs a traffic light desperately. - that crosswalk is
medieval. In the old days I remember they would put white crosses up at the scene of an
accident - there would be a forest of them there.
2. At the south end of the proposed west side sidewalk - towards 28th St. - the west side of
the street or proposed sidewalk location dead ends into the train bridge... so now you
would have the bike crosswalk just south of the bridge plus another strange crosswalk north
of the bridge to get across to the east sidewalk before the bridge.. I can not imagine how
screwed up that would be for cars,bikes,walkers.. you might as well park an ambulance there
and wait for the accidents. I think you could almost call that proposed west side sidewalk -"
the sidewalk to nowhere" - as it wouldn't connect to the crosswalk at the north end and would
dead end two blocks away at the south end...??
Summary - I am not trying to be overly critical - I am an architect and I am familiar with the
concept of traffic studies. I don't think this intersection if it were being proposed as new
construction would be allowed to be built today. I assume that you are responding to
complaints about this corner/connection and I appreciate the city's desire to improve it -
however, your comment in the letter " a sidewalk is proposed" etc... should be replaced with
" a traffic/connectivity solution is desired" for the intersection of Cedar Lake Road and
Virginia Ave. South and that segment of road/property running south from Cedar Lake Road
to 28th St - A sidewalk on the west side is not the answer - that would really just make it
worse. In terms of sidewalks I would focus on the connections to that east sidewalk and
improvements to the crosswalk at least... I do not want to be the one picking another biker off
the road - or see another old lady hit by a car. One obvious solution to the traffic/connection
problem there would be a stoplight. ( Yes it could be synchronized with the light at Texas.)
Thanks - a concerned property owner - with on the spot knowledge of this issue.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 147
Page136 ●
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 148
Page137 Ward 4 – Westmoreland La. – Pro’s
● I am an enthusiastic supporter of SLP's plan to connect pedestrians and bicyclists. After
looking at the proposed map, I'm unsure about the date that our block - Westmoreland Lane -
might finally get a sidewalk. Call me color blind, but I can't tell if which green indicates the
plan for installation: is it in 2014 or 2023? I look forward to your clarification and thank you
for your response. Sincerely,
● Who is paying for the sidewalk (the city or the homeowner)? My address is 1401 Flag Ave
SO. Which side of the street is going to get the sidewalk?
● I live at 8730 Westmoreland Lane. We have lived here for 25 years. My wife and I are
strongly in support of sidewalk development on Westmoreland Lane. We live on the side of
the road that would have the sidewalk built on it. Several years ago, we had a chance to have
all of our over-head lines buried, but the vocal NIMBYs (not in my backyard) defeated
it. Please don't let that happen to this project. It is ridiculous to make folks walk in the
streets when sidewalks can be built. Can you explain how the costs will be bore? And, is it
possible to build the sidewalk adjacent to the street (no grass in-between)? Thank you for
your consideration.
● Thank you for encouraging resident feedback regarding the upcoming “Connect the Park”
initiative. As residents on Westmoreland Lane, we strongly feel that for the safety of
pedestrians and bikers, the timing of the sidewalk project planned on Westmoreland Lane
and Flag Ave. should be moved up to occur as soon as possible rather than at the end of the
project in 2023. Westmoreland Lane is well-traveled by pedestrians walking for exercise,
walking dogs and pushing strollers, as well as by children walking to and from the Junior
High School. We have examined city maps and we believe that the Westmoreland Lane/Flag
Ave stretch is one of the longest, if not the longest, stretches of road in the city without any
stop signs, stop lights, or any other type of traffic controlling signage; in fact, one can drive
from the intersection at Westwood Hills Dr. and Franklin Ave. all the way to the dead end of
Flag Ave., approximately one full mile, without encountering any stop signs.
In addition to the lack of any traffic controls, Westmoreland Lane is a very unique road in
that, (1) it has no traffic intersections, and (2) it is an extremely winding road, especially in
comparison to all other roads in St. Louis Park. These conditions not only severely limit
motorists’ ability to see pedestrians from a distance, but encourage motorists to drive in a
haphazard and unpredictable manner down the street. As a result, we have often witnessed
cars driving on the wrong side of the street when attempting to navigate the twists and turns
of the road. Additional factors that make Westmoreland Lane particularly dangerous for
pedestrians and bikers are that (3) it is extremely dark at night with no street lamps, and (4)
the number of pedestrians on Westmoreland Lane is intensified due to the location of the
Westwood Hills Nature Center, a popular destination for local community members,
especially those with children, who often walk, bike and push strollers to the Center from
their homes in the area.
Thank you again for the opportunity to express our opinions and concerns. We appreciate
your consideration and sincerely hope that the sidewalk schedule is ultimately adjusted to
make Westmoreland Lane and Flag Ave safer streets for the residents here as soon as
possible.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 149
Page138 Ward 4 – Westmoreland La. – Con’s
●
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 150
Page139
● I am writing you in behalf of my family and many of my neighbors who said "you do
it!" We live on Westmoreland Lane, and we can't understand why the City Council would
even consider putting sidewalks on our "country road". Sunday I was working in the yard
from 12:30 to 4:00, and I noticed there were no cars going by. So I decided to count. In the
31/2 hours I was out there 15 cars went by. I would love to see the money that would be
spent putting in unnecessary sidewalks be given to our schools for their many needs. Please
consider my suggestion.
● I live on Westmoreland Land and am opposed to any addition of a sidewalk or bike lane to
our street. I have several reasons for this:
1. The street is already wide enough to accommodate all kinds of traffic the way it is.
2. There is already a path running through the nature center behind the north side houses. Is
seems like a waste of money to duplicate a path that is already there. One thing to consider is
allowing dogs to walk on this path.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 151
Page140 3. The water pipe serving our neighborhood is continually springing leaks. Rather than
having us buy a pipe warranty, like I did, the city should consider using some of that money
for the water pipes.
4. The sidewalk is just more for people to maintain in the winter. This street has many
elderly people on it, shoveling could create an unnecessary hardship or expense for them.
Thank You
● Sidewalks would be great as I have almost been hit several times dog walking the
neighborhood WESTMORELAND LANE could use sidewalks on the nature park side.
Also, From the last water leak, the streets have not been cleaned and there is shattered PVC
pipe still in the street along with sand. Pleae refer to the right department Can you get
thestreet cleaner here?
It would br great if you could get a sidewalk, so the dogs can be walked with out near car hits
speeding down Westmoreland Lane. Thank you for your help,
● In response the letter seeking comments on the proposed sidewalk along Flag Ave S, we do
not believe a sidewalk is necessary on Flag and Westmorland. There is little vehicle and
pedestrian traffic on Flag and Westmorland, so walking at the side of the street is not a safety
concern. Additionally, these neighborhoods have a unique look within the city, and
construction of a sidewalk would do a lot to destroy that look, including the removal of many
desirable trees and vegetation along these streets.
The project map was not very clear, but it appears that the sidewalk along Flag is not planned
until 2023. Please let us know if this is not correct. Also, the letter did not specify how the
project will be funded, and whether homeowners along the sidewalk will face an assessment
as part of the project financing. Additionally, no detail was provided around proposed
construction materials (e.g. concrete, asphalt, etc.).
We would appreciate receiving additional details on the proposed project and would be
happy to provide additional feedback if desired.
● We have looked over the letter we just received from the city about the sidewalk proposal
that would include the north side of Westmoreland Lane which I believe would include our
address: 8608 Westmoreland Lane.
We really feel that this a totally unnecessary expense for the city and our neighborhood.
Children really don't "play" on the sidewalks in this neighborhood. Having sidewalks
installed would not prevent any person from running across the street to visit or play with
friends.
This would also take quite a large chunk out of peoples yards and landscapes that we pay a
lot to maintain and look attractive. Also, I believe this would probably eliminate our rural
mailbox installations.
Would the city then rezone all of the properties here to have walk up mailboxes installed?
We have lived here for 35 years and it is really strange that all of a sudden the city is
planning to install sidewalks. When we first moved here Sept 1977, the neighborhood had
installed speedbumps to slow traffic. The city made us remove the speedbumps. We also
tried for stop signs on the street. City said that was not allowed. These things would really
help traffic here and also be a safer solution for the kids in the neighborhood.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 152
Page141 When this comes up again at a meeting, please inform us because we would like to be present
at the meeting.
Thank you for your consideration,
You know what this neighborhood could use is some street lights!
● ATTACHED IS OUR WRITTEN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED SIDEWALK FOR
WESTMORELAND LANE AND THE EAST SIDE OF FLAG AVENUE
We are writing to express our opposition to the sidewalk proposed for the north side of
Westmoreland Lane. First and foremost, there is no need for a sidewalk. Pedestrian and
vehicular traffic on Westmoreland Lane are low. Thus, neither safety nor traffic flow justify
a sidewalk. Nothing the City has made available to the public about the project suggests
otherwise.
Your November 19, 2012 letter to residents indicates that the proposed sidewalk is part of the
City’s “Connect the Park” initiative. However, the sidewalk construction density goals that
are available on the “Connect the Park” website appear to be arbitrary and are not appropriate
in our neighborhood.
Furthermore, the City has not provided a cost benefit analysis for the sidewalk and has not
indicated how the sidewalk will contribute to the achievement of the “Connect the Park”
goals and objectives. In particular, there is no data regarding the number of people that
might use the sidewalk or the number of accidents that might be avoided; nor is there any
information about the accessibility issues that would be resolved or how it would facilitate
the use of mass transit.
Not only has the City failed to identify the benefits of a sidewalk on Westmoreland Lane, it
has not considered the costs that it will impose. For example, constructing the sidewalk will
result in the removal of mature trees – adversely affecting neighborhood aesthetics. In
addition, it will result in the destruction of homeowner improvements such as landscaping
and underground irrigation systems. Also, it will reduce driveway parking space, resulting in
more street parking and a reduction in safety. Furthermore, the sidewalk will impose a long
term burden on Westmoreland Lane residents: those whose property it traverses will be
responsible for snow removal, which is especially difficult for elderly residents.
The sidewalk not only lacks safety and economic justifications, it also lacks neighborhood
support. To the contrary, we and our neighbors oppose it. Moreover, we are not aware that
residents in surrounding neighborhoods have an interest in or support the installation of a
sidewalk.
The “Connect the Park” initiative appears to be a project championed by City staff, not City
residents or our elected officials. The staff’s concern for the City’s infrastructure is
commendable. However, where, as here, the costs substantially outweigh the benefits, and
the justification and groundswell are absent, initiatives like this should be shelved. Instead,
the funds that have been earmarked for the project and others like it that are unnecessary
should be returned to residents in the form of lower taxes.
● I am writing in response to your letter dated November 19 regarding feedback on the
"Connect the Park" initiative. Specifically, regarding plans for a proposed sidewalk on the
north side of Westmoreland Ln and east side of Flag Ave. between the Nature Center and
14th St.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 153
Page142 I am wholly in favor of the proposed sidewalk. Although I live on the south side of
Westmoreland, I would encourage a sidewalk even if proposed for our side of the street. I
previously lived on Yosemite Ave and appreciated having sidewalks in the neighborhood. I
believe they enhance neighborhoods by providing easier access to neighbors and are a safety
improvement. I was grateful to have sidewalks as a place for our children to play and ride
bikes, skateboards, scooters, etc. with out fear of cars (or at least less fear). When home, I
observe many people walking and running on Westmoreland Lane. Although the street may
be wide enough to handle pedestrians and car traffic, it would certainly be safer to have
people and their pets walking on a sidewalk separate from cars.
I am glad to learn of the "Connect the Park" initiatives and its goal of improving St. Louis
Park neighborhoods. I was not able to attend the information meetings, but wanted to put my
support to you in writing prior to the December 7 deadline. Please let me know if you need
additional information. Thanks! Sincerely,
● My wife and I have lived at 8712 Westmoreland Lane since 1975.We strongly oppose the
construction of sidewalk on Westmoreland Lane for the following reasons:1-We walk along
the street on an almost daily basis with our dog and have never experienced any safety
issues(the posted speed limit is 25mph).2-A sidewalk imposes a burden on the homeowner of
removing snow and ice and imposes additional potential liability where none presently
exists.3-A sidewalk would detract from the aesthetic "country" feel of the neighborhood.4-
The cost of building a sidewalk, even if not directly assessed to the homeowners, would be
an unnecessary public expense.5-The reaction of the residents impacted by the sidewalk
proposal appears to be overwhelmingly negative. Thank you for soliciting comments from
the residents and please share ours with the Mayor and City Council.
● Against construction of sidewalk.
● Very much against a sidewalk on Westmoreland Lane.
● Against construction of a sidewalk on Westmoreland Lane.
● Very against the proposed sidewalk on Westmoreland Lane. We have a beautiful
neighborhood and a very wide street which has been a perfectly adequate space to
accommodate walkers, rollerbladers, bikers, and runners for 50 years. Why do we need to
ruin it with a bunch of ugly concrete? I have a beautiful Oak tree that is close to the street
that I don't want to lose. This sidewalk would lessen the property values for all property
owners affected. Please consider removing Westmoreland Lane from this plan!
● Noo sidewalks in Westmoreland Lane, use nature centure path - it already exists. It is a
beautiful path, no need to disrupt our street. Fix water pipes before adding sidewalks.
● I am opposed to both the bike lane and sidewalk on Westmoreland Lane. The street has been
described as a country lane by the City in previous sidewalk proposals. The area around
Westmoreland Lane has very low population density and will not be serving more that a
handful of individuals. It will not change the amount of walkers or bikers in the area. Please
do not use the City's funds to put in sidewalks or bikeways that are not wanted.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 154
Page143 General Comments
• My biggest concern is safety on the bikeways striping, signage, lighting, etc.
• Use "Yield Right-of-Way" whenever possible. It is important for bicyclists to know
when it is actually important to stop.
• Who is/was on the Community Action Committee? Who will bear the cost of shoveling
the new sidewalks? Is there a guarantee that home owners will not be assessed for the
new walks?
• You said there is funding to create all of these projects, wonderful. What is the plan for
the maintenance? Hope there is funding for that or that the City has a fund for up-keep.
• I am new to St. Louis Park but have been here 2 years. I am glad that St. Louis Park is
taking time to provide access to shopping, theatres, recreational opportunities, library,
etc., and other means to get in-and-out of town as well as getting around town. I am
concerned that our growing elderly population, in addition to residents who have limited
mobility, have access to use these improved ways. These populations are often
overlooked and prevent full inclusion and accessibility to community services. One
example is the difficulty and expense of utilizing the bikes along Lake Calhoun. I hope
that St. Louis Park will avoid making similar types of costly errors in developing these
new resources. When residents with limited mobility, or related issues are served by
project like this, we all have a more workable plan and a more cohesive community.
Thank you.
• I am grateful and happy about this project. I would like to see a lot of the bikeways be
dedicated bike lanes on City streets. Thank you.
• Can't wait to have more bike trails. I bike to work often in the summer - much
appreciated!
• I like the overall plan and recommend the City Council approve it.
• I am proud to live and own a home in SLP on Colorado Ave. I work 4 mos per year in
Arnheim on the Rhine River in Nederlands. Am avid daily biker. I must confess that I
rode here today amost the whole way on the sidewalk - I was too scared to bike on the
street path. In Nederland, bike asphalt abuts walking cement and the curb keeps cars
away from bikers. Mostly I came to say good work.
• Problem for our driveway, fence, gas grill, and 35 year-old maple tree
• Please don't take away parking on Dakota for the bike lanes. We do not have an alley and
have no where else to park.
• No sidewalks - it would be a sidewalk to nowhere. House value go down. People too
close to my house. Safety issue - privacy. Take away the beauty of my property. Can't
afford new taxes. No sidewalks.
• My greatest concern is the trees that would have to be taken down. The trees are what
makes these neighborhoods appealing. Also, the maint. Of sidewalks when the trees that
are left along the walks start to have roots that would break up the sidewalks. Like in
Mpls and when people trip on the broken sidewalk - who is responsible?
• Why can't we use the nature path instead? We don't want a sidewalk or a bike path.
Maybe you should fix the water-pipes instead.
• Sounds good to me. Too bad people can't listen and just want to argue. Good luck with
your project.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 155
Meeting Date: January 14, 2013
Agenda Item #: 4
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2013 City Council Workshop
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Advise staff on moving forward with preparations for the workshop.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
What would the City Council like to accomplish at the upcoming workshop?
BACKGROUND:
For a number of years the City Council has had annual workshops for the purpose of
strengthening relationships to ensure a High Performing Council and to spend time on bigger
picture policy related issues. This year’s workshop is scheduled for February 1 and 2. The
location is still undetermined.
For the upcoming workshop staff would suggest the following:
Friday (late afternoon/evening)
In order to be a High Performing City Council it is important to understand the dynamics of the
Council. As such, it is proposed the Council spend reflective learning time on further developing
relationships, understanding roles, and brushing up on the City’s approach to governance (Carver
Governance Model).
Saturday (morning and afternoon)
Based on our discussion at my performance evaluation, I am proposing that we spend the entire
day thinking at the largest “bowl” level. This would involve revisiting the City’s Vision
Statement, Mission and Values Statement and the City Council’s four adopted Strategic
Directions. This exercise is intended to insure there is “alignment” between these three big
picture policy statements. From there I propose the City Council undertake an exercise of
identifying “Key Outcome Indicators” for each of the Strategic Directions as well as “Strategic
Initiatives” for each of the Strategic Directions. In a nutshell, this entire exercise is about
insuring organizational alignment, developing a shared understanding of what success looks like
(key outcome indicators), and prioritization of where resources should be expended over the next
two years (strategic initiatives). Please see the attached chart I have attached that visually depicts
the flow/alignment of what I have tried to describe in this paragraph.
Below is background information on why staff is suggesting the approach as noted above:
In 2005/06 the City facilitated a successful community visioning process. As a result of that
process and the input provided, in 2007 the City Council adopted four Strategic Directions (see
attached) to carry out the major themes heard during the visioning process.
These Strategic Directions have been reaffirmed by the Council every year since. At the time the
Strategic Directions were adopted, specific strategic initiatives were identified to be pursued over
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: 2013 City Council Workshop
the next 18 month period (see attached; described as “focus” areas). All of these strategic
initiatives have been completed and some are still in process (e.g. community center project,
sidewalks and trails, etc.).
It is important to note that when the Vision SLP data was analyzed and the Strategic Directions
were adopted (which was a major accomplishment by the Council) we did not and still have not
identified what are called Key Outcome Indicators for each of the Strategic Directions. In other
words we did not intentionally identify what success would look like. The concern with this is if
we do not identify what success looks like, how do we know if we are making progress?
Lastly, although we did check in with our community on Vision last January, and reaffirmed the
Strategic Directions at our Council workshop last year, we have not revisited or updated the
strategic initiatives to help achieve the Strategic Directions. This has resulted in a lack of clarity
in terms of the priorities of the Council and how the City’s resources should be used.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
An outside consultant is proposed to be used to help facilitate the portion of the workshop being
held on Saturday. The cost of the workshop is provided for in the City’s budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed agenda is directly in alignment with Vision SLP and the four Strategic Directions
Attachment: Strategic Directions and Focus Areas
2013 – 14 Planning/Alignment Chart
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: 2013 City Council Workshop
Vision
St. Louis Park Strategic Directions
18-Month Guide
Adopted March 19, 2007
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Conducting research to determine what makes a neighborhood organization strong,
viable and sustainable with an aim toward increasing and strengthening
neighborhoods.
• Developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails.
• Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources
affecting St. Louis Park including but not limited to Hwy. 100 and SWLRT.
• Evaluating and investigating additional north/south transportation options for the
community.
• Increasing use of new and existing gathering places and ensuring accessibility
throughout the community.
• Exploring creation of a multi-use civic center, including indoor/winter use.
• Directing the Human Rights Commission to examine the Diversity section of Vision
St. Louis Park and develop goals/recommendations for actions
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will
increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
Focus will be on:
• Expanding energy efficiencies in the City’s operations.
• Educating staff and the public on environmental consciousness, stewardship and best
practices.
• Working in areas such as the rehab loan program, development projects, permits etc,
encourage (and provide incentives where appropriate) green building design
(LEED), creation of open spaces, environmental innovations etc.
• Preserving, enhancing and providing good stewardship of our parks.
• Investigating the need and purpose for an energy/environmental commission.
St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock.
Focus will be on:
• Remodeling and expanding move-up, single-family, owner-occupied homes.
• Property maintenance to foster quality housing and community aesthetics.
• Working towards affordable single-family home ownership throughout the city.
St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community
aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate.
Mission
&
Value Statements
Vision
Statement
Vision SLP
Strategic Direction’s
Key Outcome
Indicators
Strategic
Initiatives
Our Mission
Deliver responsive
municipal services to
ensure a safe, welcoming
and vital community now
and in the future.
Our Values
Respect
We are stewards of the
public trust who treat our
colleagues and those we
serve courteously, openly
and equitably.
Contribution
We are committed to
lifelong learning, personal
accountability, and
collaboration to ensure
our best contribution to
this community.
Stewardship
We are responsible for
our community’s human,
environmental and
financial resources.
St. Louis Park is
committed to being a
connected and engaged
community.
St. Louis Park is
committed to being a
leader in environmental
stewardship. We will
increase environmental
consciousness and
responsibility in all
areas of city business.
St. Louis Park is
committed to providing
a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
St. Louis Park is
committed to promoting
and integrating arts,
culture, and community
aesthetics in all City
initiatives, including
implementation where
appropriate.
St. Louis Park is a
Community of Choice
for a Lifetime.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Subject: 2013 City Council Workshop Page 4
Meeting Date: January 14, 2013
Agenda Item#: 5
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Special Meeting Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Special Session Other:
TITLE:
Joint Community Police Partnership (JCPP)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This report is advisory in nature, and staff requests feedback from the City Council on this
proposed partnership that staff would recommend be favorably considered. If Council is
supportive, Hennepin County will be providing an agreement for Council approval in the near
future.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to expand outreach to foreign born and new immigrant populations in St.
Louis Park in partnership with Hennepin County and five other cities?
BACKGROUND:
Hennepin County established the JCPP in 2005 in partnership with the Northwest Hennepin
Human Services and the Police Departments of Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center. These two
cities were joined by Richfield in 2007, Hopkins in 2008 and Bloomington in 2012. This
partnership focuses on the fact that during the past two decades Hennepin County has
increasingly become home to thousands of refugees and immigrants from Africa, Eastern
Europe, Latin America and Southeast Asia. Approximately 40% of the State’s foreign born
population lives in Hennepin County, and approximately one out of every five students attending
school in Hennepin County comes from a home in which a language other than English is
spoken.
Due to significant cultural and language differences, refugees and immigrants face numerous
obstacles to understanding the role of the police as well as law and code enforcement procedures.
In addition, culture, language and a lack of understanding American laws may contribute to tense
and sometimes dangerous encounters with police departments. This is particularly true when
behaviors that would be appropriate in their home countries may be inappropriate or even illegal
in America. Some of the most common examples identified by JCPP would be domestic
violence, child neglect/protection, large social gatherings, assault, and traffic violations.
During the past two years, our staff has attended several meetings of the JCPP oversight board
and expressed our interest in this partnership. It is clear that the participating police agencies are
pleased with the outreach, relationship building, and service opportunities made possible through
JCPP. We have had discussions with Hopkins in particular regarding the opportunities for our
agencies to work cooperatively through JCPP, recognizing again that we share some challenges
which are not limited by geographic boundaries.
In December of 2012, we were informed that the Hennepin County Board had approved St.
Louis Park for funding and participation in JCPP. This approval provides one FTE staff position
to work in St. Louis Park as our JCPP liaison. In addition, JCPP membership provides $20,000
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: Joint Community Police Partnership (JCPP)
in additional funding to add an additional CSO/Cadet position, as well as provide for training,
education, and miscellaneous expenses each year.
The Hennepin County program manager, Vinodh Kutty, has indicated he will be in touch during
the month of January to provide the agreement which must be approved by Council related to
this program and to discuss selection of a liaison best suited to the needs of our community.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The only budget implications outlined at this point would be the requirement to provide office
space for the liaison and provide transportation or reimburse mileage related to the performance
of duties.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This proposal is in direct alignment with the City’s Strategic Direction of being a “Connected
and Engaged Community”. This partnership will focus on enhancing police relationships with
refugee and immigrant populations in our community, including our school district. By building
trust with these diverse populations we can provide more effective police services and enhance
the quality of life they enjoy in St. Louis Park.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: January 14, 2013
Agenda Item #: 6
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Mobile Pet Vaccinations
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to respond to the Council’s request for information pertaining to
mobile pet vaccinations.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is mobile pet vaccinations allowed under the current City Code?
How does the increased presence of mobile commercial vehicles impact the image of the City
and competition among the existing “brick & mortar” businesses?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council directed staff to determine if mobile pet vaccinations are allowed under the
current City Code, and if not, then to give options as to how the City Code could be amended to
allow it in a limited capacity.
Existing Zoning Regulations:
Section 36-82(b)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance titled “Temporary Outdoor Sales” currently allows
temporary uses to occur outside on a property where a similar use is occurring inside a building
on the same property. There are some conditions that apply, and they are listed below:
1. If the temporary use exceeds 100 square feet, then it is limited to 14 days per calendar
year on that property. It also cannot occur for more than four days consecutively. It
could operate on a different property for an additional 14 days as long as it meets the
conditions on each property it operates off of.
2. If the temporary use is less than 100 square feet, then the 14 day limit and the four
consecutive days limit does not apply.
3. If the use is less than 100 square feet, then outside storage is not permitted when the
business on the site is closed, so the temporary use would have to be removed when the
business is closed.
4. It is allowed on properties zoned Commercial, Office, Mixed-Use and Industrial. It can
also locate in a public park, closed right-of-way, or as specified in a PUD.
5. Temporary sales is permitted if there is a retail business occurring within a building on
the property in which the same or similar merchandise is offered for sale. Exceptions to
this requirement include operating on a park, closed right-of-way, or as specified in a
PUD.
6. Temporary signage is subject to the sign section of the Zoning Ordinance.
Under this section, mobile pet vaccinations could be allowed in the following way:
1. At a public park as a vendor participating in an event, festival or farmers market.
2. In an event at West End or Excelsior & Grand as permitted in their PUD regulations.
3. In a public right-of-way which has been closed for an event or block party.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Mobile Pet Vaccinations
Options for allowing mobile pet vaccinations:
Section 36-82(b)(5) could be amended to allow uses other than retail to conduct temporary sales
outside. To this end, item 5 above could be amended to say:
Temporary sales is permitted if there is a retail, medical or animal handling business
occurring within a building on the property in which the same or similar merchandise or
service is offered for sale. Exceptions to this requirement include operating on a park, closed
right-of-way, or as specified in a PUD.
In addition to the changes above, staff would recommend another condition limiting the scope of
“Animal Handling” that is allowed as a temporary use outside a building to include the treatment
of small animals only so that it does not include the boarding or sale of animals. This condition
is needed because the Zoning Ordinance currently defines “Animal Handling” as meaning:
…the sale, boarding, treatment and care of privately owned small animal pets which may
include dogs, cats, other mammals, fish and reptiles, but excludes large animals such as
horses, farm animals or animals raised for slaughter.
This change would allow mobile pet vaccinations on a property that met all of the temporary
sales conditions, and where a similar medical or animal handling use is occurring inside the building.
Existing Temporary Medical Related Uses:
CDI is a medical diagnostic office located on Wayzata Blvd. They received a Conditional Use
Permit to keep a trailer on site for the entire year instead of the 14 day limit.
Temporary medical uses have already been occurring in two ways:
1. Mobile MRI trailers. Medical offices will periodically park in their parking lot a trailer
containing MRI equipment. This may occur two times a year for a period not to exceed
14 days consecutively.
2. In 2012, STEP allowed a temporary pet treatment vehicle at their site to provide low cost
services for people that can’t afford treatment for their pets.
These temporary uses were permitted under a liberal interpretation of Section 36-82(b)(5). It
may be in the City’s best interest to clarify this section, as shown above, if the City wishes to
continue to permit them.
NEXT STEPS:
Direct staff to prepare a Zoning Ordinance Amendment as described above, and present it to the
City Council in a study session.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Administrator
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: January 14, 2013
Agenda Item #: 7
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
November 2012 Monthly Financial Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
This report is designed to provide summary information each month of the overall level of
revenues and expenditures in both the General Fund and the Park and Recreation Fund. These
funds should be a primary concern in analyzing the City’s financial health because they represent
the discretionary use of tax levy dollars.
The report is normally presented at the second study session of the month. However, the
November report was postponed until the first study session in January because the second
December study session was canceled due to the holiday. The December report, which will
reflect preliminary year end numbers, will be presented as scheduled on January 28th.
As requested by the Council, two years of comparison data have been added to the attached
summary of revenues and expenditures. The additional information includes 2010 and 2011
adopted budget and audited actuals.
Actual expenditures should generally run about 92% of the annual budget in November.
Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling 87% of the adopted budget and the Park
and Recreation Fund expenditures are at 94.9%. Revenues tend to be harder to gauge in this
same way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes
and State aid payments (Police & Fire, DOT/Highway, PERA Aid, etc.). The second half
property tax settlement revenue was received on December 3, 2012, and will be reflected in the
December report.
Comments on specific revenue and expenditure variances are noted below.
General Fund
Revenues:
• License and permit revenues in the General Fund have been running well ahead of budget
all year, and as was anticipated, they began exceeding the total annual budget in August.
At the end of November, license and permit revenues are now exceeding budget by 32%
or $761,000. The majority of this excess or $696,000 is from permit activity. This
additional permit revenue is due to several large commercial development projects that
started in 2012, which were not able to be determined at the time the budget was prepared
in 2011.
Study Session Meeting of Jan. 14, 2013 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Subject: November 2012 Monthly Financial Report
Expenditures:
• All General Fund departments are running at or below budget through November, and
none are anticipated to exceed budget for the year.
Parks and Recreation
Expenditures:
• The Organized Recreation Division is at 95.8% of budget through November. End of
year projections prepared previously by Staff indicate that there may be a small
expenditure variance of 1% to 2% in this Division which is anticipated to be offset by
additional revenue. A youth association grant of approximately $16,000 ran through this
Division in 2012, where the City purchased football and softball equipment for the youth
association and received grant reimbursement funds in return.
• The Recreation Center Division is at 95.9% of budget. Building and equipment
maintenance expenses have exceeded budget due to necessary repairs and maintenance
work. Projections previously prepared by Staff indicate that this Division may exceed
budget by 3% to 5% for the year, a portion of which may be offset by additional
revenues. A transfer to the Park & Recreation Fund that was approved at the December
17, 2012 Council meeting will cover any variance.
• The Environment Division is slightly exceeding budget at 94.1% in November, which is
due to an overage in temporary salaries for tree work. It is not anticipated that this
Division will exceed budget at end of year.
• Expenditures in the Vehicle Maintenance Division are exceeding budget at 98.8%. The
variance is mainly due to overages in parts and tires, motor fuel, and outside equipment
repair services, all of which are unpredictable and difficult to budget. These areas were
reviewed for the 2013 budget and adjusted accordingly. Based on earlier projections
prepared by Staff, it is anticipated that the Vehicle Maintenance Division may exceed
budget by 6% to 8% in 2012. The transfer to the Park & Recreation Fund that was
approved at the December 17, 2012 Council meeting will cover this anticipated variance.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Regular and timely reporting of financial information is part of the City’s mission of being
stewards of financial resources.
Attachments: Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
20122012201020102011201120122012 Balance YTD Budget BudgetActual BudgetActual Budget Nov YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes14,889,605$ 15,061,268$ 15,426,072$ 15,372,076$ 15,998,292$ 8,294,166$ 7,704,126$ 51.84% Licenses and Permits2,294,768 2,359,094 2,345,910 2,797,588 2,368,799 3,130,161 (761,362) 132.14% Fines & Forfeits311,750 401,554 328,200 281,047 328,150 295,781 32,369 90.14% Intergovernmental1,598,787 1,578,946 1,136,187 1,243,494 1,163,677 1,229,773 (66,096) 105.68% Charges for Services1,138,018 1,125,867 1,152,643 1,077,137 1,270,354 674,128 596,226 53.07% Miscellaneous Revenue100,000 130,265 100,150 129,142 111,650 95,273 16,377 85.33% Transfers In2,583,825 2,588,235 2,589,876 2,553,665 2,023,003 1,834,253 188,750 90.67% Investment Earnings200,000 105,927 200,000 203,282 125,000 - 125,000 0.00% Other Income1,600 28,127 4,750 22,686 3,450 5,664 (2,214) 164.17% Use of Fund Balance51,000 Total General Fund Revenues23,169,353$ 23,379,283$ 23,283,788$ 23,680,117$ 23,392,375$ 15,559,199$ 7,833,176$ 66.51%Park & Recreation Revenues: General Property Taxes4,014,872$ 4,014,872$ 4,000,561$ 4,000,561$ 4,171,506$ 2,085,753$ 2,085,753$ 50.00% Licenses and Permits6,275 622 6,600 110 6,600 275 6,325 4.17% Intergovernmental71,219 89,631 77,652 208,536 68,902 87,417 (18,515) 126.87% Charges for Services1,073,900 1,022,826 1,095,250 1,082,163 1,070,750 1,047,340 23,410 97.81% Miscellaneous Revenue906,900 954,739 937,400 1,035,310 967,900 781,581 186,319 80.75% Other Income13,000 63,126 15,000 78,902 42,150 8,998 33,152 21.35%Total Park & Recreation Revenues6,086,166$ 6,145,816$ 6,132,463$ 6,405,582$ 6,327,808$ 4,011,364$ 2,316,444$ 63.39%Summary of Revenues - General Fund and Park & Recreation As of November 30, 2012 Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 7) Subject: November 2012 Monthly Financial ReportPage 3
20122012201020102011201120122012 Balance BudgetBudgetActual BudgetActual Budget Nov YTD Remaining to Actual %General Government: Administration924,472$ 840,147$ 889,798$ 825,168$ 1,012,554$ 858,203$ 154,351$ 84.76% Accounting588,850 562,371 612,964 624,573 641,691 587,294 54,397 91.52% Assessing490,080 488,548 500,141 506,426 517,840 473,169 44,671 91.37% Human Resources644,950 593,329 652,770 629,734 667,612 587,273 80,339 87.97% Community Development1,051,150 1,019,114 1,094,186 1,082,461 1,076,376 974,499 101,877 90.54% Facilities Maintenance1,081,742 952,856 1,114,551 955,880 1,083,128 832,311 250,817 76.84% Information Resources1,400,666 1,384,228 1,394,226 1,421,858 1,507,579 1,207,951 299,628 80.13% Communications & Marketing281,905 241,465 294,470 256,558 265,426 229,937 35,489 86.63% Community Outreach86,255 81,530 88,515 84,300 8,185 6,473 1,712 79.08%Total General Government6,550,070$ 6,163,588$ 6,641,621$ 6,386,958$ 6,780,391$ 5,757,110$ 1,023,281$ 84.91%Public Safety: Police7,306,402$ 7,218,688$ 7,208,512$ 6,943,375$ 7,273,723$ 6,510,558$ 763,165$ 89.51% Fire Protection3,122,173 2,989,550 3,164,344 3,061,962 3,346,931 2,914,104 432,827 87.07% Inspectional Services1,816,227 1,729,156 1,863,296 1,818,212 1,889,340 1,703,063 186,277 90.14%Total Public Safety12,244,802$ 11,937,394$ 12,236,152$ 11,823,549$ 12,509,994$ 11,127,725$ 1,382,269$ 88.95%Public Works: Public Works Administration854,900$ 872,846$ 829,698$ 803,259$ 389,783$ 349,675$ 40,108$ 89.71% Public Works Engineering829,800 798,240 846,032 816,280 927,337 842,493 84,844 90.85% Public Works Operations2,509,100 2,575,138 2,550,285 2,461,099 2,604,870 2,207,019 397,851 84.73%Total Public Works4,193,800$ 4,246,224$ 4,226,015$ 4,080,638$ 3,921,990$ 3,399,187$ 522,803$ 86.67%Non-Departmental: General 681$ 46,525$ 81,287$ -$ 56,113$ (56,113)$ 0.00% Transfers Out1,800,000 900,000 - - - 0.00% Tax Court Petitions180,000 180,000 - 180,000 - 180,000 0.00%Total Non-Departmental180,681$ 1,846,525$ 180,000$ 981,287$ 180,000$ 56,113$ 123,887$ 31.17%Total General Fund Expenditures23,169,353$ 24,193,731$ 23,283,788$ 23,272,432$ 23,392,375$ 20,340,135$ 3,052,240$ 86.95%Park & Recreation:Organized Recreation1,245,408$ 1,171,301$ 1,239,230$ 1,266,774$ 1,305,747$ 1,251,205$ 54,542$ 95.82%Recreation Center1,436,858 1,364,584 1,442,447 1,424,076 1,466,246 1,405,342 60,904 95.85%Park Maintenance1,396,715 1,413,840 1,435,374 1,462,866 1,461,645 1,343,107 118,538 91.89%Westwood493,450 488,258 502,366 488,579 515,456 463,645 51,811 89.95%Environment351,543 366,887 371,324 396,664 390,009 367,017 22,992 94.10%Vehicle Maintenance1,162,192 1,258,156 1,141,722 1,300,708 1,188,705 1,174,704 14,001 98.82%Total Park & Recreation Expenditures6,086,166$ 6,063,026$ 6,132,463$ 6,339,666$ 6,327,808$ 6,005,020$ 322,788$ 94.90%Summary of Expenditures - General Fund and Park & RecreationAs of November 30, 2012 Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 7) Subject: November 2012 Monthly Financial ReportPage 4
Meeting Date: January 14, 2013
Agenda Item #: 8
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Tobacco-Free Policy for Parks
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time. This report has been provided to the Council in advance of bringing for
adoption a policy relating to creating a Tobacco-Free Policy for outdoor recreational facilities in
St. Louis Park. Both the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission and Police Advisory
Commission recommend approval of this policy. Please let staff know of any questions or
concerns you might have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to move forward with the Tobacco-Free policy for outdoor
recreation areas in St. Louis Park?
BACKGROUND:
When the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission met with the City Council for their annual
review of goals, the City Council asked them to research having a Tobacco-Free Policy for Parks
in the City of St. Louis Park. Staff contacted the MN Tobacco-Free Parks organization and
worked with staff from the St. Louis Park Police Department to discuss this issue. Most of the
cities in the Twin Cities have a Tobacco-Free Ordinance or Policy in place, or are currently in
the process of creating one. After discussions with our Police Department, we are recommending
the City of St Louis Park put in place a policy relating to tobacco in parks. We have discovered
that an ordinance is very difficult to enforce which is why most cities have gone with policies.
The policy being proposed prohibits any form of tobacco at or on any City operated outdoor
recreation facilities including playgrounds, athletic fields, picnic shelters, park shelter buildings,
amphitheater, indoor facilities, skate parks, aquatic parks, parks, walking/hiking trails, restrooms,
concession areas and spectator areas.
Numerous communities in Minnesota already have tobacco free policies on their properties, and
their organization has provided signage for those communities. There are 135 communities,
along with 11 counties, in the State that have tobacco free policies.
If implemented, the policy would rely on volunteer compliance and be supported by free
informational signs in the park, public outreach through the City newsletter and support from
youth athletic organizations. Anyone using tobacco products in prohibited areas would be asked
to either refrain from using those products or remove themselves from the area.
This information was presented to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) at
their September 19, 2012 meeting and to the Police Advisory Commission (PAC) at their
November 1, 2012 meeting. Members from both Commissions discussed and recommend
adoption of this policy.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: Tobacco-Free Policy for Parks
The attached policy provides information that many other city and county officials have used to
help support and implement this program. Also included is a list of neighboring communities in
the metro area with tobacco-free policies.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The Tobacco-Free Youth Recreation program will provide informational signage in the parks at
no charge.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This item falls in line with Vision “St. Louis Park as committed to being a leader in
environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in
all areas of city business.”
Attachments: Tobacco-Free Policy for St. Louis Park
Tobacco-Free Park & Recreational Facilities in Minnesota
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Rick Birno, Superintendent of Recreation
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
John Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Subject: Tobacco-Free Policy for Parks
St. Louis Park Outdoor Recreational Facilities
Tobacco-Free Policy
Subject
City of St. Louis Park’s Parks and Recreation Tobacco-Free Policy
Policy Statement
The City of St. Louis Park Parks and Recreation Department is committed to the quality of life
for all residents, therefore, we believe that:
• Tobacco product use in the proximity of children, youth and adults engaging in or
watching outdoor recreational activities is unhealthy and detrimental to the health of
others.
• Tobacco products once consumed in public spaces are often discarded on the ground,
thus posing a risk of ingestion to toddlers and causing a litter problem.
• As parents, leaders, coaches and officials, we are thought of as role models and the use of
tobacco products around youth has a negative effect on their lifestyle choices.
Tobacco-Free Facilities
No person shall use any form of tobacco at or on any City of St. Louis Park operated outdoor
recreational facilities, including the restrooms, spectator and concession areas. These facilities
include playgrounds, athletic fields, picnic shelters, park shelter buildings, amphitheater, indoor
ice arenas, skate parks, aquatic areas, parks, and walking/hiking trails.
Compliance Procedures
The emphasis of enforcing the Tobacco-Free policy is through voluntary compliance:
• Appropriate City-owned park land, recreational facilities and open space will be signed.
• The policy will be marketed on the City website and Parks & Recreation Brochure.
• Parks Department staff will make periodic observations of recreational facilities to
monitor for compliance.
• Individuals found violating this policy will be reminded of the policy and asked to stop
using tobacco. Failure to follow policy may require ejection/removal from the
recreational facility for the remainder of the day/event.
Adoption date: January 22, 2013
105
Tobacco-Free Park & Recreational
Facilities in Minnesota
(147 Park Policies & Ordinances)
2
A
B
C
D
6
7
8
9
11
13
16
20
22
25
28
29
31
32
35
39
41
42
43
44
47
48
50
51
52
54
55
58
59
62
63
64
65
66
68
69
71
23
14
19
21
27
10 18
26
34
72
73
75
76
77
78
79
80
82
83
85
88
89
90
91
January 2012
E
= City-owned parks with a tobacco-
free policy (135 policies)
= County-owned parks with a
tobacco-free policy (9 policies)
= All city-owned and county-owned
parks have a tobacco-free policy
(1 policy)
= Three Rivers Park District
= Native American Reservations
(1 policy)
= See Metro Map for policies in
Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin,
Ramsey, Scott, and Washington
Counties (51 policies)
Policy Key
##
94
95
97
98
F
99
100
G
H
102
106
110
111
108
112
113
116
117
121
120
I
118
J
123
125
K
134
135
133
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Tobacco-Free Policy for Parks Page 4
January 2012
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Tobacco-Free Policy for Parks Page 5
Minnesota Communities with Tobacco-Free Parks,
sorted alphabetically
Map #Community County Adoption Date Map #Community County Adoption Date
73 Adrian Nobles 2-27-06 14 Duluth St. Louis 2-12-03
25 Aitkin Aitkin 6-2-03 17 Eagan Dakota 3-25-03
90 Albert Lea Freeborn 11-13-06 43 Eagle Lake Blue Earth 4-5-04
64 Alexandria Douglas 5-23-05 12 Eden Prairie Hennepin 9-17-02
57 Andover Anoka 9-21-04 56 Edina Hennepin 8-17-04
53 Anoka Anoka 7-6-04 78 Elbow Lake Grant 4-3-06
70 Arden Hills Ramsey 9-12-05 59 Elk River Sherburne 10-18-04
113 Arlington Sibley 10-18-10 75 Ellsworth Nobles 3-13-06
85 Ashby Grant 7-5-06 134 Ely St. Louis 12-6-11
19 Aurora St. Louis 4-1-03 27 Eveleth St. Louis 6-3-03
31 Austin Mower 7-2-03 41 Faribault Rice 2-25-04
66 Battle Lake Otter Tail 6-14-05 23 Fayal Township St. Louis 5-20-03
80 Baudette Lake of the Woods 5-8-06 55 Fergus Falls Otter Tail 8-9-04
8 Baxter Crow Wing 3-1-02 127 Fridley Anoka 5-23-11
120 Bemidji Beltrami 12-14-10 102 Gaylord Sibley 5-29-08
22 Biwabik St. Louis 5-12-03 117 Glencoe McLeod 11-15-10
115 Blaine Anoka 11-4-10 15 Golden Valley Hennepin 3-4-03
3 Bloomington Hennepin 6-18-01 32 Grand Rapids Itasca 7-14-03
11 Brainerd Crow Wing 6-6-02 93 Ham Lake Anoka 1-2-07
28 Breckenridge Wilkin 6-16-03 83 Hancock Stevens 6-12-06
129 Brooklyn Center Hennepin 6-27-11 135 Hanover Wright 12-6-11
126 Brooklyn Park Hennepin 5-16-11 94 Hardwick Rock 2-13-07
95 Buffalo Wright 4-16-07 96 Hastings Dakota 5-7-07
26 Buhl St. Louis 6-3-03 62 Henning Otter Tail 5-3-05
63 Callaway Becker 5-10-05 88 Herman Grant 10-16-06
89 Canby Yellow Medicine 11-8-06 72 Hermantown St. Louis 2-10-06
46 Champlin Hennepin 5-10-04 18 Hibbing St. Louis 3-31-03
108 Chatfield Fillmore 7-12-10 110 Hinckley Pine 8-3-10
54 Cloquet Carlton 7-20-04 82 Hoffman Grant 6-5-06
7 Cohasset Itasca 1-22-02 114 Hopkins Hennepin 10-19-10
119 Columbia Heights Anoka 11-17-10 21 Hoyt Lakes St. Louis 4-8-03
40 Coon Rapids Anoka 2-17-04 50 International Falls Koochiching 5-28-04
48 Crookston Polk 5-25-04 39 Kent Wilkin 1-1-04
87 Crystal Hennepin 9-19-06 65 La Prairie Itasca 6-6-05
76 Dassel Meeker 4-3-06 106 Lester Prairie McLeod 10-13-09
67 Dayton Hennepin 6-14-05 130 Long Lake Hennepin 8-1-11
77 Donnelly Stevens 4-3-06 44 Luverne Rock 4-13-04
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Tobacco-Free Policy for Parks Page 6
Minnesota Communities with Tobacco-Free Parks,
sorted alphabetically
Map #Community County Adoption Date Map #Community County Adoption Date
38 Mahtomedi Washington 12-3-03 13 Sartell Stearns 10-28-02
1 Maple Grove Hennepin 1-1-93 33 Savage Scott 7-15-03
61 Maplewood Ramsey 1-24-05 45 Shoreview Ramsey 5-3-04
47 Marshall Lyon 5-17-04 98 Silver Bay Lake 5-9-07
132 Medina Hennepin 11-1-11 116 Silver Lake McLeod 11-15-10
74 Mendota Heights Dakota 3-6-06 20 Spicer Kandiyohi 4-2-03
107 Minneapolis Hennepin 5-5-10 86 Spring Lake Park Anoka 7-17-06
122 Minnetonka Hennepin 2-14-11 124 Spring Park Hennepin 5-2-11
131 Minnetonka Beach Hennepin 9-12-11 9 St. Cloud Stearns 5-13-02
51 Monticello Wright 6-14-04 92 St. Francis Anoka 1-2-07
133 Moorhead Clay 11-15-11 30 St. Paul Ramsey 7-1-03
118 Mora Kanabec 11-16-10 10 Virginia St. Louis 5-31-02
42 Morris Stevens 3-9-04 125 Waseca Waseca 5-3-11
84 Mounds View Ramsey 6-27-06 91 Wendell Grant 12-4-06
34 Mountain Iron St. Louis 8-18-03 101 West St. Paul Dakota 4-14-08
24 New Brighton Ramsey 5-27-03 71 Wheaton Traverse 1-26-06
123 New Richland Waseca 4-11-11 100 White Earth Becker 8-16-07
69 New York Mills Otter Tail 8-8-05 79 Williams Lake of the Woods 4-10-06
81 North St. Paul Ramsey 5-16-06 29 Willmar Kandiyohi 6-16-03
36 Nwd Young America Carver 9-22-03 99 Windom Cottonwood 7-17-07
109 Orono Hennepin 8-24-10 105 Winthrop Sibley 10-5-09
128 Osseo Hennepin 6-13-11 58 Wolverton Wilkin 10-12-04
6 Owatonna Steele 12-11-01 104 Woodbury Washington 3-25-09
68 Parkers Prairie Otter Tail 7-18-05 16 Zimmerman Sherburne 3-17-03
52 Pelican Rapids Otter Tail 6-29-04
111 Pine City Pine 9-2-10 A 5-18-04
121 Pipestone Pipestone 2-7-11 B 1-6-05
112 Plato McLeod 10-12-10 C 7-12-05
37 Plymouth Hennepin 10-28-03 D 5-23-06
35 Prinsburg Kandiyohi 9-9-03 E 1-23-07
49 Ramsey Anoka 5-25-04 F 5-22-07
4 Richfield Hennepin 9-1-01 G N/A
60 Robbinsdale Hennepin 12-7-04 H 05-13-08
2 Rochester Olmsted 11-1-00 I 05-26-09
103 Rosemount Dakota 12-16-08 J 03-01-11
5 Roseville Ramsey 12-1-01 K 11-11-11
97 Round Lake Nobles 5-8-07 L 01-01-12Douglas County
Goodhue County
Lac qui Parle County
Scott County
Washington County
Olmsted County
Dakota County
Lower Sioux Indian Community
Ramsey County
Counties/Districts
Rock County
Three Rivers Park District
Anoka County
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Tobacco-Free Policy for Parks Page 7
Meeting Date: January 14, 2013
Agenda Item #: 9
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Student Housing at Educational Facilities
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to inform the City Council of a request staff received to amend the
Zoning Ordinance to allow student housing for high school aged children as an accessory use to
educational facilities. Please let staff know if there are questions or concerns regarding this
proposed amendment.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to allow student housing as an accessory use to “Educational
(academic) Facilities” land use as an accessory use?
BACKGROUND:
On January 2, 2013, staff received a request from the Yeshiva of Minneapolis to permit student
housing at their facility.
The Yeshiva of Minneapolis is a Jewish High School for Boys located at 3115 Ottawa Ave S.
This building was previously occupied by the Bnai Emet Synagogue. They would like to
provide student housing for up to 40 boys beginning the 2013-14 school year. The housing
would be located within the existing building. The students would be supervised by adults that
also would live on site. A brief description of the school and request is attached to this report.
Timeline:
If the City Council desires to further consider this request, the Yeshiva of Minneapolis needs to
complete the following steps before students can move in this fall (2013).
1. The Zoning Ordinance must be amended to permit the use.
2. The Yeshiva of Minneapolis must apply for, and receive a conditional use permit to operate
the student housing and school.
3. Upon receipt of the CUP, the school must be remodeled. This includes substantial interior
construction throughout the building; very little exterior changes are required.
Zoning Amendment
The Zoning Amendment needed is relatively simple. The school falls under the “Educational
(academic) Facilities” land use. This use is permitted in the residential districts by Conditional
Use Permit. The Yeshiva of Minneapolis is zoned R-3 Two-Family Residential. To minimize
the number of properties within the City that could utilize the student housing option, staff
recommends amending only the R-3 provision for “Educational (academic) Facilities. That way,
student housing would be permitted at a school located only in the R-3 Zoning District. It would
not be allowed in the R-1, or R-2 Zoning District. Yeshiva of Minneapolis is the only school
located in the R-3 Zoning District.
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Student Housing at Educational Facilities
Draft Amendment:
Schools are currently allowed in the R-3 District with the following conditions:
Educational (academic) facilities with more than 20 students. The conditions are as follows:
a. Buildings shall be located at least 50 feet from a lot in an R district.
b. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and
pedestrian safety.
c. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any lot in an R district.
d. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial or
shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on
local residential streets.
To allow student housing, this provision would be amended as follows. The language is subject
to change resulting from additional research and further discussion with City departments:
e. Student housing is allowed with the following conditions:
1. No more than 50 students may live on-site.
2. An outdoor play area shall be provided that contains at least 40 square feet per
student living at the school.
3. The housing must be supervised by responsible adults living on-site.
4. The students living on-site must be actively enrolled in the school as a full-time
student.
5. Student motor vehicles, if any, must be stored within a garage.
6. The student housing must be located on the same parcel as the school.
NEXT STEPS:
Due to the number of steps involved, and the lengthy construction process, the Yeshiva is
hopeful that the City can proceed with the zoning consideration and amendment as quickly as
possible. To that end, they are hopeful that the amendment can proceed directly to the Planning
Commission for a public hearing. Assuming the City Council has no significant concerns with
this proposal, staff will schedule the amendment for a public hearing before the Planning
Commission after the amendment is researched further, and a draft amendment is ready.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Letter from Yeshiva of Minneapolis
Location Map
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Administrator
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Student Housing at Educational Facilities
Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 9) Page 4
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Student Housing at Educational Facilities
LOCATION MAP
City Hall