HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/05/28 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
MAY 28, 2013
(Councilmember Sanger Out)
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 5 min. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – June 10, 2013
2. 6:35 p.m. Southwest Light Rail Transit Update
3. 7:35 p.m. Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
8:35 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
8:40 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
4. Complete Streets Policy/Resolution
5. 2013 April Financial Report
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: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 28, 2013
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – June 10, 2013
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for
the regularly scheduled Study Session on June 10, 2013.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next
study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for
the regularly scheduled Study Session on June 10, 2013.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – June 10, 2013
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – June 10, 2013
Study Session, June 10, 2013 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Development Proposal Bally’s Site/TOLD Development - Community Development (30 minutes)
Discuss TOLD Development’s preliminary plans for a mixed-use redevelopment on the Bally
Total Fitness block (including the EDA property) west of Excelsior & Grand.
3. Knollwood Stormwater Plan – Community Development (30 minutes)
Discuss Rouse Properties Knollwood Mall remodel proposal which would remove the south
section of the interior mall, and replace with retailers similar in size to Old Navy and DSW
shoes. Proposal also includes a small 2-3 tenant retail building at the corner of Aquila and
Hwy 7, substantial parking lot reconstruction, landscaping, and storm water improvements.
There are options to consider for storm water improvements that will bring the site into
compliance and, with watershed participation, could provide opportunities for treatment of
larger areas outside the Knollwood property.
4. DLC Apartments (West End) – Community Development (20 minutes)
Introduce concept plans for a multiple family residential redevelopment for the Chili’s and
Olive Garden sites at the West End. Concept plans preserve the Olive Garden building and
use, and construct a new 6-story, 174-unit apartment building. City Council input on the
development concepts is requested. An update to the 2007 West End Redevelopment
environmental analysis (AUAR) is needed, and the City will require the AUAR update to be
completed before processing a PUD Major Amendment application for this redevelopment.
5. SWLRT Update – Community Development (60 minutes)
Current update and continued discussion of the Southwest Light Rail Transit Project.
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.
End of Meeting: 9:00 p.m.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 28, 2013
Discussion Item: 2
TITLE: Southwest Light Rail Transit Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. The purpose of this discussion
is to provide an update on SW LRT engineering and planning processes with a focus on freight
rail. Staff from the SWLRT Project Office will be providing a presentation on this issue.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: No specific policy question at this time. At future meetings
policy related questions will be provided. In the meantime, Council is asked to provide staff
with any questions it might have on the information provided.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary engineering and planning work on SW LRT continues, including station area
layouts, parking, operations and maintenance facility planning, regional trail considerations, and,
the alternatives for freight rail co-location or relocation. Mark Fuhrman and Jim Alexander from
the Metropolitan Council Southwest Project Office (SPO) will present information at the meeting
regarding freight rail routing alternatives currently under consideration.
In addition to discussing the options for freight rail routing, it is expected that the future process
for decision making regarding freight rail alternatives will be addressed, including the SPO’s
outreach efforts, opportunities for public comment on the alternatives, a schedule for the next
steps related to freight rail decision making, and an explanation of what the City’s role in the
freight rail decision process will be and how it may relate to the municipal consent process.
Please also note that staff is proposing a discussion for the June 10 study session on the City’s
own process for evaluating the freight rail issue.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 28, 2013
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action at this time. Staff desires direction on the
policy questions noted below.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council have any further revisions to the proposed plan,
and does Council wish to proceed with scheduling a public hearing to adopt the plan? The
scheduling of a public hearing in a timely manner to formally adopt the plan is recommended in
order to move forward with development and construction of 2013/2014 projects.
BACKGROUND: On March 11, 2013, the City Council reviewed the proposed sidewalk and
trail plan – a plan to construct additional sidewalks, trails, and bikeways over a 10-year period
starting this year. As part of the review, Council discussed revisions to the plan based on
discussion at the January 28, 2013 Study Session. After discussing the plan further and
accepting the proposed revisions, Council directed staff to engage a final round of public
comment prior to scheduling a public hearing to formally adopt the plan.
Staff has solicited and received additional public comments. Comments were received by a
variety of methods, including letters, petitions, E-Mails, telephone calls, and social media. These
comments have been tabulated and attached as part of the discussion portion of this report.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: If Council decides to adopt the system of
community sidewalks and trails via the capital program as proposed, a source of capital ($17 -
$24 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. Staff previously provided a preliminary plan for
debt service levy (bonding) over a multi-year period to cover the proposed 10-year program, and
this information is provided in the discussion portion of this report.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Proposed Property Taxes or Fees for Capital Projects
Estimated Increased Taxes or Utility Rates
Appendix A
Appendix B
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Brian Swanson, Controller
Jamie Zwilling, Communications Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
DISCUSSION
Background and History
As part of the “Vision St. Louis Park” initiative that began several years ago, one of the resulting
strategic directions identified by the Community and the City Council was “St. Louis Park is
committed to being a connected and engaged community.” Included as a priority of that
directive was a focus on developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails.
As a result, an extensive public process was engaged through the Active Living, Sidewalks and
Trail Plan which recommended an approach to developing citywide pedestrian and bicycling
systems, addressing trails, sidewalks, key crossings and prioritizing their importance. The plan
suggested a strategy for implementation, how existing areas of concern might be improved, and
where new walks and trails should be installed. In brief, the plan was developed with the
following key elements in mind:
Purpose - "To develop a comprehensive, city-wide system of trails and sidewalks that provides
local and regional connectivity, improves safety and accessibility, and enhances overall
community livability."
Goals and Objectives -
• Develop an interconnected network of pedestrian and bicycle routes throughout the city
and linked to transit systems, providing options to automobile dependence.
§ establish a citywide grid-system of sidewalks every ¼-mile
§ establish a citywide grid-system of bicycle facilities every ½-mile
§ close gaps in neighborhoods’ existing sidewalk networks
• Anticipate increases in the use of mass transit, including the possibility of a much
improved multi-modal system comprising buses, light rail, heavy commuter rail, local
circulators, etc.
• Establish safe crossings of highways, arterial roads and rail corridors using innovative
strategies, improved traffic control systems, grade separations, etc.
• Develop safe links to schools, commercial hubs, employment centers, institutions and
transit facilities.
• Develop recreational pathways that link neighborhoods to parks and natural areas,
providing opportunities to improve the health and well-being of community residents and
workers.
• Make connections to regional and recreational trails to link St. Louis Park to larger
metropolitan open space systems and destinations.
• Provide safe and easily accessible routes for residents and workers in the community,
including children, seniors and the disabled.
• Create a cohesive, well-designed system that includes a coordinated approach for signs
and orientation, standard designs for street crossings and additional "user-friendly"
amenities such as rest areas, information kiosks and upgraded landscaping.
• Incorporate strategies for funding, maintenance and snow removal into the overall plan.
• Develop a Capital Improvement Plan based on priorities, needs and available resources.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
The goals and objectives of the plan are more graphically illustrated as follows:
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
Both the system plan and the set of general criteria for prioritizing the pedestrian and bike
improvements was generated through community input from a Citizen Advisory Committee,
Community Meetings, 205 online survey responses, and meetings with the Planning
Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, and City Council. In addition,
general support for the goals was vetted through the subsequent Plan-By-Neighborhood process,
Community Survey, and Community Recreation Survey. Plan development and prioritization
was also tied directly to public health, safety and well-being. The system plan and goals were
adopted into the Comprehensive Plan in 2009.
The logic behind prioritization and plan implementation was also based on the following
objectives:
• Focus on key destinations: segments that serve multiple community gathering centers in the
community (schools, parks, transit stops, commercial nodes) rated higher.
• Focus on Transportation: routes that provide north-south connections through the
community, into adjacent communities, and to key transit stops rated higher.
• Focus on Bicycling and Walking: the ultimate goal was to provide a quarter-mile “city”
grid of sidewalks and half-mile grid of bike routes. Improvements that fill gaps in the city
pedestrian and bicycle networks, improve safety at certain intersections, and provide
crossings (bridges or tunnels) of major railroad and highway barriers rated higher.
As part of the plan development by the Citizen Advisory Committee, specific sidewalk
locations such as which side of the street were driven and chosen by a variety of factors unique
to each particular area. These factors included access to specific destinations as listed above,
continuation of segments already in place and/or closing of gaps in the system, school bus
routes, and other input of the Committee members.
As previously stated, the system plan and goals were adopted into the Comprehensive Plan in
2009. The pedestrian and bicycle system plans as adopted and included in the Comprehensive
Plan are shown on the next two pages as follows:
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 7
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 8
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
Plan Implementation
At the June 6, 2011 Study Session, Council discussed implementing the pedestrian and bicycle
system plan. The results of Vision St. Louis Park and community surveys showed strong support
for expanding the City’s system of sidewalk and trails. In addition, Council also discussed the
current system of community and neighborhood sidewalks. As a result of the discussion Council
requested staff to:
1. Prepare a capital improvement program (CIP) utilizing a proactive, high priority
approach to implement the recently developed pedestrian and bicycle improvement plan
along with resources needed to implement this improvement program.
2. Provide information used in the past to identify the community vs. neighborhood
sidewalk systems.
3. Provide information related to taking over maintenance responsibility of the
neighborhood and costs related to expansion of the community sidewalk system.
As a result, staff prepared a detailed draft CIP utilizing the above priority objectives to build all
trails, community sidewalks, on-street bikeways, and bridges identified in the Active Living,
Sidewalks and Trail Plan within 10 years.
In addition to the prioritization criteria as developed through the previous work by the Citizen
Advisory Committee, staff also looked at the scheduling of proposed projects “strategically”
with other public works projects identified in the long-term Capital Improvement Program. For
example, if a specific street reconstruction, utility, or other project is earmarked for work in say
2018, it may make sense to construct a proposed sidewalk or bikeway improvement concurrently
in the same year. In this way, the City may be able to streamline processes, reduce costs, and
limit inconveniences related to construction impacts.
As part of the C.I.P. review process, a policy consideration for “Bikeways” was also discussed.
The installation of “Bike Lanes” requires dedicated pavement space (striped bike lanes) which
could result in the elimination or restriction (possibly one side) of parking on some streets.
“Bike Ways” could also have the same result depending upon the type of “Bike Way” created or
used by the city. Depending upon the type of on road bike facility used, there could be parking
restriction impacts or none at all. Thus where eliminating on-street parking is not appropriate,
implementation of biking facilities may be limited. Since it does not appear that separate biking
facilities (designated bike lanes) can be provided in all areas, the implementation of “Bike
Ways” in some locations will probably need to utilize some type of shared lane strategy that may
include signs and / or pavement markings.
Recent Activities
At the June 11, 2012 Study Session staff presented a 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
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 9
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
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 was also provided to Council. 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 could
assess the entire plan as well as consider personal impacts and concerns. Staff then initiated the
communication process by launching 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.
Subsequently, an initial “kick-off” public informational meeting was held on Tuesday, October 9
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. The City-
wide kick-off meeting was then followed by area (ward) specific informational meetings in
October and November of 2012. The intent of the ward meetings was to present specific projects
to residents in more detail and encourage and receive additional comments and feedback.
After completion of the Ward meetings, notices were mailed to properties along both sides of
streets where specific sidewalk segments were proposed. Staff felt this additional mailing was
necessary to ensure all residents adjacent to sidewalk installations were informed and provided
an opportunity for input. As a result, a significant amount of additional input was received
during late November and early December toward specific proposed sidewalk projects.
Staff provided an update to Council at the Study Session held on January 14, 2013. The report
presented an extensive description of the public process, general summaries and observations
based on input received, and a compendium of the many comments received. Based on the
direction provided by Council on January 14, staff returned to Council on January 28 with
recommendations for revising and adjusting the plan.
As directed by Council, staff updated the sidewalk and trail plan accordingly (changes shown
immediately below and updated maps shown in Appendix A). Upon further input and
concurrence from Council, staff then proceeded with a final public input effort to receive final
comments prior to formal plan adoption.
Council Requested Changes
Change Project Description Const Yr Total
delete Sidewalk 33rd St (Texas Ave to Rhode Island Ave) - south side 2013 $30,000
delete Sidewalk - 31st St (Dakota Ave to Colorado Ave) - south side 2013 $22,000
delete Sidewalk - Pennsylvania Ave (Franklin Ave to 16th St) - east
side 2016 $55,000
retain Sidewalk - Pennsylvania Ave (Cedar Lake Road to Franklin
Ave) - east side 2016 $90,000
delete Sidewalk - 33rd St (Aquila Ave to Virginia Ave) - south side 2017 $75,000
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 10
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
delete Sidewalk - Texas Ave (Franklin Ave to Wayzata Blvd) - west
side 2018 $110,000
retain Sidewalk - Texas Ave (Cedar Lake Rd to Franklin Ave) - west
side 2018 $110,000
delete Sidewalk - 31st St (Texas Ave to Dakota Ave) - south side 2021 $225,000
delete Sidewalk – Pennsylvania (31st St to Oak Hill Park) - west side 2021 $225,000
delete Sidewalk - 25th St (26th St to Sumter Ave) - north side 2023 $13,000
delete Sidewalk - 26th St (Virginia Ave to 25th St) - north side 2023 $14,000
advance Sidewalk - 41st St (Hwy 100 to Wooddale Ave) - south side 2014 to 2013 $22,000
advance Sidewalk - 36th St (Aquila Ave to Wyoming Ave) - south side 2015 to 2014 $55,000
advance Sidewalk - Joppa Ave (Minnetonka Blvd to 1/3 block n of
Sunset Ave) - west side 2020 to 2014 $31,000
Total Deleted $769,000
The following summarizes the revised CIP being proposed at this time (costs follow in the next
section of this report):
Project
Sidewalks Bikeways Bikelanes Trails Bridges
Number Year Length - ft Length - ft Length - ft Length - ft Number
SWT - 2013 2013 6,328 23,969 16,986 4,316 0
SWT - 2014 2014 1,396 24,974 0 1,830 1
SWT - 2015 2015 1,328 15,090 7,823 8,426 3
SWT - 2016 2016 3,753 2,972 5,019 0 0
SWT - 2017 2017 7,935 4,185 16,321 0 0
SWT - 2018 2018 2,967 9,678 0 0 1
SWT - 2019 2019 6,975 0 0 0 0
SWT - 2020 2020 2,701 12,362 3,107 2,000 0
SWT - 2021 2021 1,031 12,346 0 0 0
SWT - 2022 2022 10,519 7,004 0 0 0
SWT - 2023 2023 10,619 0 0 0 0
Totals (ft) 55,552 112,580 49,256 16,572 5
Totals (miles) 10.5 21.3 9.3 3.1
Staff recently completed a final public input process over the past couple of months, similar to
the process conducted in 2012. Similar to the comments previously received, many of the
comments addressed specific sidewalk segments located in residential areas. Comments
continue to be mixed with many residents being opposed to walks that would be constructed
adjacent to their respective properties. For sidewalks proposed in non-residential areas, very few
comments were received.
The Bikeway and Trail portion of the plan continued to receive very few comments, but of those
received to date, they have been positive. Any parking related issues unique to each particular
bikeway segment can be addressed through the public input process as specific bikeway projects
are implemented each year under the program.
A compendium of the comments received over the past couple of months is attached at the end
of this report (Appendix B). The compendium consists of a consolidation of all communications
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 11
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
received, including E-Mails, letters, 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.
In general, many of the comments received from residents expressed opposition to specific
sidewalk segments located adjacent to their respective properties. Concerns were often
expressed with regards to impacts to boulevards, trees, and driveways. It should be noted that
for some segments (such as 39th and 40th Streets), a high percentage of the residents submitted
comments, while on other segments, only a very small percentage of residents submitted
comments. Few if any comments regarding Bikeways or Trails were received in this second
solicitation.
The summaries provided below provide a very general overview of the overall comments
received. Council may wish to review the actual comments as submitted and provided in
Appendix A to reach their own conclusions regarding the input received.
Ward 1 General Summary: In general, feedback received from Ward 1 has generally been
favorable through the process with some segments (Ottawa and Quentin in particular) receiving
negative feedback from some adjacent property owners. Comments have also been received
from residents in the Sorenson and Lake Forest Neighborhoods requesting that specific segments
be added that are not shown on the proposed plan. Per previous discussions with Council, it is
recommended that a future public process be utilized to consider those requests.
Ward 2 General Summary: A very heavy amount of feedback has been received from residents
regarding the segments proposed for 39th and 40th Streets. While some input has been received
supporting the segments, a heavier amount of input received from neighboring properties has
expressed strong opposition. Feedback for other segments in Ward 2 generally ranged from
positive to mixed.
Ward 3 General Summary: Responses received from Ward 3 were generally much lighter than
from the first solicitation. Responses were generally mixed, but again, not many comments were
received relative to the number of properties contacted.
Ward 4 Summary: Feedback received from Ward 4 continues to express opposition to some
segments by adjacent property owners. These include Texas Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue,
Louisiana Avenue, Westmoreland Lane, Cedar Lake Road, and Virginia Avenue. However,
similar to Ward 3, the amount of feedback received was relatively light as a percentage of the
number of properties contacted.
Next Steps:
1. Discuss resident input and determine if any further adjustments to the plan are desired by
Council. Due to comments received regarding the 39th and 40th Street segments, those be
discussed further by Council at the Study Session. Council may want to consider re-
scheduling these two segments to a later year in the C.I.P, or deferring a decision on their
adoption to a later date. Otherwise, based on the feedback received, staff recommends
that Council move forward with the current plan as proposed.
2. Schedule a Public Hearing at a regular Council meeting to adopt the plan. If Council
desires to move forward with projects scheduled for 2013/2014, a Public Hearing will
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 12
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
need to be scheduled as soon as possible. This could be arranged and noticed for as early
as the June 17th Council meeting.
FINANCIAL AND BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Based on the changes described above,
Public Works staff has revised the earlier proposed CIP summary, reduced by $769,000, as
follows:
Year Annual Cost Sidewalks Bikeways Bikelanes Trails Bridges
2013 $662,200 $298,000 $48,000 $103,200 $213,000 $0
2014 $301,000 $77,000 $44,000 $0 $80,000 $100,000
2015 $6,460,900 $58,000 $30,400 $103,000 $369,500 $5,900,000
2016 $209,000 $161,000 $5,000 $43,000 $0 $0
2017 $494,000 $347,000 $7,000 $140,000 $0 $0
2018 $2,145,000 $130,000 $15,000 $0 $0 $2,000,000
2019 $306,000 $306,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
2020 $247,000 $122,000 $19,000 $28,000 $78,000 $0
2021 $93,500 $73,500 $20,000 $0 $0 $0
2022 $467,000 $455,000 $12,000 $0 $0 $0
2023 $459,000 $459,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Totals $11,844,600 $2,486,500 $200,400 $417,200 $740,500 $8,000,000
Please note – the costs in this summary do not account for inflation, engineering, contingencies,
right-of-way acquisition or other unknown project costs. Staff feels these factors will
significantly add to the costs shown above and currently project the total cost to build the
proposed improvements to be in the $17 - $24 million dollar range.
Finance Department Analysis
This project is currently estimated at $17 - $24 million, which is only for construction costs.
This estimate does not include operational impacts for costs such as staffing, maintenance,
plowing, etc. Currently, this project is proposed to be funded through the issuance of General
Obligation Tax Exempt Bonds issued in 2014, 2019 and 2024 for approximately $5.7 - $8.0
million each year depending on final bids, and financed over 15 years. This proposed structure
would be modified once a firm plan and timeline is in place. Based on current interest rates and
building in a contingency for the possibility of interest rates increasing, debt service would vary
from approximately $500,000 - $2,100,000 per year for 25 years, with years 11- 15 requiring
debt service obligations on all three bond issues. This would require an approximate property
tax levy increase of 6.2% - 8.6% spread over 11 years based on the 2013 Final Property Tax
Levy. The proposed increase would equate to a property tax increase for a median valued
($220,100) residential homesteaded property of approximately $57 - $79, or 5.9% - 8.2% within
that same eleven year period based on 2013 information. Depending on the year, one, two or all
three of the bond issues would then remain on the tax rolls for a total of 25 years until the bonds
are paid off. Looking at the impact to that same property over the 25 years the bonds are
outstanding, it is approximately $852 - $1,192.
An overview of this project and two other significant capital projects (Community Center and
Stormwater Improvements), and their overall cumulative impacts to taxes and utility rates is
attached (attachments - PROPOSED PROPERTY TAXES OR FEES FOR CAPITAL
PROJECTS and ESTIMATED INCREASED TAXES OR UTILITY RATES). Please note that
this overview does not include any other increases in the property tax levy or utility rates to
accommodate normal/routine business needs.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 13
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
PROPOSED PROPERTY TAXES OR FEES FOR
CAPITAL PROJECTS
OVERVIEW:
The information discussed below relates to the proposed increases in property taxes or Storm
Water Utility fees over a specific period of time based on the projects. With the many variables
in each project including cost, timing of construction, financing mechanisms available, etc., the
proposed impacts will be subject to a fair amount of volatility as these variables become more
clear or constant in the future. These analyses only discuss the costs for completing the projects,
not any ongoing costs such as staffing, maintenance, plowing, utilities, etc., based on the type of
project. Also, these estimates only focus on the cost of each project, not everything else the City
Council considers each year during the normal budget process as it relates to the Property Tax
Levy, Utility Rates and all the costs associated with normal/ongoing City operations.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Community Center - This project is currently estimated at $20 - $25 million, which is only for
construction costs. This estimate does not include operational impacts once the facility is in use
for costs such as staffing, maintenance, utilities, etc. Currently, this project is proposed to be
funded through the issuance of General Obligation Tax Exempt Bonds issued in 2014 and 2015
for approximately $10.0 - $12.5 million each year depending on final bids, and financed over 20
years. Based on current interest rates, and building in a contingency for the possibility of interest
rates increasing, debt service would be approximately $1.4 - $1.8 million per year for 20 years.
This would require an approximate property tax levy increase of 5.8% - 7.4% spread over two
years based on the 2013 Final Property Tax Levy. The proposed increase would equate to a
property tax increase for a median valued ($220,100) residential homesteaded property of
approximately $53 - $68, or 5.5% - 7.0% within that same two year period based on 2013
information. This would then remain on the tax rolls for the next 18 years until the bonds are
paid off. Looking at the total impact to that same property over the 20 years the bonds are
outstanding, it is estimate to be approximately $1,060 - $1,360.
Sidewalks and Trails - This project is currently estimated at $17 - $24 million, which is only for
construction costs. This estimate does not include operational impacts for costs such as staffing,
maintenance, plowing, etc. Currently, this project is proposed to be funded through the issuance
of General Obligation Tax Exempt Bonds issued in 2014, 2019 and 2024 for approximately $5.7
- $8.0 million each year depending on final bids, and financed over 15 years. This proposed
structure would be modified once a firm plan and timeline is in place. Based on current interest
rates, and building in a contingency for the possibility of interest rates increasing, debt service
would vary between approximately $500,000 - $2,100,000 per year for 25 years, with years 11-
15 requiring debt service obligations on all three bond issues. This would require an
approximate property tax levy increase of 6.2% - 8.6% spread over 11 years based on the 2013
Final Property Tax Levy. The proposed increase would equate to a property tax increase for a
median valued ($220,100) residential homesteaded property of approximately $57 - $79, or 5.9%
- 8.2% within that same eleven year period based on 2013 information. Depending on the year,
one, two or all three of the bond issues would then remain on the tax rolls for a total of 25 years
until the bonds are paid off. Looking at the impact to that same property over the 25 years the
bonds are outstanding, it is estimate to be approximately $852 - $1,192.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 14
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
Storm Water Capital Projects - These projects are currently estimated at $11 million, which is
only for construction costs, and does not include operational impacts. Currently, these projects
are proposed to be funded through the issuance of Tax Exempt Utility Revenue Bonds issued in
2014 for approximately $7.5 million, 2019 for approximately $2.0 million, both financed until
2029, along with cash available in the fund for the remaining balance. In order to generate the
necessary revenues for obligations within the Storm Water Fund, rates need to be increased
significantly in the next five years. Based on proposed expenses in the fund, rates will need to
increase from $16.00 per quarter in 2013 to $24.83 per quarter in 2018. This is an increase of
$8.83 per quarter, $35.32 per year, or 55.2%. On an annual basis, rates will need to increase by
an average of approximately $7.06 per year over the next five years, and then are proposed to
remain essentially flat after that. The significant increases are required due to the large projects
proposed in the early years of this plan. The proposed increases would equate to a Storm Water
Utility fee increase for a residential property of approximately $389 over the proposed 15 year
financing term.
What is the Average Cumulative Proposed Impact to a Residential Homesteaded Property?
Based on all the variables, such as date of a bond issue, staggered issuances for projects, phased
in fee increases for Storm Water, valuation of a property, fiscal disparities, taxable market value
of the City, etc., it would be more beneficial to look at the impact over a period of time, versus a
snapshot, such as one year to another. With that considered, using 2013 figures for tax
calculations, and fees as proposed, the cumulative effect of constructing all the capital projects
discussed above would result in an impact in taxes and utility fees averaging approximately
$100.00 - $160.00 per year over the proposed financing terms of projects. This range considers
the low and high cost of the proposed projects and estimating bonds for these projects that are
added or drop off for the sidewalk and trails program. Again, this estimate does not include other
increases the City might need to make to the property tax levy and utility rates to continue
normal/ongoing operations.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 15
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
ESTIMATED INCREASED TAXES OR UTILITY RATES
NOTE: These estimates are only for construction costs and DO NOT include costs for operational impacts.
ESTIMATED LOW HIGH LOW HIGH NO. OF YRS.AVG. INC.END OF
PROJECT PROJECT COST COST COST %%INCREASE^PER YEAR FINANCING#
Community Center*$20,000,000 - $25,000,000 53$ 68$ 5.5% 7.0% 2 $26.50 - $34.00 2035
Sidewalks and Trails**$17,000,000 - $24,000,000 57$ 79$ 5.9% 8.2% 11 $5.18 - $7.18 2039
Storm Water Capital***$11,000,000 n/a 35$ n/a 55.0% 5 $7.00 2029
* 2 stage issuance - $10-12.5M in 2014 and $10-12.5M in 2015 of Debt for a $20-25M project financed over 20 years for each issue,
with Debt Service starting one year after issuance.
** 3 stage issuance - $5.67-8.00M every 5 years for a $17-24M total project financed over 15 years for each issuance.
*** Financed by issuing $7.5M in debt in 2014 over 15 years, $2M in 2019 and available cash in the fund.
^ Due to different financing terms, this is the number of years until the full cost will be realized on property taxes or utility rates.
# This is last year of the impact to property owners for each project when the proposed financing terms will end.
ESTIMATED INCREASED TAXES OR UTILITY RATES
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 16
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
APPENDIX A
34TH ST
LAKE S
T
27TH ST
WALKE R ST ALABAMA AVETEXAS AVE44 TH S
TFLORIDA AVEOXFOR
D
S
T GEORGIA AVEYOSEMITE AVE41ST STIDAHO AVERH ODE ISL AND AVEJERSEY AVEWOODDALE
AVE37TH ST LOUISIANA AVEBNSF RR
EXCELSI
O
R
B
L
V
D
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
3 5 T H S T
38TH STKENTUCKY AVE39TH ST
CEDAR LAKE R D
VERNON AVEKIPLING AVEWAYZATA B L V D
2 8 T H S T
F O R D R D
INGLEWOOD AVESHELARD PKWY
25 1/2 ST
GORHAM AVEPARK G
L
E
N
R
D
BRUNSWICK AVEBELT LINE BLVDMINN ETON KA BLVD
EXCELSIOR B
L
V
D
31ST ST
BROWNDALE AVE16TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVEZARTHAN AVEC
LUB RD
3 6TH S T
2 3 R D S T
26TH ST
3 6 1/2 STMARYLAND AVEMOR NING SIDE RDZINRAN AVETOLEDO AVEMELROSE AVE32ND ST
UTICA AVENORTH
S
T
42ND ST
DOUGLAS AVE
GLENHURST AVE24TH ST
HAMILT ON ST
XENWOOD AVEWEBSTER AVENEVADA AVEF R A N K LIN AV E
P OWELL R D
VIRGINIA CIR
22ND ST
29TH ST
40TH STDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVE25TH S T
BASSWOO D RD18TH STOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
FRANCE AVECAMBRIDGE STQUEBEC AVERALEIGH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEAQUILA AVECOLORADO AVEPENNSYLVA NIA AVEEDGEWOOD AVERIDGE DR
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33RD STOREGON AVES UNS ET BLVDCP RRPA R K C E N TER BLVDUTICA AVE35TH ST
18TH ST
AQUI
L
A
A
V
E
WEBSTER AVEUTICA AVE32ND ST XENWOOD AVEYOSEMITE AVE31ST STBRUNSWICK AVEIDAHO AVEQUEBEC AVECP RR
CP
RR
CP RRKENTUCKY AVEGEORGIA AVE29TH ST
3 7 T H S T
27TH ST
2 2N D S T
QUENTIN AVEWAYZATA BLVD
JOPPA AVE37TH ST
36TH ST TEXAS AVE34TH STFLAG A
VE
JERSEY AVEALABAMA AVE2 3 R D S TQUENT I
N AVEFLAG
AVEFORD RDLAKE ST34TH ST
OXFORD ST OTTAWA AVEWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
33RD ST
28TH ST
16TH ST
36TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE35TH ST
JOPPA AVE26TH ST
27TH ST
ALABA MA AVEEDGEWOOD AVE28TH ST
CEDAR
L
A
K
E
R
D
31ST ST
25TH ST
3 9 T H S T
26TH ST
16TH S T
1ST ST2ND STPARK PLACE BLVDZARTHAN AVEZARTHAN AVETOLEDO AVE
32ND ST
42ND ST
42ND STAQUILA LNGLENHURST AVEBROOK AVEXENWOOD AVEEDGEB
R
O
O
K
D
R
FOREST RD
NEVADA AVE40TH L
N
ELIOT
VI
E
W
R
D
43 1/2 ST
MACKEY AVE40TH S
T
DAKOTA AVEDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVELYNN AVE18TH ST
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
V A L L A C H E R A V EWESTWOOD HILLS D R WESTWOODHILLSDR30 1/2 ST
34 1/2 ST
14TH ST
BOONE AVEBOONE AVE
BOONEAVEWEST
M
ORELAND LNUTAH DRQUE
B
E
C
A
V
E
Q UEBEC AVERALEIGH AVERALEIGH AVEX YLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEGAMBLE DR
22ND LN
B
R
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
E
35 TH STJORDAN AVEDART AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEBURD
PL
STA NLE N RD
CA
V
E
L
L
AVECAVELL AVECAVELL AVEPARKLANDS RDCOLORADO AVECOLORADO AVECEDAR LAKE AVEKILMER AVEKILMER AVEPARK C OM M O N S D R
32 1/2 ST
CEDARWOOD R D
C ED ARWO
O
D
R
D
MEADOWBROOK RDPARKER RD
BLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVE13TH LN
13TH LN
TAFT AVEWYOMING AVEWYOMING AVEEDGEWOOD AVEEDGEWOOD AVE13 1/2 ST
M
O
NIT
O
R
S
T
FORD LN
RANDAL
L
A
V
E
INDEPENDENCE
A
VEINDEPENDENCE AVEINDEPEND ENCE AVEINDEPENDENCE AVEPA RKWOODS R D
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE3 3 R D S T
33RD ST 33RD ST NATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVEW O L F E PKW Y24TH ST W
OREGON AVEOREGON AVEOREGON AVEREPUBLIC AVEVIRGINIA A
V
E
VIRGINIA AVEVIRGINIA AV E
VIRGINIA AVEPRINCETON AVEPRINCETON AVEWESTSIDE DR
DECATUR LNYUKON AVEY U KON AVEGETTYSBURGAVEGETTYSBURG AVECAVELL LN
H ILLSBORO AVEH
I
L
LSBORO AVEHILLSBORO AVEHILL SBORO AVEPARKDALE D
RLANCASTERAVE
PHILLIPS PKWYGLENHURST RDC
E
D
AR LAKE RDHILL LN
DECATURAVEDECATUR AVEM EADOWBROO
K
B
L
VDMEADO
WBROOK
B
L
V
D
GLEN PL
HIG
HWOOD RD
MINNEHAHA C
I
R NEXCELSIORWAYWOODLAND
DRBROOKVIEWDR F
O
R
E
S
T L
N
LOUISIANA CTLNFAIRWAYLN
ENSIGNAVETE X A TONKA AVEWILLOW LNWILLOWLNPRKR24THLN WESTWOOD HILLS CRV
AQUILA CIRBOONECT WESTRIDGE LNMINNEHAHA
CT
TEXAS
CIR
OAK LEAF
CT
FORD
CIR
OTTAWA AVE28TH STAQUILA
AVE
31ST
ST
YOSEMI TE AVEAQUILA AVEFLAG AVE31ST ST
C ED A R L AK E RD
24TH S
T
31ST ST
22NDST COLORADO AVEBARRY ST
ZARTHAN AVE16TH ST
ALABAMA AVE14TH ST
FLAG AVE16TH ST
1 6 T H ST
26TH
ST
SALEM AVEQUEBEC AVEPENNSYL VANIA AVEZINR AN AVEGLENHURST AVETOLEDO AVE18TH ST
2 3 R D ST
31ST ST
SALEM AVELYNN AVEPENNSYLVANIAAVECOLORADO AVE23 RD ST
24TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE18TH ST
27TH STDAKOTA AVE25TH ST
VERNON AVE41ST ST
29TH STMARYLAND AVE28TH
ST
25TH ST
18 T H S T
26TH ST
ID
A
H
ONEVADA AVE24THST
23RD ST
RALE
IGH
AVE
37TH ST
22ND ST
31ST
ST
18TH
KIPLING AVEPENNSYLVANIA AVESUMTER AVE23RD
ST
FR A N K L IN A V E
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTERAVEFLORIDA AVE28TH ST
OTTAWA AVEOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
RHODE ISLAND AVE16TH ST
22ND ST BRUNSWICK AVE16TH ST
DIVISION ST YOSEMITE AVEJOPPA AVEDAKOTAAVE39TH ST INGLEWOOD AVEFRANKLIN AVE
41ST ST
29TH STWEST END BLVDDUKE DR16TH ST
UTICA AVECOBBLECREST CTCOOLIDGE AVEBROWNDALE AVELOUISIANA CIRLOUISIANA AVECAMBRIDGE STGETTYSBURG AVE3 5 T H S T
MINNEHAHA CIR N
FLAG AVE
WAYZATA BLVD
WAYZATA BLVD
Exhibit A
Proposed Future Sidewalk System
5-8-2013tw
Legend
Community Sidewalks City Maintained 46.2 miles/243,901 feet
Community Sidewalks SSD Maintained 2.1 Miles/11,018 feet
Neighborhood Sidewalks Resident Maintained 59 miles/311,584 feet
Neighborhood Sidewalks Developer Maintained 2.15 miles/ 11,342 feet
.(Sidewalk Systems 2023)
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 17
34TH ST
LAKE S
T
27TH ST
WALKE R ST ALABAMA AVETEXAS AVE44 TH STFLORIDA AVEOXFOR
D
S
T GEORGIA AVEYOSEMITE AVE41ST STIDAHO AVERH ODE ISL AND AVEJERSEY AVEWOODDALEAVE37TH ST LOUISIANAAVEBNSF RR
EXCELSI
O
R
B
L
V
D
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
3 5 T H S T
38TH STKENTUCKYAVE
39TH ST
CEDARLAKE R D
VERNON AVEKIPLINGAVEWAYZATA B L V D
2 8 T H S T
F O R D R D
INGLEWOOD AVESHELARD PKWY
25 1/2 ST
GORHAMAVEPARK G
L
E
N
R
D
BRUNSWICK AVEBELTLINEBLVDMINN ETON KA BLVD
EXCELSIOR BL
V
D
31ST ST
BROWNDALE AVE
16TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVEZARTHAN AVEC
LUB RD
36 TH S T
2 3 R D S T
26TH ST
3 61/2STMARYLAND AVEMOR NINGSIDE RDZINRAN AVETOLEDO AVEMELROSEAVE32ND ST
UTICAAVENORTH
S
T
42ND ST
DOUGLAS AVE
GLENHURSTAVE24TH ST
HAMILT ON ST
XENWOOD AVEWEBSTER AVENEVADA AVEF R A N K LINAV E
POW ELL RD
VIRGINIA CIR
22ND ST
29TH ST
40TH STDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVE25TH S T
BASSWOOD RD18THSTOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
FRANCE AVECAMBRIDGE STQUEBEC AVERALEIGHAVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEAQUILAAVECOLORADO AVEPENNSYLVA NIA AVEEDGEWOOD AVERIDGEDR
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33RD STOREGON AVESUNS ET BLVDCPRR
PA RK CE N TERBLVDUTICA AVE35TH ST
18TH ST
AQUI
L
A
A
V
E
WEBSTER AVEUTICA AVE32ND ST XENWOOD AVEYOSEMITE AVE31ST STBRUNSWICK AVEIDAHO AVEQUEBEC AVECP RR
CP
RRCP RRKENTUCKY AVEGEORGIA AVE29TH ST
3 7 T H S T
27TH ST
2 2N D S T
QUENTIN AVEWAYZATA BLVD
JOPPA AVE37TH ST
36TH ST TEXASAVE34TH STFLAGA
VE
JERSEY AVEALABAMAAVE2 3 R D S TQUENTI
NAVEFLAG
AVEFORD RDLAKE ST34TH ST
OXFORD ST OTTAWA AVEWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
33RD ST
28TH ST
16TH ST
36TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE35TH ST
JOPPA AVE26TH ST
27TH ST
ALABA MA AVEEDGEWOOD AVE28TH ST
CEDAR
L
A
K
E
R
D
31ST ST
25TH ST
3 9 T H S T
26TH ST
16TH S T
1ST ST2ND STPARKPLACEBLVDZARTHANAVEZARTHAN AVETOLEDOAVE
32ND ST
42ND ST
42ND STAQUILALN GLENHURST AVEBROOK AVEXENWOOD AVEEDGEB
R
O
O
K
D
R
FORESTRD
NEVADA AVE40TH L
N
ELIOT
VI
E
W
R
D
43 1/2 ST
MACKEY AVE40TH S
T
DAKOTA AVEDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVELYNN AVE18TH ST
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
V A L L A C H E R A V EWESTWOODHILLSDRWESTWOODHILLSDR30 1/2 ST
34 1/2 ST
14TH ST
BOONEAVEBOONEAVE
BOONEAVEWEST
M
ORELANDLNUTAHDRQUE
B
E
C
A
V
E
Q UEBECAVERALEIGH AVERALEIGH AVEX YLONAVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEGAMBLE DR
22ND LN
B
R
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
E
35 TH STJORDAN AVEDART AVEUTAH AVEUTAHAVEUTAHAVESUMTERAVEBURD
PL
STANL EN RD
CA
V
E
L
L
AVECAVELL AVECAVELL AVEPARKLANDSRDCOLORADO AVECOLORADO AVECEDAR LAKE AVEKILMER AVEKILMERAVEPARK COM M O N S D R
32 1/2 ST
CEDARWOOD RD
C ED ARWO
O
D
R
D
MEADOWBROOK RDPARKERRD
BLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVE13TH LN
13TH LN
TAFT AVEWYOMING AVEWYOMINGAVEEDGEWOODAVEEDGEWOOD AVE13 1/2 ST
M
O
NIT
O
R
S
T
FORD LN
RANDAL
L
A
V
E
INDEPENDENCEA
VEINDEPENDENCEAVEINDEPENDENCEAVEINDEPENDENCE AVEPA RKWOODSR D
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE3 3 R D S T
33RD ST 33RD ST NATCHEZ AVENATCHEZAVENATCHEZ AVEW O L F E PKW Y24TH ST W
OREGON AVEOREGON AVEOREGON AVEREPUBLIC AVEVIRGINIAA
V
E
VIRGINIA AVEVIRGINIAAV E
VIRGINIA AVEPRINCETON AVEPRINCETON AVEWESTSIDE DR
DECATURLNYUKON AVEY U KONAVEGETTYSBURGAVEGETTYSBURG AVECAVELL
LN
H ILLSBOROAVEH
I
L
LSBOROAVEHILLSBORO AVEHILLSBOROAVEPARKDALE D
RLANCASTERAVE
PHILLIPS PKWYGLENHURSTRDC
E
D
ARLAKERDHILLLN
DECATURAVEDECATUR AVEM EADOWBROO
K
B
L
VDMEADO
WBROOKB
L
V
D
GLEN PL
HIGHWOODRD
MINNEHAHA C
I
RNEXCELSIORWAYWOODLAND DRBROOKVIEWDR F
O
R
E
S
T
L
N
LOUISIANA CTLNFAIRWAYLN
ENSIGNAVETE X A TONKAAVEWILLOW LNWILLOWLNPRKR24THLN WESTWOODHILLSCRV
AQUILACIRBOONECT WESTRIDGE LNMINNEHAHA
CT
TEXAS
CIR
OAK LEAF
CT
FORD
CIR
OTTAWA AVE28TH STAQUILAAVE
31ST
ST
YOSEMI TE AVEAQUILAAVEFLAG AVE31ST ST
C ED AR LAK E RD
24TH S
T
31ST ST
22NDST COLORADOAVEBARRY ST
ZARTHAN AVE16TH ST
ALABAMA AVE14T H S T
FLAG AVE16TH ST
1 6 TH ST
26TH
ST
SALEM AVEQUEBEC AVEPENNSYL VANIA AVEZINR AN AVEGLENHURST AVETOLEDOAVE18TH ST
2 3 R D ST
31STST
SALEMAVELYNN AVEPENNSYLVANIAAVECOLORADO AVE23 RD ST
24TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE18TH ST
27TH STDAKOTA AVE25TH ST
VERNON AVE41ST ST
29TH STMARYLAND AVE28TH
ST
25TH ST
18 T H S T
26TH ST
ID
A
H
ONEVADA AVE24THST
23RD ST
RALE
IGH
AVE
37TH ST
22ND ST
31ST
ST
18TH
KIPLING AVEPENNSYLVANIA AVESUMTER AVE23RD
ST
FRA N K L I N AV E
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTERAVEFLORIDA AVE28TH ST
OTTAWA AVEOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
RHODE ISLAND AVE16TH ST
22 ND ST BRUNSWICK AVE16TH ST
DIVISION ST YOSEMITE AVEJOPPA AVEDAKOTAAVE39TH ST INGLEWOOD AVEFRANKLIN AVE
41ST ST
29TH STWEST END BLVDDUKE DR16TH ST
UTICA AVECOBBLECREST CTCOOLIDGE AVEBROWNDALE AVELOUISIANA CIRLOUISIANAAVECAMBRIDGE STGETTYSBURGAVE 3 5 T H S T
MINNEHAHA CIR N
FLAG AVE
WAYZATA BLVD
WAYZATA BLVD
Exhibit A2
Sidewalk CIP
5-23-2013tw
Legend
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
.By Year
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 18
34TH ST
LAKE S
T
27TH ST
WALKE R ST ALABAMA AVETEXAS AVE44 TH S
TFLORIDA AVEOXFOR
D
S
T GEORGIA AVEYOSEMITE AVE41ST STIDAHO AVERH ODE ISL AND AVEJERSEY AVEWOODDALE
AVE37TH ST LOUISIANA AVEBNSF RR
EXCEL
SI
O
R
B
L
V
D
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
3 5 T H S T
38TH STKENTUCKY AVE39TH ST
CEDAR LAKE R D
VERNON AVEKIPLING AVEWAYZATA B L V D
2 8 T H S T
F O R D R D
INGLEWOOD AVESH ELAR D PKWY
25 1/2 ST
GORHAM AVEPARK G
L
E
N
R
D
BRUNSWICK AVEBELT LINE BLVDMINN ETON KA BLVD
EXCELSIOR B
L
V
D
31ST ST
BROWNDALE AVE16TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVEZARTHAN AVEC
LUB RD
36 TH S T
2 3 R D S T
26TH ST
3 6 1/2 STMARYLAND AVEMOR NINGSIDE R DZINRAN AVETOLEDO AVEMELROSE AVE32ND ST
UTICA AVENORTH
S
T
42ND ST
D OU GLAS AVE
GLENHURST AVE24TH ST
HAMILT ON ST
XENWOOD AVEWEBSTER AVENEVADA AVEF R A N K LIN AV E
POWELL RD
VIRGINIA CIR
22ND ST
29TH ST
40TH STDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVE25TH S T
BASSWOO D RD18TH STOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
FRANCE AVECAMBRIDGE STQUEBEC AVERALEIGH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEAQUILA AVECOLORADO AVEPENNSYLVA NIA AVEEDGEWOOD AVERIDGE DR
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33RD STOREGON AVES UNS ET BLVDCP RRPA RK C E N TER BLVDUTICA AVE35TH ST
18TH ST
AQUI
L
A
A
V
E
WEBSTER AVEUTICA AVE32ND ST XENWOOD AVEYOSEMITE AVE31ST STBRUNSWICK AVEIDAHO AVEQUEBEC AVECP RR
CP
RR
CP RRKENTUCKY AVEGEORGIA AVE29TH ST
3 7 T H S T
27TH ST
2 2N D S T
QUENTIN AVEWAYZATA BLVD
JOPPA AVE37TH ST
36TH ST TEXAS AVE34TH STFLAG
A
VE
JERSEY AVEALABAMA AVE2 3 R D S TQUENT
I
N AVEFLAG
AVEFORD RDLAKE ST34TH ST
OXFORD ST OTTAWA AVEWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
33RD ST
28TH ST
16TH ST
36TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE35TH ST
JOPPA AVE26TH ST
27TH ST
ALABA MA AVEEDGEWOOD AVE28TH ST
CEDAR
L
A
K
E
R
D
31ST ST
25TH ST
3 9 T H S T
26TH ST
16T H S T
1ST ST2ND STPARK PLACE BLVDZARTHAN AVEZARTHAN AVETOLEDO AVE
32ND ST
42ND ST
42ND STAQUILA LNGLENHURST AVEBROOK AVEXENWOOD AVEEDGEB
R
O
O
K
D
R
FOREST RD
NEVADA AVE40TH L
N
ELIOT
VI
E
W
R
D
43 1/2 ST
MACKEY AVE40TH S
T
DAKOTA AVEDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVELYNN AVE18TH ST
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
V A L L A C H E R A V EWESTWOOD HILLS D R WESTWOODHILLSDR30 1/2 ST
34 1/2 ST
14TH ST
BOONE AVEBOONE AVE
BOONEAVEWEST
M
ORELAND LNUTAH DRQUE
B
E
C
A
V
E
Q UEBEC AVERALEIGH AVERALEIGH AVEX YLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEGAMBLE DR
22ND LN
B
R
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
E
35 TH STJORDAN AVEDART AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEBURD
PL
STANL EN R D
CA
V
E
L
L
AVECAVELL AVECAVELL AVEPARKLANDS RDCOLORADO AVECOLORADO AVECEDAR LAKE AVEKILMER AVEKILMER AVEPAR K COM M O N S D R
32 1/2 ST
CEDARW OOD RD
C ED ARWO
O
D
R
D
MEADOWBROOK RDPARKER RD
BLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVE13TH LN
13TH LN
TAFT AVEWYOMING AVEWYOMING AVEEDGEWOOD AVEEDGEWOOD AVE13 1/2 ST
M
O
NIT
O
R
S
T
FORD LN
RANDAL
L
A
V
E
INDEPENDENCE
A
VEINDEPENDENCE AVEINDEPEND ENCE AVEINDEPENDENCE AVEPA RKWOODS R D
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE3 3 R D S T
33RD ST 33RD ST NATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVEW O L F E PKW Y24TH ST W
OREGON AVEOREGON AVEOREGON AVEREPUBLIC AVEVIRGINIA
A
V
E
VIRGINIA AVEVIRGINIA AV E
VIRGINIA AVEPRINCETON AVEPRINCETON AVEWESTSIDE DR
DECATUR LNYUKON AVEY U KON AVEGETTYSBURGAVEGETTYSBURG AVECAVELL LN
H ILLSBORO AVEH
I
L
LSBORO AVEHILLSBORO AVEHILL SBORO AVEPARKDALE D
RLANCASTERAVE
PHILLIPS PKWYGLENHURST RDC
E
D
AR LAKE RDHILL LN
DECATURAVEDECATUR AVEM EADOWBROO
K
B
L
VDMEADO
WBROOK
B
L
V
D
GLEN PL
HIG
HWOOD RD
MINNEH AHA C
I
R NEXCELSIORWAYWOODLAND DRBROOKVIEWDR F
O
R
E
S
T L
N
LOUISIANA CTLNFAIRWAYLN
ENSIGNAVETE X A TONKA AVEWILLOW LNWILLOWLNPRKR24THLN WESTWOOD HILLS CRV
AQUILA CIRBOONECT WESTRIDGE LNMINNEHAHA
CT
TEXAS
CIR
OAK LEAF
CT
FORD
CIR
OTTAWA AVE28TH STAQUILA AVE
31ST
ST
YOSEMI TE AVEAQUILA AVEFLAG AVE31ST ST
C E D AR L AK E RD
24TH S
T
31ST ST
22NDST COLORADO AVEBARRY ST
ZARTHAN AVE16TH ST
ALABAMA AVE14 TH ST
FLAG AVE16TH ST
1 6 TH ST
26TH
ST
SALEM AVEQUEBEC AVEPENNSYL VANIA AVEZINR AN AVEGLENHURST AVETOLEDO AVE18TH ST
2 3 R D ST
31ST ST
SALEM AVELYNN AVEPENNSYLVANIAAVECOLORADO AVE2 3RD ST
24TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE18TH ST
27TH STDAKOTA AVE25TH ST
VERNON AVE41ST ST
29TH STMARYLAND AVE28TH
ST
25TH ST
1 8 T H S T
26TH ST
ID
A
H
ONEVADA AVE24THST
23RD ST
RALE
IGH
AVE
37TH ST
22ND ST
31ST
ST
18TH
KIPLING AVEPENNSYLVANIA AVESUMTER AVE23RD
ST
FRA N K L IN AV E
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTERAVEFLORIDA AVE28TH ST
OTTAWA AVEOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
RHODE ISLAND AVE16TH ST
2 2N D S T BRUNSWICK AVE16T H ST
DIVISION ST YOSEMITE AVEJOPPA AVEDAKOTAAVE39TH ST INGLEWOOD AVEFRANKLIN AVE
41ST ST
29TH STWEST END BLVDDUKE DR16TH ST
UTICA AVECOBBLECREST CTCOOLIDGE AVEBROWNDALE AVELOUISIANA CIRLOUISIANA AVECAMBRIDGE STGETTYSBURG AVE3 5 T H S T
MINNEHAHA CIR N
FLAG AVE
WAYZATA BLVD
WAYZATA BLVD
Exhibit B
Proposed Future Trail System
5-7-2013tw
Legend
Existing Trails
Future Trails
Future Bridges
.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 19
34TH ST
LAKE S
T
27TH ST
WALKE R ST ALABAMA AVETEXAS AVE44 TH STFLORIDA AVEOXFOR
D
S
T GEORGIA AVEYOSEMITE AVE41ST STIDAHO AVERH ODE ISL AND AVEJERSEY AVEWOODDALE
AVE37TH ST LOUISIANA AVEBNSF RR
EXCELSI
O
R
B
L
V
D
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
3 5 T H S T
38TH STKENTUCKY AVE39TH ST
CEDAR LAKE R D
VERNON AVEKIPLING AVEWAYZATA B L V D
2 8 T H S T
F O R D R D
INGLEWOOD AVESHELARD PKWY
25 1/2 ST
GORHAM AVEPARK GL
E
N
R
D
BRUNSWICK AVEBELT LINE BLVDMINN ETON KA BLVD
EXCELSIOR BL
V
D
31ST ST
BROWNDALE AVE16TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVEZARTHAN AVEC
LUB RD
36TH S T
23 R D S T
26TH ST
3 6 1/2 STMARYLAND AVEMOR NINGSIDE RDZINRAN AVETOLEDO AVEMELROSE AVE32ND ST
UTICA AVENORTH
S
T
42ND ST
DOUGLAS AVE
GLENHURST AVE24TH ST
HAMILT ON ST
XENWOOD AVEWEBSTER AVENEVADA AVEF R A N K LIN AV E
POWELL RD
VIRGINIA CIR
22ND ST
29TH ST
40TH STDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVE25TH S T
BASSWOO D RD18TH STOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
FRANCE AVECAMBRIDGE STQUEBEC AVERALEIGH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEAQUILA AVECOLORADO AVEPENNSYLVA NIA AVEEDGEWOOD AVERIDGE DR
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33RD STOREGON AVESUNS ET BLVDCP RRPAR K C E N TER BLVDUTICA AVE35TH ST
18TH ST
AQUI
L
A
A
VE
WEBSTER AVEUTICA AVE32ND ST XENWOOD AVEYOSEMITE AVE31ST STBRUNSWICK AVEIDAHO AVEQUEBEC AVECP RR
C
P
RRCP RRKENTUCKY AVEGEORGIA AVE29TH ST
3 7 TH S T
27TH ST
2 2N D S T
QUENTIN AVEWAYZATA BLVD
JOPPA AVE37TH ST
36TH ST TEXAS AVE34TH STFLAG A
VE
JERSEY AVEALABAMA AVE2 3 R D S TQUENT I
N AVEFLAG
AVEFORD RDLAKE ST34TH ST
OXFORD ST OTTAWA AVEWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
33RD ST
28TH ST
16TH ST
36TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE35TH ST
JOPPA AVE26TH ST
27TH ST
ALABA MA AVEEDGEWOOD AVE28TH ST
CEDAR L
A
K
E
R
D
31ST ST
25TH ST
3 9 T H S T
26TH ST
16TH S T
1ST ST2ND STPARK PLACE BLVDZARTHAN AVEZARTHAN AVETOLEDO AVE
32ND ST
42ND ST
42ND STAQUILA LNGLENHURST AVEBROOK AVEXENWOOD AVEEDGEB
R
O
O
K
D
R
FOREST RD
NEVADA AVE40TH LN
ELIOT
VI
E
W
R
D
43 1/2 ST
MACKEY AVE40TH S
T
DAKOTA AVEDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVELYNN AVE18TH ST
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
V A L L A C H E R A V EWESTWOOD HILLS D R WESTWOODHILLSDR30 1/2 ST
34 1/2 ST
14TH ST
BOONE AVEBOONE AVE
BOONEAVEWEST
M
ORELAND LNUTAH DRQUE
B
E
C
A
V
E
Q UEBEC AVERALEIGH AVERALEIGH AVEX YLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEGAMBLE DR
22ND LN
B
R
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
E
35 TH STJORDAN AVEDART AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEBURD
PL
STANLE N RD
CA
V
E
L
L
AVECAVELL AVECAVELL AVEPARKLANDS RDCOLORADO AVECOLORADO AVECEDAR LAKE AVEKILMER AVEKILMER AVEPARK COM M O N S D R
32 1/2 ST
CEDARWOOD RD
C ED ARWO
O
D
R
D
MEADOWBROOK RDPARKER RD
BLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVE13TH LN
13TH LN
TAFT AVEWYOMING AVEWYOMING AVEEDGEWOOD AVEEDGEWOOD AVE13 1/2 ST
M
O
NIT
O
R
S
T
FORD LN
RANDALL
A
V
E
INDEPENDENCE
A
VEINDEPENDENCE AVEINDEPEND ENCE AVEINDEPENDENCE AVEPA RKWOODS R D
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33 R D S T
33RD ST 33RD ST NATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVEW O L F E PKW Y24TH ST W
OREGON AVEOREGON AVEOREGON AVEREPUBLIC AVEVIRGINIA
A
V
E
VIRGINIA AVEVIRGINIA AV E
VIRGINIA AVEPRINCETON AVEPRINCETON AVEWESTSIDE DR
DECATUR LNYUKON AVEY U KON AVEGETTYSBURGAVEGETTYSBURG AVECAVELL LN
H ILLSBORO AVEH
I
L
LSBORO AVEHILLSBORO AVEHILL SBORO AVEPARKDALE DRLANCASTERAVE
PHILLIPS PKWYGLENHURST RDC
E
D
AR LAKE RDHILL LN
DECATURAVEDECATUR AVEMEADOWBROO
K
B
L
VDMEADO
WBROOK
B
L
V
D
GLEN PL
HIGHWOOD RD
MINNEHAHA C
I
R NEXCELSIORWAYWOODLAND
DRBROOKVIEWDR F
O
R
E
S
T L
N
LOUISIANA CTLNFAIRWAYLN
ENSIGNAVETE X A TONKA AVEWILLOW LNWILLOWLNPRKR24THLN WESTWOOD HILLS CRV
AQUILA CIRBOONECT WESTRIDGE LNMINNEHAHACT
TEXAS
CIR
OAK LEAF
CT
FORD
CIR
OTTAWA AVE28TH STAQUILA AVE
31ST
ST
YOSEMI TE AVEAQUILA AVEFLAG AVE31ST ST
CED AR LAKE RD
24TH S
T
31ST ST
22NDST COLORADO AVEBARRY ST
ZARTHAN AVE16TH ST
ALABAMA AVE14TH ST
FLAG AVE16TH ST
1 6 TH ST
26TH
ST
SALEM AVEQUEBEC AVEPENNSYL VANIA AVEZINR AN AVEGLENHURST AVETOLEDO AVE18TH ST
2 3 R D ST
31ST ST
SALEM AVELYNN AVEPENNSYLVANIAAVECOLORADO AVE2 3RD ST
24TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE18TH ST
27TH STDAKOTA AVE25TH ST
VERNON AVE41ST ST
29TH STMARYLAND AVE28TH
ST
25TH ST
18 T H S T
26TH ST
ID
A
H
ONEVADA AVE24THST
23RD ST
RALE
IGH
AVE
37TH ST
22ND ST
31ST
ST
18TH
KIPLING AVEPENNSYLVANIA AVESUMTER AVE23RD
ST
FRA NK L I N A V E
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTERAVEFLORIDA AVE28TH ST
OTTAWA AVEOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
RHODE ISLAND AVE16TH ST
22ND ST BRUNSWICK AVE16TH ST
DIVISION ST YOSEMITE AVEJOPPA AVEDAKOTAAVE39TH ST INGLEWOOD AVEFRANKLIN AVE
41ST ST
29TH STWEST END BLVDDUKE DR16TH ST
UTICA AVECOBBLECREST CTCOOLIDGE AVEBROWNDALE AVELOUISIANA CIRLOUISIANA AVECAMBRIDGE STGETTYSBURG AVE3 5 T H S T
MINNEHAHA CIR N
FLAG AVE
WAYZATA BLVD
WAYZATA BLVD
Exhibit C
Proposed Future Bikeway System .
5-7-2013tw
Legend
Future Bikeways
Existing Bikeways
Continuation in adjacent City
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 20
34TH ST
LAKE
S
T
27TH ST
WALKE R ST ALABAMA AVETEXAS AVE44 TH S
TFLORIDA AVEOXFOR
D
S
T GEORGIA AVEYOSEMITE AVE41ST STIDAHO AVERH ODE ISL AND AVEJERSEY AVEWOODDALE
AVE37TH ST LOUISIANA AVEBNSF RR
EXCEL
SI
O
R
B
L
V
D
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
3 5 T H S T
38TH STKENTUCKY AVE39TH ST
CEDAR LAKE R D
VERNON AVEKIPLING AVEWAYZA T A B L V D
2 8 T H S T
F O R D R D
INGLEWOOD AVES HELARD PKWY
25 1/2 ST
GORHAM AVEPARK G
L
E
N
R
D
BRUNSWICK AVEBELT LINE BLVDMINN ETON KA BLVD
EXCELSIOR B
L
V
D
31ST ST
BROWNDALE AVE16TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVEZARTHAN AVEC
LUB RD
36T H S T
2 3 R D S T
26TH ST
3 6 1/2 STMARYLAND AVEMOR NING S I D E R DZINRAN AVETOLEDO AVEMELROSE AVE32ND ST
UTICA AVENORTH
S
T
42ND ST
DOUGLAS AVE
GLENHURST AVE24TH ST
HAMILT ON ST
XENWOOD AVEWEBSTER AVENEVADA AVEF R A N KLIN AV E
P OWELL RD
VIRGINIA CIR
22ND ST
2 9 TH S T
40TH STDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVE25TH S T
BASSW O O D RD18TH STOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
FRANCE AVECAMBRIDGE STQUEBEC AVERALEIGH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEAQUILA AVECOLORADO AVEPENNSYLVA NIA AVEEDGEWOOD AVERIDGE DR
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33RD STOREGON AVES U N S ET BLVDCP RRPA R K C E N TER BLVDUTICA AVE35TH ST
18TH ST
AQUI
LA
A
V
E
WEBSTER AVEUTICA AVE32ND ST XENWOOD AVEYOSEMITE AVE31ST STBRUNSWICK AVEIDAHO AVEQUEBEC AVECP RR
CP
RRCP RRKENTUCKY AVEGEORGIA AVE29TH ST
3 7 T H S T
27TH ST
2 2N D S T
QUENTIN AVEWAYZATA BLVD
JOPPA AVE37TH ST
36TH ST TEXAS AVE34TH STFLAG
A
V
E
JERSEY AVEALABAMA AVE2 3 R D S TQUENT
I
N AVEFLA
G
AVEFORD RDLAKE ST34TH ST
OXFORD ST OTTAWA AVEWO
O
D DA
L
E
A
V
E
33RD ST
28TH ST
16TH ST
36TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE35TH ST
JOPPA AVE26TH ST
27TH ST
ALABA MA AVEEDGEWOOD AVE28TH ST
CEDAR
L
A
K
E
R
D
31ST ST
25TH ST
3 9 T H S T
26TH ST
16T H S T
1ST ST2ND STPARK PLACE BLVDZARTHAN AVEZARTHAN AVETOLEDO AVE
32ND ST
42ND ST
42ND STAQUILA LNGLENHURST AVEBROOK AVEXENWOOD AVEEDGEB
R
O
O
K
D
R
FOREST RD
NEVADA AVE40TH L
N
ELIOT
VI
E
W
R
D
43 1/2 ST
MACKEY AVE40TH
S
T
DAKOTA AVEDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVELYNN AVE18TH ST
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
V A L L A C H E R A V EWESTWOOD HILLS D R WESTWOODHILLSDR30 1/2 ST
34 1/2 ST
14TH ST
BOONE AVEBOONE AVE
BOONEAVEWE
S
T
M
ORELAND LNUTAH DRQUE
B
EC AVEQ UEBEC AVERALEIGH AVERALEIGH AVEX YLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEGAMBLE DR
22ND LN
B
R
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
E
35 TH STJORDAN AVEDART AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEBURD
PL
S T ANLEN RD
CA
V
E
L
L
AVECAVELL AVECAVELL AVEPARKLANDS RDCOLORADO AVECOLORADO AVECEDAR LAKE AVEKILMER AVEKILMER AVEPA RK C O M M O N S D R
32 1/2 ST
CEDARWOOD RD
C ED ARWO
O
D
R
D
MEADOWBROOK RDPARKE
R RD
BLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVE13TH LN
13TH LN
TAFT AVEWYOMING AVEWYOMING AVEEDGEWOOD AVEEDGEWOOD AVE13 1/2 ST
M
O
NIT
O
R
S
T
FORD LN
RANDAL
L
A
V
E
INDEPENDENCE AVEINDEPENDENCE AVEINDEPEND ENCE AVEINDEPENDENCE AVEPA RKWOODS R D
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE3 3 R D S T
33RD ST 33RD ST NATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVEW O L F E PKW Y24TH ST W
OREGON AVEOREGON AVEOREGON AVEREPUBLIC AVEVIRGINIA AVEVIRGINIA AVEVIRGINIA AV E
VIRGINIA AVEPRINCETON AVEPRINCETON AVEWESTSIDE DR
DECATUR LNYUKON AVEY U KON AVEGETTYSBURGAVEGETTYSBURG AVECAVELL LN
H ILLSBORO AVEHI
L
LSBORO AVEHILLSBORO AVEHILL SBORO AVEPARKDALE D
RLANCASTERAVE
PHILLIPS PKWYGLENHURST RDCE
D
A
R LAKE RDHILL LN
DECATURAVEDECATUR AVEM EADOWBRO
O
K
BLVDMEADO
WBROOK BL
V
D
GLEN PL
HIG
H
WOOD RD
MINNEHAHA C
I
R NEXCELSIORWAYWOODLAND DRBROOKVIEWDR F
O
R
E
S
T L
N
LOUISIANA CTLNFAIRWAYLN
ENSIGNAVETE X A TONKA AVEWILLOW LNWILLOWLNPRKR24TH
LN WESTWOOD HILLS CRV
AQUILA CIRBOONECT WESTRIDGE LNMINNEHAHA
CT
TEXAS
CIR
OAK LEAF
CT
FORD
CIR
OTTAWA AVE28TH S
TAQUILA
A
VE
31ST
ST
YOSEMI TE AVEAQUILA AVEFLAG AVE31ST ST
C E D A R LAKE RD
24TH ST
31ST ST
22ND
ST COLORADO AVEBARRY ST
ZARTHAN AVE16TH ST
ALABAMA AVE14T H S T
FLAG AVE16TH ST
1 6 T H ST
26TH
ST
SALEM AVEQUEBEC AVEPENNSYL VANIA AVEZINR AN AVEGLENHURST AVETOLEDO AVE18TH ST
2 3 R D ST
31ST ST
SALEM AVELYNN AVEPENNSYLVANIAAVECOLORADO AVE23RD ST
24TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE18TH ST
27TH STDAKOTA AVE25TH ST
VERNON AVE41ST ST
29TH STMARYLAND AVE28TH
ST
25TH ST
1 8 T H S T
26TH ST
ID
A
H
ONEVADA AVE24TH
ST
23RD ST
RALEIGH
AVE
37TH ST
22ND ST
31ST
ST
18TH
KIPLING AVEPENNSYLVANIA AVESUMTER AVE23RD
ST
FR A N K LIN A V E
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTERAVEFLORIDA AVE28TH ST
OTTAWA AVEOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
RHODE ISLAND AVE16TH ST
2 2ND S T BRUNSWICK AVE16TH ST
DIVISION ST YOSEMITE AVEJOPPA AVEDAKOTAAVE39TH ST INGLEWOOD AVEFRANKLIN AVE
41ST ST
29TH STWEST END BLVDDUKE DR16TH STUTICA AVECOBBLECREST CTCOOLIDGE AVEBROWNDALE AVELOUISIANA CIRLOUISIANA AVECAMBRIDGE STGETTYSBURG AVE3 5 T H S T
MINNEHAHA CIR N
FLAG AVE
WAYZATA BLVD
WAYZATA BLVD
Exhibit D
Proposed Future "Pedestrian" System
5-7-2013tw
Legend
Future Bridges
Trails
Sidewalks
.(Sidewalks and Trails)
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
34TH ST
LAKE
S
T
27TH ST
WALKE R ST ALABAMA AVETEXAS AVE44 TH S
TFLORIDA AVEOXFOR
D
S
T GEORGIA AVEYOSEMITE AVE41ST STIDAHO AVERH ODE ISL AND AVEJERSEY AVEWOODDALE
AVE37TH ST LOUISIANA AVEBNSF RR
EXCEL
SI
O
R
B
L
V
D
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
3 5 T H S T
38TH STKENTUCKY AVE39TH ST
CEDAR LAKE R D
VERNON AVEKIPLING AVEWAYZAT A B L V D
2 8 T H S T
F O R D R D
INGLEWOOD AVES HELARD PKWY
25 1/2 ST
GORHAM AVEPARK G
L
E
N
R
D
BRUNSWICK AVEBELT LINE BLVDMINN ETON KA BLVD
EXCELSIOR B
L
V
D
31ST ST
BROWNDALE AVE16TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVEZARTHAN AVEC
LUB RD
36TH S T
2 3 R D S T
26TH ST
3 6 1/2 STMARYLAND AVEMOR NING S I D E R DZINRAN AVETOLEDO AVEMELROSE AVE32ND ST
UTICA AVENORTH
S
T
42ND ST
DOUGLAS AVE
GLENHURST AVE24TH ST
HAMILT ON ST
XENWOOD AVEWEBSTER AVENEVADA AVEF R A N KLIN AV E
P OWELL RD
VIRGINIA CIR
22ND ST
2 9 T H S T
40TH STDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVE25TH S T
BASSW O O D RD18TH STOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
FRANCE AVECAMBRIDGE STQUEBEC AVERALEIGH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEAQUILA AVECOLORADO AVEPENNSYLVA NIA AVEEDGEWOOD AVERIDGE DR
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33RD STOREGON AVES U N S ET BL VDCP RRPA R K C E N TER BLVDUTICA AVE35TH ST
18TH ST
AQUI
LA
A
V
E
WEBSTER AVEUTICA AVE32ND ST XENWOOD AVEYOSEMITE AVE31ST STBRUNSWICK AVEIDAHO AVEQUEBEC AVECP RR
CP
RRCP RRKENTUCKY AVEGEORGIA AVE29TH ST
3 7 T H S T
27TH ST
2 2N D S T
QUENTIN AVEWAYZATA BLVD
JOPPA AVE37TH ST
36TH ST TEXAS AVE34TH STFLAG
A
V
E
JERSEY AVEALABAMA AVE2 3 R D S TQUENT
I
N AVEFLA
G
AVEFORD RDLAKE ST34TH ST
OXFORD ST OTTAWA AVEWO
O
D DA
L
E
A
V
E
33RD ST
28TH ST
16TH ST
36TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE35TH ST
JOPPA AVE26TH ST
27TH ST
ALABA MA AVEEDGEWOOD AVE28TH ST
CEDAR
L
A
K
E
R
D
31ST ST
25TH ST
3 9 T H S T
26TH ST
16T H S T
1ST ST2ND STPARK PLACE BLVDZARTHAN AVEZARTHAN AVETOLEDO AVE
32ND ST
42ND ST
42ND STAQUILA LNGLENHURST AVEBROOK AVEXENWOOD AVEEDGEB
R
O
O
K
D
R
FOREST RD
NEVADA AVE40TH L
N
ELIOT
VI
E
W
R
D
43 1/2 ST
MACKEY AVE40TH
S
T
DAKOTA AVEDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVELYNN AVE18TH ST
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
V A L L A C H E R A V EWESTWOOD HILLS D R WESTWOODHILLSDR30 1/2 ST
34 1/2 ST
14TH ST
BOONE AVEBOONE AVE
BOONEAVEWE
S
T
M
ORELAND LNUTAH DRQUE
B
EC AVEQ UEBEC AVERALEIGH AVERALEIGH AVEX YLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEGAMBLE DR
22ND LN
B
R
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
E
35 TH STJORDAN AVEDART AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEBURD
PL
S T A NLEN RD
CA
V
E
L
L
AVECAVELL AVECAVELL AVEPARKLANDS RDCOLORADO AVECOLORADO AVECEDAR LAKE AVEKILMER AVEKILMER AVEPA RK C O M M O N S D R
32 1/2 ST
CEDARWOOD RD
C ED A RWO
O
D
R
D
MEADOWBROOK RDPARKE
R RD
BLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVE13TH LN
13TH LN
TAFT AVEWYOMING AVEWYOMING AVEEDGEWOOD AVEEDGEWOOD AVE13 1/2 ST
M
O
NIT
O
R
S
T
FORD LN
RANDAL
L
A
V
E
INDEPENDENCE AVEINDEPENDENCE AVEINDEPEND ENCE AVEINDEPENDENCE AVEPA RKWOODS R D
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE3 3 R D S T
33RD ST 33RD ST NATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVEW O L F E PKW Y24TH ST W
OREGON AVEOREGON AVEOREGON AVEREPUBLIC AVEVIRGINIA AVE
VIRGINIA AVEVIRGINIA AV E
VIRGINIA AVEPRINCETON AVEPRINCETON AVEWESTSIDE DR
DECATUR LNYUKON AVEY U KON AVEGETTYSBURGAVEGETTYSBURG AVECAVELL LN
H ILLSBORO AVEHI
L
LSBORO AVEHILLSBORO AVEHILL SBORO AVEPARKDALE D
RLANCASTERAVE
PHILLIPS PKWYGLENHURST RDCE
D
A
R LAKE RDHILL LN
DECATURAVEDECATUR AVEM EADOWBRO
O
K
BLVDMEADO
WBROOK BL
V
D
GLEN PL
HI
G
H
WOOD RD
MINN EHAHA C
I
R NEXCELSIORWAYWOODLAND DRBROOKVIEWDR F
O
R
E
S
T L
N
LOUISIANA CTLNFAIRWAYLN
ENSIGNAVETE X A TONKA AVEWILLOW LNWILLOWLNPRKR24TH
LN WESTWOOD HIL LS CRV
AQUILA CIRBOONECT WESTRIDGE LNMINNEHAHA
CT
TEXAS
CIR
OAK LEAF
CT
FORD
CIR
OTTAWA AVE28TH S
TAQUILA
A
VE
31ST
ST
YOSEMI TE AVEAQUILA AVEFLAG AVE31ST ST
C E D A R LAKE RD
24TH ST
31ST ST
22ND
ST COLORADO AVEBARRY ST
ZARTHAN AVE16TH ST
ALABAMA AVE14T H S T
FLAG AVE16TH ST
1 6 T H ST
26TH
ST
SALEM AVEQUEBEC AVEPENNSYL VANIA AVEZINR AN AVEGLENHURST AVETOLEDO AVE18TH ST
2 3 R D ST
31ST ST
SALEM AVELYNN AVEPENNSYLVANIAAVECOLORADO AVE23RD ST
24TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE18TH ST
27TH STDAKOTA AVE25TH ST
VERNON AVE41ST ST
29TH STMARYLAND AVE28TH
ST
25TH ST
1 8 T H S T
26TH ST
ID
A
H
ONEVADA AVE24TH
ST
23RD ST
RALEIGH
AVE
37TH ST
22ND ST
31ST
ST
18TH
KIPLING AVEPENNSYLVANIA AVESUMTER AVE23RD
ST
FR A N K L IN A V E
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTERAVEFLORIDA AVE28TH ST
OTTAWA AVEOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
RHODE ISLAND AVE16TH ST
2 2N D S T BRUNSWICK AVE16TH ST
DIVISION ST YOSEMITE AVEJOPPA AVEDAKOTAAVE39TH ST INGLEWOOD AVEFRANKLIN AVE
41ST ST
29TH STWEST END BLVDDUKE DR16TH STUTICA AVECOBBLECREST CTCOOLIDGE AVEBROWNDALE AVELOUISIANA CIRLOUISIANA AVECAMBRIDGE STGETTYSBURG AVE3 5 T H S T
MINNEHAHA CIR N
FLAG AVE
WAYZATA BLVD
WAYZATA BLVD
Exhibit E
Proposed Future "Biking" System
.
5-7-2013tw
Legend
Bikeways
Trails
Future Bridges
Continuation in adjacent City
(Trails and Bikeways)
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
34TH ST
LAKE S
T
27TH ST
WALKE R ST ALABAMA AVETEXAS AVE44 TH STFLORIDA AVEOXFOR
D
S
T GEORGIA AVEYOSEMITE AVE41ST STIDAHO AVERH ODE ISL AND AVEJERSEY AVEWOODDALE
AVE37TH ST LOUISIANA AVEBNSF RR
EXCELSI
O
R
B
L
V
D
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
3 5 T H S T
38TH STKENTUCKY AVE39TH ST
CEDAR LAKE R D
VERNON AVEKIPLING AVEWAYZATA B L V D
2 8 T H S T
F O R D R D
INGLEWOOD AVESHELARD PKWY
25 1/2 ST
GORHAM AVEPARK GL
E
N
R
D
BRUNSWICK AVEBELT LINE BLVDMINN ETON KA BLVD
EXCELSIOR BL
V
D
31ST ST
BROWNDALE AVE16TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVEZARTHAN AVECLUB RD
36TH S T
23 R D S T
26TH ST
3 6 1/2 STMARYLAND AVEMOR NINGSIDE RDZINRAN AVETOLEDO AVEMELROSE AVE32ND ST
UTICA AVENORTH
S
T
42ND ST
DOUGLAS AVE
GLENHURST AVE24TH ST
HAMILT ON ST
XENWOOD AVEWEBSTER AVENEVADA AVEF R A N K LIN AV E
POWELL RD
VIRGINIA CIR
22ND ST
29TH ST
40TH STDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVE25TH S T
BASSWOOD RD18TH STOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
FRANCE AVECAMBRIDGE STQUEBEC AVERALEIGH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEAQUILA AVECOLORADO AVEPENNSYLVA NIA AVEEDGEWOOD AVERIDGE DR
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33RD STOREGON AVES UN S ET BLVDCP RRPARK C E N T ER BLVDUTICA AVE35TH ST
18TH ST
AQUI
L
A A
V
E
WEBSTER AVEUTICA AVE32ND ST XENWOOD AVEYOSEMITE AVE31ST STBRUNSWICK AVEIDAHO AVEQUEBEC AVECP RR
C
P
RRCP RRKENTUCKY AVEGEORGIA AVE29TH ST
3 7 T H S T
27TH ST
2 2 N D S T
QUENTIN AVEWAYZATA BLVD
JOPPA AVE37TH ST
36TH ST TEXAS AVE34TH STFLAG A
VE
JERSEY AVEALABAMA AVE2 3 R D S TQUENT I
N AVEFLA
G
AVEFORD RDLAKE ST34TH ST
OXFORD ST OTTAWA AVEWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
33RD ST
28TH ST
16TH ST
36TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE35TH ST
JOPPA AVE26TH ST
27TH ST
ALABA MA AVEEDGEWOOD AVE28TH ST
CEDAR L
A
K
E
R
D
31ST ST
25TH ST
3 9 T H S T
26TH ST
16TH S T
1ST ST2ND STPARK PLACE BLVDZARTHAN AVEZARTHAN AVETOLEDO AV E
32ND ST
42ND ST
42ND STAQUILA LNGLENHURST AVEBROOK AVEXENWOOD AVEEDGEB
R
O
O
K
D
R
FOREST RD
NEVADA AVE40TH L
N
ELIOT
VI
E
W
R
D
43 1/2 ST
MACKEY AVE40TH S
T
DAKOTA AVEDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVELYNN AVE18TH ST
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
V A L L A C H E R A V EWESTWOOD HILLS D R WESTWOODHILLSDR30 1/2 ST
34 1/2 ST
14TH ST
BOONE AVEBOONE AVE
BOONEAVEWEST
M
ORELAND LN UTAH DRQUE
B
E
C
A
V
E
Q UEBEC AVERALEIGH AVERALEIGH AVEX YLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEGAMBLE DR
22ND LN
B
R
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
E
35 TH STJORDAN AVEDART AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEBURD
PL
S TANLEN RD
CA
V
E
L
L
AVECAVELL AVECAVELL AVEPARKLANDS RDCOLORADO AVECOLORADO AVECEDAR LAKE AVEKILMER AVEKILMER AVEPARK COMM O N S D R
32 1/2 ST
CEDARWOOD RD
C E D ARWO
O
D
R
D
MEADOWBROOK RDPARKE
R RD
BLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVE13TH LN
13TH LN
TAFT AVEWYOMING AVEWYOMING AVEEDGEWOOD AVEEDGEWOOD AVE13 1/2 ST
M
O
NIT
O
R
S
T
FORD LN
RANDALL
A
V
E
INDEPENDENCE
A
VEINDEPENDENCE AVEINDEPEND ENCE AVEINDEPENDENCE AVEPA R KWOODS R D
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE3 3 R D S T
33RD ST 33RD ST NATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVEW O L F E PK W Y24TH ST W
OREGON AVEOREGON AVEOREGON AVEREPUBLIC AVEVIRGINIA
A
V
E
VIRGINIA AVEVIRGINIA AV E
VIRGINIA AVEPRINCETON AVEPRINCETON AVEWESTSIDE DR
DECATUR LNYUKON AVEY U KON AVEGETTYSBURGAVEGETTYSBURG AVECAVELL LN
H ILLSBORO AVEHI
L
L
SBORO AVEHILLSBORO AVEHILL SBORO AVEPARKDALE D
RLANCASTERAVE
PHILLIPS PKWYG LENHURST RDC
E
D
A
R LAKE RDHILL LN
DECATURAVEDECATUR AVEM EADOWBROO
K
B
LVDMEADO
W
BROOK
B
L
V
D
GLEN PL
HIG
HWOOD RD
MINNEHAHA C
I
REXCELSIORWAYWOODLAND
DRBROOKVIEWDR F
O
R
E
S
T LN
LOUISIANA CTLNFAIRWAYLN
ENSIGNAVETE X A TONKA AVEWILLOW LNWILLOWLNPRKR24TH
LN WESTWOOD HILLS CRV
AQUILA CIRBOONECT WESTRIDGE LNMINNEHAHA
CT
TEXAS
CIR
OAK LEAF
CT
FORD
CIR
OTTAWA AVE28TH STAQUILA AVE
31ST
ST
YOSEMI TE AVEAQ UILA AVEFLAG AVE31ST ST
C ED A R LAKE RD
24TH
S
T
31ST ST
22ND
ST COLORADO AVE25 1/2 ST
ZARTHAN AVE16TH ST
ALABAMA AVE14TH S T
FLAG AVE16TH ST
1 6 T H ST
26TH
ST
SALEM AVEQUEBEC AVEPENNSYL VANIA AVEZINR AN AVEGLENHURST AVETOLEDO AVE18TH ST
2 3 R D ST
31ST ST
SALEM AVELYNN AVEPENNSYLVANIAAVECOLORADO AVE23RD ST
24TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE18TH ST
27TH STDAKOTA AVE25TH ST
VERNON AVE41ST ST
29TH STMARYLAND AVE28TH
ST
25TH ST
18 T H S T
26TH ST
ID
A
H
ONEVADA AVE24TH
ST
23RD ST
RALEIGH
AVE
37TH ST
22ND ST
31ST
ST
18TH
KIPLING AVEPENNSYLVANIA AVESUMTER AVE23RD
ST
FRA N K L IN A V E
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTERAVEFLORIDA AVE28TH ST
OTTAWA AVEOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
RHODE ISLAND AVE16TH ST
22ND ST BRUNSWICK AVE16TH ST
OXFORD ST YOSEMITE AVEJOPPA AVEDAKOTAAVE39TH ST INGLEWOOD AVEFRANKLIN AVE
41ST ST
29TH STWEST END BLVDDUKE DR16TH ST
UTICA AVEExhibit G
Existing Sidewalk System
Legend
Community Sidewalks City Maintained 45.7 miles/241,531 feet
Community Sidewalks SSD Maintained 2.2 miles/11,818 feet
Neighborhood Sidewalks Resident Maintained 60.5 miles/319,680 feet
Neighborhood Sidewalks Developer Maintained 2.2 miles/11,508 feet
4/23/2011tw
±
(Sidewalk Systems 2012)
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 23
APPENDIX B
WARD 1
34TH St. W. Pro’s
● Sorry that I am a couple of days late with my response.
I'm very supportive of the proposed plans for additional sidewalks as they make for a much more
friendly pedestrian commute throughout SLP.
I do have an additional request that the sidewalk on 34th Street, extending from Lake Street to
Xenwood, be completed where there are missing segments. 34th Street is heavily traveled
with many vehicles and pedestrians, especially kids walking to and from the high school. It is
unsafe at times with the kids walking in the middle of the street, cars parked on both sides (in
some locations) and moving vehicles also traveling in the middle.
I thank you for giving some very serious consideration to my request.
34TH St. W. Con’s
● None
France Ave. - Pro’s
● I have read several articles on the France Ave construction which is upcoming. I am
delighted that it stays within the current footprint (which is very large) and does not take up
additional greenspace. The narrowing of roadway should calm the cars and it will be great to
have a dedicated bikeway which I will continue to use. Sidewalks will be nice, too.
Where will the bridges be going in future years? They are incredibly costly. Thanks,
France Ave. – Con’s
● None
Hamilton St. – Pro’s
● The two places on my street that don't have sidewalks are 6218 Hamilton Street (private
home) and 6224 Hamilton (apartment building on the corner of Wodddale and Hamilton). I feel
these two places should have sidewalks for all the walkers/strollers going by in the
neighborhood.
Another place is Brunswick, between Lake Street and 34th on the west side. I believe only ONE
house has a sidewalk. I cannot get the addresses because there is snow on the ground now, and I
am not exactly sure where the sidewalk is because I don't think they have shoveled it this time. I
have never understood why some people can fight having a sidewalk put in so they don't have to
shovel snow--If that is the case, I would like mine removed! (Kidding, of course.)
Please check into the Hamilton addresses. I think they should have sidewalks. I live at 6214
Hamilton and have a very WIDE sidewalk.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 24
Hamilton St. – Con’s
● None
Ottawa Ave. – Pro’s
● None
Ottawa Ave. – Con’s
● I see from your March 29, 2013 mailing that my previous comments have not affected your
plan for sidewalks on the 28xx block of Ottawa.
For that reason, I will repeat my previous comments.
The City can minimize the damage to the environment and landscaping on the 28xx block of
Ottawa, while still meeting many of its transportation goals by:
• limiting sidewalks to one side of the street
• limiting sidewalk width to 4’ as is common in the Fern Hill neighborhood rather than 6’
I remain amazed that your plan includes sidewalks on both sides of Ottawa, while the much more
heavily used West 28th Street corridor retains a sidewalk on only one side.
• I have lived at this address since Nov. 1986. One of the reasons I bought my house on this
street was, I loved, and still do, by the way all of the beautiful trees lining the roadway. Your
sidewalk project would destroy a lot of these trees. Not only that, it would destroy many of my
neighbors very pleasing landscaping efforts. Another very obvious reason not to pave more of
this block, is because it is a flood plain. Any major rain event sends more water rushing down
this street and into tax paying citizens yards than practically anywhere else in the city. I know
this because it happens to me and a number of my neighbors, and because a number of years ago
I attended a meeting at city hall about this flooding issue. To my knowledge, the city has not
done a thing about this problem. So, the last thing this neighborhood needs is more concrete. So,
fix the flooding problem, and then fiddle around with your trivial projects. This neighborhood
has done just fine without sidewalks. I know of no accidents resulting because there were no
sidewalks. Additionally, I think, that the cities' monies could be spent much more productively
elsewhere, not on unnecessary, money wasting pet projects. Finally, and selfishly, I don't want
my Taxes to go up to pay for a completely unnecessary lark, dreamed up by a bunch of local
politicians trying to figure out a way to spend money. I am certain there are more pressing local
issues to deal with. Save the trees, dump the concrete somewhere else, maybe your
neighborhood.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 25
Quentin Ave. – Pro’s
● We have lived on Quentin Avenue between 26 and 27 Streets for 24 years and support the
proposed sidewalk. However, If a sidewalk is being proposed for the east side of Quentin
Avenue between 26 and 27 Streets, we propose that a sidewalk also be installed on the west side
of the street for the following reasons:
1. There is already intended space in everyone's yard for a sidewalk on both sides of the street
2. Sidewalks on the adjoining blocks between 27 Street and Minnetonka Blvd. are on both sides
of the street. This is also the case on most, if not all sidewalked streets in this neighborhood. It
seems inconsistent not to do the same between 26 and 27 Streets
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 26
3. Quentin Avenue and 26th Street are major thoroughfares for neighborhood traffic compared
to other streets, especially with its proximity to Beth El and Benilde. These streets serve many
cars, buses, bicycles, and pedestrians as they lead from Minnetonka Blvd., France Avenue and
onto the Hwy 100 Frontage road to Cedar Lake Road, 394, major bicycle routes, and other traffic
destinations. If the goal is to improve traffic and pedestrian safety by adding sidewalks to one
side of the street, it would make sense to add a sidewalk to the other side of the same street
because of the amount of traffic it has compared to other streets in the neighborhood
Thank you for your consideration of this request. We look forward to learning more about the
plan.
• We live on the east side of Quentin Avenue between 26th and 27th Streets. We are not
opposed to the proposed sidewalk project and understand the need given the pedestrian traffic in
our neighborhood where we have lived for 24 years. However, we don't think that the cost for a
sidewalk should be shared by only one side of the block when both sides and all pedestrians will
benefit. If the proposed sidewalk goes through, in addition to cost, we will also be responsible
for maintaining the sidewalk that everyone uses when the other side of the block bears no
responsibility. Unless you are proposing an east AND west sidewalk on Quentin Avenue, as is
the case on the majority of sidewalked streets in this area, I think everyone on the block should
share equally in the cost.
Quentin Ave. – Con’s
● Once again, I find myself with the need to send you a letter regarding the proposed sidewalk
on Quentin Ave. To put it into words that are not too flattering from me....it is a stupid idea.
Now for the facts. Having a sidewalk on only one side of the street looks ridiculous! Resale
value will change. The residents wishing to have this walk, will not be caring for it AT ALL.
They would have more space to leave toys, lawn supplies, garbage cans, etc. They still continue
parking illegally backwards after many warnings. They don't seem to think the rules apply to
them. I feel for our neighbors who live across on the west side. They are the ones who have to
look at the mess all the time.
We have spoken to Sue Sanger and she was surprised to learn the sidewalk is for only the east
side. What nonsense. As a gardener and designer, the visual that it will present is a negative one,
to say the least. If you find that you are going to go with the sidewalk, which we pray you don't,
at least do both sides!! We have lived here for 50 years and have never needed a sidewalk. The
lawn stretching to the street is a lovely sight. All of a sudden it is necessary? I don't think so.
We are speaking for some of our neighbors on the street. We are not alone in this sad situation.
Please, please, think what you are proposing and the effect it will have on so many of us.
Thanking you in advance for your cooperation.
Zarthan Ave. – Pro’s
● We are writing to encourage the city to move up the date (currently 2016) to connect the
sidewalk along the west side of Zarthan Ave. S. between Minnetonka Blvd. and Lake St. We
represent the three homes involved that currently do not have the proposed sidewalk connection.
Below, are our concerns that support our request:
Traffic is heavy on this strip of Zarthan as it is used as a cut-through street from Lake St. to
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 27
Mtka. Blvd. and there is quite a bit of car and foot traffic from Holy Family Catholic Church and
school. (Note: the church does not have enough off-street parking, so Zarthan is used for parked
cars along the entire block between Mtka. Blvd. and Lake St., further narrowing the street and
the area where pedestrians must walk).
The sidewalk ends in front of our three homes in the middle of this block causing the many
church members, high school students, dog walkers and other pedestrians, including children, to
walk in the streets which is potentially very dangerous. (Note: Holy Family has a large
congregation made up of families with children who are placed in the streets, at risk, every week,
going to and from services. We have not asked the Church if they believe a connected sidewalk
would be beneficial, but our guess would be a resounding "Yes!").
In addition, this small street has big hills on either end, with a corresponding valley at the
middle, that causes traffic to accelerate in this narrow band.
Given this is a relatively small fix with maximum safety outcomes, we are recommending that
the timeline for putting in sidewalks on this strip of three houses occur much sooner than the
2016 Connect The Park plan.
Scott, if you would like to contact us regarding any of the aforementionned concerns, please feel
free to do so. Also, if you would please let us know the status of our request as decisions are
made, we would greatly appreciate it! Thank you for letting us voice our concerns.
Rod & Rita DeBrobander 3100 Zarthan Ave. S.
Katherine & Damian McManus 3106 Zarthan Ave. S. (ph: 952-928-8018)
Todd & Kelly Thate 3112 Zarthan Ave. S.
Zarthan Ave. – Con’s
● None
WARD 2
39th St. W. – Pro’s
● Just wanted to let you know that we would very much like to see sidewalks on 39th and 40th
Streets in our neighborhood in SLP. We have three young children (2 of whom attend Susan
Lindgren) and would love to see a safer opportunity for them to walk in the neighborhood,
around the Minikahda Vista Park area, and to school. Thank you for your consideration
• Thank you for taking the time to return my call last week to briefly discuss the sidewalk
proposed for W. 39th St. between Natchez Ave. and France Ave. As a resident located on the
north side of W. 39th Street it was helpful for me to better understand the status of the plan. It is
my preference to have the new sidewalk construction completed on the south side of the
street. The primary reason being that it seems to make sense to have the sidewalk run directly
adjacent to Minikahda Vista Park, as the park is clearly a destination for a significant percentage
of the neighborhood walking traffic.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 28
With that being said, as a taxpayer of the City of St. Louis Park, I strongly believe that the
primary determination for the location of this sidewalk should be the cost. This really should be
the case for all of the proposed sidewalks throughout the city. I believe that it is the obligation of
the City to commit the minimal investment to complete a topographical survey on both sides of
the street (since the survey has to be completed on one side either way), and follow up with a
preliminary cost estimate to determine the fiscally responsible solution to this question. There
may be a significant cost difference in constructing the sidewalk on one side of the street vs. the
other based upon grade, associated landscaping, and most importantly impact to trees. Frankly, I
am disappointed that it appears this discussion has gone this far without consideration for cost as
a primary driver.
In preparation of this analysis, I think it would also be prudent to consider running the sidewalk
on the south side of the street for a portion of the length and switching to the north for the other
remainder. I can appreciate that it probably doesn't make sense to switch sides more than once,
but it may make a lot of sense from a pedestrian flow perspective, and more importantly a cost
perspective, to consider it.
Although it is my preference to have the sidewalk on the south side of the street, I would be
pleased to see it constructed on the North side of the street if the City can simply show me that
this is the best financial decision for the City, and not a matter of which residents screamed the
loudest. I think it is safe to assume that this information would help provide you with a very
simple explanation that would be accepted and appreciated by most residents.
I truly appreciate your reaching out for the residents' thoughts on this matter and look forward to
hearing more about your future analysis.
• I live on 39th Street and I'd like to know how many feet into my yard the sidewalk would
be. I have a significant fence and trees planted along the street. If the sidewalk would be right
against the curb, that would be much more acceptable. If it comes too far into my yard, then this
will not be acceptable.
• I am writing to communicate my hopes that in addition to adding sidewalks to 41st street, the
city will also consider adding sidewalks to 39th and 40th street. I am a HUGE supporter of kids
walking to school (we walk every day, rain or shine) but I have a very hard time supporting
walking if there are not SAFE ways for the kids to do this. It's currently very unfortunate for
students that are not within the bus route range, that we don't provide a safe route for them to use
to get to school (e.g. no sidewalks). I am hoping that this changes, and that's why I'm writing.
I also hope that the city monitors and enforces the snow and ice removal from the sidewalks that
are currently used to get to the school. The sidewalks that currently exist on 41st street were
absolutely treacherous this year. I saw several students walk in the street to avoid ice
mounds/snow. With the level of traffic on 41st between Wooddale and Natchez, especially
driving eastbound (right into the sun) in the morning, we need to ensure kids are staying on the
sidewalk. I also wanted to take a moment to express my disappointment in drivers that I have
witnessed MULTIPLE times failing to stop at the 4-way on Quentin/41st. Are crossing guards a
planned addition to the safe routes plan as well?
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 29
• I am writing to you to express my ideas about sidewalks in St Louis Park. I now have a
kindergarten student who rides the bus most days unless I drive him. When bringing him home
from school, I have noticed multiple small (ages 5-10ish) children walking home. Sometimes
this occurs on streets without sidewalks. Thus, these kids are walking along fairly high traffic
streets, walking along the street. There is a lot of traffic through the neighborhood both before
and after school, which I feel could put these kids in danger. The addition of sidewalks as
proposed would make the trek to and from school much safer for these kids.
I acknowledge that for some residents, this may cut into their yards and make for more snow
removal, etc. While I appreciate this, I think any effort to make our community safe and
pedestrian friendly should be a high priority. I thank you so very much for your time and efforts!
• Thanks for working on the sidewalk issue. We definitely need them ASAP on 39th Street
along with 40th and 41st streets. We would also like to see sidewalks extended on each side of
the 3800 block of Glenhurst and the east side of the 3800 block of Huntington. Not only would
it allow kids to walk to school but also to get to Minikhada Vista Park without having to walk in
the street. It would just look better, too. When the sidewalk ends in the middle of the block it
looks stupid and not well thought out. Walkability is so valued in neighborhoods now. It would
be such a benefit for Minikhada Vista to have additional sidewalks.
• We live on the north side of W. 39th Street where Monterey Avenue meets W. 39th Street.
The existing sidewalk from the west ends at our driveway. I would like to share my observations
about the proposal for a new sidewalk along W. 39th Street in our neighborhood. There is a
significant amount of pedestrian traffic on W. 39th Street at all times of the day. People use
this street heavily to exercise, walk dogs or to get up to Excelsior Blvd and the development at
Excelsior & Grand. Filling the sidewalk gaps in this area is a very good idea.
The Active Living Sidewalks and Trails Plan that was completed in 2007 highlighted this area
has a major gap in the sidewalk network because there is no way for people to access Minikahda
Vista Park, from the west, safely, on a sidewalk. People in our neighborhood need to walk in the
street to get to the park. The main reason for proposing a sidewalk on the south side of W. 39th
Street is because it would provide direct access to Minikahda Vista Park, which is also on the
south side of the street.
Whether the proposed sidewalk is placed on the north or the south side of the street, there will be
impacts to trees, yards and slight changes to grades that may require small retaining walls in
some areas. It is important to note that there are utility poles on the south side of the street all the
way from Natchez Avenue to Minikahda Vista Park. However, the poles appear to be close
enough to the back of curb that a new sidewalk could be installed with no impact to the poles.
The poles would end up in the boulevard between the street and the new sidewalk.
I am not opposed to extending the sidewalk east from Monterey Avenue to Minikahda Vista Park
on the north side of W. 39th Street even though this would directly impact our lot. However, I
am in favor of, and I am advocating for, building a new sidewalk on the south side of the
street because I feel it will benefit the community more in the long term. It will provide a
safer connection to the park that will require less pedestrian crossing of W. 39th Street.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 30
Thank you for requesting additional input on this important sidewalk improvement. I look
forward to seeing its construction completed in 2014.
• My girls do not like to take the bus even though we live far enough. So now they walk, we
would love to have extra sidewalks. There is a curve on the 39th street one that concerns us the
most. I try to make sure they walk on the grass as cars come around the curve.
Thanks for all of your work on this.
• So excited to hear that more sidewalks are coming!!! Really like the idea of doing it on the
north side since there is already a considerable amount of sidewalk already on that side of the
street anyway (specifically between Natchez and Lynn). The partial sidewalks need to be
continued otherwise they are a waste.
I love more sidewalks for everyone's safety and also like to see tax money spent well.
39th St. W. – Con’s
● I am writing with our concern for the proposed sidewalk that would affect our property. Our
address is 3901 Lynn Avenue. Don and I purchased our home in 1988, we hired Brubaker
landscaping to design and install landscaping, in 2000.This included berms, in excess of 20 trees,
additional bushes, evergreens, grasses, flowers, and patios. This was a financial investment not
only for us but for our neighborhood. We enjoy our back patio and the privacy that the design by
Elaine Brubaker provided for us in our back yard which borders 39th Ave. Not only will the
sidewalk interrupt this, we are concerned about the damage it will cause to our Hawthorn trees.
The city was involved in our project and in fact worked with us to add Ginko trees to the Blvd.
we do not support this plan and will do what we can to work with city for other options. We are
happy to be involved in any meetings. Please we invite anyone from the city to our home to
better understand our concerns. I would ask for a return email confirming your receipt of this
email. Thank you.
• Having lived on the corner of Lynn Ave S and 39th St. since June of 1990 I feel uniquely
qualified to share some insight on the sidewalk proposal for the 39th street initiative of 2014.
Suzanne and I raised our three kids – now 21, 19, and 16 years of age in our house at 3844 Lynn
Ave S. We have walked to Minikahda Vista Park countless times in all seasons over our 23 years
here. We have never felt unsafe walking in the street – and never once felt we needed a sidewalk
to go to the park. The proposed plan to put an East/West sidewalk from Natchez to France Ave
along 39th St is not only a waste of city money (Estimated at over $100,000 from Scott Brink),
but also an actual detriment to the neighborhood. Here are a few reasons why we think this
initiative should be at minimum “shelved”, and more appropriately withdrawn.
1. This neighborhood’s allure is it’s trees, beautiful homes, yards, and families who
frequently have block parties and share in community – concrete sidewalks that would be
literally feet from residence’s kitchens and bedrooms degrade not enhance the
neighborhood. Please use the allotted money for planting more trees and/or improving the
green space.
2. According to Scott Brink there was no “Traffic Study”, or “Foot Study”, or “Survey”
showing a safety reason for this proposal? That is unbelievable to me – are we just doing
this because it sounds good? If so, it seems to me that we as a city have not thought
through the inevitable, unexpected consequences of such a plan. Our family and
neighbors have never felt unsafe waking to the park on 39th St. There are virtually stop
signs every 300 ft. The traffic moves with the pedestrian in mind. So please, again, allot
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 31
this money to other projects that help beautify this neighborhood -not an unneeded
sidewalk for roughly 5 blocks at the cost of over $100,000.
3. Specifically at the corner of Lynn Ave and 39th St – our corner is large and open. The
city alternatively moves snow from this intersection into our yard (Northwest corner) and
the home on the Southwest corner. These mounds of snow have been very high at times –
but because they split up the snow removal - it does not affect the sightlines of traffic at
this intersection. If the city puts a sidewalk on either the North side or South side of 39th
St – where would the snow be moved? If only one side is used for snow removal - that
mound could likely be 12 feet high – and would cause a dangerous visual problem for
cars and pedestrians. If the Snow is pushed to the side that has a new sidewalk it would
be virtually impossible to plow that sidewalk! Are you expecting me or my neighbor to
move 12 feet of snow to keep the sidewalk clear? Again – unintended consequences for
something that “Sounds Good” rather than is needed We love this City, and have chosen
to stay and raise our kids in SLP. We really hope that common sense will prevail with
this proposal. If there has been ANY study that shows ANYTHING alternative to my 23
year experience at this address please forward that to me. This sidewalk is simply not
needed – please do not waste tax payer money on this.
Thank you again for listening to my input – We are thankful to be able to participate in the
discussion.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 32
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 33
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 34
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 35
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 36
• I am writing on behalf of the sidewalk being proposed for the north side of 39th between
Natchez and France. I have many concerns about this future project. First of all, the extravagant
expense of the project at a time when so many other needs are not being met or at great cost to
homeowners with increased taxes. Secondly how many trees, roots, telephone poles, fire
hydrants, landscaped yards would be disrupted? We personally have a 70 year old silver maple
on the corner of 39th and Lynn which provides substantial shade and incredible beauty. Our
golden retriever sits by the tree daily right in the path of the proposed sidewalk. This project
would result in altering our already established electric fence and possibly harming a healthy
tree. As a runner, I prefer to run in the street because it is clear of snow in the winter and a
smoothly paved surface. I also feel uncomfortable walking and running so close to neighbor’s
windows invading their privacy. We have asked Scott Brink and members of the city council if a
foot traffic study has been completed to justify this project in our area. Apparently no one has
taken action to complete this study. That is the least that could be done to provide some
justification. I personally propose deleting this particular segment of the plan involving 39th
street. Part of my vision for St. Louis Park is more green space, less concrete, less maintenance,
and expenses. Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns.
• I’m writing you to request that the power lines along 39th St. west of France Ave be buried
underground, if indeed, the City insists on installing the unnecessary proposed sidewalks. We
understand that the south side of 39th is the more logical choice, but given the lack of space curb
to hills and homes, we are requesting that the power lines be buried at City expense. Or, just
forget the sidewalks, the nice item; and leave the power poles, the necessary items.
• 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 of things. We enjoy an attractive boulevard with green
space and established trees. Many of these old and beautiful trees will be cut down to make way
for a concrete slab. I take pride in keeping up my part of the blvd and recently installed a
sprinkler system. The neighborhood kids play on that stretch of grass and I love that. Many of
my neighbors to my east and west have put extensive time and money into beautifying the blvd
in front of their homes with additional landscaping, retaining walls, etc. Many people that walk
on 40th, don't need to walk on 40th, but I believe they do because it has been a relatively slow
moving street (ending in a 'T') with attractive curbside appeal.
• I have had and still have concerns about potentially increased speed on 40th. Right now, cars
slow down and drive sensibly. It is a wider street and has room for pet walkers, kids, friends,
runners, cars, bikes, etc. Traffic is generally modest on 40th and plenty of people seemingly
enjoy walking on the streets. I do not want to see 40th become a way to bypass the lights on
Excelsior Blvd.
There is also the issue of winter upkeep. Quite honestly I do my best to keep my front sidewalk
shoveled 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
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 37
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.
In talking with many of my neighbors, they agree that a sidewalk as proposed is overly
expensive and unneeded. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but would welcome other options
such as pedestrian lanes as many of the Edina neighborhoods now have.
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.
• I am writing in regard to the plans for constructing a sidewalk on the south side of 39th Street
between Natchez and France Avenue. Our property at 3903 West 39th Street will be significantly
affected by this project with little benefit to us as residents. Although we were not able to attend
the public comment meeting that was held, we would like to have some input before this project
gets underway. When we moved in to this property (1999) we sought information from the city
regarding plans for sidewalks and were told that none were in the works. We were also informed
that since there was an existing sidewalk on the north side of the street further west from our
property, if any sidewalk were to be installed it would most likely be on the north side of the
street. With that information in mind, we spent considerable time, money, and physical labor on
landscaping that we believe adds significant beauty to the neighborhood. All of this landscaping
will likely be lost if the sidewalk is constructed. This landscaping adds greatly to our quality of
life as it separates us and provides privacy from the busy street and all of the traffic that passes
by. In addition, my neighbor on Glenhurst also has landscaping along a long section of the street
that would be affected. More landscaping and trees exist on the south side of the street than on
the north side. What steps will the city take to minimize the damage done to all of the properties
on the south side of 39th?
• Additional concerns and questions that we have include:
1. Will the city planners speak directly to homeowners affected to seek input and
answer questions?
2. Where will the sidewalk be placed – curbside or with a boulevard? Is there a
possibility of modifying street width to accommodate a sidewalk?
3. What are the plans for snow removal? This is a significant concern because of the
length of the property and would pose a huge burden if it will be a homeowner
responsibility. Will the city be removing snow as it does along 38th street?
4. Will there be costs to homeowners? Is it paid for by the Connect the Park program
or will there be assessments? If there are assessments, will south side homeowners be
expected to shoulder the costs while those on the north side do not?
While I applaud the efforts of the Connect the Park initiative to make St. Louis Park safer and a
walker friendly environment, I hope that every effort will be made to take the concerns of
affected homeowners into account and that the city planners will be responsive and work closely
with us. Thank you.
• As an interested and longstanding resident of St. Louis Park, I am responding to the most
recent letter from March 29, 2013 sent to us as my family lives in the Minikahda Vista
neighborhood – more specifically, along 39th at Inglewood Ave. South. We have greatly
enjoyed living near the park and with that, have spent many years observing the activity at and
around the park. Children playing – families gathering, all year round.
Regarding the 'Connect the Park' project — this is very exciting and no question a safe and
useful proposal to allow us a safer walking/biking path to and from our parks, particularly.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 38
As I was reading that this project includes a proposal for a sidewalk being added along the south
side of W. 39th between Natchez and France Ave. S., it made perfect sense as the Park is in fact
on the south side of 39th and this span of street is very busy with both automobile and pedestrian
traffic.
When I got to the part where it stated "the city had received significant input for considering
placement of the walk on the north side of the street instead of the south" I wondered —
WHY would you ask children to cross 39th, busy as it is, when you could keep the walking
traffic on the side of the destination(s)?
WHY would we put in a walk, intended to allow a safe and convenient connection to the park, on
the wrong side of the street at the park?
If the park is on the south side, if the project is 'Connect the Park'… Why would we NOT
connect TO the park keeping the walking/biking traffic more safely managed on the south side of
the street?
We observe that most children walk in the street or on the south side of the street currently. Even
they know that the park is on the south side and try now to maneuver in the most direct and
safest path…same with those walking to Susan Lindgren Elementary school, also on the south,
respectively.
The letter states that this is still a consideration, so I greatly urge you to keep it just that and do
NOT place a new sidewalk on the opposite side of the park if our objective is 'Connecting the
Park' and keeping our residents safe and active! Thank you for considering this perspective.
• We received a letter about the sidewalks being proposed along 39th St. from France and
westward. On the North side of 39th, there are about 3 mature trees per home, and fewer on the
South side where the power lines are.
• I am concerned - what would happen to the trees that are within 4 feet of the street right now
if the sidewalk goes in on the North side of 39th?
• I would LOVE to see a sidewalk built on 39th Street. My hope is that it could run from
Natchez all the way to Vista Park or France Avenue. Right now my son walks along 38th Street
and cuts behind the old S&D cleaners to walk down Vallacher.
• This letter is in response to the “Connect the Park” project. It has been an exciting
experience to watch the development of this project during the past 6 months. My concerns
about this project are:
1. The impact that having a sidewalk so close to my screened in porch will have on my
privacy and potentially my safety. (see photo below) Will my property be more likely to
be broken into if people can see in more readily? The fear of the unknown hangs over
this program because we don’t know what the final engineering plan will be. Having
people walking within 12’ of my home is very unsettling.
2. The amount of additional labor it will take to clear the snow.
3. What detrimental impact will a sidewalk have on the character of the neighborhood?
Will having more sidewalks discourage people when they are landscaping their yards?
We will not be able to replace the mature trees that we are going to lose.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 39
Some additional thoughts about this project are:
1. Safety has been identified as one of the objectives of this project. It would be great if we
could have a detailed accounting from police reports of how many times sidewalks could
have prevented an accident. Are we creating a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist?
2. A major portion of the project is for bridges. Unfortunately we haven’t been able to
determine where the bridges will be specifically built and how often they will be used.
Have we measured the traffic on the other bike bridges that we have in the city? For $7.9
ml it would seem that we should have some metrics. “We want to do something” isn’t a
good enough reason to build the bridges.
3. Is this program a “need to do” project or is it a “nice to do” project. Metrics on accidents
that might have been prevented, number of people who use bike bridges, etc. would help
document the need for this project.
4. Could the $18 - $25 ml be better spent on hard infrastructure projects? (sewer, water,
roads, bridges)
5. The average hourly wage in St. Louis Park is $18 per hour. (This number was calculated
from information that is available on the demographics of the city which is available on
the SLP web site.) If you divide the potential cost of this project of $21.5 ml by $18 per
hour you will find that it will take 1,194,000 hours of labor to pay for this project. Is this
project a good use of that much labor?
Here are some recommendations for the Council to consider:
1. Approve those sidewalk projects where there has been extraordinary support from the
citizens. A great example is the support from the Browndale neighborhood. Likewise,
where the neighborhood has indicated that they don’t want sidewalks like 31st, 39th & 40th
streets, permanently cancel those projects. Opt-out 39th & 40th streets from this program.
2. Rigorously look for more cost effective options in place of the bridges. Please consider
the beltline rail crossing as an option. One month ago I was in San Diego and one of the
busiest streets in the city has train crossings and they had very well marked pedestrian
crossing areas. (No bridges) Edina elected to not build bridges across France Avenue
because they believed they were inefficient. American’s don’t like to be herded like
cattle across bridges. This expenditure would provide a very low ROI.
3. Continue with the trail program. This was a high scoring item on the research.
4. Evaluate how bike lanes can be more effective. Do not confuse automobile drivers,
bikers and other pedestrians with bike lanes like Edina has on Wooddale Ave. There has
to be a more effective way to do this.
5. Cap the entire cost of the program at $2.0 ml. That will be enough to pay for the
bikeway, bike lane, trails and some sidewalks where citizens have asked for them. (The
CIP summary information shows that the first three items will cost approximately $1.5
ml. That leaves $500k for where citizens have shown an extraordinary desire for
sidewalks.)
The research specifically mentioned a citizen who said “Do not give any more green space
away….” pg 6. St. Louis Park is special. It takes courage to be bold and reconsider a program
where you have invested so much capital. Now is the time to exercise some restraint.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 40
The white flag is 148” in from the road. The same distance as my front yard.
The sidewalk would be nearly halfway between my house and the street. It really would look out
of proportion. The entire look of the community would be dramatically changed. Please stop
this.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 41
40th St. W. – Pro’s
● Hi, Anne. I received an email from Susan Lindgren PTO informing me that you are looking
for input on where sidewalks are needed in the blocks near the school.
My family lives on the 39th block of Lynn Avenue in the Minikahda Vista neighborhood. My
second son is in 5th grade at Susan Lindgren. I am so happy to hear that there is an effort
underway to add sidewalks. My two oldest children have had to walk to/from school in the street
on 40th Street these past 4 years.
40th Street is treacherous for many reasons. In the warmer months, I tell them to stay in the
grass -- but in the winter they are forced into the street because of the snow. The roads are often
narrower in the winter because of the walls of snow that encroach the sides of the street. Streets
are also often icy and I worry that a driver will lose control. 40th is also a busy route during
commuter hours and cars can travel unreasonably fast. It is extremely unfortunate that we live
3 blocks from school and I have worried everyday for 4 years about my kids' safety. There
are many kids east of us that are not able to take a bus who also walk on 40th street. Unless kids
go out of their way North to Vallacher and then South on Natchez, there is no way to take
sidewalks all the way to school.
We live in a lovely neighborhood. People look out for one another. It is essential to add
sidewalks on 40th street from Joppa to Natchez so that kids can travel safely to their
neighborhood school.
Thank you for your efforts and please contact me if you would like more information.
• Thanks also for your support of improving the routes to school in town. I'd like to add my
voice the those who have already let you know that sidewalks along 40th between Joppa and
Wooddale and 39th between France and Wooddale could really encourage families to walk to
school. I have seen some close calls along 40th street. Since 40th street is closer to the school
and connected by sidewalks along the avenues, I think that it might be of higher priority
than 39th, but I see both as highly beneficial to our community.
• We live on Kipling & 39th. I would LOVE to see a sidewalk on 40th street from Grimes to
Natchez. There are a ton of kids that walk that way to and from school. Plus, it’s a very busy
road with cars & buses, much more than 39th, when I’ve been on it. Also, a crosswalk at the
corner of the school & Natchez is much needed from my perspective. There is no stop sign on
the school road (can’t remember the street #) and it’s very dangerous on the corner. Cars don’t
stop and the kids don’t stop either when crossing the road from one sidewalk to the next. I
always hold my breath when my kids are riding their bikes in front of me…hoping they will
remember to stop!
My position is clear on the neighborhood sidewalks issue, I'm sure :) but for the record I'd like to
advocate for the sidewalks on 39th and 40th Streets as well as the one on 41st Street.
Thanks for your help in this matter!
• Thank you for spearheading this. Our children live in the Minikahda Vista neighborhood and
we are 100% on board for additional sidewalks so our children can walk to school safely. We are
advocating seeing sidewalks added to 40th and 39th streets as well as the others mentioned.
• Please note my support for safe routes to school on SLP. We live so close to school, yet it is
challenging to ride our bikes.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 42
40th St. W. – Con’s
● I live on the NW corner of 40th and Ottawa. This morning my husband and I talked about
the possibility of getting sidewalks on our street. Here are our thoughts.
1. There are already sidewalks across the street from us on 40th. We don't feel they're need
on both sides of the street. It would make sense to continue the crosswalks already in
existence. Currently, the sidewalks go for several houses, then just sort of stop for no
good reason.
2. If sidewalks were added to our property, we would likely lose a chunk of our front yard
and three beautiful trees, including a Ginkgo the city just paid to put in a couple years
ago.
3. Much of the city doesn't have sidewalks. We believe drivers know to slow down for
pedestrians. Of course, it couldn't hurt to use signs or flashing speed readers to remind
them.
4. One corner that does concern me is at Nachez and 41st, by the northeast corner of the
Susan Lindgren site. There should be a stop sign there. I'm always surprised how fast
drivers come south down Nachez and whip through their right turn onto
41st. We're always very careful crossing with our kids. It would be safer if there were
stop signs and a painted crosswalk on that corner. Hope this helps.
• We understand the City’s interest in providing additional sidewalks; however we presently
have sidewalks running north-south in front of our homes. We ask that you omit the proposed
40th Street sidewalk running east-west, as unnecessary and harmful to a mature
neighborhood. We respectfully request that you reconsider this proposal and place this section
of sidewalk in an Opt Out status. If a sidewalk is constructed here as proposed, it will have the
following impacts on our neighborhood:
Cement instead of Grass, Landscaping and Mature Trees. We have 10 mature trees,
including a valuable 70+ year old Dutch Elm and two 50+ year old rare Lilac trees, located in
the path of or at risk of damage due to root severance or weight compression with proposed
sidewalk, per Ben Johnson - Master Arborist from Rainbow TreeCare. (Attachments 1 & 2 -
maps) However, along 40th Street we have 25 trees in the same risk category.* By
increasing additional concrete, removal of trees, shrubs and landscaping, we increase our
carbon footprint and alter the green space of our community by an average of 600 square feet
per property. (Attachments 3 & 4 – 40th side-yard)
*Circumferences of 25 Trees:
100 - 124" 4 trees
74–81” 3 trees
59-62" 4 trees
40-50" 4 trees
22-31" 5 trees
12" 2 trees
Decreased Safety and Privacy. With up to a 13-foot sidewalk and boulevard, there will be
only a six-foot side yard remaining. This enables a pedestrian to easily look inside our house
and see whether we are home, and what we are doing. Such scrutiny and observation is
unwanted and disconcerting. (Attachments 5 & 6 - house from curb to 13’)
Snow Removal and Parking. The proposed sidewalk would add the additional burden of
shoveling and/or funding snow removal for an entire corner of a city block, which would
average approximately 130 feet of additional snow removal per resident along 40th
Street. We would be unable to park two vehicles in our driveway without blocking the
sidewalk. In addition, there would be no off street parking available during snow
emergencies.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 43
Financial Impact. The proposed sidewalk would by payable in the form of increased
property taxes and special assessments related to the installation and maintenance of the
sidewalk. The changes to esthetics and character of our neighborhood would lower our
property values, for all the reasons mentioned above. The care and maintenance of named
trees has to date totaled over $6100 and our in-ground sprinkler system would require
reconfiguration at an additional unknown cost to our initial investment of $2000.
We have and continue to invest in the beautification of our residence which in turn
contributes to the overall value of our neighborhood. All 8 households along 40th Street
share our values and our interest in protecting and preserving the quality of our
community. (Attachment 7 – former petition) We respectfully request that you reconsider
this proposal and place this section of sidewalk in an Opt Out status.
We will be contacting you in the next week to discuss this letter and answer any questions you
may have on content.
• The proposed city plan shows construction of a sidewalk and grass boulevard extending 13
ft. from the curb on the north side of 40th St. If implemented, existing trees would be cut down
or the root systems damaged. Four existing sprinkler systems would be torn up in the
process. However objectives of a city plan for this area should include the preservation of a
healthy environment as well as allowance of privacy for the homeowners.
There are 25 trees on 40th St. varying in circumference as shown below:
100 - 124" 4 trees
74-81 3 "
59-62 4 "
40-50 4 "
22-31 5 "
12 2 "
Less than 12 3 "
In particular, on my property there are three mature elm trees that have been treated in the past to
ward off dutch elm disease, and the cost for treatment this year alone has exceeded $1,000.
While only one of those elms would be affected by the plan, a healthy maple on my property
over 30 years old with a shallow root structure would not survive the installation of a concrete
sidewalk. Also of concern is a locust, planted by the city, and a privacy hedge that would have
to be replaced by a fence. The trees are not replaceable and provide shade making for low air
conditioning costs.
Sidewalks would have to be cleared in the winter. If we have heavy snowfalls, the city plows
would push many feet of snow on top of the concrete and costly, constant snow removal would
be required.
Accordingly, please give consideration to preservation of the trees on 40th St. On 40th St. the
proposed plan to upgrade the city would result in loss of abundant natural resources, privacy to
homeowners, and the expenses for implementing and maintaining the plan would be great. For
the reasons noted above the homeowners on 40th St. wish to opt out of the plan for this area. A
petition signed by adjacent homeowners will be forthcoming as soon as it is completed. A
petition, duly signed by homeowners immediately adjacent to 40th St. has already been
submitted.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 44
• We live on Kipling & 39th. I would LOVE to see a sidewalk on 40th street from Grimes to
Natchez. There are a ton of kids that walk that way to and from school. Plus, it’s a very busy
road with cars & buses, much more than 39th, when I’ve been on it. Also, a crosswalk at the
corner of the school & Natchez is much needed from my perspective. There is no stop sign on
the school road (can’t remember the street #) and it’s very dangerous on the corner. Cars don’t
stop and the kids don’t stop either when crossing the road from one sidewalk to the next. I
always hold my breath when my kids are riding their bikes in front of me…hoping they will
remember to stop!
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 45
• Attached please find petitions signed by Minikahda Vista residents supporting the Opt Out
request for the 40th street sidewalk proposed from Joppa Ave to Natchez Ave. This petition is to
accompany the 40th street residents’ previously submitted petition as well as individual
homeowner letters reflecting the impact of a sidewalk to our properties and community. A
hardcopy of this petition has also been provided to you for your convenience.
Additionally, we have hired a certified arborist who is producing an impact statement which will
outline the environmental and financial impact to the loss of green space and trees as a result of
the proposed sidewalk. This report is forthcoming.
Respectfully,
40th Street Residents –
• I am one of the residents who lives on 40th St between Natchez and Joppa Ave, and am
writing this email on behalf of all the residents who reside immediately on the north side of this
section of 40th St. This is one of the street segments where a sidewalk is proposed to be installed
as part of the "Connect The Park" program. We are in the process of doing a neighborhood
petition for opting out of this sidewalk proposal, and expect this to be delivered to the city within
the next two weeks. {A petition from the households directly affected had previously been
submitted to Scott Brink.} I would like you to inform the city council of our intent.
Additionally, could you provide the dates for the upcoming study sessions which will concern
this initiative? The notes from March's study session indicate these will be in late April or May.
And more importantly, could you also provide the date for the public hearing relative to sidewalk
implementation? This is much appreciated and best regards,
• As part of a united group of eight households that would like to opt out of the 40th street
sidewalk proposal as part of “Connect The Park” , we would like to reiterate some of our
individual concerns as the home owners of 3944 Kipling Ave.
One reason we were attracted to Minikahda Vista was the “out in the country feel” when driving
down streets lined by towering elms. Unfortunately, over the years, Dutch elm disease has
ravished many trees in this neighborhood. Both the residents and the city have made
extraordinary efforts to restore the beauty along the streets by funding new plantings and
infusing existing trees, much at our own expense. Now removing trees in favor of a sidewalk are
contrary to all those efforts and a waste of both the city’s and residents’ expenditures.
Environmental impact for our street will be substantial. There will be a loss of 5520 square feet
of grass to be replaced with as much concrete, and concrete has one of the highest carbon foot
prints on the planet. This does not include the destruction of 11 very mature trees which cannot
be replaced with equal oxygen producing saplings.
Our plans for our newly installed extensive landscaping which included retaining walls and trees
within the city’s right of way were approved by the city in 2010. However, as early as 2007 as
part of the Vision St. Louis Park, the city had been contemplating sidewalk additions. This
should have been mentioned as a consideration at the time of our plan submittal. Now we could
be faced with the destruction of 70 ft of retaining wall as well as an underground sprinkling
system.
The encroachment of a 13 feet expanse of sidewalk and boulevard on property not originally
planned for sidewalks affects our privacy. There are others on 40th St more severely impacted
from a privacy standpoint than us. What is regrettable is when a long time senior resident of
Minikahda Vista is considering selling her home prior to having a sidewalk immediately out her
side door.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 46
The process to opt out of this initiative is neither clear nor documented; however, multiple
segments have already been deleted from the plan. We will be asking the city for direction in this
regard.
These are just a few of many concerns which will become more as the yet to be done surveying
and engineering designs expose additional impacts.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 47
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 48
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 49
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 50
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 51
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 52
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 53
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 54
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 55
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 56
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 57
41st St. W. – Pro’s
• I'm writing to add my name to those St Louis Park citizens who want sidewalks added
to 41st street, 40th street, and 39th street near Susan Lindgren School. I have two children, the
oldest is in kindergarten at Susan Lindgren and we live on Wooddale Ave between 41st and
Browndale. We have sidewalks the entire route of our walk to school and I love watching my
two year old run behind her sister twice a day, knowing they are getting just a little bit more
exercise and fresh air each day. I am also looking forward to my child being able to walk to
school without me in a few years, and the best way for that to happen is to walk in a group of
other children. I think there would be a large increase in the families that live past us sending
their kids to school by bike or on foot if they felt more confident about the kids safety.
• I am writing about sidewalks in our neighborhood of St. Louis Park. I live on the corner of
41st and Toledo, and think that a sidewalk on 41st would be a great addition to the
neighborhood. I work from my home office and see lots of children coming and going from
school or the bus, and they are forced to walk along the (pretty narrow) street. I also walk my
dog and run through the neighborhood, and more sidewalks would be great.
I'm not sure exactly where the sidewalks are anticipated, or whether they cut into yards or make
the street narrower, but either way could work. I think we might have to decrease to parking on
one side of the street, but in my opinion that is a small price to pay to increase the walkability of
our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration
• Hello Scott, thanks for the update. I'm so glad the children will not have to go through
another winter of dangerous driver's and their lack of respect for them when behind the wheel as
well as the adults.
• I'm hoping to get an update from you in this email regarding our urgency of the new side-
walks needed at and starting at 41st St. running east with the cross streets of: Utica Ave. so.
Toledo Ave. so., Salem Ave. So. to Wooddale. Will it be a go ahead for this spring for all of us
here? I have more pictures of the dangerousness the young children as well as the teens that are
dropped off their bus daily there are having their lives put into jeopardy everyday just trying not
to get hit from a turning truck or car from Wooddale onto 41st street. The snow is so deep on 41st
this year. The children really do not have a place of safety. Please update me Scott. Thank you.
Here is my other idea/question: has the city considered making 41st a one-way? I'd love to hear
Principal Johnson's thoughts (and those who have worked on transportation safety at the school
as well), but I think this would go a long ways to making drop off ad pick up safer. Frankly,
there are a good number of folks who won't follow the guidelines. I get it--people are pressed for
time, but there have been some close calls.
• I recently heard you speak at our neighborhood meeting (Creekside) and per the recent email
blast re: sidewalks, would like to share that we are in support of additional sidewalks.
We have a 5 year old son attending Susan Lindgren, while he currently gets dropped off, at some
point he will be walking, biking and skating on the Hwy 100 pedestrian bridge and we would
welcome a sidewalk directly to school. We are in support of which ever option best supports the
connection to Susan Lindgren.
In addition, we live at 4312 Alabama (last house on the west side of the street). I would
welcome a sidewalk on Meadowbrook Blvd. This is an amazingly busy track for many dogs and
their owners. I’m not sure how well this idea would be received but it seems that too many
people and dogs are sharing a road designed for cars. Frankly, I would also love to see a
path/trail/sidewalk starting from the cul-de-sac (west side of Meadowbrook Blvd) into the golf
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 58
course, around Meadowbrook lake and tie back to the cul-de-sac (east side of Meadowbrook)
where Alabama ends. Thank you and let us know if you need any additional information to
support these proposals.
• I am writing to advocate for strong need and public safety features of sidewalks in the project
by Susan Lindgren School. My daughter walks to school. With no sidewalks for her to be on
the entire way, she has been forced to walk on the street. She has often stated the many times
she has almost been hit. As a working single parent that cannot arrange her to be driven to a
school. , I am so pleading with you to please put in sidewalks. The safety of our children is so
important and if there is anything you can do for my Paige I would be ever so grateful.
41st St. W. – Con’s
• What are the details of the sidewalk that is proposed for 41st street between Wooddale and
Utica Ave. South?
• Are trees to be removed?
• I live at the corner of 41st and Toledo Ave. South. Are you expecting me to shovel the
new sidewalk?
• Are the proponents of the new sidewalk enlisted to assist me with snow shoveling every
Winter?
Brookside Ave. – Pro’s
• I would like to see the sidewalk planned for the south side of Excelsior Blvd between
Louisiana and Meadowbrook Rd (along Meadowbrook golf course) moved up on the schedule. I
see that it’s scheduled for priority 2 (I believe). It’s a high traffic area and I use the sidewalk to
go to work every day.
Brookside Ave. – Con’s
• I understand there is discussion about putting in a sidewalk on Brookside Ave around the
corner between Jackley Park and the RR tracks. I live on Brook Lane, directly across from the
proposed sidewalk. I work in public health and am usually pro-sidewalk, but I am actually
opposed to this idea, given the fact that there are mature trees that would need to be
removed. There is a perfectly functional sidewalk on the other side of Brookside and those of us
who regularly walk dogs and kids have become accustomed to crossing the street to walk. I just
don’t see that the removal of mature trees as a fair exchange for a sidewalk we’ve been doing
without for years.
• Thanks for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed sidewalks under the
Connect the Park plan. I have spoken to several of my neighbors as well as the members of St.
Dunsten’s Church and we all have the same concerns regarding 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. These concerns include:
1. 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.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 59
2. 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.
3. 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 for providing me with the Community Recreation Survey that Schoenbauer
Consulting conducted on January 17th. Research can be a powerful tool to learn more about a
particular subject. In reviewing the Community Recreation Survey a disconnect has taken place
in the minds of those who have read the research. It doesn’t appear that this study supports
building more sidewalks in the community.
If you search the document for the word “sidewalk” three references come up in a 35 page
document. Those are:
• The most frequent comments include the need for north/south trails; trail connections;
and that trails (and in some cases sidewalks) are needed to get to park and recreation
facilities safely. (page 6)
• Following is a list of additional topics respondents provided. Please note that less than
five percent of respondents said the following is needed: arts facilities (visual &
performing); lighted outdoor facilities; more programs and facilities for youth and teens;
nothing else; more green space; more sidewalks; more restrooms; adult
activities/recreation leagues; more dog parks; groomed ski trails; more baseball fields;
winter activities and disc golf. (page 11)
• Trails – trail connections, keep expanding and maintaining trails, need trails or
sidewalks to get to parks – 12.2% (page 14)
This research would lead one to believe:
• Activities that are done on sidewalks were not even a part of the discussion.
• Sidewalks were mentioned by less than 5% of the citizens that were part of the
survey. This isn’t a significant level of support.
One could conclude that the respondents of this survey which is supposedly representative of the
city are not in support of more sidewalks. If that isn’t true, the research might of not been
properly designed which leads one to question the rest of the findings.
In my informal survey, when I ask citizens about walking paths they mention those around Lake
Calhoun, Aquila Park, Dakota Park, Bass Lake and Louisiana Oaks. The response isn’t
sidewalks. In this community citizens differentiate between sidewalks and walking paths.
My request is that the council reviews the research in greater detail. I don’t think you will find
broad support from this document for more sidewalks.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 60
• I am a resident of Creekside neighborhood and have recently been informed of the
proposed sidewalk along the east side of Brookside Avenue. I am opposed to building
this sidewalk for the following reasons:
1. There is an existing sidewalk on the west side of Brookside which I believe is
sufficient.
2. One of Creekside's charming attributes is the quantity of mature, old growth
trees. Construction of a sidewalk would necessitate the removal of a number of
old growth trees, which would be detrimental from both an aesthetic and an
environmental viewpoint.
• We went through this a few years ago. Many mature trees would be lost. There is a viable
sidewalk on the south side of Brookside running west from Yosemite. The north side of
Brookside where the road curves coming out of the bridge curving west is a BAD place to put
anything that's alive. Stand there some day for a while and you'll see what I mean. You just want
to get away from there. And it IS expensive. Probably more later.
• I understand there is discussion about putting in a sidewalk on Brookside Ave around the
corner between Jackley Park and the RR tracks. I live on Brook Lane, directly across from the
proposed sidewalk. I work in public health and am usually pro-sidewalk, but I am actually
opposed to this idea, given the fact that there are mature trees that would need to be
removed. There is a perfectly functional sidewalk on the other side of Brookside and those of us
who regularly walk dogs and kids have become accustomed to crossing the street to walk. I just
don’t see that the removal of mature trees as a fair exchange for a sidewalk we’ve been doing
without for years.
• Thank you for soliciting the feedback on the Connect the Park initiative. I live at 4257
Brookside Avenue and have some additional questions/concerns about the sidewalk being
proposed for in front of my house. First, I am having trouble deciphering what color green the
proposed section of sidewalk would be for our home. I believe it’s either 2014 or 2022 but
wondering if you could clarify.
Additionally, I have some concerns about what it would mean for my property and that
surrounding us. We have two trees in the front of the yard that I assume would have to be cut
down as well as several in our neighbors’ yards. I also am concerned with how close the
sidewalk will be to our home as well as our neighbors (from a security and esthetic
standpoint). I have no issue walking across the street to use a sidewalk which already serves as a
main walkway from Excelsior down Brookside and to Edina.
Based on my concerns surrounding the proximity of the sidewalk to my house and that of my
neighbors, along with the loss of established trees, I do not want to see the sidewalk
installed. Please feel free to reach out with any questions on my comments.
Browndale Ave. – Pro’s
• None
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 61
Browndale Ave. – Con’s
● I am not in favor of a sidewalk in front of my house. I think that it would encourage
congregating and loitering. Also, at 65-years-old, I am very happy not to have the responsibility
of snow removal on a sidewalk next to the street.
• Please register my vote of "no."
Morningside Rd. – Pro’s
● We live at 4300 Brook Ave S. On Saturday we received a letter from you regarding a
proposed sidewalk on Morningside Rd between Mackey and Browndale. This letter is intended
to inform you that our preference is to have the sidewalk on the north side of Morningside Rd.
• I think you should know that there is a couple going around the neighborhood asking people
to sign a petition to not have the sidewalks. They came to my house and frankly they are very
intimidating. I explained I like the idea of sidewalks and they blasted me with all kinds of stuff.
'Why it might be good for me but they don't want it and how dare I force them to have it.'
Morningside Rd. – Con’s
● Thank you for your letter of March 29, regarding plans for a sidewalk along Morningside
Road west of Browndale Ave. I can understand why putting a sidewalk on the south side has
some appeal as it continues the sidewalk that passes on the north side of Browndale
Park. However, I see several problems with locating a sidewalk on the south side.
Either option will pass close to homes along Morningside Road. The block between Coolidge
and Brook is especially problematic for several reasons. First the 2 garages that open onto
Morningside on that block are very short, 20' or less. The garage attached to the house on 4300
Coolidge is below the elevation of Morningside. The driveways at both 4300 Coolidge, 4301
Brook, and 5220 Morningside have retaining walls, oriented north / south terminating within 10'
of the street. The fire hydrants are on the south side of Morningside, but the high voltage power
lines are on the north side.
Morningside Road between Coolidge and Brook seems to have been "cut" through a glacial
moraine or similar geological feature. The amount of topsoil at grade level is very shallow, only
2" - 3". When Xcel put in a new utility pole on the south side of Morningside last year, the auger
brought up mostly rocky gravel. I would guess that the soil on either side of the street is very
unstable, which might require extensive installation of retaining walls.
Whichever side of Morningside is chosen will require the removal of several trees. Some of
the trees were planted within the last several years The ones on the on the north side between
Toledo and Utica are well established, quite possibly to discourage placing a sidewalk on that
side.
A possible alternative, which has it's related problems, would be to narrow Morningside between
Coolidge and Brook and limit parking to one side of the street. This would be an inconvenience
for most residents, so I am recommending against it. Thank you for considering these remarks. I
hope that they are helpful.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 62
Quentin Ave. – Pro’s
● None
Quentin Ave. – Con’s
● Got the mail saying y'all are considering sidewalk on west side of Quentin between Excelsior
& 40th. I live at 3965 Quentin - will I be assessed $$ for this? There is already sidewalk on my
side of street.
Couple more questions -
1 - will trees be removed on west side Quentin? If yes is there plan for re-landscaping or
something to make visual barrier between parking lot and street?
2 - doesn't look like there's room for sidewalk all the way on west side Quentin to Excelsior
(where Park Nicollet has building). Will sidewalk continue there or will people still have to cross
street to east side Quentin for sidewalk?
WARD 3
31st St. W. – Pro’s
● After the city received feedback from residents back in Nov/Dec, I was wondering if there
have been further developments on this sidewalk issue? Specifically, is the proposed sidewalk
along 31st street looking to be a reality?
Any feedback you could offer on this topic would be appreciated.
Brink reply - at a Study Session with the City Council on January 28, the
entire City-wide plan was reviewed and adjustments were made, including
removal of the proposed sidewalk along 31st Street. As of now, we are in the
process of revising the plan based on those adjustments and will be
communicating back out to the public sometime within the next 1-2
months. If there are any further questions, please let me know.
Thank you for getting back to me. Your news regarding the 31st street sidewalk has completely
made my morning.
31st St. W.. – Con’s
● None
Aquila/34th – Pro’s
● 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 downhill
from Minnetonka BLVD and Texas Ave S before they reach this intersection, often much faster
than 30 MPH.
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.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 63
• I am writing about the new sidewalk that is planned on the front and side of my place. How
wide will it be? If I want to have a fence for privacy, how far in from the sidewalk will the
fence need to be? When do you anticipate the construction on the front and side of 9031 west
34th street? I was unable to judge it by the color coding (the ink color was not clear).
• As per my previous response and your response to me, as long as this does not cost any
additional taxes or an assessment, I am in favor of this.
Aquila/34th – Con’s
● I live on the corner of Aquila Lane and 34th street. My property will be impacted by these
sidewalks on both sides. I am not happy about this at all.
• I think these sidewalks will make the neighborhood look like an extension of Minneapolis. I
bought on this side of St. Louis Park because it had a lot of green grass, not ugly cement. I think
this will negatively affect my property value.
• This will bring a lot of pedestrian traffic around my house. This will make me feel less safe
in and around my house. This will also mean more litter and more dog waste that I will have to
pick up.
• I thought I would be able to stay in my house for many more years, but I won’t be able to
afford the cost of having the sidewalks plowed in the winter.
• This decision to put in sidewalks is costing me my house. Your timeline shows my streets
will be done in 2017. I need your assurance that it will not be before that. By 2017 I will have
either moved or died.
• I’ve lived here for 27 years; I guess all good things must come to an end.
Flag Ave. – Pro’s
● None
Flag Ave. – Con’s
● My husband, has been in contact with you through email and phone voicing our concern in
regards to the proposed sidewalk on the east side of Flag Ave from 34th to 36th streets. I also
wanted to contact myself to share my opposition to that segment of sidewalk being built. It
seems an unnecessary expense for the city since there is already a side walk across the street
along with an invasion of our property and space as we live on the corner and would be directly
affected by this proposed addition. It is our hope that the proposed plans are changed with the
removal of that stretch of sidewalk.
• We received your March 29, 2013 letter regarding the “Connect the Park” initiative. We
would respectfully like to comment on the sidewalk which is being proposed on the east side of
Flag Avenue S. from W. 34th to W. 36th Street.
• The way we understand it is that the sidewalk would run along the entire west side of our
property. We’re wondering why you wouldn’t connect a sidewalk to the already- existing
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 64
pathway on the west side of Flag Avenue? This pathway already runs down the west side of
Flag Avenue all the way to W. 36th Street.
• If you install this sidewalk along the west side of our property, you will effectively eliminate
any privacy we now enjoy in our backyard. Our family will be on display to all who walk, jog or
ride by. My mother will no longer take pleasure in sitting in the backyard with all the people
going by so closely, quite honestly, she will be too afraid to do so.
• We’re uncertain as to who would be responsible for any snow/ice removal on the
sidewalk. My husband, my mother and I are all senior citizens and would be unable to shovel,
nor could we afford to pay for someone else to do so for us.
• We love the neighborhood we’ve lived in for over 30 years, it’s always been so pleasant and
comfortably private. We’re asking please, don’t take that away from us.
Maryland/Minnetonka – Pro’s
● None
Maryland/Minnetonka – Con’s
● In response to letters I have received and after phone conversations, I am writing about the
proposed sidewalks on both sides of Maryland Ave. between Minnetonka and the alley to the
south. I have voiced my concerns verbally this past month. I have also spoken with neighbors
that this would directly and indirectly effect and we are all in agreement that they are unneeded
and unwanted. I have lived at 7225 Minnetonka Blvd., the house on the southeast corner of
Minnetonka and Maryland for 32 years this summer and have a good idea about the foot and
vehicular traffic in the area. A simple list of some of my concerns I hope will be enough to make
a reconsideration of these plans.
1. I will lose the ability to use my driveway for parking without blocking the sidewalk, on
the west side of Maryland, my neighbor Byron would also be affected in this way but not
as completely as I will be.
2. The sidewalk would be just over six feet from bedroom windows of three of my four
bedrooms and also my family room. This will greatly decrease privacy and increase
noise.
3. The elevation changes from the alley to my driveway are too great. It would require
redoing the alley or raising my driveway, which I am planning new concrete to be put in,
to be raised to a point where water may run into rather than away from my garage.
4. On the west side of Maryland there are three trees that would be affected and Byron’s
existing driveway has a curb that controls runoff that would need to be cut out.
5. Plain and simple people will not use them. After being here this long I see that people
walking from the south to the bus stop at Minnetonka and Louisiana use the alley because
it is shorter and more convenient. The foot traffic from north and south DO NOT use any
sidewalks on purpose, they walk in the street, and I do not want this traffic six feet from
my windows.
6. This or next summer my plans are to landscape my yard, install sprinklers, and get nice
grass growing, I don’t need this getting torn up just after it gets going.
7. In the winter it would leave absolutely no room whatsoever for snow removal, Byron and
I both use the boulevard where the sidewalk would be to pile the snow from our
driveways, also the city front end loader that plows the alley also piles snow there during
heavy snow falls.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 65
I will be happy to voice my concerns and opinions verbally at a meeting or by phone, on any or
all of these issues and more. I would appreciate being notified if there is a meeting scheduled
that I can attend that deals with this. Thank you.
Oxford St. – Pro’s
● None
Oxford St. – Con’s
● Are we getting a sidewalk on Oxford Street in 2023? (I think that we are dark green, 2023,
A132). Is there an assessment? Thanks.
P.S. Heavy rail should stay where it is, because it is a better route and heavy rail is an important
part of our infrastructure. We are one of the largest rail users in StLP, but the route should not
affect us either way.
WARD 4
Cedar Lake Rd. – Pro’s
● None
Cedar Lake Rd. – Con’s
● I do not see a need to place a sidewalk on the South side of Cedar Lake Road. This seems
redundant as there is already a sidewalk on the North side of Cedar Lake Road. I believe that a
sidewalk on the South side will cause the removal of trees that have been standing for many
years. I also do not see the need to spend tax money on redundant projects. I feel that the money
could be better used to repair or upgrade already existing walkways in the Park.
It appears that tax dollars are so plentiful that projects like these are going to be done regardless
of public opinion or personal sentiment. I have lived at this same address on Cedar Lake Road
for 40 plus years and have seen several upgrades to Cedar lake Road. For the most part, these
upgrades have been beneficial. I fear that anything that I say will not make one bit of difference
as the decision to "Connect the Park" has already been decided, even though there are probably
many other ways to connect which would be more beneficial than a mandate to put sidewalks
everywhere.
Here are a list of my concerns.
1. I am on the southeast corner of Cedar Lake Road and Virginia and it appears that the
sidewalk would need to be placed almost up to the turnaround to avoid both the fire
hydrant and light post. As I stated on the phone, I have already had a problem with
someone searching the cars, and one break in of my son-in-law's car when they were
visiting. The sidewalk would bring people even closer to the house. I would also hate to
see the trees which had been planted when they removed the parking lane so the left turn
lane could be put in.
2. In driving down Cedar Lake Road, it appears to me that many of the trees that were
planted would need to be removed and the light posts would need to be moved back.
3. I feel that the removal of trees would decrease the appeal of Cedar Lake Road, and the
replacement cost as well as the cost of moving the light posts is an expense that the city
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 66
does not need right now. If any funds are to be spent, I feel that some of the roads are in
dire need of repair and the money would be better spent on them.
• As I stated in our conversation, I led a petition for a stoplight to be put in on the corner of
Cedar Lake Road and Virginia since it is such a busy intersection with traffic crossing over from
Minnetonka Blvd., and has a history of many accidents. This would slow down traffic as well as
provide pedestrians safety in crossing Cedar Lake Road.
• Twenty years ago they put a left hand turn lane on the Southeast corner of Cedar Lake Road
and Virginia. We and all of our neighbors lost the right to park on Cedar Lake Road. I own a
Daycare business and this had a negative effect on my business. With this sidewalk proposal
there will be more parking space lost.
• This project is going to cost our city a lot of money. Driveways will need to be re-paved and
more landscaping will need to be done. Also, there is the cost of moving the light posts. I would
rather see a few more stoplights put in on Cedar Lake Road. Cars travel 10 -15 miles over the
speed limit. Stoplights would slow their speed. There is a concerning amount of accidents on the
corner of Virginia and Cedar Lake Road.
• We have invested time and money in building a perennial garden because of how
disappointed we were with the landscaping that was done by the city the last time they did the
road construction. With this sidewalk, a good part of our garden would have to be removed.
• When the city did construction twenty years ago, it left a huge incline in the bottom of our
driveway that has made it impossible to back in trailers, dumpsters and have any deliveries
made. It is also dangerous. Thank you for your consideration.
Flag Ave. – Pro’s
● None
Flag Ave. – Con’s
● We viewed the HTML on the sidewalk plan and am disappointed to see you are planning on
tearing apart our peaceful neighborhood. I understand the city (rather than the individual
homeowner) is paying for the project but it seems to me that tax money could better be used for
education purposes. With our small front yards we will end up looking like Louisiana Ave with
its vastly depreciated value. I also have concerns about landscaping etc.
Franklin Ave. W. – Pro’s
● None
Franklin Ave. W. – Con’s
● I am a homeowner residing at 6615 West Franklin Avenue. I received the letter dated March
29 with information about “Connect the Park”. I am a walker and bike rider and think more
trails and sidewalks will be a great enhancement in the Park.
• I walked the proposed sidewalk plan from Hampshire Ave. S to Cedar Lake Road, and can’t
figure out why the city would put a sidewalk on this proposed route. I am on the south side of
Franklin, and while not opposed to a sidewalk, I just don’t see any use for one. This is such a
quiet residential area. My block has very minimal traffic with only 4 driveways between
Georgia and Florida. There is a lot of people walking dogs and pushing strollers in the area. I
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 67
have elementary and preschool grandchildren who ride bikes within boundaries (and under
supervision) on Franklin. It is one of the most safe and quiet streets I have lived on since my
childhood!
There would be major upheaval to yards – trees, fences, gardens, and amending the land to
accommodate a sidewalk. I would rather see the funds for this particular section of the project
used somewhere that would make more sense. Perhaps a trail around the pond at Hampshire
Park where a new playground is being installed in early June.
I apologize for not responding by April 20, and do hope you will consider my input. Please
contact me if you need further input. I would be happy to accommodate.
Louisiana Ave. – Pro’s
● None
Louisiana Ave. – Con’s
● Thank you for your letter regarding adding additional sidewalks (subtracting green space) in
St Louis Park. I live on the east side of Louisiana Avenue, between Cedar Lake Road and
Wayzata Blvd. I am opposed to the plan to add a sidewalk right in front of my house for the
following reasons:
• This would be very expensive.
• There is already a sidewalk on the other side of the street (running the entire length
between Cedar Lake Rd. & Wayzata Blvd.).
• According to the Active Living Draft pdf file, there are many streets without sidewalks
on either side, not scheduled for one either.
• This would give us less privacy.
• Some areas, especially closer to Cedar Lake Road, have steep hills requiring major
landscaping efforts.
• This would increase the angle of existing driveways, unless sidewalk made slanted by
driveways.
• This could make driveways more slippery and increase the chances of cars "bottoming
out".
• Some trees would need to be removed, including at least one in my neighbor's yard.
• The people who bought or rented properties here, most likely had the option to buy/rent a
place with a sidewalk, but chose to buy/rent here instead.
• Addition of a sidewalk could lower property values.
PS -
There is no discussion of the cost on the website.
Who pays how much?
PPS -
On an unrelated subject, I am opposed to installing the new blinking yellow left turn signals.
• They are distracting.
• They are the same as a solid green.
• They are expensive.
• They are (dangerously) misleading since before these, every time I have seen a yellow
blinking light, cross traffic has had a red blinking light.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 68
• As my wife and I have stated previously, (see attached email from 11-6-12) we are strongly
opposed to sidewalks on the east side of Louisiana Ave. north of CLR. If you wish I will survey
every property owner that is affected. Without a doubt the majority will be opposed. That is the
consensus of my immediate neighbors on the 2200 block of Louisiana Ave. Please convey our
position to the City Council.
• After attending the meeting on October 30th regarding proposed sidewalks, bikeways and
trails my wife 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 later 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 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 Louisiana
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.
• 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 what’s 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 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?
Since this time I have spoken with Council Member Ross on a various topics, some of which
relate to this which is why I have copied her. My concern on these sidewalks is that I am
planning to do some significant landscaping this year and next. This year's landscaping will be
meant as a buffer to Louisiana Ave and the stop light at Franklin. The setbacks on my block are
not that deep and with the trees I'm worried that these sidewalks will be real close to my house. I
certainly don’t want those trees removed.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 69
What's the timing of the sidewalk in front of my house? I've already paid for a landscaping plan
and with these sidewalks I'm not even sure I can accomplish what I originally set out to do.
Another item that relates to this is that when I built, I was forced to pour a driveway apron that is
not efficient or functional for the location of my house. I have had two accidents as a result of
this. One on record and one worked out between the drivers. It's simply unsafe and not
functional. I am continually driving over the curb both in and out of my driveway. I was willing
to spend more money on a bigger apron to avoid the exact problems I am having with it now.
Pennsylvania Ave. – Pro’s
● None
Pennsylvania Ave. – Con’s
● Lets go again - This is nothing but another example of our public elected officials wasting
public money and hiding behind catchy but meaningless slogans. We see it at every level -
federal, state, county, local. Please do not come back to us asking for more money - to cover
your unfunded pension plans or school needs..
Feel free to pay yourself with the sidewalks will be my/our answer..
The sidewalk on the stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue has no practical use at all ..
It does not connect anything to anything but the City Hall to our wallets..
I have a doubled lot stretching the long side of the street.
And when the "connection" will be accomplished I will be about 66-67 trying to make it out of a
1600 a month social security..
And I will not be the only one in this situation..
Please do remember as per our previous conversations - the City of St. Louis Park is supposed
to be responsible for the snow removal from the sidewalk..'
I do not intend to do that and finishing with a heart attack, nor will I be able to afford (see above
the information about my Social Security) to hire help.
And - I'm just amazed..
I went to ONE meeting ...
Some 20-25 people were speaking against the sidewalk..
One person was speaking in favor..
And the person in favor of the (his kids walking to school) is actually living on the stretch of
Pennsylvania (closer to the highway) - that was dropped from the sidewalk project !
Obviously vox populi does not count for much ..
Texas Ave. – Pro’s
● None
Texas Ave. – Con’s
● While I am pleased you have decided to drop the proposed sidewalk from Franklin Ave to
Wayzata Blvd. I still remain mystified why the city feels the need to move forward with the
segment from Franklin Ave to Cedar Lake Rd. All of my argument's still are in force. If anyone
would take the time to do a count on the existing sidewalk you would find it is lightly used. As
the neighborhood is fully developed just where is the increasing foot traffic coming from? Also
as we talked about there are no commercial areas on Cedar Lake Road or Wayzata Blvd. Finely
as I walk every day on the existing East sidewalk both I and most foot traffic are forced to walk
in the street as it has sunk in many places fills with ice in cold weather and water on wet days. I
hope you will take these concerns into consideration.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 70
• I am very opposed 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. Let’s repair the
existing asset 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
create 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.
• I am writing to express my disgust at the proposal of putting a sidewalk in along the west
side of Texas Avenue.
Not only does the idea represent a needless and unwanted alteration to the neighborhood, it also
appears to be a waste of valuable city resources.
I cannot imagine how anyone would benefit from the additional sidewalk. The city is already
well-connected for foot traffic via the sidewalk on the east side of the street. The fact that the
current plan does not, in fact, extend beyond Franklin adds to my doubt that the idea will
promote more "connectedness".
Additionally, I have yet to talk to any neighbor who is in support of the plan. On the contrary,
everyone I have spoken with seems very angry, disappointed, and frustrated about the
idea. Indeed, if there is anything remotely positive about the proposal it is that I have never
before felt such togetherness in the neighborhood as exists now in our unified stance against this
proposal.
Finally, I fail to see how this plan represents a sound financial investment in the community. If
my own yard is any example, it is certainly going to be a costly project. Not only would a large
tree have to be removed, but the street light and water system would also be affected. And what
about the cost of re-landscaping the many steep, hilly properties along the street? To say nothing
about assisting people re-beautify their newly uglified yards!
I truly hope you will reconsider your plan.
• 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.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 71
If there is a benefit to adding an additional sidewalk, perhaps it was explained at the public
meetings. Perhaps you could explain 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.
1. 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 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.
2. 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.
3. 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. p.s. Perhaps the additional sidewalk could be added right next to the current sidewalk on the east
side of the street! That makes every bit as much sense as the current proposal.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 72
• We just got a letter saying that the part of the redundant sidewalk on Texas Avenue between
Franklin Avenue and Wayzata Boulevard has been cut from the plan. That's good. The problem
is that the rest of it, between Franklin Avenue and Cedar Lake Road, remains in the plan.
As much as we hate to bother our neighbors, we intend to go door to door to the south of us to
try to organize objection to this pointless, expensive stretch of redundant sidewalk that remains. I
need more information from you to share with them. Please answer the following questions
directly:
1. Would homeowners pay a special assessment for having this sidewalk put in their yard? If
so, how much will it cost?
2. Would homeowners be responsible for keeping the sidewalk clear of snow and ice?
Also, please tell me what you see as the benefits of this extra sidewalk. Feel free to include any
benefits that other people have suggested, even if you do not personally agree. At this time I can
see no benefits and it would help me to know what they are, if indeed there are any.
• Thank you for letting us know that there won't be assessments to adjacent homeowners. I'm
glad to hear it. However, I searched the website you recommended and did not find answers to
the other questions. Can you please answer the following three questions?
1. Would the homeowners be responsible for keeping the sidewalk free of ice and snow?
2. I understand the larger benefits of the entire program as listed on the website - making SLP
more accessible to pedestrians and bikers - and I fully support them. What are the specific
benefits of installing this particular sidewalk on a street that is already easily accessible to
pedestrians?
3. There is a crosswalk on the north side of the intersection of Franklin and Texas avenues.
Would additional crosswalks be installed on the west and/or south sides of the intersection of
Franklin and Texas Avenues?
• We were greatly disappointed to get another letter last week regarding the sidewalk proposal
still being planned. We have talked to several neighbors who are also very much against it,
though we aren't sure they've all been in touch with you yet.
We were wondering if any studies have been done on the amount of traffic that uses the current
sidewalk. Even during the school year, the increased foot traffic does not come anywhere close
to warranting the expense, the loss of property, the loss of trees and gardens, etc. of an additional
walkway.
And why is it necessary to have sidewalk down a portion of the west side of the street if a
decision has now been made to stop it at Franklin? It will still require people to cross the street
and continue on the current sidewalk.
After reviewing both the City letters and the City website, we have not found any answers to the
following important questions:
1. What is the total budget allocation for this project?
2. How much would property taxes increase per lot in order to pay for this unwanted
addition?
3. How many feet of yard would each lot lose?
4. How would the City plan to re-beautify the neighborhood after removing all the current
landscaping, and at what cost?
We feel that answers to these questions should be shared with the entire neighborhood so that
everyone will be fully educated and aware of what impact this proposal could have on them.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 73
Virginia Ave. – Pro’s
● None
Virginia Ave. – Con’s
● There continues to be a sidewalk shown from Cedar Lake Road to 28th Street. We are very
familiar with that street as we live adjacent to the proposed sidewalk and navigate that street and
bridge often as walkers, drivers as well as bikers. We strongly oppose this segment of sidewalk
because it will cause confusion and a dangerous situation for walkers and vehicles who will meet
at the north entrance to the railroad bridge on the west side of Virginia. A sidewalk would end in
a dead end at the bridge since there is no place for a sidewalk to go under the bridge and there
will be pedestrians forced to either go under the bridge in the traffic lane or to cross to the
sidewalk on the east side. If they cross at that point the visibility for both the pedestrian and the
vehicles is very poor. Presently bikers and vehicles share that extremely narrow southbound lane
and have to take turns going under the bridge (and in actuality the cars defer to the bikers
because the bikers ignore the cars and will never slow down or stop). In addition, there is a
slight turn on Virginia just before the bridge that adds to the visibility problems that the bridge
presents. Cars tend to accelerate as they complete their northbound travel under the bridge
making it already difficult to cross at 26th Street which is ½ block away from the bridge. The
cars are focusing on avoiding the concrete and tend not to see pedestrians. To add another even
more risky crossing situation is asking for an accident. It will be especially dangerous for
children who don’t recognize the risks and the need for caution.
If another tunnel to accommodate the new sidewalk under the bridge is planned it will be very
expensive and would have to be dug low to get under the tracks. That is part of the problem on
the east side because of accumulating snow and water in the valley created.
The current sidewalk on the east side of Virginia is underused by walkers and it seems
unnecessary to add another on the same street. If money is to be spent on providing a better
pedestrian walking experience it could be spent on upgrading the current sidewalk. As one
approaches the bridge from the north it is difficult for two people to walk side by side and nearly
nonnegotiable in the winter. It is very narrow where the hill on the north side of the bridge is
washing down and covers 12-18 inches of the sidewalk. The puddles, ice and snow buildup
under the bridge creates a treacherous walking condition. Improving the east side sidewalk
would be fiscally more prudent and wiser than adding another potentially dangerous sidewalk or
adding another tunnel under an aging bridge.
• I sent you an email earlier regarding the potential danger of adding another pedestrian /
vehicle interface at the corner of Virginia and Cedar Lake Road without first solving the overall
problem. Doctors are usually held to their “first do no harm" oath - planners should too. I would
hope you are against anything that would increase the number of accidents at that corner.
Secondly - I attach a picture of what your plan will be running into at the southern end of
Virginia at the railroad bridge... I am hoping you are not planning to put steps up and over the
tracks? You need to get your committee in a van and drive down and see this in person. It seems
to me that this would be more than a sidewalk project at this area; you will be moving power
lines, building walls - who knows how many thousands of dollars to put in an unneeded sidewalk
to nowhere that ends up making a bad corner worse. I would hope you would be against
something that expensive that adds no real value.
Thirdly - my lot is 140' long at that corner, 3 times the normal lot. I assume the city shovels it 15
times a year - since it would be such a vital link and to pay for its construction. What about all
the old trees on that street - are they doomed to die for a failed purpose?
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 74
There are idealistic concepts and then there is reality - Your idea of connecting those two streets
would be great in an ideal world. If that horrible corner weren't horrible it could make a nice
connection. But the corner is horrible and the bridge is impassable. As an architect I know it's
usually a bad idea to try to implement a idealistic concept when reality (and something in the
back of your brain) says no. It's like the idea of putting solar panels where there is no real sun. I
again state that while I am mowing my yard this summer I do not want to hear more crashes - or
see more people getting hurt. My vote 100% no on the sidewalk unless you solve the problem at
that corner and the problem at the bridge.
• Please, please reconsider putting a sidewalk on the west side of Virginia Avenue between
Cedar Lake Road and 28th Street. There is currently a sidewalk on the east side of the street with
minimal use. Putting an additional sidewalk on the west side of the street is a waste of resources
and potentially a safety issue. The proposed sidewalk would end at 28th Street. At this point, any
walker would need to cross Virginia just north of the railroad bridge--this is an area with
restricted sightlines and a lot of traffic at certain times of the day.
There are 4 homes on this side of the street that front on Virginia Avenue. All have shallow
front yards and you are now going to add foot traffic, dog droppings and strewn garbage right
under our front windows. I have commented on occasion when we hear loud voices from
disrespectful walkers and see the filth from those who do not pick up after their pets while
walking on the other side of the street, how unfortunate it is for the residents there--we would be
much closer than they are.
We are adamantly opposed to this sidewalk. We have been residents of St. Louis Park since 1973
and the addition of this sidewalk may make us reconsider continuing to live here. This is a
shameful waste of the taxpayer's money.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 75
• Thank you for the update. From what I can tell from the city website, the sidewalk on the
west side of Virginia Avenue from Cedar Lake Road to 28th Street is now listed as “delay or
revision”. I am hoping this will lead to deletion. It is truly a waste of taxpayer dollars to have a
sidewalk on both sides of Virginia Avenue. There are more constructive ways to spend our tax
money. Thank you for the opportunity to express our opinions.
• West side of Virginia – opposed to sidewalk. Doesn’t know how it could possibly be done
this year with the railroad bridge there.
• Rather than spend the money for a sidewalk on the west side of Virginia, it would be better
served by putting extensions on the manholes on Minnetonka Blvd. and Cedar Lake Rd. so we
don’t have to dodge those while driving.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 76
Westmoreland La. – Pro’s
● Hello. I live at 9109 Westmoreland Lane and I am writing to whole heartedly support the
sidewalk project on Flag and Westmoreland. Almost every day I see the near misses that occur
with pedestrians and traffic. Cars tend to "straighten out" the curve right in front of our house,
nearly hitting bikers, jiggers and other cars head on. The whole of Westmoreland lane is curvy
and with parked cars staggered here and there, the whole street is dangerous for pedestrians.
I would imagine that if we had a safe place to walk/jog and push strollers, the adrenaline would
go down! Thank you! A sidewalk would be a blessing for this neighborhood.
Westmoreland La. – Con’s
● My family and I are vehemently opposed to the proposed sidewalk for the north side of
Westmoreland Lane and the east side of Flag Avenue between the Westmoreland Nature Center
and West 14th Street. The sidewalk is proposed in one of the least populated areas of St. Louis
Park. Westmoreland Lane is bordered by the Westmoreland Nature Center and the Minneapolis
Golf Club. There is one row of houses on each side of the street. This is also one of the longest
proposed segments of sidewalk at 4039 ft. and one of the most expensive sidewalk segments at
$121,174 based on the estimate in the original proposal, and it serves the lowest number of people
in the community. I have personally attended public meetings on the proposed segment of side-
walk and all most 100% of the attendees affected by the sidewalk were opposed to the sidewalk.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 77
The Westwood Hills neighborhood is somewhat unique within St. Louis Park. It has a very
suburban feel. We specifically chose the Westwood Hills neighborhood for this reason. If the
proposed sidewalk is implemented many trees will need to be removed to make room. Adding a
sidewalk will significantly change the look and feel of the neighborhood. St. Louis Park needs to
offer destination housing for people who want to live in their homes for an extended period. If
you change the look and feel of the Westwood Hills neighborhood you again reduce the appeal
of the neighborhood.
The proposed sidewalk is not necessary. The neighborhood already has a 25 mile per hour speed
limit. The children in the neighborhood are bussed to all schools. None of the children on the
proposed stretch of sidewalk are walkers.
The proposed sidewalk is not wanted by the residents of the Westwood Hills neighborhood. It
does not serve a significant population within St. Louis Park. It is expensive and will detract
from the neighborhood. Please do not move forward with the proposed sidewalk for the north
side of Westmoreland Lane and the east side of Flag Avenue between the Westmoreland Nature
Center and West 14th Street. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
• I feel it is a waste of taxpayer's money to put sidewalks on Westmoreland Lane! There is no
traffic to speak of, and it would lose the feeling of a country road. The money could be better
spent putting electives back in the schools.
• My husband and I and our 4 children have been residents of St. Louis Park since 1994, living
on Westmoreland Lane. My comments and questions on the “Connect the Park” initiative are as
follows:
1. The maps included in the two mailings we have received are very hard to read. Can you
tell me what year is the sidewalk proposed for Westmoreland Lane? Those who I have
asked believe that it is 2023, and as a result, don’t care to comment because they don’t
believe they will still be living here. I’d like to confirm that it is in fact 2023 and that
there is a process by which the city will “refresh” its proposal in the next decade before
any such work is carried out.
2. In this day of tough times for many folks, I don’t understand how the city staff can ask
for input on a project without outlining to some minimum degree the financial impact on
residents. How is this work being paid for? Are there assessments involved? Who
would be assessed? Everyone on the street or only those whose property is being
impacted by the creation of sidewalks? What is the expected cost per homeowner on the
street? It seems to me that you cannot gather legitimate feedback on a project of this sort
without communicating both the costs and benefits of the project.
3. Many people on Westmoreland Lane have invested in landscaping to beautify the
neighborhood. Driving down the street it is clear that installing sidewalks will ruin much
of that investment. If sidewalks are installed next to the street, mailboxes, plantings,
decorative fencing and pavers are going to be ripped up. If sidewalks are installed with a
grassy boulevard at the street, then mailboxes might be preserved, but even more mature
trees and landscaping will be ruined. It seems to me that the city cannot get good
feedback on a project when these sort of simple details – like where the sidewalk would
be installed -- are not addressed.
4. I have heard that the purported reason which has been given for installing a sidewalk on
the street is to connect to the Nature Center’s trails. If this is a major reason, it is based
on severely flawed data and reasoning. I am a stay at home mom and dog owner on the
street. Nine out of 10 people walking the street each day are walking dogs. As you must
know, dogs are not allowed in the Nature Center so it can’t be the case that the city is
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 78
trying to “connect” the overwhelming majority of the walkers on the street to a location
that they are not permitted to enter. The other 10% of pedestrian traffic is primarily
runners, not one of which have I seen run into the Nature Center, with its trails and paths
that have been designed for walking not running.
5. When sidewalks were installed on Franklin to the Nature Center, I observed that the city
regularly plowed those sidewalks. Is this the commitment for the rest of the street? If
not, I think that should be clear to people on the street as what we have observed is that
the city does do that shoveling. With the amount of snow that gets pushed up by the
plows, if sidewalks were installed next to the street, it would be all but impossible for
homeowners to also clear sidewalks. Most residents on the street do not have snow
removal services; I just stepped outside my door, and of the 10 houses I can see, only one
of them (a retired couple) actually has a service clear their snow. After the one big snow
of the season, any additional snows are a huge challenge to throw snow with a snow
blower or a shovel when the mounds of snow at the bottom of our driveways already
exceed the level of our mailboxes. The curves in the street mean that large amounts of
snow are kicked off by plows and delivered to the bottom of our driveways – and now
you are considering adding sidewalks too? This would be an extremely burdensome if
not impossible task.
6. Over the past several years, there have been 3 or 4 water main breaks below the surface
of the street on Westmoreland Lane. Workers on these sites have indicated that this has a
lot do with the age of the system under the street and indicated that such repairs will
likely be a more frequently occurrence in the coming years. Such repairs mean not only
the street being ripped up, but in each such recent case, the digging had to go into the
yards next to the street. Has the city factored the cost of installing new sidewalks and
then replacing them multiple times into the plan or did it just intend to bill residents for
this extra expense? If the city is creating a situation where repairs are more expensive
with only a plan to burden homeowners with this cost, this is unreasonable.
7. This is especially the case on a road which is marked for 25 MPH so as to make it safe
for travel: pedestrian, bike and car. I know that the Lane is one of the few roads in SLP
which is marked at that speed level and if there is any intention to increase the speed limit
following the installation of a sidewalk, then this is very important data to have shared
upfront with residents so as to get legitimate feedback.
8. The beauty of the Lane is that it includes homeowners of all ages. However, giving
homeowners more to maintain in the way of adding sidewalks makes it even less likely
that older residents will want to live on the street as long as they are able to live
independently.
These are just a few of the issues which I feel exist with the proposed plan for sidewalks on the
street. Please let me know if you have any questions about any of my comments. And, I
particularly am interested in hearing from you about the timing, cost and maintenance
responsibility associated with this proposed work. Finally, you asked that written comments be
submitted to you via email, and I am doing so. However, I do not wish for my email address be
disclosed in any public manner and ask that you and Ms. Ross maintain my privacy in that respect.
• I am committing to writing that which we discussed today relative to your letter dated March
29, 2013 addressed to the residents on Westmoreland Lane and the City Council relating to
sidewalk on Westmoreland Lane.
We have been residents of St. Louis Park on Westmoreland Lane for 43 years and have raised a
family of four children who have all reached adulthood and moved on with their lives and
families. We have never needed in all of the above years sidewalks on our street.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 79
As I mentioned in our conversation we have rural route delivery on Westmoreland Lane and a
sidewalk could make it difficult for the mail delivery in that the mailman never leaves his truck
when delivering the mail. The sidewalk could force both the removal and resetting of the
mailbox so that the driver would have to get out of his vehicle at every mailbox on the street.
It would seem to me that during these extremely difficult times where people and municipalities
are having a tough time balancing their finances that it would not be wise to spend money on
something that is absolutely not needed.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Page 80
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 28, 2013
Written Report: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Complete Streets Policy/Resolution
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. Please let staff know of any comments or
questions you might have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to formally support the principles of Complete
Streets?
SUMMARY: The City’s Engineering, Public Works and Community Development departments
currently embrace and implement many of the principles of Complete Streets in our Capital
Improvement Program, planning studies, maintenance activities and roadway construction whenever
feasible.
The adoption of a Complete Streets resolution will recognize the city of St. Louis Park’s ongoing
support and intent to utilize complete street principles in transportation planning and community
design.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Complete Streets Resolution - Draft
Resolution No. 10-027
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Engineering
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Complete Streets Policy/Resolution
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The term Complete Street as defined by Minnesota Statute 174.75 is “the
planning, scoping, design, implementation, operation, and maintenance of roads in order to
reasonably address the safety and accessibility needs of users of all ages and abilities. Complete
streets considers the needs of motorists, pedestrians, transit users and vehicles, bicyclists, and
commercial and emergency vehicles moving along and across roads, intersections, and crossings
in a manner that is sensitive to the local context and recognizes that the needs vary in urban,
suburban, and rural settings.”
In 2010 the Council adopted Resolution No. 10-027, attached, encouraging the Minnesota
Legislature to authorize the development of a statewide Complete Streets program. The concept
of Complete Streets has been embraced by State, County and local governments across the
Country. This philosophy is commonly used to describe the ways in which a community should
advocate for a more comprehensive and balanced view of transportation as a community
redevelops.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation, Hennepin County, and many local agencies
including Eagan, Edina, Falcon Heights, Independence, New Hope, Northfield, North St. Paul,
Red Wing, St. Cloud and St. Paul have language expressing their commitment to Complete
Streets in the form of Resolutions or Policies.
Other communities, such as Bloomington have chosen to address Complete Streets as part of
their City’s Alternative Transportation Plan. The City of St. Louis Park has incorporated many
of the principles of Complete Streets into the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan
and the evolving Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The implementation of a Complete Streets approach has
many benefits for the community including:
• Improve the safety of all users on roadways
• Create transportation networks that support more walking and biking that encourage
more physical activity and improving public health
• Create equity in access and transportation options for individuals not able to operate a
vehicle.
• Create affordable transportation options including walking, bicycling and mass transit.
• An economic development catalyst. Complete streets can attract people and encourage
business.
• Positive impacts to the environment by creating transportation options other than the
single occupant vehicle.
• Improve the quality of life by creating walkable neighborhoods.
NEXT STEPS: If there are no objections, staff will proceed by presenting this resolution for
Council adoption on June 17, 2013.
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Complete Streets Policy/Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION DECLARING THAT IT IS THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK’S POLICY
TO UTILIZE COMPLETE STREET PRINCIPLES
IN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DESIGN
WHEREAS, Complete Streets consist of the planning, scoping, design, construction,
operation, and maintenance of roads in order to reasonably address the safety and accessibility needs
of users of all ages and abilities. Complete streets considers the needs of motorists, pedestrians,
transit users and vehicles, bicyclists, and commercial and emergency vehicles moving along and
across roads, intersections, and crossings in a manner that is sensitive to the local context and
recognizes that needs may vary throughout the community; and
WHEREAS, in 2010 the City of St. Louis Park adopted resolution 10-027 to encourage
the Minnesota Legislature, with input and guidance from the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, to authorize development of a statewide Complete Streets Program, which would
provide for the development of a balanced transportation system, through appropriate planning,
that integrates multiple transportation modes, where appropriate, for transportation users of all
types, ages and abilities; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park supports Hennepin County’s adoption of a
Compete Streets resolution and policy and its efforts to implement the polices; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has consistently followed Complete Street
principles in its planning and community design, and has demonstrated said commitment by
adopting a transportation goal within the City’s Comprehensive Plan to provide well-designed
and well-maintained community streets that balance the needs of all users, residents, businesses
and property owners; and
WHEREAS, Complete Streets is consistent with the Council supported principles of
Active Living Hennepin County, to promote the integration of physical activity into the daily
lives of St. Louis Park residents; and
WHEREAS, Complete Streets are designed, constructed and maintained to assure safety
and accessibility for all the users of our roads, trails and transit systems, including pedestrians,
bicyclists, transit riders, motorists, commercial and emergency vehicles and for people of all ages
and of all abilities; and
WHEREAS, Complete Streets provide safe travel choices that encourage non-motorized
transportation options, increase the overall capacity of the transportation network as well as
decrease consumer transportation costs; and
WHEREAS, Complete Streets will help St. Louis Park reduce greenhouse gas emissions
as more people choose an alternative to the single occupant vehicle, thereby improving air
quality and alleviating public health concerns; and
WHEREAS, Complete Streets support economic growth and community stability by
providing accessible and efficient connections between home, school, work, recreation and retail
destinations by improving the pedestrian and vehicular environments throughout communities;
and
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Title: Complete Streets Policy/Resolution
WHEREAS, Complete Streets enhance safe walking and bicycling options for school-
age children, in recognition of the objectives of the national Safe Routes to School program, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Physical Activity Guidelines and the City’s
Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy; and
WHEREAS, Complete Streets improve the quality of life within our community; and
WHEREAS, Complete Streets may influence or help reduce crashes and injuries and
their costs;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that in order to develop and maintain a safe,
efficient, balanced and environmentally sound City transportation system for people of all ages
and abilities, transportation and development projects shall incorporate a Complete Streets
philosophy that expands transportation choices; and therefore
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, that it is the City of St. Louis Park’s policy to utilize complete streets principles and
to work with MnDOT, Hennepin County, and appropriate agencies so that Complete Street
elements are evaluated where possible for City transportation projects by providing appropriate
accommodations for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, transit riders, and disabled persons
through the ongoing creation of a multi-model transportation system.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 17, 2013
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Complete Streets Policy/Resolution
Page 5
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 28, 2013
Written Report: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: April 2013 Monthly Financial Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Monthly Financial Report provides summary information for the General
Fund and the Park & Recreation Fund of revenues and departmental expenditures and a
comparison of budget to actual throughout the year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Actual expenditures should generally run
about 33% of the annual budget in April. Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling
30.9% of the adopted budget and the Park and Recreation Fund expenditures are at 29.1%.
Revenues tend to be harder to measure 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.).
A few brief variance comments are noted below.
General Fund
Revenues:
• Through April, 51% of the license and permit revenues have been received in the General
Fund. As in prior years, this is because 95% of the 2013 liquor and business license
payments have already been received. Building permit revenues are at 34.4% of budget
or $584,000 through April.
Expenditures:
• Community Outreach is temporarily exceeding budget at 54% because the full 2013
payment for Mediation Services was made in April. This expenditure is a substantial
portion of the Community Outreach budget. The variance is consistent with prior years.
Park & Recreation
Expenditures:
• The Vehicle Maintenance Division is running a small overage through April at 34.6%.
Due to continued plowing well into the spring, some corresponding expenditures, such as
overtime, fuel, and parts, are running slightly over budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Summary of Revenues - General Fund and Park & Recreation
As of April 30, 2013
2013 2013
2011 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 Balance YTD Budget
Budget Actual Budget Audited Budget Apr YTD Remaining to Actual %
General Fund Revenues:
General Property Taxes 15,426,072$ 15,372,076$ 15,998,292$ 16,038,098$ 16,314,802$ -$ 16,314,802$ 0.00%
Licenses and Permits 2,345,910 2,797,588 2,368,799 3,241,372 2,481,603 1,270,357 1,211,246 51.19%
Fines & Forfeits 328,200 281,047 328,150 341,356 335,150 92,810 242,340 27.69%
Intergovernmental 1,136,187 1,243,494 1,163,677 1,275,279 1,203,289 281,661 921,628 23.41%
Charges for Services 1,152,643 1,077,137 1,270,354 1,095,909 1,401,797 347,446 1,054,351 24.79%
Miscellaneous Revenue 100,150 129,142 111,650 103,029 114,200 41,670 72,530 36.49%
Transfers In 2,589,876 2,553,665 2,023,003 2,066,136 1,816,563 596,504 1,220,059 32.84%
Investment Earnings 200,000 203,282 125,000 136,415 150,000 150,000 0.00%
Other Income 4,750 22,686 3,450 10,871 4,700 4,227 473 89.94%
Total General Fund Revenues 23,283,788$ 23,680,117$ 23,392,375$ 24,308,465$ 23,822,104$ 2,634,675$ 21,187,429$ 11.06%
Park & Recreation Revenues:
General Property Taxes 4,000,561$ 4,000,561$ 4,171,506$ 4,171,506$ 4,342,922$ -$ 4,342,922$ 0.00%
Licenses and Permits 6,600 110 6,600 440 - 249 (249) 0.00%
Intergovernmental 77,652 208,536 68,902 89,744 96,902 7,873 89,029 8.12%
Charges for Services 1,095,250 1,082,163 1,070,750 1,073,722 1,073,400 241,956 831,444 22.54%
Miscellaneous Revenue 937,400 1,035,310 967,900 989,204 978,181 220,572 757,609 22.55%
Other Income 15,000 78,902 42,150 265,402 31,950 1,050 30,900 3.29%
Total Park & Recreation Revenues 6,132,463$ 6,405,582$ 6,327,808$ 6,590,018$ 6,523,355$ 471,700$ 6,051,655$ 7.23%
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Title: April 2013 Monthly Financial Report Page 2
2013 2013
2011 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 Balance Budget
Budget Actual Budget Audited Budget Apr YTD Remaining to Actual %
General Government:
Administration 889,798$ 825,168$ 1,012,554$ 977,392$ 877,099$ 287,581$ 589,518$ 32.79%
Accounting 612,964 624,573 641,691 639,999 657,592 201,846 455,746 30.69%
Assessing 500,141 506,426 517,840 518,271 543,855 182,584 361,271 33.57%
Human Resources 652,770 629,734 667,612 645,357 678,988 226,148 452,840 33.31%
Community Development 1,094,186 1,082,461 1,076,376 1,052,186 1,094,517 347,122 747,395 31.71%
Facilities Maintenance 1,114,551 955,880 1,083,128 972,481 1,074,920 298,418 776,502 27.76%
Information Resources 1,394,226 1,421,858 1,507,579 1,363,266 1,770,877 475,263 1,295,614 26.84%
Communications & Marketing 294,470 256,558 265,426 244,392 201,322 54,856 146,466 27.25%
Community Outreach 88,515 84,300 8,185 5,341 8,185 4,421 3,764 54.01%
Total General Government 6,641,621$ 6,386,958$ 6,780,391$ 6,418,686$ 6,907,355$ 2,078,239$ 4,829,116$ 30.09%
Public Safety:
Police 7,208,512$ 6,943,375$ 7,273,723$ 7,124,784$ 7,443,637$ 2,408,880$ 5,034,757$ 32.36%
Fire Protection 3,164,344 3,061,962 3,346,931 3,291,655 3,330,263 1,017,244 2,313,019 30.55%
Inspectional Services 1,863,296 1,818,212 1,889,340 1,869,616 1,928,446 629,098 1,299,348 32.62%
Total Public Safety 12,236,152$ 11,823,549$ 12,509,994$ 12,286,055$ 12,702,346$ 4,055,221$ 8,647,125$ 31.92%
Public Works:
Public Works Administration 829,698$ 803,259$ 389,783$ 378,852$ 393,054$ 111,415$ 281,639$ 28.35%
Public Works Engineering 846,032 816,280 927,337 939,425 940,479 272,048 668,431 28.93%
Public Works Operations 2,550,285 2,461,099 2,604,870 2,521,463 2,698,870 840,978 1,857,892 31.16%
Total Public Works 4,226,015$ 4,080,638$ 3,921,990$ 3,839,739$ 4,032,403$ 1,224,441$ 2,807,962$ 30.37%
Non-Departmental:
General 81,287$ -$ 65,292$ -$ -$ 0.00%
Transfers Out 900,000 - 1,160,000 - - 0.00%
Tax Court Petitions 180,000 - 180,000 - 180,000 - 180,000 0.00%
Total Non-Departmental 180,000$ 981,287$ 180,000$ 1,225,292$ 180,000$ -$ 180,000$ 0.00%
Total General Fund Expenditures 23,283,788$ 23,272,432$ 23,392,375$ 23,769,772$ 23,822,104$ 7,357,902$ 16,464,202$ 30.89%
Park & Recreation:
Organized Recreation 1,239,230$ 1,266,774$ 1,305,747$ 1,352,273$ 1,317,526$ 369,926$ 947,600$ 28.08%
Recreation Center 1,442,447 1,424,076 1,466,246 1,516,121 1,463,224 388,113 1,075,111 26.52%
Park Maintenance 1,435,374 1,462,866 1,461,645 1,444,448 1,483,576 436,485 1,047,091 29.42%
Westwood 502,366 488,579 515,456 506,404 533,565 159,003 374,562 29.80%
Environment 371,324 396,664 390,009 382,378 430,876 96,283 334,593 22.35%
Vehicle Maintenance 1,141,722 1,300,708 1,188,705 1,326,153 1,294,588 448,273 846,315 34.63%
Total Park & Recreation Expenditures 6,132,463$ 6,339,666$ 6,327,808$ 6,527,777$ 6,523,355$ 1,898,084$ 4,625,271$ 29.10%
Summary of Expenditures - General Fund and Park & Recreation
As of April 30, 2013
Study Session Meeting of May 28, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Title: April 2013 Monthly Financial Report Page 3