HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020/09/29 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
SEPT. 29, 2020
All meetings of the St. Louis Park City Council will be conducted by telephone or other electronic
means starting March 30, 2020, and until further notice. This is in accordance with the local
emergency declaration issued by the city council, in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19)
pandemic and Governor Walz's “Stay Safe MN” executive order 20-056.
Some or all members of the St. Louis Park City Council will participate in the Sept. 29, 2020 city
council meeting by electronic device or telephone rather than by being personally present at
the city council's regular meeting place at 5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
Members of the public can monitor the meeting by video and audio at https://bit.ly/watchslpcouncil
or by calling +1-312-535-8110 meeting number (access code): 372 106 61 for audio only. Cisco
Webex will be used to conduct videoconference meetings of the city council, with council
members and staff participating from multiple locations.
6:30 p.m. - STUDY SESSION
Discussion items
1. 6:30 p.m. Notice of eviction
2. 7:00 p.m. Policing discussion - continued
3. 8:30 p.m. Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
8:35 p.m. Communications/updates (verbal)
8:40 p.m. Adjourn
Written reports
4. August 2020 monthly financial report
5. Platia Place project update
6. Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements (4022-2000)
The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of city hall and on the text display
on civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952-924-2525.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: September 29, 2020
Discussion item : 1
Executive summary
Title: Notice of e viction
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered
essential business and is Categorized as Time -Sensitive**
•No action at this time. Staff will review and discuss with council the proposed notice of
eviction policy requiring rental property owners to provide seven days’ notice to tenants
prior to bringing an eviction action.
Policy consideration: Does the council support the tenant protection policy as proposed requiring
owners to provide a notice to tenants prior to filing an eviction action for nonpayment of rent?
Summary: The implementation of a notice o f eviction policy would require rental p roperty
owners/managers to provide a n otice to tenants prior to the filing of an eviction action for
nonpayment of rent or o th er financial obligation . The notice is meant to ensure that tenants
are informed and aware of the consequences of unresolved financial obligations to the
property owner that are in violation of t he leas e. The p olicy was first revi ew ed with council at
the March 25, 2019 study s ession and again at the Octob er 28, 2019 study session.
Representatives from HOME Line and the Volunteer Lawyers Network & the Housing Court
Proj ect provided input on the impacts of the policy largely from the te nant’s perspective at the
October study session. A representative of the Minnesota Multi-Housing Association was also
invite d to the October study session to provide input; however, they were unable to attend.
Council directed staff to conduct a public outreach process, stressing the importance of
reaching out to rental property o wners for their input. The proposed policy was posted on the
city’s website and social media platforms and distributed through the SPARC (St. Louis Park Area
Rental Coalition) newsletter. At the January 27, 2020 study session staff recommended that the
proposed notice period be reduced from 14 days to seven days based on the input received
from the rental owners and managers.
At the same time the council was considering this policy, a similar bill was introduced at the
2020 legislative s ession . Further action on the local policy was d ef erred to allow the legislature
to consid er the b ill. Since t he legislature failed to take any action on the bill, the policy is b eing
presented to council for consid eration at the lo cal lev el.
Financial or budget considerations: Implementation and ongoing management and monitoring
of this policy will require additional city s taff tim e, as w ell as direct costs related to educating
rental property owners of the new requirement.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Mich ele S chnitk er, community development deputy dir. and housing supervisor
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No . 1) Page 2
Title: Notice of eviction
Discussion
Background: Bills were introduce d at both the 2019 and 2020 legislative s ession s that would
require a notice be provided to tenants prior to filing an eviction action . The notice was meant
to e nsure that residents were informed and aware of the consequences of unresolve d financial
obligations t o the property owner that are in v iolation of t he lease or another material breach
of the lease. In both sessions, the legislature f ailed t o act on the bills.
In 2019 and early 2020, council discussed adopting a local policy s imilar to the policy in the
legislative b ill. The city’s notice o f eviction policy would require rental property owners/
managers to provide a notice to tenants prior to the filing of an eviction action for nonpayment
of rent or an unpaid f inancial obligation in v iolation of the lease. Action on the policy was
deferred while the legislature considered whether to adopt a s imilar bill which was introduced
at the 2020 s ession .
As noted, the legislature failed to act on the bill. Absent a statewide notice requirement, the
local policy is b eing reintroduced for council consideration. The proposed policy presented at
the January 27, 2020 study session reduced the notice period from 14 days to seven days based
on comments received from the public. The notice be ing propose d is as follows:
Notice of e viction policy/St. Louis Park: Before bringing an eviction action alleging a mat erial
breach of the lease for nonpayment of rent or other unpaid financial obligations, a property
owner must provide written notice to the residential tenant. The written notice would sp ecify
the allegations of nonpayment of rent or other unpaid financial obligations and must state the
total amount due along with specific accounting of the total amount. The notice must be
d eliv ered p ersonally , mailed to the residential tenant at the address of the leased premises, or
delivered electronically if the tenant has indicated that is there preferred form of
communication. If the alleged material breach of the lease or the rent de linquency is not
corre ct ed w ithin seven days of the delivery or mailing of the notice, the property owner may
proceed with filing a complaint based on any allegations in the notice. The property owner
must attach a copy of the notice to the complaint.
Summary of public input comments: 84 comments were received from the public on the
proposed Notice of Eviction policy. A summary of the comments by self-identified groups is
provided below. The on-line comments are available in their entirety in the January 27, 2020 city
study session report.
Community members:
•Many comments supporting the notice. Commenters thought it was reasonable and that it
gives renters time to remedy the situation.
•Several thought the notice requirement should be longer and that the city should create
notice templates for owners to use .
•Several others felt the ordinance isn’t necessary, that renters know when they are paying
rent late, they sign a lease; leases and state statute cover rental agreements and evictions
and should be adequate and should be at the discretion of the owner, no need for another
layer o f government regulation.
•Some felt 14 days is too long, resulting in tenants being two months behind on rent. Small
rental property owners could be put in a financial hard spot and that the notice should
apply for financial arrears only .
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No . 1) Page 3
Title: Notice of eviction
Renters:
• Agree with policy and stated it seems fair
• Reasonable to provide a short grace period
• Strikes a good balance
• Deliver in person/sign that it was received
Property owners:
• Majority felt notice requirement was not necessary. Majority of owners already provide
notice (rare not to) and an opportunity for tenants to pay arears prior to filing in the case
of non-payment of rent.
• Property owners commented that evictions are costly, time consuming, and a last resort
for owners. It is easier to negotiate than file an eviction. Most owners wait until the 10th
to act, spending the first part of month negotiating with tenants.
• Property owners stated a 14-day period is excessive and will create the risk to the owner of
losing two -month’s rent which creates a financial burden. Owners are a for-profit business
that rely on timely rent payments; can’t stay in unit for free and property owners have
financial responsibilities such as mortgage payments, utilities, and other financial
obligations .
• Unintended consequences could include: requiring higher security deposits; stricter
screening criteria; increased cost of doing business passed on to tenants; landlords will
remove current grace period to pay without a late fee and immediately send out the 14
day notice; will re place “reminder letter” with notice of intent to file an eviction; negatively
impact tenant/landlord relationship; tenant hardship to pay rent after the 15th and then
have to pay the next month’s rent two weeks later, tenants end up being buried in debt.
• Owners stated there is no “major problem” that requires the city to step in and fix; felt it is
an overreach of city authority; binding legal contract with terms spelled out already in
place ; tenant’s responsibility to read and understand terms of the lease ; not local
governments role – these issues should be part of the lease agreement.
• Allow email/electronic notification, need clear guidelines on proof of notification delivery .
• Only five other states have 14-day notice or greater requirements.
Staff consulted the city’s legal counsel regarding the city’s authority to implement a notice prior
to eviction requirement. Counsel’s opinion is that there are some legal factors and potential
consequences that should be considered related to whether the city has the local authority to
implement the new policy and impose new requirements. Counsel will be in attendance at the
study session meeting to discuss these issues further with council.
Next steps: Implementation of the notice of eviction policy will require a codification in the
ordinance, most likely in the tenant protection ordinance section . If council is in favor of moving
forward with the policy as proposed, staff will work with legal coun sel to draft an ordinance and
return to a future meeting to hold the public hearing and first reading for adoption of the
proposed ordinance.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: September 29, 2020
Discussion item : 2
Executive summary
Title: Policing discussion - continued
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered
essential business and is categorized as Time-Sensitive**
• None at this time. The purpose of this study session is to provide information to the council
and have a facilitated discussion around the data and determine next steps.
Policy consideration: What additional topics or areas of concern would the city council like to
explore in order to better inform policy considerations that align with SLP strategic priorities?
Summary: Following the murder of George Floyd, the council asked to review the policing
model in St. Louis Park. At the July 27, 2020 meeting, t he council reviewed and discussed the
police departments’ use of force policy, reviewed the 8 Can’t Wait policy recommendations and
got an update on the recent legislation passed by Minnesota legislature. In addition, the council
discussed a policing structural analysis and asked staff to bring back additional information and
data. During this upcoming session, facilitator S hawn Sorrell will lead the council in a facilitated
discussion on the information attached and on next steps. In addition, staff will provide an
update from the Use of Force Policy Workgroup.
Financial or budget considerations: None at this time.
Strategic priority consideration:
• St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to
create a more just and inclusive community for all.
• St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through
community engagement.
Supporting documents: July 27, 2020 agenda and minutes
21st century policing
2018-2019 Annual Reports Statistics
Bureau of Criminal Apprehension 2019 Uniform Crime Report
2018-2019 School Resource Officer Activities
2019 Domestic Assault Statistics
2019-2020 C risis/ Mental Health Related Statistics
2018 Use of Force Annual Report
2019 Use of Force Annual Report
Prepared by: Maria Solano, senior management analyst
Reviewed by: Mike Harcey , police chief
Bryan Kruelle , deputy police chief
Alicia Sojourner, race equity manager
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Policing discussion - continued
21st Century Policing
Trust between law enforcement agencies and the people they protect and serve is essential in a
democracy. It is key to the stability of our communities, the integrity of our criminal justice
system and the safe and effective delivery of policing services.
On Dec. 18, 2014, President Barack Obama signed an executive order establishing the Task
Force on 21st Century Policing. The president charged the task force with identifying best
practices and offering recommendations on how policing practices can promote effective crime
reduction while building public trust.
Six pillars: The Task Force on 21st Century Policing recommendations, each with action items,
are organized around six main topic areas or “pillars.”
Pillar 1 — Building trust and legitimacy
Building trust and nurturing legitimacy on both sides of the police/citizen divide is the
foundational principle underlying the nature of relations between law enforcement agencies
and the communities they serve. Research and practice demonstrate that people are more
likely to obey the law when they believe that those who are enforcing it have authority that is
perceived as legitimate by those subject to the authority.
The public confers legitimacy only on those whom they believe are acting in procedurally just
ways. It is reinforced through a law enforcement culture that embraces a mindset centered on
building trust and legitimacy both within agencies and with the public. Transparency,
accountability, proactive engagement, tracking of progress, and a workforce reflective of the
community are hallmarks of these efforts.
Examples of the ways the St. Louis Park police department works to build trust and legitimacy in
our community
• Outreach groups and events are supported by the department, including National Night
Out, Basketball in the Park, Coffee with a Cop, Fishing with a Cop, Skateapalooza, Cops ‘n’
Kids Holiday Shopping, IFTAR dinner, safe ty camp, Toys for Tots, Canadian Pacific Holiday
Train, Backpacks for Kids, St. Louis Park Adult Options in Education and the New Americans
Academy.
• An internal system was developed that supports the department's participation in the
Northstar Juvenile Div ersion Program.
• Department policies support the elements of trust and legitimacy by valuing sanctity of life
and thoughtful attention to use -of -force strategies, which are reinforced through training
and reporting.
• Procedural justice and bias awareness trainings are provided to department members.
• The department participates in and coordinates the Pathways to Policing program which
identifies, recruits and hires non-traditional candidates into policing.
• Officers are assigned full-time as school resource officers to enhance school safety, build
relationships and teach Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) to kids.
• Youth are supported and provided leadership skill development and community service
opportunities through the department's Police Explorers program.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Policing discussion - continued
• All use -of-force incidents are reviewed by multiple members of the police department's
command staff.
• Strong partnerships have been built with groups like Children First, Treehouse, Project for
Pride in Living, St. Louis Park Adult Options in, Perspectives, Cornerstone and Cornerhouse.
• The department has developed forms for community members to submit officer
compliments and complaints online.
• Neighborhood surveys and meetings are used to gather community feedback.
• The department provide s support to neighborhood associations, block captains and citizens’
academies.
• Extensive training and support are provided to officers and dispatchers in the area of crisis
intervention training, as well as the operation of a crisis negotiator team that involves
members from both groups.
• The language line is used, by both officers and dispatchers, to ensure service delivery to
everyone regardless of the language spoken.
• The department participates in the city’s human rights commission (HRC), multicultural
advisory committee (MAC) and the police advisory commission (PAC).
• The department runs a chaplaincy program with representation from numerous faith groups.
• Safety education is provided to multiple programs, including Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED), crime -free multihousing training with housing and business
groups and AAA’s new driver training.
• The department partners with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Prescription
Drug Diversion Coordinators and hosts multiple prescription drug take back events.
Pillar 2 — Policy and oversight
Pillar two emphasizes that if police are to carry out their responsibilities according to
established policies, those policies must reflect community values. Law enforcement agencies
should collaborate with community members, especially in communities and neighborhoods
disproportionately affected by crime, to develop policies and strategies for deploying resources
that aim to reduce crime by improving relationships, increasing community engagement and
fostering cooperation.
Examples of the ways the St. Louis Park police department demonstrates best practices in
policy and oversight
• Community collaboration is a priority for the police department and is strengthened
through efforts like the multicultural advisory committee (MAC), chaplaincy
program, Citizens’ Police Academy, New Americans Academies, Neighborhood Watch,
partnerships with the Rotary Club and Treehouse, and many more.
• Professional conduct is not only an expectation; a policy that supports these values is in
place that defines courtesy, balances civil rights and mandates impartial policing. These core
values are reinforced through hiring, a strong department culture, training and oversight.
• The department regularly reviews crime trends, works with other law enforcement agencies
and city departments, and partners with businesses and religious groups to develop
effective policies and strategies.
• The department’s plan to provide more than 40 hours of crisis intervention training for all
sworn officers through the Minnesota Crisis Intervention Team is nearing two-thirds
completion. This training provides an in-depth look at mental illness and its implications for
law enforcement, covering mental illness, cognitive disorders, substance disorders, post-
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: Policing discussion - continued
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and the workings of the mental health courts. Role -playing
exercises make up about half of the course and feature trained role-players and fact-based
scenarios emphasizing verbal communication and de -escalation.
• Officers are required to wear name badges on their uniforms and have business cards which
are encouraged to be given to the public during encounters or when requested.
• The department follows Minnesota State Statute 169.985 which states that a law
e nforcement agency may not order, mandate, require or suggest a quota to a peace officer
for the issuance of traffic citations.
• The department’s use -of-force policy recognizes the sanctity of life, provides for the least
amount of force reasonably necessary to accomplish the intended objective without
impairing the safety of others, adheres to our community’s expectations and follows
Minnesota state statutes and federal laws. The policy is reinforced through numerous
training methods.
• The department has a proven critical incident policy that leverages outside agencies to
provide independence, protect public safety, foster trust in and accountability for law
enforcement, and address the needs of personnel who have been exposed to threatening
circumstances and acute stress.
• Body -worn cameras and squad cameras are used to allow for transparency and
accountability in policing, protect the civil rights of the community, capture evidence and
assist with accurate report writing. A policy was created with extensive in put from
community stakeholders, as well as an audit program that includes regular supervisory
review of footage.
• Holster triggers are used to activate body-worn cameras since we recognize the importance
of capturing footage during critical incidents.
• The police department works closely with city leadership and the city council to ensure
strategic priorities are in line with citywide services and community expectations.
• Officers are assigned full-time as school resource officers within the city to enhance safety,
build relationships and teach Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) to kids.
Pillar 3 — Technology and social media
The use of technology can improve policing practices and build community trust and legitimacy,
but its implementation must be built on a defined policy framework with its purposes and goals
clearly delineated. Implementing new technologies can give police departments an opportunity
to fully engage and educate communities in a dialogue about their expectations for
transparency, accountability and privacy.
Law enforcement agencies and leaders need to be able to identify, assess and evaluate new
technology for adoption and do so in ways that improve their effectiveness, efficiency and
evolution without infringing on individual rights. The implementation of technology should be
designed considering local needs and aligned with national standards. The adoption of model
policies and best practices for technology-based community engagement that increases
community trust and access should be a part of this effort.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Title: Policing discussion - continued
Examples of the ways the St. Louis Park police department demonstrates best practices in
technology and social media
• The police department and city use ParkAlert (notification system), Facebook, Twitter,
Nextdoor, GovDelivery email and text updates, Vitals™ Aware Services and a language line
to communicate with the public and enhance safety.
• Annual police department reports, and a regularly updated crime map are both available
online.
• Police reports can be filed online through the department’s webpage.
• The department has a full-time dispatch center to direct and coordinate resources from
police, fire and EMS that improves response times, outcomes and service.
• Body -worn cameras and squad cameras are used to allow for transparency and
accountability in policing, protect the civil rights of the community, capture evidence and
assist with accurate report writing. A policy was created with extensive input from
community stakeholders, as well as an audit program that includes regular supervisory
review of footage.
• Holster triggers are used to activate body-worn cameras since we recognize the importance
of capturing this footage during critical incidents.
• Community members can submit feedback, compliments and complaints both in person at
the police department and online through the department’s webpage.
• The department uses a variety of technology platforms to train and improve the outcomes
for both officers and the public during critical incidents.
• The department complies with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act in the timely
distribution of information requests.
• The department is in full compliance with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension
(BCA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Criminal Justice Information Services
(CJIS) audits when it comes to maintaining and securing sensitive information and the
access to those relevant systems.
• Use-of-force data is submitted to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, which is
then forwarded to the FBI’s National Use -of -Force Data Collection program. With this data,
the FBI creates reports to provide insight into an aggregate view of use-of-force incidents,
including circumstance, subjects and officers involved.
Pillar 4 — Community policing and crime reduction
This pillar focuses on the importance of community policing as a guiding philosophy for all
stakeholders. Community policing emphasizes working with neighborhood residents to co-
produce public safety. Law enforcement agencies should, therefore, work with community
residents to identify problems and collaborate on implementing solutions that produce
meaningful results for the community. Specifically, law enforcement agencies should develop
and adopt policies and strategies that reinforce the importance of community engagement in
managing public safety. Law enforcement agencies should also engage in multidisciplinary,
community team approaches for planning, implementing and responding to crisis situations
with complex causal factors.
Examples of the ways the St. Louis Park police department demonstrates best practices in
community policing and crime reduction
• Officers are encouraged to visit with the public during their shifts by stopping at schools,
daycares, businesses, neighborhoods and parks to get to know the community. Patrol
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Title: Policing discussion - continued
officers are assigned districts annually to help strengthen these relationships and
strengthen outcomes.
•Outreach groups and events are supported by the department, including National Night
Out, Basketball in the Park, Coffee with a Cop, Fishing with a Cop, Skateapalooza, Cops ‘n’
Kids Holiday Shopping, IFTAR dinner, safety camp, Toys for Tots, Canadian Pacific Holiday
Train, Backpacks for Kids, St. Louis Park Adult Options in Education and the New Americans
Academy.
•A community engagement program at the police department that coordinates with the city.
•A committed partnership with our domestic abuse advocate partner, Cornerstone , to
provide safety and services during a crisis, develop long-term strategies and access to
numerous programs.
•Officers are assigned full-time as school resource officers to enhance school safety, build
relationships and teach Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) to kids.
•Community relationships are fostered through programs like the department's Citizens’
Police Academy , human rights commission (HRC), multicultural advisory committee
(MAC), police advisory commission (PAC), St. Louis Park Adult Options in Education,
neighborhood associations, retail business associations, new driver education and many
more.
•Information management meetings are held on a weekly basis with department
stakeholders and other departments to leverage opportunities, improve quality of life issues
and identify crime trends and solutions.
•The department partners with other law enforcement agencies to prepare regional
response strategies, solve crimes and deliver community outreach programs.
•The Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) is used to assist with critical incidents
and planned city events.
•A public safety information specialist was recently added to identify crime trends, crime
patterns and target locations; aid in complex investigations; and develop crime prevention
and public safety programs.
•The department regularly works with the Community Outreach for Psychiatric Emergencies
(COPE) program and leverages a full-time clinician during critical incidents when
appropriate.
•The department runs a chaplaincy program for both community and department members
in need.
•Social media and other public awareness platforms are used to provide awareness and
prevention tips on current crime trends and general safety.
•The department partners with Hennepin County to bring a licensed senior social worker into
the police department to work directly with officers and supervisors, based on a short-term
case management model, to identify individuals in need of services and help with mental
illness. This pilot program, developed in collaboration with Hennepin County and other
cities in the area, has resulted in almost 100 case reviews in the first six months of 2020 for
St. Louis Park.
•Youth are provided leadership skill development and community service opportunities
through our Police Explorers program.
•Board membership on the Minnesota Organized Retail Crime Association (MNORCA).
•An internal system was developed that supports our participation in the Northstar Juvenile
Diversion Program.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Title: Policing discussion - continued
Pillar 5 — Officer training and education
Pillar five focuses on the training and education needs of law enforcement which is constantly
evolving. The skills and knowledge required to effectively deal with these challenges necessitate
an expanded level of education and training to do so.
To ensure the high quality and effectiveness of these programs, law enforcement agencies
should engage community members, particularly those with special expertise, in the training
process and provide leadership training to all personnel throughout their careers. Skill
development in the area of realistic, scenario-based training has become increasingly important
to better manage outcomes and minimize use-of-force.
Examples of the ways the St. Louis Park police department demonstrates best practices in
training and education
•The department follows and exceeds Minnesota Peace Officer Standards and
Training (POST) Board requirements for hiring officers and requirements for peace officers.
•The department’s plan to provide more than 40 hours of crisis intervention training for all
sworn officers through Minnesota Crisis Intervention Team is nearing two-thirds
completion. This training provides an in-depth look at mental illness and its implications for
law enforcement, covering mental illness, cognitive disorders, substance disorders, post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and the workings of the mental health courts. Role -playing
exercises make up about half the course and feature trained role -players and fact-based
scenarios emphasizing verbal communication and de -escalation.
•The department exceeds Minnesota POST Board requirements for training hours.
•Tuition reimbursement and additional training opportunities are provided to promote
ongoing learning.
•Training is provided on procedural justice and implicit bias to current and new employees
that includes education on cultural awareness and race equity and inclusion. The
department is committed to being a leader in these areas in order to create a more just and
inclusive community for all.
•Police officers are provided with annual use -of-force training that includes a variety of force
options and scenario-based training of the highest standards, emphasizing verbal de-
escalation and crisis intervention techniques.
•Leadership opportunities are offered through the University of Louisville Southern Police
Institute, Northwestern University Center for Public Safety, FBI’s Law Enforcement
Executive Development Association (LEEDA) program, Minnesota Chiefs of Police
Association Leadership Academy and the Minnesota BCA’s leadership series.
•The department operates a shift supervisor program to develop future leaders in the
organization.
•The department participated in the development of the True North Constitutional Policing
online training course approved by the Minnesota Peace Officer Standards and Training
Board. The five-module course teaches about the historical conditions that gave rise to the
Bill of Rights, examines parallels to modern social issues and helps the learner understand
how the role of policing fits within a free society. All new officers are required to complete
the course.
•The officer training program is guided by the department’s mission and values, which are
founded upon the community’s needs.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Title: Policing discussion - continued
Pillar 6 — Officer safety and wellness
Pillar six notes that the wellness and safety of law enforcement officers is critical not only for
the officers, their colleagues and their agencies, but also to public safety. It emphasizes the
support and implementation of officer wellness and safety is a multi-partner effort. Law
enforcement agencies should promote wellness and safety at every level of the organization,
and internal procedural justice principles should be adopted for all internal policies and
interactions.
It is well documented that law enforcement officers are subject to more stress than the general
population. The nature of their job requires working with difficult and sometimes hostile
individuals, tragic events, compounded by often long hours of service. These stressors manifest
in high rates of physical and mental health risks. To counteract these cumulative effects, it is a
recommendation of Pillar 6 to provide police officers education and assistance with physical,
mental, financial and spiritual well-being.
Examples of the ways the St. Louis Park police department demonstrates best practices in
officer wellness and saf ety
•Officer wellness was one of the department’s strategic priorities in 2018 after a department
retreat that included representatives from all areas of the organization. Work on the
department’s wellness program continues today.
•All employees are required to meet with a mental health professional, at no charge, for a
private assessment/check-up annually.
•The department runs a chaplaincy program which is available to department members
whenever needed.
•The department’s labor-management committee works regularly to address the topics of
officer wellness and safety.
•Department members are provided access to an on-site fitness facility, along with a
wellness room that can be used by new mothers or for relaxation.
•Officers are provided with individually fitted ballistic vests and tactical first -aid supplies
along with any corresponding training.
•Department-wide training is provided on fitness, eating and sleeping education, as well as
how to execute them.
•Technology is leveraged to promote officer safety in squad cars by installing audible alerts,
larger screens and separate adjustable keyboards.
•Tuition reimbursement and additional training opportunities are provided to promote
ongoing learning.
•A labor-management committee that collaboratively works to identify organizational
opportunities and develop solutions to address issues.
•Employees have access to a city-sponsored Employee Assistance Program (EAP).
•The department participates in a peer support program with other law enforcement
organizations in the metro area.
•The department has hosted the Wills for Heroes program on multiple occasions, as well as
providing additional information and resources on financial planning.
1
St. Louis Park Police Department
2018 - 2019 Annual Report Statistics
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 9
2
2018 Calls for Service
The police responded to 42,524 calls for service in 2018, compared to 42,158 in 2017. This is
less than a 1% increase. Below is a summary of the calls for service received during 2018.
Type of Call Totals Type of Call Totals
911 Hang -up / Open line 2,884 Motorist Assist / Stall / Abandoned Vehicle 550
Accidents/Crashes 1,331 Missing Person 152
Administrative 0 Neighborhood Dispute 127
Alarm Calls 1,476 Noise / Loud Music 535
Animal Calls 703 Obscenity / Exposer 20
Assist Other Agency 428
Order For Protection / Restraining Order Violation 101
Assault 113 Open Door / Window 45
Bike Patrol 8 ORD Misc. Ordinance 66
Bomb Threat 1 Other Incident 208
Burglary 117 Panhandling 89
Child Protection 46 Paper Service 152
Civil Assist 439 Parking Complaint 1,242
Check Park 5 Predatory Offender Violation 20
Check Premise 29 Property Damage / Vandalism 292
Check Residence 10 Prostitution 0
Check Welfare 1,180 Prowler / Peeper 9
Compliance Check Liquor & Tobacco 7 Public Assist 249
Crime Prevention 18 Recover Property or Vehicle 31
Crisis -Mental Health 360 Driving Complaint 542
CSC Criminal Sexual Conduct 37 Road Hazard 153
Curfew 0 Robbery 23
Death Investigation (All Deaths) 19 Runaway 51
Detail-Other Duties as Assigned 104 Snow 77
Directed Patrol 8,081 Stalking 20
Disturbance / Disorderly 598 Stop Arm Violation 14
Drunkenness 119 Suicide Threat / Attempt 44
Domestic 325 Suspicious Activity / Person / Vehicle 1,768
Verbal Domestic 59 Search Warrant 8
Drug Activity 185 Traffic Detail 5 Domestic Violence Intervention follow
up 56 Theft - No Pay 61
DUI 21 Theft from Auto 333
Extra Patrol 60 Identity Theft 77
Fight 46 Shoplifter 378
Fire Calls 1,428 Theft 761
Forgery / Counterfeiting 47 Vehicle Theft 188
Found Property 352 Threats 174
Fraud 291 Tow 187
Follow Up 795 Transport 16
Fireworks 69 Trespass / Unwanted Person 444
Harassing Communications 172 Traffic Stop 6,246
Information/Intelligence 517 Utilities 209
Juvenile Complaint 184 Vulnerable Adult 24
Liquor 1 Warrant Activity 107
Lost Property 93 Weapons Violation 57
Medicals 3,847 Total Calls 2018 42,524
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 10
3
CRIME COMPARISON
2018 and 2017
2018 2017 Difference %
Part l Violent Crimes Reported
Homicide 0 0 0.0%
Rape 24 15 60.0%
Robbery 23 20 15.0%
Aggravated Assault 28 30 -6.7%Total Violent
Crimes 75 65 15.4%
Part l Property Crimes Reported
Burglary - Total 119 137 -13.1%
Residential 66 100 -34.0%
Business 53 37 43.2%
Larceny - Total 1024 1175 -12.9%
Theft from Vehicle 257 287 -10.5%
Motor Vehicle Theft 95 59 61.0%
Arson 2 2 0.0%
Human Trafficking 0 2 -100.0%
Total Property Crimes 1240 1375 -9.8%
Total Part l Crimes 1315 1440 -8.7%
Part ll Crimes Reported
Other Assaults 214 288 -25.7%
Fraud 206 275 -25.1%
Embezzlement 1 0 0.0%
Forgery/Counterfeiting 59 42 40.5%
Other Sex Offenses 17 47 -63.8%
Narcotics 78 169 -53.8%
Gambling 0 0 0.0%
Family/Child Crime 4 7 -42.9%
Liquor Violations 17 15 13.3%
Disorderly Conduct 30 29 3.4%
Possess/Receive Stolen Property 16 13 23.1%
Weapons Violations 10 15 -33.3%
Prostitution/Obscenity 0 3 +3
DWI 158 184 -14.1%
Vandalism-All 202 254 -20.5%
OFP/Harassment Order Violations 0 52 -100.0%
All Other 100 87 14.9%
Total Part ll Crimes 1112 1480 -24.9%
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 11
4
2019 Calls for Service
The police responded to 46,134 calls for service in 2019, compared to 42,524 in 2018. This is an
8% increase. Below is a summary of the calls for service received during 2019.
Type of Call Totals Type of Call Totals
911 Hang -up / Open line 7,140 Motorist Assist / Stall / Abandoned Vehicle 582
Accidents/Crashes 1,641 Missing Person 169
Administrative 17 Neighborhood Dispute 90
Alarm Calls 1,407 Noise / Loud Music 578
Animal Calls 897 Obscenity / Exposer 16
Assist Other Agency 422
Order For Protection / Restraining Order
Violation 101
Assault 106 Open Door / Window 41
Bike Patrol 9 ORD Misc. Ordinance 56
Bomb Threat 0 Other Incident 107
Burglary 108 Panhandling 125
Child Protection 52 Paper Service 156
Civil Assist 369 Parking Complaint 1,436
Check Park 4 Predatory Offender Violation 49
Check Premise 20 Property Damage / Vandalism 301
Check Residence 9 Prostitution 0
Check Welfare 1,303 Prowler / Peeper 3
Compliance Check Liquor & Tobacco 3 Public Assist 307
Crime Prevention 2 Recover Property or Vehicle 26
Crisis -Mental Health 379 Driving Complaint 657
CSC Criminal Sexual Conduct 55 Road Hazard 221
Curfew 1 Robbery 28
Death Investigation (All Deaths) 12 Runaway 44
Detail-Other Duties as Assigned 209 Snow 193
Directed Patrol 6,770 Stalking 15
Disturbance / Disorderly 604 Stop Arm Violation 7
Drunkenness 100 Suicide Threat / Attempt 56
Domestic 336 Suspicious Activity / Person / Vehicle 1,716
Verbal Domestic 98 Search Warrant 12
Drug Activity 183 Traffic Detail 23
Domestic Violence Intervention follow
up 48 Theft - No Pay 75
DUI 9 Theft from Auto 383
Extra Patrol 67 Identity Theft 77
Fight 47 Shoplifter 83
Fire Calls 1,499 Theft 861
Forgery / Counterfeiting 34 Vehicle Theft 153
Found Property 387 Threats 172
Fraud 313 Tow 60
Follow Up 888 Transport 31
Fireworks 49 Trespass / Unwanted Person 386
Harassing Communications 183 Traffic Stop 3,956
Information/Intelligence 2,015 Utilities 277
Juvenile Complaint 168 Vulnerable Adult 19
Kidnapping 1 Warrant Activity 62
Lost Property 100 Weapons Violation 61
Medicals 3,906 Total Calls 2019 46,134
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 12
5
CRIME COMPARISON
2019 and 2018
2019 2018 Difference %
Part l Violent Crimes Reported
Homicide 0 0 0.0%
Rape 20 24 -16.7%
Robbery 20 23 -13.0%
Aggravated Assault 37 28 32.1%Total Violent Crimes 77 75 2.7%
Part l Property Crimes Reported
Burglary - Total 122 119 2.5%
Residential 72 66 9.1%
Business 57 53 7.5%
Larceny - Total 1186 1024 15.8%
Theft from Vehicle 283 257 10.1%
Motor Vehicle Theft 87 95 -8.4%
Arson 2 2 0.0%
Human Trafficking 0 0 0.0%Total Property
Crimes 1397 1240 12.7%
Total Part l Crimes 1474 1315 12.1%
Part ll Crimes Reported
Other Assaults 147 214 -31.3%
Fraud 220 206 6.8%
Embezzlement 3 1 0.0%
Forgery/Counterfeiting 66 59 11.9%
Other Sex Offenses 14 17 -17.6%
Narcotics 60 78 -23.1%
Gambling 0 0 0.0%
Family/Child Crime 3 4 -25.0%
Liquor Violations 2 17 -88.2%
Disorderly Conduct 30 30 0.0%
Possess/Receive Stolen Property 15 16 -6.3%
Weapons Violations 13 10 30.0%
Prostitution/Obscenity 0 0 0.0%
DWI 120 158 -24.1%
Vandalism-All 196 202 -3.0%
Vagrancy 1 0 100.0%
OFP/Harassment Order Violations 0 0 0.0%
All Other 178 100 78.0%
Total Part ll Crimes 1068 1112 -4.0%
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 13
6
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 14
7
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 15
8
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 16
9
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 17
10
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 18
11
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 19
12
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 20
13
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 21
14
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 22
15
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 23
16
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 24
17
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 25
18
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 26
19
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 27
20
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 28
21
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 29
22
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 30
23
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 31
24
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 32
25
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 33
26
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 34
27
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 35
28
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 36
29
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 37
30
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 38
Bureau of Criminal Apprehension 2019 Uniform Crime Report
Sept. 21, 2020
ST. PAUL —The Minnesota Department of Public Safety Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA)
has released the 2019 Uniform Crime Report. Local law enforcement agencies must report their
crime data each year to the BCA to meet state and federal reporting requirements. The BCA
compiles the data into an annual report and provides required data to the FBI for its reporting
purposes.
Notable statistics in this year’s report:
•In 2019, Min nesota recorded a 4.7 percent increase in Part 1 crimes. Violent crimes,
including murder, robbery, and aggravated assault, all increased over the 2018 totals.
•Property crimes, including burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson, also
increased by 5.2 percent overall. There were 117,865 property crimes in 2019 - 5,865
more than the preceding year. Arson and motor vehicle theft jumped 8 percent and 13
percent, respectively.
•There are increasing rates of bias crime being reported with 146 cases in 2019, an
increase of 19 over cases reported in 2018. Forty -nine of the 2019 cases were directed
at Black or African Americans, more than three times the next most frequent group.
•There were 25 officer involved shootings reported in 2019, an increase of three from
2018, a majority of which occurred in Greater Minnesota.
“The best way to respond to the increasing rate of crime in Minnesota is for police and the
communities they serve to work together. 21st Century policing methods will help us work to
prevent crime and keep the peace in our One Minnesota,” Commissioner John Harrington said.
Violent crimes
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015
Murder 117 104 114 100 130
Rape 2,431 2,666 2,429 2,321 2,300
Robbery 3,081 2,943 3,645 3,725 3,764
Aggravated
Assault 6,742 6,693 7,115 7,026 6,981
Human
Trafficking –
Commercial
Sex Acts⁺
128 183 173 235 119
Human
Trafficking –
Involuntary
Servitude^
10 0 0 0 0
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 39
Property crimes
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015
Burglary 15,735 16,097 18,749 18,464 19,195
Larceny 90,257 85,394 93,455 89,924 94,392
Motor vehicle
theft 11,410 10,082 9,960 8,649 7,921
Arson 462 426 534 497 580
Additional crime data reported to the BCA
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015
Homicide
cleared by
arrest
64% 77% 74% 74% 78%
Drug abuse
violation
cleared by
arrest
88% 85% 85% 85% 83%
Drug abuse
violation for
Opiates,
Heroin,
Cocaine, etc.
2,684 2,683 2,315 1,700 1,800
Bias motivated
incidents 146 127 147 122 96
There were no law enforcement fatalities in 2019.
Use of force data collection
The FBI established a collection of data on law enforcement use-of-force incidents in 2018.
Local law enforcement agencies were asked to voluntarily provide specific information about
their incidents for inclusion in the FBI’s national data collection, including the race, gender and
age of the person and the officer, type of force used and resistance encountered. 2019 was the
first full year of data collection.
The BCA supports the FBI’s efforts to compile this information and encourages local agency
participation in this effort. To facilitate the reporting, the BCA developed a centralized process
for agencies to provide data to the BCA. The data are then compiled and submitted it to the FBI.
The data received for 2019 represents 76.3 percent of Minnesota law enforcement officers,
which is significantly higher than the 40.4 percent national total for the year.
Minnesota agencies reported 37 use -of-force incidents.
•11 during which a person died
•11 incidents resulting in a person being unconscious
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 40
•7 gunshot injury incidents
•6 non -injury incidents
•2 resulting in serious injury requiring medical attention
Agencies reported the following race information for use-of-force incidents.
•White (16)
•Black (13)
•American Indian (3)
•Asian (2)
•Unknown/Not Reported (2)
•Pending Further Investigation (1)
The complete 2019 Uniform Crime Report can be viewed on the BCA website. Additional years’
reports can be found on the same page.
Definitions and e xplanations
⁺ Includes offenses where a person was induced by fraud or coercion to participate in
commercial sex acts, or in which the person induced to pe rform such act(s) has not attained 18
years of age.
^ Includes offenses where a person(s) is obtained through recruitment, harboring,
transportation, or provision and subjected by force, fraud, or coercion into involuntary
servitude, peonage, debt, bondage, or slavery.
About the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension
The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension provides investigative and specialized law enforcement
services to prevent and solve crimes in partnership with law enforcement, public safety and
criminal justice agencies. S ervices in clude criminal justice t raining, forensic laboratory analysis,
criminal histories and in v estigations.
About the Minnesota Department Public Safety
The Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) comprises 10 divisions where 2,200
employees operate programs in the areas of law enforcement, crime victim assistance, traffic
safety, alcohol and gambling, emergency communications, fire safety, pipeline safety, driver
licensing, vehicle registration and emergency management. DPS activity is anchored by three
core principles: education, enforcement and prevention.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 41
1
St. Louis Park Police Department
2018 - 2019 School Resource Officers Activity
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 42
2
The mission of the St. Louis Park Police Department is to provide a safe community through
quality service, community partnerships and professionalism.
The department’s operating philosophy includes:
•A commitment to community-oriented policing
•Delivery of effective and efficient services
•Providing a positive work environment for employees
Through its mission and philosophy, the police department seeks to support the city’s overall
mission of providing collaborative, quality and responsive services to reside nts.
With the Police Department mission in mind, there is a long-standing relationship of partnering
with the school district and providing cooperative police services. Currently there are four
police officers assigned as school resource officers (SRO’s) during the school year, serving as
resources for students, teachers and school administrators. One officer is assigned to St. Louis
Park Senior High School, one to the St. Louis Park Middle School, one to the St. Louis Park
Elementary Schools teaching the DARE curriculum and one who serves the private schools,
including Benilde -St. Margaret’s, Tora Academy, Groves Academy, Holy Family, and the Jewish
Day School.
In an effort to expand relationships with the schools and students beyond that of traditional
police services, the following is a summary of the SRO’s efforts during 2018 & 2019:
St. Louis Park High School SRO:
•In 2018, there were 256 calls for service to the St. Louis Park Sr. High School (6425 W.
33rd St.), which resulted in 65 reports that included follow -up investigations, criminal
charges, or juvenile referrals. The following is break down of calls for service:
911 call 14 Directed Patrol 106 Juvenile Issue 4 Suspicious 4
Accident 3 Disturbance 12 Lost Property 4 Theft 12
Alarm 12 Drugs 4 Noise 1 Threats 5
A nimal 2 Fire/Alarm 2 Other 4 Transport 3
Assault/Fight 4 Found Property 2 Parking 3 Trespass 10
Child Protection 6 Follow-up 2 Property Damage 3 Traffic Stop 1
Medical/Crisis 17 Harassing Com 2 Road Rage 1 Warrant 1
Detail 8 Information 2 Runaway 3 Weapon 3
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 43
3
• In 2019, there were 290 calls for service to the St. Louis Park Sr. High School (6425 W.
33rd ST), which resulted in 71 reports that included follow-up investigations, criminal
charges, or juvenile referrals. The following is break down of calls for service:
911 call 20 Directed Patrol 112 Juvenile Issue 9 Suspicious 6
Accident 3 Disturbance 8 Lost Property 3 Theft 15
Alarm 6 Drugs 2 Noise 2 Threats 6
Animal 4 Fire/Alarm 6 Other 0 Transport 1
Assault/Fight 3 Found Property 3 Parking 7 Trespass 2
Child Protection 4 Follow-up 6 Property Damage 0 Traffic Stop 0
Medical/Crisis 28 Harassing Com 3 Road Rage 1 Warrant 0
Detail 9 Information 16 Runaway 5 Weapon 0
• The SRO Investigates juvenile related cases as assigned which may include Hennepin
County Child Protection referrals, assaults, thefts, and other crime.
• The SRO works with Police Department personnel to coordinate activities and facilitate
partnerships with school district personnel, students and community.
• Facilitates the Juvenile Diversion Program, working directly with the Northern Star
Scouting Juvenile Diversion Program and Hennepin County Attorney’s Office
• In 2018 the SRO’s developed and staffed the Teen Center an SLP PD Community
Outreach Team initiative operated in partnership with the Knollwood Church. The teen
center (located in Knollwood Church) is a large open space filled with games and
activities. Officers open the facility to the youth of the community one day a week and
provide a safe and fun environment for youth to interact with friends, police, and other
city employees.
• Provided ongoing safety consultation regarding fire exit routes and exit policy for the
high school fire drills.
• Composed scenarios for mandated lockdowns and communication with High School
staff regarding lockdown procedures. Attended meetings to answer questions from
staff, assess performance, and strategies for improvement.
• Participated in monthly weekly risk review, bi-weekly student Global Leadership
Conference meetings, and periodic safety meetings with school administrators.
• Participated with high school staff members in developing the “Future Leaders” group
with goals to identify and empower students’ toe be leaders within the school.
• Collaborated with the school district to develop on-line education training for student
who are caught vaping as an alternative to suspension.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 44
4
•Partnered with the school administrative assistant, and 25 volunteer school staff to
identify and develop school policies.
•Assisted with educating police officers and school staff on Adverse Childhood
Experiences (ACE’s). This effort was to provide increased familiarity with the concept of
ACEs and understanding about how they can affect actions with young people and
adults throughout their life stages.
•Participated in Fishing with a cop.
•Participated in Cops N Kids shopping.
•Developed and participated in the Jobs in the Park program.
•Taught search & seizure 4th amend to Civics classes.
•Taught police operations to Intro to Criminal Justice.
St. Louis Park Middle School SRO:
•In 2018, there were 76 calls for service to the St. Louis Park Middle School (2025 Texas
AV. S.), which resulted in 22 reports that included follow-up investigations, criminal
charges, or juvenile referrals. The following is break down of calls for service:
911 call 1 Directed Patrol 19 Juvenile Issue 1 Suspicious 3
Accident 1 Disturbance 0 Lost Property 0 Theft 2
Alarm 5 Drugs 0 Noise 2 Threats 2
Animal 2 Fire/Alarm 3 Other 3 Transport 2
Assault/Fight 2 Found Property 1 Parking 0 Tr espass 4
Child Protection 0 Follow-up 1 Property Damage 0 Traffic Stop 0
Medical/Crisis 5 Harassing Com 0 Road Rage 0 Warrant 0
Detail 3 Information 14 Runaway 0 Weapon 0
•In 2019, there were 97 calls for service to the St. Louis Park Middle School (2025 Texas
AV. S.), which resulted in 33 reports that included follow-up investigations, criminal
charges, or juvenile referrals. The following is break down of calls for service:
911 call 9 Directed Patrol 28 Juvenile Issue 2 Suspicious 2
Accident 1 Disturbance 2 Lost Property 0 Theft 2
Alarm 3 Drugs 0 Noise 0 Threats 2
Animal 1 Fire/Alarm 5 Other 6 Transport 1
Assault/Fight 1 Found Property 0 Parking 0 Trespass 0
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 45
5
Child Protection 1 Follow-up 1 Property Damage 0 Traffic Stop 1
Medical/Crisis 9 Harassing Com 0 Road Rage 0 Warrant 0
Detail 3 Information 16 Runaway 1 Weapon 0
•The SRO Investigates juvenile related cases as assigned
•The SRO work with Police Department personnel to coordinate activities and facilit ate
partnerships with school district personnel, students and community.
•The SRO’s created the “Skateapalooza” event geared toward creating positive
interactions between police and the skateboarding community. Officers of the
department utilize the event to build trust in the community and also provide a venue
for youth to be introduced to skateboarding.
•The current SRO developed boxing and yoga lessons during lunch which was available to
all students, but targeted at risk youth.
•When the COVID-19 Pandemic the SRO contacted at risk youth, connected them with
internet resources, checked on families, brought 4 students on an outing, and brought
food to families in need.
•The SRO connected with the National Youth Project Using Minibikes (NYPUM) and
coordinated at risk youth to attend the training. The organization is sponsored by Honda
Inc. and provides equipment and trainers.
•Participated in Fishing with a cop.
•Participated in Cops N Kids shopping.
•Developed and participated in the Jobs in the Park program.
St. Louis Park Elementary School SRO (D.A.R.E.)
•In 2018, there were 97 calls for service to the St. Louis Park Elementary Schools, which
resulted in 29 reports that included follow-up investigations, criminal charges, or
juvenile referrals. The following is break down of calls for service:
911 call 0 Directed Patrol 26 Juvenile Issue 15 Suspicious 4
Accident 2 Disturbance 4 Lost Property 0 Theft 3
Alarm 7 Drugs 1 Noise 0 Threats 1
Animal 1 Fire/Alarm 2 Other 9 Transport 0
Assault/Fight 1 Found Property 3 Parking 2 Trespass 0
Child Protection 3 Follow-up 0 Property Damage 1 Traffic Stop 0
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 46
6
Medical/Crisis 4 Harassing Com 0 Road Rage 2 Warrant 0
Detail 0 Information 4 Runaway 2 Weapon 0
•In 2019, there were 121 calls for service to the St. Louis Park Elementary Schools, which
resulted in 14 reports that included follow-up investigations, criminal charges, or
juvenile referrals. The following is break down of calls for service:
911 call 8 Directed Patrol 35 Juvenile Issue 7 Suspicious 5
Accident 0 Disturbance 2 Lost Property 1 Theft 0
Alarm 17 Drugs 2 Noise 2 Threats 1
Animal 1 Fire/Alarm 8 Other 2 Transport 0
Assault/Fight 1 Found Property 1 Parking 3 Trespass 1
Child Protection 5 Follow-up 1 Property Damage 0 Traffic Stop 0
Medical/Crisis 7 Harassing Com 1 Road Rage 1 Warrant 0
Detail 4 Information 3 Runaway 2 Weapon 0
•Th e DARE Officer primary responsibility is to be the Liaison with St. Louis Park
Elementary Schools and teach the DARE Program to 5th grade students.
•In 2018, the SRO taught a 10 week DARE program to 17 class es (approximately 425
students).
•In 2019, the SRO taught a 10 week DARE program to 11 classes (Approximately 275
students).
•In 2018 the DARE SRO was assigned 16 Hennepin County Child Protection and child
welfare cases. These cases range from child behavior issues, neglect, abuse, and sexual
assault.
•In 2019 the DARE SRO was assigned 12 Hennepin County Child Protection and child
welfare cases. These cases range from child behavior issues, neglect, abuse, and sexual
assault.
•The SRO with Police Department personnel to coordinate activities and facilitate
partnerships with school district personnel, students and community.
•Participating in special days of the week (i.e. PJ day), and assists with field trips.
•Assist teachers with classes upon request which may include reading books or
answering question related to law enforcement and participating in No Bullying
conversations.
•Assist schools with policy and procedure regarding Order for Protections/No Contact
Orders.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 47
7
•Provide Security if a concerning person is coming to the school.
•Provide information to students and staff on Halloween safety, and summer safety.
•Participates in summer youth Safety Camp.
•As part of developing relationships with students, the SRO attends morning meetings,
lunch periods, recess, gym class, and class parties.
•SRO would often seek out kids who were struggling at school and home and engage
them in activities and build rapport, so they can have a positive outlook on police.
•Meets with parents at their request.
•Assists with parking and traffic issues around schools, monitors school bus stops, and
occasion rides school buses.
•The SRO attends Career-a-Palooza at all schools.
•Participated in Fishing with a cop.
•Participated in Cops N Kids shopping.
•Developed and participated in the Jobs in the Park program.
Private School SRO:
•In 2018, there were 351 calls for service to the St. Louis Park Private Schools, which
resulted in 25 reports that included follow-up investigations, criminal charges, or
juvenile referrals. The following is break down of calls for service:
911 call 12 Directed Patrol 232 Juvenile Issue 1 Suspicious 22
Accident 7 Disturbance 1 Lost Property 0 Theft 4
Alarm 8 Drugs 1 Noise 3 Threats 1
Animal 1 Fire/Alarm 6 Other 7 Transp ort 0
Assault/Fight 0 Found Property 1 Parking 3 Trespass 2
Child Protection 0 Follow-up 1 Property Damage 1 Traffic Stop 11
Medical/Crisis 12 Harassing Com 0 Road Rage 4 Warrant 0
Detail 8 Information 1 Runaway 1 Weapon 0
•In 2019, there were 396 calls for service to the St. Louis Park Private Schools, which
resulted in 23 reports that included follow-up investigations, criminal charges, or
juvenile referrals. The following is break down of calls for service:
911 call 22 Directed Patrol 250 Juvenile Issue 1 Suspicious 19
Accident 3 Disturbance 1 Lost Property 0 Theft 5
Alarm 22 Drugs 2 Noise 1 Threats 2
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 48
8
Animal 6 Fire/Alarm 9 Other 4 Transport 0
Assault/Fight 2 Found Property 0 Parking 8 Trespass 1
Child Protection 0 Follow-up 1 Property Damage 0 Traffic Stop 3
Medical/Crisis 18 Harassing Com 0 Road Rage 2 Warrant 0
Detail 8 Information 5 Runaway 1 Weapon 2
•Primarily provides services to Benilde St. Margaret’s, Tora Academy, Groves Academy,
Holy Family, and the Minneapolis Jewish Day School. Also, is the liaison for other private
schools in St. Louis Park.
•In 2018 the SRO was assigned 16 Hennepin County Child Protection and child welfare
cases. These cases range from child behavior issues, neglect, abuse, and sexual assault.
•In 2019 the SRO was assigned 12 Hennepin County Child Protection and child welfare
cases. These cases range from child behavior issues, neglect, abuse, and sexual assault.
•The SRO investigates juvenile related cases as assigned.
•The SRO works with Police Department personnel to coordinate activities and facilitate
partnerships with school district personnel, students and community.
•Focus o n school safety, school lockdown procedures and policy development, and
teaches ALICE (active shooter) training to all private schools.
•Connect with students during before and after school activities.
•Participated in Fishing with a cop.
•Participated in Cops N Kids shopping.
•Developed and participated in the Jobs in the Park program.
•Taught DARE to 5th grade students at the Minneapolis Jewish Day School. Curriculum
entailed helping kids prevent drug use by developing basic, core skills needed for safe
and responsible choices…skills that extend well beyond drugs to healthy and mature
choices in life.
•Instructed classes for private schools for various grade levels and ages regarding how to
be safe when out riding a bike, riding in a car, crossing a street, dealing with strangers
trick or treating, bullying, resisting peer pressure, the dangers of drinking and driving,
speeding, bullying/cyber bullying, online safety, appropriate use of social media etc.
•Member of Hennepin County Juvenile Advisory Committee which consists of monthly
meetings with other school resource officers and Hennepin County Juvenile Attorneys to
discuss new trends and resources seen within the schools.
•Participated in school staff meetings relating to Equity and Inclusion within the schools.
•Chaperoned various school events such as field trips and school dances and athletic
events.
•Attend yearly MN Juvenile Officers Association Conference (MNJOA) where various
speakers talk about issues pertaining to School Resource Officers such as Developing
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 49
9
Cultural Competence, Legal Updates, Gang Trends, Juvenile Sex Trafficking,
Understanding FERPA and updated case law, ICAC-Forensic Investigations and
Adolescent Mental Health.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 50
1
St. Louis Park Police Department
2019 Domestic Assault Statistics
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 51
2
In 2019, the St . Louis Park Police Department responded to 1,723 domestic related
calls. In response to domestic related incidents, St . Louis Park Police Officers
make attempts to have the victim/survivor contact Cornerstone while officers are
still on scene with them. The victims / survivors are also provided with a victim’s
rights card which contains contact information for Cornerstone as well as other
victim / survivor services. Officers responding to domestic incidents also contact
Cornerstone to inform them of the incident that the officer is documenting in order
for them to reach out to victim/survivors.
Wh o is Cornerstone?
“Cornerstone’s continuum of service helps to create communities where
individuals and families are safe and children thrive. We advocate, educate
and lead the way to social change. Our ultimate goal is to reduce the
prevalence of domestic violence, sexual violence, human trafficking and
general crime.”
o More information about Cornerstone and their services can be found
on their website at www.cornerstonemn.org
In 2019, St. Louis Park officers made 166 arrests for domestic assault. Cornerstone
received 143 intervention calls from the St . Louis Park Police Department
notifying Cornerstone emergency staff of a domestic assault arrest or domestic
assault incident. Of the 143 total intervention calls, Cornerstone was able to
contact 90 of the victims / survivors.
90
53
Cornerstone Intervention Calls from SLPPD
Victims Cornerstone Was Able to Communicate With
Victims Cornerstone Was Unable To Reach
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 52
3
Of the 143 total intervention calls made to Cornerstone, 141 calls turned into
criminal court cases.
In 2019, Cornerstone’s Criminal Justice Program worked with 173 victims /
survivors total (some of these participants carried over from 2018 cases).
5 victim s / survivors from St . Louis Park utilized Cornerstone services to write an
Order for Protection (OFP) or Harassment Restraining Order (HRO).
-Alth ough the number appears small, many other victims/survivors obtain a
Domestic Abuse No Contact Order (DANCO) during the criminal court
process. This Domestic Abuse No Contact Order is often kept in place
through the probation period set by the courts.
In 2019, Cornerstone staff worked with a total of 204 participants from St . Louis
Park. During this time, a total of 1,723 services were provided to those
participants.
11 3
23
3
19
4
6
173
Cornerstone Programs Utlized in 2019
Youth Services Clinical/Therapy Community Advocacy
CORE Housing Civil General Crime
Emergency Services Criminal
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 53
1
St. Louis Park Police Department
2019 – 2020 Crisis / Mental Health Related Statistics
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 54
2
In 2019, our Police Dept. partnered with Hopkins and Hennepin Behavioral Health to join in the
development of a criminal justice model designed to effectively address the needs of
community members who have mental health, substance, medical, and other needs. Our
officers often realize that taking an individual in crisis to jail, even though a minor crime might
be involved, is not always likely to be effective or beneficial. Early intervention at this stage is
often helpful for willing community members who are open to receiving social service support.
We, along with our partner organizations, are committed to restoring community members
back to good health and stability, to reduce recidivism, prevent avoidable uses of force, and
make our community healthier and safer overall.
A s a part of our Community Mental Health strategic initiative, aimed at improving mental
health in our community, reducing uses of force on crisis calls, and preventing the repeated use
of the criminal justice system in place of avenues of mental health care and treatment, a Senior
Hennepin County Social Worker was brought on board in collaboration with Hennepin County
and the Hopkins Police Department. Starting mid -June 2019, the social worker split his time
between the two Police Departments, reviewing cases referred, doing ride-alongs, making
presentations to officers, attending meetings, and conducting follow-ups either by phone/email
or in person with community members possibly in need of mental health services.
The majority of calls for service involving a mental health concern are coded “Crisis -Mental
Health,” along with some titled “Suicide.” In many of these instances officers make the decision
to place an emergency hold on an individual for their own welfare and transport them to the
hospital. Data on these types of calls for service appear below.
Crisis - CFS / Reports
•2019: 411 / 259
•2020 (Jan -Aug): 252 / 121
o (2020 Pro jected- 378 CFS)
•Note : Mar-Aug 2019 (202 CFS), Mar-Aug 2020 (159). Likely C19-related downturn.
Suicide/Threat - CFS / Reports
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2019 2020 (Ja-Aug)2020 (Proj)
Crisis-Mental Health CFS
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 55
3
•2019: 62 / 33
•2020 (Jan -Aug): 17 / 11
o (2020 Projected - 25 CFS)
Emergency Health/Welfare Holds
•2019: 250
•2020 (Jan-Aug): 178
o (2020 Projected - 267)
•Note : In the 12-month period ending Aug 2020 (279 holds), 145 had a mental
health/suicide threat context, 90 alcohol related, 34 drug related, and 10 classified as
“other.”
Based on procedures put in place by the leaders of the Police -Community Mental Health
workgroup within the Police Department, officers and supervisors make the decision to refer
cases to our partner social worker for review. These referrals are evaluated by one of two
Sergeants and me, and completed. Outcome reports containing basic non-protected
information are provided by Hennepin County quarterly.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2019 2020 (Ja-Aug)2020 (Proj)
Suicide/Threat CFS
Holds (Last 12 mos.)
Mental Health Alcohol Drugs Other
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 56
4
Social Worker Referrals
•2019: 108
•2020 (Jan -Aug): 140
o (2020 Projected - 210)
•Outcomes (2nd Quarter 2020 Snapshot)
o 49 Referrals
47 adult, 2 juvenile
46 Hennepin residents, Others other counties or unknown
44 exclusively mental health concerns, 5 “other” or a combination
o Social worker contacts
55 attempted contacts, 31 contact made
3 connected with case manager
12 connected with other social supports
18 no contact (no permanent address, unstably housed)
o Referrals out by Social Worker
5 to mental health services, 1 to substance abuse treatment, 20 care
coordination with other providers, 18 to medical/legal help
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 57
1
St. Louis Park Police Department
2018 annual report
on use of force
Michael Harcey , Chief of Police
3015 Raleigh Av. S.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 58
2
Table of Contents
Introduction…………………………….………………………….…….…….…3
Def initions…………………………………………………………………….……4
Response to resistance statistics…………...………..…………………5
Levels of force used…………………………………………….………..…...6
De-esc alation …………………………………………………..…………..…….7
Self -initiated c ases…………………………………………..…………..…….8
Men tal health/c risis c alls……………………………………..……...…….9
Charging data………………………………………………….…………...……10
Race data ………………………………………………….…………….…….....12
Electronic c ontrol dev ice/use of deadly force ……….….….…….13
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 59
3
Introduction
The St. Louis Park Police Department is committed to providing a safe community
through quality service , community partnerships and professionalism. Department
leadership is dedicated to providing officers with the highest standard of training to
emphasize de-escalation and crisis intervention techniques alon g with proper use of
tactics and control.
This report was comple te d for the purpose of reviewing the St. Louis Park Police
Department’s use of force for the year 2018. The data collected for this report was
generated from the department’s response to resistance reports and a manual review
of cases involving force. This report will be used to id e ntify trends in the use of force by
agency personnel to evaluate potential training modifications , equipment needs or
policy revisions.
U se of force by police of ficers is governed by chapter 6 of the St. Louis Park Police
Department Policy , which defines force as follows:
“Intenti onal acti ons by an officer that the offi cer knows, or reasonably should
know is likely to cause a nonconsensual, harmful, or offensive bodily contact
with another, or places another in imminent fear of non-consensual, harmful,
or offensive bodily contact.”
Officers are dire cted by policy to use the least amount of force reasonably necessary to
accomplish the intended objective, wit hout impairing the safety of others. When force is
used, police officers are required to complete a response to resistance report (RRR). This
report is required any time force is used be yond routine handcuffing, or if the officer
was present and observed the use of force. This standard is much higher than that of
many police departments across the country that require only documenting the use of
force when there is an incident involving injury to the subject of the force .
The report is reviewed by the duty supervisor who is required to evaluate if the off icer’s
actions complied with St. Louis Park Police Dep artment Policy. As a form of checks and
balances, all response to resistance reports are further revie wed by two command staff
members.
Th e response to resistance report is located in the St. Louis Park Police Department
records management syste m. The report is customized and includes fill-in -the -blank and
pull-down options that cover the following: incident information, officer information,
subject information, tactics and/or weapon use, compliance, officer injury , subject injury
and supervisor review. Officers als o are required to complete an official police report
documenting the incident, including the type of use of force employed.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 60
4
Use of force definitions
De -escalation: Taking action or communicating verbally or non -verbally during a
potential force encounter. De -escalation is an attempt to stabilize the situation and
reduce the immediacy of the threat so that more time, options, and resources can be
called upon to re solve the situation without the use of force , or with reduced force. De -
escalation may include the use of such techniques as command presence, verbal
persuasion, dialogue , advisements, warnings and tactical repositioning.
Verbalization: Making conversation or issuing commands, orders or directions, given
with the intention of informing, educating and controlling.
Soft hand techniques: Non-injury producing, weaponless control methods.
Chemical aerosol: non-lethal aerosol spray s.
Hard e mpty hand techniques: Whe n an officer uses strikes to create temporary
dysfunction, or a physical takedown for the purpose of gaining control of a combative
individual.
Electronic control device - Taser displayed: When an officer points their Taser at an
individual but does not discharge the Tase r.
Electronic control device - Taser deployed: When an officer discharges their Taser at an
individual to gain control of them.
Impact weapon: Less-than-lethal option, such as a projectile or baton, that is intended
to create temporary dysfunction in order to gain control.
Service weapon displayed: A fire arm is displayed by an officer but is not pointed at an
individual.
Service weapon deployed: When an officer discharges their service weapon at an
individual to protect themselves or another from death or great bodily harm.
Deadly force : Any force that could potentially re sult in death or great bodily harm.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 61
5
Response to resistance statistics for 2018
In 2018, the St. Louis Park Police Department responded to 42,967 calls for service . This
number does not includ e voided or test calls . Of those calls for service , 111 cases
resulted in response to resistance reports. This means that in 2018, 0.26 percent of the
total calls for service resulted in some level of force being used. St. Louis Park Police
Department Policy require s that every officer involved in the use of force incident,
whether they used or obse rved force , is required to complete a response to resistance
report. Therefore , some incidents in which multiple officers responded there may be
multiple response to resistance reports. In 2018 293 response to resistance reports
were completed for the 111 cases in which use of force was documented.
When evaluating use of force incidents, it’s important to track injuries sustained by both
the subject and the officer to gauge effectiveness and identify possible training or policy
issues. Of the 111 case s where force was documented, 81 of the subjects involved
reported no injury; 6 reported possible injuries (no vis ible injuries ); 21 sustained mino r
injuries (abrasions, scrapes, bruises); 3 sustained moderate injury (lacerations, puncture
wound, K9 bite ). Officers were injured 14 tim es, all of which were reported as minor
injuries .
5.40%
73.00%
20.70%
0.90%
Incidents of Force Where
Subject Sustained Injury
Complaint Only of Injury
No Injury to Subject
Minor Injury to Subject
Moderate Injury to Subject
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 62
6
Levels of force used
The St. Louis Park P olice Department’s response to resistance report is designe d to
provide data on the level of force used on a subject. The report tracks the force option
used based on a use of force con tinuum that includes verbal commands, soft empty
hand techniques, hard empty hand techniques, Taser displayed, service we apon
dis played, Taser deployed, and service weapon deployed. For purpose s of this analysis,
the highest level of force used during the incident is reported.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 63
7
De-escalation
A check box in the case information section of the police report allows tracking of
incidents when office rs use de-escalation strategies. Office rs are instructed to check this
box each time they use de-escalation strategies and to further document their de-
escalation efforts in their report. Officers are also required to document de -escalation
strategies in their response to resistance report. Of the 111 response to resis tance case s
in 2018, de-escalation strategies were attempted and documented 70 time s, which
amounts to 63 percent of use -of-force incidents. It should also be noted that, of the
remaining 41 cases, eight were high -risk traffic stops requiring immediate commands
with little or no time for the use of de-escalation strategies. Read more about high-risk
traffic stops in the next section.
About high-risk traffic stops
High -risk traffic stops are defined as posing a significant risk to the officer when de aling
with the occupants of a motor vehicle. Situations that may fall into this category are
known or suspecte d felons, stolen vehicles, an armed individual, or any potentially
dangerous person.
When a police officer has a reasonable belief that a motor vehicle to be stopped
contains an individual(s) falling into one of the above-listed categories, the officer must
e mploy a set of tactics substantially different from those used in a routine traffic stop.
The o fficer’s reasonable belief can be based on the officer’s observations, official
communications and other sources of reliable inf ormation. Due to the dangerous nature
of high -risk stops, it is a nationally recognized training standard to have a firearm at a
ready position or pointed in the dire ction of the suspect vehicle . The goal of a high-risk
traff ic stop is to detain or arrest dangerous or potentially dangerous individuals in the
safest manner possible for everyone involved . All high-risk traffic stops require a
response to resis tance report to document why the firearm was pointed in the direction
of the suspect vehicle.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 64
8
Self-initiated cases involving force
During an analysis of the 111 cas es that involved some lev e l o f force, it’s valuable to
review if those cases were initiated by officers or if they were a response to a call for
service. Out of the 111 cases involving force, 17 were self -initiated. Eight of those were
a result of a high -risk traffic stop. None of the officer-initiated cases in 2018 resulted in
an in jury to the subjects or to off icers. Below is a breakdown of the officer self-initiated
traffic stops/contacts where force was used:
•High-risk traffic stops 8
•Subjects with f elony warrants 4
•DWI suspect 2
•Firearm in Vehicle 1
•Subject physically resisting/obstruction 1
•Fight or assault in progress 1
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 65
9
Mental health /crisis calls
In 2018, St. Lo uis Park police officers responded to 1,592 calls relate d to mental health ,
of which 389 were crisis /mental health/suicide calls, and 1,203 were welfare checks. Of
those 1,592 calls, 24 (1.5 percent) resulted in response to resistance reports. Of the 24
cases, 23 resulted in a health and welfare hold on the subject. A health and welfare hold
enable s an officer to requ ire a su bject to be evaluated by a mental health professional
when they are a danger to themselves or others. It is important to note in 14 of those
cases, the subject was not in jured; nine had minor injuries (abrasions, scrapes, bruises);
and one received puncture wounds from Taser use. In the remaining case , an individual
had a diabetic reaction where officers had to use force to control the individual in order
to administer medical aid.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 66
10
C harging data
In 2018, 111 cases resulted in completion of response to resistance reports. The graph
below provides a breakdown in the types of calls for service for these 111 cases . Of
those 111 cases, subjects were charged with crimes in 66 cas es – 59 percent of the
number of cases involv ing response to resistance reports. Thirty -one cases resulted in
felony level charges, fourteen cases resulted in gross misdemeanor charges and 21 case s
resulted in misdemeanor charges. Of the 111 cases, 27 were for mental health related
calls for service , with no criminal charges . Additionally , 5 of the 111 cases involved
officers as sisting other agencies and the department was not able to obtain data on
criminal charges for these cases.
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
15
24
26
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
WARRANT
DWI
CHECK WELFARE
911
TRESSPASSING
ROBBERY
SUSPICIOUS PERSON
WEAPON
BURGLARY
DISTURBANCE
ASSIST OTHER AGENCY (AOA)
ASSAULT / FIGHT
THEFT / SHOPLIFTING
TRAFFIC STOP
MEDICAL / CRISIS
DOMESTIC
Calls for Service in RRR Incidents
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 67
11
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
Felony Level
Crime
Gross
Misdemeanor
Level Crime
Misdemeanor
Level Crime
No Crime Unknown Charges
Level of Crimes and Convictions in RRR Incidents
Charged Not Charged No Crime/Charges Unknown Charges
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 68
12
Ra ce data
Th e S t. Louis Park P olice Department does not collect race data on all calls for se rvice or
on all police reports . Ho wever, race is recorded on a booking record during the arre st
process and is required on the response to resistance re port. Of the 111 cases, the
following race data was collected :
•Black or African American 57
•White /Caucasian 47
•American Indian 2
•Asian 1
•Haw aiian or Pacific Islander 2
•Unknown 2
In two cases where race is reported as unknown, St. Louis Park police officers were
dispatched to assist other agencies and race data wasn’t available for the response to
resistance report.
In 94 of the 111 cases, officers were dispatched to the incident and responded based on
a citizen complaint. Seventeen officer self-initiated calls in 2018 resulted in the use of
force . Of those 17 cases, 8 subjects were Black or African American , seven subjects were
white, one subject was Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and one subject’s race was not
specified . In the 17 cases , there were three reported injuries to the subject.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 69
13
Electronic control device (Taser)
In 2018, a Taser was displayed by officers 34 times and a Taser was deployed two times.
Of 42,967 calls for service , a Taser was display ed 0.08 percent of the time and a Taser
was deployed 0.005 percent of the time.
Use of deadly force
The S t. Louis Park Police Department Use of Deadly Force Policy is as follows:
1)It shall be the policy of t he department, unless expressly negated elsewhere, to
accord officers discretion in the use of deadly force to the extent permitted by
Minnesota State Statute § 609.066, Subdivision 2, which authorizes peace officers acting
in the line of duty to use deadly force only when necessary:
a)To protect the peace officer or another from apparent death or great bodily
harm.
b) To ef fect the arrest or capture, or pre vent the escape, of a person who the
peace officer knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, has committed or
attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of deadly
force.
c)To effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person who the
officer knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, has co mmitted or
attempted to commit a felony, if the officer reasonably believes that the person
will cause death or great bodily harm if the person's apprehension is delayed.
2)If feasible, an officer should give warning before using or attempting to use deadly
force.
In 2018 there no case s involving the use of deadly force.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 70
1
St. Louis Park Police Department
2019 annual report
on use of force
Michael Harcey , Chief of Police
3015 Raleigh Av. S.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 71
2
Table of Contents
Introduction…………………………….………………………….…….…….…3
Definitions…………………………………………………………………….……4
Response to resistance statistics…………...………..…………………5
Levels of force used…………………………………………….………..…...6
De-escalation …………………………………………………..…………..…….7
S elf -initiated c ases…………………………………………..…………..…….8
M ental health/c risis c alls……………………………………..……...…….9
Charging data………………………………………………….…………...……10
Race data ………………………………………………….…………….…….....12
E lectronic c ontrol dev ice/use of deadly force ……….….….…….13
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 72
3
Introduction
The St. Louis Park Police Department is committed to providing a safe community
through quality service , community partnerships and professionalism. Department
leadership is dedicated to providing officers with the highest standard of training to
emphasize de-escalation and crisis intervention techniques alon g with proper use of
tactics and control.
This report was comple te d for the purpose of reviewing the St. Louis Park Police
Department’s use of force for the year 2019. The data collected for this report was
generated from the department’s response to resistance reports and a manual review
of cases involving force. This report will be used to id e ntify trends in the use of force by
agency personnel to evaluate potential training modifications , equipment needs or
policy revisions.
U se of force by police of ficers is governed by chapter 6 of the St. Louis Park Police
Department Policy , which defines force as follows:
“Intenti onal acti ons by an officer that the offi cer knows, or reasonably should
know is likely to cause a nonconsensual, harmful, or offensive bodily contact
with another, or places another in imminent fear of non-consensual, harmful,
or offensive bodily contact.”
Officers are dire cted by policy to use the least amount of force reasonably necessary to
accomplish the intended objective, wit hout impairing the safety of others. When force is
used, police officers are required to complete a response to resistance report (RRR). This
report is required any time force is used be yond routine handcuffing, or if the officer
was present and observed the use of force. This standard is much higher than that of
many police departments across the country that require only documenting the use of
force when there is an incident involving injury to the subject of the force .
The report is reviewed by the duty supervisor who is required to evaluate if the off icer’s
actions complied with St. Louis Park Police Dep artment Policy. As a form of checks and
balances, all response to resistance reports are further revie wed by two command staff
members.
Th e response to resistance report is located in the St. Louis Park Police Department
records management syste m. The report is customized and includes fill-in -the -blank and
pull-down options that cover the following: incident information, officer information,
subject information, tactics and/or weapon use, compliance, officer injury , subject injury
and supervisor review. Officers als o are required to complete an official police report
documenting the incident, including the type of use of force employed.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 73
4
Use of force definitions
De -escalation: Taking action or communicating verbally or non -verbally during a
potential force encounter. De -escalation is an attempt to stabilize the situation and
reduce the immediacy of the threat so that more time, options, and resources can be
called upon to re solve the situation without the use of force , or with reduced force. De -
escalation may include the use of such techniques as command presence, verbal
persuasion, dialogue , advisements, warnings and tactical repositioning.
Verbalization: Making conversation or issuing commands, orders or directions, given
with the intention of informing, educating and controlling.
Soft hand techniques: Non-injury producing, weaponless control methods.
Chemical aerosol: non-lethal aerosol spray s.
Hard e mpty hand techniques: Whe n an officer uses strikes to create temporary
dysfunction, or a physical takedown for the purpose of gaining control of a combative
individual.
Electronic control device - Taser displayed: When an officer points their Taser at an
individual but does not discharge the Tase r.
Electronic control device - Taser deployed: When an officer discharges their Taser at an
individual to gain control of them.
Impact weapon: Less-than-lethal option, such as a projectile or baton, that is intended
to create temporary dysfunction in order to gain control.
Service weapon displayed: A fire arm is displayed by an officer but is not pointed at an
individual.
Service weapon deployed: When an officer discharges their service weapon at an
individual to protect themselves or another from death or great bodily harm.
Deadly force : Any force that could potentially re sult in death or great bodily harm.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 74
5
Response to resistance statistics for 2019
In 2019, the St. Louis Park Police Department responded to 46,580 calls for service . This
number does not includ e voided or test calls . Of those calls for service , 128 cases
resulted in response to resistance reports. This means that in 2019, 0.27 percent of the
total calls for service resulted in some level of force being used. St. Louis Park Police
Department Policy require s that every officer involved in the use of force incident,
whether they used or observed force , is required to complete a response to resistance
report. Therefore , some incidents in which multiple officers responded there may be
multiple respo nse to resistance reports. In 2019 304 response to resistance reports
were completed for the 128 cases in which use of force was documented.
When evaluating use of force incidents, it’s important to track injuries sustained by both
the subject and the officer to gauge effectiveness and identify possible training or policy
issues. Of the 128 case s where force was documented, 108 of the subjects involved
reported no injury; 15 sustained mino r injuries (abrasions, scrapes, bruises); four
sustained moderate injury (lacerations, puncture wound, K9 bite ); and one person died .
Officers were injured 13 times, all of which were reported as minor injuries .
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 75
6
Levels of force used
The St. Louis Park P olice Department’s response to resistance report is designe d to
provide data on the level of force used on a subject. The report tracks the force option
used based on a use of force continuum that includes verbal commands, soft empty
hand techniques, hard empty hand techniques, Taser displayed, service we apon
dis played, Taser deployed, and service weapon deployed. For purpose s of this analysis,
the highest level of force used during the incident is reported.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 76
7
De-escalation
A check box in the case information section of the police report allows tracking of
incidents when office rs use de-escalation strategies. Officers are instructed to check this
box each time they use de-escalation strategies and to further document their de-
escalation efforts in their report. Officers are also required to document de -escalation
strategies in their response to resistance report. Of the 128 response to resis tance case s
in 2019, de-escalation strategies were attempted and documented 82 time s, which
amounts to 64 percen t of use -of-force incidents. It should also be noted that, of the
remaining 46 cases , ten were high-risk traffic stops requiring immediate commands with
little or no time for the use of de-escalation strategies. Read more about high-risk traffic
stops in the next section.
About high-risk traffic stops
High -risk traffic stops are defined as posing a significant risk to the officer when de aling
with the occupants of a motor vehicle. Situations that may fall into this category are
known or suspecte d felons, stolen vehicles, an armed individual, or any potentially
dangerous person.
When a police officer has a reasonable belief that a motor vehicle to be stopped
contains an individual(s) falling into one of the above-listed categories, the officer must
e mploy a set of tactics substantially different from those used in a routine traffic stop.
The o fficer’s reasonable belief can be based on the officer’s observations, official
communications and other sources of reliable inf ormation. Due to the dangerous nature
of high -risk stops, it is a nationally recognized training standard to have a firearm at a
ready position or pointed in the dire ction of the suspect vehicle . The goal of a high -risk
traff ic stop is to detain or arrest dangerous or potentially dangerous individuals in the
safest manner possible for everyone involved . All high-risk traffic s tops require a
response to resistance report to document why the firearm was pointed in the direction
of the suspect vehicle.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 77
8
Self-initiated cases involving force
During an analysis of the 128 cas es that involved some lev e l o f force, it’s valuable to
review if those cases were initiated by officers or if they were a response to a call for
service. Out of the 128 cases involving force, 20 were self -initiated. Ten of those were a
result of a high -risk traffic stop. None of the officer-initiated cases in 2019 resulted in an
injury to the subjects or to officers. Below is a break down of the officer self-initiated
traffic stops/contacts where force was used:
•High-risk traffic stops 10
•Subjects with f elony warrants 4
•DWI suspect 3
•Stolen firearm in vehicle 1
•Directed patrol 2
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 78
9
Mental health /crisis calls
In 2019, St. Lo uis Park police officers responded to 1,738 calls related to mental health ,
of which 411 were crisis /mental health/suicide calls, and 1,327 were welfare checks. Of
those 1,738 calls, 27 (1.5 percent) resulted in response to resistance reports. Of the 27
cases, 21 resulted in a health and welfare hold on the subject. A health and welfare hold
enable s an officer to require a su bject to be evaluated by a mental health professional
when they are a danger to themselves or others. Of the six remaining cases, three crisis
calls were to assist other departments on suicid al individuals and the disposition is
unknown; one involv ed a juvenile who was rele ased to their parent; one case res ulted in
fourth degree assault on the officer; and one intoxicated subject was released to a sober
adult. It is important to note in 22 of those cases, the subject was not in jured; three had
minor injuries (abrasions, scrapes, bruises); and two received puncture wou nds from
Taser use.
In 2018, the police department participated in a strategic planning process. As a result,
one of the department’s strategic initiatives is to address mental health concerns in the
community. This effort has led to work with the Hennepin County Criminal Ju stice
Behavior Health Initiative , a partnership with Hennepin County and the Hopkins Police
Department. As part of the initiative a Hennepin County licensed social worker works
directly with police officers in St. Louis Park. Officers and the social worker partner
together to effectively address the needs of community members who may have mental
health, substance, medical and other social service needs. This partnership is anticipated
to reduce the number of metal health related calls for service in the community.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 79
10
C harging data
In 2019, 128 cas es resulted in completion of response to resistance reports. The graph
below provides a breakdown in the types of calls for service for these 128 cases . Of
those 128 cases, subjects were charged with crimes in 63 cas es – 49 percent of the
number of cases involv ing response to resistance reports. Thirty -two cases resulted in
felony level charges, nine cases resulted in gross misdemeanor charges and 22 cases
resulted in misdemeanor charges. Of the 128 cases , 29 were for mental health related
calls for service , with no criminal charges. Additionally , 17 of the 128 cases inv olved
officers assisting other agencies and the department was not able to obtain data on
criminal charges for these cases.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 80
11
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 81
12
Ra ce data
Th e St. Louis Park P olice Department does not collect race data on all calls for se rvice or
on all police reports . However, race is recorded on a booking record during the arre st
process and is required on the response to resistance re port. Of the 128 cases , the
following race data was collected :
•Black or African American 61
•White /Caucasian 54
•American Indian 3
•Asian 3
•Haw aiian or Pacific Islander 1
•Unknown 6
I n all six cases where race is reported as unknown, St. Louis Park police officers were
dispatched to assist other agencies and race data wasn’t available for the response to
resistance report.
In 108 of the 128 cases, officers w ere dispatched to the incident and responded base d
on a citizen complaint. Twenty officer self-initiated calls in 2019 resulted in the use of
force . Of those 20 cases, 13 subjects were Black or African American , six subjects were
white, and one subject was American Indian. In each of these 20 cases , there were no
reported inj uries to the subject or to the officers.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 82
13
Electronic control device (Taser)
In 2019, a Taser was displayed by officers 26 times and a Taser was deployed four times.
Of 46,580 calls for service , a Taser was display ed 0.05 percent of the time and a Taser
was deployed 0.008 percent of the time.
Use of deadly force
The St. Louis Park Police Department Use of Deadly Force Policy is as follows:
1)It shall be the policy of t he department, unless expressly negated elsewhere, to
accord officers discretion in the use of deadly force to the extent permitted by
Minnesota State Statute § 609.066, Subdivision 2, which authorizes peace officers acting
in the line of duty to use deadly force only when necessary:
a)To protect the peace officer or another from apparent death or great bodily
harm.
b) To ef fect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person who the
peace officer knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, has committed or
attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of deadly
force.
c)To effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person who the
officer knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, has committed or
attempted to commit a felony, if the officer reasonably believes that the person
will cause de ath or great bodily harm if the person's apprehension is delayed.
2)If feasible, an officer should give warning before using or attempting to use deadly
force .
In 2019 t he St. Louis Park Police Department used deadly force once. The case was
investigate d by the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office and reviewed by the Hennepin
County Attorney’s Office. The county attorney’s office determined that the level of force
was justified under current legal standards. No criminal charges were issued. The
Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office investigation and the Hennepin County Attorney’s
Office report w ere reviewed by the St. Louis Park Police Command Staff for possible
policy or procedure violations by the officers involved in the incident. No policy or
procedure violations were identified.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Policing discussion - continued Page 83
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: September 29, 2020
Discussion item : 3
Executive summary
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered
essential business and is Categorized as Time -Sensitive **
•The city council and city manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled study session
on Oct. 12, 2020.
Policy consideration: Not applicable.
Summary: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the regularly scheduled study session
on Oct. 12, 2020. Also attached to this report is the study session discussion topics and timeline .
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Tentative agenda – Oct. 12, 2020
Study session discussion topics and timeline
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, administrative services office assistant
Reviewed by: Maria Solano, senior management analyst
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Oct. 12, 2020.
6:30 p.m. Study session - To be held via videoconference
Tentative discussion items
1.Review and Discuss 2021 budget, updated CIP, utility rates, and LRFMP – Administrative
services (120 minutes)
Discussion on the 2021 budget, capital items, and utility rates and how they tie into the Long-
range financial management plan.
**Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered essential business and is
Categorized as T ime -Sensitive**
2.Review interview process for filling ward seat 2 – Administrative services (30 minutes)
Review the interview process including interview questions and scoring methods for filling the
ward 2 council seat.
**Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered essential business and is
Categorized as T ime -Sensitive**
3.Future study session agenda planning – Administrative services (5 minutes)
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.
Written reports
4.Acquisition 6211 Cedar lake Road
5.Beltline Park and Ride construction agreement with Met Council
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Study session discussion topics and timeline
Future council items
Priority Discussion topic Comments Timeline for council
discussion
3 Discuss public process
expectations and outcomes
Staff is working on the approach for
undertaking this discussion. 1st qtr. 2021
4
Revisit housing setback, FAR , &
more related to affordable
housing
Discussion or
written report
10/26/20
5 Home-based businesses (HBB)/
accessory dwelling units (ADU)
ADU – 1st reading
10/5/20; HBB - 1st
qtr. 2021
6 Public forums at council mtgs 9/23/19 SS. Staff doing research of other cities. 1st qtr. 2021
8 Community and neighborhood
sidewalk designations To be combined w/ Connect the Park discussion. 4th qtr. 2020
9 Remove mint & menthol
exemption from existing
On hold pending court decision *On hold
10/13
-Easy access to nature, across
city, starting w/ low-income
neighborhoods
-WHNC Access Fund
Combine P10 and P13 .
*On hold pending direction from school district. *On hold
11 Conversion therapy ban TBD
12 Changes to sign ordinance In process; Written report 9/14/20 1st reading
10/5/20
+ Community health: services and
connections in SLP
Written report
10/26/20
+ Creating pathways for BIPOC
individuals and families
+ Youth on commissions
Council items in progress
Priority Discussion topic Comments Next Steps
7 STEP discussion: facilities Council asked staff to consider lending options
to assist STEP in buying a new bldg.
STEP is searching
for a new facility
Police use of force policy review Discussed 7/27/20. Staff is developing process. SS discussion 9/29
Policing: structural analysis Discussed 7/27/20. Staff is developing process SS discussion 9/29
R evitalization of Walker Lake
area
Council approved updated parking ord. Dec.
2019; Planning Commission working on new
zoning ord. and design guidelines for the
district – recommendation to council Q4;
Construction of phase 1 completed summer
2019; Phase 2 currently under construction
Discussion of
ordinance and
design guidelines
late 2020
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: September 29, 2020
Written report: 4
Executive summary
Title: August 2020 monthly financial report
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered
essential business and is categorized as Time-Sensitive**
•No action required at this time.
Policy consideration: Monthly financial reports are part of our financial management policies .
Summary: The monthly financial report provides an overview of general fund revenues and
departmental expenditures comparing them to budget throughout the year. A budget to actual
summary for the utility funds is also provided with this report.
Financial or budget considerations: At the end of August, general fund expenditures were at
approximately 60.5% of the adopted annual budget, which continues to be about 6% under
budget. Permit revenue has remained strong during the summer and is exceeding budget at
over 90% in August.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Summary of revenues and expenditures – general fund
Budget to actual – enterprise funds
Prepared by: Darla Monson, accountant
Reviewed by: Melanie Lammers, chief financial officer
Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: August 2020 monthly financial report
Discussion
Background: This monthly report provides summary information of the overall level of revenues
and departmental expenditures in the general fund compared to the adopted budget throughout
the year. A budget to actual summary for the utility funds is also included with this report.
Present considerations:
General Fund
Under normal circumstances, expenditures would generally be at about 67% of the annual
budget at the end of August. General fund expenditures are running about 6% under at 60.5%
of the adopted annual budget through August and no departments have exceeded budget. A
large portion of our low expenditures can be attributed to salary savings from positions in the
general fund that were put on hold due to COVID.
A supplemental property tax settlement was received at the end of July from Hennepin County
which brought first half collections to 52.8% of the general fund levy. This compares to 51.7%
last year after the first half settlement and collections were better than initially anticipated . The
second half settlement is expected to be received the first week in December.
License and permit revenues combined are at almost 91% of budget through August. Net of the
refunds that were recently issued to businesses due to the COVID-19 closures , business and
liquor license revenue is at 82% of the annual budget. Permit revenue is at 93% of the annual
budget through August and includes the permits for Parkway Place Apartments, The Quentin
and several school district projects. A portion of the 10 West End permit was deferred to 2020
to offset related expenditures.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Actual $2,899 $6,184 $8,981 $11,848 $15,420 $18,566 $21,876 $25,191
Budget $3,475 $6,949 $10,424 $13,898 $17,373 $20,847 $24,322 $27,796 $31,271 $34,745 $38,220 $41,694
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
$ THOUSANDS Monthly Expenditures -General Fund
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of August 31, 2020 20202020201820182019201920202020Balance YTD Budget Budget Audited Budget Audited Budget YTD AugRemaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes25,705,886$ 26,597,928$ 26,880,004$ 26,952,306$ 28,393,728$ 14,988,095$ 13,405,633$ 52.79% Licenses and Permits3,924,648 4,001,644 4,103,424 5,264,659 4,660,811 4,226,676 434,135 90.69% Fines & Forfeits269,200 282,146 279,700 274,340 280,000 85,309 194,691 30.47% Intergovernmental1,864,877 2,006,435 1,760,900 1,761,763 1,760,082 969,421 790,661 55.08% Charges for Services2,162,410 2,180,589 2,187,319 2,160,345 2,273,824 1,051,485 1,222,339 46.24% Rents & Other Miscellaneous1,318,037 1,427,744 1,367,012 1,500,867 1,456,102 786,285 669,817 54.00% Transfers In1,929,090 1,929,076 1,999,877 2,012,706 2,038,338 1,321,559 716,779 64.84% Investment Earnings 160,000 251,494 180,000 523,124 210,000 56,853 153,147 27.07% Other Income40,950 35,802 31,300 57,274 621,280 583,305 37,975 93.89% Use of Fund Balance523,835 298,156 230,026 - 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues37,898,933$ 38,712,858$ 39,087,692$ 40,737,411$ 41,694,165$ 24,068,988$ 17,625,177$ 57.73%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration1,341,606$ 1,340,282$ 1,837,620$ 1,673,619$ 1,868,599$ 901,236$ 967,363$ 48.23% Finance978,752 964,036 1,034,199 1,078,291 1,124,045 713,225 410,820 63.45% Assessing759,865 710,715 772,746 751,737 808,171 514,459 293,712 63.66% Human Resources796,666 735,050 805,620 756,767 823,209 504,138 319,071 61.24% Community Development1,479,911 1,559,721 1,502,521 1,515,672 1,571,894 1,007,894 564,000 64.12% Facilities Maintenance1,162,342 1,223,109 1,170,211 1,209,474 1,265,337 817,657 447,680 64.62% Information Resources1,589,432 1,526,028 1,674,937 1,474,604 1,709,255 1,047,872 661,384 61.31% Communications & Marketing755,940 829,732 805,674 786,448 828,004 483,117 344,887 58.35% Community Outreach27,637 12,085 0.00%Total General Government8,892,151$ 8,900,758$ 9,603,528$ 9,246,612$ 9,998,514$ 5,989,597$ 4,008,917$ 59.90% Public Safety: Police9,930,681$ 9,877,014$ 10,335,497$ 10,452,038$ 10,853,821$ 6,805,505$ 4,048,316$ 62.70% Fire Protection4,657,973 4,630,520 4,813,078 4,754,524 5,040,703 3,136,341 1,904,362 62.22% Building 2,544,762 2,295,910 2,555,335 2,430,473 2,696,585 1,549,305 1,147,280 57.45%Total Public Safety17,133,416$ 16,803,444$ 17,703,910$ 17,637,035$ 18,591,109$ 11,491,151$ 7,099,958$ 61.81% Operations: Public Works Administration230,753$ 208,050$ 290,753$ 214,436$ 273,318$ 142,338$ 130,980$ 52.08% Public Works Operations3,091,857 2,998,935 3,111,481 3,099,493 3,331,966 2,119,208 1,212,758 63.60% Vehicle Maintenance1,253,367 1,210,279 1,242,236 1,268,700 1,278,827 722,794 556,033 56.52% Engineering525,834 552,432 570,377 609,567 551,285 329,002 222,283 59.68%Total Operations5,101,811$ 4,969,696$ 5,214,847$ 5,192,196$ 5,435,396$ 3,313,342$ 2,122,054$ 60.96% Parks and Recreation: Organized Recreation1,582,490 1,499,780 1,579,569 1,498,462 1,637,002 979,386 657,616 59.83% Recreation Center1,860,755 2,004,937 1,949,657 2,041,386 2,061,394 1,246,692 814,702 60.48% Park Maintenance1,830,530 1,866,744 1,833,297 1,820,455 1,906,363 1,147,361 759,002 60.19% Westwood Nature Center622,346 599,704 643,750 612,266 748,683 391,270 357,413 52.26% Natural Resources559,662 376,359 484,784 429,409 504,143 284,923 219,220 56.52%Total Parks and Recreation6,455,783$ 6,347,524$ 6,491,057$ 6,401,977$ 6,857,585$ 4,049,633$ 2,807,952$ 59.05% Other Depts and Non-Departmental: Racial Equity and Inclusion -$ -$ -$ 4,592$ 314,077$ 180,962$ 133,115$ 57.62% Sustainability26,283 497,484 166,002 331,482 33.37% Transfers Out1,040,000 300,000 0.00% Contingency and Other315,772 186,966 74,350 121,245 0.00%Total Other Depts and Non-Departmental315,772$ 1,226,966$ 74,350$ 452,119$ 811,561$ 346,965$ 464,596$ 42.75%Total General Fund Expenditures37,898,933$ 38,248,388$ 39,087,692$ 38,929,940$ 41,694,165$ 25,190,688$ 16,503,477$ 60.42%Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 4) Title: August 2020 monthly financial reportPage 3
Budget to Actual - Enterprise FundsAs of August 31, 2020 Current BudgetAug Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetAug Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetAug Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetAug Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetOperating revenues: User charges 7,472,931$ 3,582,063$ 3,890,868$ 47.93% 7,897,086$ 4,029,281$ 3,867,805$ 51.02% 3,510,090$ 1,858,804$ 1,651,286$ 52.96% 3,065,882$ 1,654,949$ 1,410,933$ 53.98% Rent revenue, permits & other 533,242 529,858 3,384 99.37% 43,000 4,556 38,444 10.59% 169,100 169,100 0.00%-- Total operating revenues8,006,173 4,111,920 3,894,253 51.36% 7,940,086 4,033,837 3,906,249 50.80% 3,679,190 1,858,804 1,820,386 50.52% 3,065,882 1,654,949 1,410,933 53.98%Operating expenses: Personal services1,521,345 983,112 538,233 64.62% 809,868 599,678 210,190 74.05% 539,901 340,415 199,486 63.05% 896,367 424,301 472,066 47.34% Supplies & non-capital268,300 249,126 19,174 92.85% 72,500 18,913 53,587 26.09% 247,550 50,285 197,265 20.31% 12,500 1,394 11,106 11.15% Services & other charges2,073,702 2,531,777 (458,075) 122.09% 4,621,847 3,859,295 762,552 83.50%2,920,580 1,855,962 1,064,618 63.55% 329,946 889,372 (559,426) 269.55% Total operating expenses3,863,347 3,764,015 99,332 97.43% 5,504,215 4,477,887 1,026,328 81.35% 3,708,031 2,246,662 1,461,369 60.59% 1,238,813 1,315,068 (76,255) 106.16%Operating income (loss)4,142,826 347,905 3,794,921 2,435,871 (444,050) 2,879,921 (28,841) (387,857) 359,016 1,827,069 339,881 1,487,188 Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Interest income 7,450 18,276 (10,826) 245.32% 13,250 2,728 10,522 20.59% 13,000 2,038 10,962 15.68% 5,600 5,600 0.00% Bond interest & bank fees(412,950) (588,062) 175,112 142.41% (87,250) (72,361) (14,889) 82.94% (23,500) (8,654) (14,846) 36.83% (34,850) (64,783) 29,933 185.89% Total nonoperating rev (exp)(405,500) (569,786) 164,286 140.51% (74,000) (69,634) (4,366) 94.10% (10,500) (6,616) (3,884) 63.01% (29,250) (64,783) 35,533 221.48%Income (loss) before transfers3,737,326 (221,881) 3,959,207 2,361,871 (513,684) 2,875,555 (39,341) (394,473) 355,132 1,797,819 275,098 1,522,721 Transfers inTransfers out(638,635) (425,757) (212,878) 66.67% (873,785) (582,523) (291,262) 66.67% (248,289) (165,526) (82,763) 66.67% (342,130) (228,087) (114,043) 66.67%NET INCOME (LOSS)3,098,691 (647,637) 3,746,328 1,488,086 (1,096,207) 2,584,293 (287,630) (559,999) 272,369 1,455,689 47,012 1,408,677 Items reclassified to bal sht at year end: Capital Outlay(2,649,356) (348,152) (2,301,204) 13.14% (1,411,750) (303,700) (1,108,050) 21.51%-- -(3,245,049) (310,337) (2,934,712) 9.56%Revenues over/(under) expenditures449,335 (995,789) 1,445,124 76,336 (1,399,907) 1,476,243 (287,630) (559,999) 272,369 (1,789,360) (263,326) (1,526,034) Water SewerSolid WasteStorm WaterStudy session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 4) Title: August 2020 monthly financial reportPage 4
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: September 29, 2020
Written report: 5
Executive summary
Title: Platia Place project update
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered
essential business and is Categorized as Time -Sensitive**
• None at this time. This report is intended to update council on the status of this project.
Policy considerations:
1. Is the city council willing to entertain an application for a change in land use to allow an
all residential development on this site?
2. Do the revised redevelopment plans meet the city’s affordable housing and
neighborhood development goals?
3. Is the council supportive of the revised TIF request?
Summary: In March 2018 city council approved applications for a plat and planned unit
development (PUD) to allow redevelopment at 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Boulevard. The approvals
allow a 149-unit, six -story apartment building and 100-key, six -story hotel on the site. Since that
time, impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic have changed the market for hotels, causing the
original developer, SLP Ventures, to develop a revised concept for the site. The development
team now proposes a 251-unit, seven story apartment building on the site called SLP Living.
Staff are working with the development team to finalize the number and type of applications
needed for the project. A comprehensive plan amendment would likely be needed to change
the land guidance from office to high-density residential because it is no longer a mixed -use
development. A plat would be needed to combine multiple parcels into one lot. An amendment
to the PUD ordinance would be needed to allow the revised use, building form and site plan.
The developer would like to apply in late fall 2020.
Financial or budget considerations: The Economic Development Authority (EDA) established
the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District on March 21, 2016 in anticipation of
redevelopment on the subject site. The EDA initially approved TIF financing for the former Platia
Place project in March 2018. The development team plans to apply for tax increment assistance
related to SLP Living which will require the establishment of a new Housing TIF district. To
conform to the statutory requirements for this new TIF district, the project would include 20%
of the housing units at 50% AMI. Please see the discussion section of this report for more detail.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion; Rendering; Site plan
Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner
Greg Hunt, economic development coordinator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor
Karen Barton, community development director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of Sep tember 29, 2020 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: Platia Place project update
Discussion
Background: The proposed redevelopment site is located in the northwest corner of Interstate
394 and Highway 169 in the Shelard Park neighborhood. The site is guided office and is
currently zoned planned unit development (PUD).
City council approved a plat, PUD ordinance and a right of way vacation in March 2018. In
February 2020 council granted an extension for filing the plat with the county that expires in
February 2021.
COVID-19’s impact has resulted in a significant negative impact on the hospitality industry. The
development team has provided city staff with market research indicating a minimum of four
years before hotel occupancy and room rates return to pre-COVID levels. This projection, along
with other market factors has led the development team to propose a revised Platia Place
project.
The development team proposes a seven-story apartment building on the site . The
development, now titled SLP Living, will include 251 units with a mix of studio, one- and two-
bedrooms. Parking is provided in surface parking lots on the east, west and south side s of the
building and one level of structured parking on the ground floor. The development would be
required to comply with the city’s green building policy. It would also exceed the city’s
inclusionary housing policy as a new Housing TIF district would require 20% of the units to be
subsidized at 50% Area Median Income (AMI) or 40% of the units at 60% AMI .
Present considerations: This new proposal will require several approvals from council:
1. A comprehensive plan amendment to re-guide the site from office to high -density
residential land use. High density land use allows up to 75 units per acre. The current
proposal of 251 units results in a housing density of 81 units per acre. If the project
moves forward, the development must reduce the unit count.
2. A preliminary and fin al plat to combine the existing parcels and outlots into one lot .
3. A major amendment to the PUD ordinance to rewrite the use and dimensional
requirements to allow the proposed apartment building.
Interstate 394
9920 Wayzata Blvd. 9808 Wayzata Blvd. Highway 169
Study session meeting of Sep tember 29, 2020 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Title: Platia Place project update
The following is a comparison of the existing, approved and proposed land use and land guidance :
Current Approved Proposed
Land use vacant Multi-family
residential; hotel
Multi-family
residential
2040 Comprehensive
Plan land guidance
OFC - Office OFC - Office RH - High Density
Residential
Developer’s need for financial assistance : The development team plans to apply for tax
increment assistance for the project. The Economic Development Authority (EDA) established
the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District on March 21, 2016 in anticipation of
redevelopment on the subject site. The EDA initially approved TIF financing for the former
Platia Place project in March 2018. However, the SLP Living project will require the
establishment of a new Housing TIF district.
The subject parcels have unstable structural soils which require that any multi-story building
constructed on the site be built on pilings. This will add substantial cost to proposed
redevelopments and makes nearly any multi-story project financially infeasible without
assistance. The current development team has indicated it will need to apply for tax increment
assistance to enable the proposed SLP Living project to move forward. The anticipated financial
gap has yet to be verified and the related assistance request for the proje ct has yet to be
determined. The site would no longer qualify as a new redevelopment TIF district because the
substandard structures previously occupying the property have been demolished. Therefore, a
new type of TIF district will need to be established (should the EDA wish to do so) if tax
increment is to be provided for SLP Living.
The only remaining type of TIF district applicable to the proposed project is a Housing TIF
District. Such a district requires that either 40 percent of a development’s housing units be
affordable to families at 60 percent of area median income (AMI) or 20 percent of the proposed
units be affordable to families at 50 percent AMI. The development team plans to make 20
percent of the proposed project units affordable to families at 50 percent AMI, which exceeds
the city’s Inclusionary Housing Policy requirements. Should the EDA/city council wish to
consider the current SLP Living project proposal, it will need to formally decertify the Wayzata
Blvd TIF District. This can occur concurrently with the establishment of the new Housing TIF
district and the approval of a new Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with the
development team.
11
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 5)
Title: Platia Place project update Page 4
224,426
ENTRY/
EXIT
ENTRY/
EXIT
19
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 5)
Title: Platia Place project update Page 5
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: September 29, 2020
Written report: 6
Executive summary
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements (4022-2000)
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered
essential business and is categorized as Time-Sensitive**
• None at this time. This report is intended to inform the city council on the background and
details regarding this project. This project will have a public hearing at the Oct. 5 council
meeting. Council will be asked to act on this project at the Oct. 19 meeting.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to pursue the installation of sidewalks and trails
included in the Beltline Blvd SWRLT Pedestrian Improvements project?
Summary: Connect the Park is the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP) to install additional
bikeways, sidewalks, and trails throughout the community. The primary goal of Connect the
Park is to develop a comprehensive, city-wide network of bikeways, sidewalks, and trails that
provide local and regional connectivity, improve safety and accessibility, and enhance overall
community livability.
This report focuses on improving pedestrian connections in the Beltline Blvd SWLRT station
area, specifically Ottawa Ave nue and Lynn Avenue in the Triangle neighborhood, Beltline
Boule vard, and the south frontage road of County Road 25.
The engineering department has been working on the preliminary design and associated public
engagement process for more safe and comfortable connections to the future Beltline Blvd
SWLRT station using $560,000 in federal funds. To do this, staff recommends a new multi-use
trail on Beltline Boule vard, a new multi-use trail on Ottawa Ave nue, a new sidewalk on the east
side of Lynn Ave nue, and a widened sidewalk on the west side of Lynn Avenue.
Financial or budget considerations: This project is included in the city’s 2021 Capital
Improvement Plan and will be paid for using federal funds and general obligation bonds. A
construction cost estimate is being finalized and will be provided at the Oct. 5 public hearing.
Strategic priori ty consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Overview map
Grant application resolution - June 20, 2016 (pgs. 247 – 251)
Consultant contract amendment – Aug. 3, 2020 (pgs. 70 – 75)
Concept design recommendations memo
Concept design graphics
Open house materials
Public input survey results
Parking study
Prepared by: Ben Manibog, transportation engineer
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements
Discussion
Purpose: The purpose of the Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements project is to complete
gaps in the pedestrian network in order to provide safer and more comfortable connections to
the Beltline Blvd LRT station . The street segments discussed below are within the walkshed (area
where the walking/rolling distance to the destination is comfortable) of the Beltline station.
The project also intends to either remove or mitigate barriers to access the pedestrian network.
The largest barrier in accessing the station area is County Road 25, a four-lane h ighway that
expands to six lanes at Beltline Blvd. Additional barriers include utility poles obstructing
sidewalks, and lack of separation between vehicle and pedestrian users.
Policy: In 2007, the Beltline Boulevard corridor was identified as a part of the Active Living:
Sidewalk and Trails Plan as a proposed sidewalk. It was then integrated into Connect the Park in
2012. Connect the Park designed to create a system that provides sidewalks approximately
every quarter mile and bikeways every half mile in order to improve pedestrian and bicycle
connectivity throughout the community. Lynn Avenue, Ottawa Avenue, and the frontage road
segment were added to Connect the Park as a part of SWLRT and is explained below.
In 2013, the city council approved a resolution that is the city’s policy to utilize complete streets
principles and to work with partner agencies so that complete streets elements are evaluated
with city transportation projects. 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.
All named benefits from the policy inform this project:
•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.
I n 2018, the city cou ncil passed the Climate Action Plan with the goal of achieving carbon
neutrality – having a net-zero carbon footprint – by 2040. One of the seven major goals of the
plan is to reduce vehicle emissions by 25% by 2030. Under this goal, the following initiative and
strategies most inform this proj ect:
•Initiative 6.4: Enable reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from single -occupancy
vehicles
o Continue to modify land use to encourage alternative modes of transportation,
consistent with the city’s complete streets policy and any future living stre ets
policy
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements
Accelerate investment in alternative transportation infrastructure
Continue to implement Connect the Park to increase commuter bicycling
and pedestrian opportunities
o Improve the city’s average Walk Score from 47 to 60 by 2030
Implement the city’s complete streets policy for all transportation projects
In 2019, the city council adopted the city’s Comprehensive Plan 2040. As a part of the mobility
chapter, all three goals (and many of their strategies) inform this project:
• Plan, design, build and operate the city’s mobility system in a way that prioritizes
walking first, followed by bicycling and transit use, and then motor vehicle use
o Incorporate an approach that is based on surrounding land use context when
planning and designing transportation projects.
o Continue to explore and evaluate flexible and innovative designs and seek
guidance from established best practices to achieve desired outcomes.
o Use the Capital Improvement Program as a tool to improve pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit networks.
o Design mobility infrastructure to support land use goals for compact, accessible,
walkable neighborhoods.
o Promote and support adaption of the mobility network to take advantage of
improved technologies and mobility modes.
o Encourage compact, dense development and connected multimodal
infrastructure to facilitate “car-lite” living.
o Prioritize bicycle and pedestrian mobility projects with connectivity between
residential neighborhoods, schools, employment, businesses, and bus and
SWLRT transit.
• Ensure the quality and function of the transportation system contributes to the
equitable outcomes for all people
o Prioritize mobility needs of underserved populations.
• Eliminate fatalities and serious injuries that are a result of crashes on city streets
o Prioritize s afety investments in line with the modal hierarchy.
o Protect pedestrians and bicyclists through design decisions that strive to
eliminate fatalities and serious injuries .
In 2019, the city council approved the Living Streets Policy . The purpose of living streets is to
build community, provide environmental benefits, and provide economic benefits. Of the six
Living Streets principles, three are most applicable to this project:
• Enhance walking/biking conditions and connections
o Filling in the gaps in this netw ork will benefit our most vulnerable users and
underserved neighborhoods by eliminating current historical barriers.
• Traffic management
o …usually focused on limiting cut-through traffic, decreasing the speed of
vehicles, and enhancing safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Create a sense of place
o Creating an atmosphere that is positive, pleasant, and safe, helps attract and
retain residents in the community.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6) Page 4
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements
Regional solicitation: In 2016, the city submitted a request to use Surface Transportation Block
Grant Program (STBGP) funds to the Metropolitan Council for pedestrian improvements along
Beltline Boule vard, County State Aid Highway 25 (CR 25), Ottawa Ave nue, and Lynn Ave nue .
These improvements were first recognized as part of the Transitional Station Area Action Plan
(TSAAP) for the Beltline Blvd Station along the Southwest LRT (SWLRT) corridor. The TSAAP was
completed through a collaboration of the Southwest LRT Community Works program and
Hennepin County. In June 2016, the city council adopted a resolution authorizing the
submission of a grant application for the Beltline project.
In January 2017, the Metropolitan Council announced that this project was included in the 2018
– 2021 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). In this approval, $560,000 in Surface
Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP) funds were secured to build the pedestrian
improvements in 2020. With the success of receiving federal funds, the Ottawa Avenue, Lynn
Avenue, and frontage road segments were added to Connect the Park. The Beltline trail was
already a part of the original plan.
In February 2020, the Transportation Advisory Board approved a Program Year Extension
Request for the Beltline Blvd project to allow construction in 2021. The extension was pursued
by the city due to the prolonged and delayed approval and construction of the Beltline Blvd
SWLRT station area as well as the Beltline Blvd Park & Ride and Sherman redevelopment.
Project location and existing conditions: The Be ltline Blvd SWLRT pedestrian improvements
can be broken down into four segments:
• West side of Beltline Boulevard from CR 25 to 36th Street
• North side of the S CR 25 Frontage Road from Ottawa Avenue/Beltline Boulevard to
Lynn Avenue
• Both sides of Ottawa Ave nue from Minnetonka Boulevard to CR 25
• Both sides of Lynn Avenue from Minnetonka Boulevard to CR 25
The frontage road segment, which is expected to be a multi-use trail, will be completed by the
SWLRT and Sherman groups and was not discussed as a part of this project. There is not a
current timeline for the trail’s installation ; however, it is expected that it will be installed prior
to SWLRT operation in 2023.
Eruv
Ottawa Avenue, Lynn Avenue, and part of the S CR 25 frontage road segments are within the
city’s eruv. An eruv, as defined by the Chabad organization, “…is a technical boundary that
allows Jews to carry in public areas on Shabbat”. From Yale University’s MAVCOR journal,
“Jewish law does not normally allow the carrying of objects in public spaces or between private
and public spaces on the Sabbath, a prohibition based upon the biblical imperative to ‘do no
work’ on that day”. At the request of the Jewish community, the city approved the creation of
the eruv in the 1980’s.
Beltline Boulevard
Beltline Boulevard is one of the three places pedestrians can cross the east-west Canadian
Pacific rail corridor. It is a busy , and mostly non-residential, corridor carrying over 12,000
vehicles and 100 transit passengers . Beltline will also feature a SWLRT station , which is projected
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6) Page 5
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements
to have 1,600 boardings a day by 2035. There is a trail on the east side of Beltline throughout
that connects the Triangle neighborhood and multi-family housing on Park Glen Rd to the Cedar
Lake Trail, Bass Lake Preserve, the Rec Center, the Melrose Center, and Wolfe Park.
On the west side , however, there is only a trail from the CR 25 bridge to the regional trail and a
small segment at 36th Street. This requires pedestrians and bicyclists to either walk on in the
grass boulevard along the west side or cross Beltline , which makes it difficult to access
businesses along 35th Street and Raleigh Avenue. There is also no access to CR 25 on the west
side, requiring trail users to cross at the regional trail crossing.
No parking is allowed on Beltline Boulevard for its entire length.
The corridor is identified as a bikeway on the Connect the Park implementation plan. On Oct.
21, 2019, the city council approved the bikeway along Beltline Boulevard from 36th Street to
Park Glen Road (4021-2000) – scheduled to be constructed in 2021. This includes:
• Installing on -street bike lanes that connect with the SWLRT project work occurring north
of Park Glen Road and around the Beltline Boulevard LRT station
• A reduction from 4 lanes of traffic to 3 lanes (a road diet)
• No changes to the existing parking restrictions
For purposes of designing this project, it was assumed that the improvements listed above are
existing conditions.
Ottawa Avenue
Ottawa Avenue connects two county roads in the Triangle neighborhood, Minnetonka
Boulevard and CR 25. It is a moderately busy corridor carrying 4,000 vehicles, 10 bicycles, and
over 50 pedestrians a day. It has a mix of land uses, including single -family homes, multi-family
buildings, commercial business, and Yeshiva of Minneapolis, a Jewish boys’ high school. This
corridor also connects east-west to Carpenter Park, City Hall, and Menorah Plaza via the 31st
Street trail/sidewalk . The corridor is identified as a future bikeway on the Connect the Park
implementation plan. It is scheduled to have bike facilities in stalled in 2022.
While there is a continuous sidewalk on the east side, the west side abruptly stops next to Park
Towers south of 31st St. This requires pedestrians to cross Ottawa further north before crossing
CR 25. The trail/sidewalk connection between the service road and CR 25 is narrow and difficult
to distinguish from the road.
Some parking is allowed on the west side of Ottawa Ave nue only during off-peak hours.
Otherwise , parking is restricted.
Lynn Avenue
Lynn Avenue in the Triangle neighborhood connects Minnetonka Boulevard and the CR 25
service road. It has a mix of single - and duplex- family homes, multi-family buildings, and
commercial businesses. Nearby on Minnetonka Boulevard is also Bais Yaakov, a Jewish girl’s
high school. The corridor is constrained with the right of way lines often at the back of the
existing sidewalks. Sidewalks run for the full length on the west side but stop abruptly on the
east side at 3031 Lynn Ave.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6) Page 6
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements
While the sidewalk is continuous on the west side, it is not wide enough for a wheelchair,
stroller, or even two people to walk side by side . Utility poles also run on the west side and are
placed in the middle of the sidewalk, making the already 4-foot width shrink to 1 or 2 feet. As a
result, the sidewalk does not meet ADA accessibility requirements. As a part of the SWLRT
construction, a traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Lynn Ave nue and CR 25. Any
connections made here will allow people to safely cross CR 25 to access the future frontage
road trail, other multi-family buildings, and local businesses.
Lynn Avenue has parking allowed on the east side and is restricted on the west side for the full
length.
Parking study: To help understand how folks use on-street parking in the Triangle
neighborhood, the city contracted a parking study. Our consultant inventoried current on-street
parking and major off-street parking lots. Then, they measured parking occupancy by observing
the streets and lots over 3 days at different times.
The parking study did occur during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and local “Stay at Home”
order in the beginning of May 2020. Because the study area is primarily residential, where peak
parking is during overnight hours, the observed parking is likely similar to “normal” conditions.
Looking at the other commercial and school uses in the neighborhood, although impacted by
the “Stay at Home” order, can serve a majority of their parking demand with their current off -
street parking.
We observed very low parking demand on Ottawa Avenue. Parking is already time -restricted
and was lightly used. Removing or reducing the parking on Ottawa Avenue to provide improved
pedestrian facilities would not significantly impact parking in the area.
We observed moderate parking demand on Lynn Avenue. Over half of the available spaces
were used during the peak time. Removing or reducing the parking on Lynn Avenue to provide
improved pedestrian facilities would have a greater impact when compared to Ottawa Ave nue .
Displaced parking could shift to use the nearby frontage road.
Community engagement: Due to health and safety concerns from the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic, all community engagement conducted for this project were either done virtually or
in select cases, physically distanced. Additional methods, discussed below, were taken to
intentionally broaden the reach of engagement for this project to help offset this setback.
Project initiation letter
In early May 2020, a short letter was sent to those who live or own property along the four
project segments. The letter informed them of upcoming activity from survey crews and
inspections.
First o pen house July 14
In late June 2020, community members were invited to the first open house held on July 14,
2020. The open house was held virtually to follow best practices due to the ongoing pandemic.
Attendees connected either through Zoom, the videoconferencing platform, or over the phone.
The meeting was advertised by mail for the project area, the project email list, the city’s
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6) Page 7
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements
Facebook, Twitter, and Nextdoor accounts, the Wolfe Park and Triangle neighborhood
associations, and the Sun Sailor.
At the open house, staff gave a short overview of the project, introduced preliminary concept
designs, discussed the project schedule, and answered any questions. Roughly 50 people
attended the live virtual meeting.
The following preliminary concept designs were discussed (also see the attached graphics):
• Ottawa Ave nue
o Sidewalk option
Complete the sidewalk gap on the west side
Fix any sections of existing sidewalk to meet ADA requirements
Remove on-street parking, replace with narrow striped shoulder
Narrow west approach of 31st Street
Narrow west approach of CR 25 frontage road
o Trail option
Remove west sidewalk and install an 11-foot wide multi-use trail,
narrowing Ottawa Ave nue
Fix any sections of the existing sidewalks to meet ADA requirements
Remove on-street parking
Narrow west approach of 31st Street
Narrow west approach of CR 25 frontage road
• Lynn Ave nue
o One -way (shown as northbound or southbound)
Retain on -street parking
Narrow Lynn Avenue to accommodate sidewalks
Widen and complete east sidewalk to 6 feet
Widen west sidewalk to 8.5 feet (to account for utility poles)
Install curb extension at CR 25 frontage road
Install pedestrian connection to cross CR 25 at future signal
o Two -way
Remove on-street parking
Narrow Lynn Avenue to accommodate sidewalks
Complete east sidewalk at existing 5 feet wide
Widen west sidewalk to 7.5 feet (to account for utility poles)
Install curb extension at CR 25 frontage road
Install pedestrian connection to Cross CR 25 at future signal
• Beltline Boulevard
o Multi-use trail
Install 10-foot wide multi-use trail on the west side
The open house was recorded and posted to the city’s ParkTV YouTube channel, where it has
been viewed over 50 times. The open house was also replayed on ParkTV’s channels 43 times
as of late September 2020.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6) Page 8
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements
Public input survey
At the first open house, a public input survey (whose results are attached) was also released. The
survey asked participants to comment on what they liked and disliked about each design as well
as which they preferred. An open comment box was available at the end for any other issues they
wanted to discuss. A paper copy of the survey was available by request. The survey was open for
just over two weeks and had almost 400 total responses, 225 complete and 170 partial.
Stakeholder meetings
To supplement the feedback we were receiving, the project team met with multiple
stakeholders in and around the project area. The one -on-one meetings, held virtually or
sometimes on-site physically distanced, centered on what the stakeholder was most interested
in. Between the open house and the second open house, the project team met with Hennepin
County, Metro Transit , Beth El Synagogue, Minneapolis Community Kollel, Xcel Energy, and
Kenwood Commercial.
Second open house
In early September 2020, community members were invited to a second open house held on
Sept 23. The open house was held virtually to follow best practices due to the ongoing
pandemic. Attendees connected either through Zoom, the videoconferencing platform, or over
the phone. The meeting was advertised by mail for the project area, the project email list, the
city’s Facebook, Twitter, and Nextdoor accounts, and the Wolfe Park and Triangle
neighborhood associations.
At the open house, staff gave a short overview of the project, introduced the recommended
concept designs (explained below ), discussed the project schedule, and answered any
questions. Roughly 10 people attended the live virtual meeting.
Recommended concept designs:
Beltline Boulevard – Multi-use trail
A multi-use trail is recommended for the west side of Beltline Boulevard . The option had
overwhelming support in the survey with over three -quarters of respondents strongly liking or
liking the design. Common positive responses included liking better bike access, improved
safety, and better options for pedestrians and bicyclists. Common negative responses included
concerns about congestion due to the road diet (part of the Beltline bikeway project),
redundancy of a trail on both sides of the street, on-street bikeway design (part of the Beltline
bikeway project), and the lack of a crossing at 35th Street.
In response to the feedback, a crossing (including a crosswalk and pedestrian drops) is now
proposed at 35th Street. The implementation will be done either by this project or the Beltline
Boulevard bikeway project.
Ottawa Avenue – Multi-use trail
A multi-use trail is recommended for the west side of Ottawa Avenue over the sidewalk design.
The trail design had overwhelming support when compared to the sidewalk design. Over three -
quarters of respondents strongly liked or liked the trail design while less than half did for the
sidewalk design. In addition, the multi-use trail can provide the future bikeway connection for
this street segment scheduled for 2022.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6) Page 9
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements
For the sidewalk design, many people were concerned the shoulders may encourage drivers to
speed up. The shoulder space was confusing for some as it was assumed to be dedicated space
for bicyclists (it is too narrow to serve this purpose). Other concerns were that the sidewalks
were not wide enough, the design does not accommodate bicycles, and that it does not
maintain parking.
For the trail design, many respondents felt that it was an improvement for people to walk and
bike comfortably. Other common positive responses included narrower roads decrease vehicle
traffic speeds, separating bicyclists from drivers, and the removal of parking, allowing less
congestion. Common negative responses included the lack of on-street parking, the design does
not give dedicated space to bicyclists, no landscaping between sidewalk and street, and
concerns with the road width for snow plowing.
In response to the feedback, and in collaboration with the operations department,
surmountable curbs are included on the west side. This allows plow trucks to utilize their wing
to remove snow on the trail while also clearing th e west side of the street. No changes were
made regarding parking on this corridor. As noted in the parking study, reducing parking on
Ottawa Ave nue would not significantly impact parking.
Lynn Avenue – One-way southbound with wider sidewalks
A widened sidewalk on the west side of Lynn Avenue, a new sidewalk on the east side of Lynn
Avenue and a conversion to one-way southbound is recommended. The support for one -way
and two-way road designs were similar, with slightly more strongly disliking the one -way option.
For the two-way design, many respondents were concerned with the removal of on-street
parking. Without the parking, some were also concerned that vehicle speeds may increase.
Others also did not like the narrower sidewalks when compared to the one -way design , as well
as the lack of bike facilities (not propose d in this project nor Connect the Park). Proponents of
the two-way liked that it retained existing traffic directions as they wouldn’t divert vehicles to
other streets. Without on-street parking, some felt that it made winter maintenance easier.
For the one-way design, many liked the additional space for pedestrians, especially on both
sides of the street. Some thought it would likely be quieter with less traffic and would make it
more comfortable for biking. Others felt that a one -way street encourages vehicle speeding and
that a one -way street would cause confusion, divert too much traffic to nearby streets, and
encourage vehicle speeding. Some respondents also noted they don’t see the need for
sidewalks on both sides of the street and that they don’t need to be widened.
Staff and the consultant do not believe that a one-way street would divert large amounts of
traffic to other nearby streets. While some traffic will be diverted, Lynn Ave nue is already a
relatively quiet street.
Survey respondents slightly preferred Lynn Avenue to be a one-way northbound versus
southbound. However, staff recommends a southbound one -way. A southbound Lynn Ave nue
facilitates safer turns from Minnetonka Boulevard due to better sightlines. A northbound Lynn
Avenue would cause more wrong-way vehicles since more drivers access Lynn from Minnetonka
Boulevard.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6) Page 10
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements
In response to the feedback, and in collaboration with the operations department,
surmountable curbs are included on the east side of Lynn Avenue. This allows plow trucks to
utilize their wing to remove snow on the sidewalk while also clearing the east side of the street.
Utility considerations: The city is in conversations with Xcel energy to understand the costs and
impacts of burying the utility poles on the west side of Lynn Avenue. As stated above, the utility
poles serve as barriers in the sidewalk , creating non-accessible pedestrian facilities. The
recommended concept designs mentioned above can be installed without the removal of utility
poles. However, if the poles can be removed, this creates more opportunities for wider
pedestrian spaces and possible green space.
More information regarding the viability of utility burial, and the corresponding city costs and
property owner costs is expected in October during the council approval process. Any right of
way utility costs are paid for by the city while the connections to private properties are the
responsibility of the property owners.
Right of way considerations: The city has been pursuing permanent easements along Beltline
Boulevard since August 2020. As noted in the attached August 2020 report, although a concept
has not yet been approved, our preliminary design work has shown that any facility installation
on this corridor will require easements. Because this project uses federal funding and requires a
right of way certificate, the easement acquisition process must occur in parallel with the
community engagement and preliminary design to meet the project deadlines. The city is
underway with property title work and will be working with the affected property owners as
this process goes on. Once the council makes a decision on this project on Oct. 19, staff will
work to purchase these easements. This is in order to meet the federal funding deadlines.
Financial considerations: As discussed above, this project leverages $560,000 in federal funding
to help offset construction costs . Detailed costs will be available in the public hearing report on
Oct. 5.
Operation and maintenance costs
This project creates new city infrastructure. With new infrastructure, there will be operation
and maintenance costs. Annual operational costs include snow removal, pavement sweeping,
and general upkeep. In addition, there are long-term costs associated with the replacement of
sidewalks and trails. As final plans are developed, staff will work on identifying the new
incremental costs and will present them when this project is presented to council for final plan
approval and authorization for bids.
Proposed schedule : The proposed schedule is as follows:
Study council written report Sept. 29, 2020
Public hearing Oct. 5, 2020
Approve preliminary layout and authorize final plans Oct. 19, 2020
City council – approve final plans and order ad for bid Mar. 2021
Construction Summer – Fall 2021
PROJECT LOCATION
?úA@
GzWX
kj
Minnetonka Boulevard
C o u n t y R o a d 2 5
36th Str eet WestHighway 100 SouthOttawaAvenueSouthPark CenterBoulevardRaleigh Avenue South29th StreetWest
35thStreetWest
H ig h w ay 7
Hi g h w a y 7
Kipling AvenueSouth33rd StreetWestWebster Avenue SouthMonterey
DriveVernonAvenueSouthToledo Avenue SouthLakeStreetWestToledo Avenue South36th Street West36thStreetWestHighway 729thStreetWest
361/2Street WestLynnAvenueSouth31st StreetWest
WebsterAvenueSouthM
ontereyCourtJoppa Avenue SouthSalem Avenue SouthRaleigh Avenue SouthQuentin Avenue SouthPrinceton Avenue SouthSalemAvenueSouthWebster Avenue SouthUtica Avenue South35th Street We
st
35th Street W
est
Park Glen
R
o
a
dRaleighAvenueSouthNatchezAvenueSouthSalem Avenue SouthUticaAvenueProject: STLOU 153156 Beltline/CSAH 25 Pedestrian Improvements(S.P. 163-291-008)2016 Regional Solicitation
Print Date: 6/24/2020
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the Geographic
Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this
map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.Path: P:\PT\S\Stlou\153156\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Maps\Beltline_CSAH25.mxdI Figure
1
DAKOTA COUNTY
HENNEPIN COUNTY
ANOKA COUNTY
SCOTT COUNTY
CARVER COUNTY
WASHINGTON COUNTY
RAMSEY COUNTY
City of St. Louis Park
ProjectLocation
Proposed Project
Beltline LRT Stationkj
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 11
Engineers | Architects | Planners | Scientists
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 300, Minnetonka, MN 55343-9302
SEH is 100% employee-owned | sehinc.com | 952.912.2600 | 800.734.6757 | 888.908.8166 fax
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ben A. Manibog Jr.
Transportation Engineer
FROM: Wayne Houle, PE (MN)
Project Manager
DATE: September 23, 2020
RE: Beltline Blvd Pedestrian Improvements - Concept Recommendations
SEH No. 155416 14.00
This memorandum provides SEH’s recommendation for concepts for the Beltline Blvd Pedestrian Improvement
Project. The recommendation is based on stakeholder input and engineering judgement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Lynn Avenue – One-way Southbound Street Option
We recommend this concept as it provides pedestrian facilities from CSAH 25 service road to Minnetonka
Boulevard. This concept retains parking along one side of Lynn Avenue, as the Parking Study indicated a need
along this corridor. A southbound direction will provide a less confusing turn off of Minnetonka Boulevard,
meaning that if you are westbound and need to access Lynn Avenue you will not need to find a last minute route
as you approach Lynn Avenue. This concept provides a safe pedestrian crossing of both the north service road
and CSAH 25; a marked crosswalk with traffic signal is planned to be constructed as CSAH 25 and Lynn Avenue
to the south, with the South West Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) project.
Ottawa Avenue – Trail Option
We recommend this concept, as it provides both pedestrian and rolling facilities from CSAH 25 to Minnetonka
Boulevard. This concept also corrects the non-compliant ADA issue that currently exists with the westerly
sidewalk. This option also provides a safer pedestrian and rolling crossings across both service roads on the
north side of CSAH 25.
Beltline Boulevard – Multiuse Trail Option
This option fills the missing westerly pedestrian gap along this corridor by adding a multiuse trail with a grass
boulevard along Beltline Boulevard from West 36th Street to Park Glen Place. This option will also include a
crosswalk crossing Beltline Boulevard at West 35th Street.
PROJECT BACKGROUND:
The City of St. Louis Park in 2016 submitted a request to use Surface Transportation Block Grant Program
(STBGP) funds to the Metropolitan Council for pedestrian improvements along Beltline Boulevard, CSAH 25,
Ottawa Avenue, and Lynn Avenue, which will also improve the pedestrian access across busy CSAH 25 corridor
and connect to the planned Beltline LRT station. The project is programed to be constructed in 2021 and is
included in the Capital Improvement Program approved by the St. Louis Park City Council.
The project consists of constructing pedestrian facilities on the following roadways: along Beltline Boulevard from
West 36th Street to Minnetonka Boulevard; replacing and completing gaps in the sidewalks along both sides of
Ottawa Avenue and Lynn Avenue from CSAH 25 to Minnetonka Boulevard; and constructing a walkway along
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 12
Beltline Blvd Pedestrian Improvements - Concept Recommendations
September 23, 2020
Page 2
CSAH 25 from Beltline Boulevard to Lynn Avenue. In addition, streetscaping elements will be installed along
CSAH 25 and Beltline Boulevard. The proposed development located in the southeast quadrant of Beltline
Boulevard and CSAH 25, along with the SWLRT project, will construct the trail along CSAH 25.
SEH along with Toole Design provided two concepts for Ottawa Avenue, three concepts for Lynn Avenue and one
concept for Beltline Boulevard. These concepts were posted to the City’s web page and were presented at the
virtual open house along with being presented to the stakeholder meetings that the City and consultants hosted.
CONCEPTS:
For plan views of the concepts, see attached.
LYNN AVENUE -
The Lynn Avenue concept will provide a safer crossing across both the north service road and CSAH 25. The
SWLRT project is scheduled to construct traffic signals at Lynn Avenue and CSAH 25. And even though there will
not be vehicle access from CSAH 25 to the service road, pedestrian and rolling access will be provided at this
location, see attached plan view.
Lynn Avenue: Existing Conditions
See Figure 1 below. The existing conditions (looking northbound) of Lynn Avenue consist of a 4-foot sidewalk,
which has many power poles within the sidewalk creating a non-conforming pedestrian access route, two travel
lanes - a 10 and 9 foot lane, and a 7-foot parking lane.
Figure 1 – Lynn Avenue: Existing Conditions
Lynn Avenue: One-way Southbound Street Option
See Figure 2 below. This concept provides 8.5-foot sidewalk on the west side, that provides enough room for a
pedestrian to navigate through the many utility poles and facilities, a 10-foot travel lane either northbound or
southbound direction, a 8-foot wide parking bay, and a 6-foot sidewalk. The southbound one-way will provide 19
on-street parking spaces, as the northbound one-way provides 18 parking spaces.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 13
Beltline Blvd Pedestrian Improvements - Concept Recommendations
September 23, 2020
Page 3
Figure 2 – Lynn Avenue: One-way Southbound Street Option
Lynn Avenue: Two-way Street Option
See Figure 3 below. This concept provides 7.5-foot sidewalk on the west side to provide enough room for a
pedestrian to navigate through the many utility poles and facilities, two 10-foot travel lanes for northbound and
southbound directions, and a 5-foot sidewalk. This option does not provide any on-street parking spaces.
Figure 3 – Lynn Avenue: Two-way Street Option.
OTTAWA AVENUE -
The Ottawa Avenue concept will provide a safer crossing across both the north service roads and to the crossings
of CSAH 25. The SWLRT project is scheduled to improve the crossings at CSAH 25 and Beltline Boulevard /
Ottawa Avenue.
Ottawa Avenue: Existing Conditions
See Figure 4 below. The existing conditions (looking northbound) of Ottawa Avenue consist of a 4-foot sidewalk,
an 8-foot parking lane, two travel lanes - a 10 and 11 foot lane, and a 5-foot sidewalk.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 14
Beltline Blvd Pedestrian Improvements - Concept Recommendations
September 23, 2020
Page 4
Figure 4 – Ottawa Avenue: Existing Conditions
Ottawa Avenue: Sidewalk Option
See Figure 5 below. This concept provides two 10-foot travel lanes, flanked by two 4-foot shoulders and two 5-
foot sidewalks. This option does not provide any on-street parking spaces. The design of this concept will be
challenging due to the grades along the westerly side of Ottawa Avenue starting at Minnetonka Boulevard, which
will be difficult to meet the requirements for the American with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Figure 5 – Ottawa Avenue: Sidewalk Option
Ottawa Avenue: Trail Option
See Figure 6 below. This concept provides 11-foot multiuse trail on the west side, two 11-foot travel lanes for
northbound and southbound direction, and a 5-foot sidewalk. This option does not provide any on-street parking
spaces. The 11-foot multiuse trail provides ample room to meet ADA requirements.
Figure 6 – Ottawa Avenue: Trail Option
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 15
Beltline Blvd Pedestrian Improvements - Concept Recommendations
September 23, 2020
Page 5
BELTLINE BOULEVARD -
Beltline Boulevard is scheduled for other future improvements, such as the restriping of the roadway and
intersection improvements at West 36th Street and Beltline Boulevard. We have taken into account these future
improvements and have shown them in the recommended concept.
Beltline Boulevard: Existing Conditions
See Figure 7 below. The existing conditions (looking northbound) of Beltline Boulevard consist of a grass
boulevard, four 12-foot travel lanes, a combination of grass boulevard and no boulevard, and a 9-foot multi-use
trail.
Figure 7 - Beltline Boulevard: Existing Conditions
Beltline Boulevard: Multiuse Trail
See Figure 5 below. This concept provides a 10-foot multiuse trail with a 4-foot grass boulevard on the west side
of Beltline Boulevard from West 36th Street to Park Glen Place. A multiuse trail exists on the east side of Beltline
Boulevard from 36th Street to CSAH 25. This project will fill the missing sidewalk or trail gap on the west side of
the Beltline Boulevard. The segment from Park Glen Place to CSAH 25 is being constructed by the SWLRT
project. This option will accommodate a future pedestrian crossing at West 35th Street and Beltline Boulevard.
Figure 5 – Beltline Boulevard: Multiuse Trail Option
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT:
City staff and consultants, SEH and Toole Design, hosted a virtual open house on July 14 and on September 23,
see attached presentations. Other stakeholder meetings were held with Matt Walzer of Beth El Synagogue, Metro
Transit, Hennepin County Transportation, Avigdor Goldberger of Minneapolis Community Kollel, SLP Public
Safety, SLP Public Works, Nils Snyder of Kenwood Commercial, and Dave Hopkins and Susan Brust of Nordic
Ware. An online survey was also provided showing the concept plans and requesting input on the project. The
results of the survey resulted in over 106 pages of input, see attached. We’ve consolidated the results in the
following summary for the presented concepts:
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 16
Beltline Blvd Pedestrian Improvements - Concept Recommendations
September 23, 2020
Page 6
Lynn Avenue: One-way Street Option
What do you community members LIKE about the Lynn Avenue One-way Street Option?
•There is more space for pedestrians
o The wider sidewalks will feel less crowded
o The wider sidewalk on the west side makes it easier to walk or roll around the utility poles
o Pleased to have sidewalks on both sides of the street
•It maintains parking
o Important on this street due to the residential homes and apartments
o The existing parking is heavily used
•It would be more comfortable for people biking
•It would likely be quieter/less car traffic which would be appealing to residents
What do you community members DISLIKE about the Lynn Avenue One-way Street Option?
•The one-way street may encourage vehicle speeding
•It does not have a bike lane/bike facility
•One-way may require some vehicles to circle the block; directs more traffic to surrounding streets
•The one-way may be confusing for motorists
•Do not think it’s necessary to have sidewalks on both sides of the street; the sidewalk on the west does
not need to be that wide
•The on-street parking in the winter will encroach the drive lane
•No landscaping/boulevard between the sidewalk and street
Lynn Avenue: Two-way Street Option
What do you community members LIKE about the Lynn Avenue Two-way Street Option?
•It allows two-way traffic
o Drivers stay on Lynn and don’t divert to adjacent streets or frontage road along Highway 7
•It is improved for pedestrians
o Wider sidewalk on the west
o Sidewalk added on east
•Easier to maintain (street-sweeping and snow plowing operations) with no on-street parking
What do you community members DISLIKE about the Lynn Avenue Two-way Street Option?
•It removes on-street parking
•Concerned that vehicle speeds may increase without on-street parking
•It does not have a bike lane/bike facility
•The sidewalks are narrower than the one-way option
•No landscaping/boulevard between the sidewalk and street
Ottawa Avenue: Sidewalk Option
What do you community members LIKE about the Ottawa Avenue Sidewalk Option?
•Improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists
o It has wider sidewalks compared to existing
o The 4-foot shoulder could function as a bike lane
o The 4-foot shoulder provides a buffer space between cars and pedestrians
•The traffic flow would be much smoother and safer than it is currently; removing parking will help
congestion
What do you community members DISLIKE about the Ottawa Avenue Sidewalk Option?
•The shoulders may encourage drivers to speed up, and vehicles already drive too fast
o Would prefer to see the 4’ extra space used as a boulevard/landscape buffer
•Does not maintain parking
•It does not provide a dedicated bike lane/bike facility
•The sidewalks are not wide enough
•The 4’ space is confusing – is it for bikes?
•Delivery trucks may stop there and create congestion
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 17
Beltline Blvd Pedestrian Improvements - Concept Recommendations
September 23, 2020
Page 7
Ottawa Avenue: Trail Option
What do you community members LIKE about the Ottawa Avenue Trail Option?
•The wide, multi-use trail would be very nice
o Improvement for people walking and biking
o The trail provides a comfortable space for people of all ages and abilities to ride their bike
•It keeps bicyclists away from car traffic
•The parking lane is removed which currently causes issues with the traffic flow
•The street is narrowed which will help slow car traffic
What do you community members DISLIKE about the Ottawa Avenue Trail Option?
•There may be conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists on the trail, especially since it’s a big hill
•Would prefer a dedicated space for bicycling
•No on-street parking available
•No landscaping/boulevard between the sidewalk and street
•The light rail station will be on the east side of the street, and the trail is on the west side of the street.
•Concerned about the width of the road in the winter with snow accumulation
Beltline Boulevard: Multiuse Trail Option
What do you community members LIKE about the Ottawa Avenue Trail Option?
•Provides options for bicyclists and walkers on both sides of Beltline Blvd
•Like the road diet
•Love the plan
•Fewer travel lanes slows traffic
•Better bike access
•Big safety improvement where everyone gets space
What do you community members DISLIKE about the Ottawa Avenue Trail Option?
•Single travel lanes will cause congestion
•Nothing
•No crosswalk across Beltline Blvd at W. 35th St.
•Would like protected bike lanes on Beltline Blvd.
•Losing car lanes
•Do we really need a multi-use trail on both sides?
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Lynn Avenue: One-way Northbound Street Option
2.Lynn Avenue: One-way Southbound Street Option
3.Lynn Avenue: Two-way Street Option
4.Ottawa Avenue: Sidewalk Option
5.Ottawa Avenue: Trail Option
6.Beltline Boulevard: Multiuse Trail Option
7.Open House #1 Presentation
8.Open House #2 Presentation
9.Survey Results
10.Parking Study
wdh
x:\pt\s\stlou\155416\4-prelim-dsgn-rpts\44-report\20200923 155416 beltline bldv ped improvements seh memo.docx
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 18
NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND CROSSWALKTO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH SOUTHWESTLIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT8.5' SIDEWALK10' TRAVEL LANE8' PARKING LANE6' SIDEWALKNEW TRAIL ALONG SOUTH FRONTAGE ROADTO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH SOUTHWESTLIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECTLYNN AVE. TRAFFIC DATA:DAILY BICYCLE COUNT - 2 (2017 - COUNTED AT MINNETONKA BLVD.)DAILY PEDESTRIAN COUNT - 50 (2017 - COUNTED AT MINNETONKA BLVD.)͚Ȁ͖͘Ȁ͖͔͖͔͗ǣ͕͘ǣ̴̴̳͔͕͖̳͗ ̴̳
̴̴̴̴̴̴̳̳͔͕͖͗ǤLynn Ave One-Way Option (Northbound) - 7/8/2020Lynn Ave. - ExistingLynn Ave. - ProposedPreliminary Concept - Not for ConstructionStudy session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6) Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian ImprovementsPage 19
NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND CROSSWALKTO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH SOUTHWESTLIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT8.5' SIDEWALK8' PARKING LANE10' TRAVEL LANE6' SIDEWALKNEW TRAIL ALONG SOUTH FRONTAGE ROADTO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH SOUTHWESTLIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECTLYNN AVE. TRAFFIC DATA:DAILY BICYCLE COUNT - 2 (2017 - COUNTED AT MINNETONKA BLVD.)DAILY PEDESTRIAN COUNT - 50 (2017 - COUNTED AT MINNETONKA BLVD.)͚Ȁ͖͘Ȁ͖͔͖͔͗ǣ͕͘ǣ̴̴̳͔͕͖̳͗ ̴̳
̴̴̴̴̴̴̳̳͔͕͖͗ǤLynn Ave One-Way (Southbound) Option - 7/8/2020Lynn Ave. - ExistingLynn Ave. - ProposedPreliminary Concept - Not for ConstructionLYNN AVE. TRAFFIC DATA:DAILY BICYCLE COUNT - 2 (2017 - COUNTED AT MINNETONKA BLVD.)DAILY PEDESTRIAN COUNT - 50 (2017 - COUNTED AT MINNETONKA BLVD.)NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND CROSSWALKTO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH SOUTHWESTLIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT8.5' SIDEWALK8' PARKING LANE10' TRAVEL LANE6' SIDEWALKNEW TRAIL ALONG SOUTH FRONTAGE ROADTO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH SOUTHWESTLIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT9/18/2020Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6) Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian ImprovementsPage 20
NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND CROSSWALKTO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH SOUTHWESTLIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT7.5' SIDEWALK10' TRAVEL LANE10' TRAVEL LANE5' SIDEWALKNEW TRAIL ALONG SOUTH FRONTAGE ROADTO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH SOUTHWESTLIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECTLYNN AVE. TRAFFIC DATA:DAILY BICYCLE COUNT - 2 (2017 - COUNTED AT MINNETONKA BLVD.)DAILY PEDESTRIAN COUNT - 50 (2017 - COUNTED AT MINNETONKA BLVD.)͚Ȁ͖͘Ȁ͖͔͖͔͗ǣ͕͘ǣ̴̴̳͔͕͖̳͗ ̴̳
̴̴̴̴̴̴̳̳͔͕͖͗ǤLynn Ave. Two-Way Option - 7/8/2020Lynn Ave. - ExistingLynn Ave. - ProposedPreliminary Concept - Not for ConstructionStudy session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6) Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian ImprovementsPage 21
75$9(//$1(
75$9(//$1(
6+28/'(5
6,'(:$/.
6+28/'(5
6,'(:$/.
75$9(//$1(
75$9(//$1(
6+28/'(5
%28/(9$5'
6+28/'(5
6,'(:$/.
6,'(:$/.
75$,/
75$,/75$)),&6,*1$/$1'&5266:$/.672%(&216758&7('$63$572)6287+:(67/,*+75$,/352-(&7(;,67,1*5287(75$16,76723:((.'$<3$66(1*(56,1 (;,67,1*5287(75$16,76723:((.'$<3$66(1*(56,1 277$:$$9(75$)),&'$7$ $9(5$*($118$/'$,/<027259(+,&/(6 '$,/<%,&<&/(&2817 &2817('$7&6$+ '$,/<3('(675,$1&2817 &2817('$70,11(721.$%/9' Ottawa Ave. Sidewalk Option - 7/8/20202WWDZD$YH([LVWLQJ2WWDZD$YH3URSRVHG3UHOLPLQDU\&RQFHSW1RWIRU&RQVWUXFWLRQStudy session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6) Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian ImprovementsPage 22
75$9(//$1(
75$9(//$1(
6,'(:$/.
75$,/
75$,/
75$,/
75$9(//$1(
75$9(//$1(
%28/(9$5'
75$,/
6,'(:$/.75$)),&6,*1$/$1'&5266:$/.672%(&216758&7('$63$572)6287+:(67/,*+75$,/352-(&7(;,67,1*5287(75$16,76723:((.'$<3$66(1*(56,1 (;,67,1*5287(75$16,76723:((.'$<3$66(1*(56,1 277$:$$9(75$)),&'$7$ $9(5$*($118$/'$,/<027259(+,&/(6 '$,/<%,&<&/(&2817 &2817('$7&6$+ '$,/<3('(675,$1&2817 &2817('$70,11(721.$%/9' Ottawa Ave. Trail Option - 7/8/20202WWDZD$YH([LVWLQJ2WWDZD$YH3URSRVHG3UHOLPLQDU\&RQFHSW1RWIRU&RQVWUXFWLRQStudy session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6) Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian ImprovementsPage 23
Beltline Blvd. - Trail &RQFHSWBeltline Blvd. - ExistingBeltline Blvd. - Trail &RQFHSW - 7/8/2020Preliminary Concept - Not for ConstructionCity of St. Louis ParkHennepin County, MNPROPOSED 10' MULTI-USE TRAILEXISTING 9' MULTI-USE TRAILMETRO TRANSIT ROUTE 17FALL STRIPING NOT PART OF THIS PROJECTCROSSING TO EAST TRAILStudy session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6) Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian ImprovementsPage 24
Beltline Boulevard Pedestrian
Improvements Project
Virtual Open House
July 14, 2020
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 25
Agenda
•Staff Introductions
•Zoom Meeting Overview
•Project Introduction
•Study Area Overview
•Project Timeline
•Design Concepts
•Lynn Ave
•Ottawa Ave
•Beltline Blvd
•Project Survey
•Discussion & Q/A
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 26
Introductions
•City of St. Louis Park
•Ben Manibog
•City Council Members
•Margaret Rog, Ward 1
•Anne Mavity, Ward 2
•Consultant Staff
•Wayne Houle, PE, SEH
•Connor Cox, Toole Design
•Chris Bower, PE, Toole Design
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 27
Zoom Meeting Overview
•All participants are muted upon entry
•Have a question or comment?
•Use the Chat feature
•Use the “Raise Hand” feature and we will unmute your audio
•If calling in by phone you can:
•Press *9 to “raise hand”
•Press *6 to unmute and mute
•This meeting is being recorded
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 28
2. Open
Participant
Window
3. Use ‘raise hand’
icon to request to
be unmuted
Have a question or comment?
1. Type it in the
Chat window
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 29
Minimize all video
Show active
speaker only Show all video
(default)
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 30
Study Area Overview
•Beltline Blvd
•36th St to County Rd 25
•Ottawa Ave
•County Rd 25 to Minnetonka Blvd
•Lynn Ave
•County Rd 25 to Minnetonka Blvd
•County Rd 25 Service Rd*
•Beltline Blvd and Lynn Ave
•*Developed as part of SWLRT project
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 31
Project Timeline
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 32
Live Poll
Using the built in polling feature on Zoom, please check all of the
following that apply to you:
I live within or near the study area
I work or attend school within or near the study area
I travel to or through the study area
I bike or walk within the study area
I am a property owner in the study area
I am generally interested in this project
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 33
What is the project?
•Opportunity to provide safer and more comfortable connections to
•The upcoming Beltline Blvd SWLRT station
•The Cedar Lake Trail
•Metro Transit’s route 17 and 615 buses
•Local businesses and the Rec Center/ROC
•Carpenter, Bass Lake, and Wolfe Park
•Your house or apartment
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 34
Why are we here?
•Existing sidewalk gaps
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 35
Why are we here?
•It is difficult to cross County Road 25
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 36
Why are we here?
•Some sidewalks are not accessible nor comfortable
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 37
What is a concept design?
City policies Technical
analysis
Community
feedback
Concept
design
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 38
•Council strategic priorities –Mobility, Racial equity and inclusion,
environmental stewardship, community engagement
•Connect the Park –Adding sidewalk, trails, and bikeways city-wide
•Comprehensive plan –Prioritize pedestrians, then bicyclists and
transit users, then drivers
City
policies
Technical
analysis
Community
feedback
Concept
design
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 39
•Climate Action Plan –Reduce vehicle emissions by 25% by 2030
•Living Streets –Build community, environmental, and economic
benefits on transportation projects.
•Complete Streets
•Addressing the safety needs of road users of all ages and abilities
•Considering the needs of all types of road users sensitive to local context
City
policies
Technical
analysis
Community
feedback
Concept
design
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 40
•Parking study –How do people use on-street parking during the
week?
City
policies
Technical
analysis
Community
feedback
Concept
design
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 41
City
policies
Technical
analysis
Community
feedback
Concept
design
How you can participate:
•Attend meetings (you’re already here!)
•Take the project survey
•Call/email city staff or council members
•Site visits
•Letters
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 42
Ottawa Ave
Minnetonka Blvd
Ottawa AveStudy session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 43
Ottawa Ave Existing Conditions
*Looking north
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 44
Ottawa Ave Sidewalk Option
*Looking north
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 45
Ottawa Ave Trail Option
*Looking north
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 46
Ottawa Ave -Discussion
ExistingSidewalk OptionTrail OptionStudy session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 47
Lynn Ave
Minnetonka Blvd
Lynn AveStudy session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 48
Lynn Ave Existing Conditions
*Looking north
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 49
Lynn Ave One-Way Street Option
*Looking north
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 50
Lynn Ave Two-Way Street Option
*Looking north
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 51
Lynn Ave -Discussion
ExistingOne-Way Street OptionTwo-Way Street OptionStudy session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 52
Beltline Blvd
W 36th StHwy 100Planned Beltline
SWLRT station
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 53
Beltline Blvd Existing Conditions
*Looking north
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 54
Beltline Blvd Trail Concept
*Looking north
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 55
Beltline Blvd -Discussion
Existing
Trail Concept
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 56
Project Survey
•Survey developed to gather community members feedback on the
concepts presented in this presentation
•Survey live 7/15 through Friday July 31st
•Survey link is on the project website: https://bit.ly/BeltlineSWLRT
•Paper/analog copies of the survey are available upon request
•Contact Ben Manibog at 952.924.2669 or bmanibog@stlouispark.org
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 57
Project Next Steps
•Survey open from 7/15 through 7/31
•Small group stakeholder meetings
•Gather and review survey results
•Revise concept drawings and prepare recommended concepts
•Virtual open house #2 (Fall 2020)
•City Council presentation (Fall 2020)
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 58
Discussion + Q/A
•Please only ask questions related to this project
•Enter your questions/comments into the Chat window OR use the
‘Raise Hand’ feature and we will unmute your audio
•If calling by phone, dial *9 to “raise hand”
•An FAQ will be published on the project website after the meeting,
including answering any questions that we were unable to answer
during the meeting
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 59
Thank you for tuning in!
•Meeting recording will be posted on the project website
•Sign up for email updates on project website
•https://bit.ly/BeltlineSWLRT
•Contact information
•Ben Manibog, bmanibog@stlouispark.org 952.924.2669
•Southwest Light Rail contact information
•www.swlrt.org, 612.373.3933
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 60
Beltline Boulevard Pedestrian
Improvements Project
Virtual Open House
September 23rd , 2020
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 61
Agenda
•Staff Introductions
•Zoom Meeting Overview
•Project Introduction
•Study Area Overview
•Project Timeline
•Design Concepts
•Community feedback & Recommended concepts
•Lynn Ave
•Ottawa Ave
•Beltline Blvd
•Discussion & Q/A
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 62
Introductions
•City of St. Louis Park
•Ben Manibog
•City Council Members
•Margaret Rog, Ward 1
•Anne Mavity, Ward 2
•Consultant Staff
•Wayne Houle, PE, SEH
•Connor Cox, Toole Design
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 63
Zoom Meeting Overview
•All participants are muted upon entry
•Have a question or comment?
•Use the Chat feature
•Use the “Raise Hand” feature and we will unmute your audio
•If calling in by phone you can:
•Press *9 to “raise hand”
•Press *6 to unmute and mute
•This meeting is being recorded
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 64
2. Open
Participant
Window
3. Use ‘raise hand’
icon to request to
be unmuted
Have a question or comment?
1. Type it in the
Chat window
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 65
Minimize all video
Show active
speaker only Show all video
(default)
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 66
Study Area Overview
•Beltline Blvd
•36th St to County Rd 25
•Ottawa Ave
•County Rd 25 to Minnetonka Blvd
•Lynn Ave
•County Rd 25 to Minnetonka Blvd
•County Rd 25 Service Rd*
•Beltline Blvd and Lynn Ave
•*Developed as part of SWLRT project
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 67
Project Timeline
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 68
Community Engagement
•Virtual Open House (June 2020) ~50 attendees
•Online survey (June 2020) ~ 395 participants
•Small group stakeholder meetings
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 69
Live Poll
Using the built-in polling feature on Zoom, please check all of the
following that apply to you:
I live within or near the study area
I work or attend school within or near the study area
I travel to or through the study area
I bike or walk within the study area
I am a property owner in the study area
I am generally interested in this project
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 70
What is the project?
•Opportunity to provide safer and more comfortable connections to
•The upcoming Beltline Blvd SWLRT station
•The Cedar Lake Trail
•Metro Transit’s route 17 and 615 buses
•Local businesses and the Rec Center/ROC
•Carpenter, Bass Lake, and Wolfe Park
•Your house or apartment
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 71
Why are we here?
•Existing sidewalk gaps
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 72
Why are we here?
•It is difficult to cross County Road 25
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 73
Why are we here?
•Some sidewalks are not accessible nor comfortable
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 74
What is a concept design?
City policies Technical
analysis
Community
feedback
Concept
design
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 75
•Council strategic priorities –Mobility, Racial equity and inclusion,
environmental stewardship, community engagement
•Connect the Park –Adding sidewalk, trails, and bikeways city-wide
•Comprehensive plan –Prioritize pedestrians, then bicyclists and
transit users, then drivers
City
policies
Technical
analysis
Community
feedback
Concept
design
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 76
•Climate Action Plan –Reduce vehicle emissions by 25% by 2030
•Living Streets –Build community, environmental, and economic
benefits on transportation projects.
•Complete Streets
•Addressing the safety needs of road users of all ages and abilities
•Considering the needs of all types of road users sensitive to local context
City
policies
Technical
analysis
Community
feedback
Concept
design
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 77
•Parking study –How do people use on-street parking during the
week?
City
policies
Technical
analysis
Community
feedback
Concept
design
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 78
City
policies
Technical
analysis
Community
feedback
Concept
design
How you can participate:
•Attend meetings (you’re already here!)
•Call/email city staff or council members
•Socially distanced site visits w/ staff
•Letters
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 79
Ottawa Ave
Minnetonka Blvd
Ottawa AveStudy session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 80
Ottawa Ave Existing Conditions
*Looking north
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 81
Ottawa Ave Sidewalk Option
*Looking north What community members LIKED:
•Improvements for pedestrians andbicyclists
•It has wider sidewalks compared to existing
•The 4-foot shoulder could function as a bikelane
•The 4-foot shoulder provides a buffer spacebetween cars and pedestrians
•The traffic flow would be much smootherand safer than it is currently; removingparking will help congestion
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 82
Ottawa Ave Sidewalk Option
*Looking north What community members DISLIKED:
•The shoulders may encourage drivers tospeed up, and vehicles already drive too fast
•Would prefer to see the 4’ extra space used as aboulevard/landscape buffer
•Does not maintain parking
•It does not provide a dedicated bike lane/bikefacility
•The sidewalks are not wide enough
•The 4’ space is confusing –is it for bikes?
•Delivery trucks may stop there and createcongestion
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 83
Ottawa Ave Trail Option
*Looking north What community members LIKED:
•The wide, multi-use trail would be very nice
•Improvement for people walking and biking
•The trail provides a comfortable space for people
of all ages and abilities to ride their bike
•It keeps bicyclists away from car traffic
•The parking lane is removed which currently
causes issues with the traffic flow
•The street is narrowed which will help slow
car traffic
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 84
Ottawa Ave Trail Option
*Looking north What community members DISLIKED:
•Potential conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists on the trail, especially bikers going downhill
•Would prefer a dedicated space for bicycling
•No on-street parking available
•No landscaping/boulevard between the sidewalk and street
•The light rail station will be on the east side of the street, and the trail is on the west side of the street.
•Concerned about the width of the road in the winter with snow accumulation
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 85
Ottawa Ave –Recommended Concept Plan
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 86
Ottawa Ave Discussion
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 87
Lynn Ave
Minnetonka Blvd
Lynn AveStudy session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 88
Lynn Ave Existing Conditions
*Looking north
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 89
Lynn Ave One-Way Street Option
*Looking north What community members LIKED:
•There is more space for pedestrians
•The wider sidewalks will feel less crowded
•The wider sidewalk on the west side makes it easierto walk or roll around the utility poles
•Pleased to have sidewalks on both sides of the street
•It maintains parking
•Important on this street due to the residential homesand apartments
•The existing parking is heavily used
•It would be more comfortable for people biking
•It would likely be quieter/less car traffic whichwould be appealing to residents
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 90
Lynn Ave One-Way Street Option
*Looking north What community members DISLIKED:
•The one-way street may encourage vehicle speeding
•It does not have a bike lane/bike facility
•One-way may require some vehicles to circle theblock; directs more traffic to surrounding streets
•The one-way may be confusing for motorists
•Do not think it’s necessary to have sidewalks onboth sides of the street
•The on-street parking in the winter will encroachthe drive lane
•No landscaping/boulevard between the sidewalkand street
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 91
Lynn Ave Two-Way Street Option
*Looking north What community members LIKED:
•It allows two-way traffic
•Drivers stay on Lynn and don’t divert toadjacent streets or frontage road alongHighway 7
•It is improved for pedestrians
•Wider sidewalk on the west
•Sidewalk added on east
•Easier to maintain (street-sweeping andsnow plowing operations) with no on-street parking
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 92
Lynn Ave Two-Way Street Option
*Looking north What community members DISLIKED:
•It removes on-street parking
•Concerned that vehicle speeds may
increase without on-street parking
•It does not have a bike lane/bike facility
•The sidewalks are narrower than the one-
way option
•No landscaping/boulevard between the
sidewalk and street
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 93
Lynn Ave –Recommended Concept Plan
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 94
Lynn Ave Discussion
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 95
Beltline Blvd
W 36th StHwy 100Planned Beltline
SWLRT station
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 96
Beltline Blvd -Discussion
Existing
Trail Concept
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 97
Survey Results –Beltline Blvd
What community members LIKED:
•Provides options for bicyclists and walkers on both sides of Beltline
Blvd
•Like the road diet
•Love the plan
•Fewer travel lanes slows traffic
•Better bike access
•Big safety improvement where everyone gets space
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 98
Survey Results –Beltline Blvd
What community members DISLIKED:
•Single travel lanes will cause congestion
•Nothing
•No crosswalk across Beltline Blvd at W. 35th St.
•Would like protected bike lanes on Beltline Blvd.
•Losing car lanes
•Do we really need a multi-use trail on both sides?
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 99
Beltline Blvd -Recommendation
Trail Concept
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 100
Beltline Blvd –Plan View
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 101
Project Next Steps
•Recommendation presented to City Council
•Study Session Report presented to council on September 29th
•Public hearing on October 5th, 6:30 pm
•City Council decision on October 19th, 6:30 pm
•Public comments accepted through Tuesday, October 13th
•Email comments to Ben Manibog at bmanibog@stlouispark.org
•Mail comments to Ben Manibog at to 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
•Comments put into public hearing report and council decision packet
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 102
Discussion + Q/A
•Please only ask questions related to this project
•Enter your questions/comments into the Chat window OR use the
‘Raise Hand’ feature and we will unmute your audio
•If calling by phone, dial *9 to “raise hand
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 103
Thank you for tuning in!
•Meeting recording will be posted on the project website
•Sign up for email updates on project website
•https://bit.ly/BeltlineSWLRT
•Contact information
•Ben Manibog, bmanibog@stlouispark.org 952.924.2669
•Southwest Light Rail contact information
•www.swlrt.org, 612.373.3933
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 104
Beltline Boulevard Pedestrian Improvements
Project - Final Survey Report
Completion Rate:57%
Complete 225
Partial 170
Totals: 395
Response Counts
1
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 105
1. Check the following that apply to you: (Check all that apply)PercentI live within or
near the study
area
I work or attend
school within or
near the study
area
I travel to or
through the
study area
I bike or walk
within the study
area
I am a property
owner in the
study area
I am generally
interested in
this project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Value Percent Responses
I live within or near the study area 59.4%202
I work or attend school within or near the study area 20.6%70
I travel to or through the study area 64.1%218
I bike or walk within the study area 62.4%212
I am a property owner in the study area 13.2%45
I am generally interested in this project 53.8%183
2
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 106
2. Which race and ethnic group(s) do you identify with? Mark all that apply.PercentAsian/Asian-AmericanBlack/African-American/AfricanCaucasian/White-American/European-AmericanHispanic/LatinxNative American/Indigenous/First NationPacific IslanderAnother race or ethnicity not listed (please specify)0
20
40
60
80
100
Value Percent Responses
Asian/Asian-American 0.9%3
Black/African-American/African 0.6%2
Caucasian/White-American/European-American 94.7%305
Hispanic/Latinx 3.1%10
Native American/Indigenous/First Nation 0.9%3
Pacific Islander 0.9%3
Another race or ethnicity not listed (please specify)1.9%6
3
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 107
Another race or ethnicity not listed (please specify)Count
Jewish 1
MYOB 1
NA 1
Prefer not to answer 1
Totals 4
4
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 108
3. How do you describe your gender identity?
52% Female52% Female
46% Male46% Male
1% Non-binary1% Non-binary
1% A gender not listed (please
specify)
1% A gender not listed (please
specify)
Value Percent Responses
Female 52.4%172
Male 46.0%151
Non-binary 0.9%3
A gender not listed (please specify)0.6%2
Totals: 328
A gender not listed (please specify)Count
MYOB 1
Totals 1
5
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 109
4. What is your age?
3% 18-243% 18-24
22% 25-3422% 25-34
24% 35-4424% 35-44
16% 45-5416% 45-54
35% 55+35% 55+
Value Percent Responses
18-24 2.7%9
25-34 22.1%73
35-44 23.9%79
45-54 16.1%53
55+35.2%116
Totals: 330
6
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 110
5. What is your approximate household income?
2% 0-25k2% 0-25k
8% 25-50k8% 25-50k
16% 50-75k16% 50-75k
18% 75-100k18% 75-100k
56% 100k+56% 100k+
Value Percent Responses
0-25k 2.3%7
25-50k 8.1%25
50-75k 16.1%50
75-100k 17.7%55
100k+55.8%173
Totals: 310
7
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 111
6. How many cars does your household have?
1% 01% 0
28% 128% 1
63% 263% 2
6% 36% 3
2% 4 or more2% 4 or more
Value Percent Responses
0 1.2%4
1 27.6%92
2 62.8%209
3 6.0%20
4 or more 2.4%8
Totals: 333
8
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 112
7. How many people live in your household?
17% 117% 1
44% 244% 2
16% 316% 3
23% 4 or more23% 4 or more
Value Percent Responses
1 17.1%57
2 43.5%145
3 15.9%53
4 or more 23.4%78
Totals: 333
9
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 113
8. When was the last time you participated in a community engagement process with
the City of Saint Louis Park?
40% Never40% Never
39% Within the last year39% Within the last year
15% Within the last 5 years15% Within the last 5 years
4% Within the last 10 years4% Within the last 10 years
2% Longer than 10 years ago2% Longer than 10 years ago
Value Percent Responses
Never 40.2%135
Within the last year 39.3%132
Within the last 5 years 14.6%49
Within the last 10 years 3.6%12
Longer than 10 years ago 2.4%8
Totals: 336
10
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 114
9. How do you like the Lynn Avenue One-way Street Option?
14% Strongly Dislike14% Strongly Dislike
15% Dislike15% Dislike
28% Neutral28% Neutral
27% Like27% Like
17% Strongly Like17% Strongly Like
Value Percent Responses
Strongly Dislike 13.6%32
Dislike 14.8%35
Neutral 28.0%66
Like 27.1%64
Strongly Like 16.5%39
Totals: 236
11
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 115
ResponseID Response
17 More space for pedestrians and parking is always my preference. There are enough
ways to drive in a circle around that block as is.
20 I like avoiding the turn from Lynn on to Mtka Blvd
23 Wider sidewalks.
24 calmer
25 I like that it includes parking, and since traffic is low on that street so one way feels okay.
29 I like that it keeps the parking, which is needed
30 It maintains parking while allowing sufficient sidewalk for pedestrian traffic on both sides
of the street.
31 It retains the parking that i'm sure the residents will want. Although, we do not live in this
area.
32 I live on Minnetonka Blvd and honestly it feels like the unfriendliest street (east of 100)
for pedestrians. I think this is the most restrictive model which would reduce traffic on
Minnetonka. Also, making it northbound would decrease the likelihood of cars speeding
east Minnetonka and turning right on that street. I also think it meets the needs of the
residents on that street.
33 It maintains parking while allowing for better sidewalk flow.
34 Maintaining the parking and improving the sidewalks
36 Retains parking for residents while making more room for pedestrians.
37 Would diagonal parking with mor slots in lieu of the eastern sidewalk be practical?
38 Something for everyone. Spacious.
39 The Lynn project has impact on me.
40 n/a
41 more sidewalk for pedestrians
44 Traffic calming. Hopefully a one way street will slow things down a bit, although people
may speed up with no opposing traffic. Sidewalks on both sides is a huge bonus.
46 more walking
10. T ell us what you LIKE about the Lynn Avenue One-way Street Option?
12
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 116
48 I like the focus on pedestrian access and comfort.
51 I think it is OK as long as the road going from the police station and city hall to the
frontage road allows you to go the opposite direction. It will make driving in this area of
town harder and more irritating, which is ultimately a good thing.
53 Better for pedestrians and parking.
57 reduction in traffic volume and direction
58 It accommodates pedestrians (my #1 priority, driving and parking)
63 larger sidewalk
65 residential are deserves a quieter feel
69 More room for bikes and walkers.
71 I like two sidewalks, same width driving lane, and larger parking lane.
72 More space to walk, easier to bike with only one-way cars
73 Nothing - far too much pedestrian space that could be driving and parking space
77 Wide sidewalk
79 It's safer to walk when traffic is from one direction. Lynn avenue connects to businesses
near the Lake/7 split, so I expect some pedestrians.
81 Maximizes sidewalk size
85 better bike/walk option, preserves on street parking
88 Large areas for pedestrians
92 Parking available and wide sidewalk
93 Double side walk
95 I like having a wider sidewalk - will help when running or walking two abreast. I like that
walkers/bikers only need to contend with traffic in one direction.
96 More biking and walking and parking space
97 Extra-wide sidewalk on one side of the street.
100 I like the additional space for non-auto uses
ResponseID Response
13
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 117
103 Sidewalk and space
104 Wide sidewalk, and room for parking.
106 Appears to be safer for non vehicular traffic.
107 Large sidewalks
110 I like that it provides for moving traffic, parking and two sides of pedestrians.
111 Don't like this option at all, keep two-way with pedestrian sidewalk on one side.
113 Sidewalks on both sides, slowed traffic due to narrowed driving space
117 It preserves parking.
119 wider sidewalks, sidewalk on both sides, retains parking
124 The weather presented in the render
125 I like that it still keeps a parking option on the street. I live on this section of Lynn Avenue
and it is extremely important for us to have parking on this street! Would prefer if no
changes were made at all, but if you're going to go with one of the options, please keep
parking! We are reliant on it.
126 I rarely drive on Lynn Avenue nor do I live in the area, so I do not have a strong opinion
on either option
127 Making the sidewalk accessible, dealing with those utility poles; Keeping some on-street
parking.
128 More sidewalk space.
129 More sidewalks!
133 More room for pedestrians. De-emphasizes car traffic.
138 Single traffic lane.
141 Sidewalks are incredibly important and should be a standard feature of just about every
road.
144 Still allows for some parking while giving pedestrians more space
147 I like the wide sidewalks, but not living there, I'm not sure of the traffic impact.
153 Seems quieter
ResponseID Response
14
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 118
156 Wide sidewalk
158 Seems to make sense with the pedestrian and bike traffic I've seen in this specific area.
160 Less congestion
161 More space for people, less for cars.
162 More room for sidewalks
163 Parking is retained. creates space on both sides of the street for Pedestrians.
169 The wide sidewalks on each side On-street parking
170 Large two sidewalks!
171 sidewalks on both sides
176 Better traffic flow.
178 Less traffic. All on same side. Safer for pedestrians
179 I like having the parking lane.
182 Parking
187 I like the sidewalks on both sides of the street.
188 Will ease the flow of traffic movement
191 I appreciate the larger sidewalk
192 nothing
193 Traffic reduction
195 Lots of walking area
196 More space for pedestrians.
206 more room on the sidewalks
211 I don't
214 The one-way NB is good. I also like the 8.5 ft. sidewalk and the sider parking lane.
ResponseID Response
15
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 119
217 Incorporates parking, which is helpful to have at all times. Also, sidewalks are gracious
and will feel safer.
219 Preserves street parking. Allows for less crowded pedestrian areas.
223 Less pavement for cars is a plus.
224 More sidewalk space
225 I like that there is a sidewalk on the side with the parking lane. It makes one feel more
comfortable when getting out of the car.
228 I don't like it.
232 space for pedestrians on both sides of the street, preserves on-street parking
234 Nothing
235 More space for pedestrians.
239 The road seems really narrow for 2-way traffic anyway, and it's really nice to have wider
sidewalks.
247 Leaves parking while creating safe sidewalks on BOTH sides of the street, which is
necessary!
252 Wider lane and sidewalk and lower traffic
256 larger side walk
257 One way street and sidewalk on both sides
259 More space for walking through that neighborhood. I often take this route home form
the bus stop at Minnetonka Blvd & France Ave S.
262 More space for pedestrians!
264 Safe walkable slower friendly greener
268 Nothing as it is too limited and there is no need for sidewalks on both sides of the street.
269 more pedestrian space
270 Better for pedestrians. Probably safer as well.
273 Traffic going in one direction might be easier for pedestrians.
ResponseID Response
16
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 120
276 Sidewalks on both sides
277 lots of space for walking.
281 I don't
282 Maintaining parking on the street.
283 10' drive lane
284 Walking should be prioritized over cars but can a bike lane be included
285 Only one sidewalk probably necessary but parking on the street already makes two way
auto traffic difficult
289 larger sidewalks-one way traffic
297 The streets in Triangle are often over-burdened by parked cars, esp. difficult in snowy
weather.
298 Safer
299 More pedestrian space.
307 provides parking on the street
310 Neutral.
312 Less traffic
314 Slower traffic, safer for pedestrians
315 More space for pedestrians and bikes. Less cars is better. It's a pretty quite street
anyway
318 Increased parking options and less car traffic (feels safer for pedestrians and bikers)
320 It seems like it would reduce cut thru traffic and increase pedestrian/bike friendlyness
327 Large sidewalks
329 have more room for driving
331 wider sidewalks, two sidewalks
333 More pedestrian friendly!
ResponseID Response
17
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 121
334 One way on Lynn is best. However, Northbound transition onto Minnetonka Blvd is
always dodgy. There is not a light, and traffic is fast in both directions. The one way
traffic should go South. I go North all the time, but that turn is dangerous.
338 Sidewalks on both sides of the road.
339 Better traffic flow at peak times.
341 Ability to walk on both sides
342 I'm glad you are keeping the parking lane. It is heavily used, and the nature of the
adjacent buildings makes it necessary. Adding the 2nd sidewalk is important. The one-
way street should be Southbound, to keep traffic on main roads and discourage car
travel through the neighborhood to the north.
345 I like the addition of sidewalks.
346 enhanced sidewalks, on-street parking--good for both parking and buffering sidewalk
349 There is still street parking on Lynn Ave.
351 Safer for people and bikers in the area
352 safe wider sidewalk
355 Parking lane is available.
373 wider sidewalks
377 Provides for safe, convenient walking while still providing some on-street parking and
car traffic. Would also slow down vehicles.
379 Retains parking lane and provides wide sidewalks
381 plenty of room of pedestrians on sidewalks. one-way car traffic ensures bikers have less
to worry about when biking in the road.
384 Keeping a parking option and the sidewalks that can be used for biking. The direction I
have no opinion.
386 NA
388 I have nothing to say
394 nothing
395 Wider sidewalk
ResponseID Response
18
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 122
396 nice wide sidewalks
399 Nothing
400 It allows street parking and will ellimate some traffic in an area with many pedestrians
401 more room for pedestrians.
403 More room for pedestrians on both sides of street
404 Preserves parking, allows wider sidewalk than present
408 I think there needs to be a way to accommodate parking.
409 Provides more sidewalk width for pedestrians while still allowing for some on-street
parking.
ResponseID Response
19
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 123
ResponseID Response
20 Wondering if it would encourage speeding?
23 Cars would be turning up the tiny streets around them and disrupting residents.
25 It's hard that it's a one way street but I get the factors and that it's still the best plan.
31 Might be a bit confusing for those living on that street initially. And no place to park
during snow emergencies.
33 Nothing
36 Nothing
37 If southbound is chosen, would parking be on left of the drive lane? That does not seem
safe.
39 The Lynn project has impact on me.
40 n/a
41 would force more traffic to frontage road which is not very wide already when people
parking there
44 The crosswalk jog layout is suboptimal. Humans being what they are, they're likely to
take the shortest possible route across the frontage road, rather than jog over, cross
frontage, and cross Lynn.
48 I don't travel on Lynn Ave. so I don't know if one-way is easy for cars.
49 limits travel options to one direction only. It's a useful route if Ottawa is backed up as it is
at times
53 One ways tend to encourage speeding.
54 Limits access and routes too drastically
55 1 way limits access and routing
57 nothing comes to mind
63 larger sidewalk not need just for pedestrians. Should be shared space for bikes and
pedestirans
73 Nothing - far too much pedestrian space that could be driving and parking space
77 Using road right of way for parking
11. What do you DISLIKE about the Lynn Avenue One-way Street Option?
20
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 124
79 It's sometimes hard to parallel park.
84 one-way no bike lane
88 No space for bikes still crowded
92 Nothing
93 Parking, added time to get places
97 There is not enough traffic to warrant one-way movement. This option would require
vehicles to circle the block too often, which is a problem under the best of conditions but
especially when considering the difficulty of making a turn onto or from Minnetonka
Boulevard. Also, half of the on-street parking would be lost.
100 One ways allow people to drive faster.
103 Not sure if needed. Heavily traveled?
104 I picture bicycles on the sidewalk, and the street going in whatever direction they want.
107 One way traffic general leads divers to speed up.
110 Bikes are not on the plan.
111 Dislike any proposal for one-way street option.
113 Nothing that I can see.
117 It's a one-way street, but that's okay.
119 lack of trees.
124 No bike lane on street, we don't need two pedestrian lanes, one way in the only access
from and to 36th without going to a highway is not clever, cars with current construction
line up all the way to Minnetonka blvd and to 36th. That means more pollution, winter
months are going to be terrible, and almost nobody walks in winter to be honest.
125 Limits driving to just one-way, and I prefer the two-way parking option that we currently
have.
126 I rarely drive on Lynn Avenue nor do I live in the area, so I do not have a strong opinion
on either option
127 One-way streets can be difficult.
ResponseID Response
21
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 125
128 Generally against one-ways.
129 People typically drive faster on 1-way streets. It's not safe for bicyclists when they get
stuck behind them and look to overpass them.
131 Not necessarily dislike, but my concerns are: -who shovels these large sidewalks? -how
do traffic flow patterns change; are more cars using nearby streets to access
Minnetonka? -Are stop lights needed at Minnetonka to facilitate increased usage on
certain streets due to the change in traffic patterns. -From a fast moving street like
Minnetonka, it can be difficult to tell that streets are one-way; how will this be effectively
communicated
133 No dedicated bike lane.
138 Parking. Would be better with no parking lane.
139 One way streets are confusing and problematic to residents in the area by creating a
need to detour if wanting to go in the opposite direction.
141 It'd be nice to have a bike lane as well, maybe instead of a second sidewalk.
144 could cause more traffic on other streets
145 I want a light at Lynn and Minnetonka for pedestrians. There are Condos and apartment
houses on the Northside of Minnetonka Blvd. will favor Lynn as their route to the LRT
station.
146 I think it is going to take a lot of retraining for people to realize that it is a one way street.
And if it the only one way street, what good it is.
147 Possible traffic problems and a 4' sidewalk on one side seems insufficient for safe
pedestrian travel.
150 It could get bottlenecked if people take frontage road to avoid traffic getting to
Minnetonka or Hwy 25/7. No side walk on frontage road which can be dangerous for
walkers, young students.
152 Confusing for traffic
153 Making that street one-way will introduce some inefficient routing for cars going to and
from the beltline area
156 No boulevard
158 It limits the amount of car traffic... but I don't think a lot of car traffic exists there to begin
with.
164 I'M GENERALLY OPPOSED TO ONE WAY STREETS AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE
ResponseID Response
22
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 126
169 I dislike one-way roads (in general)
170 I don't like one ways, they can cause a lot of confusion and unwanted traffic stops by
police.
174 14.5 feet of sidewalks seems very excessive
177 Harder for residents there>
178 Nothing
182 Navigation
184 I DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR 2 SIDEWALKS, NE BEING 8.5" WIDE
187 I'm not sure the parking lane is necessary.
188 Where will the alternate direction bound traffic be located
191 nothing
192 not 2 way, sidewalks too big
193 It seems to short of a roadway to need two lanes of traffic in the same direction.
195 Might be annoying to only be able to drive one way
196 Residents may not like a one way street.
198 I do not like walking so close to traffic, without a boulevard buffer. I do not think it's
necessary to have sidewalks on both sides at the expense of a lane of traffic.
200 One-way streets are confusing for motorists and could encourage people to drive faster
through it.
206 people don't understand one way streets
211 Traffic flow pattern (the issue of one way)
214 The 6' sidewalk proceeding south
215 One way
217 Someday I'll wish I could just travel the opposite direction without going another block...
I'll live.
223 I don't usually favor one-ways, but here it makes sense.
ResponseID Response
23
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 127
224 Parking where a bike lane could be situated instead.
225 Not sure I like making it a one-way; I am already stressed out driving in that area
because of all the little streets and weird turn arounds.
228 Limits flow options to and from.
232 one-way traffic, no landscaping between the sidewalks and street, sidewalks don't need
to be that wide. Why not 6' sidewalks and 18' road (either one way parking or two-way
no parking)?
234 It is confusing and people will drive the wrong way.
236 I don't like one way streets . It encourages cars to speed. Also, there's no protected bike
lane. BTW I own 2 bikes which wasn't asked in the survey.
239 Too much sidewalk space.
244 I thought One-ways were bad. We just eliminated them downtown Mpls.
247 Nothing that I can think of, though one may might make traveling by car more
complicated.
254 Directs more traffic to adjoining streets
256 the on street parking in the winter will encroach on the driving lane - it always does on
similar roads in the winter - if there are two lanes remaining, one line of traffic can wait
for a gap in the traffic to proceed - this option will be lost with only one lane of traffic - its
a Minnesota problem.
257 N/A
258 It is inconvenient
259 One ways in suburbs confuse the heck out of people! Especially those who are used to it
being a two-way street. I don't like the idea of someone whipping off Cty Rd 25 or Mtka
Blvd the wrong way down a one-way.
262 Why are we subsidizing private automobile storage?
264 Nothing
268 it will make other adjacent avenues too congested
269 limited traffic flow
270 Hard to know the context for how to pick which direction is better. I picked southbound -
but it was almost a toss up.
ResponseID Response
24
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 128
273 Nothing
276 Nothing
277 where will the traffic from the non allowed direction go? will it move to another street
and cause safety or access issues there? what is the plan to address this? one of the
spaces in the one way plan should be for bikers to provide safe access to the new train
station.
281 Not being two lanes
282 We do not need two side walks. The side walk on the east side is not necessary
283 One way streets can confuse people. Likely will have more cars traveling the wrong way
on a one-way street.
284 Lack of bicycle accommodation
285 Parking looked tight
289 wondering how the neighborhood will like it!
290 don't reduce a drive lane for sidewalks. you can only walk on the sidewalks 5
months/year.
297 In general, I dislike short one-way streets, esp. in residential areas.
299 No bike lane.
303 Sidewalk width is excessive for both sidewalks. 4 foot width for each is sufficient. Too
much concrete in the plan.
310 Neutral
312 Less by way traffic, flow of traffic
315 None
318 Northbound option seems a bit less practical for navigational purposes, would rather
see a designated bike lane than additional parking
320 less convienent for the people who live there
322 I just don't think that 1 way is needed.
ResponseID Response
25
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 129
326 Terribly inconvinient for those living on this street.I am not sure why we are even
messing with this street. We have a perfectly good pedestrian bridge down the way to
access the bike trail.
327 One-way traffic
329 how does biking fit in?
331 where is the bike lane?
333 No concerns
334 If it were North bound all traffic would need to run the gauntlet at Minnetonka Blvd.
338 Nothing.
341 I think it is too narrow for 2 lanes and parking
342 The curb abuts the street. No storage for snow.
345 I live on this section of Lynn and do not like the idea of exiting my parking lot and only
having one way to turn for exiting.
346 could cause extra traffic on Ottawa as people go "around the block" to access Lynn from
Mtka or cty 25
349 I will have to go to the frontage road when coming home on Minnetonka in order to get
to my apartment.
352 why not make the wider one for bikes?
355 I don't believe we need sidewalks that wide. Their extra width takes up valuable space
and thus increases costs. I'm basically against Lynn Ave being a one-way street.
373 the one way might be confusing at first.
377 Doesn't provide for bicycles. If the 8 1/2 foot wide sidewalk could be converted to a
multi-purpose trail, that would be preferrable.
381 not much - one way streets seem safer and easier to navigate.
384 nothing
386 NA
393 I am not a fan of one-way streets in the suburbs ever
ResponseID Response
26
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 130
394 Lynn is a short run street - no reason or qualified demand for double sidewalk
395 Loss of directional traffic
396 generally dislike inconvenience of a one way street
399 I dont like the one way option
403 No objections
404 neutral
405 It's too urban. It looks expensive. This must absorb some additional private property.
409 One-way streets aren't desireable
410 Would prefer no chance from existing conditions. Prefer two way driving with parking.
ResponseID Response
27
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 131
12. If Lynn Avenue was converted to one-way for motor vehicles, which direction
would you prefer?
56% Northbound56% Northbound
45% Southbound45% Southbound
Value Percent Responses
Northbound 55.5%106
Southbound 44.5%85
Totals: 191
28
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 132
13. How do you like the Lynn Avenue Two-way Street Option?
8% Strongly Dislike8% Strongly Dislike
18% Dislike18% Dislike
33% Neutral33% Neutral
27% Like27% Like
15% Strongly Like15% Strongly Like
Value Percent Responses
Strongly Dislike 7.7%18
Dislike 18.3%43
Neutral 32.8%77
Like 26.8%63
Strongly Like 14.5%34
Totals: 235
29
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 133
ResponseID Response
20 Allows for 2 way traffic
23 Drivers stay on Lynn and don't cut through other streets to get there.
31 WE don't live in this area. No opinion.
32 It still increases sidewalks
33 Improved sidewalks from the current layout
34 Improving the sidewalk
36 WIth only 'moving' car traffic, it lends to less concern hitting parked vehicles. Parked
vehicles block driver view of pedestrians, possibly becoming a hazard.
39 The Lynn project has impact on me.
40 n/a
41 doesn't force traffic to frontage road next to highway 7
44 Sidewalks on both sides.
46 more walking
48 Two-way traffic.
49 Wide sidewalk is safer, two directional traffic option is very useful as population in the
area increase.
51 It is fine, but I already hear the howling about parking.
53 Those sidewalks!
54 2 way for better routing
55 2 way for better routing
57 few changes for those reluctant to accept change
71 I like the two sidewalks.
72 Sidewalks on both sides
73 Nothing - far too much pedestrian space that could be driving and parking space
14. Tell us what you LIKE about the Lynn Avenue Two-way Street Option?
30
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 134
77 Uses road right of way for transportation rather than property storage (parking)
79 Still has a wide sidewalk.
81 Has two sidewalks
84 two way
88 Large pedestrian area
92 Nothing
93 Same traffic and two sided sidewalk
95 like having the wider sidewalk
100 I like that the road is narrower
101 allows for 2-way and ample walk ways
103 Space and sidewalk
104 Sidewalks are nice.
106 This distributes traffic better than one way.
107 I like two way traffic
110 Able to walk on both sides of the street.
111 Maintains two-way street traffic and sidewalk for pedestrians.
113 Sidewalks on both sides
117 It's two-way.
124 Kept the access to and from 36th
125 I do not like anything about this option
126 I rarely drive on Lynn Avenue nor do I live in the area, so I do not have a strong opinion
on either option
127 The sidewalks.
128 More sidewalk space than present.
ResponseID Response
31
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 135
129 More sidewalks.
133 More room for pedestrians. De-emphasizes car traffic.
138 I do like the elimination of the parking lane.
139 accommodates both direction driving and walking options.
141 Again, sidewalks.
144 allows the existing buildings better access
146 that it is two ways
147 Very sufficient pedestrian travel in a neighborhood with a lot of pedestrians (especially
on shabbat!).
148 I think people who live there should get priority for what they prefer
152 Easier for traffic flow, less confusing for people who may not be from the area. Less risk
of accidents.
153 Sidewalks on both sides
156 Wide sidewalk
158 I always see cars parked along there — I don't think it makes sense to eliminate parking.
161 More space for people, less for cars. I don't use this street so I don't know if two-way is
better than one-way given the change in parking.
163 two way traffic
169 I like the 7.5' sidewalk and two-way traffic
170 allows for two-way traffic.
171 sidewalks on both sides
177 Better for residents
178 Too narrow
179 like the sidewalks
182 Easy to navigate for cars and pedestrians
ResponseID Response
32
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 136
184 Two way street
187 I like the available sidewalks and driving available going both ways.
188 wide sidewalks, traffic in each direction
191 larger sidewalk
192 2 way, 2 sidewalks is nice
195 Two sidewalks
196 Lots of pedestrian walk ways & a 2 way street.
198 traffic goes two ways.
200 Easier for street-sweeping and snow plowing operations with no on-street parking.
Easier to navigate for motorists.
206 can go both ways
211 Two way traffic
214 If Lynn Ave. could remain two-way, that may be desireable.
215 Both directions
217 It's two-way, with larger sidewalks on both sides.
219 Less congestion through two-way traffic.
223 I prefer two-way streets and less parking is fine.
224 I don't like it.
225 Two-way and sidewalks on both sides
227 2way
228 Gives users options on flow, to and from.
232 sidewalk on both sides, maintains two-way traffic
234 It functions like a road should. Parking is not needed on this road.
239 2-way street.
ResponseID Response
33
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 137
244 2-way.
247 Sidewalks on both sides of street; preserves 2-way traffic; wider sidewalk on one side.
256 on street parking not necessary for the area - it prevents parked cars creeping into the
driving lanes in the winter
257 two sidewalks
258 Convenient
259 I equally travel via Mtka Blvd and Cty Rd 25 depending where I am going. I would like
that street to have both options.
262 More sidewalk space.
264 Too squished unsafe
268 It at least still allows for two way traffic
273 I don't like it.
276 Sidewalks on both sides
277 lots of space for walkers.
281 Two ways
282 Nothing!
283 Straightforward. Wide roads for cars. Eliminates one way street confusion.
284 Sacrifices parking for two way convenience but concerned about turning traffic causing
congestion
285 Two way traffic
289 more sidewalks
297 Better for residents
299 Pedestrian space
310 Neutral. Sidewalks are always good. No matter the traffic direction.
312 Efficient
ResponseID Response
34
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 138
314 No parking requirements
315 Sidewalk in both sides
318 Seems the most efficient for vehicular use
320 convenient for the people who live there in terms of access
322 This is fair for everyone!
327 Sidewalks and driving two ways
331 two sidewalks
333 You can go both ways.
334 Nothing. No upside
341 Don't like it
344 Sidewalks on both sides of the street would be HUGE improvement for this section of
street!
346 less complicated from a traffic/driver standpoint, no extra traffic on Ottawa
349 i can travel both ways.
352 again wider sidewalk
353 allows traffic flow
355 It's a two-way street.
367 Need parking
377 The sidewalks
381 there are sidewalks on both sides. no parking lane means cyclists don't have to worry
getting "doored" by people opening car doors who may not see or be looking for
cyclists.
384 Having a 2 way is nice but being able to park and bike accessibility is more important
than 2 way street.
386 Functionality of it
388 Having traffic go both ways is always better
ResponseID Response
35
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 139
391 Keep it two way!
394 better but not much
395 Most useful
396 generally prefer convenience of a 2 way street option, also like the sidewalks on each
side of the street
399 Conveniency
401 people are use to this now.
403 Includes at least one sidewalk wide enough for two people
405 Less on street parking.
409 Maintains two-say traffic, provides more sidewalk width
ResponseID Response
36
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 140
ResponseID Response
20 No bike lane
23 When I went by there were 11 cars parked on the short street and I'm sure that is about
average if not below normal parking.
24 crowded
25 It removes parking.
32 I think more walking area is better. Especially for our neighbors who walk to temple.
33 It takes away parking. With options to go north and south a short distance away it would
be better to maintain parking for the multifamily living properties.
34 The loss of parking
36 Takes away on street parking.
37 No Parking
38 If I lived in the area I'd be angry about no parking.
39 The Lynn project has impact on me.
40 n/a
41 I would be annoyed to lose parking spaces but can't use in winter during snow
emergency anyway
44 People may grumble about the lack of parking. I see there are lots though and off-street
parking from the alley, so that may be a non-issue.
46 No parking
48 No on-street parking.
53 How much people will complain about lack of parking.
54 not easy for bikers
55 not easy for bikers
57 no improvement to current conditions and use, not adapting to our existing realities
63 no parking available
15. What do you DISLIKE about the Lynn Avenue Two-way Street Option?
37
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 141
65 5' sidewalk to close to traffic
68 no parking on street
69 Less room for bikes and walkers
71 Wish both sidewalks could be 8 1/2 ft.
72 no parking
73 Nothing - far too much pedestrian space that could be driving and parking space
77 Lack of bike lane
79 Less parking in the area, and crossing a two-way street is always more challenging.
84 no bike lane
85 removes parking
88 No space for bikes
92 No parking and slightly narrower sidewalks
93 No parking
95 Dislike that that sidewalks aren't as wide as Option 1
96 No parking
97 This local street does not warrant two full travel lanes. The on-street parking would be
lost. The vehicular speeds would increase as a result of the loss of parking coupled with
two travel lanes.
100 The sidewalks are narrower, and I worry that people will go bonkers about losing free
city auto storage (parking). I also worry without parked cars, auto speeds will be higher
103 Na
104 No parking
106 Less space dedicated to non vehicular traffic.
107 I wish there were wider sidewalks for bikes
110 Perhaps there will not be enough parking---I don't know because I don't regularly try to
park there.
ResponseID Response
38
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 142
111 Does not allow space for parking. Would prefer to see narrow pedestrian sidewalk on
one side, parking on other side.
113 Probably not as much traffic calming due to wider pavement space.
117 No parking.
119 lack of trees
124 We don't need two pedestrian sidewalks
125 I strongly dislike that this would get rid of parking on Lynn Ave. The street parking on
Lynn Ave is essential to those who live in the neighborhood.
126 I rarely drive on Lynn Avenue nor do I live in the area, so I do not have a strong opinion
on either option
127 The loss of on-street parking.
129 5' wide sidewalk is pretty narrow right next to a 10' wide traffic lane. Lanes should be 9'
wide to slow down traffic. No dedicated protected bicycle lane.
131 Not necessarily dislike, but my concern is: -who shovels these large sidewalks?
133 No dedicated bike lane. Two-way traffic will be more dangerous for bikes.
139 nothing
141 Obviously there is no parking, but as long as free parking exists elsewhere around the
triangle I think that's fine.
144 reduction of pedestrian space
145 Saftey for foot traffic across Minnetonka Blvd has to be considered. A stop sign is not
enough.
146 The sidewalks are not evenly sized.
147 possible traffic issues.
148 No parking
156 No boulevard
158 Cars won't be able to park there — I feel like I frequently see cars parked along Lynn.
160 Loss of parking
ResponseID Response
39
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 143
163 parking is lost
164 NO PARKING AVAILABLE
169 No on-street parking I prefer sidewalks wider than 5'
170 Smaller sidewalks, but still ones that look good.
174 12.5 feet of sidewalk still seems excessive! no parking?
177 Gets crowded
179 no parking
184 No on street parking.
186 No parking
188 Where will residents park their cars?
191 no parking
192 BUT 7.5ft SIDEWALK IS TOO BIG - THIS IS NOT A NEW YORK CITY MIDTOWN STREET
195 nothing
196 Residents have no place to park.
198 I prefer a boulevard so we are not walking so close to traffic, if at all possible. Even if it
means a sidewalk on only one side of the street.
200 Sidewalks are slightly narrower than the one-way street options.
206 no parking
211 Nothing
214 Both sidewalks are too narrow -- esp. the SB one. Also, there's no parking or bike lane.
217 No parking.
219 No parking.
223 Still not enough space for non-motorized options. Could narrow the driving lanes further.
224 Narrow sidewalks
ResponseID Response
40
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 144
225 No parking lane
232 no landscaping between sidewalk and street, lose parking, sidewalk on west is wider
than it needs to be.
235 Not enough space for pedestrians
236 No option for bike riders.
239 No parking.
247 No parking would be available.
256 nothing
257 No parking lane
259 Nothing?
262 Do we really need two lanes of traffic?
264 Unsafe, cars too close, too much going on
267 no parking
268 Still has sidewalks on both sides which is unnecessary.
273 Traffic going in two directions might be a problem for pedestrians.
276 Nothing
277 where will parking be allowed? what about safe access for bikes?
281 Nothing
282 No parking Do not need two sidewalks
283 Where do cars park?
284 No bike infrastructure
289 ?
290 need a parking lane.
297 Over-burdened with on-street parking
ResponseID Response
41
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 145
299 No bike lane
303 Sidewalk width is excessive. 4 foot width for both is sufficient.
307 I've lived in Park Point apartments near Lynn and parking can be an issue with the
apartments in the area. no parking on the street may cause issues
310 Neutral
314 More traffic, harder for people to cross on foot or bike
315 Don't think it needs to be 2 way
318 Doesn't seems as necessary or pedestrian friendly
320 less options for parking because on street has been removed
322 nothing
326 why do we need sidewalks on both sides? Limits room for cars which most people in St.
Louis Park and Minnesota need. We can NOT be riding bikes all year round. Seems like
we are putting a lot of money into these bikeways to satisfy a few.
327 no parking
329 no option for parking
331 where is the bike lane?
333 Less pedestrian focus.
334 Loss of street parking.
339 Very little room for traffic
341 Too crowded
342 The parking is needed on Lynn.
344 n/a
345 I don't like that there is no longer parking.
346 smaller sidewalks, no on-street parking, no buffer for sidewalk
349 There is no parking. I live on the street side and like to carry my groceries in from the
street. It helps the parking lot to have street parking on Lynn Ave too.
ResponseID Response
42
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 146
352 again why not wider sidewalk a bike lane?
353 more chance for collisions. less parking.
355 The sidewalks don't need to take up that much space. Parking should be allowed on one
side or the other.
377 no accommodation for bicycles and doesn't provide for on-street parking. Would be
very narrow in the winter as well.
379 Removes parking lane
381 it's a more narrow street, cars have less room to give cyclists space when passing.
384 No parking and what about biking?
386 NA
394 again - Lynn is very short. this option would require land acquisition to build an
unnecessary 2nd sidewalk
395 none
396 5' sidewalk is rather narrow
399 Nothing
400 Reduces walking space, eliminates parking and increases traffic
403 No room for parking on street
404 Eliminates parking
405 A sidewalk on each side seems unnecessary.
409 Parking is eliminated
410 Do not like the removal of parking and you can already walk on one sidewalk. Don't see
the need for additional hardscaping.
ResponseID Response
43
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 147
16. How do you like the Ottawa Avenue Sidewalk Option?
9% Strongly Dislike9% Strongly Dislike
22% Dislike22% Dislike
23% Neutral23% Neutral
33% Like33% Like
13% Strongly Like13% Strongly Like
Value Percent Responses
Strongly Dislike 9.0%20
Dislike 22.4%50
Neutral 22.9%51
Like 33.2%74
Strongly Like 12.6%28
Totals: 223
44
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 148
ResponseID Response
17 You're taking away good parking without equal added benefit except space between
the sidewalk and moving traffic.
20 Sidewalks are good but we need to consider parking for the residents
23 Nothing.
25 I like that there's a sidewalk on both sides.
29 Wider sidewalks!
32 Again, I think the addition of sidewalks and reduction of parking makes this less desirably
to cut between Minnetonka and 25. This is a good thing to me. It puts the emphasis on
pedestrians.
33 Better than current layout
34 Improving the sidewalk
36 The 4' barrier between car traffic and pedestrian traffic.
38 Easy movement for cars and peds.
39 This corridor gets very tight when meeting a car coming the opposite way and cars
parked on the one side, especially in the winter. I know this would eliminate some street
parking but the traffic flow would be much smoother and safer.
40 n/a
41 the parking lane as it is now forces you to cross yellow line because street is not striped
right currently for three lanes of traffic--I like having wider driving lanes
46 more room for cars and less likely to get in an accident
48 I like that there is space between pedestrians and car traffic.
49 4 foot space between cars and sidewalk is definite improvement on current situation.
51 I suppose the 4 foot bands on either side of the drive lanes could be for bikes?
57 provides delineated access to anticipated users
58 I like that parking from street is removed. I have had several near-accident encounters. It
is hard to drive when another car comes the other side and a car is parked = 3 cars
63 sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides
17. Tell us what you LIKE about the Ottawa Avenue Sidewalk Option?
45
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 149
65 separation of traffic and sidewalk perfect for walking, specifically when kids or dogs
come along
72 More space for pedestrians
73 Nothing - far too much pedestrian space that could be driving and parking space
77 Sidewalk and boulevard
79 People parking can slow down traffic on that road, so removing parking will help
congestion.
80 Seems like a good way to give bikers and walker/runners their own space.
81 Removes parking. Parked cars are wasted space!
84 no bike lane no on street parking
85 preserves on road biking
88 None
92 Sidewalks on both side, and city to do snow re9
93 Two sides
95 like the dual sidewalks
97 This change is long overdue! Ottawa is an important north-south link but it is scary to
drive because it is way too narrow, especially in winter. (Residents do not have a
constitutional right to park on the street.) I especially like the 4-foot shoulders, which
would function as bicycle lanes. This will be a great improvement. The best idea would
be to remove all of the houses on the west side of the street, enlarge the street right-of-
way, realign the street to the west and redevelop the land with multiple-family housing.
Removing the parking may hasten the land redevelopment.
100 Nothing. This design with shoulders is terrible and will only allow cars more space to
speed
101 from hwy 7 to minnetonka i like the idea of no parking, it gets really congested and
people tend to "gun it" to get around parked care\s
103 Blvd
104 Nothing
ResponseID Response
46
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 150
106 I do not know enough about the parking needs of the residents to make an informed
choice.
107 Nothing
110 I like that there is two way traffic, and that there are sidewalks on both sides.
111 Allows for two-way traffic and sidewalk space for pedestrians.
113 Allows space for what I assume are narrow bike lanes.
117 At least it has sidewalks on both sides.
119 sidewalk on both sides
125 Bike lanes are cool
126 I bike, drive and walk on Ottawa Avenue quite often. so having dedicated lanes for all of
those activities would be nice
127 The space between sidewalks and traffic. This becomes safer for bike riders to use the
drive lanes.
128 More sidewalk space.
129 Nothing, there should be a 4' grass boulevard or 9' sidewalks
133 De-emphasizes car traffic.
141 Not much, I don't see much benefit to this.
144 Removes the parking
146 I love that there is no parking on the street so the street would seem wider.
147 Safer pedestrian travel.
148 Sidewalks on both sides
153 Buffer between sidewalk and street
156 No Parking
158 Nothing.
160 less congestion
ResponseID Response
47
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 151
161 More space for people, less for cars. Walking connection across CR 25 on either side of
Ottawa/Beltline.
163 continuous sidewalks to fill in the gaps.
165 no parking!
169 Bike lanes on both sides, narrow drive lanes, increasing the sidewalk width on the left
177 The same as now
178 Not much.
182 Best of everything, parking, walking and driving
187 I like the added buffer between the sidewalk and road
188 Room for bikes
191 I assume the 4' mean bike lanes
192 more in line
196 Safer distance between street & sidewalk.
198 space between people on the sidewalk and the cars.
203 Wider sidewalk on one side, more room for snow storage
204 Wider sidewalk allows more room for snow storage
206 little bigger sidewalks
214 Like the widening of the west sidewalk. Like the inclusion of bike lanes.
217 Not much...
219 Maintains two adequate lanes. Safety is probably enhanced due to the 4' setbacks
between sidewalks and the traffic lanes.
223 Less pavement for cars and adds bike lanes.
225 Sidewalks AND a the 4 foot buffer.
227 sidewalk
232 space for bikers, walkers and cars. Gets rid of parking.
ResponseID Response
48
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 152
234 It is nice to have a boulevard.
235 More room for pedestrians and street is less crowded.
239 Love the fact that bike lanes and sidewalks are separated.
247 Good sidewalks and bike lanes!
256 no on street parking
257 two sidewalks
258 Makes the most sense and least disruptive
259 This is an equity issue and an accessibility issue in this neighborhood. I see so much foot
traffic from people who prefer to walk, walk for religious beliefs or are elderly and do
not drive. Sideways would be SO wonderfully helpful on this street!
260 Bike lanes
262 Are those bike lanes, or shoulders that are friendly to bikes?
264 Nice to have walkable
268 Still allows for 2 way traffic and the 4feet on either side would allow for bike traffic.
269 removal of parking on Ottawa is good as parked cars create traffic flow issues in winter.
Better safety for walkers.
276 I'm hoping that 4' area are bike lanes!
281 You. That's what I like. You're a cutie!
283 No more parked cars on too small of a street with so much traffic.
284 It is nice to have pedestrian access on both sides of the road
287 I like this over the existing conditions because it eliminates parking on the southbound
side of the road. That parking is already only for a limited amount of time and makes it
tight to drive on that road.
289 no parking on the ottawa side-reduction of LR parking in the neighborhood
297 Although it's hard for property owners on Ottawa, I don't think there should be on street
parking on the block between Minnetonka and Hwy 7.
310 Sidewalks. Prefer no one street parking and having a bike lane.
ResponseID Response
49
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 153
314 Narrower lanes for slower traffic
318 Easier flow for bikes with road traffic, clear seperation of bike lane from sidewalk
320 Gives a buffer between the auto traffic and pedestrians
322 There is something for everyone
326 This is already an extremely congested street. We DO NOT need to add more
sidewalks to this street, particularly with our winter season making this very difficult to
manage car traffic. Once again there is a pedestrian bridge not far away that can be
used.
327 has driving and sidewalks
331 more sidewalk
333 Pedestrian friendly
341 Neutral
342 The 4-foot grassy boulevard protects sidewalk users from puddle splash and provides
storage for snow.
344 As a cyclist and bike commuter, I like design that allows for a 4ft shoulder on both sides
of Ottawa, especially on the east of the street. I move through this area daily and having
a safer connection to move north to Minnetonka Blvd. would be fantastic!
345 It appears that a bike lane has been added and I like that.
349 Looks like there is a bike lane and that is good.
352 two-way drive from and to hwy 7, like both walking and biking
355 It's a two-way street design.
367 Widen the street
369 wider sidewalks than currently
377 It has sidewalks and allows for two-way traffic.
381 sidewalks on both sides.
386 NA
388 It has good options for walking or riding a bike on both side of the road
ResponseID Response
50
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 154
395 gets rid of parking lane
399 Convenient
400 It allows better pedestrian and bike access.
404 Wider sidewalks, with space between sidewalk and street
409 sidewalks on both sides
410 Since that section of Ottawa is so busy, I'm OK with eliminating parking.
ResponseID Response
51
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 155
ResponseID Response
20 No parking
23 The four foot buffers are too small for bikes and would be better off with multi-use
sidewalks.
25 No bike lane.
29 I wish there was room for a boulevard will the 4ft wide curb encourage parking?
30 It doesn't seem like a sufficient improvement, since it does little to widen the sidewalks,
which currently feel uncomfortably narrow.
32 no bike lane
33 Would prefer pedestrian/bike access to fit with the concept of making the area around
the new light rail more accessible to everyone.
34 No bike access
36 No bike option without riding on sidewalk, which then conflicts with walkers.
37 It is tough to maintain 6' social distancing on a 5' sidewalk
38 IF I lived there I'd be angry about no parking.
39 Nothing.
40 n/a
41 people might think the 4 foot sections are now bike lanes and this is a very busy street
46 No parking option for residents
48 Is the 4ft. separations between traffic and pedestrians to be used for bikes?
49 Not a good option if anyone is on a bike.
51 If the 4 foot bands are for bikes, I would raise them to be flush with the sidewalk so cars
have a harder time hitting cyclists.
53 No good bike option.
55 not easy for bikers
57 stagnant and no change for our evolving transportation world
18. What do you DISLIKE about the Ottawa Avenue Sidewalk Option?
52
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 156
63 drive lanes are more narrow. What about having bike trails going in a one way (either
north or south) on Ottawa and one way (either north or south) on Lynn since the streets
are only a couple blocks apart and reduce bikers going two ways on the multiuse trail
while pedestrians are also using the trail?
68 no street parking
69 No bike option.
71 Would make sidewalks larger rather than give cars the option to go around each other
or go faster.
73 Nothing - far too much pedestrian space that could be driving and parking space
77 Lack of bike lane
79 It's tough to bike down that road. Cars go really fast, and you can't ride your bike on the
sidewalk.
81 Needs bikelane
85 smaller sidewalk
88 Small areas for everything
92 Could one side be wider?
93 Loud traffic area
95 Unclear what the 4' segments are- are these bike lines? parking lanes? a shoulder?
96 Travel lane seems like a waste of space
97 It is insufficiently ambitious. See my redevelopment proposal above.
100 The road is somehow wider with those shoulders and no parking. Why?! What is this
1972? Needs way more room for other uses.
103 na
104 No parking lane
107 Small sidewalks
110 This area really needs a place for bikes. I have biked on this street before, going north
and trying to get to Minnetonka Blvd. It would not be optimal to have just four feet of
space for bikes in the street.
ResponseID Response
53
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 157
111 No space for parking. If you're going to take away parking space, would prefer to see
the space used for multi-use trail.
113 Effectively makes the driving lanes 14' wide, which will increase vehicle speeds.
117 The 4' on each side will encourage delivery trucks to stop and park, disrupting traffic.
119 lack of trees, no bike protection,
125 Gets rid of parking on the street, but I am not sure if that is as essential as I do not live on
this street
126 knowing the type of traffic that occurs on Ottawa Ave I'd still be nervous to bike in a lane
on the street unprotected by curbs or other obstacles from cars.
127 The loss of parking.
128 Four foot buffers will encourage speeding by increasing the design speed of the road.
Why leave four foot buffers instead of giving pedestrians more space, or say, a
landscaped buffer strip?
129 The paint creates 14' wide lanes for cars to zip through. This will speed up traffic flow.
131 Not necessarily dislike, but my concern is: -where do cars that normally park on this
street go?
133 No dedicated bike lane.
135 I would be concerned if I lived over there or attended that church, if street parking was
eliminated for a sidewalk
141 The larger roadway is going to cause cars to drive faster, making the road less safe for
bikes and pedestrians.
144 Does not do much to help bikers or pedestrians in terms of safety
147 Not much, but not living right there I'm not sure of the parking issues it may generate.
148 No parking
149 The 4 ft gutters will create safety hazards even though they are too narrow to be lanes,
they will be used by scooters, bikers, skateboarders, and others that roll.
150 Currently the west side of Ottawa without a sidewalk - supports the intersection of
Ottawa/Highway with turning area. If that intersection is too dangerous to cross as is, why
add a sidewalk that encourages unsafe crossing. Mostly the east side of sidewalk if often
for people trying to get to the bus either on on Mntka or Beltline or south frontage road.
ResponseID Response
54
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 158
153 Huge shoulders like that are going to mean that traffic will zoom through there
156 No Boulevard
158 It eliminates parking. I always see cars parked there and I think it's necessary.
161 There isn't a space for bikes to be ok and expected by other users.
163 bikes can use the 4 foot shoulder, however it is not wide enough to feel comfortable for
an inexperienced user
164 NO PARKING AVAILABLE
169 I would like to see even wider sidewalks
174 sidewalk is fine but no parking?
177 Nothing really gained.
178 Prefer the extra lane option
184 No on street parking
186 No parking
191 no parking
192 what's the double 4ft space for?
196 No parking.
198 people living there would miss the parking.
200 Shoulder lanes are too narrow for bikes, and the sidewalks are also too narrow.
206 no parking
211 Clinical
214 I think there needs to be parking on one side b/c of synagogue and The Edge and Park
Place Apts. adjacent.
215 Clinical
217 Loses parking for standard sidewalks. There's very little improvement here.
219 Reduces parking. Aside from potential safety benefits, 4' on each side is wasted space.
ResponseID Response
55
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 159
223 Bike lanes are too narrow. Might be better putting them on same side and curb-
protecting them.
225 n/a
228 Why need for separate uses? Can't we share? Works fine on major trail systems for the
regular users who walk or bike.
232 The bike lanes are narrow, especially on the uphill east side. No landscaping between
sidewalks and road.
236 No option for bike riders
239 No parking.
244 No parking. Parked cars result in nature traffic calming.
247 There would be no parking available.
256 The bike lanes will be dangerous - this area of traffic is busy and fast
257 no on street parking. Need to have option for on street parking for residents and
visitors, shopping on Ottawa & Minnetonka
259 Nothing!
260 Reduction in street parking. The neighborhood residents use it.
262 5' sidewalks ares till pretty substandard and narrow.
264 Two way traffic makes it tight especially in the winter
267 no parking
268 No street parking option which there is an overall lack of parking in that area.
270 Not sure why this involved removing parking. What are the 4 foot sections for?
276 Bummer if no bike lanes
277 this is a very busy road that is skinny and cars use it as a major connector from Hwy 25 to
Mtk Blvd. Bike traffic should not be on this road and could be moved to Lynn instead.
281 Nada. I love it. You're fantastic and you will slay! Slayer!
283 Can the 4' shoulder become a bike path?
ResponseID Response
56
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 160
287 I live on the corner of 31st and Ottawa on the southbound side and would rather have a
trail that bypasses hwy 7 to get to the light rail.
289 smaller sidewalks
290 no parking lane.
307 i live in the Park Towers apartments, lack of parking on Ottawa could be an issue.
310 Neutral
314 Unprotected bike lanes, narrow sidewalks.
318 Feels less connected to existing trail system, feels less safe for bikers off of Minnetonka
(due to traffic conditions there)
320 reduces convenient parking for the people who live there
322 nothing
326 See above answer
329 4' unused space; no parking option
331 where is the bike lane?
332 Not bike friendly.
333 Not a lot of room for bikes
339 4' bike lanes are tiny and share the road, dangerous for bikes.
341 Neutral
342 The loss of on-street parking. While the survey indicates it is only used 25%, it seems
more full when I drive this road.
344 Traveling south through this area that is plan to continue south across CH 25? As of right
now both plans drop me at the highway without a good option get across CH 25.
346 no bike provision. There are not nearly enough good north/south cycling options in St
Louis Park. The 4' strips seem like wasted space.
349 I don't live on this street, but they might miss the parking.
352 biking lanes could be INSIDE the curb rather than WITHIN traffic (safe routes?) how many
homes are losing parking?
ResponseID Response
57
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 161
354 Having a trail on the north side of CSAH 25 will harrmonize with the south side at Beltline
is trail option is pursued.
355 Again...the sidewalks do not have to be 5' across, with 4' buffers on each side.
367 People might be put out without parking on the street. Why not widen and do 1 sidewalk
373 sidewalks are narrow. I walk here sometimes and it's very uncomfortable.
377 No accommodation for bicycles.
381 designated bike lanes can be better better than nothing, but without a designated
parking lane, a bike lane often becomes an impromptu parking lane where cyclists have
to dodge parked cars, even if they are parked temporarily, and re-enter the driving lane
of traffic.
384 no bike connectivity
386 NA
388 It shows the road that there will be no on the side parking on either side that's good for
travel
393 worried about losing parking in a very apartment dense area. is there enough parking
areas to accommodate resident and visitor parking?
394 The 1 foot sidewalk increase deletes all street parking. Not efficient.
395 none
399 Nothing
400 It doesn't address crossing minnetonka Blvd or hwy 25 more effectively
401 Not enough room for pedestrians.
404 neutral
409 Nothing in particular
ResponseID Response
58
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 162
19. How do you like the Ottawa Avenue Trail Option?
5% Strongly Dislike5% Strongly Dislike
12% Dislike12% Dislike
10% Neutral10% Neutral
27% Like27% Like
46% Strongly Like46% Strongly Like
Value Percent Responses
Strongly Dislike 5.0%11
Dislike 11.8%26
Neutral 10.4%23
Like 26.7%59
Strongly Like 46.2%102
Totals: 221
59
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 163
ResponseID Response
17 What you lose in parking you gain in pedestrian/biker access.
19 Honestly, any time a trail can separate cyclists from walkers - even different trails it's
gonna be better.
20 Option for bikers
23 A wide trail would be nice.
24 more useful
25 I like that there's the multituse for bikes.
29 Wider travel lanes
30 I share the city's goal of prioritizing pedestrian/cyclist accessibility over parking when
reasonably possible.
31 We like the Multi-use feature.
32 The multi-use trail. Elimination of parking. I have done my own informal "traffic study" on
snowy days in the winter as the parking on that street really gets in the way of
movement. I've driven through the parking lot and it appears that there is plenty to use
for those residents, but they are just choosing to park on the street. It's currently messy
and this cleans it up.
33 It provides bike/pedestrian access north and south along Ottawa
34 Bike access and improved pedestrian access
36 Multi-use trail gives bikers a place to travel without being in the street.
37 Easy to social distance
38 I bike so this is my fav.
39 I am fine with this option as well, would offer more pedestrian friendly options if this
while maintaining most of the traffic benefits.
40 n/a
41 keep bicycles away from the auto traffic & eliminates the parking lane that messes up
traffic flow outside of rush hour-I also like having wider driving lanes
44 Multi-use trail
20. Tell us what you LIKE about the Ottawa Avenue Trail Option?
60
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 164
46 More walking
49 Its a heavily traveled street and the trail keeps those on bikes safer. Definitely need
sidewalks full distance on both sides. At Minnetonka Blvd the corner sight lines need to
be improved , especially where the book store is. Cars often do not stop before the
walk way and will barely stop at times - need people to come to a full stop there. There
is also landscaping on the other corners that decreases visibility
51 The bike lane has some protection from distracted and/or malignant drivers. Auto traffic
is less impeded, cutting down on irritated drivers taking it out their anger on the
alternate streets they have to find to get to where they are going.
53 The trail will be important if MTKA BLVD ever becomes less deadly for bikers.
55 good for walkers AND bikers!
57 separation of traffic types
58 I am planning to bike from Minnetonka Blvd to the light rail station and it is my absolute
top choice. We really need a bike lane or multi-use trail.
63 wider drive lanes and multiuse trail
66 Better bike access from Beltline to Minnetonka Blvd
69 Multi-use trail is okay.
71 Wider sidewalks and safe provision for bike riders.
72 Bikes can use the street more safely
73 Nothing - far too much pedestrian space that could be driving and parking space
77 Bike trail
79 Biking up and down Ottawa would be much easier. People parking can slow down traffic
on that road, so removing parking will help congestion.
80 The wider trail seems like it might be more accommodating to both bikers and non-
bikers. Plus it narrows the street, which should slow traffic.
81 Multi-use trail, and it's 11 ft wide which is nice. It's difficult to get North-South via bicycle
in the city, so this would help with that, and it's right off a main bike trail.
84 multi-use trail
85 wider trail
ResponseID Response
61
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 165
88 Safe space for everyone
92 We need a trail for bikes to improve mobility
93 Multi use
95 love having the trail!
96 The multiuse trail!
97 Small children on bicycles would benefit.
100 Grade separation of cars and other uses. Narrower driving space. Well done.
101 bike use is really important
103 bike trail
104 Sidewalk only for pedestrians
106 I generally do like large /wide sidewalks.
107 Wide bike path
110 There is a definite place for bikes to go. It seems more accepting of bike traffic. 11 feet
seems like a nice wide trail.
111 Like addition of multi-use trail & two-way traffic.
113 Narrows driving lanes, reducing vehicle speeds and increasing safety.
117 Has a nice wide trail on one side.
119 mirrors cedar lake rd design,
125 The trail concept seems cool. If you're going to get rid of street parking, this seems like
an interesting option.
126 As stated earlier I walk, bike and drive this road, and I feel like this option does the best
to promote and protect each activity the best.
127 The wider drive lanes.
128 The multi-use trail.
129 11' multi-use trail
ResponseID Response
62
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 166
133 Adds a bike lane. De-emphasizes car traffic.
135 I like the multi use trail
139 addition of multi-use trail
141 More options for bikes and pedestrians.
142 Love the option for biking on the trail. There are a lot of families in the neighborhood
that bike with small children (including myself), and the availability of trails to bike with
children is amazing!
144 Provides a wider path the keeps bikers safer and away from cars
146 again like that there is no parking on the street.
147 I love a bike lane wherever I can get it.
148 Nothing
152 Bikes will have their own trail and will not have to share the road with cars, which is more
dangerous and causes more traffic problems
153 Multi-use trail is a great idea for bike and pedestrian access to that area
156 No parking!
160 Like the Multi-use lane
161 More space for people, less for cars. Walking connection across CR 25 on either side of
Ottawa/Beltline. Plus bike infrastructure, which seems like a critical connection to LRT
and trails.
163 creates a space for bikes that is comfortable for more users than the 4 foot shoulder
164 TRAIL TRUMPS PARKING CONSIDERATIONS.
165 bike friendly, no parking
169 I love the idea of a wide multi-use trail
177 Bike trail option
178 Love the trail idea. This is my fave. Multi use. Wide enough for everyone.
179 love the trail
ResponseID Response
63
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 167
187 I like the trail which seems like it would safely help connect the planned lightrail station to
Minnetonka Blvd
188 Addition of multiuse trail
191 large trail
192 multi-use is interesting
196 Like the multi-use trail
198 adding the bike option would help connect to the bike trail on the other side of County
Rd 25.
200 The trail is wide enough for bikers so they can bike there instead of on the road.
203 Like the idea of adding bike feature, just not sure about intermingling bikes with peds
204 Bike feature
206 more multi-purpose
211 Multi use
214 Multi-use trail is appealing.
215 Multiple use "The Park" look
217 Much prefer the trail since I've got kids and I prefer to ride trails over bike lanes with
them any day.
219 Great pedestrian and bike trail. Will help connect the area, particularly as we see more
people head to light rail transit.
223 This is better option.
225 I love the multi-use trail, especially as there are many bike paths in the area. And it's nice
that there is a sidewalk on the other side as well. This is good.
228 Shared use is great! I like the build for the real need and use and not for only the power
bike users or special interest groups.
232 trail would help with bikers going up the hill not slowing or going into car traffic. Even
though the lanes are wider, lanes would feel narrower having the curbs 22 feet apart
instead of 28 feet part. Gets rid of parking.
235 Would love to be able to bike down Ottawa and save time.
ResponseID Response
64
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 168
236 The trail exists and its separated from car traffic.
239 Nice to have one of the sidewalks separated from multi-use trail.
241 I suppose the road will be used a lot more when the light rail station is in place, so might
as well make room for bikes, scooters, etc., since bikes really shouldn't be on sidewalks.
247 I like the trail better than the two sidewalks!
256 bikes off the busy road - much safer
257 trail / sidewalk on both sides
258 Fun
259 I like this option best, as I would like to see more bike-ability in SLP.
260 Mixed use wide trail.
262 multi-use trail.
268 Has the bike trail and still has 2 way traffic
269 wider traffic lanes and a multiuse trail
270 Makes it better for bicyclists.
276 Meh.
277 separated grade for walkers, bikers and cars.
281 It's pure genius... how could you ask this? It's like looking at sunshine and needing an
explanation in beauty. Seriously it's good. Better that what we have
283 Wide drive lanes.
284 Bicycle accommodation and protected trail
287 I live on the trail side of the street and want a trail to bypass hwy 7 to walk to the light rail
while increasing the road width for cars.
289 trail
307 if there won't be parking in either option, there might as well be a multi-use trail
310 Bike space!
ResponseID Response
65
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 169
314 Wide, multi-use trail is safer for all.
318 connects well to trail system and feels generally safer
320 gives bikers a safe route north from the regional trail, getting them off the road while still
allowing plenty of pedestrian traffic on either side
322 The concept is nice
327 Multiuse trail is most helpful
329 multi-use trail !
331 multi-use trail - I do not have a car - I bike everywhere
332 Bike friendly.
333 Bikes!!
339 Good flexible use of space for bikes & peds.
341 Like that there are two options
342 I like the trail running on the west side of the street, supporting access to the
playgrounds and city hall.
344 n/a
346 cycling option. Seems like better use of space.
349 The bikes would not be on the street.
352 multi-use wide trail and two-way traffic
355 It's designed to be a two-way street.
357 multi-use trail!
359 Help slow speeds
369 Love the multi-use trail. I'm a bicycle rider and often use the LRT/greenway.
373 much wider area to walk and bike. Feels safer and more friendly.
377 Love the multi-use trail/bike accommodation. Like that it maintains two-way traffic and
that it has a ped-only sidewalk on one side.
ResponseID Response
66
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 170
379 With the bike trail and bridge so close by I like that this option includes a multi-use trail
381 sidewalks on both sides mean pedestrians can choose if they want to walk with cyclists.
Cyclists can use the trail to completely remove the need to share the road with cars.
384 bike path available
386 The trails
395 like wider trail
396 option of multi-use trail on one side of the street
399 It works; convenient;
400 The wife trail is nice, and seems more pedestrian friendly.
401 More room for pedestrians and bicycles.
402 This should make for a much safer bicycling route!
404 Allows biking as well as walking
409 Nothing.
410 It is an extremely busy street and a sectioned off trail would make that safer for biking.
ResponseID Response
67
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 171
ResponseID Response
20 Residents lose parking
23 Loss of parking in busy area full of apartment housing.
29 concerned about two way bike traffic - its a big hill and if the trail is busy with
pedestrians, there might be conflicts between users
30 My concern with multi-use trail options is always about their safety for shared bike and
pedestrian traffic. They can get crowded quickly with lots of people moving different
speeds. As long as you don't anticipate heavy, higher speed bike traffic, I think it's great
to offer more pedestrian room.
32 nothing
33 Would prefer isolated bike access and isolated pedestrian access
34 Would prefer a dedicated bike lane
36 Nothing
39 Sidewalks and trails are tight to the driving lanes but would still prefer to the current
layout.
40 n/a
41 the more that I look at it the more I like it
44 People may grumble about the loss of on-street parking, although it looks like all homes
in the area have off-street options.
46 Seems very congested for cars and accidents could happen. And no parking
48 I tried walking on part of the Cedar trail that was for both bike and pedestrian use. It was
very uncomfortable and sometimes scary to be walking along with bikes speeding
beside me.
57 little protection of pedestrians from cyclists
63 no parking available for residents
65 the 5' sidewalk option is exposed
68 no parking lane. congestion on multi-use trail
73 Nothing - far too much pedestrian space that could be driving and parking space
21. What do you DISLIKE about the Ottawa Avenue Trail Option?
68
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 172
79 Nothing.
84 no on street parking
85 no on road biking
88 Bikes and pedestrians to share the same lane which is concerning
92 Nothing
93 Loud area and not as excluded or relaxing
97 Eleven feet is too narrow for a shared ped and bike path, especially considering the
speeds that the bikes will attain on this steep downhill. Also side path are inherently
dangerous at intersections because drivers are less likely to see the cyclist. They violate
the principle of separating intersections. Cyclists would be safer on the proposed
striped shoulders, except for small children but they could ride on the sidewalk. In
addition, in my experience asphalt paths usually have worse surface conditions after a
few years than the adjacent streets.
100 Nothing. It's great...i suppose you could make the drive lanes narrower.
101 would like designated lines for bikes
103 na
104 Too dangerous for walkers to share a trail with bicycles. Let the bikes take the trail only,
no street no sidewalk.
107 Nothing
110 Peds and bikes will be sharing space, which could lead to a not so safe situation for
pedestrians.
111 No space for parking.
113 Multi-use trail has the potential to get congested with bike and ped conflicts.
117 No parking, but it's still better than the other option.
119 lack of trees
125 There is no street parking
126 nothing, I like this idea
ResponseID Response
69
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 173
127 The multi-use trail: bikes could be inconsistent In their use of the trail vs. the drive lanes.
Loss of parking.
128 Should be a small buffer zone between the trail and the driving lanes.
129 11' car lanes, that's pretty wide for travel. This should be 9' wide lanes here with
dedicated bike infrastructure.
131 Not necessarily dislike, but my concerns are: -where do cars that normally park on this
street go? -is this street busy enough to warrant a trail? -Is a trail that connects to
Minnetonka Blvd a good idea? I prefer not to bicycle on Minnetonka due to its speed
and busy nature.
133 Nothing.
135 Not sure if the other 5' sidewalk is necessary with that trail
136 Multi use is too large AND a sidewalk. Seems like it should be one or the other not both.
139 People who live on Ottawa have no street parking
141 Not much, this is the superior option.
144 Drive lanes could be narrower to encourage slower traffic through the area
147 Not sure the bike lane is necessary since so much bike travel is likely coming off of the
bridge that it seems cyclists are likely to use Raleigh or Salem rather than Ottawa. I'm an
avid cyclist and ride across that bridge a LOT (ehem, Steel Toe) and have never biked
on Ottawa.
148 No parking
149 This will create safe passage for multiple transportation options
150 Still unsure how bike, trail is crossing at light in the heavi.ly used right turn intersection.
156 Too many driveways for a trail to cross. Bikers would continue to use the street.
169 The drive lines are a bit wider than the other option.
174 no parking?
177 If you lose the parking, at least it is a good bikeway. That is a good main route to cross
Hgwy 7
178 Nothing
ResponseID Response
70
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 174
184 No on street parking
186 No parking
188 no road parking
191 no parking
192 multi-use is very large
196 No parking
204 Mixing bikes and peds on a street that drivers use as a bypass
206 no parking
214 Narrower East sidewalk. No parking lane on either side.
215 Nothing
219 Eliminates parking.
223 Driving lanes too wide.
225 I don't know if there is anything I dislike
227 bikes should stay in street
232 no landscaping between sidewalk/trail and the road
234 I don't understand what the trail is connecting.
236 It dead ends at Highway 7/county road 25. Traffic can turn west into the trail users cutting
across frontage road heading south. Better road painting and signage is needed to alert
vehicles.
239 I prefer not to have multi-use trails.
254 Maybe crowded on trail
256 May affect Frankel's bookstore on the corner?
257 no on street parking
258 The disruption of building it outside my window
259 Nothing!
ResponseID Response
71
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 175
260 Decrease in neighborhood parking. From living close and traveling that road daily for
years, I know that residents rely on street parking on that stretch. This will Have a
greater impact on residents who rent their home.
268 lack of parking
269 Curious why the plan isn't utilizing the bridge currently going over Hwy 7
276 Bikes never stay where they are supposed to when sharing a sidewalk.
277 greater separation between walkers and bikers.
281 Absolutely nothing
283 Not a fan of multi-use trail. Walking on the Cedar Lake Bike trail is terrifying. Walkers,
dogs, kids on bikes don't mix with bicyclists flying at 20 mph.
289 larger drive lanes= faster cars traffic
297 I'm concerned about bike riders on the trail portion riding recklessly because they don't
think they are subject to traffic laws—for example, not stopping at intersections.
307 i live in the Park Towers apartments, lack of parking on Ottawa could be an issue.
310 Na
314 Wider driving lanes mean higher speeds for cars.
317 Feel bicycle traffic should be directed to bridge over TH 7 while Ottawa should focus on
providing as much space as possible for pedestrian movement.
318 pedestrians and bikers sharing a trail can lead to mild congestion/forcing bikers onto
road
320 reduces convenient parking for the people who live there
322 The multi-use trail usually dose not work well because so many bikers disrespect the
people walking by going by them too close and do not announce their approaching from
behind scaring people.
326 We do not need a multiuse trail when there is a pedestrain bridge near by.
331 my exp of Ottawa on a bike is in general v.v. negative: the parked cars, the traffic driving
too fast, plus the odd steep grade of the hill. will you re-grade the slope? I likely would
avoid Ottawa and scoot round the police station on my bike to avoid traffic
333 No concern
ResponseID Response
72
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 176
341 Nothing
342 I'm concerned about snow storage.
344 Again looking at this option as a bicycle commuter, I like the trail option but left to
wonder how I would continue south bound across CH 25? I prefer having the option to
go north and south along Ottawa and feel that the previous options works better in the
that way.
346 bikes and pedestrians not separated.
349 Nothing
352 could multi-use be smaller to accomodate other sidewalk to be parking?
355 If a bike lane is provided, it should be on one side OR the other...not both. Side walks
"could" be on each side...but, needn't be 5' wide.
369 This option with the multi-use trail appeals--however it needs to connect to something
(another bike lane) once it meets Mtka Blvd. Currently, I take the ped bridge over 7,
then connect to the trail that swings around on the east side of 100. I need to cross to the
west of 100 to get to/from home, which can be problematic given traffic on Mtka Blvd--
and bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians isn't the best option.
377 Nothing
381 n/a
386 NA
393 worried about losing parking in a very apartment dense area. is there enough parking
areas to accommodate resident and visitor parking?
394 the ped bridge over 7/25 routes to Raleigh. Ottawa is already busy and these plans
reduce traffic flow
395 none
396 nothing
399 Dont dislike anything
400 It's on the wrong side of the street! Once you get to crossing 25, there's no where to go!
Put it on the other side of the street so it connects to paths and the actual lightrail station.
There's already a bike bridge on this side of the street if trail connection is needed. This
placement is duplicative and doesn't meet the purported need of improving pedestrian
access to the station.
ResponseID Response
73
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 177
401 This would be tight for cars in the winter.
404 neutral
409 More hardscape. We have trails on nearby streets.
ResponseID Response
74
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 178
22. How do you like the Beltline Boulevard Trail Option?
8% Strongly Dislike8% Strongly Dislike
7% Dislike7% Dislike
8% Neutral8% Neutral
26% Like26% Like
51% Strongly Like51% Strongly Like
Value Percent Responses
Strongly Dislike 7.8%17
Dislike 6.9%15
Neutral 7.8%17
Like 26.1%57
Strongly Like 51.4%112
Totals: 218
75
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 179
ResponseID Response
17 Except at rush hour, the four lanes of traffic are never necessary. This gives all that space
to pedestrians and bikers, which makes the space more available for more people more
of the time.
20 Option for bikers and walkers on both sides. Turn lanes are also great.
23 A road diet is good for traffic flows bikes and pedestrians.
24 west multi-use trail relieves congestion
25 This seems great! I like the multiuse trail and more sidewalks.
29 LOVE LOVE LOVE
30 As someone who uses this corridor frequently as a pedestrian, cyclist, and driver, I'm
really grateful for this change. The existing multi-use path feels insufficient for the level
of ped/bike traffic, so I like the addition of more ped/bike traffic on the other side of
Beltline, which currently seems underutilized. I also really appreciate the bike lane
addition: when it's possible to keep (higher speed) bike and foot traffic apart, it feels
safer for both cyclists and pedestrians. The change to three driving lanes with a center
turn lane seems like it will be sufficient for the amount of car traffic while also offering
clarity of traffic flow for left turns. I think this proposal offers sufficient room for ALL kinds
of traffic to make it through this corridor safely.
31 Love the Multi-use on both sides of the street, and the bike lanes for those just
commuting (getting from point A to B). Like the left turn lanes.
32 It's more pedestrian friendly. I like the multi use trail AND bike trail. As a bike commuter, I
liked what you said about some bikers feeling comfortable going slower while others
using the bike lane as an alternative to driving.
34 The additional trail on the west side, dedicated bike lanes, the turn lane will prevent
traffic from slowing down too
36 Trail on both sides of the road. Left turn in center moves traffic better than 4 lanes, in my
opinion. Like the 2 options for bicycles i.e. street and trail.
38 Room for everyone. Will work for bikers in winter.
39 Love everything about this plan. We live in the Minikahda Vista neighborhood and have
never felt safe biking with the kids from our neighborhood to Bass Lake or what now will
be the light rail station. This project along with what is being done on Monterey Drive
will be huge improvements. Additionally, this stretch is always a bit of a racetrack with
some close calls with cars taking left turns from driving lanes and folks veering at the last
second when the car in front brakes suddenly to turn. Will be a big fan of the middle
suicide turn lane.
23. Tell us what you LIKE about the Beltline Boulevard Trail Option?
76
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 180
40 Nice to have trails on both sides given traffic volume and speed. Nice to have 2 drive
lanes plus turn lane. Fewer lanes to cross than current conditions. Plus pedestrian can use
turn lane as refuge.
41 it willl improve pedestrian access on the west side of beltline for getting to businesses
43 adds multi-use trail on west side
44 Fewer driving lanes will help slow traffic here as well as make it easier for pedestrians to
cross and cars to enter the stream.
46 I like the center lane for people to turn that allows for bike lanes
48 I like that bikes and pedestrians are in different lanes and that there is grass separating
bike lanes and pedestrian lanes. I like that pedestrians can walk on both sides of the
street.
49 Creation of trail on both sides is important. Bike lanes will make it safer on the road and
on the pedestrian walk.
53 Bike lanes! I hate the 4 lane roads, they just encourage dangerous driving.
55 Lots of safe options on a main road
57 bike lanes on each side with the same travel direction as vehicular traffic
58 Love it! We need bike lanes.
63 center turn lanes
65 more shade, more protection, the feel is very much park-like
66 Better bike access
69 Bike don't share with walkers. This is busy area. Walkers will get in the way of bikes.
71 Everyone has a safe place: bikers, walkers and drivers.
72 More space for pedestrians and bikes, less car traffic so less dangerous for bikes and
pedestrians
73 Get rid of the bike portion and expand the driving lanes and it's good
77 Ped and bike options on both sides of Beltline and narrower street. Beltline is too wide
to cross easily now.
ResponseID Response
77
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 181
79 Dedicated bike lanes would really help, especially for riders on the west side. It can be
unpleasant to walk along those trails with all the bikers. The center turn lane will really
make the local businesses more accessible to drivers, too.
80 I like that there is a trail on both sides along with a bike lane. That's a pretty popular
stretch, with the lake trail, greenway, and brewery all so close.
81 Bike Lanes! Hopefully separated in some way as well. Having same biking conditions is
critical especially for areas like this that have a fair amount of automotive vehicle traffic.
84 dedicated bike lane center turn lane
85 reduces # of drive lanes, adds on road biking and wide trails on both sides
88 Everything seperatr spaces for everyone, slows down traffic. Makes it safe
92 Room to move many people to high traffic destinations
93 Both sides for bikes
95 This is fantastic. Love the dedicated bike lanes; love the trails on both sides of the road;
the current West side is very underutilized parking lots - so this is a great improvement.
96 So much more travel-able without needing a car, looks much safer for everyone. I think it
would make beltline feel more accessible from the Elmwood neighborhood
97 I bike through here several times a week. The three-lane design with bike lanes would
be a huge safety improvement. Thank you!!
100 Multiple options for different confidences of biker (land and Multi use trail). Getting rid of
the 2 lane highway concept so cars can speed like they do everywhere
101 plant more trees please.
103 Safe travel to Greenway
104 Addition of a bike lane, IF they stay in the bike lane. Maybe make it wider, and the trail
narrower, but the trail would only be for pedestrians.
106 Calming traffic safer for pedestrians and cyclists. Has the trail realignment further into the
Bass lake edge been considered?
107 The multi use trail
ResponseID Response
78
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 182
110 The bike and pedestrian traffic are separated. Pedestrians and bikes are on both sides
of the road which will allow the ped and bike traffic to spread out and not be all crowded
together. The single lane of traffic will probably slow things down on this road, which
now is pretty fast. It will be nice to have a trail on the west side. We walk in this area a lot
and have to cut through parking lots to get to our destination (Steel Toe brewery). It's
nice to have acknowledgment of walkers by providing a safe place to walk. Walking on
both sides is good because it's very hard to cross the street because there's no traffic
light at the intersection near Steel Toe.
111 Like addition of turn lane.
113 Multi-use trails and bike lanes on both sides of the street seems perfect.
117 It has a nice trail on each side.
119 adds bike lane and sidewalk to both sides. keeps the blvd plantings,
125 Neutral
126 My wife and I walk quite frequently down to this from the birchwood neighborhood,
which means we take this route quite a bit. especially now that we have kids and a
stroller it has been terrifying at moments crossing over Beltline Blvd near the train tracks
with the speeding and ignorant drivers that cruise the road. our other option has been to
stay on the westside of beltline, cross over the train tracks and walk through the grass of
the business. This option keeps people on either side of the boulevard safe and out of
harms way without needlessly crossing the road
127 The multi-use trail on the west side; The addition of bike lanes so that pedestrians aren't
run over on the multi-use trails; the center turn lane.
128 The new multi-use trail.
129 dedicated bike infrastructure, grass boulevards
131 I like the addition of a trail on the West side of the street.
133 Very much like the bike lanes and de-emphasizing car traffic.
135 I have had to cross this road on a bike many times. It is difficult because of the 4 lanes. I
STRONGLY like reducing the road to 2 lanes and a center turn lane. I think it will slow
traffic to a safer level. I am neutral on the multi use trails on both sides - but am sure that
will be a nice feature. Bike lanes are very good.
136 Beltline is too busy to have only one lane in each direction. Why multi use trail and bike
lanes?
137 Having a dedicated bike lane will help with congestion.
ResponseID Response
79
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 183
139 like the trails & multi-use
141 More bike and walking space is good.
142 Center turning lane. I live off Beltline, and while making a left turn currently isn't too
difficult, having a center turning lane would make things smoother for other vehicles
continuing straight.
144 good wide bike lanes
146 I like have another multi use trail
147 Bike lanes on both sides. This may seem trivial but it's not: Biking to breweries is a thing,
and getting to Steel Toe is currently not safe with no bike lane on the west side.
148 Looks nice, but I'm not likely to use.
149 This creates more capacity for pedestrians.
152 Gives pedestrians a place to walk that is separate from cedar lake trail. Beneficial for
businesses near the trail.
153 Current layout makes that street very dangerous for both pedestrians and bicycles.
Getting anywhere from the Cedar Lake Trail via Beltline is pretty terrifying by bike. This
should calm traffic in on Beltline too.
156 I like the trails on both sides
158 We've advocated for this for years — our family fréquents the businesses (specifically
Steel Toe Brewery) off belt line and there's no easy way to walk there without crossing
on the busy intersection and having to cross back again. I know the speed limit there is
30 but everyone seems to go 40mph and it's dangerous to cross the street.
160 Traffic streamlined
161 Everyone gets space, in both directions of travel / both sides of the street, in this critical
corridor. Love it!
162 I like that it looks safer for bikes and walkers but one lane each way would likely get too
congested, especially when/after a freight train is going through.
163 having a continuous trail on the west side of Beltline
169 reducing the lane count from 4 to 3, adding a multi-use trail so there's trails on both
sides, and adding bike lanes on both sides
170 TREES
ResponseID Response
80
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 184
177 Gets every use in there
178 Less traffic. Multi use. Turn lane for cars. Safer.
179 it looks like it has everything you could need.
187 The center turn lane, multi use trail, and bike lane.
188 Center turn lane makes sense
191 LOVE the trail, bike lane and center turn lane
192 covers the use bases BUT
196 More trails & center turn lane.
198 one lane each way and a center turn lane works pretty well.
200 Trails on both sides of the road, plus bike lanes for experienced bikers. 3-lane design is
much safer than current 4-lane design.
204 Like having trails on both sides of the street--makes it easier to walk
206 more room for foot traffic
214 The turn lanes are sensible addition. Like multi-use trails on BOTH sides of the plan. Like
the inclusion of bike lanes on both sides.
217 Much better for being able to cross. Prefer bikes on trails rather than in bike lanes
though, but given it's multi-use that shouldn't be a problem. Families on the trails and the
racing teams on the road would benefit all. Prefer the dedicated left turn lane as well,
easier to cross the road as cyclist or pedestrian.
218 There is too much automobile traffic for this option.
219 Like the thoughtful design and the multi-use trails on both sides of the road.
223 Less pavement for cars, and 3-lane arrangement is much safer and predictable.
Eliminates double threat.
225 Center turn lane is nice, and I really like adding a trail on the side that currently has no
existing trail. It will make it much easier to access those businesses as I currently live
close by and hate having to either run across the street or walk on the planting strip if I
want to walk over to Steel Toe Brewing, for example.
227 your picture is fuzzy DO OVER
ResponseID Response
81
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 185
228 Nice for peds.
232 center left turn lane would reduce delays for cars passing through, provides better
space for bikes and walkers, will slow down traffic on Beltline, safer crossing the road
safer for bikers and walkers with fewer lanes of traffic.
234 Looks like a great opportunity to re-allocate the space.
235 Love the space for bicycles and pedestrians.
236 2 bike trails on both sides of the road
238 Wider trail and trail on both sides because crossing is often challenging. Also, it makes
access to businesses like Steel Toe easier when traveling in from the West. We will
never need to cross the road when on bike or foot. The trail often is busy as well so
more trail space would be great. And those biking fast can use the lanes on the road. I
also think doing left turns onto Beltline may be easier with less lanes of traffic.
239 I love the separated bike lanes for avid bikers, and multi-use trails for pedestrians and
kids on bikes.
241 It's safest to give bikers their own lane, and I don't feel that there's enough traffic to
justify 4 lanes of cars. But will that change with the new station?
244 Off roadway trail.
247 Great trail and sidewalk buffer options; great bike lanes!!
256 nothing
257 multi use trail on both sides
259 Would love to walk along this trail safely, but I have always found different routes. I like
the concept of making this area more walkable.
262 Bike lanes and more multi-use trails.
264 Safe will be well used
268 Like the addition of bike lanes
269 dedicated bike lanes better walking space
270 Hoping the bike lanes are segregated lanes not just paint. Makes it better for
pedestrians and cyclists.
276 Love the bike lane!
ResponseID Response
82
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 186
277 nice separation bikers and walkers
278 Separated bike lane
281 The drama, the implied party, the pure hedonistic attitude. Love it
284 This is the best design in this survey. The sidewalk trails on both sides are extremely
important due to the increased light rail pedestrian traffic. The option of trails and bike
lanes combo allow for reduced high speed bicycle and pedestrian conflict
287 Would love to have a trail on both sides of the road.
289 bike have their own lane-trees/green space
297 The center turn lane and the trail on both sides.
307 a left turn lane should help with the flow of traffic on beltline. trails on both sides will be
nice.
310 Safety for cyclist and pedestrians!!!
314 Two mixed use trails, separated bike lanes mean more safety for all. prioritizes people
over cars!
317 The existing Beltline trail is heavily used by bikes and pedestrians, while the roadway is
also very busy. many destinations are to the west of Beltline (Steel Toe, Target, various
fitness businesses and the pedestrian bridge over 7). A west side trail will greatly
improve safety by reducing need to cross Beltline.
318 Actually having bike lanes is a huge positive. Feels more natural in flow for both lanes of
traffic
320 allows for safe pedestrian use on both sides of the road, gives bikers a dedicated lane
to allow space between them and the pedestrians as well as the cars, reduces the
bottleing up that happens when people want to turn left; seems like traffic speeds will
reduce - it feels like a raceway right now with the lack of sidewalks and no shoulder.
322 This is a better use of space
324 I was actually interested in this project, but it's been so many years, I've lost my interest
in it ...
327 Center turning lane is a good option.
329 2 multi-use trails & bike lane each way & separate lane for turning hopefully would make
drivers more aware of bikes & pedestrians
ResponseID Response
83
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 187
331 I am a biker. I do not drive. I am 60. I bike everywhere. I often HAVE to bike on Beltline
to get to e.g. Trader Joes. I need a bike lane; cars do NOT need two lanes - also soooo
many drivers try to intimidate me on my bike when I am on a street such as Betline by
curving in to drive CLOSER to me, rather than curving around like the law requires
332 Bike friendly.
333 Bike friendly
341 Don't like
342 I like the added trail on the west side of the street. The east side trail is already well
used. If you insist on separate bike paths, Beltline is the street that needs them. The
center turn lane may make it easier to turn left onto Beltline from streets and parking
lots.
344 Any improvement along the west side of Beltline Blvd is MUCH appreciated! This is
good start!
346 good bike support for an important bike route. Separation of bikes and pedestrians is
safer than multi-use trail option. I've been driving beltline for 15 years--two full lanes in
each direction is overkill.
348 Bike lanes would be helpful for Beltline since the traffic is often going very fast
349 A second multi use trail.
352 using the space of the 20' planting strip for a trail
353 bike lane
354 Allows northward travel on the west side of Beltline to intersect with the flyover CSAH
25, meaning you don't cross the street to go North and then cross again to get to flyover.
355 Something...for almost everyone. It's going to be a very busy street.
357 Love multi use trails and bike lanes
359 3 lanes are great!
360 Perfect for getting to steel toe from the greenway
367 I like the trees and adding a trail
369 Turn lane--YES!! Currently, dealing with Beltine on a bicycle OR while in a car drives me
nuts.
373 Lots of space for walking and biking.
ResponseID Response
84
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 188
377 Love the two multi-purpose trails and the dedicated bike lanes. Really like that traffic is
only 1 lane in each direction with a center turn lane; reduces potential for rear-end
accidents and allows for safer ped crossings.
379 I like the center turn lane and the multiuse trail on both sides.
381 everything! pedestrians using both sides of the road, which will remove the need for
some people to cross the busy street. bike lanes will at least encourage cars to abide by
the painted lines and allow cyclists to cycle faster than if they kept to the multi-use trail.
multi-use trail removes the need to share the road with cars if people choose. one lane
of traffic each way makes it safer for people to cross Beltline and removes the option for
drivers to race each other.
384 Promoting biking and people walking is health to our community.
386 NA
391 Too congested of an area, keep the four lanes.
394 do not like this option
395 reduces from two drive lanes to one in each direction
396 dedicated bike lanes which reduces chances of injury to pedestrians
399 Trail on each side
400 Much safer
401 More room for pedestrians and bicycles.
402 Love, love, love this option as it prioritizes non-motorized transportation AND calms the
traffic on Beltline.
404 Allows biking separate from sidewalk, on both sides of street, turn lane option
409 Bike lanes separate from pedestrians - and cars
410 Makes biking safer and a center turn lane makes sense.
ResponseID Response
85
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 189
ResponseID Response
19 Trail would be better on the other side of the boulevard (or have trail on both sides). It is
iffy to try to cross on a bike. People drive like maniacs on that road and there's too much
merging at CR25 to be safe on a bike or walking. I have to deal with it all the time!!!
20 Nothing.
23 More paved sidewalk.
25 I am unsure if the sidewalk/multiuse will continue all the way to County Rd 25.
29 NOTHING
30 I don't have any concerns about this plan.
31 Hopefully the decrease in driving lanes does not clog up traffic after the light rail station
is completed.
32 nothing
34 No crosswalk is added to cross Beltline at W 35th Ave.
36 Nothing.
38 With LRT trains coming more frequently, there may be more back up delays with one
lane of cars. It already backs up quite a bit for trains.
39 Wish the bike lane could be within the Blvd for a little added safety.
41 I don't see why there has to be bike lanes if there are also two multi-use trails-it's a busy
section and having bikes in the street will be scary
46 The single traffic lanes could get congested, especially with the idiots that stop at the
trail crossing
49 Not convinced the center turn lane works at the area closer to highway 7. That easily
gets jammed up as it is.
51 I would make the bike lanes flush with the multi-use trial to decrease auto-bike
interactions. I would also swap the bike lane with the 4 foot band of vegetation (please
use native grasses, shrubs and plants here), to make biking safer. If you want to keep
bikers off the multi-use trail, you could have a small bump between the two
52 Needs more driving lanes than two.
53 I'm not sure 2 multi-use trails plus bike lanes are necessary.
24. What do you DISLIKE about the Beltline Boulevard Trail Option?
86
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 190
57 multi-use trails on both sides of the pavement
72 possibly less fluid traffic if same amount of cars with less lanes
73 Get rid of the bike portion and expand the driving lanes and it's good
77 Nothing
79 Drivers go pretty fast along Beltline, so bikers would be right alongside dangerous
traffic.
85 would prefer center turn lane only where necessary, landscape blvd elsewhere
88 Nothing
92 Nothing
93 Loud area
95 would like to see a protected bike lane - physical dividers
97 The existing side path is difficult to use because a 9 feet it is not wide enough for both
peds and bikes. It is also extremely dangerous at the intersections; you can check the
research on side paths. Plus, asphalt paths are routinely under-built and forgotten.
leading to a rough ride, thus discouraging their use. I cannot understand why you would
propose a side path on the west side that begins nowhere and ends at a sidewalk.
Nobody would use that. It would be a waste of money, and it would be better to have
the green space. Plus, 10 feet is too narrow for a shared-use path. But if you did that,
don't try to grow grass in the narrow strip between the curb and the path. Instead, use a
colored, textured paver with a shoulder stripe. There should be a curb cut and ramp to
bike between westbound 35th street and the existing side path of Beltline Boulevard.
Finally, the eastern side path is very dangerous where it abuts the curb. Any southbound
cyclist who goes off the path risks a head-on collision with an SUV. That certainly violates
design standards. In the winter, it is especially sadistic.
100 The graphics that show actual cars. We all know the majority of the motor vehicles will be
larger SUVs so why lie about how much room the vehicles take up in the graphic?
103 na
104 Why give bikes 3 options? The street, a lane just for them, AND a multi-use trail. They
already go freely between the sidewalk, trail, and street now, cruising from one to the
other to get where they want to go as fast as possible.
107 Nothing
110 I can imagine that it would be very hard to make a left turn if I were driving. If I were
biking north, it would be hard to cross the road to turn west toward Steel Toe Brewery.
ResponseID Response
87
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 191
111 This is a high traffic area with limited alternate routes for cars. This street already has
space for pedestrians & bike trail. Please don't cause more congestion by reducing
traffic lanes.
113 With so much space to work with, I'd like to see buffers or even curb protection for the
bike lanes.
117 Bike lanes on a busy street are just plain dangerous for both kids and old people. There
is no protection from cars. Who wants to be the next dead bicyclist? Will it be your kid?
125 Neutral
126 absolutely nothing, I've had a brief conversation with my city council rep a year or two
ago about wanting something exactly like this.
128 Why have unprotected bike lanes AND a multi-use trail? That makes no sense to me. Put
a bike trail next to the pedestrian trail, and put the curb next to the driving lanes.Give
bicyclists one safe option, not one option where they have to fight with pedestrians and
another where they have to fight with cars.
129 bike lanes should be curb protected, painted lines do not protect bicyclist from drivers
and will not get families to use the infrastructure. 11' wide car lanes should be 9'.
133 Would prefer bike lanes to be separated from the road. Adjacent to the sidewalk would
be best.
135 Nothing!
136 One lane in each direction would hopefully make traffic slow down.
137 Will the crosswalk over Beltline look the same? Currently it is very dangerous.
139 nothing
141 The shared middle turn lane isn't the best way to handle turns, but it's not awful.
144 The bike lanes should be protected from the cars such as putting them above the curb
like the side walk or adding its own curb between the lane and the cars. The 6 feet does
not so the 10" wide gutter that takes up the space or the snow accumulation that will
happen in winter forcing the bikes into the cars lanes
146 not sure you need bike lanes if the multi use trail is in place. don't like that we loose a lot
of the plaiting strip.
147 nothing. I love it. "Make it so."
148 Feel like it's intended for the low number of residents who go out of their
neighborhoods to walk
ResponseID Response
88
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 192
149 Paint protected bicycle lanes endanger all road users, especially cyclists. Moving the
curbs to put the bike lanes at the same level as the trails will create a safer passage for
all, especially kids trying to get to the Rec Center from the other side of Hwy 7.
150 With new light rail on Beltline you are encouraging more traffic and you are going to take
it down a lane/turning lane?? Currently walking/biking path works. Rarely is it "packed"
and it supports using bass lake trail/paths.
156 There aren't many driveways to the east, so the center left is pretty pointless.
158 Eliminating a vehicle lane... but it may slow traffic down to the speed limit.
162 Congestion after freight trains
169 nothing - I really like this option
177 I worry that it there may be too much traffic for losing one lane each way. I would defer
to traffic planners to know that limit.
178 Nothing
184 No need for bike lanes if there are 2 multi-use trails
187 The bike lane seems quite close to the road lane. Perhaps it can't be showed in the
rendering but I appreciate bike lanes that have an additional buffer between the bike
and road lane.
188 Loose two lanes of traffic
192 too much mix of use. Needs to be better managed
196 Only 2 lanes may cause congestion.
198 I don't think you need a multipurpose trail and a bike lane on both sides.
200 Protected bike lanes are preferred to reduce the chances of motorists driving or
parking on the bike lane.
204 Would not bike on Beltline without a protected lane.
206 people don't understand how to drive with bike lanes
215 Auto traffic limited Just not enough automobile traffic flow will create congestion
217 Will there still be a rail crossing? Single lane backups could be problematic.
218 There is too much automobile traffic for this option
ResponseID Response
89
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 193
219 Area is already congested with traffic, concerned about how a single lane each direction
and one turn lane will service that corridor. Also bike lanes and multi-use trails seems a
bit redundant.
223 This could be made a simple 2-lane road instead with more space for bikes. Needs curb
protection for bikes.
225 Bike lanes seem redundant with the multi-use trails, although I can see how it might free
up some congestion. During high volume commute times, having Beltline as a 1 lane
street each way has the potential to fill up pretty quick.
228 Will center turn lane be sufficient for all the traffic? And if this turn lane concept is installed
please make sure there are no "turn conflicts".
232 bike lanes and trails seem redundant, use that space for on-street parking on the west
side of the road or more landscaping or cycle tracks or wider trails separating bikes
from walkers on trails.
234 Feels like too much pavement. If there is an existing multi use trail, why not use this area
for the bike facility? Move the curb lines closer to centerline, add a boulevard, add a
cycletrack, another boulevard and then the sidewalk. I feel this would be the safest and
most used bike facility.
236 Bike lanes on a busy street. I'll never use them because they're dangerous. A painted
stripe protects no one. I'm an experienced bicyclist. I'm a commuter that rides in
downtown Mpls rush hour because I have no option. But about 90% of my commute is on
bike trails. I predict the only ones that will use these bike lanes will be the speed racers
in spandex. Just like on Minnetonka Blvd. And one uses the bike lanes on Walker
headed toward Texas. We all use the trail and the sidewalks.
237 I do not like cars mixed with bikes. An accident waiting to happen.
238 The turn lane might get backed up at times.
239 Nothing.
241 Concerned that with new light rail station, traffic will increase on Beltline Boulevard, which
may be a problem with new single lanes.
247 Nothing! This is how it should be for best ped and bike safety.
256 not at all safe or reasonable given the volume of traffic - the bike lanes would be
dangerous - need separate bike lanes off road
257 too busy with too many lanes
258 Dangerous
ResponseID Response
90
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 194
259 Nothing.
262 No real complaints.
267 I don't believe there is enough bike traffic to warrant a bike lane that bikers rarely use.
268 4 lanes down to two will make this route more conjested
269 concern around traffic flow with only one lane in each direction
276 Nothing
277 multi use trail causes confusion as fast bikers/runners have to dodge slow walkers with
dogs on leashes. Separated grade is better.
278 reducing lanes may cause backups
281 The temptation
283 There is heavy turning traffic on this street, both West and East off Beltline. Please make
turn lanes long enough to handle volume of cars. Could be confusing if cars traveling
both north and south are in the center lane to turn. Dangerous perhaps? Prefer wider
lanes for cars.
284 Nothing
287 I only wonder how reducing lanes is going to affect traffic that backs up at hwy 7. But I
don't drive that road much and would much rather have a trail on both sides.
289 not sure
310 Nothing
314 I hope the bike lanes have some sort of protection, or are elevated
318 nothing of note
319 I don't like how the west side trail ends before reaching the south cedar lake trail. If
patronizing businesses along 36th, it would cause you to cross Beltline twice.
320 traffic might get pretty stacked up during rush hour with only one through lane
322 Bikes on the trail when there is a bike lane just next to them!!!
326 The first choice as is is just fine. This again is a heavily used road and does not need
more areas for multiuse. I DO NOT see these trails being so congested we need to
make more room for bikers and walkers at the expense of driver safety!!!!!
ResponseID Response
91
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 195
327 I don't want to lose any trees by making the greenspace more narrow. SO many trees
were lost to make the light rail.
331 no barrier between bike lane and drive lane. can you install a curb there? that would be
great. a biker would feel safer. how much does a curb cost?
333 No concerns
339 Dangerous to have bikes in same lane as cars
341 Too busy a road to reduce to 2 lanes.
342 The loss of 2 traffic lanes on this heavily travelled road will be felt, especially after LRT
opens. It is particularly important to maximize lanes at rail crossings and the intersection
with Highway 25, lest the road backs up for blocks due to the short light and the long
trains.
344 A question I have on this section of the project is, how can I travel safely from the
intersection of CH 25 and travel south along Beltline? I would like to suggest continuing
the multi-use trail from CH 25 to Park Glen Rd along the west side of Beltline. This would
eliminate the need to cross Beltline to travel southbound.
346 lack of buffer between cars and bikes. Is a semi-permanent barrier (such as vertical
plastic posts) possible?
348 Losing car lanes
349 Bikes are still on the street. I'd rather they be on a trail. Maybe one side of the street for
pedestrians and one side for bikes.
352 bike trail ON STREET dangerous loss of traffic lanes on major thoroughfare that with
transit coming will only have more traffic, not less, in the near future. waste of money to
realize mistakes after like wooddale bridge redo and redo and redo. why two separate
bike lanes and two separate wide multi-use... why not one side wide bike trail and one
side wide multi-use both separated from trafffic and recognize more traffic with lightrail
coming so keep 4 lanes and add a turn lane? PLENTY of room for that scenario!
353 too much multi-use. ya know the weather in Minnesota gets cold and people don't walk
outside so much.
354 All of the 20 ft natural area is lost to hardscape= runoff into the sewer and nearby
water/wetland. Why is on street bikeline also needed? If necessary to have on street
bikelane, can't it be 4 feet as in other locations?
355 You might just as well make both drive lanes 12' wide, same as center lane. Then, take a
foot from the new multi-use trail and also a foot away from the 4' buffer area. Cars will
still need to use this street to go each way. Give them room. Don't crowd a vehicle.
ResponseID Response
92
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 196
367 This is going to get very congested - taking a drive lane away on each side for bike
lanes is not ideal. If the multi-use trail is for bikers too (there is a person biking) why do
we need a bike lane? More people drive then bike, its been proven and I don't think
your going to have a sudden surge of bikers. Seems silly to cater to the few when they
can use the multi use trail. Again, if they can bike on the multi-use trail then no need for
an additional bike lane.
377 Nothing
381 nothing! it's ideal.
384 nothing
386 NA
393 why do you need two multi-use trails and two bike paths?
394 Major mistake - Beltline is the ONLY north-south connection and will be busier with
SWLRT - do NOT remove traffic lanes.
395 none
396 traffic down to one lane in either direction
399 Only 2 driving lanes?
400 I can't drive as fast.
401 Traffic would back up with only one lane each way.
404 neutral
409 Do we really need wide multi-use trails on both sides of the road in addition to bike
lanes? How about just a sidewalk on the west side and more grass/landscape?
ResponseID Response
93
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 197
ResponseID Response
17 Increasing pedestrian and biker spaces makes the whole town more livable and
attractive. It's the way of the future. Thank you for innovating in this direction.
19 Please realize that cyclists and walkers need dedicated spaces separate from each
other. There are very passive-aggressive walkers lately who don't yield to cyclists and
when a cyclist is clipped in it gets very dangerous for all. As you can surmise, I'm a cyclist!
I moved here because of bike trail access and this whole construction process has
COMPLETELY sucked for cyclists. The detour through Wolfe Park and to Calhoun Square
is a disaster.
20 I would like to see some consideration to improve pedestrian/bike crossings from Fern
Hill across Minnetonka Blvd at Ottawa. That intersection is dangerous, many red light
runners. Improvements would make it more likely for me to access the SLRT station by
foot/bike.
24 no
29 Great job during the first public zoom meeting!! It was very informative and well done.
30 Thanks for hosting the July 14 online forum -- it was easy to attend, well-organized, and
informative.
31 We are glad this project is being undertaken and community involvement is being
requested.
32 This might be off topic but it's all connected. Any considerations that can be made to
push traffic to 25 instead of Minnetonka Blvd would be appreciated. There really isn't
even a safe way to bike on Minnetonka right now, so if you are aware of strategies that
help with this while completing this project, that would be great.
34 Liked seeing the focus on bike and pedestrian access. Enjoyed the virtual presentation,
would prefer that to always be an option.
36 A visual of the Beltline going from '3' lanes to 4 lanes would help envision traffic flow.
They cannot be completed in a vacuum.
37 I am unfamiliar with the palns for the intersections on belt line and they would effect my
opinions
38 I'm loving watching our hood being upgraded and how much talent there is working on it.
39 Can't wait for the Monterey and Beltline projects to be completed. I think they will be
great improvements for both cars and peds/bikers.
25. Do you have any other general feedback related to the project?
94
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 198
40 City streets are not highways. Design should reflect desire to slow traffic. Reduce curb
radius to reflect desired speed. Use boulevard trees to provide visual constraints. Not
sure whether Lynn requires 2 sidewalks. Decision should reflect traffic volumes.
41 What happens to pedestrians on the west side of Beltline Blvd north of Park Glen? I don't
understand the proposed 4 ft areas on ottawa in the two sidewalk option--how will you
keep bikes out of the street there? How do you get from the Ottawa trail/sidewalk to the
bridge that crosses over the highway? Will the trail continue toward Skippy field? Where
can I find information about the propsed inprovements to the County Road 25 frontage
road between Lynn & Beltline? I did not see it on the SWLRT website? Where do you
show how changes to Beltline will fit with Monterey project? I'm glad you said the city will
clear the snow from the new sidewalks/trails. Note that the current sidewalk on the east
side of Ottawa seems pretty steep when I see people trying to go up the hill especially
in wintery conditions.
46 I like the concepts in general, but I worry about taking parking away from the residents
on Ottawa just south of Minnetonka Blvd.
49 Planting quality tress along the pedestrian/bike routes would help make it appealing to
use - shade is good ! Also please look for ways to slow traffic for safety. Minnetonka
Blvd is currently too fast and needs to slow. - side streets should be 25.
51 Great plans!. Please think about keeping bicyclists safe from drivers. Also expect and
allow that bicyclists may need to use parts of multi-use trails from time to time for safety
reasons as when there is bicycle congestion.
55 Want to increase access for bikers, but please remember not everyone can bike, and
certainly not al the time-elderly, parents with kids taking them to the doctor, going to
grocery store for family, bad weather, disabled, etc. Don't totally sacrifice car access for
bikes (that being said I'm definitely a biking supporter)
57 it is good to anticipate progress with Community input
58 I used to live in Minneapolis and the single thing I miss after having bought a house in St
Louis Park are the bike lanes. St Louis Park is currently not particularly bike-friendly: we
need more bike lanes or multi-use trails. Thank you for your consideration.
63 seems like it will be really useful once complete. Hopefully the sidewalks along the north
side of minnetonka blvd between Ottawa and Lynn can be upgraded at some point too
as they will have more use with light rail coming and they are currently hazardous to use.
65 well done
72 Anything you do to improve bikes/pedestrians safety and ease of circulation is great.
Thank you!
73 Get rid of the bike portion and expand the driving lanes and it's good
ResponseID Response
95
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 199
77 It's very important to accommodate pedestrian and bike options to access light rail.
Priority to these types of transportation should be much higher than parking.
79 It takes a very long time to get into the Beltline area from north of Minnetonka given the
lack of crossings, the high speed of cars on Minnetonka, and the long lights.
80 I like the overall direction toward more mixed-used trails and bike lanes. We need more
north/south multi-use trails in this city. There are a lot of east/west options, but few that
exist if I wanted to get from say, Excelsior Blvd to Cedar Lake Road, without taking some
busier roads.
81 Whenever bike lanes are added in SLP, I'd like to see them have a barrier for increased
safety, especially the main routes, such as the upcoming Alabama bike lane.
85 Could Ottawa be one way northbound and southbound traffic encouraged to use
Raleigh to access Beltline?
88 Safe spaces for everyone, slow down the speed there will be a lot of people around
there
92 No
96 I'm excited for any additions to trails, bikeways, or walkways in SLP!
97 I certainly hope you do not propose to build a roundabout at the intersection of Beltline
Boulevard and Monterey Drive, as I heard a few years ago. That would be death for the
pedestrians and bicyclists, as the auto traffic would never stop. Riding the triple
roundabouts on Louisiana Avenue is a death-defying maneuver even for an assertive
and accomplished cyclist like me. .
100 This seems like positive steps towards protected bike infrastructure. Good job.
101 My concern is to make sure we are not removing any more tress, we lost so much on
Beltline. Also, I have lived here for 23 years, and even if you put sidewalks in, there still
will be a large group of people that will not use them.
104 Please consider separating bicyclists and pedestrians. I only feel safe walking at Lake of
the Isles because the paths there are separate. Bicyclists almost never say, "On your
left", they just speed by. It is so dangerous to just be a walker around this area, and the
George Braun Trail. It's a real shame.
106 Greener. Slower. Softer. These were catchwords for the Excelsior Boulevard
reconstruction in the 1990s. They apply to the subject roadway.
110 Maybe consider a traffic light at the intersection of Beltline and the street where Steel
Toe is to cut down on accidents.
ResponseID Response
96
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 200
111 It is not good policy to simply reduce traffic lanes. People still need to use cars and you
can not force them out of cars buy creating congestion.
117 Thanks for putting together a good set of slides and asking us for input. Pretty nice!
Thank you!
119 beltline road updates should go all the way to 36th street
125 Please keep A parking Option on Lynn Avenue
126 my interest in this project is mostly on the Beltline Boulevard portion of it. I think with
adding trails and bike path on both the east and west side of the road it will be a much
safer situation for everyone. Also, I think it will be a huge help for the businesses in that
area to have safe walking and biking access (especially once the LRT and N Cedar Lake
Trail are completed and running)
128 What is being done about the intersection with County Road 25? At minimum, the slip
lanes must be removed.
129 Protected bikeways or grade separated bike infrastructure should be built into all new
projects.
133 Always glad to hear the city is looking to make improvements for pedestrian and bike
uses.
135 Thank you for always asking for our feedback.
139 no
141 More walking and biking space! It's so important and one of the big reasons I chose to
live in SLP.
144 All Bike Lanes should be protected from cars by barriers not just plastic bollards. This
can be done by raising it up to the side walk level which i think is best or by adding a
concrete curb between the bikes and cars so that the cars cannot take over the bikers
space
145 I am very interested in the project. I live on the North side of Minnetonka, between
Ottawa and Lynn streets. The traffic on Minnetonka isolates us the parks and trails in the
area South of Minnetonka.
148 I am tired of driving space being redesigned for pedestrian and bike use, when reality
shows LOTS more residents drive than walk and bike, and will likely continue to do so.
149 Once built, this project will last 50 years. Please design it for a future that will encourage
safe use of all transportation options well beyond 2070. By that I mean define the space
for autos and put everything else (ped/rolling) behind the curb.
ResponseID Response
97
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 201
150 Better signage crossing tracks for bikers. Yellow flashing similar to 36th by Rec exit.
Roads are full of potholes by buses/construction trucks.
154 Bike friendly is important.
156 Make sure to include good lighting for off-street walks and trails.
158 I am a strong proponent of this change and would love to see a walkway on both sides of
belt line Blvd.
163 this is a great project. thank you for the opportunity to comment
169 Good luck!
176 I feel the SWLRT is grossly overpriced although it will be useful for some people.
Running it through the Kenilworth Corridor is very destructive to the environment around
Cedar Lake. Too late now I guess.
177 Thanks for considering bikeways and easy access for future transportation methods.
178 Hurry it up. We want the train!!!
192 sidewalks are great, but the proposed sizes are too large in some places
198 I appreciate you asking for input.
200 Eliminate right-turn slip lanes to make crossing busy intersections on foot or bike easier,
and slows down right turning traffic. Make lanes slightly more narrow to calm traffic and
add a little more space for bike lanes on Belt Line Boulevard.
214 Please consider a parking lane on Ottawa, whatever the plan is going forward.
223 This area badly needs improvement. Please be forward thinking as these configurations
likely will be set for a long time to come when transportation will have shifted further.
225 I love this area and look forward to seeing these improvements made!
227 DONT USE FUZZY PICTURES
232 Love the improvements for walkers and bikers. Pay attention to safer and narrower
crossings. Love the narrower lanes/roads for cars. Try to add or keep green space
where you can. Pay attention to bus stops.
235 Anything that makes Beltline safer for pedestrians, particularly disabled individuals, and
cyclists would be a welcome improvement.
236 Please look to the Dutch on how to design streets for people and bikes. Not cars. BTW
the bike bridge over Beltline is too steep.
ResponseID Response
98
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 202
241 Didn't have an opinion on Lynn Ave. because I don't understand why that's part of the
project.
247 Thank you for making this corridor safer for walkers and bikers!
256 Has anyone really studied the volume of traffic on the Beltline section? What about extra
street lights with the light rail coming? What about extra law enforcement given the
expected increase crime that has been associated with all the other light rail sites in
Minneapolis?
258 Very disruptive to residents Looks nice though
268 None at this time
269 why isn't focus on using Raleigh ave as a pedestrian/bicycle route rather than Ottawa.
there's less traffic on Raleigh, should be an easier conversion and it leads directly to belt
line blvd without dealing with intersection at 7 and Ottawa
270 It would be helpful to have more description of what this project is trying to achieve.
276 Nope
277 improvements should extend further east along the whole grade of the south access
road. since the trail access will be blocked with fencing (from Inglewood Ave. S. and
everything to the east) there should be easy access setup back to the trail via the
frontage road. with the new large apt buildings going up and those already built on the
access road, these types of improvements impact 1000s of people and their access to
the trail.
281 You are crushing it! I love SLP! Nice survey. Hard to see the real world in there, but you
did a solid job.
282 We need additional parking on Lynn. The apartment residents need access to parking.
Please don't put sidewalks next to apartment windows.
289 the more green space the better, reduction of cars speed is a must-concerns about the
parking and increase of traffic in the neighborhood that is already too busy with cars
(before COVID)
297 I'm also concerned about pedestrians and bikers crossing Hwy 7. Very few use the
pedestrian/bike bridge. I think it's built in the wrong place, but I understand there may
not have been room to place it further East.
310 Sidewalks and trails! The more there are, the more people use them. I would love to
see sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides of all non-residential roads!
ResponseID Response
99
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 203
314 I love the city's commitment to people over cars.
318 no
319 I would love to see the project include large, well signed and metered pedestrian
crossings like exist on nearby Monterey Dr at the SLP Community Center/Wolfe Park
324 See Beltline Boulevard; I stated that at one point I was extremely interested, but the
amount of time that has lapsed has made me lose interest in the project. It's been going
on for years and years.
326 Yes, overall, I do support bike usage in our city, but let's be realistic. We live in
Minnesota, very few of us have options to even consider biking to work or other
entertainment. Most biking is recreational and I see this as a huge expense to our city for
VERY few residents and families. It is also getting to the point where there is limited
room for cars which adds to safety of driving and also the bikers. Too much in our small
roadways in St. Louis Park. Before you do any of this I think there should be an overall
mailed survey to residents in St. Louis Park to find out how many actually utilize trails
year around. I think you might be surprised. I support the environment and a green
economy, but lets be realistic.
331 I bike. I do not have a car. I am 60. So many people in cars in SLP drive to intimidate me.
Weekly, a driver swerves INWARD to drive closer to me to try to intimidate me - to
"warn" me to get off the road (usually a male in a truck). They seem to believe that it is
ILLEGAL for me to be IN THEIR LANE. This happens on 36th Street in particular. And
Dakota. And Ottawa. Sometimes Minnetonka. Another intimidation technique is to
FLOOR IT and rev up the engine as they pass me as a mode of intimidation. It works! But
SLP's mayor and council are accepting bids for new developments assuming that people
will bike or take public transit; mayor and council should therefore make it clear to
drivers that bikers have every right to be on the roadway. E.g., I weigh 150 pounds, a car
weighs two tons.
332 The more we can promote walking and biking, the more we can reduce car traffic. It's a
win-win situation.
333 Keep creating a more connected park!
334 The foot traffic moves on North Frontage of Hwy 7 I think a sidewalk or multi-use trail
makes sense.
341 No
342 I appreciate the work the city put into these projects.
ResponseID Response
100
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 204
344 This is a fantastic start to improve the ped and bike travel options through this very
difficult intersection of trails, surface roads, rail and major highways. I feel there needs to
an option, or way to safely travel to south from the intersection Minnetonka Blvd @
Ottawa, which could include using the ped bridge over CH 25, all the way to the Rec
Center @ 36th St along the west side of Beltline.
352 stop putting bike lanes INSIDE traffic
354 The scope of how one would move through the area on a bike needs most
consideration. This is the modality besides cars that individuals will use to meaningfully
get away from using vehicles for tasks/transportation, etc.It needs to be coherent and
flow easily, not moving on road to trail to one way trails, etc.
355 Car travel may not decrease as much as these plans count on. Maybe some day, but not
for quite a while.
360 Please improve the biking trail from the greenway down to the community center!
377 Love the forward, innovative and responsive thinking that wen in to the planning.
381 i love biking and walking around my city. excited to see these projects being developed,
and excited to see more car-free options of getting around the city.
386 Not at this time
393 I know Minneapolis wants to believe that it's residents don't drive cars but the reality is
that we are heavy motor vehicle, and continuing to take parking and driving lanes out
does not help traffic. there are not enough bikers and walkers today for the proposed
plan on Beltline
394 Lynn does not need anything. Ottawa and Beltline need car traffic lanes far more than
bike/multi-user trails.
400 More thought needs to be put into crossings on Minnetonka Blvd (2 lanes instead of 4
please!) And crossing comcets on 25, not just the frontage road.
401 What happens when freight trains pass over Beltline Blvd.?
402 I am looking forward to improving the non-motorized transit in this corridor and think the
Beltline changes will also improve the traffic situation.
404 I walk on this stretch of Ottowa often - these options would be a great improvement
from current very narrow sidewalk on only one side, with no separation between
sidewalk and street. Currently I often feel unsafe walking here.
409 is Lynn Ave S really anticipated to be a collector street to the Belt Line LR stop?
ResponseID Response
101
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 205
410 I generally appreciate safe biking lanes and retaining on street parking, which often
conflict with eachother. I appreciate your careful consideration of where to place both of
these.
ResponseID Response
102
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 206
ResponseID Response
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 207
ResponseID Response
104
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 208
ResponseID Response
105
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 209
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 210
Engineers | Architects | Planners | Scientists
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 300, Minnetonka, MN 55343-9302
SEH is 100% employee-owned | sehinc.com | 952.912.2600 | 800.734.6757 | 888.908.8166 fax
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ben A. Manibog Jr.
City of St. Louis Park
FROM: Heather Kienitz, PE (MN)
Justin Anibas, EIT
DATE: July 24, 2020
RE: CSAH 25/Beltline Boulevard Pedestrian Improvement Project - Parking Study
SEH No. STLOU 155416
This technical memorandum provides findings related to the parking study conducted as part of the Pedestrian
Improvement Project for County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 25/Beltline Boulevard in St. Louis Park, MN. The
parking study examined the existing on-street and off-street parking locations, parking restrictions, and parking
occupancy during four different time periods.
INTRODUCTION
There are currently minimal pedestrian facilities along Ottawa Avenue South, Lynn Avenue South, CSAH 25
Service Drive, and Beltline Boulevard in St. Louis Park. The proposed pedestrian improvement project will add
sidewalks to each of these roadways, as shown in Figure 1. Proposed sidewalks are needed to provide a safer
pedestrian environment in the area.
Due to the narrow cross section of Ottawa Avenue and Lynn Avenue, a concern related to the implementation of
the improved pedestrian facilities is the potential impact to on-street parking. Changes to the existing roadway
cross section may be required to accommodate the improved pedestrian facilities, including the possibility of
reducing or removing on-street parking from existing locations. Therefore, a parking study was completed for the
project area north of CSAH 25 to determine the current parking conditions and determine the impacts of
reducing/removing on-street parking.
Figure 1 shows the proposed pedestrian improvement locations as well as the parking study area.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 211
PROJECT LOCATION
?úA@
GzWX
B
eltli
n
eB
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d Lynn Avenue SouthCounty Ro
a
d 25 S
ervi
c
e
R
o
a
d
Minnetonka Boulevard
C o u n t y R o a d 2 5
36th Street WestHighway 100 SouthOttawaAvenueSouthRaleigh Avenue SouthWebster Avenue SouthMonterey
DriveVernonAvenueSouthToledo Avenue SouthToledo Avenue South36th Street West
29thStreetWest
361/2StreetWest
M
ontereyCourtJoppa Avenue SouthSalem Avenue SouthRaleigh Avenue SouthQuentin Avenue SouthPrinceton Avenue SouthSalemAvenueSouthWebster Avenue SouthUtica Avenue South35th Street We
st
35th Street W
e
st
Park Glen
R
o
a
dRaleighAvenueSouthNatchezAvenueSouthSalem Avenue SouthUticaAvenueProject: STLOU 155416
CSAH 25/Beltline Boulevard Pedestrian Improvement Project
Print Date: 7/22/2020
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the Geographic
Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this
map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.Path: X:\PT\S\STLOU\155416\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Parking Study\Figure 1_Project Location.mxdI Figure
1
DAKOTA COUNTY
HENNEPIN COUNTY
ANOKA COUNTY
SCOTT COUNTY
CARVER COUNTY
WASHINGTON COUNTY
RAMSEY COUNTY
City of St. Louis Park
ProjectLocation
Proposed Project
Parking Study Area
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 212
CSAH 25/Beltline Boulevard Pedestrian Improvement Project - Parking
Study July 24, 2020
Page 3
CURBSIDE USE AND OFF-STREET PARKING USE
As part of the parking study, an on-street curbside use and parking supply inventory was conducted along Ottawa
Avenue and Lynn Avenue as well as, Natchez Avenue, Monterey Avenue, W 31st Street, and CSAH 25 Frontage
Road in order to determine where parking is currently allowed along each roadway in the area and to determine
where vehicles may be able to park due to excess capacity if parking were removed on Ottawa Avenue and/or
Lynn Avenue. Figure 2 shows the curbside use for each roadway in the study area, as well as the general use for
each of the eleven (11) parking lots near either Ottawa Avenue or Lynn Avenue.
Ottawa Avenue
Parking allowed on a majority of the west side of the roadway from the Frontage Road to Minnetonka
Boulevard except from 6-9 AM and 4-6 PM Monday through Friday.
Parking allowed on the east side from the Frontage Road to W 31st Street except when snow exceeds 3
inches.
No parking on the east side from W 31st Street to Minnetonka Boulevard.
Lynn Avenue
Parking allowed during all times of the day on the east side of the roadway from the Frontage Road to
Minnetonka Boulevard.
No Parking on the west side from the Frontage Road to Minnetonka Boulevard.
W 31st Street, Natchez Avenue, Monterey Avenue
In general, parking is allowed on both sides of the roadway during all times of the day in the project area.
CSAH 25 Frontage Road
No Parking from Ottawa Avenue to Monterey Avenue.
Parking allowed on both sides of the roadway during all times of the day from Ottawa Avenue to Natchez
Avenue and Monterey Avenue to Lynn Avenue.
Residential Parking Lots
Park Towers Lot (4820 MN-7)
Park Towers Visitor Lot
Sholom Manoah Plaza Lot (4925 Minnetonka Boulevard)
The Edge Apartments Lot (3025 Ottawa Ave S)
4421 Minnetonka Boulevard Apartments Lot
3023 Lynn Avenue Apartments Lot
3030 Lynn Avenue Apartments Lot
School Parking Lots
Yeshiva of Minneapolis Lot
Yeshiva of Minneapolis Extra Lot (east of Natchez Avenue)
Bais Yaakov High School – This parking lot also has 9 spaces reserved for the business at 4517 Minnetonka
Boulevard, which is Farmers Insurance.
Business Parking Lots
Frankel’s World of Judaica Lot (4801 Minnetonka Boulevard)
Diversified Wealth Management Lot (4501 Minnetonka Boulevard)
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 213
GdWX
GzWX
Minnetonka Boulevard
31st Street West
FrontageRoadCountyRoad25Ottawa Avenue SouthNatchez Avenue SouthMonterey Avenue SouthLynn Avenue SouthProject: STLOU 155416
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent that
the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Figure
2
Print Date: 7/27/2020Path: X:\PT\S\STLOU\155416\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Parking Study\Figure 2_Curb Use.mxdCURBSIDE USE AND OFF-STREET PARKING USECSAH 25/Beltline Boulevard Pedestrian Improvement ProjectSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaI
Curbside Use
No Parking
No Parking (6-9 AM, 4-6PM Mon-Fri)
No Parking Restrictions
Off-Street Parking Use
Residential
Business*
School**
* Possibly lower than typical dueto "Stay at Home" order**Lower than typical due to "Stay at Home" order
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 214
CSAH 25/Beltline Boulevard Pedestrian Improvement Project - Parking
Study July 24, 2020
Page 5
PARKING OCCUPANCY
In addition to the curbside use and parking lot use inventory, a parking occupancy study was completed to
determine how much of the available on-street and off-street parking supply is occupied at different times of the
day. To determine the supply of on-street parking, each parking space was assumed to be 20 feet long, which is
an industry standard length. It should be noted that some of the residential land uses may have underground
parking available, which was not included in this study.
The parking occupancy study did occur during the global pandemic and local “Stay at Home” order in the
beginning of May 2020. However, the parking in the study area is primarily comprised of residential land uses,
which typically have the highest parking demand during the overnight hours due to most residents being home at
this time. This type of parking demand is represented by the data collection period from 5 AM to 6 AM for this
study.
The same time period would not be impacted by the ”Stay at Home” order for the other study area land uses
which include schools, small offices/workplaces, etc. which were closed due to the “Stay at Home” order.
However, other data collection periods for these land uses were impacted by due to the order. The parking needs
for the business and school land uses will be discussed in the next section, called “School and Business Parking
Considerations”.
Parking occupancy studies were completed during the following days and time periods.
Weekday – Wednesday May 6, 2020 for the Midday and PM periods; Thursday May 7, 2020 for the AM
period
AM (5 AM to 6 AM)
Midday (10 AM to 11 AM)
PM (7 PM to 8 PM)
Weekend – Saturday May 9, 2020
Midday (1 PM to 2 PM)
Tables 1 and 2 summarizes the percentage of occupied spaces and the remaining available spaces along the
study roadways and in the off-street parking areas. Figures 3 through 6 show the percentage of occupied
spaces during each time period for the on-street and off-street parking areas.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 215
CSAH 25/Beltline Boulevard Pedestrian Improvement Project - Parking Study
July 24, 2020
Page 6
Table 1 - On-Street Parking Summary
Study Corridor Total Available
Spaces
Percent Occupied / Remaining Available Spaces
Weekday Weekend
AM Midday PM Midday
Ottawa Avenue 22 0% 0% 0% 36%
22 22 22 14
Lynn Avenue 17 59% 65% 53% 59%
7 6 8 7
Natchez Avenue 56 66% 52% 57% 57%
19 27 24 24
Monterey Avenue 55 7% 11% 7% 9%
51 49 51 50
31st Street West 51 39% 31% 29% 27%
31 35 36 37
Highway 7 Frontage Road 73 18% 8% 5% 8%
60 67 69 67
Total 274 31% 25% 23% 27%
190 206 210 199
0 – 49% 50 – 74 % 75 – 100%
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 216
CSAH 25/Beltline Boulevard Pedestrian Improvement Project - Parking Study
July 24, 2020
Page 7
Table 2 - Off-Street Parking Summary
Study Corridor Parking Lot
Use
Total
Available
Spaces
Percent Occupied / Remaining Available Spaces
Weekday Weekend
AM Midday PM Midday
Park Towers Lot Residential 119 89% 77% 73% 66%
13 27 32 41
Park Towers Visitor Lot Residential 8 88% 100% 88% 75%
1 0 1 2
Yeshiva of Minneapolis Lot School** 43 2% 7% 2% 2%
42 40 42 42
Yeshiva of Minneapolis Extra Lot
(east of Natchez Ave) School** 20 0% 0% 5% 0%
20 20 19 20
Sholom Menoah Plaze Lot Residential 72 53% 57% 58% 53%
34 31 30 34
The Edge Apartments Lot Residential 33 97% 85% 85% 94%
1 5 5 2
Frankel's World of Judaice Lot
(4801 Minnetonka Blvd) Business* 11 36% 36% 18% 36%
7 7 9 7
4421 Minnetonka Blvd
Apartments Lot Residential 10 80% 70% 60% 40%
2 3 4 6
3023 Lynn Ave Apartments Lot Residential 15 80% 53% 53% 67%
3 7 7 5
3030 Lynn Ave Apartments Lot Residential 8 88% 63% 100% 75%
1 3 0 2
Diversified Wealth Management
(4501 Minnetonka Blvd) Business* 19 0% 26% 0% 5%
19 14 19 18
Bais Yaakov High School School** 30 0% 13% 7% 0%
30 26 28 0
Total 388 55% 53% 49% 46%
173 183 196 209
*Business parking lots may have lower than typical parking demand due to the “Stay at Home” order
**School parking lots will have lowere than typical parking demand because schools are closed as part of the “Stay at Home” order
0 – 49% 50 – 74 % 75 – 100%
Both the on-street and off-street parking had a peak occupancy during the Weekday AM time period, which
represented overnight parking demand. This is commonly seen for parking studies in predominantly residential
areas.
None of the on-street parking areas were more than 70% occupied with Natchez Avenue and Lynn Avenue being
the most occupied. However, no roadway had less than 6 available spaces during any of the analysis time
periods.
The residential parking lots were generally highly occupied during the overnight hours as is typical. The school
parking lots and business lots had less parking demand, which is likely because of the impact of the “Stay at
Home” order that was in place during the parking study.
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 217
GdWX
GzWX
Minnetonka Boulevard
31st Street West
FrontageRoadCountyRoad25Ottawa Avenue SouthNatchez Avenue SouthMonterey Avenue SouthLynn Avenue SouthProject: STLOU 155416
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent that
the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Figure
3
Print Date: 7/22/2020Path: X:\PT\S\STLOU\155416\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Parking Study\Figure 3_Weekday AM.mxdWEEKDAY AM PARKING OCCUPANCY (5AM-6AM)CSAH 25/Beltline Boulevard Pedestrian Improvement ProjectSt. Louis Park, Minnesota
On-Street ParkingOccupancy
0 - 49%
50 - 74%
75 - 100%
Off-Street ParkingOccupancy
0 - 49%
50 - 74%
75 - 100%
I
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 218
GdWX
GzWX
Minnetonka Boulevard
31st Street West
FrontageRoadCountyRoad25Ottawa Avenue SouthNatchez Avenue SouthMonterey Avenue SouthLynn Avenue SouthProject: STLOU 155416
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent that
the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Figure
4
Print Date: 7/22/2020Path: X:\PT\S\STLOU\155416\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Parking Study\Figure 4_Weekday MD.mxdWEEKDAY MIDDAY PARKING OCCUPANCY (10AM-11AM)CSAH 25/Beltline Boulevard Pedestrian Improvement ProjectSt. Louis Park, Minnesota
On-Street ParkingOccupancy
0 - 49%
50 - 74%
75 - 100%
Off-Street ParkingOccupancy
0 - 49%
50 - 74%
75 - 100%
I
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 219
GdWX
GzWX
Minnetonka Boulevard
31st Street West
FrontageRoadCountyRoad25Ottawa Avenue SouthNatchez Avenue SouthMonterey Avenue SouthLynn Avenue SouthProject: STLOU 155416
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent that
the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Figure
5
Print Date: 7/22/2020Path: X:\PT\S\STLOU\155416\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Parking Study\Figure 5_Weekday PM.mxdWEEKDAY PM PARKING OCCUPANCY (7PM-8PM)CSAH 25/Beltline Boulevard Pedestrian Improvement ProjectSt. Louis Park, Minnesota
On-Street ParkingOccupancy
0 - 49%
50 - 74%
75 - 100%
Off-Street ParkingOccupancy
0 - 49%
50 - 74%
75 - 100%
I
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 220
GdWX
GzWX
Minnetonka Boulevard
31st Street West
FrontageRoadCountyRoad25Ottawa Avenue SouthNatchez Avenue SouthMonterey Avenue SouthLynn Avenue SouthProject: STLOU 155416
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent that
the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Figure
6
Print Date: 7/22/2020Path: X:\PT\S\STLOU\155416\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Parking Study\Figure 6_Weekend MD.mxdWEEKEND MIDDAY PARKING OCCUPANCY (1PM-2PM)Beltline Boulevard Pedestrian Improvement ProjectSt. Louis Park, Minnesota
On-Street ParkingOccupancy
0 - 49%
50 - 74%
75 - 100%
Off-Street ParkingOccupancy
0 - 49%
50 - 74%
75 - 100%
I
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 221
CSAH 25/Beltline Boulevard Pedestrian Improvement Project - Parking
Study July 24, 2020
Page 12
SCHOOL AND BUSINESS PARKING CONSIDERATIONS
There are three small business parking lots in the study area. These lots service Frankel’s World of Judaica,
Diversified Wealth Management, and Farmers Insurance. All of these lots serve relatively small businesses and
have between 9 and 19 available off-street parking spaces. These off-street parking spaces are expected to
handle all of or the majority of the parking demand for these businesses. Therefore, the impact of these
businesses likely operating at a reduced/minimal capacity during the “Stay at Home” order is unlikely to change
the results from the on-street parking demand study, especially during the peak overnight hours.
There are two schools in the project area, Yeshiva of Minneapolis and Bais Yaakov. These schools were both
closed during the parking demand study due to the “Stay at Home” order. Typically, to estimate the schools’
parking demands, the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Parking Generation Manual would be used; however,
because neither of these schools fit a traditional school land use type, a review of parking demand was done
based on information from both schools.
The larger of the two schools in the area, Yeshiva of Minneapolis, currently has 175 high school students living on
campus, which likely means that many do not drive to school and do not generate parking demand. It is unclear
how many staff members Yeshiva of Minneapolis has, however, they purchased an apartment building nearby the
school to house staff, many of which likely walk. Yeshiva of Minneapolis currently has 63 off-street parking spaces
between their two parking lots. It is expected that those 63 parking spaces could contain all of or a majority of the
parking demand generated by the school.
The smaller school, Bais Yaakov, currently has 45 high school students and 24 faculty. The school currently
provides 21 off-street parking spaces, which is 6 more than the 15 that zoning requires according to the letter the
school submitted for approval in 2017. It is unlikely that anyone uses on-street parking for Bais Yaakov. In
particular, the on-street parking on either Ottawa Avenue or Lynn Avenue.
CONCLUSION
The parking study for the CSAH 25/Beltline Boulevard Pedestrian Improvements Project was conducted in May of
2020, during the global pandemic and the Statewide “Stay at Home” order. However, because the study area
includes primarily residential parking demands, which have peak parking demand during the overnight hours
(5AM to 6AM) the peak parking demand findings during the parking study is likely very similar to “normal”
conditions. Based on the information available about the limited business and school land uses in the area, which
were impacted by the stay at home order, those land uses produce very minimal on-street parking demand and
are able to serve a majority of their parking demand with off-street parking.
Ottawa Avenue currently shows very low parking demand, with a maximum of 8 vehicles occupying 33 available
on-street parking spaces during the four parking occupancy analysis periods. In addition, parking is already
restricted during certain times of the day. Removing/reducing on-street parking along Ottawa Avenue to provide
for the proposed improved pedestrian facilities would not significantly impact parking in the area.
Lynn Avenue currently does not allow parking on the west side of the roadway between the Frontage Road and
Minnetonka Boulevard. On the east side where parking is allowed, there are only 17 available parking spaces, a
maximum of 11 of which (65%) were filled during the four parking occupancy analysis periods. Removing or
reducing on-street parking along Lynn Avenue to provide for proposed improved pedestrian facilities would have a
greater impact to Lynn Avenue than Ottawa Avenue, however, it would only displace 17 parking spaces from the
area, 11 of which were filled during the peak demand. Displaced parking demand could shift to utilize the nearby
CSAH 25 Frontage Road which has excess capacity.
x:\pt\s\stlou\155416\8-planning\87-rpt-stud\parking study memo\draft_parking study memo 07232020.docx
cc: Wayne Houle, PE – SEH
Study session meeting of September 29, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements Page 222